[blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve a specificpurpose

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*****************************
"Never laugh at live dragons."
                     'The Hobbit'
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jerry Fusselman
To: blml at rtflb.org
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 1:11 AM
Subject: [blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve a
specificpurpose


On board 1, North deals and opens 1C, alerted "precision";
East bids 1S, which is alerted.  If East is showing four or
more spades, South has a great bid to show his hand. But
East might not be showing spades, and South will not know
until he asks why it was alerted.  So, cleverly, South doesn't
ask, and he bids 2S (which, assuming it is a cue bid, shows
9+ HCP, no 5-card suit and no spade stopper).

South expects North to treat 1S natural for the purpose of
understanding South's call, because South has not asked
what the alert means.  South meant 2S to be a cue bid in
their system, and North was listening to the absence of a
question about the alert and understands it that way, even
after he later finds out the meaning of East's 1S
conventional bid:  It shows a red or minor two-suiter.

On board 5, same dealer and same auction, but this time
South has 5 spades, so he asks the meaning of 1S.  It
again shows the red suits or the minors.  South bids 2S
again, but this time with a totally different meaning:
(Here it is a natural bid showing 4-7 HCP and five spades.)

I have been told that South and North are lawful here
because no player is ever required to ask the meaning
of an alerted bid, but I suspect that North and South
on board 1 are both in violation of Law 73A1.
North-South agreements after the 1S overcall depend
on what 1S shows, so I think that they must find out
the meaning of 1S.  They must not use the presence
or absence of a question by South to affect the
meaning of their calls.  South's declining to ask is not
AI to North, and North should continue the auction
as if South understood what 1S showed.  What's
more, South's lack of question is UI to North and
North is in a situation where Law 16A applies in full
force.  Anyway, that's what I currently think.

But I am no director. Am I right or not?  Even if this
is right, there is probably a much clearer way to put
it, and when is the proper time for East-West to
call the director?  And what should the director
do?

 Jerry Fusselman

+=+ There are two questions. In the regulations
applying to the event is the subject dealt with?
Is the method disclosed on the convention card,
or otherwise as the regulations may require?
      Failure to disclose is an offence. Failure to
comply with the regulations is an offence. The
implications of the 1997 Laws are such that,
unless there is a relevant regulation, the situation
is unclear. (I doubt that there is authorization in
the laws for such an agreement but some of my
colleagues see no conflict with the laws.) The
Director should know what ruling to make
where he is working; if he doesn't he should
allow the result to stand but refer the ruling to
an appeals committee himself.
     The time to call the Director is when
attention has been called to an irregularity. If you
have substantial reason to believe that there is
an infraction call attention to it and call the
Director.  In the course of events you describe
I would suggest you have a question as soon as
you become aware of the different meaning of
a bid in the same auction to that point. This is
quite likely to be after the hand is played. It is
then fair enough to test the position.
                             ~ Grattan ~   +=+



_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml at amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml