[blml] 40B3, etc.²

[Robert Frick]

Law 27B1(b) seems to allow wickedly effective systems such as suggested by  
Stepanie. That needs to be explored.

However, any system that makes the insufficient bid obviously desirable is  
decapitated by 72B1, which is that you can't have known at the time of the  
infraction that it might harm the opponents.

My system -- "what I just said" -- sometimes allows you to show hands that  
you otherwise might not have been able to show. But I can't intentionally  
make an insufficient bid with the hopes of getting to a better contract  
than the other pairs playing in my direction, because then Law 27D will  
kick in. (Law 27D is, roughly, the opps cannot be hurt by the insufficient  
bid.) Even when I unintentionally make an insufficient bid, I am hoping  
just to get to the same contract as everyone else, not a better one.

BTW. Suppose as a result of an insufficient bid, I make it sufficient by  
27B1 and we end up in an inferior game that no one else is bidding.  
However, it happens to make. Is that rub of the green, or are the opps  
protected?

Bob

>
> From: "Jeff Easterson"
>
>> Perhaps I ought to clarify what was boggling the remnants of my mind.
>> It was: that a pair could discuss what new conventions and meanings
>> their bids would have after they themselves make an insufficient bid (or
>> possibly other violation).  I couldn't imagine anyone actually doing
>> this but it seems to be the point of the discussion about changes of
>> meaning of bids after one's own insufficient (or other violation) bid.
>> Ciao, JE
>
> Obviously. Say the auction goes 1D by partner, 2C by RHO, 1S by you. Now  
> you
> can play, eg, that double shows 4 spades and the lower end of a 1S  
> response
> (let us assume that you do not want to pass and bar partner, so your bids
> will be as light as this. Another incidence of AI that ought to be UI,  
> but
> anyway...)
>
> 2D can be either 10+ with 4 spades or 6-9 with 5+; 2H asks which.
>
> 2H can be 10+ with 5+ spades.
>
> 2S can be fit-showing.
>
> Higher bids, well, who knows? NT bids can be natural, showing different
> ranges with 4 spades. 3-level bids can be game-going with a second suit.
> Etc.
>
> These are all much more specific than a 1S response to an opening bid, so
> would, in theory, be permitted. Is 27D enough protection? When the  
> director
> is not a strong player but the OS are? Besides, it is not clear that the
> result from this convention would
>
> Is there any law at all that protects players from opponents' having a
> penalty card and using it to clarify their carding agreements? A  
> reference
> suit and rank can make your carding a lot more accurate.
>
>
> Stefanie Rohan
> London, England
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml