[blml] Bid or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 12:23 20/08/2007 +0100, John Probst wrote:

>-
> > Australia uses written bidding.(Law 80E).
> >
> > An Aussie player intends to open a Multi 2D, thinking
> > that they hold a weak two in hearts.  They start
> > writing "2D" on the bidding pad, but have only
> > completed the "2" before they notice an extra ace in
> > their hand - they hold 13 hcp, not 9 hcp.
> >
> > Does a partial designation of a bid mean that the bid
> > must be completed in accordance with the opener's
> > original intention?
> >
> > Or is a partial designation of a bid not a bid as
> > such, merely UI to partner and AI to the opponents?
>
>It's ruled that way in the UK, routinely.  John


AG : a  nd in other countries, too. Note that UI is quite slender : one 
doesn't know whether the "other" idea was 2D, 2H (whatever it means), 2NT, 
4H. And even if it was 2D, is the problem an extra ace, a hand unsuitable 
for 2D (controls, spades, whatever), a diamond discovered between the 
hearts, or a sudden doubt about the meaning of 2D ? It would need very 
specific situations to give partner an opportunity to make any use of it.

You can't use Law 25B because the "other" bid isn't know. You can't have 
them make the first bid, since "2" isn't a bid. (compare with "Qu" in 
another thread)

Imagine the player has a hand totally unsuitable for any 2-bid, and his "2" 
is just some kind of lapsus. Would you demand that he invent a 2-bid ? 
Don't tell it can't happen : not far ago, a friend of mine said "stop", 
then "Why am I saying stop ? I just meant to bid 1S." And you have to 
believe him, because he had a 15-count 5431 hand, something which isn't 
anywhere near any 2-bid or more in his system.


Best regards

    Alain