[BLML] no damage (last Friday)
ardelm at optusnet.com.au
Wed Apr 16 06:48:02 CEST 2014
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf
> Of Robert Frick
> Sent: Monday, 14 April 2014 4:59 AM
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: [BLML] no damage (last Friday)
> E S W N
> 1D P 3C P
> North at this point said that 3C might be alertable. I was called to
> table and eventually ended up sending East away from the table and
> West explain the partnership understanding of his own bid. He said it
> a strong jump shift. East came back and then passed. South passed,
> and happily.
> South would know she might get a bottom if everyone else was in slam
> down. She was, of course, quite willing to take that risk. So I assume
> director is going to protect her if it turns out that she was not
> 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
> out what a player has in his hand. Getting that from the player
> higher quality information, and she was happy to be getting that
> quality information and fortunate to be getting it. One piece of
> 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.
[tony] Why oh why can't I get players like this at my club? I am lucky
to get a revoke on which to practice my sarcasm and low wit. We have
a player who craves protection against opponent's incompetence?
Give me a break I believe is the US expression, don't come the raw
prawn, in Oz.
One can only imagine what will happen if playing against John
Probst, she gets a perfect description of a hand bearing no similarity
to the hand held by John during the bidding. Brought the house
down at the Young Chelsea!
More information about the Blml