[BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

David Grabiner grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu
Sun Sep 23 18:33:26 CEST 2012


"Robert Frick" <rfrick at rfrick.info> writes:
> Thanks. To try to be clear, in case anyone else want to offer a ruling.
>
> 2S  P  P  2NT
>
> The players have agreed to play unusual no trump, but they have different
> understandings of when this convention is on. One player -- strangely --
> thinks it is on for this auction; the other player sanely thinks it is not.
>
> In one case, the opponents are told that 2NT is natural, when the bidder
> meant it as unusual. The opponents would have saved a trick on defense if
> they had been told that 2NT was unusual. Ed does not change the obtained
> result, ruling misbid.
>
> In the second case, the opponents are told that 2NT is for the minors,
> which it is not. Again the defense would have saved a trick if they had
> been told that 2NT was natural. Ed is awarding the nonoffending side 1
> trick.

The rule is to presume misexplanation and not misbid unless there is evidence to 
the contrary.  If 2NT is explained as natural but the bidder thinks it is 
unusual, a misbid could be ruled, as unusual does not make sense here and it is 
unlikely that the pair actually agreed on it.




More information about the Blml mailing list