[blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids.

[John (MadDog) Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Guthrie" <Guthrie at NTLworld.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids.


> [Max quoted by Grattan]
> 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.
>
> When I come to writing up my notes for the Zone 1 lecture,
> I'm hoping beyond hope that everyone already understands
> 27B1(a) as this is effectively the same as the old 1997 law.
> However, from some things I've read of late from other parts
> of the world, I'm not entirely convinced that such is the case.
> Of course we never discuss these things at International
> tournaments because we have screens so the situation never
> arises.
>
> [Nige1]
> More interesting is the case when partner has *9 HP* and passes.
>
Fielder's choice, I think, Nigel. It seems to me that we've converged in our 
thinking on 27B. While I know you hate complexity, nonetheless the benefit 
of getting a bridge result on a few more hands tends in my mind to outweigh 
the pitfalls of the extra complexity. AAfter all we do want to *play* the 
game between director calls don't we?  John
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml