LA after making a poor bid

[jeremy69]

We all seem agreed that 2D is a massive underbid. There is no evidence to suggest that the player missorted his hand so given that was what he thought it worth on the previous round what has happened for him to take a rosier view and bid on over 3NT? Well, of course, his partner bid 3NT slowly. Could partner have been thinking of other things such as "Am I worth 2NT or 3NT?" or "Should I look for an alternative game?" Well, yes of course but one reason for partner thinking is that he is a bit good for 3NT and I think this is quite a likely reason as evidenced by what we are told about the actual hand. The 2D bidder can guess to do what they like but not if they are in receipt of UI and on this hand I think they likely are.

[bluejak]

But, I find it surprising that you would be critical of

 

"the chosen action could demonstrably be suggested by the UI"

 

when you previously said

 

"the chosen action to be suggested by the UI"

 

and later defended your choice of words with:

We are not legal eagles: we leave that to BLML [bridge-laws mailing list].  We do not need to use exact wording in every case, and I certainly do not.

I suppose the difference in my mind is between a general discussion which often uses shortcuts and less accurate comments which are understood, and what looks like a list of basic requirements. In the latter case I expect it to be more accurate.

[bluejak]

Hmmm.  It has been discussed ad nauseam, but it is generally accepted that this is not a requirement.  I have seen something like five different legal justifications for this, but the important thing is that rulings are based on this not being a requirement.

I agree with this, as far as it goes. However, Law 16 says "cannot choose from amongst logical alternatives… (emphasis mine). Clearly this is one case, at least, where we cannot determine what the law is simply by reading what it says — and I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like that at all.

Look, Ed, it has been discussed before many times. At its simplest, I do not even agree with your reading of this sentence and feel it can be interpreted differently. As others have pointed out you can approach it via different Laws.

 

No doubt others are interested, perhaps having not seen the earlier threads, but if we wish to discuss the legal basis again, please start a new thread.

 

;)

 

Hope to see some of you in San Diego soon.

[blackshoe]

I don't see any need to belabor it, David, or to start another thread. But this is one point on which you and I disagree, and will probably always disagree. Let's just leave it at that.