Re: inn err Ni manor

Herman De Wael, attempt at a rhetorical question:

> But if you are going to start ruling that the "legal" UI becomes 
> mandatory, won't people start asking follow-up questions just in case?

New 2017 Law 20G2:

"A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to elicit an incorrect response from an opponent."

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

Sent from my iPad

> On 11 Sep 2017, at 7:58 PM, Herman De Wael <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> brian wrote:
>>> On 09/02/2017 03:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>>> 
>>> So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say?
>>> 
>>> Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently?
>> 
>> 
>> OK, let me pose a question assuming your opinion is the correct one,
>> Robert.
>> 
>> My partner plays different systems with different partners, and
>> occasionally gets them confused. I make what I think is a natural bid,
>> he alerts and, on request, tells' opponents that it's a gadget of
>> which I've never heard. He then makes his bid, and it sounds like a
>> forcing response.
>> 
>> If you want an example, say that I've opened a natural weak 2D, pard
>> alerts and explains it as Flannery, which I don't know, and pard then
>> bids 2NT. I'm used to that being Ogust over my weak 2D.
>> 
>> Now, what do I do over his rebid so as not to correct his
>> misexplanation? It's easy with Richard's interpretation, of course...
> 
> There is one extremely MAJOR difference here, Brian.
> Explaining the convention rightly/wronglycreates UI for partner.
> Making a bid does not.
> The bid that you are making is the only one that will compy with the UI 
> regulations concerning the UI you received from partner. If ever there 
> was an excuse to break L20F5, this one is certainly it. You are all so 
> eager to allow the simple breaking, and now you complain about a much 
> more complicated issue?
> 
> Let me give you a counter-counter example.
> 
> South misexplains, North does nothing to correct this, and makes a bid 
> which conforms to his UI obligations (like your 3NT example above). This 
> wakes up South, who now corrects his previous explanation and makes a 
> call which returns the auction to a sensible strain. Nothing wrong? OK?
> But now suppose that in addition to making the call, North also gives 
> some indication (either illegally by saying something or "legally" by 
> explaining South's call "correctly"). Now South has UI. He still makes 
> the same call, but now it can be said to be based on the UI received. 
> Isn't the second situation much more akin to "real" bridge?
> The second situation almost never occurs in practice, because:
> a- the players in the NOrth seat "know" that they should not say 
> anything, so the illegal UI never occurs;
> b- the situation with the "legal" UI also almost never occurs, because 
> follow-up questions are very rare.
> But if you are going to start ruling that the "legal" UI becomes 
> mandatory, won't people start asking follow-up questions just in case?
> I don't like that situation, which is why I believe the DWS response 
> ought to be admissible, and even encouraged.
> Well, to be perfectly clear, I believe the DWS response IS admissible, 
> as there is no law or regulation (yet) which prevents a player from 
> giving it. But such a regulation would be a huge step backwards!
> 
> Herman.
> 
>> 
>> Brian.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>> 
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml