blackshoe, on 2013-May-14, 17:02, said:
This forum is intended to help people learn the laws of the game and how rulings are made. Shorthand is fine for those of us who are experienced in that endeavor - it won't help a neophyte.
The
stated purpose of this forum is "discussion of Laws". If you and David intend that it should have some other purpose, I suggest that you change its description. Though if you do make its primary purpose "helping people learn the laws of the game and how rulings are made", I'll probably stop participating.
I realise that a variety of people read and participate in discussions here. If I find myself in a conversation with someone who seems unfamiliar with the rules, I take care to word my comments in a way which refers closely to the rules. In this case, however, the thread was started by an experienced TD, and the other participants were also people with a good understanding of the Laws and how they are applied.
Quote
Besides, your conclusion (3♠ is suggested over the other LAs) does not follow from the premise (3♠ is the most likely to get the partnership into trouble).
The conclusion "3
♠ is suggested over the other LAs" does follow from the premise "the UI tells us that 3
♠ is the most likely to get the partnership into trouble", which is what the other 122 readers of my post understood me to mean.
Quote
Since when? The way I learned it, we don't tell players what the LAs are during a live auction.
If by "we" you mean the director, no of course he doesn't. What on earth makes you think I was suggesting that?
The statement you originally objected to was that 3
♠ was "the only legal action". This was in reply to the question "What options do you think West can choose here?" I can't imagine how you concluded from this that I was suggesting that the director participate in the player's decision during the auction.
"IMP teams, NS vul, dealer S.
2♠ = weak two in spades (announced)
X = takeout
2NT = Lebensohl (not alerted)
What options do you think West can choose here? For most people playing this standard Lebensohl, 3♥ would show a very strong hand, but when asked afterwards it seemed that both East and West thought that it forced a 3♣ rebid, so it was obvious that East had forgotten their agreement. Does this make any difference to what rebids you allow from West?"