Vampyr Posted October 15, 2017 Report Share Posted October 15, 2017 The more interesting question is: Comment or none, would you be allowed to transfer to spades? I think so.... How can this possibly be comparable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted October 15, 2017 Report Share Posted October 15, 2017 I'm confused. Are you saying that a call that initiates a sequence that shows the same hand as shown by a single call -- e.g., Flannery -- should not be allowed? So that, if the partnership had a call directly over 2N that showed 4=5, it would be OK, but a series of calls that showed the same hand would not? Yes, that's what I'm saying. Quite apart from the law saying "calls", you never know when you start a sequence if you are going to be allowed to finish it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted October 16, 2017 Report Share Posted October 16, 2017 Yes, that's what I'm saying. Quite apart from the law saying "calls", you never know when you start a sequence if you are going to be allowed to finish it.Right. Suppose you replace your insufficient Flannery with a sufficient Stayman, planning on using Smolen, but opener surprises you and bids a major, which you then raise. You've never actually made the comparable call. On the other hand, is there any actual damage from this? Partner has UI about your major shape, but he hasn't used it. The opponents have AI about it, which they're free to use if they want; and your hand will most likely be on the table pretty soon. I'm starting to warm to the idea that the best solution is to just cancel the IB, have them replace it with a legal call, and warn partner not to make use of any UI from the IB. But that's not the Law we have, we'll have to wait a decade before it becomes a possibility. Until then, I think we should just be liberal in interpreting CC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted October 16, 2017 Report Share Posted October 16, 2017 I'm starting to warm to the idea that the best solution is to just cancel the IB, have them replace it with a legal call, and warn partner not to make use of any UI from the IB. to pass throughout. But that's not the Law we have, we'll have to wait a decade before it becomes a possibility. Until then, I think we should just be liberal in interpreting CC. FYP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted October 16, 2017 Report Share Posted October 16, 2017 FYPNo you didn't. The direction the Laws have been moving in regarding IB and BOOT is to try to get a normal bridge result, not penalizing the player for the slip, and I agree with this intent. As long as partner doesn't take advantage of UI, while the withdrawn call is AI to the opponents, why should partner be barred all the time? Making the IBer guess the final contract feels like an overly severe punishment, and the Lawmakers apparently agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted October 16, 2017 Report Share Posted October 16, 2017 No you didn't. The direction the Laws have been moving in regarding IB and BOOT is to try to get a normal bridge result, not penalizing the player for the slip, and I agree with this intent. As long as partner doesn't take advantage of UI, while the withdrawn call is AI to the opponents, why should partner be barred all the time? Making the IBer guess the final contract feels like an overly severe punishment, and the Lawmakers apparently agree. Maybe next time he will choose a legal bid. There is no reason to bid illegally, ever, so why should such a lawbreaker avoid punishment? Overly severe? No, that would be something like automatic 60/30. Although I would not disapprove. Надежда умирает последней Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 Maybe next time he will choose a legal bid.The Laws have specified harsh punishment for insufficient bids for generations. Yet they still happen frequently. Obviously they're not working as a deterrent, and there's no reason to think that making them harsher will improve things. So they're trying the opposite tactic of "no harm, no foul". 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.