Burn and Graham follow Law 73C

by David Stevenson

Let me tell you a story.

David Burn:

"2NT: I have 20-22 points and a balanced hand"

Mike Graham:

"3: This is my better minor, and I do not have enough to try for game opposite a weak minor 2-suiter"

David Burn:

"3: Completing the transfer, as required"

Mike Graham:

"4: If partner is cue-bidding presumably he has a monster distribution for his weak minor 2-suiter: I shall show where my strength is"

David Burn:

"4: Transfer then a new suit: ambiguous, but cue-bidding my diamond ace must be right"

Mike Graham:

"Pass: If he cannot bid game I can do no more"

Both players knew a wheel had come off. Both players were determined to be ethical. And after the most ethical bidding sequence I can remember they stopped in 4 with their combined 27 count.

Of course, it was muggins [ie, me] who had to explain to the opponents that you do not get redress when the opponents do nothing wrong, and that it was just unlucky that no game made, and 4 was cold!

Editor's note:

• If you want to comment on this article, why not write direct to David Stevenson?
• I shall be pleased to hear from you!

Last article	Laws menu	Main index	Top of article	Local menu