[BLML] tangled

Sven Pran sven at svenpran.net
Sun Mar 20 19:56:22 CET 2016

> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] På vegne av
> Steve Willner
> Sendt: 20. mars 2016 19:11
> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Emne: Re: [BLML] tangled
> On 2016-03-18 9:01 AM, agot wrote:
> > Playing 4-suit transfers, be it over 1NT or 2NT, one doesn't transfer
> > to clubs by bidding notrump.
> Some pairs do.  I don't think it's a great method, but it's playable.
> > One should get more information....
> > And if she wanted to transfer to clubs, why wouldn't she transfer when
> > substituting the bid ?
> Indeed.
> > This also means that L23 doesn't apply, because there was in fact a
> > way to stop in 4C.
> We need more information, but the TD should certainly _consider_ L23.
> The same is true of Robert's question about stopping in 5NT.  Perhaps a
> more common example is barring partner, then bidding 4NT, making it
> natural instead of Blackwood.  The ancient version of L23 was specifically
> deal with that.  (The modern L23 is broader.)
> On 2016-03-17 9:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>  > 27D would not apply, because they can get to 4C without the  >
> insufficient bid (albeit played from the wrong side.)
> There's an even better reason L27D doesn't apply: it never applies when
> the IB bars partner.  The first part of L27D limits it to cases where B1
> applies, i.e., when the auction has continued normally.

[Sven Pran] 
Instead Law 23 applies as it always does when an irregularity forces the
offender's partner to pass.

The statement above " that L23 doesn't apply, because there was in fact a
way to stop in 4C" is wrong., 
Law 23 applies, but the effect of Law 23 depends on the Director's judgement
of the situation.

And the fact that there was a legal way to stop in 5NT may easily lead to
ruling a forgivable mistake and no adjustment under Law 23. 

More information about the Blml mailing list