[BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

David Grabiner grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu
Tue Jan 15 16:42:49 CET 2013

Richard Hills writes:

>Details of heterodox ruling by a different blmler:

>>It is pretty standard (at least here) that inverted
>>minors are off in competition.

>It is so-called "pretty standard" that if a partnership
>has an explicit understanding that 1C - (Pass) - 1H
>- (1S) - X = Support Double, then that partnership
>so-called "must" have an implicit understanding
>that 1C - (Pass) - 1H - (X) - XX = Support

>But that ain't so. Pretty expert player Larry Cohen
>has correctly observed that secondary implications
>of conventions often have zero partnership

In fact, players don't even have secondary partnership understandings which are 
a necessary part of the convention.  The standard meaning of 1NT-2C-2H-2NT is 
that responder has an invitational hand with four spades.  This is a common 
agreement among players who play four-suit transfers, even though it leaves 
responder with no bid on an invitational hand without a four-card major; I have 
had three different good partners get this wrong. The necessary secondary 
agreement is 2S with four spades and 2NT denying four spades (both alertable in 
the ACBL).

If responder bids 2NT without four spades (not alerted), opening leader avoids 
the spade lead which would beat 2NT, and declarer claims they never discussed 
this, do you rule misinformation? 

More information about the Blml mailing list