[blml] L27 question

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Herman De Wael a écrit :
>
>
> Therefore, the TD needs to know the intended meaning of the IB.
> What I am still not certain about is whether the TD must tell the 
> table what the intention was. Certainly if he does rule that the SB 
> can be made without penalty, he tells them in so many words the 
> intention. 
And more so by giving a list of the possible non-penalizable bids. And 
that he has to do, to let opponents see what other choices the player 
had. That might influence their decision to believe the replacemernt bid 
or not.

> When OTOH he finds that there is no SB with a sufficiently 
> close meaning to the IB, he simply informs the player that he must 
> make a SB, and tells his partner to pass. The player may now make a 
> call which also tells what he had, and all three can deduce the 
> probable cause. The question now remains is whether the partner needs 
> to disclose his deductions to the opponents. I believe he must.
>
> But of course the IBer can pass and reveal nothing about the cause of 
> his IB. Again, the partner has a better chance of deducing what the IB 
> means. After all, he knows his system and can go through the possible 
> meanings of the IB; and he knows which ones might have a parallel SB. 
> Again he needs to tell his deductions to the table.
>
>   
And remember a player may be told such-or-such bid may be made without 
penalty, and yet decide to make some other bid (I'm allowed to answer a 
forcing 2NT raise ? No, thanks, I'll just bid 4H). What information will 
opponents get in this case ? Here, the player's choice tells more than 
if he were barred anyway, and opponents are entitled to know it.
1H - 4H when everything you'll do bars partner could be stronger than 
when 2NT forcing was available.

Best regards

  Alain