[BLML] An incredible hand

Robert Geller geller at nifty.com
Fri Dec 8 03:21:03 CET 2017


Yes, but nothing in the Laws allows the RA to mandate that players use a 
4321 point count (or quick tricks or LTC or anything else) to evaluate 
their hand.

Let's face it, rules like this are of questionable legality in a strict 
sense, but probably most countries (Japan is one) have some rules like 
this in ordinary events open to all players. Such rules should be 
eschewed in top flight events, but are probably an unfortunate necessity 
to keep the punters coming back.



On 2017/12/08 9:57, Richard Hills wrote:
> "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, 
> disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership 
> understanding."  Law 40B2(a)(i).
> 
> The Regulating Authority may designate a partnership understanding to 
> open 1S with 3 hcp to be a special partnership understanding if its 
> "meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily 
> understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the 
> tournament." Law 40B1(b).
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Richard Hills, significant number
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Peter Smulders <p.j.m.smulders at home.nl 
> <mailto:p.j.m.smulders at home.nl>> wrote:
> 
> 
>      >From: Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be <mailto:hermandw at skynet.be>>
>      >Precedence: list
>      >MIME-Version: 1.0
>      >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml at rtflb.org <mailto:blml at rtflb.org>>
>      >References: <mailman.671.1512491522.1496.blml at rtflb.org
>     <mailto:mailman.671.1512491522.1496.blml at rtflb.org>>
>      >         <20171206113210.05EB8B6F0ACC at relay1.webreus.nl
>     <mailto:20171206113210.05EB8B6F0ACC at relay1.webreus.nl>>
>      >         <4c277fff-d45b-9179-40c2-26265ea8e58b at nhcc.net
>     <mailto:4c277fff-d45b-9179-40c2-26265ea8e58b at nhcc.net>>
>      >         <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net
>     <http://svenpran.net>>
>      >In-Reply-To: <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net
>     <http://svenpran.net>>
>      >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:14:36 +0100
>      >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml at rtflb.org
>     <mailto:blml at rtflb.org>>
>      >Message-ID: <2e754400-37bc-a54b-334f-e87d4a41c111 at skynet.be
>     <mailto:2e754400-37bc-a54b-334f-e87d4a41c111 at skynet.be>>
>      >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>      >Subject: Re: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: An incredible hand
>      >Message: 4
>      >
>      >Sven Pran wrote:
>      >>I don't understand how any jurisdiction may forbid for instance
>     opening bids
>      >>at the one level with less than 8 HVP.
>      >>
>      >>What they can do (and what I assume most have done) is to have
>     restrictions
>      >>on agreements which implies opening such weak hands at the one level.
>      >>
>      >>There is a difference.
>      >
>      >There is, a theoretical one.
>      >
>      >But in practice, when a player opens a particular hand with a
>      >paticular bid (or more general, makes any bid with that hand), then
>      >the Director will ofte have to assume that the particular bid is
>     systemic.
>      >So in many cases the difference is only theoretical.
>      >
>      >In the current case, the opening bid of 1Sp certainly has the
>      >meaning "I think I can make a majority of tricks in this strain,
>      >partner, if you have three more tricks, you can bid 4Sp.
>      >Certainly a systemic meaning.
>      >So under the old "rule of 18", this opening must be prohibited.
>      >Which only shows that the rule of 18 is not optimum.
>      >
>      >Herman.
> 
>     Most players don't have agreements on freak hands like this.
>     Apparently you consider ideas such as "bid what you think you can
>     make" or "use common sense" a concealed understanding.
>     The hand has 6 solid tricks, and with a partner who is not completely
>     bust but has less than opening values a part score is possible but
>     game is very unlikely.
>     I would not call a call of 1S a psyche, and even if it s, it is
>     certainly not artifcial. Thus it does not meet the condition of Law
>     40B2:
>     The RA "v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls".
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Blml mailing list
>     Blml at rtflb.org <mailto: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
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 



More information about the Blml mailing list