[BLML] ACBL New Orleans NABC Cases Posted
adam at tameware.com
Mon Nov 22 23:19:04 CET 2010
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Jean-Jacques <jjlbridge at free.fr> wrote:
> 2010/11/22 Adam Wildavsky <adam at tameware.com>:
>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Roger Pewick <axman22 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> From: "Adam Wildavsky" <adam at tameware.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 13:41
>>> To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" <blml at rtflb.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL New Orleans NABC Cases Posted
>>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Adam Wildavsky <adam at tameware.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Adam Wildavsky <adam at tameware.com>
>>>> 12. The TD got this one right. The panel ruling was unjust.
>>>> Everyone would agree that correct information makes Pass more
>>>> attractive. That is all we need to know
>>>> Adam Wildavsky <adam at tameware.com> www.tameware.com
>>> I find it inconsiderate to lumped with 'everyone' because the above amounts
>>> to rubbish.
>> Sorry to lump you in like that! Thanks for speaking up. Your
>> disagreement makes me wonder whether I got my point across.
>> I did not mean assert that 3S is the correct bid on the information
>> provided, or even that it was a good or a reasonable bid. All I
>> intended to suggest was that it is more likely to be successful when
>> RHO has four hearts than when he has two.
>> Surely the more spades partner has the more tricks we're likely to
>> take in 3S, and the fewer hearts partner has the more room he has for
>> spades. Similarly, on the explanation given at the table partner is
>> likely to hold more HCP than was likely with accurate information.
> I completely agree that 3S is much less attractive given correct
> explanation (more H and less HCP in partner's hand), and therefore
> that the Panel was wrong (and the TD right).
> However, I fail to see the difference with case #10 : 5H is (very)
> probably wrong, but it is simply an impossible bid to choose with
> correct information. So I really feel there was damage, and would have
> corrected to 5CX (probably down 4, although it might be argued that
> sloppy defense could let it escape for down 3).
You make an excellent point regarding case 10. I shall have to
reconsider my comments there.
Adam Wildavsky <adam at tameware.com> www.tameware.com
More information about the Blml