BBO Discussion Forums: do they have an agreement - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

do they have an agreement

#1 User is offline   shevek 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 707
  • Joined: 2006-September-29
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:whippets<br>anarchy<br>relay

Posted 2015-April-05, 02:58



Australia, no screens.

EW play Standard, short club.
This is a new partnership.
All 4 are average club players.

Before acting, South asks about 2 and is told "6-10"
EW have a rudimentary system card but this is not listed.

At the end of the play, after the director is called by South, West offers:
"We are a new partnership. I usually play Acol. I thought that after a short club, my 2 showed 10+ points, forcing."
They (maintain they) did not agree to play inverted minor raises.

How do you rule?
0

#2 User is offline   BudH 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 475
  • Joined: 2004-April-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Bend, Indiana, USA
  • Interests:Operations Supervisor/Technical Advisor at nuclear power plant, soccer and basketball referee for more than 25 years; GLM; Ex-Head (Game) Director at South Bend (Indiana) Bridge Club; avid student of bridge law and game movements

Posted 2015-April-05, 03:27

Adjust to 2C by East making 11 tricks.
2

#3 User is offline   chrism 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 218
  • Joined: 2006-February-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chevy Chase, MD, USA

Posted 2015-April-05, 06:28

How likely is South to balance if told correctly that EW have no agreement here? I think that passing the auction out is likely enough to adjust to 2 which will make exactly 11 tricks as close to 100% of the time as ever happens. EW +150 reciprocally to both pairs.

Note that after South balances, West has UI from partner's explanation; however the authorized information that partner just passed an ostensibly forcing bid is enough to let West bid again.
0

#4 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-April-05, 15:40

View Postchrism, on 2015-April-05, 06:28, said:

Note that after South balances, West has UI from partner's explanation; however the authorized information that partner just passed an ostensibly forcing bid is enough to let West bid again.


No, this is nonsense, and contradicts what you said in the first part of your post. The UI and the passing are inextricably linked. Also, in absence of evidence to the contrary, which we have been told is the case, MI is assumed, so South has bid whilst in possession of MI.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#5 User is offline   chrism 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 218
  • Joined: 2006-February-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chevy Chase, MD, USA

Posted 2015-April-05, 19:24

Yes. My point, doubtless not made clearly, was that this is only a MI case, not a UI case. We rule on the basis that South will pass out 2C, but note in passing that West's 2NT call was not a further infraction.
0

#6 User is offline   Bbradley62 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,542
  • Joined: 2010-February-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY, USA

Posted 2015-April-05, 19:36

View Postchrism, on 2015-April-05, 06:28, said:

Note that after South balances, West has UI from partner's explanation; however the authorized information that partner just passed an ostensibly forcing bid is enough to let West bid again.

Sitting West, I think I'd have bid 3N over 2.
0

#7 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,417
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-April-06, 10:07

View PostBbradley62, on 2015-April-05, 19:36, said:

Sitting West, I think I'd have bid 3N over 2.

Not that relevant in that it is a routine adjustment to 2+3, as BudH says. If East had answered, "No agreement", South would have passed, and it seems that this belongs in the Simple Rulings section.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users