Re: An incredible hand
Peter Smulders <[email protected]> Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:49:15 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>From: Herman De Wael <[email protected]> >Precedence: list >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected]> >References: <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> >In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:14:36 +0100 >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected]> >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >Subject: Re: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: An incredible hand >Message: 4 > >Sven Pran wrote: >>I don't understand how any jurisdiction may forbid for instance opening bids >>at the one level with less than 8 HVP. >> >>What they can do (and what I assume most have done) is to have restrictions >>on agreements which implies opening such weak hands at the one level. >> >>There is a difference. > >There is, a theoretical one. > >But in practice, when a player opens a particular hand with a >paticular bid (or more general, makes any bid with that hand), then >the Director will ofte have to assume that the particular bid is systemic. >So in many cases the difference is only theoretical. > >In the current case, the opening bid of 1Sp certainly has the >meaning "I think I can make a majority of tricks in this strain, >partner, if you have three more tricks, you can bid 4Sp. >Certainly a systemic meaning. >So under the old "rule of 18", this opening must be prohibited. >Which only shows that the rule of 18 is not optimum. > >Herman. Most players don't have agreements on freak hands like this. Apparently you consider ideas such as "bid what you think you can make" or "use common sense" a concealed understanding. The hand has 6 solid tricks, and with a partner who is not completely bust but has less than opening values a part score is possible but game is very unlikely. I would not call a call of 1S a psyche, and even if it s, it is certainly not artifcial. Thus it does not meet the condition of Law 40B2: The RA "v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls". _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml