aguahombre Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 As to logical bids, it is difficult to see beyond 3♥ if 4NT would be RKCB, because the ♠K is not relevant. On the other hand, if playing simple Blackwood, 4NT seems obvious: after a natural 2♠ rebid surely you are bidding a grand if you are not missing an ace?This is getting off the purpose of the thread, but HUH????If I hold AXX of the alleged trump suit, how can the spade king (and maybe Queen) not be relevant? (KQXX X AKX AQJXX) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 I have not gone through all the possible hands, but my instinct is that if partner does not have the ♠K then the compensating values needed to force to game means you have 13 tricks anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 This is getting off the purpose of the thread, but HUH????If I hold AXX of the alleged trump suit, how can the spade king (and maybe Queen) not be relevant? (KQXX X AKX AQJXX)I don't think anyone is proposing ever playing in 7♠. Those who bid 4NT were presumably looking for 7NT. Opposite the hand you give you want to be in 7NT. Opposite Qxxx, x, AKx, AKQJx you want to be in 7NT. Opposite KQxx, x, KQx, AKQJx you want to be in 6NT. If 4NT is simple blackwood then it will distinguish between the last two hands; if it is RKCB for spades it will not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 First of all, let me dispose of a red herring. It is not just a question of LAs: we have discussed this many times here, on other forums, and in various other places, and it is accepted under some Law or other that a TD or AC can disallow a call that is not an LA if it is suggested over an LA by the UI. If anyone does not understand this or wants to challenge this assertion, feel free, but please start another thread, please do not hijack this one.In disposing of this particular red herring it is simplest to quote the WBFLC minutes from Philadelphia in 2010: "It was agreed that the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 In disposing of this particular red herring it is simplest to quote the WBFLC minutes from Philadelphia in 2010: "It was agreed that the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1." This comes up so often -- perhaps the next version of the Laws can make it clear that being a "logical alternative" is a basis for being "ruled in", not "ruled out". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Grattan Endicott once suggested to me that the intended meaning of the phrase "logical alternative" is something more like "plausible alternative for the class of player concerned". That was before the 2007 laws were drafted, so for the life of me I don't know why they didn't change the wording in the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 "Plausible" is a good word, because it seems to leave no doubt that the call actually chosen is included. 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.