[blml] Réf. : Re: convention

[Alain Gottcheiner]

-------Message original-------
 
 
(Herman) So the solution is: don't look at the insufficient bid at all. Don
t
make the "meaning of the insufficienct bid" a factor in deciding on
the possibility of penalty-free change. Of course the additional
meanings given to it are UI to partner.
 
Agree. In most cases, we'll even not know what the meaning of the
insufficient bid would be, because we'll not know what the player thought.
e.g.    1D    3H    3D
a) didn't see 3H at all: 3D = limit raise
b) saw 1H : 3D = preemptive raise
c) saw 2H : 3D = transfer-cue = asks for stopper (probably long clubs)
d) saw 3H, but mispulled and didn't realize : could be anything, because we
don't know what he did want to pull.
 
If the TD has to ask which, in order to determine what the right penalty is,
then the TD, and not the player, 
is creating UI ... even if he does it away from the table, because the type
of penalty will tell the players what happened.
 
But don't agree with 
> 1NT-(3C)-2H oops, I did not see 3C. Without 3C, 2H is transfer to
> spades. With 3C, 3H is transfer to spades. Acceptable!
because this would be a way to create a transfer in a situation when it
doesn't exist (at least in some partnerships).
 
Best regards
 
  Alain
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061222/a9f207b7/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1458 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061222/a9f207b7/attachment-0001.jpeg 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 37976 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061222/a9f207b7/attachment-0001.gif