[blml] Law 75D2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 17:47 4/10/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:

>Matchpoint pairs
>East dealer
>Both vulnerable
>
>The bidding has gone:
>
>WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
>---       ---       Pass      1H
>2D        3H(1)     Pass      Pass
>Pass(2)
>?
>
>(1) Not alerted, so implicitly described as a
>limit raise, since the sponsoring organisation
>alert regulation required other meanings for 3H
>to be alerted.
>
>(2) As required by Law 75D2, North called the
>Director before the opening lead to advise that
>3H should have been alerted, since the North-
>South partnership understanding was that 3H
>showed a pre-emptive raise.  As required by Law
>21B1, the Director permitted West to retract
>their Pass and substitute another call.
>
>You, West, hold:
>
>Q852
>T4
>AKQ864
>A
>
>What call do you substitute?

AG : 3S. This bid is a reasonable possibility even if 3H is a limit raise. 
Here, it becomes necessary. Note that, since they know what they're doing, 
they might still hold a majority (17+5 in lieu of 13+9 or whatever), BTA 
they might not.

But the problem arose before : partner could have had his word to say over 
3H, and wasn't given the chance. So it's quite possible that an adjusted 
score be given even so.

>What other calls do you consider substituting?

No real second choice, sorry. But I'm sure some would consider passing on 
the grounds that if they have a contract, they could always try and get an 
adjusted score as said hereabove.

Did partner do something that implied he would have bid had he known about 
3H, thereby giving out UI ?

Best regards

   Alain