[blml] Only unanimous comments please.

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 11:01 3/11/2006 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote:

>Of course you need to make that distinction. However, Steve is
>suggesting this requires mind reading. I am certain that a TD is able
>to make the distinction without turning to mind reading. Our keyboards
>are not equipped to add to "the fi-" the numerous levels of intonation
>and timing that make it possible for someone who does not even know
>how bridge is played (let alone an experienced TD) to make this
>distinction.

Well, the case we didn't cover is the one where a player voluntarily calls 
for an inexistent card, for another purpose than deceiving, causing an 
Alcatraz coup, or any other culpable reason.

I launched a thread, here, some years ago, about Cooper echoes (playing an 
abnormally high card from dummy to tell partner the contract's copacetic). 
Does one have to mention it on the CC ? Are you allowed to falsecard that 
signal, especially at matchpoints, where defenders might want to limit you 
to your contract ? Etc.

Sometimes, as with every other signal, you haven't the right cards at your 
disposal.

Say dummy holds a singleton deuce. A partner of mine once decided to 
circumvent the problem by calling for "a high plum". Dummy shall play one's 
highest card in the suit, namely the deuce, so the designation's legal.
Now say dummy's holding is 84, and the 8 unexpectedly plays a role in the 
deal. What are you going to do ? We toyed with the idea of calling "the 
five". However, it might confuse RHO (and we could know it might, so L72B 
could be called up). Same if we called for "the four and a half". Most of 
the time, however, against opponents in good mood, it won't be a problem.

But now, I read that, if we call for the 5, dummy puts the 4 on the table, 
and RHO shrugs and plays a card, it will be OOT. From there, everything 
could happen. Looks like we'll need to find another way to signal ;-)

Best regards

    Alain