[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Hans van Staveren]

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The hand of the player forced him under
his system to make a false bid of a singleton. He had no choice(other than
just shooting slam). In this specific case the players could have known in
advance that their system might force them to do this, in any case they had
much more chance than their opponents of deducing this.

 

In these circumstances I think the explanation “singleton”, although made in
good faith, is not correct. This pair could have known that it might not be.
Their opponents did not.

 

Hans

 

From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner
Sent: vrijdag 4 april 2008 16:38
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

 

Herman De Wael a écrit : 

 
But that is not the point.
The point is that, if they happen to come up against a hand that is, 
at present, within a hole, and they expand their system at the table, 
and both partners understand what is happening because they know the 
area around the holes, then to all intents and purposes there was no 
hole in the first place!
  


Yes, but that's not the case we're speaking of. Player A showed a singleton,
while he didn't have one, because he wanted to get into a forcing auction.
Player B, his partner, explained the bid showed a singleton. Nobody ever
said that player B understood player A's problem (apparently, he didn't,
since he explained the system sricto sensu).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080405/3ea7e5a9/attachment-0001.htm