[BLML] L26 again
ardelm at optusnet.com.au
Tue Jun 26 00:24:41 CEST 2012
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf
> Of Sven Pran
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2012 2:32 AM
> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [BLML] L26 again
> > Tony Musgrove
> > The bidding proceeded as follows:
> > West North East South
> > 1NT 2S 2C (X) all pass
> > East did not see the intervening 2S bid
> > and thought to use Stayman (do you
> > have 4 hearts or 4 spades?). Before I
> > was called, the offender had attempted to replace the insufficient
> > with a double.
> > I was inclined to allow the double provided that by system it meant
> > hearts", this being more precise than the Stayman enquiry.
> > In any case I stood ready to mop up with L27D.
> > As I understand it, this is in keeping with the philosophy of L26 at
> > The final contract of 2SX made which gave NS an outright top, so no
> > Should I have ruled that EW did not have a system bid which meant
> > as Stayman (probably true), and simply told East to remove the
> > double and bar her partner for the remainder of the auction?
> [Sven Pran]
> You do mean L27 don't you?
> I believe there are many different agreements on the meaning of
> the sequence:
> 1NT - 2[x] - X
> If [x] is Clubs then I think the common understanding is that "he
> bid", and in that case replacing an insufficient 2C with a Double
> problem at all.
> However when [x] is any other denomination (than Clubs) then I think
> partnership must show evidence that the Double shall be search for a
> (or the opposite major) and not something else for Law 27B1(b) to
> Note that "I have Hearts" does not (IMHO) qualify as more precise than
> you have a 4-card major suite?". However "Do you have 4 cards in
> does (I suppose) qualify.
[tony] I think your doubt is mirrored by my original doubt. What I was
to ascertain is whether the philosophy of allowing the bidding to
if at all possible is the new thinking about L27 (sorry original
if the apparent hand is not exactly congruent with the wording of the
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
More information about the Blml