rfrick at rfrick.info
Mon May 9 19:36:41 CEST 2016
On Mon, 09 May 2016 10:06:09 -0400, agot <agot at ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Le 08.05.2016 21:57, Robert Frick a écrit :
>> Except to insult nationalities, what is the point of this? You made a
>> leap to slam. You got lucky. Doesn't this happen to everyone?
> I think that the point is to prove that a leap to slam isn't necessarily
> a proof that one got UI.
Thanks. But no one suggested that. Everyone said that wasn't the point.
1. In the original, the player opened 7NT, with no bridge reason. The bid was inconceivable. He had ways of getting more information from partner. Richard proposed a good bridge reason for his bid. That's the exact opposite.
2. In the original, the hand was discussed at the previous table. A few feet away. Yes, Richard might have seen or heard a good result for this hand, not paid much attention to it, then forgotten about it. But that's a huge difference.
3. The embarrassment to the laws is when we cannot find any way to rectify for a blatant case of cheating.
More information about the Blml