Join Bridge Winners
Seattle 2011 Casebook NABC+ Appeal 9

Thank you so much for the return of the Casebooks!

http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2011SeattleCasebook.pdf

I find this ruling offensive, and agree with Bobby Wolff's dissent, although my dissent isn't as mild as his.

 

Not only did EW not alert properly, N was punished for asking questions about their agreements.  

"Thus the committee judged that North’s questioning suggested values near thetop of what one would hold and still pass over a limited and natural 2♣ opening. "   

 

Really?  An 8 count is near the top?  Not so close IMO that it give UI.  When your opponents play a deceptive 2NT as either weak with clubs or forcing with a strong suit, I think you have to protect yourself and ask questions.    Is N supposed to know the opponents system so completely that he should pass until the end to ask questions, and not figure out if he may get another chance in the auction until later?

 

Also and possibly most importantly, it's BAM.  How well does S think he's going to do defending 3C un-doubled NV once he realizes that it's probably their hand?

We need to decide.  Do players have to protect themselves by asking questions, or do we give unauthorized information by asking questions? There are many cases where you can't have it both ways, and this seems to be one of them.

 

191 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top