[blml] New L27

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Herman De Wael a écrit :
> Not completely true, since L16 only talks about "calls and plays" not 
> about "actions". Of course, in the sense that the next bid is varied 
> according to this new partnership understanding, making that call is 
> subject to L16, so, indeed, varying the partnership understanding is 
> prohibited "on the rebound".
>
>   

I'm a bit perplexed about this one.

Gilles and myself have different defenses against "normal" and strong 1C 
openings, as who would not ?
What about more intricated 1C openings, like Polish, Roman, Carroti, 
Vienna, Perron etc ?
Our default agreement is "if it is forcing, apply the defense vs 1C 
strong, else apply the defense vs 1C natural".

When we didn't discuss the defense before the round, and they alert 1C, 
we ask about the meaning, then, if it wasn't obvious from the 
explanation, we ask whether the bid is forcing or not.
Then we apply the /ad hoc/ defense.

You seem to state that this is disallowed.

What, then, is the right way to proceed ?

(note that there was a problem, behind screens, when one player said 
that 1C was forcing and the other that it could be passed once in a 
while if weak with long clubs)


Best regards

   Alain