- Welcome to Aust. Bridge Directors Ass..
News:
January 2024
The ABDA has relaunched this forum with upgraded software, appearance and features. All the old content remains. Users should log in and update their membership profile.
Only financial members of the ABDA can register to be part of this forum. Non-members can browse the open sections of the forum and post questions to "Ask a Director" and "Online Directing" without registration.
Posted by MIP
- 14 September, 2010, 10:35 AMThanks for that, David. The wording of the Law is somewhat dense: your explanation makes it all clear. Perhaps the Laws Committee could consider cleaning this up at some stage.
Mike
Mike
Posted by bluejak
- 14 September, 2010, 10:14 AMLaw 27B1B is tricky, but the WBFLC have told us to be flexible in allowing substitutions in doubtful cases. The real point is that if the insufficient bid gives more information than the replacement bid [allowing a bit of latitude in close cases] then we do not allow the replacement bid.
Now, I agree with Ed: Gerber does not give more information to partner than RKCB, so we allow the change.
Now, I agree with Ed: Gerber does not give more information to partner than RKCB, so we allow the change.
Posted by Ed Reppert
- 13 September, 2010, 02:31 PMUm. There's a difference between the meaning{s} of a bid, and the meanings of the answers to that bid.
Seems to me the information contained in an ace or keycard asking bid (either one) is that the asker believes there is a slam on, does not have a wide open suit, and simply wants to know if there are two aces (or keycards) missing. So I would allow the substitution.
Seems to me the information contained in an ace or keycard asking bid (either one) is that the asker believes there is a slam on, does not have a wide open suit, and simply wants to know if there are two aces (or keycards) missing. So I would allow the substitution.
Posted by MIP
- 13 September, 2010, 10:24 AMI'd like to see another expert opinion on whether RKCB can replace Gerber in these circumstances. Law 27B1(b) says that the IB can be replaced with a legal call that "has the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than, the IB (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the IB). Now, 4NT RKCB is certainly more precise than 4C Gerber, but asking about the trump king is not fully contained within the possible meanings of Gerber so surely it should be disallowed.
Rgds...Mike
Rgds...Mike
Posted by pwg
- 10 September, 2010, 09:18 PMEric says:
"If 4NT is RKC asking, it is not 'more specific', cannot replace the 4C Gerber.."
I am not sure this is the case - we must make the choice base on the question:
"Is there any information in the original bid which is not also included in the proposed replacement?"
Assuming that 4NT would be RKC ask and the original was Gerber, then the information in the original was "how many aces?" while the new bid is "how many aces and key cards?". Within the "somewhat liberal" interpretation recommended, I would consider that it should be replaceable.
Peter.
"If 4NT is RKC asking, it is not 'more specific', cannot replace the 4C Gerber.."
I am not sure this is the case - we must make the choice base on the question:
"Is there any information in the original bid which is not also included in the proposed replacement?"
Assuming that 4NT would be RKC ask and the original was Gerber, then the information in the original was "how many aces?" while the new bid is "how many aces and key cards?". Within the "somewhat liberal" interpretation recommended, I would consider that it should be replaceable.
Peter.
Posted by Chris
- 06 September, 2010, 08:56 AMHi Eric,
I was making the assumption that the pair played straight Blackwood when I suggested 4NT as a possible replacement. As Ed has said, you need to investigate all these possibilities before making your ruling.
I was making the assumption that the pair played straight Blackwood when I suggested 4NT as a possible replacement. As Ed has said, you need to investigate all these possibilities before making your ruling.
Posted by eric
- 05 September, 2010, 10:48 PMIf 4NT is RKC asking, it is not 'more specific', cannot replace the 4C Gerber ....
Posted by Ed Reppert
- 18 August, 2010, 01:18 AMI suppose it might have. As I said, the TD has to investigate.
Posted by Paul Sherman
- 17 August, 2010, 09:04 PMMight it have been a cuebid?
Posted by Ed Reppert
- 17 August, 2010, 10:13 AMIf 4NT would be ace asking on this auction, sure.
Posted by Chris
- 17 August, 2010, 10:12 AMAssuming it WAS Gerber I am thinking that North could replace the 4C with 4NT (still ace asking).
Posted by Ed Reppert
- 17 August, 2010, 02:42 AMYou should never look in a player's hand in these situations. You should investigate their system. If 4C could have been Gerber had it been sufficient, then you cannot allow a correction under Law 27B1{a}. However, if 4C could have been Gerber, and 5C would be SuperGerber, you can allow a correction to 5C under Law 27B1{b}. If no substitute legal call would fit the criteria of 27B1{b}, then you rule under 27B2 that whatever correction is chosen, his partner must pass throughout, and so on. So I would say your table ruling was incorrect, and if you're still within the correction period (see Law 79C) you should adjust the score under Law 82C (Director's Error). If the correction period has expired, the result stands.
Posted by EddieG
- 16 August, 2010, 04:50 PMè äîìà ìè, êà ê îÃà ". Ã'îñòîÿÃèå åå ïðîñòèðà ëîñü äî 25 ìèëëèîÃîâ ôðà Ãêîâ,
êà êîâà ÿ ñóììà è â Ãà ñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ ãðîìà äÃà , à â òî âðåìÿ, êîãäà ôèÃà Ãñû
Ã"ðà Ãöèè Ãà õîäèëèñü â òà êîì ïëà ÷åâÃîì ñîñòîÿÃèè, áûëà ïðÿìî ÷óäîâèùÃà .
6. ×óâñòâî ñòûäëèâîñòè. Îòñóòñòâèå ÷óâñòâà ñòûäëèâîñòè ÿâëÿåòñÿ îäÃîé
èç ñà ìûõ õà ðà êòåðÃûõ ÷åðò âðîæäåÃÃûõ ïðîñòèòóòîê. Ãåêîòîðûå à âòîðû, â òîì
êà êîâà ÿ ñóììà è â Ãà ñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ ãðîìà äÃà , à â òî âðåìÿ, êîãäà ôèÃà Ãñû
Ã"ðà Ãöèè Ãà õîäèëèñü â òà êîì ïëà ÷åâÃîì ñîñòîÿÃèè, áûëà ïðÿìî ÷óäîâèùÃà .
6. ×óâñòâî ñòûäëèâîñòè. Îòñóòñòâèå ÷óâñòâà ñòûäëèâîñòè ÿâëÿåòñÿ îäÃîé
èç ñà ìûõ õà ðà êòåðÃûõ ÷åðò âðîæäåÃÃûõ ïðîñòèòóòîê. Ãåêîòîðûå à âòîðû, â òîì