[blml] L27 question

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Herman De Wael a écrit :
> Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>
>>     
>
> I would find it strange to see more than one penalty-free bid, but of 
> course it can happen. 
Very easy !
You open 1S, playing Acol, but partner opened 1S, and you're allowed to 
bid any of 2NT (Jacoby), 4C, 4D, 4H.
Or you open 1C (14+, no 5-card major, nothing said about clubs, 
unlimited), partner had opened a Multi 2D and they allow you any of 2NT, 
3C, 3D.
Or you transferred (1NT-2H) but they overcalled 2S ; you may bid either 
3D (rubensohl) or 3S (5 hearts + spade stopper).
Enzovoort.


> As for "believing the RB", I think I understand what you mean. If the 
> IB showed 5 of a suit, and the RB shows 6, the RB can be done 
> penalty-free, but the player might be doing it with just the 5.
> Is this allowed, and should the opponents not be told about this?
>
>   
I'd say they shouldn't be alerted about it, because it's bridge logic, 
not a systemic agreement.

>
>
> Which again leads me to believe that it is best to tell the table 
> about the intent of the IBer.
>
>   
Indeed. Whether it'll be AI to partner is another question.

Best regards

   Alain