[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*************************
"We live in an environment whose
principal product is garbage."
                  Russell Baker
                  ('New York Times')
*************************
+=+ Is it suggested that a player who encounters a situation
that his partnership has not envisaged when devising its methods,
and which it has not previously experienced, is not entitled to
improvise a solution based solely upon bridge knowledge that
is equally available to opponents and to partner?
        I do not believe there is anything in the laws that forbids it.
Indeed, I would say that in these circumstances Law 40A3 is
applicable. The learning from this first occasion then enters into
the accumulated partnership experience. The 'could have known'
phrase is a feature of Law 23, a law that is only for consideration
after the Director has established that an irregularity has occurred.
Law 40 questions are absolute - the partnership either has or has
not an agreement (which the Director judges against the criteria in
Laws 40A1(a) and 40B6.)
                                   ~ Grattan ~   +=+
...........................................................................................
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Hans van Staveren
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes


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).



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