[blml] Law 27 - relay

[Robert Frick]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:10:09 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

> Stefanie Rohan a écrit :
>>
>> 2. It may turn out to your advantage if your actual hand is difficult to
>> bid after the overcall. Whence  L72B1 applies at full strength and, if
>> the TD realizes you*agreed* this, he will be doubly harsh in applying
>> it.  Example : 1C (1S), you hold a so-so hand with long diamonds, not
>> long enough for a 3D preempt, not strong enough for a 2D bid, and your
>> double promises hearts. You bid 1D and then correct to 1NT to show the
>> éimpossible" hand. Do you really think you will be allowed to do this ?
>>
>> SR:
>>
>> I do. I find it disgusting, but there you are.
>>
>>
> I don't. Whenever the first step is used to show something that couldn't
> be shown as economically due to the (unexpected ?) level of the bidding,
> there is enough ground to apply L72B1.
> "You bid 1D, then corrected it to 1NT in lieu of 2D ? Well, you could
> have known that it would help you to IB, by taking out fewer steps.  
> L72B1."
> So, I doubt Koen will get any benefits of his "convention", even if it
> was allowed, at least when facing TDs who know what L72B1 implies.
>
> Stefanie, you're allowed to be disgusted, and as some would say, "I
> won't let them out".

I am very puzzled that I cannot play (in the ACBL) the convention that 2C,  
following a 1C insufficient bid, shows an opening hand and 3 or more  
clubs. However, I am (apparently) allowed to bid 2C with only 3 clubs.  
Once I do, it creates a (presumably legal) implicit agreement that the 2C  
bid might be made with 3 clubs.

This is a good implicit agreement, so I want to bid 2C with this hand even  
it confuses partner the first time it happens. But it probably won't  
confuse partner at all, because if I can tell you this situation, I can  
tell it to my partner too. Then we can use our general bridge knowledge to  
be on the same wavelength. The first time it happens, we will not be  
required to tell the opps that the 2C bidder might have 3 clubs, because  
we have no explicit or implicit agreement about this, compliant rule-bound  
players that we are.

(I am with Stephanie -- I am not fond of being able to correct to a bid  
when the player doesn't have the hand for the bid.)

(The goal is not to get to a better contract than we could have without  
the IB; the goal is to recover from the IB and get to the contract the  
rest of the field is in.)

Bob