Re: Uno
Herman De Wael <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Richard poses an interesting question: (I've deleted the rest without negative intent) Richard Hills schreef: > > The question of Law is this: The WBF Laws Committee has ruled that an > Alert / explanation from partner is authorised information for the > purpose of a Law 25A correction "without pause for thought". But West, > like many players, was unaware of his rights under Law 25A. Therefore > once East bid 2H West could no longer correct his 2D opening bid. Thus > presumably at the moment East bid 2H East's earlier Alert and > explanation transmogrified into being UI to West. > > Hence was West's 3D an illegal call? Was West required to assume that > the auction had proceeded 1D - pass - 2H (very weak with six hearts)? Or > does Law 16A1(a) mean that West is entitled to know, by whatever means, > that West opened the bidding with 2D? (Possibly relevant here is the > "aids to his memory" Law 40C3(a).) > Aids to memory does not seem to apply here, since we don't use it in the millions of bidding sequences we make every single day. Aftere all, a player is entitled to ask what the bidding was at every turn, thus it seems logical to accept that the bidding cards that are on the table are AI at every single turn. Therefore, when West notices his 2D bidding card, he is entitled to know what he has shown, even if he does not have that. Since he is allowed to remember his system (and if we believe that he mispulled, we should also believe that he knows his real system), he is also entitled to know what partner will believe he has shown. He is entitled to make every call he wishes, but he must abstain from showing by any other means than his call that he has made a previous mistake. This just makes the problem for East even harder - how is he supposed to figure out that the mistake West made (he is allowed to know there was a mistake, but not which one) is precisely this one? Therefore, every poll made will be flawed, as we cannot by any means tell the polled player (would we be allowed to call such a player a pollee ?) what the exact circumstances of the likely mistakes by partner are. As you saw, I imagined two such possible mistakes and it turned out to be a third one. A real partner will be more likely to pick the correct one. I knew of my partners which mistakes they were likely to make and which ones they had never made in their careers. But interesting topic nevertheless. Herman. > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml