[BLML] no damage (last Friday)

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Sun Apr 13 20:58:32 CEST 2014

E      S      W    N

1D    P    3C    P

North at this point said that 3C might be alertable. I was called to the  
table and eventually ended up sending East away from the table and letting  
West explain the partnership understanding of his own bid. He said it was  
a strong jump shift. East came back and then passed. South passed, quickly  
and happily.

South would know she might get a bottom if everyone else was in slam going  
down. She was, of course, quite willing to take that risk. So I assume no  
director is going to protect her if it turns out that she was not given  
the correct explanation of the partnership agreement.

Now we can explain logically why she shouldn't be protected. Players  
(almost always) use the explanation of the partnership agreement to find  
out what a player has in his hand. Getting that from the player himself is  
higher quality information, and she was happy to be getting that higher  
quality information and fortunate to be getting it. One piece of evidence  
is this: If, following the auction, we had had a long discussion  
attempting to determine the true partnership agreement and it was  
something different, she still would have passed.

More information about the Blml mailing list