AlexJonson Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 I think when you make a reasonable attempt at a good score and fail, you move on to the next board. Appellant(s) here have more energy than I could muster to waste everyone's time. Keeping their deposit would be understandable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 In their ruling, the AC wrote that this 2N was GF but not alertable. IMO, a GF 2N rebid should be alertable. If, instead, it had been an ordinary limit-bid, then, IMO, a speculative double would be reasonable. The doubler judged that a spade lead might help to beat a marginal game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 I'm sorry, Nigel, but as far as this ruling is concerned, whether 2NT should be alertable is irrelevant. Or are you saying that your reading of the regulations is that the bid is alertable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 I'm sorry, Nigel, but as far as this ruling is concerned, whether 2NT should be alertable is irrelevant. Or are you saying that your reading of the regulations is that the bid is alertable? IMO the alertability of 2N is relevant. I think a call (even a natural call) should be alerted if is game-forcing, when opponents wouldn't even expect it to be forcing. Frances Hinden informs us that, under EBL regulations, this 2N bid is not alertable. So I got it wrong :( I've learnt something. Thank you Frances :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 If the regulation says the bid is not alertable, then it's not alertable, and you can't base a ruling on your opinion that it should be. That's all I'm saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 If the regulation says the bid is not alertable, then it's not alertable, and you can't base a ruling on your opinion that it should be. That's all I'm saying. Fair enough. I got the law wrong. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggwhiz Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 West has more reason to double if he thinks the 3nt bid was forced rather than volunteered over an invite by a hand that could be much stronger. Alertable or not, there is less than zero damage. Even then, it's a wild gamble and I'm keeping the money. OK, 1/2 the money in sympathy to East. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.