[BLML] nice solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Thu Nov 1 00:30:06 CET 2012


Richard Hills:

>>My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that ABF
>>policy on zero meaning calls is more nuanced.
>>
>>If the call is so-called "undiscussed", then the ABF
>>prohibits an alert, to prevent UI.
>>
>>If the call is so-called "non-systemic", then the ABF
>>requires an alert, to prevent MI.
>>.....

Alain Gottcheiner:

>One problem with this otherwise sensible approach is
>that many bids (especially high-level ones) are both
>undiscussed and unsystemic.

Richard Hills:

Yes and No. All so-called "non-systemic" calls are
ipso facto a subset of so-called "undiscussed" calls.
But not all so-called "undiscussed" calls contradict the
partnership methods; they may be merely unexplored
gaps in the partnership methods.

Alain Gottcheiner:

>One might even argue that, when developments in
>one specific situation have been discussed, any
>undiscussed bid is unsystemic.

Richard Hills:

Yes and No. There are two popular versions of the
Stayman convention in ABF-land. These two are the
globally popular Simple Stayman, and the Aussie
invention Extended Stayman.

Throughout my bridge career I have eschewed the
Extended Stayman convention. So when I respond
2C to pard's 1NT, I then expect a systemic rebid of
either 2D or 2H or 2S. But if a new pard happens to
instead respond 2NT, then I have gained an implicit
understanding that she has reverted to Extended
Stayman, thus is showing a minimum-values 1NT
opening without a four-card major.

Alain Gottcheiner:

>One example: you play 1H-1S-2C-2D as 4th suit,
>and discuss (let's make it simple) that 2-level rebids
>are droppable and that all 3-level rebids (jump or
>not) are forcing.
>
>How do you call a 4C rebid? And 4D?

Richard Hills:

In ABF-land four-level rebids are Self-Alerting, so
the question of UI and/or MI from an Alert of a 4C or
a 4D rebid does not arise.

Alain Gottcheiner:

>Would we dare say that 4C is undiscussed, but
>logically shows a freak, while 4D is unsystemic,
>because no obvious meaning can be worked out?
>Obvious to whom?

Richard Hills:

If the Ali-Hills partnership has an obvious-to-us meta-
understanding, then (as Eric Landau correctly
observes) in response to a question we fully and
freely describe that meta-understanding.

And sometimes we have a meta-meta-understanding:

(a) Weird bidding by Hashmat is caused by Law 25A.
(b) Weird bidding by Richard is perverse humour.

Alain Gottcheiner:

>The problem with that approach is that the bid that you
>understand won't be alerted, while the one you don't
>will, which doesn't seem lawful.

Law 40B2(a), third sentence:

The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting
procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a
partnership’s methods.

Best wishes,

R.J.B. Hills

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.  DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.  The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.  See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121031/2f22e6f6/attachment.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list