Re: An incredible hand

"The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow,
disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding."
Law 40B2(a)(i).

The Regulating Authority may designate a partnership understanding to open
1S with 3 hcp to be a special partnership understanding if its "meaning, in
the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and
anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament." Law
40B1(b).

Best wishes,

Richard Hills, significant number



On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Peter Smulders <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> >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
>

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