[blml] Insufficient rebid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
Alain Gottcheiner
agot at ulb.ac.be
Fri Oct 27 18:45:27 CEST 2006
At 23:47 26/10/2006 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
>The fact that a player summoned the director is extraneous
>information, but if that player is a non-offending player does
>that necessarily mean that that summoning is authorised
>information to their partner? Indeed, is that summoning
>authorised information to the offending side?
I'd say it's no information, since he is compelled to do so. Voluntarily
condoning the insufficient call by bidding directly is disallowed.
To the contrary, the fact that North didn't bark, er, summon, would be
information although it would seldom be usable, as there might be many
reasons for it, as former posts tell us.
Note that, even if conventions over insufficient bids are disallowed, there
are agreements that aren't conventions ...
If I had bid 2D over 1S, expecting it to be read as fit-showing, would it
be allowed ? The reason for that meanng is that we have a general treatment
(not a convention, unless I misunderstood the definitions) that "a new-suit
bid over partner's competitive signoff, by a limited hand, is always
fit-showing" and I expect 1S to be a signoff (the reason why North condoned
1H).
>The complete deal:
>
> AK97
> Q62
> AT92
> J2
>JT 8542
>AKJ85 T74
>876 Q4
>QT3 9654
> Q63
> 93
> KJ53
> AK87
>
>Karapet the Free Armenian (who was sitting West) chose to
>follow the advice of the best experts, who opine that at
>matchpoints pairs it is compulsory to balance against low-
>level partscores. So, Karapet now sufficiently rebid 2H.
>
>I completed the description of my hand with a penalty double
>for +800 and a top.
You would most probably have scored the same had you disallowed West's 1H
bid, but it's a nice story.
Best regards
Alain
More information about the blml
mailing list