[BLML] Both players forget
Herman De Wael
hermandw at skynet.be
Fri Aug 29 11:32:28 CEST 2014
I disagree with the last paragraph:
Sven Pran schreef:
> [Sven Pran]
> I agree with Richard. Note from Law 40C1:
> Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of
> the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the
> regulations governing disclosure of system.
Note the word "deviations". I consider that to mean slight changes, not
complete forgettings like the 3C discussed in this thread.
> This IMHO cannot be understood other than that the implicit understandings
> (as well as other understandings) are subject also to regulations on
Indeed it should. But this is with a use of deviations as above.
> We have had some similar cases: A partnership deviating their weak 1NT
> opening range from 10HCP (which is legal) down to "good" 9HCP (which is
> illegal) was told to stop it under threat of being disqualified from the
> event for using HUM.
Allow me to illustrate why I believe there is a very important
difference between the two cases:
- when a pair describe their agreement as 10-12, and they open it with 9
points, they could be guilty of misrepresentation. The system is
actually 9-12 and should be described as this. The responses to a
systemic 9-12 would be the same as a 10-12.
- when a pair describe their agreement as showing diamonds and hearts,
and they then do it with clubs (weak), there can be no
misrepresentation. It would be ludicrous to play a system in which 3Cl
shows either clubs or diamonds and hearts, and the answers to such a
system (if it could be played) would be totally different than the
answers to a simple 5/5 red.
So the first is a deviation, and the second is a misbid.
The deviation is actual system and is subject to system regulation and
The misbid can only be subject to misexplanation as to the frequency of
Do you see the difference?
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
More information about the Blml