[BLML] Law 25A again

Ed Reppert blackshoe at mac.com
Fri Mar 30 08:33:59 CEST 2012


On Mar 30, 2012, at 12:47 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote:

> Many years ago, I offered the opinion that Australian directors were
> somewhat lenient in allowing L25A changes of call for inadvertent bids.
>  
> The example was the usual 1NT   2H alterted and explained as a transfer
> whereupon the 1NT bidder (distracted at having explained the alert,
> passes (inadvertently, of course).  John Probst gave what I have taken
> as definitive guidance in this case, and ruled that L25A does not apply as
> the bidder meant to pass at the moment of withdrawing the pass card.
>  
> So the other night the bidding went as follows   1NT…2H alert, but
> no explanation, 3H (meant to be a super accept for spades), at which
> time I am called to rule whether a change to 3S can be effected. I
> agree reluctantly as it seems to be a bit different to the canonical
> example, and in any case partner would have the opportunity to
> correct to 3S himself.  (As I have done on at least 1 occasion with
> a dozy partner). 
>  
> My worry is that the 2 cases seem to be much the same.

"Meant to be" sounds like 3H was an intended bid and so could not be changed under 25A. If you just meant that was the agreement, I'd still be leery. The key question for the bidder is "what bidding card did you think you were pulling when you pulled out 3H?"


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120330/b65531ee/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list