[blml] 40B3, etc. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills (2008):

>>>Originally posted in the "Insufficient rebid" thread, 26th
>>>October 2006 ->
>>>
>>>You and your partner have agreed to play a weak notrump and the
>>>lebensohl convention.
>>>
>>>Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, none vul.
>>>
>>>You, South, hold:
>>>
>>>Q63
>>>93
>>>KJ53
>>>AK87
>>>
>>>The bidding has gone:
>>>
>>>WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
>>>---       ---       ---       1NT
>>>1H        1S        Pass      ?
>>>
>>>What call do you make?
>>>What other calls do you consider making?

Harald Skjæran (2008):

>>Pass. (Even normally playing negative double of 1H as denying 4+S,
>>I'd expect 1S to be natural here. Og course that's normally after a
>>1m opening, not 1NT....) I'd expect partner to be too weak to bid
>>2S over a sufficient 2H by LHO.
>>
>>I'd consider bidding 2C as a lead directing bid, as I'm able to
>>rebid 2S over a penalty double.
>>
>>I'd not consider anything else.

Matthias Berghaus (2006):

>Hello Richard,
>
>if all these things happen to you... never a dull moment, eh?

Richard Hills (2006):

These things do not just happen to me; I create them, since I was the
North who chose to accept West's insufficient bid.

:-)

Matthias Berghaus (2006):

>It seems to me that I may be under different sets of UI restrictions
>if
>
>a) partner bids 1S without a care in the world or
>
>b) the TD is summoned, the options and the consequences are explained
>and partner now bids 1S.
>
>If partner seems to have missed (or misread, written bidding?) my 1NT,
>I may have UI because of systemic information from 1 minor - 1H - 1S
>showing 5+ (for example).

Richard Hills (2006):

Another example is that pard may have thought that West was dealer, so
pard's 1S was intended as an overcall, thus showing higher minimum
values than a mere response of 1S promises.

Matthias Berghaus (2006):

>If, on the other hand, partner knew what he was dealing with he may
>well have only 4 spades (John's two-suiter is a different logical
>explanation), since this is the hand type he cannot get across if no
>negative double of 2H is available (if he has limited values, with a
>stronger hand he has a cue available). Since partner will have a 4+
>card minor most of the time (if holding only 4 spades) a bid of 2C
>seems suggested (certainly debatable whether 2C is a LA at
>matchpoints). Is this AI or UI? I think it is AI, but I am not
>completely sure.

Richard Hills (2006):

The fact that a player summoned the director is extraneous information,
but if that player is a non-offending player does that necessarily mean
that that summoning is authorised information to their partner?

Indeed, is that summoning authorised information to the offending side?

Matthias Berghaus (2006):

>At matchpoints I would always bid 2S.

Richard Hills (2006):

As Eric Landau has noted, in the ACBL a pair is not allowed to change
its methods after the acceptance of an insufficient bid.

This rule does not apply in Australia,

Richard Hills (2008):

>>>This rule will partially apply in Australia from June/July when the
>>>ABF will use the 2007 Law 40B3 to regulate that:
>>>
>>>(a) you may not vary your methods when an opponent accepts your
>>>insufficient bid, but
>>>
>>>(b) you may vary your methods when you or pard accepts an opponent's
>>>insufficient bid.

Richard Hills (2006):

but neither had my partner and I come to a specific agreement about
this sequence, despite decades of system discussion.

:-)

Therefore my partner assumed that since we had a general agreement to
use lebensohl after an overcall of 1NT, lebensohl also applied after an
undercall of 1NT, so pard passed.

The complete deal:

                          AK97
                          Q62
                          AT92
                          J2
JT                                            8542
AKJ85                                         T74
876                                           Q4
QT3                                           9654
                          Q63
                          93
                          KJ53
                          AK87

Karapet the Free Armenian (who was sitting West) chose to follow the
advice of the best experts, who opine that at matchpoints pairs it is
compulsory to balance against low-level partscores. So, Karapet now
sufficiently rebid 2H.

I completed the description of my hand with a penalty double for +800
and a top.

:-)


Best wishes

Richard James Hills
Graduates and Developmental Training Section
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Telephone: 02 6223 8458
Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm