[blml] (pas de sujet)

[John (MadDog) Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alain Gottcheiner" <agot at ulb.ac.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Cc: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 1:59 PM
Subject: [blml] (pas de sujet)


gesta at tiscali.co.uk a écrit :
> Just to double check that we are now in total agreement. 2D
> opening - 1H undercall. 1H is artificial showing a balanced
> 13-17. Replaced with 2NT showing a balanced 15-17
> (assume this is OK for the sake of the example).
>
> i) responder raises to game with his 10 count. Game makes.
> The overcaller has only 13 points. Outcome; they've got lucky
> - score stands.
>
> ii) responder passes with his 10 count. Game doesn't make.
> Outcome; regardless of whether the overcaller has his bid or
> not, the score is adjusted to game going off.
>
>
AG : don't agree. At the moment the player decided to bid 1H, he decided
his hand was worth 15. So the adjustment shouldn't be on the basis of
"help from the IB", but on "fielded the underbid, had a CPU that 1H was
in fact less than announced".

This is OK Alain. We don't have the problem of 1S (1H) -> (2H) which is ok 
under 27A but contains elements of unauthorised information. Our replacement 
call is more tightly specified so it contains no element of UI (never mind 
we don't use 16C) and is therefore permitted. The WBF CTD has this one 
right.   I know Max personally and rate him as one of the top 3  TDs in the 
UK just for his perception of how Law works. Remember he directs very few 
tables these days but his perception is very acute. He directed 50K or more 
tables earlier in his career though.

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