[BLML] Ruling last saturday
agot at ulb.ac.be
Tue May 19 13:05:51 CEST 2015
Le 19.05.2015 03:40, Richard Hills a écrit :
> Insufficient information as to whether Herman's "no adjustment" ruling
> was correct. If the scoring was imps, vul versus not, then Pass is a
> logical alternative to the demonstrably suggested 1S overcall.
Well, if they wrote down "very constructive overcalls", or the spade
suit was weak, you might be right, but I doubt you would fing many peers
of that player who would consider a pass on, say, KQxxx - AJx - xxx -
> Of course, the hypothetical adjusted auction would proceed Pass - (1D)
> - Pass - (Pass) - ??? Holding a balanced 16 points dealer could
> hypothetically reopen with 3NT, as dealer does not have any
> hypothetical UI.
But we aren't allowed to consider this clever decision by the UIer.
However, we have to consider that he would have reopened with a double,
got a 2S response, and gone to game one way or another.
> Best wishes,
> Richard Hills
> On Monday, May 18, 2015, Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be> wrote:
>> Herman De Wael schreef:
>>> Let me first poll you:
>>> You hold a reasonable 5332, 10 points.
>>> The bidding starts:a
>>> pass 1Di 1Sp
>>> pass 4Sp pass ?
>>> any thoughts?
>> Not many, which confirms my ruling.
>> Actually, something had happened earlier, of course.
>> Partner of this pollster, in first hand, had passed and then called
>> director "I wanted to do something different". I told him this was
>> possible, and told his partner not to use that information.
>> When he subsquently laid down a 16-count 3334, all was revealed.
>> contract was easily made, but I still had to decide whether partner
>> used the UI. Clearly not in overcalling, which was a normal bid,
>> passing? I decided against ruling, and I'm glad you all agree that
>> was nothing to do.
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml 
>  http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
More information about the Blml