[BLML] Both players forget

Sven Pran svenpran at online.no
Fri Aug 29 09:37:54 CEST 2014

> Herman De Wael 
> I agree sith part of this message, but not the whole:
[Sven Pran] 
I don't understand what part of Richard's post you disagree with?

The fact is that a partnership has an agreement where 3C jump overcall shows
5/5 in the red suits.
But it is also a fact that one of the players with a certain probability
forgets this agreement and instead use this 3C bid as natural.

So long as this mistake is not just accidental, and although random occurs
with a certain probability, opponents are entitled to the actual agreement,
the full nature of the mistake and the (approximate) probability with which
it occurs (individually for each player). (Law 40C1)

Isn't this what you both have stated?
> Richard Hills schreef:
> > Sven Pran quoting Ian Fleming's "Goldfinger":
> >  >He said, "Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago:
> >  >Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence. The  >third time it's
> > enemy action."
> > Richard Hills:
> > And indeed the Goldfinger principle is imbedded in Law 40C1.
> > For example a partnership may explicitly have a pre-existing mutual
> > understanding that after an opponent opens the bidding with 1S, a 3C
> > jump overcall shows a weak hand with 5/5 in the red suits. But 50% of
> > the time an alternating partner forgets, jumping to 3C with a weak
> > hand and seven clubs.
> > Law 40C1 mandates that the partnership's intial explicit understanding
> > has now been replaced by a new multi-meaning understanding; the 3C
> > jump overcall is now EITHER seven clubs OR 5/5 in the red suits.
> I agree this far, but not:
> > This may or may not be an illegal convention (depending upon local
> > regulations).
> The fact that partner sometimes forgets (in which case he holds what would
> needed for a natural 3Cl-bid) is part of what the opponents are entitled
> know, but the convention remains "5/5 red". After all, the opener will
> to this convention.
> IMO, the frequency with which one partner or the other "forgets" the
> (and the direction in which one does so) is disclosable to opponents, but
it does
> not become part of the system.
> After all, we don't oblige both partners to forget with equal frequency,
do we?
> > BUT...
> > Even if the multi-meaning convention is legal under local rules (for
> > example, such a multi- meaning overcall is permitted by ABF rules),
> > full disclosure is required. Disclosing merely the original 5/5 red
> > suits understanding is a misinformation infraction.
> That part is true again.
> Herman.
> > "Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach a person to
> > use the internet and they won't bother you for weeks, months, maybe
> > years."
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Blml mailing list
> > Blml at rtflb.org
> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

More information about the Blml mailing list