[blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Gampas at aol.com]

In a message dated 06/09/2007 14:35:55 GMT  Standard Time, 
mustikka at charter.net writes:
From: "Alain Gottcheiner"  <agot at ulb.ac.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List"  <blml at amsterdamned.org>; 
<blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent:  Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot  Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> At 20:07 5/09/2007 -0400, Gampas at aol.com  wrote:
>
>>Dlr: North
>>Vul:   None
>>
>>\          JT93
>>\        AQJ98
>>\     98
>>\     62
>>---       \                AQ4
>>KT3         \              752
>>QT765         \            32
>>T9753           \          AKQJ8
>>K87652\
>>64        \
>>AKJ4        \
>>4             \
>>
>>WEST       NORTH      EAST        SOUTH
>>---         Pass      1NT         2C(1)
>>2D(2)      Pass        2H          2S
>>3C          4S          5C          Pass
>>Pass       Dble       Pass       Pass
>>Pass

(snip)

> You know what ? That's my strong  impression. It is so incredible to play 
> 2D
> as a transfer in  such a situation (what do you do on a flat hand ?) that 
> it
> will  need more than a piece of paper to convince me. 'credo quia absurdum'
>  doesn't apply to bridge.  

I agree that playing 2D as a transfer is absolutely normal. A common  
treatment is "system on" after overcalls up to and including 3C, with double of  3C 
(weak) being Stayman. As I stated, my view was that the correct decision was  
that the result stood; I was being asked to speculate on what the AC decision  
was - a bit like "What happened next?" in the British quiz programme A 
Question  of Sport.
 
Paul