Alain Gottcheiner agot at ulb.ac.be
Mon Sep 17 14:38:40 CEST 2012

Le 17/09/2012 7:25, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a écrit :
> Nigel Guthrie:
> [snip]
> >I was disconcerted to discover that for many experts the
> >sequence 1D-1H-1S is "Forcing but responder passes
> >with a bad hand". Some players say "pre-emptive"
> >when they mean "weak" -- they find it hard to
> >understand that a strong 2N opener is "pre-emptive".
> Richard Hills:
> What's the problem? Bridge jargon (in particular) and the
> English language (in general) evolve very quickly. See:
> http://gyrovagueness.blogspot.com.au/2007/07/scouts-in-bondage-prout-geoffrey-1930.html
> Obsolete Laws jargon which could (in my opinion) be
> deleted from the 2017 Lawbook includes, for example:
> (1) "odd trick"
> (2) either "deck" or "pack" (tautological to use both)
> (3) both "premium points" and also "trick points"
> (4) "infringe"
> (5) "partnership agreement" (instead consistently use
> "partnership understanding" throughout)
> (6) "artificial" and "convention" (instead consistently use
> "special partnership understanding" throughout)

I beg to disagree with the latter. An artificial bid isn't the same as a 
special partnership understanding, and this will have some impact on L25 
and others. For example, playing nonforcing new suit responses (as they 
are played in some relay systems) is a very special partnership 
understanding, but they are by no means artificial. Within L25 frame, I 
would want them t be characterized as the former only.

Best regards


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120917/19ca045a/attachment.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list