mycroft Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 But it appears that every player of the table understood that 3♠ was natural and therefore that 3♣ may not have spades. I would suggest that North's knowledge that South may not have ♠+♦ was not based on any (special) partnership understanding and there is no infraction.Even if that is the case, should we not investigate to see if there is such a partnership understanding that 3♣ is "spades and diamonds, or clubs if we forgot again"? The pass may not be evidence of CPU or illegal use of a CPU, but if the A+/A- ruling is for having an illegal partnership understanding, implied or concealed or otherwise, should we not investigate/record? Or do we only adjust if the illegal understanding is used to determine what call to make? Or am I over-sensitive because "forget Ghestem"/"forget Flannery"/"forget transfers" is one of my bugbears? 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.