From henk at ripe.net Sun Aug 1 01:01:02 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:01:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 1 08:25:12 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 07:25:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > So the law could be paraphrased as "no pause > for thought to decide whether or not to change > the bid". Or the phrase could simply be dropped > from the laws. < +=+ It could perhaps be phrased "pause for reconsideration". +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Aug 1 22:58:55 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:58:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C55E00F.5000907@nhcc.net> On 7/31/2010 6:06 AM, Grattan wrote: > ... alternative possibilities that (a) the player > had seen the 1NT bid and intended all along to > respond 2C, or (b) the player had not seen the > 1NT bid, intended to open 1C, and rethought Yes, this seems to be a judgment decision for the Director. It might help to look at offender's cards, but as we've seen in the other thread, not everyone approves of doing so. Even if permitted, it might not help at all: there are lots of hands (in normal systems) consistent with both a 1C opening bid and with using Stayman over 1NT. What I think we can say as a matter of Law is that the time starting with the initial TD call doesn't count as "pause for thought" because of the overriding provision that players shall take no action after the TD is called. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Aug 1 23:08:12 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 17:08:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <8CCA8273-8E0F-4AEA-B3CC-F02C0001601F@starpower.net> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> <000901cb2e4c$71b65cc0$55231640$@no> <8CCA8273-8E0F-4AEA-B3CC-F02C0001601F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C55E23C.30909@nhcc.net> On 7/28/2010 10:49 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Consider four variations of > this scenario: At tables #1 and #3, North, who knows and understands > L27, can deduce from the nature of the permitted replacement call, or > lack thereof, that South's IB must have been meant to shown hearts. > At tables #2 and #4, North lacks sufficient knowledge of the laws to > make this deduction. At tables #1 and #2, the TD is called > immediately without problem, but at tables #3 and #4 South > (improperly but innocently) blurts out a comment that clearly reveals > to all that the IB was intended to show hearts before the TD can arrive. Unlike Alain (I think it was), I don't see why the rulings at tables 3 and 4 should be the same as at tables 1 and 2. Souths at 3/4 have done something they shouldn't have (blurting out a comment), and it seems fair for the ruling to take account of that. However, I agree with Eric that detailed knowledge of the Laws shouldn't be a factor, and I'd argue that "explained all matters" in L9B2 tends to support our shared position. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 2 05:24:45 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 13:24:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Obscure reading of the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: WBF Code of Practice 2008, page 6: "A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of conduct. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism." Matthew McManus, ABDA Bulletin 46, page 7: [snip] I was relating this story to another director and he told of a similar scenario, which occurred in an international tournament. Declarer was in 7NT and down to the last few cards, with just AKJ of clubs in hand and the lead in dummy. His decision was whether to finesse the jack or play for the drop. When he called for a club from dummy, his right hand opponent played the queen, solving all his problems. He made some comment like, "That was lucky" and started to face his hand. Unfortunately for him the CJ was the first card to touch the table. The opponents now called the director, demanding that he be required to play the jack to this trick. Unbelievably the ruling was in favour of the defenders. Bad rulings such as this, no matter how much they might be able to be justified by some obscure reading of the laws, just encourage a confrontational atmosphere at the table, with players using whatever means they can to win. This is another case where it would have been hoped the defenders would just put the cards away and write down -2220, as any reasonable person would. The director should not have been involved. As directors, I think we should all be doing our utmost to ensure that we enforce the underused Law 74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that ... might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." These examples of extreme bad sportsmanship are exactly what must be eliminated from the game if it is to continue and prosper. Richard Hills: Yes and no. Yes, in my opinion, Law 74A2 is the most important of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. No, in my opinion, the enormous scope that Matthew McManus argues Law 74A2 has is an obscure reading of Law 74A2. Law 74A2's remit is requiring politeness to all three opponents. Law 74A2 does not invalidate an otherwise legal action. For example: (a) if dealer holds a weak hand with seven spades, and (b) dealer therefore opens the bidding with 3S, then (c) dealer's LHO may find their enjoyment of the game interfered with, since (d) LHO may have been savouring the prospect of opening a strong 1C with a subsequent uncontested Symmetric Relay auction to scientifically decide between game and slam. Thus in the case related by Matthew McManus there was a factual dispute and it was entirely proper - not an infraction of Law 74A2 - for the Director to be summoned to resolve the factual dispute. The international Director had to decide whether the jack of clubs was a played card (Law 45A) or whether the jack of clubs was the first part of a claim (Law 68). On the information provided by Matthew McManus I believe that the international Director gave a correct ruling without any obscure reading of the Laws. Law 68, first sentence of prologue plus footnote: "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress*. * If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play." Richard Hills: The Law 68C statement "I have the rest of the tricks" is not identical in meaning to a Law 68 prologue and footnote statement "That was lucky". Another straw in the wind for the international Director is that claims usually involve a flip of the wrist to simultaneously expose all cards, but playing cards usually involves depositing just one card on the table. However, I imagine that the decisive factor for the international Director was that the cleverest of people can do the stupidest of things (for example, for a few hours this morning I was panicking that I had lost my wallet, until a friend discovered that I had stupidly left it in the back seat of his car). The international Director knew full well that the balance of probabilities was that an international player intended to finesse the jack, noticed the queen appear from RHO, routinely continued to play the originally intended jack, then self-deludingly argued that the jack was not a played card but a claimed card. What's the problem? Is the problem Matthew McManus ignoring the written 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge for chaotic unwritten 2010 Laws of Sporting Bridge, whereby a ruling will differ according to which obscure unwritten Law a particular Director reads into the Lawbook? Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Aug 2 09:17:55 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:17:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Obscure reading of the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <022301cb3212$d427cf50$7c776df0$@nl> Play to hand with AKJ, right hand opp played Q. Now if declarer says: "this is lucky", and tables all three cards, with just the J hitting the table first declarer of course claimed and makes all tricks. Richard Hills, as usual long, posting suggests something else happened. Declarer was planning to finesse, held the CJ in his hand, and played it after seeing the CQ. Then said "this is lucky" and converted his play to a claim. I agree with RH that if that happened the director ruled correctly. However, given the original post, my guess is the facts correspond more to my first scenario. But as we all know, the TD's first and most important duty, is finding out the facts. Hans van Staveren From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 2 10:51:53 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:51:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <4C568729.5060904@ulb.ac.be> Volker Walther a ?crit : > This happened during the club tournament: > Bidding: > > N E S W > 1NT Pass 1C > > West: "Director" > South: "Whats up?" > West: "Insufficient bid. The director has to sort this out." > 5 secs later TD arrives. > TD: "what has happened?" > West: "Insufficient bid." > South: "I wanted to bid Stayman, but I pulled the wrong card" > > Decision: > Law 25A does not apply, because South did not make any immediate attempt > to replace the unintended bid. There was a pause for thought until the > TD arrived. > AG : the TD will have to ascertain whether this is true. There was a pause, but I'm not sure that South thought about changing his bid. More probably, he didn't realize, then decided to let the TD do one's job - hardly a bad idea. What we call "pause for thought" is that the player changed his mind, not that some time elapsed. Perhaps even South didn't now about his right of changing the bid. If I think it plausible that South mispulled, no matter how many hours elapsed, I'd allow the 2cbid. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 2 10:53:57 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:53:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> Message-ID: <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> LarryB a ?crit : > I too look closely at Grattan's (b). 1C is a single piece of card, right on > the very edge of the box. It has a certain feel. AG : wrong. Many bidding boxes hold two 1C bids. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 2 14:37:10 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 13:37:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... LarryB a ?crit : > I too look closely at Grattan's (b). 1C is a single > piece of card, right on the very edge of the box. > It has a certain feel. AG : wrong. Many bidding boxes hold two 1C bids. < (Grattan): +=+ And is the second one placed next to the 2C card in the box? +=+ From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Aug 2 14:42:30 2010 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (LarryB) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 13:42:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <01F3108D910C4075BFB5FB89C2022375@woe9f427cae481> New one on me. Have never seen that, playing or directing in 30-odd yrs. Does the 2nd one have "alert" on it?? LB LarryB a ?crit : > I too look closely at Grattan's (b). 1C is a single piece of card, right > on > the very edge of the box. It has a certain feel. AG : wrong. Many bidding boxes hold two 1C bids. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Aug 2 14:46:07 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 20:46:07 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> Message-ID: <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... LarryB a ?crit : > I too look closely at Grattan's (b). 1C is a single > piece of card, right on the very edge of the box. > It has a certain feel. AG : wrong. Many bidding boxes hold two 1C bids. < (Grattan): +=+ And is the second one placed next to the 2C card in the box? +=+ Yes - vertically but it would be an uncommon mechanical error bill _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 2 15:12:14 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:12:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C56C42E.1000802@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et > le Verbe c'est Dieu." > ('Les Contemplations'] > .................................................. > For words are The Word, and > The Word is God. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 9:53 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > > > LarryB a ?crit : > >> I too look closely at Grattan's (b). 1C is a single >> piece of card, right on the very edge of the box. >> It has a certain feel. >> > AG : wrong. Many bidding boxes hold two 1C bids. > < > (Grattan): > +=+ And is the second one placed next to the 2C > card in the box? +=+ > > AG : well, I made a Google search on images for "Bidding Box", and most of them showed that 1C is indeed next to 2C. What I meant is that you pick more than one card when you pick 1C. Your argument about the "feel" was once true, but nowadays the "feel" of two 1C cards and the neighbouring 2C pack aren't that dissimilar. Whence I consider the mechanical error a possibility. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 2 15:13:46 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:13:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <01F3108D910C4075BFB5FB89C2022375@woe9f427cae481> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <01F3108D910C4075BFB5FB89C2022375@woe9f427cae481> Message-ID: <4C56C48A.8080506@ulb.ac.be> LarryB a ?crit : > New one on me. Have never seen that, playing or directing in 30-odd yrs. > Does the 2nd one have "alert" on it?? > Would be useful ;-) Really, many BB designs now include two 1C cards, perhaps because it's the most rapidly worn-out card. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 2 15:20:51 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:20:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> Message-ID: <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> Bill & Helen Kemp a ?crit : > +=+ And is the second one placed next to the 2C > card in the box? +=+ > > Yes - vertically > but it would be an uncommon mechanical error > AG : notice that no mechanical error is /a priori /excluded. The preceding player, or yourself, might have mingled the cards. Picking the wrong card because you didn't notice that would be careless, to be sure, but it would still be a mechanical error IMHO. I've seen a player wanting to double pull the 7NT card which had been replaced in the wrong part of the BB. Everyone at the table did agree that there was a mechanical error. It even passes Grattan's "feel" test. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 2 15:19:57 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:19:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <000601cb301d$b6bac770$24305650$@no> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73A! A276A-67EC-4205-806E-75 2A8BF4CBEA@starpower.net> <000001cb2e5b$0ce818b0$26b84a10$@no> <4C5140DD.8090902@ulb.ac.b! e> <000301cb2f01$2d7b5000$8871f00! 0 $@no> <4C52B628.10000 07@skynet.be> <2BF0D0F8-A8F1-439B-8ECF-3E62DEFFEF26@starpower.net> <000601cb301d$b6bac770$24305650$@no> Message-ID: On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > There was a (now) famous incident decades ago when a Director had > to rule if > a player would be allowed to bid 4H after his partner had hesitated > (or some > similar irregularity). > > The Director looked at the player's cards and announced: "In my > opinion he > has a very obvious 4H bid"! "...unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in whch a call... is made is not in itself an infraction." [L73D1] I take it the opponents were not suggesting that the bidder's partner had hesitated (or some similar irregularity) in a deliberate attempt to communicate UI to his partner, as if so the TD was looking at the wrong hand. This TD mishandled the situation not because he looked at the player's cards per se, but because he decided to make a ruling in the absence of any potential infraction. Moreover, the problem here arose not from the TD's inspecting the player's hand, but rather from his announcing his findings prematurely. He should have ordered that play continue, call me back if... etc. Then if there was a potential infraction, he would presumably have ruled to allow the 4H call on the basis of no LA. Because he would have seen the player's cards previously, had there actually been a potential irregularity that resulted in his being called back to the table he would have known before he got there that he was prepared to rule no LA to 4H. Absolutely nothing would be different as a result of his having seen the evidence and come to this conclusion earlier rather than later, except perhaps a bit of time saved on the second TD call. If handled correctly, where is the possible harm? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Aug 2 15:22:50 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (dalburn at btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 13:22:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> Message-ID: <1814986093-1280755348-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-231178591-@bda013.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> The notion may be that removing two 1C cards is sufficient evidence that the player really did intend to open 2C. David Burn London, England Sent from my BlackBerry? wireless device -----Original Message----- From: "Grattan" Sender: blml-bounces at rtflb.org Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 13:37:10 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... LarryB a ?crit : > I too look closely at Grattan's (b). 1C is a single > piece of card, right on the very edge of the box. > It has a certain feel. AG : wrong. Many bidding boxes hold two 1C bids. < (Grattan): +=+ And is the second one placed next to the 2C card in the box? +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 2 15:28:12 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:28:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <1814986093-1280755348-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-231178591-@bda013.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <1814986093-1280755348-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-231178591-@bda013.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <4C56C7EC.2050304@ulb.ac.be> dalburn at btopenworld.com a ?crit : > The notion may be that removing two 1C cards is sufficient evidence that the player really did intend to open 2C. > Not quite, because it's easier to remove them both anyway. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 2 15:34:20 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:34:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> Message-ID: <335A72CDADEF47DCBF5ADD71211483A6@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... LarryB a ?crit : > I too look closely at Grattan's (b). 1C is a single > piece of card, right on the very edge of the box. > It has a certain feel. AG : wrong. Many bidding boxes hold two 1C bids. < (Grattan): +=+ And is the second one placed next to the 2C card in the box? +=+ Yes - vertically but it would be an uncommon mechanical error bill < +=+ No doubt it reflects the cynicism born of many years listening to improbable assertions made before appeals committees. However, readers will have sensed my scepticism upon hearing that a player who has a 1C bidding card on the table tells me he thought he was pulling out a 2C bid. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 2 15:35:20 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:35:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <141FD610-DFF2-4902-9E26-BA4EEDB91CFB@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jul 30, 2010, at 7:03 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Jul 28, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Grattan wrote: >> >>> Given that TFLB does not expressly forbid looking >>> at the infractor's hand, I would argue that if doing so >>> is the only way the TD can "determine the facts to >>> his satisfaction", L85 mandates that he look. L85A1 >>> requires the TD to rule "in accordance with the weight >>> of the evidence he is able to collect", not "...the >>> evidence he chooses to collect". The option Grattan >>> speaks of is available only if he "is unable to >>> determine the facts" [L85B], not if he is able but >>> declines to do so. >>> >>> +=+ In this Eric you are begging the question. The >>> meaning of 'able' is undefined and (see above) in >>> the dictionary it is wide-ranging. What the Director >>> is "able" to do is a function of the manner in which, >>> by training and regime, he is required to perform >>> his duties. We have two schools of thought here >>> on the subject and what he is "able" to do in your >>> concept, or the concept of the ambience in which >>> you play, he is not "able" to do where the second >>> concept prevails. >> >> I accept this as reflecting the current reality, but >> I would still appreciate someone pointing me to >> something -- anything -- in TFLB which might provide >> a legal justification for this "second concept". >> >> Obviously, some competent TDs are committed to >> the idea that they should never look at an infractor's >> hand in the course of making a ruling, and I hope to >> gain some insight as to where it came from. > > > +=+ 1. Not necessarily "never". They may have been taught > in RA seminars only to look in specific circumstances. I got that. I still hope, perhaps futilely, to gain some insight as to where it came from. What defines the circumstances under which one either may or must not look? What is the rationale behind the distinction? > 2. As to the position in law, I regard the law currently > as neutral in the matter; "able" in Law 85A1 is not > defined either way and case by case the Director's > opportunity* to gather evidence from an inspection > of a player's cards may or may not be denied him by > the manner in which he is taught/required to proceed > by the Regulating Authority. Has any RA that has denied its TDs the opportunity to gather this particular piece of evidence by the manner in which he is taught/ required to proceed ever explained its rationale for doing so? If so, can someone out there pass it on to the rest of us? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 2 15:49:35 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:49:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> Message-ID: On Aug 1, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" > >> So the law could be paraphrased as "no pause >> for thought to decide whether or not to change >> the bid". Or the phrase could simply be dropped >> from the laws. > > +=+ It could perhaps be phrased "pause for > reconsideration". +=+ The thread case suggests that the problem is that the word "pause" doesn't reflect the actual intent of the law. Perhaps "without pause for thought" should simply be changed to "without reconsideration". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 2 16:11:28 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:11:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C55E23C.30909@nhcc.net> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> <000901cb2e4c$71b65cc0$55231640$@no> <8CCA8273-8E0F-4AEA-B3CC-F02C0001601F@starpower.net> <4C55E23C.30909@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <3E8CB140-AAEA-447B-A2F2-0A667287ADC7@starpower.net> On Aug 1, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 7/28/2010 10:49 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Consider four variations of >> this scenario: At tables #1 and #3, North, who knows and understands >> L27, can deduce from the nature of the permitted replacement call, or >> lack thereof, that South's IB must have been meant to shown hearts. >> At tables #2 and #4, North lacks sufficient knowledge of the laws to >> make this deduction. At tables #1 and #2, the TD is called >> immediately without problem, but at tables #3 and #4 South >> (improperly but innocently) blurts out a comment that clearly reveals >> to all that the IB was intended to show hearts before the TD can >> arrive. > > Unlike Alain (I think it was), I don't see why the rulings at tables 3 > and 4 should be the same as at tables 1 and 2. Souths at 3/4 have > done > something they shouldn't have (blurting out a comment), and it seems > fair for the ruling to take account of that. However, I agree with > Eric > that detailed knowledge of the Laws shouldn't be a factor, and I'd > argue > that "explained all matters" in L9B2 tends to support our shared > position. I don't necessarily disagree with differentiating the rulings (I have no firm position on this), but, as North #3's advocate, I would argue that there has been no infraction unless he has taken advantage of the UI from South's remark, and he can point out that North #1, with the identical prior knowledge and no exposure to UI, was able to arrive at the same conclusion without difficulty based entirely on AI. Should he be put at a disadvantage just because partner redundantly provided him with the same information that was subsequently made available to him by the TD? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 2 16:21:49 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:21:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: References: <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <000901cb2db9$5c983630$15c8a290$@no> <73A! A276A-67EC-4205-806E-75 2A8BF4CBEA@starpower.net> <000001cb2e5b$0ce818b0$26b84a10$@no> <4C5140DD.8090902@ulb.ac.b! e> <000301cb2f01$2d7b5000$8871f00! 0 $@no> <4C52B628.10000 07@skynet.be> <2BF0D0F8-A8F1-439B-8ECF-3E62DEFFEF26@starpower.net> <000601cb301d$b6bac770$24305650$@no> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:19:57 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> There was a (now) famous incident decades ago when a Director had >> to rule if >> a player would be allowed to bid 4H after his partner had hesitated >> (or some >> similar irregularity). >> >> The Director looked at the player's cards and announced: "In my >> opinion he >> has a very obvious 4H bid"! > > "...unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in whch a call... is > made is not in itself an infraction." [L73D1] > > I take it the opponents were not suggesting that the bidder's partner > had hesitated (or some similar irregularity) in a deliberate attempt > to communicate UI to his partner, as if so the TD was looking at the > wrong hand. > > This TD mishandled the situation not because he looked at the > player's cards per se, but because he decided to make a ruling in the > absence of any potential infraction. > > Moreover, the problem here arose not from the TD's inspecting the > player's hand, but rather from his announcing his findings > prematurely. He should have ordered that play continue, call me back > if... etc. Then if there was a potential infraction, he would > presumably have ruled to allow the 4H call on the basis of no LA. > > Because he would have seen the player's cards previously, had there > actually been a potential irregularity that resulted in his being > called back to the table he would have known before he got there that > he was prepared to rule no LA to 4H. Absolutely nothing would be > different as a result of his having seen the evidence and come to > this conclusion earlier rather than later, except perhaps a bit of > time saved on the second TD call. If handled correctly, where is the > possible harm? While I am no fan of the "unwritten law" not to look at a players cards, I think there is value in the advice to avoid looking. When a director looks at a players hand, he acquires information unauthorized to the other players. The problem then comes if he says or does anything to reveal that information, including subtle nonverbal stuff. So as a general rule, especially for most directors, it makes sense to try not to look at a hand. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 2 16:24:27 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:24:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Obscure reading of the Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 1, 2010, at 11:24 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > WBF Code of Practice 2008, page 6: > > "A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of > ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions > of the laws in respect of conduct. A player who has > conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject > to criticism." > > Matthew McManus, ABDA Bulletin 46, page 7: > > [snip] > > I was relating this story to another director and > he told of a similar scenario, which occurred in > an international tournament. Declarer was in 7NT > and down to the last few cards, with just AKJ of > clubs in hand and the lead in dummy. His decision > was whether to finesse the jack or play for the > drop. When he called for a club from dummy, his > right hand opponent played the queen, solving all > his problems. He made some comment like, "That > was lucky" and started to face his hand. > Unfortunately for him the CJ was the first card > to touch the table. > > The opponents now called the director, > demanding that he be required to play the jack to > this trick. Unbelievably the ruling was in favour > of the defenders. Bad rulings such as this, no > matter how much they might be able to be justified > by some obscure reading of the laws, just > encourage a confrontational atmosphere at the > table, with players using whatever means they > can to win. This is another case where it would > have been hoped the defenders would just put > the cards away and write down -2220, as any > reasonable person would. The director should > not have been involved. > > As directors, I think we should all be doing our > utmost to ensure that we enforce the underused > Law 74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any > remark or action that ... might interfere with the > enjoyment of the game." These examples of > extreme bad sportsmanship are exactly what must > be eliminated from the game if it is to continue > and prosper. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and no. > > Yes, in my opinion, Law 74A2 is the most important > of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. > > No, in my opinion, the enormous scope that Matthew > McManus argues Law 74A2 has is an obscure reading > of Law 74A2. > > Law 74A2's remit is requiring politeness to all > three opponents. Law 74A2 does not invalidate an > otherwise legal action. For example: > > (a) if dealer holds a weak hand with seven spades, > > and > > (b) dealer therefore opens the bidding with 3S, > > then > > (c) dealer's LHO may find their enjoyment of the > game interfered with, > > since > > (d) LHO may have been savouring the prospect of > opening a strong 1C with a subsequent uncontested > Symmetric Relay auction to scientifically decide > between game and slam. > > Thus in the case related by Matthew McManus there > was a factual dispute and it was entirely proper - > not an infraction of Law 74A2 - for the Director > to be summoned to resolve the factual dispute. > > The international Director had to decide whether > the jack of clubs was a played card (Law 45A) or > whether the jack of clubs was the first part of a > claim (Law 68). > > On the information provided by Matthew McManus I > believe that the international Director gave a > correct ruling without any obscure reading of the > Laws. > > Law 68, first sentence of prologue plus footnote: > > "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or > concession of tricks under these Laws, it must > refer to tricks other than one currently in > progress*. > * If the statement or action pertains only to the > winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently > in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed > or revealed by a defender do not become penalty > cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may > apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play." > > Richard Hills: > > The Law 68C statement "I have the rest of the > tricks" is not identical in meaning to a Law 68 > prologue and footnote statement "That was lucky". > > Another straw in the wind for the international > Director is that claims usually involve a flip of > the wrist to simultaneously expose all cards, > but playing cards usually involves depositing just > one card on the table. > > However, I imagine that the decisive factor for the > international Director was that the cleverest of > people can do the stupidest of things (for example, > for a few hours this morning I was panicking that I > had lost my wallet, until a friend discovered that I > had stupidly left it in the back seat of his car). > > The international Director knew full well that the > balance of probabilities was that an international > player intended to finesse the jack, noticed the > queen appear from RHO, routinely continued to play > the originally intended jack, then self-deludingly > argued that the jack was not a played card but a > claimed card. > > What's the problem? The problem is that Richard appears to have misread his own citation. This declarer, as Mr. McManus relates the facts, did not "deposit[] just one card on the table", nor did he "continue[] to play the originally intended jack". He "started to face his hand" and was clearly doing so, which patently consitutes a claim per L68A. The ruling appears to have been based on the fact that as he lay down his remaining cards the jack was the first to come into physical contact with the table. That would be every bit as egregious a ruling as Mr. McManus has suggested. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 2 16:27:24 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:27:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 02:25:12 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et > le Verbe c'est Dieu." > ('Les Contemplations'] > .................................................. > For words are The Word, and > The Word is God. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 3:26 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > > >> So the law could be paraphrased as "no pause >> for thought to decide whether or not to change >> the bid". Or the phrase could simply be dropped >> from the laws. > < > +=+ It could perhaps be phrased "pause for > reconsideration". +=+ I think that if a player was reconsidering whether or not to call the director, or reconsidering whether or not to admit to his inadvertant bid, that directors would not count that as "pause for thought". Again, as far as I can see, pause for thought is only used to rule out changes when the director feels the first bid was not inadvertent. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 2 16:28:47 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:28:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Aug 2, 2010, at 4:53 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > LarryB a ?crit : > >> I too look closely at Grattan's (b). 1C is a single piece of card, >> right on >> the very edge of the box. It has a certain feel. > > AG : wrong. Many bidding boxes hold two 1C bids. Besides, it takes some amount of experience with a particular style of bidding box to develop an instinctive recognition of that "certain feel". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 2 16:31:17 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:31:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <4C568729.5060904@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <4C568729.5060904@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 04:51:53 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Volker Walther a ?crit : >> This happened during the club tournament: >> Bidding: >> >> N E S W >> 1NT Pass 1C >> >> West: "Director" >> South: "Whats up?" >> West: "Insufficient bid. The director has to sort this out." >> 5 secs later TD arrives. >> TD: "what has happened?" >> West: "Insufficient bid." >> South: "I wanted to bid Stayman, but I pulled the wrong card" >> >> Decision: >> Law 25A does not apply, because South did not make any immediate attempt >> to replace the unintended bid. There was a pause for thought until the >> TD arrived. >> > AG : the TD will have to ascertain whether this is true. There was a > pause, but I'm not sure that South thought about changing his bid. More > probably, he didn't realize, then decided to let the TD do one's job - > hardly a bad idea. He decided this without any pause for thought? Unlikely. Players are usually going to take at least some time to think about whether or not to call the director. And sometimes they will decide no, but that pause for thought was still there. > What we call "pause for thought" is that the player changed his mind, > not that some time elapsed. Then the rule should say "changed his mind". Right? Except what if I decide not to call the director and then change my mind and decide to call the director about my inadvertent bid. Does that count as a change of mind (aka pause for thought)? > Perhaps even South didn't now about his right of changing the bid. That would certainly lead to a pause. > > If I think it plausible that South mispulled, no matter how many hours > elapsed, I'd allow the 2cbid. I think this fits how directors actually rule. To add to your comment, if you suspected that South did not mispull but had intentionally made that bid but then changed his mind, now pause for thought probably does matter. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 2 16:32:50 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:32:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... I've seen a player wanting to double pull the 7NT card which had been replaced in the wrong part of the BB. Everyone at the table did agree that there was a mechanical error. It even passes Grattan's "feel" test. > +=+ I think we can all agree that it is the opinion of the Director that will determine his ruling, not the perceptions of "everyone at the table". But please understand that I am arguing for a more judicial approach to the resolution of the case. I do not argue that it is wrong to allow the application of Law 25A ; what I argue is that the Director should not junp in too quickly with a judgement and (Law 84D) should lean to support of the non-offending side if he considers there is doubt upon a material point, and I have noted where such doubt could exist. My other observation would be that in calling the Director the opponents give evidence that they feel an irregularity may have occurred. ~ Grattan~ +=+ From bridge at vwalther.de Mon Aug 2 16:56:25 2010 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:56:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C56DC99.1020805@vwalther.de> On 31.07.2010 00:20, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et > le Verbe c'est Dieu." > ('Les Contemplations'] > .................................................. > For words are The Word, and > The Word is God. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Volker Walther" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 10:43 PM > Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > > >> This happened during the club tournament: >> Bidding: >> >> N E S W >> 1NT Pass 1C >> >> West: "Director" >> South: "Whats up?" >> West: "Insufficient bid. The director has to sort this out." >> 5 secs later TD arrives. >> TD: "what has happened?" >> West: "Insufficient bid." >> South: "I wanted to bid Stayman, but I pulled the wrong card" >> >> Decision: >> Law 25A does not apply, because South did not make any immediate attempt >> to replace the unintended bid. There was a pause for thought until the >> TD arrived. >> Laws 9B1(c) and 9B2 do not apply; the specific rule in 25 A overrules >> the general rules of LAW 9. >> South is allowed to correct his according to LAW 27. Since there is no >> bid containing the information of a 1 C opening North is forced to pass. >> >> Everything OK? >> >> >> Greetings, Volker >> > +=+ Please explain why not to allow a sufficient bid > under Law 27B2. > ~ G ~ +=+ Ofcause South was allowed to replace his bid according to 27B2. That's why North is forced to pass. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 2 17:29:54 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:29:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <4C49A767.3070508@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <43394771DA91432EA8874FB8E42C6F12@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 1, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Grattan wrote: > > The thread case suggests that the problem is that the word "pause" > doesn't reflect the actual intent of the law. Perhaps "without pause > for thought" should simply be changed to "without reconsideration". > AG : good point. Reconsideration can be rather quick. < +=+ Hmmm... Why do I now feel that the wheel has turned full circle? Perhaps it is that: (i) thought between a call and a substitution of a different call will be deemed to reflect a player's reconsideration of the original call; (ii) however brief, during reconsideration time will elapse; (iii) an elapse of time is a pause. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 2 18:37:13 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:37:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:32:50 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et > le Verbe c'est Dieu." > ('Les Contemplations'] > .................................................. > For words are The Word, and > The Word is God. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:20 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > > I've seen a player wanting to double pull the 7NT > card which had been replaced in the wrong part > of the BB. > Everyone at the table did agree that there was a > mechanical error. It even passes Grattan's "feel" > test. >> > +=+ I think we can all agree that it is the opinion > of the Director that will determine his ruling, not > the perceptions of "everyone at the table". > But please understand that I am arguing for a > more judicial approach to the resolution of the > case. I do not argue that it is wrong to allow the > application of Law 25A ; what I argue is that the > Director should not junp in too quickly with a > judgement and (Law 84D) should lean to support > of the non-offending side if he considers there is > doubt upon a material point, and I have noted > where such doubt could exist. > My other observation would be that in calling > the Director the opponents give evidence that > they feel an irregularity may have occurred. > ~ Grattan~ +=+ It would help me if it was just standard that no Blackwood response can ever be deemed inadvertent. I used to get way too many calls claiming their Blackwood response was a mispull, when they probably just got their response wrong. It should also be standard that pulls from the wrong part of the box (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 2 23:00:44 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 22:00:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> Message-ID: <2D155A85788C413B90FE0721ADA499DA@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:32:50 -0400, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> **************************************************** >> Skype directory: grattan.endicott >> **************************************************** >> " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et >> le Verbe c'est Dieu." >> ('Les Contemplations'] >> .................................................. >> For words are The Word, and >> The Word is God. >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:20 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... >> >> I've seen a player wanting to double pull the 7NT >> card which had been replaced in the wrong part >> of the BB. >> Everyone at the table did agree that there was a >> mechanical error. It even passes Grattan's "feel" >> test. >>> >> +=+ I think we can all agree that it is the opinion >> of the Director that will determine his ruling, not >> the perceptions of "everyone at the table". >> But please understand that I am arguing for a >> more judicial approach to the resolution of such >> cases. I do not argue that it is wrong to allow the >> application of Law 25A ; what I argue is that the >> Director should not jump in too quickly with a >> judgement and (Law 84D) should lean to support >> of the non-offending side if he considers there is >> doubt upon a material point, and I have noted >> where such doubt could exist. >> My other observation would be that in calling >> the Director the opponents give evidence that >> they feel an irregularity may have occurred. >> ~ Grattan~ +=+ > (Alain) It would help me if it was just standard that no Blackwood response can ever be deemed inadvertent. I used to get way too many calls claiming their Blackwood response was a mispull, when they probably just got their response wrong. It should also be standard that pulls from the wrong part of the box (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed. > +=+ Except possibly for club and equivalent levels of play I think I could be persuaded that Bidding Box regulations should provide that no call where the bidding card is placed and released shall be deemed by the Director to be unintended. (I use 'unintended' to match its use in Law 25A1.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 3 00:36:13 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:36:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Obscure reading of the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <022301cb3212$d427cf50$7c776df0$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: >Play to hand with AKJ, right hand opp played Q. > >Now if declarer says: "this is lucky", and tables all three >cards, with just the J hitting the table first declarer of >course claimed and makes all tricks. > >Richard Hills, as usual long, posting Richard Hills: This will be an unusually shorter (but not succinct) posting. Hans van Staveren: >suggests something else happened. >Declarer was planning to finesse, held the CJ in his hand, >and played it after seeing the CQ. Then said "this is >lucky" and converted his play to a claim. >I agree with RH that if that happened the director ruled >correctly. > >However, given the original post, my guess is the facts >correspond more to my first scenario. But as we all know, >the TD's first and most important duty, is finding out the >facts. "I danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced with the Prince of Wales." Richard Hills: Since Aussie National Director McManus danced with the facts of this case in a similar third-hand way, it was perhaps premature for McManus to derogate the international Director's ruling. But my main critique of McManus is his extraordinary statement that "The Director should not have been involved", and that a notionally legal attempt to seek a ruling from a Director may in fact be illegal "extreme bad sportmanship" which can be sanctioned by Law 74A2. What's the problem? The problem may be that Aussie National Director McManus is a long-standing Director, very familiar with the 1997 Laws which did not define sportsmanship, thus leaving scope for a Director's imagination. Fortunately the 2007 Lawbook does define sportsmanship. Law 72A, second sentence: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100802/f340f4e7/attachment.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 3 01:30:51 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 18:30:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <2D155A85788C413B90FE0721ADA499DA@Mildred> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer><4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <2D155A85788C413B90FE0721ADA499DA@Mildred> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Grattan" Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 16:00 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > > > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et > le Verbe c'est Dieu." > ('Les Contemplations'] > .................................................. > For words are The Word, and > The Word is God. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 5:37 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > > >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:32:50 -0400, Grattan >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Grattan Endicott>> **************************************************** >>> Skype directory: grattan.endicott >>> **************************************************** >>> " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et >>> le Verbe c'est Dieu." >>> ('Les Contemplations'] >>> .................................................. >>> For words are The Word, and >>> The Word is God. >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:20 PM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... >>> >>> I've seen a player wanting to double pull the 7NT >>> card which had been replaced in the wrong part >>> of the BB. >>> Everyone at the table did agree that there was a >>> mechanical error. It even passes Grattan's "feel" >>> test. >>>> >>> +=+ I think we can all agree that it is the opinion >>> of the Director that will determine his ruling, not >>> the perceptions of "everyone at the table". >>> But please understand that I am arguing for a >>> more judicial approach to the resolution of such >>> cases. I do not argue that it is wrong to allow the >>> application of Law 25A ; what I argue is that the >>> Director should not jump in too quickly with a >>> judgement and (Law 84D) should lean to support >>> of the non-offending side if he considers there is >>> doubt upon a material point, and I have noted >>> where such doubt could exist. >>> My other observation would be that in calling >>> the Director the opponents give evidence that >>> they feel an irregularity may have occurred. >>> ~ Grattan~ +=+ >> > (Alain) > It would help me if it was just standard that no > Blackwood response can ever be deemed inadvertent. > I used to get way too many calls claiming their > Blackwood response was a mispull, when they probably > just got their response wrong. It should also be > standard that pulls from the wrong part of the box > (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed. >> > +=+ Except possibly for club and equivalent levels of > play I think I could be persuaded that Bidding Box > regulations should provide that no call where the > bidding card is placed and released shall be deemed > by the Director to be unintended. (I use 'unintended' > to match its use in Law 25A1.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ As attractive as the suggestion is, and, in comparison to what is common practice it is superior in its effect, it is a horrible approach. To explain why, the principle involved is worth examining. Bridge restricts communication between partners by bids and plays in [ostensibly in proper turn]. A player that calls, whether or not at his turn communicates to partner; the same can be said when he creates a mannerism or change in mannerism. From this there are at least two important things to note [a] a player that does more than once such thing has in effect taken more than one turn and [b] there should be consequences for taking effectively more than one turn during a rotation. The question might arise 'are there circumstances where the taking of more than the allotted turn not have consequences?' the circumstance that occurs to me is when it appears that only one turn was taken, or, at least when there is significant confidence that only one turn was taken. Now, consider a player that while lifting the bidding cards states, 'Not this' and then quickly puts the cards on the table and immediately picks up the top 6 cards, returning them to the BB. At this point does it at least appear that the top card represents the call that the player originally intended? I might suggest that there are many who would so wager- and give odds. Yet notice the effect of the proffered standard. That action must be penalized. Returning to the player. Did he communicate with his partner through the original top card? It is unlikely that anyone will be in a position to know, or suspect possibly after suspicious action by pard [as in a secret agreement], but unlikely to know. But if there is a situation that onlookers would have confidence that only one turn was in effect taken, this is it. However, had the player said nothing before the card reached the table would there be doubt concerning the original intention? Probably. Enough to not believe an assertion by the player? I should think yes. Why? Yes, why indeed? Because a player is perfectly capable of watching the bidding cards as they clear the box and compare the requisite card with his intentions forthwith. And when the card is wrong having so compared he is perfectly able to spontaneously do something about it. And a player that waits too long will look like a player that has changed his mind. And a player that looks like he has changed his mind also looks like he has take more than his allotted turn. It should be notable that a player that learns this fact of life will tend to be motivated to pay attention to what he does. Returning again to the proffered standard, it has hopefully been demonstrated that it is possible for an unintended call to reach the table that has strong evidence supporting the status if unintended. Thus, must the baby be thrown out with the bath as the proffered standard requires? Should it not be obvious that the proffered standard focuses upon the wrong object? The unintended status merely is a characteristic that validates the premise of a lack of hand eye coordination while it is the spontaneity of the correction that provides the evidence that one turn [rather than more than one] was taken. And that speaks directly to the matter. As for the proper standard of spontaneity I should think that the length of time for the card to Reach the Table is much longer than is needed for a player to act in treacherous water-. even for the player whose travel time from the box to the table is ? second. And of the player whose travel time is 5 and 10 seconds the limits of spontaneity have long run out after little more than one second. Once again returning the proffered standard take a moment and consider the players that have mispulls. They have gotten their fingers on the wrong card. If they are penalized for first putting their cards on the table and then correct them the alternative is to first return them to the BB and start over. And what are they likely to then do? mispull again. As such the best metric is to finish putting the cards on the table and then correct that pile by removing or adding to it and for this to be possible the standard must not provide the player be penalized for doing so. And one more thing. There is the situation when someone yells, 'FIRE', or summons the TD, or makes an untimely gesture such as reaching for his BB--- thereby distracting the player from noticing his mispull or interrupting his announcement of a his impending correction. It is reasonable for such things to lengthen the time considered to be spontaneous. And notably, the proffered standard binds the player to silence rather than correction. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 3 08:42:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:42:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Not a Law 84D case... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: >From the endless "Not a 25A case..." thread. Grattan Endicott wrote: [snip] > But please understand that I am arguing for a more >judicial approach to the resolution of such cases. I do >not argue that it is wrong to allow the application of >Law 25A; what I argue is that the Director should not >jump in too quickly with a judgement and (Law 84D) >should lean to support of the non-offending side if he >considers there is doubt upon a material point [snip] Law 84D, first sentence: "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side." Law 25A1, significant word: " ... may ... " Richard Hills: Because of the word "may", an unintended call is not an infraction. Nor is a second (intended) call attempted without pause for thought _necessarily_ an infraction. (But of course a second (intended) call could _not necessarily_ be an infraction of Laws 16B, 24B, 24C, 27B, 30A, 30B, 31A2, 31B, 32A, 32B2, 36B, 37B, 38 or 39C.) Thus the Director's Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) decision on whether Law 25A applies is equivalent to the Director deciding the doubtful point whether there are one or two non-offending sides. So I argue that Law 84D is not applicable to a decision about whether or not a side is offending. Rather I argue that Law 84D merely biases the quantum of the adjusted score (and other doubtful points) against an offending side _if and only if_ Law 85 has _first_ been used to rule that that side has committed an infraction. Internal evidence suggests that Law 85 is a primary Law, while Law 84 (in general) and Law 84D (in particular) is merely a secondary Law. Law 85A2: "If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84." Law 85A2, significant word: " ... then ... " Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100803/8fc82349/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 3 09:59:02 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:59:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <43394771DA91432EA8874FB8E42C6F12@Mildred> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <4C49A767.3070508@ulb.ac.be> <43394771DA91432EA8874FB8E42C6F12@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C57CC46.30806@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et > le Verbe c'est Dieu." > ('Les Contemplations'] > .................................................. > For words are The Word, and > The Word is God. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 3:29 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > > > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> On Aug 1, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Grattan wrote: >> >> > > >> The thread case suggests that the problem is that the word "pause" >> doesn't reflect the actual intent of the law. Perhaps "without pause >> for thought" should simply be changed to "without reconsideration". >> >> > AG : good point. Reconsideration can be rather quick. > < > +=+ Hmmm... Why do I now feel that the wheel has > turned full circle? Perhaps it is that: > (i) thought between a call and a substitution of a > different call will be deemed to reflect a player's > reconsideration of the original call; > (ii) however brief, during reconsideration time will > elapse; > (iii) an elapse of time is a pause. > AG : perhaps. But (i) is the difficult part : you have to decide that the time elapsed was used for re-thinking the bid. Thought is deemed to be re-consideration, but is the player deemed to have thought ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 3 10:04:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:04:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > It would help me if it was just standard that no Blackwood response can > ever be deemed inadvertent. I used to get way too many calls claiming > their Blackwood response was a mispull, when they probably just got their > response wrong. It should also be standard that pulls from the wrong part > of the box (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed. > AG : this doesn't work. It has already happened that a player wanting to make a skip *bid* pulls "X" in lieu of "Stop". And see my previous example, where the 7NT card was lying in the front part.. And remember that some players are unaccustomed to that new generation of BBs where Stop and Alert are behind the bids. I, for one, would very much like to be allowed to judge every case on its specific merits, without having to use standard decision procedures. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 3 10:13:21 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:13:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Obscure reading of the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C57CFA1.307@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > The international Director knew full well that the > balance of probabilities was that an international > player intended to finesse the jack, noticed the > queen appear from RHO, routinely continued to play > the originally intended jack, then self-deludingly > argued that the jack was not a played card but a > claimed card. > > What's the problem? > > AG : I see at least one snag : When declarer said "this is lucky", he obviously meant that all his problems were solved, thereby "making a statement to the effect that the game shall be shortened", that is, a claim. And since no card can be played after a claim, the Jack wasn't played. So how could the TD or AC say the contrary ? And to those stating that a claim is usually made with a specific gesture of the hand : this will often result in one card hitting the table before the others, so what's the difference ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 3 10:15:21 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:15:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Obscure reading of the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C57D019.5040804@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Hans van Staveren: > > >Play to hand with AKJ, right hand opp played Q. > > > >Now if declarer says: "this is lucky", and tables all three > >cards, with just the J hitting the table first declarer of > >course claimed and makes all tricks. > > > >Richard Hills, as usual long, posting > > Richard Hills: > > This will be an unusually shorter (but not succinct) posting. > > Hans van Staveren: > > >suggests something else happened. > >Declarer was planning to finesse, held the CJ in his hand, > >and played it after seeing the CQ. Then said "this is > >lucky" and converted his play to a claim. > >I agree with RH that if that happened the director ruled > >correctly. > > > >However, given the original post, my guess is the facts > >correspond more to my first scenario. But as we all know, > >the TD's first and most important duty, is finding out the > >facts. > > "I danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced with > the Prince of Wales." > > Richard Hills: > > Since Aussie National Director McManus danced with the facts > of this case in a similar third-hand way, it was perhaps > premature for McManus to derogate the international > Director's ruling. > > But my main critique of McManus is his extraordinary > statement that "The Director should not have been involved", > and that a notionally legal attempt to seek a ruling from a > Director may in fact be illegal "extreme bad sportmanship" > which can be sanctioned by Law 74A2. > > What's the problem? > > The problem may be that Aussie National Director McManus is > a long-standing Director, very familiar with the 1997 Laws > which did not define sportsmanship, thus leaving scope for a > Director's imagination. > > Fortunately the 2007 Lawbook does define sportsmanship. > > Law 72A, second sentence: > > "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other > contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and > ethical standards set out in these laws." > AG :and ... is calling the TD to insist that the Jack be played 100% ethical, especially with regard to L74A ? From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 3 10:20:31 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:20:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000f01cb32e4$be5eb080$3b1c1180$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ......... > I, for one, would very much like to be allowed to judge every case on its specific > merits, without having to use standard decision procedures. You are; what prevents you? Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 3 10:25:18 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:25:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a Law 84D case... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C57D26E.3070905@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > From the endless "Not a 25A case..." thread. > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > [snip] > > > But please understand that I am arguing for a more > >judicial approach to the resolution of such cases. I do > >not argue that it is wrong to allow the application of > >Law 25A; what I argue is that the Director should not > >jump in too quickly with a judgement and (Law 84D) > >should lean to support of the non-offending side if he > >considers there is doubt upon a material point > > [snip] > > Law 84D, first sentence: > > "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the > non-offending side." > > Law 25A1, significant word: > > " ... may ... " > > Richard Hills: > > Because of the word "may", an unintended call is not an > infraction. Nor is a second (intended) call attempted > without pause for thought _necessarily_ an infraction. > AG : this is a VERY important point. Most TDs are prone to circular reasoning : "Was there an infraction ? Well, they say that in case of doubt, the balance should go to the NOS, so I decide there was." But in doing so they forget that, in order to have an OS and a NOS, there should already exist an ascertained infraction. In deciding whether there was an infraction, we should NOT use any balance-tipping principle, except where the laws say the contrary (such as in the infamous "could have known" sentence) And in laws that explicitly mention the possibility of the irregularity not being one, we should treat the (only potential) offender like a NOS, that is, give him the benefit of doubt. Yhis is the case of L25. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 3 10:26:48 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:26:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <000f01cb32e4$be5eb080$3b1c1180$@no> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <000f01cb32e4$be5eb080$3b1c1180$@no> Message-ID: <4C57D2C8.9010708@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > ......... > >> I, for one, would very much like to be allowed to judge every case on its >> > specific > >> merits, without having to use standard decision procedures. >> > > You are; what prevents you? > > Well, this was in response to a post suggesting standard decision procedures : "It should also be standard that pulls from the wrong part of the box (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed." From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 3 11:00:27 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:00:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be><000f01cb32e4$be5eb080$3b1c1180$@no> <4C57D2C8.9010708@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > ......... > >> I, for one, would very much like to be allowed to judge every case on its >> > specific > >> merits, without having to use standard decision procedures. >> > You are; what prevents you? > Well, this was in response to a post suggesting standard decision procedures : "It should also be standard that pulls from the wrong part of the box (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed." < +=+ Somehow I think this thread has small outcome. I think I shall delete it entirely. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 3 15:09:49 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:09:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <43394771DA91432EA8874FB8E42C6F12@Mildred> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <4C49A767.3070508@ulb.ac.be> <43394771DA91432EA8874FB8E42C6F12@Mildred> Message-ID: <1EBE22B7-61C9-4361-BF0A-7FBBB5C5B570@starpower.net> On Aug 2, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> On Aug 1, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Grattan wrote: >> >> The thread case suggests that the problem is that the word "pause" >> doesn't reflect the actual intent of the law. Perhaps "without pause >> for thought" should simply be changed to "without reconsideration". > > AG : good point. Reconsideration can be rather quick. > > +=+ Hmmm... Why do I now feel that the wheel has > turned full circle? Perhaps it is that: > (i) thought between a call and a substitution of a > different call will be deemed to reflect a player's > reconsideration of the original call; > (ii) however brief, during reconsideration time will > elapse; > (iii) an elapse of time is a pause. Failure to pause does seem like presumptive evidence of a lack of reconsideration, but the converse isn't necessarily true. A pause is certainly evidence of a possible reconsideration, but the thread case suggests that many of us don't want it to be presumptive. That means that if the director is thoroughly convinced by the evidence the player might offer(*) that the original call was genuinely inadvertent, that there was no reconsideration, he can apply L25A regardless of the player's having paused. (*) Of course, the evidence the player is most likely to offer for the director's consideration is his hand, but let's not cross threads here. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 3 15:15:56 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:15:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> Message-ID: On Aug 2, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > It should also be standard that pulls from the wrong part > of the box (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed. If you are going to do that, you should probably also institute procedural penalties for those traveling pairs who, for example, leave the 1S card in the wrong part of the box when they leave the table. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 3 15:29:20 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:29:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <2D155A85788C413B90FE0721ADA499DA@Mildred> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <2D155A85788C413B90FE0721ADA499DA@Mildred> Message-ID: <7D5E3F55-9F27-4648-855A-FF3EDE689FAA@starpower.net> On Aug 2, 2010, at 5:00 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" > > It would help me if it was just standard that no > Blackwood response can ever be deemed inadvertent. > I used to get way too many calls claiming their > Blackwood response was a mispull, when they probably > just got their response wrong. It should also be > standard that pulls from the wrong part of the box > (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed. > > +=+ Except possibly for club and equivalent levels of > play I think I could be persuaded that Bidding Box > regulations should provide that no call where the > bidding card is placed and released shall be deemed > by the Director to be unintended. (I use 'unintended' > to match its use in Law 25A1.) When (the predecessor of today's) L25A was originally written, it referred to "slips of the tongue". Its application to bid boxes seems anachronistic. A "slip of the tongue" can't be "double- checked" on its way out of a player's mouth. A sensible law that was written for bid boxes would *require* players to inspect the face of the bid card before placing on the table, and not allow it to be changed once it was so placed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 3 15:42:39 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:42:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <1EBE22B7-61C9-4361-BF0A-7FBBB5C5B570@starpower.net> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <4C49A767.3070508@ulb.ac.be> <43394771DA91432EA8874FB8E42C6F12@Mildred> <1EBE22B7-61C9-4361-BF0A-7FBBB5C5B570@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C581CCF.30709@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 2, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Grattan wrote: > > >> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >> >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> >>> On Aug 1, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Grattan wrote: >>> >>> The thread case suggests that the problem is that the word "pause" >>> doesn't reflect the actual intent of the law. Perhaps "without pause >>> for thought" should simply be changed to "without reconsideration". >>> >> AG : good point. Reconsideration can be rather quick. >> >> +=+ Hmmm... Why do I now feel that the wheel has >> turned full circle? Perhaps it is that: >> (i) thought between a call and a substitution of a >> different call will be deemed to reflect a player's >> reconsideration of the original call; >> (ii) however brief, during reconsideration time will >> elapse; >> (iii) an elapse of time is a pause. >> > > Failure to pause does seem like presumptive evidence of a lack of > reconsideration, but the converse isn't necessarily true. A pause is > certainly evidence of a possible reconsideration, but the thread case > suggests that many of us don't want it to be presumptive. That means > that if the director is thoroughly convinced by the evidence the > player might offer(*) that the original call was genuinely > inadvertent, that there was no reconsideration, he can apply L25A > regardless of the player's having paused. > AG : suits me fine. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 3 15:44:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:44:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <7D5E3F55-9F27-4648-855A-FF3EDE689FAA@starpower.net> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <2D155A85788C413B90FE0721ADA499DA@Mildred> <7D5E3F55-9F27-4648-855A-FF3EDE689FAA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C581D44.3090702@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 2, 2010, at 5:00 PM, Grattan wrote: > > >> From: "Robert Frick" >> >> It would help me if it was just standard that no >> Blackwood response can ever be deemed inadvertent. >> I used to get way too many calls claiming their >> Blackwood response was a mispull, when they probably >> just got their response wrong. It should also be >> standard that pulls from the wrong part of the box >> (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed. >> >> +=+ Except possibly for club and equivalent levels of >> play I think I could be persuaded that Bidding Box >> regulations should provide that no call where the >> bidding card is placed and released shall be deemed >> by the Director to be unintended. (I use 'unintended' >> to match its use in Law 25A1.) >> > > When (the predecessor of today's) L25A was originally written, it > referred to "slips of the tongue". Its application to bid boxes > seems anachronistic. A "slip of the tongue" can't be "double- > checked" on its way out of a player's mouth. A sensible law that was > written for bid boxes would *require* players to inspect the face of > the bid card before placing on the table, and not allow it to be > changed once it was so placed. > AG : the cure is worse than the disease. It would open the door to umpteen mannerisms. From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Aug 3 15:44:57 2010 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:44:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C581D59.3090205@vwalther.de> On 03.08.2010 10:04, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >> It would help me if it was just standard that no Blackwood response can >> ever be deemed inadvertent. I used to get way too many calls claiming >> their Blackwood response was a mispull, when they probably just got their >> response wrong. It should also be standard that pulls from the wrong part >> of the box (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed. >> > AG : this doesn't work. It has already happened that a player wanting to > make a skip *bid* pulls "X" in lieu of "Stop". > And see my previous example, where the 7NT card was lying in the front > part.. > And remember that some players are unaccustomed to that new generation > of BBs where Stop and Alert are behind the bids. > > I, for one, would very much like to be allowed to judge every case on > its specific merits, without having to use standard decision procedures. > I think there is indeed a fundamental problem in the original case, arising from the ("but only..." part of the first sentence of LAW 25 A) I think we all do agree the following: 1.) Any unintended bid does not carry information, so it could be replaced by the intended one without any damage. 2.) If a player immediately ("without reconsideration") makes an attempt to substitute a bid it is evident that the first bid was unintended. 3.) There may be cases (the presented one could be one of them) of unintended bids, which do not fall under the ("but only...") clause of sentence one. If that would be not possible, the second half of the first sentence of law 25A1 is obsolete. So we do have to aspects: an inner one, dealing with the intention of the bid that was made first, and an outer one dealing with the behavior of the player. For the TD it is much easier to decide on the outer behavior than on the inner intentions. But I do not think it was a good idea to restrict the appliance of 25A to one special type of evidence. I am not sure that this strong restriction to the behavior of the player is really the thing what 25A is made for. To use Alains words: I would like to judge every case on its specific merits. Volker Walther From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Aug 3 15:45:09 2010 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:45:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de> On 03.08.2010 10:04, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >> It would help me if it was just standard that no Blackwood response can >> ever be deemed inadvertent. I used to get way too many calls claiming >> their Blackwood response was a mispull, when they probably just got their >> response wrong. It should also be standard that pulls from the wrong part >> of the box (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed. >> > AG : this doesn't work. It has already happened that a player wanting to > make a skip *bid* pulls "X" in lieu of "Stop". > And see my previous example, where the 7NT card was lying in the front > part.. > And remember that some players are unaccustomed to that new generation > of BBs where Stop and Alert are behind the bids. > > I, for one, would very much like to be allowed to judge every case on > its specific merits, without having to use standard decision procedures. > I think there is indeed a fundamental problem in the original case, arising from the ("but only..." part of the first sentence of LAW 25 A) I think we all do agree the following: 1.) Any unintended bid does not carry information, so it could be replaced by the intended one without any damage. 2.) If a player immediately ("without reconsideration") makes an attempt to substitute a bid it is evident that the first bid was unintended. 3.) There may be cases (the presented one could be one of them) of unintended bids, which do not fall under the ("but only...") clause of sentence one. If that would be not possible, the second half of the first sentence of law 25A1 is obsolete. So we do have to aspects: an inner one, dealing with the intention of the bid that was made first, and an outer one dealing with the behavior of the player. For the TD it is much easier to decide on the outer behavior than on the inner intentions. But I do not think it was a good idea to restrict the appliance of 25A to one special type of evidence. I am not sure that this strong restriction to the behavior of the player is really the thing what 25A is made for. To use Alain's words: I would like to judge every case on its specific merits. Volker Walther From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 3 16:45:00 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:45:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Volker Walther" Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 08:45 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > On 03.08.2010 10:04, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> It would help me if it was just standard that no Blackwood response can >>> ever be deemed inadvertent. I used to get way too many calls claiming >>> their Blackwood response was a mispull, when they probably just got >>> their >>> response wrong. It should also be standard that pulls from the wrong >>> part >>> of the box (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed. >>> >> AG : this doesn't work. It has already happened that a player wanting to >> make a skip *bid* pulls "X" in lieu of "Stop". >> And see my previous example, where the 7NT card was lying in the front >> part.. >> And remember that some players are unaccustomed to that new generation >> of BBs where Stop and Alert are behind the bids. >> >> I, for one, would very much like to be allowed to judge every case on >> its specific merits, without having to use standard decision procedures. >> > > > I think there is indeed a fundamental problem in the original case, > arising from the ("but only..." part of the first sentence of LAW 25 A) > > I think we all do agree the following: > 1.) Any unintended bid does not carry information, so it could be > replaced by the intended one without any damage. Decreeing it does not make it so, particularly when the something is false. > 2.) If a player immediately ("without reconsideration") makes an attempt > to substitute a bid it is evident that the first bid was unintended. Decreeing it does not make it so, particularly when the something is false. AI from one's calls necessarily must arise solely from the legal auction. As I purported elsewhere it is conceivable [while unlikely] for a pair [together or separately, intentionally or more likely subconsciously] to contrive to use L25A corrections to convey information via multiple calls during a single turn to call. regards roger pewick > 3.) There may be cases (the presented one could be one of them) of > unintended bids, which do not fall under the ("but only...") clause of > sentence one. If that would be not possible, the second half of the > first sentence of law 25A1 is obsolete. > > So we do have to aspects: an inner one, dealing with the intention of > the bid that was made first, and an outer one dealing with the behavior > of the player. > > For the TD it is much easier to decide on the outer behavior than on the > inner intentions. But I do not think it was a good idea to restrict the > appliance of 25A to one special type of evidence. > I am not sure that this strong restriction to the behavior of the player > is really the thing what 25A is made for. > > To use Alain's words: I would like to judge every case on its specific > merits. > > Volker Walther From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Aug 3 17:41:12 2010 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:41:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <4C583898.9060001@vwalther.de> On 03.08.2010 16:45, Roger Pewick wrote: > > Decreeing it does not make it so, particularly when the something is false. > > AI from one's calls necessarily must arise solely from the legal auction. > As I purported elsewhere it is conceivable [while unlikely] for a pair > [together or separately, intentionally or more likely subconsciously] to > contrive to use L25A corrections to convey information via multiple calls > during a single turn to call. > Agree, this is possible. But I would not consider this kind of action to be substitution of an unintended call. Subconsciousness implies the existence of consciousness ;) This would require rethinking on insufficient calls, too. Moreover these actions are infractions of 72B1. So we still have the possibility to sort these elements out. reagrds Volker Walther From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Aug 3 20:43:09 2010 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <7D5E3F55-9F27-4648-855A-FF3EDE689FAA@starpower.net> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <2D155A85788C413B90FE0721ADA499DA@Mildred> <7D5E3F55-9F27-4648-855A-FF3EDE689FAA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <699709.22218.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Eric Landau] A sensible law that was written for bid boxes would *require* players to inspect the face of the bid card before placing on the table, and not allow it to be changed once it was so placed. [Nigel] That would delight players with more consistent and sensible rulings :) Unfortunately, however, it has little chance of becoming law because ... :( It might help to level the global playing field. :( It could reduce discretion of directors to go with their judgement, and :( It would restrict endless debate on the meaning of relevant current legislation. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 3 22:18:04 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:18:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <4C581D44.3090702@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <2D155A85788C413B90FE0721ADA499DA@Mildred> <7D5E3F55-9F27-4648-855A-FF3EDE689FAA@starpower.net> <4C581D44.3090702@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Aug 3, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> When (the predecessor of today's) L25A was originally written, it >> referred to "slips of the tongue". Its application to bid boxes >> seems anachronistic. A "slip of the tongue" can't be "double- >> checked" on its way out of a player's mouth. A sensible law that was >> written for bid boxes would *require* players to inspect the face of >> the bid card before placing on the table, and not allow it to be >> changed once it was so placed. > > AG : the cure is worse than the disease. It would open the door to > umpteen mannerisms. Such as? I've merely suggested that the law require a practice -- double-checking the face of a bid card before laying it on the table -- that today is officially encouraged and widely practiced (quite sensibly, IMO). I fail to see how it would "open the door to" any new mannerisms not equally available under current practice. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 3 22:25:40 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:25:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net> On Aug 3, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Roger Pewick wrote: > AI from one's calls necessarily must arise solely from the legal > auction. > As I purported elsewhere it is conceivable [while unlikely] for a pair > [together or separately, intentionally or more likely > subconsciously] to > contrive to use L25A corrections to convey information via multiple > calls > during a single turn to call. The notion that a pair might subconsciously(!) "contrive" to use L25A corrections to convey information via multiple calls during a single turn strikes me as even more paranoid than Roger's usual argument that we should adapt the lawbook to deal with our being surrounded by cheaters. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 4 01:12:09 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:12:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Obscure reading of the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C57D019.5040804@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Law 72A, second sentence: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Alain Gottcheiner: >AG: and ... is calling the TD to insist that the Jack be >played 100% ethical, especially with regard to L74A ? Law 74B5 - Etiquette: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants." Richard Hills: If a player courteously summons the Director, that is not necessarily an infraction (Law 20F5(b) and Law 43A1(a) are exceptions to this general rule). If a player courteously requests the Director to resolve a disputed fact, then that is 100% ethical with regard to Law 74A. Law 74A3 states: "Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing. and summoning the Director to resolve a disputed fact is correct procedure, as clearly stated in Law 10A: "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive - see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative." But I agree that if a partnership insists that the Director _must_ rule in their favour, that partnership's insistence is clearly addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to her, and thus is an infraction of Law 74B5. Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100803/093b382a/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 4 01:17:01 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:17:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de> <7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net> Message-ID: Okay. What would be an example of where you would not allow change of an inadvertent bid because there had been a pause for thought? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 4 02:17:56 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 10:17:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Not a Law 84D case... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C57D26E.3070905@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : this is a VERY important point. > >Most TDs are prone to circular reasoning : >"Was there an infraction ? Well, they say that in case of >doubt, the balance should go to the NOS, so I decide >there was." >But in doing so they forget that, in order to have an OS >and a NOS, there should already exist an ascertained >infraction. > >In deciding whether there was an infraction, we should >NOT use any balance-tipping principle, except where the >laws say the contrary (such as in the infamous "could >have known" sentence) Richard Hills: Quibble. For both Law 23 ("could have been aware") and Law 73F ("could have known") rulings, the prior existence of an infraction has already been determined. Balance- tipping applies merely to whether the Director awards a consequential adjusted score. Alain Gottcheiner: >And in laws that explicitly mention the possibility of >the irregularity not being one, we should treat the >(only potential) offender like a NOS, that is, give him >the benefit of doubt. Richard Hills: No. The "benefit of doubt" concept, while part of Law 84D (Rulings on Agreed Facts - Director's Option), is _not_ part of Law 85B (Rulings on Disputed Facts - Facts Not Determined): "If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue." Alain Gottcheiner: >This is the case of L25. Richard Hills: David W Stevenson is a highly capable Director, so when the facts are disputed DWS is almost always able to rule under Law 85A. But on the very rare occasions DWS rules under Law 85B, DWS uses the default of ruling against the pair who caused the problem. So in a Law 85B ruling about whether Law 25A (Unintended Call) or Law 25B (Call Intended) applied, Alain would legally rule for Law 25A and DWS would equally legally rule for Law 25B. Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100804/aa9f2983/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 4 03:19:22 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 11:19:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 73D (was Is a sorted...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>>> ... Deliberately creating extraneous information is >>>>a violation of law, ... 73A2 and 73D Robert Frick: >>>I think that if I have a difficult play to make, in >>>the bidding or play, that it is legal for me to think >>>about it. That's deliberately creating extraneous >>>information, right? Richard Hills: >>Wrong. That is _unintentionally_ creating extraneous >>information as an incidental byproduct of the difficult >>play. "Bridge is a thinking game." Robert Frick: >Hi Richard. Sometimes, in a competitive auction, I try >to think what to do. I realize I am creating UI that I >have extra values. And I decide it is more important >for me to make a good decision about what to do than to >(1) bid in tempo, (2) not create UI, and (3) leave my >partner free to do whatever he wants. > >QED. > >Maybe you want to argue that I can't have the *goal* of >creating UI. While I am knowingly creating UI, that is >not my goal. I think that would be right. Richard Hills: Yes, it seems that Robert and Sven and I now agree. If one holds extra values and one also has a very hard choice of call, taking the time to analyse which call is correct "is not in itself an infraction" under Law 73D1, but restricts an equally ethical partner's choice amongst logical alternatives. If one holds extra values, but one also has a very easy choice of call, making that call in tempo is legal, but hesitating with the goal of showing those extra values to an equally unethical partner is illegal. This, as Sven Pran noted above, would be an "undue hesitation" infraction of Law 73A2. Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100804/8ccbcaf1/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 4 03:47:15 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:47:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <2D155A85788C413B90FE0721ADA499DA@Mildred> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <2D155A85788C413B90FE0721ADA499DA@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C58C6A3.2010301@nhcc.net> On 8/2/2010 5:00 PM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ Except possibly for club and equivalent levels of > play I think I could be persuaded that Bidding Box > regulations should provide that no call where the > bidding card is placed and released shall be deemed > by the Director to be unintended. (I use 'unintended' > to match its use in Law 25A1.) Old-timers may remember that David Stevenson and I liked to disagree with each other, but one thing we agreed on was how L25 should be modified. We thought there ought to be a moment when a call is "made," and prior to that moment it could be changed for any reason whatsoever whereas after that moment it could not be changed at all absent abnormal circumstances (such as MI). We even agreed further that a suitable moment when using bidding cards would be analogous to when declarer's card is played ("laid on the table or..."). If such a simplification were made, I think the biggest benefit would be at club level. Oddly enough, David and I also agreed on what L27 should say. The WBFLC, though, disagreed with us in both matters. Maybe that will change in 2018. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 4 03:55:21 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:55:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <3E8CB140-AAEA-447B-A2F2-0A667287ADC7@starpower.net> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> <000901cb2e4c$71b65cc0$55231640$@no> <8CCA8273-8E0F-4AEA-B3CC-F02C0001601F@starpower.net> <4C55E23C.30909@nhcc.net> <3E8CB140-AAEA-447B-A2F2-0A667287ADC7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C58C889.6050204@nhcc.net> On 8/2/2010 10:11 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > ...there has been no infraction unless he has taken advantage of > the UI from South's remark, and he can point out that North #1, with > the identical prior knowledge and no exposure to UI, was able to > arrive at the same conclusion without difficulty based entirely on > AI. The difference between #1 and #3 comes about because of L16A1d. North #1 knew the details of the Laws before he took his hand from the board, and this information was AI. North #3 (according to your example) lacked that knowledge. So _if_ the TD is not supposed to reveal what South was thinking, there is a basis for a different ruling. You would have the same situation if two players like to finesse towards the bathtub, but only one of them knew where the bathtub is before taking his hand from the board. The second one is not allowed to find out from partner (or a spectator, for that matter). From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Aug 4 06:04:51 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:04:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Not a Law 84D case... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4C57D26E.3070905@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <201008040405.o7445JAE032328@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> I hope that it is not my eyes, but it seems that Richard is fading away on my screen. Perhaps some of our government's cost saving measures. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) At 10:17 AM 4/08/2010, you wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner: > > >AG : this is a VERY important point. > > > >Most TDs are prone to circular reasoning : > >"Was there an infraction ? Well, they say that in case of > >doubt, the balance should go to the NOS, so I decide > >there was." > >But in doing so they forget that, in order to have an OS > >and a NOS, there should already exist an ascertained > >infraction. > > > >In deciding whether there was an infraction, we should > >NOT use any balance-tipping principle, except where the > >laws say the contrary (such as in the infamous "could > >have known" sentence) > >Richard Hills: > >Quibble. For both Law 23 ("could have been aware") and >Law 73F ("could have known") rulings, the prior existence >of an infraction has already been determined. Balance- >tipping applies merely to whether the Director awards a >consequential adjusted score. > >Alain Gottcheiner: > > >And in laws that explicitly mention the possibility of > >the irregularity not being one, we should treat the > >(only potential) offender like a NOS, that is, give him > >the benefit of doubt. > >Richard Hills: > >No. > >The "benefit of doubt" concept, while part of Law 84D >(Rulings on Agreed Facts - Director's Option), is _not_ >part of Law 85B (Rulings on Disputed Facts - Facts Not >Determined): > >"If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his >satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to >continue." > >Alain Gottcheiner: > > >This is the case of L25. > >Richard Hills: > >David W Stevenson is a highly capable Director, so when >the facts are disputed DWS is almost always able to rule >under Law 85A. But on the very rare occasions DWS rules >under Law 85B, DWS uses the default of ruling against >the pair who caused the problem. > >So in a Law 85B ruling about whether Law 25A (Unintended >Call) or Law 25B (Call Intended) applied, Alain would >legally rule for Law 25A and DWS would equally legally >rule for Law 25B. > > >Best wishes > >R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 >02 6223 8453 >richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au >Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > >--------------------------------------------------------------------Important >Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise >the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, >including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >privileged >and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination >or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy >policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: >http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100804/11aae884/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Aug 4 06:09:40 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:09:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de> <7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 09:17 AM 4/08/2010, you wrote: >Okay. What would be an example of where you would not allow change of an >inadvertent bid because there had been a pause for thought? >_______________________________________________ Canonical example. Partner opens 1NT and you bid 2D (transfer). While partner is explaining your bid, he passes (inadvertently). Too bad, even if he sees his error without pause for thought. Cheers, Tony >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 4 06:26:54 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 14:26:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] I Heart Huckabees [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: T-shirt worn by some young Canberra experts: I Diamond Transfers Steve Willner: >Old-timers may remember that David Stevenson and I liked >to disagree with each other, Richard Hills: Both new-timers and old-timers may remember that I heart to disagree with Steve Willner and Jerry Fusselman. Unfortunately my disagreements with those two gentlemen were sometimes expressed in an over-the-top style of reductio ad absurdum attempted humour, thus those posts were justifiably misinterpreted as ad hominem attacks. While ad hominem attacks were not my purpose - as I intended to satirise theories, not the theorists - I will avoid careless words in future, instead couching my satire in more subtle language a la Grattan Endicott. If, of course, I have a future. I heart heart surgery. On Monday I will have minor heart surgery at Sydney's Westmead Hospital. Fortunately my surgeon has advised me that for this particular type of heart surgery the chance of death is a miniscule 0.3%. I like those odds of a bad break. But I will break from blml for at least two weeks while I am recuperating. Steve Willner: >but one thing we agreed on was how L25 should be >modified. We thought there ought to be a moment when a >call is "made," and prior to that moment it could be >changed for any reason whatsoever whereas after that >moment it could not be changed at all absent abnormal >circumstances (such as MI). We even agreed further >that a suitable moment when using bidding cards would >be analogous to when declarer's card is played ("laid >on the table or..."). ABF Bidding Regulations 2010: 3.5 A call is considered made (without screens) when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or maintained in such a position as to indicate that the call has been made. Richard Hills: While this ABF regulation is written as Steve Willner prefers, the ABF regulation has a different objective. It distinguishes between "a bidding box card which is waved around for creation of UI only" and "a bidding box card which is played as a call". But Law 25 is still required to distinguish between "a bidding box card which is played as an intended call" and "a bidding box card which is played as an unintended call". Steve Willner: >If such a simplification were made, I think the biggest >benefit would be at club level..... Richard Hills: I heart to disagree with Steve Willner. If such a simplification were made, I think the biggest complaints would be at club level. Aussie bridge clubs are gradually changing from written bidding (which, due to its nature, has few Law 25A rulings) to bidding boxes (which, due to its nature, has many Law 25A rulings). Aussie LOLs would be justifiably outraged at a 2018 Law 25A which prevents them from retracting a never-intended call and results in them declaring a non-bridge contract. Even their opponents may well be embarassed to receive such a random top. Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100804/52899a75/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Aug 4 07:57:09 2010 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:57:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] I Heart Huckabees [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201008040557.o745v91O024986@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 02:26 PM 4/08/2010, you wrote: >T-shirt worn by some young Canberra experts: >I Diamond Transfers > >Steve Willner: > > >Old-timers may remember that David Stevenson and I liked > >to disagree with each other, > >Richard Hills: > >Both new-timers and old-timers may remember that I heart >to disagree with Steve Willner and Jerry Fusselman. > >Unfortunately my disagreements with those two gentlemen >were sometimes expressed in an over-the-top style of >reductio ad absurdum attempted humour, thus those posts >were justifiably misinterpreted as ad hominem attacks. > >While ad hominem attacks were not my purpose - as I >intended to satirise theories, not the theorists - I will >avoid careless words in future, instead couching my >satire in more subtle language a la Grattan Endicott. Please be careful. Grattan has been known to use irony. It will just inflame things if you seek to deploy this weapon against denizens of the USA. Cheers, Tony (Sydney). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100804/82617389/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 4 11:22:35 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:22:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <4C581D59.3090205@vwalther.de> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D59.3090205@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <4C59315B.7060602@ulb.ac.be> Volker Walther a ?crit : > On 03.08.2010 10:04, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >>> It would help me if it was just standard that no Blackwood response can >>> ever be deemed inadvertent. I used to get way too many calls claiming >>> their Blackwood response was a mispull, when they probably just got their >>> response wrong. It should also be standard that pulls from the wrong part >>> of the box (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed. >>> >>> >> AG : this doesn't work. It has already happened that a player wanting to >> make a skip *bid* pulls "X" in lieu of "Stop". >> And see my previous example, where the 7NT card was lying in the front >> part.. >> And remember that some players are unaccustomed to that new generation >> of BBs where Stop and Alert are behind the bids. >> >> I, for one, would very much like to be allowed to judge every case on >> its specific merits, without having to use standard decision procedures. >> >> > > > I think there is indeed a fundamental problem in the original case, > arising from the ("but only..." part of the first sentence of LAW 25 A) > > I think we all do agree the following: > 1.) Any unintended bid does not carry information, so it could be > replaced by the intended one without any damage. > > 2.) If a player immediately ("without reconsideration") makes an attempt > to substitute a bid it is evident that the first bid was unintended. > > 3.) There may be cases (the presented one could be one of them) of > unintended bids, which do not fall under the ("but only...") clause of > sentence one. AG : it says "but only if there was no pause for thought". This means that there mght be a pause for other reasons (if only to apologize) ; one shouldn't read this as "there may be no pause at all", but since some do, a rephrasing is indeed necessary. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 4 11:24:28 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:24:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <4C5931CC.6000501@ulb.ac.be> Roger Pewick a ?crit : > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Volker Walther" > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 08:45 > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > > >> On 03.08.2010 10:04, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> >>>> It would help me if it was just standard that no Blackwood response can >>>> ever be deemed inadvertent. I used to get way too many calls claiming >>>> their Blackwood response was a mispull, when they probably just got >>>> their >>>> response wrong. It should also be standard that pulls from the wrong >>>> part >>>> of the box (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed. >>>> >>>> >>> AG : this doesn't work. It has already happened that a player wanting to >>> make a skip *bid* pulls "X" in lieu of "Stop". >>> And see my previous example, where the 7NT card was lying in the front >>> part.. >>> And remember that some players are unaccustomed to that new generation >>> of BBs where Stop and Alert are behind the bids. >>> >>> I, for one, would very much like to be allowed to judge every case on >>> its specific merits, without having to use standard decision procedures. >>> >>> >> I think there is indeed a fundamental problem in the original case, >> arising from the ("but only..." part of the first sentence of LAW 25 A) >> >> I think we all do agree the following: >> 1.) Any unintended bid does not carry information, so it could be >> replaced by the intended one without any damage. >> > > Decreeing it does not make it so, particularly when the something is false. > > I can apply the same to your statement. So please tell me what information can carry a bid that one didn't intend to make - except perhaps that you're clumsy or your mind is miles away ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 4 11:31:47 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:31:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Obscure reading of the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C593383.7020901@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Law 72A, second sentence: > > "The chief object is to obtain a higher score > than other contestants whilst complying with > the lawful procedures and ethical standards > set out in these laws." > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >AG: and ... is calling the TD to insist that the Jack be > >played 100% ethical, especially with regard to L74A ? > > Law 74B5 - Etiquette: > > "As a matter of courtesy a player should > refrain from: > summoning and addressing the Director in a > manner discourteous to him or to other > contestants." > > Richard Hills: > > If a player courteously summons the Director, that is not > necessarily an infraction (Law 20F5(b) and Law 43A1(a) are > exceptions to this general rule). > > If a player courteously requests the Director to resolve a > disputed fact, then that is 100% ethical with regard to Law > 74A. Law 74A3 states: > AG : IMOBO, if a lawyering player calls the TD, however politely, to ask that a player who has claimed be compelled to play in an absurd manner, that's contrary to L74A principles, not with respect to the TD, but to the opponents (the "pleasure of the game" item). From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 4 11:44:13 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 10:44:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer><4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred><2D155A85788C413B90FE0721ADA499DA@Mildred> <7D5E3F55-9F27-4648-855A-FF3EDE689FAA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <7A171598308147B8A3D7663DF2A0926E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... > On Aug 2, 2010, at 5:00 PM, Grattan wrote: > >> From: "Robert Frick" >> >> It would help me if it was just standard that no >> Blackwood response can ever be deemed inadvertent. >> I used to get way too many calls claiming their >> Blackwood response was a mispull, when they probably >> just got their response wrong. It should also be >> standard that pulls from the wrong part of the box >> (a double instead of 1S) are not allowed. >> >> +=+ Except possibly for club and equivalent levels of >> play I think I could be persuaded that Bidding Box >> regulations should provide that no call where the >> bidding card is placed and released shall be deemed >> by the Director to be unintended. (I use 'unintended' >> to match its use in Law 25A1.) > > Eric Landau: > When (the predecessor of today's) L25A was originally written, it > referred to "slips of the tongue". Its application to bid boxes > seems anachronistic. A "slip of the tongue" can't be "double- > checked" on its way out of a player's mouth. A sensible law that was > written for bid boxes would *require* players to inspect the face of > the bid card before placing on the table, and not allow it to be > changed once it was so placed. > +=+ As, for example, to move one step forward: "A player is required to inspect the face of his selected bidding card before placing and releasing it. If when he does so he realizes that the proposed call is inadmissible or is insufficient or is an unintended call taken from the bidding box inadvertently he shall change it (but is not permitted to do so on other grounds). If in the opinion of the Director the player's partner may have subsequently used information gained from the action and opponents are thereby damaged he awards an adjusted score under Law 16B." A regulation under Law 80B2(e), of course, not a law in itself - assuredly requiring a WBFLC interpretation of Law 80B2(e) to validate it - not necessarily forthcoming. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 4 11:56:50 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 10:56:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D59.3090205@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <6D0095E7E1B24A9987AC189422447032@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be><4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <88B1EC9AB4E84CB7976E2E20E9F05092@Mildred> Grattan Endicott<499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer><4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred><2D155A85788C413B90FE0721ADA499DA@Mildred><7D5E3F55-9F27-4648-855A-FF3EDE689FAA@starpower.net> <699709.22218.qm@web28513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 7:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case... [Eric Landau] A sensible law that was written for bid boxes would *require* players to inspect the face of the bid card before placing on the table, and not allow it to be changed once it was so placed. > [Nigel] That would delight players with more consistent and sensible rulings :) Unfortunately, however, it has little chance of becoming law because ... :( It might help to level the global playing field. :( It could reduce discretion of directors to go with their judgement, and :( It would restrict endless debate on the meaning of relevant current legislation. > +=+ Oh thou of little faith. +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 4 15:21:28 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:21:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suits indicated by an impossible bid In-Reply-To: <4C58C889.6050204@nhcc.net> References: <5E76BFEE17F44D2FA78BEF0CA8D1F8FE@Mildred> <000001cb2a83$d07286c0$71579440$@no> <000001cb2af7$7e5a7fe0$7b0f7fa0$@no> <00F33FAC32CB4365A787E447ED2AEA45@acer> <000101cb2bdc$816cc5e0$844651a0$@no> <002e01cb2c3e$6cd87270$46895750$@no> <002f01cb2c66$f1f51c10$d5df5430$@no> <000001cb2cd0$f1b60a10$d5221e30$@no> <000401cb2da8$6729cf20$357d6d60$@no> <4C4FE931.5020201@skynet.be> <000601cb2e36$2486b230$6d941690$@no> <4C500DEE.2030904@skynet.be> <000901cb2e4c$71b65cc0$55231640$@no> <8CCA8273-8E0F-4AEA-B3CC-F02C0001601F@starpower.net> <4C55E23C.30909@nhcc.net> <3E8CB140-AAEA-447B-A2F2-0A667287ADC7@starpower.net> <4C58C889.6050204@nhc c.net> Message-ID: On Aug 3, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 8/2/2010 10:11 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> ...there has been no infraction unless he has taken advantage of >> the UI from South's remark, and he can point out that North #1, with >> the identical prior knowledge and no exposure to UI, was able to >> arrive at the same conclusion without difficulty based entirely on >> AI. > > The difference between #1 and #3 comes about because of L16A1d. North > #1 knew the details of the Laws before he took his hand from the > board, > and this information was AI. North #3 (according to your example) > lacked that knowledge. So _if_ the TD is not supposed to reveal what > South was thinking, there is a basis for a different ruling. > > You would have the same situation if two players like to finesse > towards > the bathtub, but only one of them knew where the bathtub is before > taking his hand from the board. The second one is not allowed to find > out from partner (or a spectator, for that matter). I may well have gotten confused and crossed my own numbering scheme, but my remark was intended to compare the two Norths with identical prior knowledge and information, one of whom has received (redundant) UI from his partner's blurt-out. It would seem that if we don't treat them identically, we are "redressing" the creation of UI rather than its use. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 4 15:56:07 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:56:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de> <7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net> <201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:09:40 -0400, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 09:17 AM 4/08/2010, you wrote: >> Okay. What would be an example of where you would not allow change of an >> inadvertent bid because there had been a pause for thought? >> _______________________________________________ > > Canonical example. Partner opens 1NT and you bid > 2D (transfer). While partner is explaining your bid, he > passes (inadvertently). Too bad, even if he sees his error > without pause for thought. > > Cheers, > > Tony > > This is a good example of when "pause for thought" does not matter. Are there any examples where it does? For example, a player opens 1H and then claims he meant to open 1S. We can see from his hand that he could not possibly have had any intention of opening 1H. So we know that 1H was unintended. We allow always allow him to change the bid, and pause for thought is never relevant. Right? He can pause and think as much as he wants without giving up his right to change his bid. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 4 17:19:34 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:19:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de> <7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net> <201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:09:40 -0400, Tony Musgrove > wrote: > > >> At 09:17 AM 4/08/2010, you wrote: >> >>> Okay. What would be an example of where you would not allow change of an >>> inadvertent bid because there had been a pause for thought? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Canonical example. Partner opens 1NT and you bid >> 2D (transfer). While partner is explaining your bid, he >> passes (inadvertently). Too bad, even if he sees his error >> without pause for thought. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tony >> >> >> > > AG : seems like he made a COOT, so in some cases he will be allowed th change it. > This is a good example of when "pause for thought" does not matter. Are > there any examples where it does? > > For example, a player opens 1H and then claims he meant to open 1S. We can > see from his hand that he could not possibly have had any intention of > opening 1H. So we know that 1H was unintended. We allow always allow him > to change the bid, and pause for thought is never relevant. Right? He can > pause and think as much as he wants without giving up his right to change > his bid. > AG : and that's why some of us want to change the wording to "without pausing for reconsidering one's bid". Because after all, realizing that you've pulled the wrong card and deciding you'll ask for a replacement is thinking, isn't it ? Now for a more intricate case. West calls. While North considers his bid, East calls.(OOT). South wants to call the TD, but pulls a Pass or Double in lieu ofthe TD card. He realizes it, and wants to pull it back. This isn't covered under "changing your call without pause", because you will replace a call by a non-call. Allowed ? From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 4 17:39:00 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:39:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de> <7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net> <201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:19:34 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:09:40 -0400, Tony Musgrove >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> At 09:17 AM 4/08/2010, you wrote: >>> >>>> Okay. What would be an example of where you would not allow change of >>>> an >>>> inadvertent bid because there had been a pause for thought? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>> Canonical example. Partner opens 1NT and you bid >>> 2D (transfer). While partner is explaining your bid, he >>> passes (inadvertently). Too bad, even if he sees his error >>> without pause for thought. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Tony >>> >>> >>> >> >> > AG : seems like he made a COOT, so in some cases he will be allowed th > change it. > >> This is a good example of when "pause for thought" does not matter. Are >> there any examples where it does? >> >> For example, a player opens 1H and then claims he meant to open 1S. We >> can >> see from his hand that he could not possibly have had any intention of >> opening 1H. So we know that 1H was unintended. We allow always allow him >> to change the bid, and pause for thought is never relevant. Right? He >> can >> pause and think as much as he wants without giving up his right to >> change >> his bid. >> > AG : and that's why some of us want to change the wording to "without > pausing for reconsidering one's bid". Because after all, realizing that > you've pulled the wrong card and deciding you'll ask for a replacement > is thinking, isn't it ? Suppose the player, after accidentally opening 1H, pauses to reconsider his bid. Is that possible? Can he consider and then reconsider whether or not to change his unintended bid? He might not know the rules, so he might be quite indecisive Or can reconsideration occur only when the first bid is intended? If it is possible and he does it, then do we say, "Sorry, you paused to reconsider whether or not to admit your unintended bid, now we can't allow you to change it." Put another way -- can you give me an example where "pause for reconsideration" is relevant? > > > Now for a more intricate case. > > West calls. While North considers his bid, East calls.(OOT). South wants > to call the TD, but pulls a Pass or Double in lieu ofthe TD card. He > realizes it, and wants to pull it back. > This isn't covered under "changing your call without pause", because you > will replace a call by a non-call. Allowed ? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From bridge at vwalther.de Wed Aug 4 18:09:25 2010 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:09:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Not a 25A case... In-Reply-To: <6D0095E7E1B24A9987AC189422447032@Mildred> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred> <201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred> <84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481> <4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D59.3090205@vwalther.de> <6D0095E7E1B24A9987AC189422447032@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C5990B5.2090604@vwalther.de> On 04.08.2010 11:56, Grattan wrote: > > +=+ Someone wrote: > " I think we all do agree the following: > 1.) Any unintended bid does not carry information, > so it could be replaced by the intended one > without any damage." > Not necessarily the case. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > It was me who wrote it. Could you please give me an example of an unintended bid that carries information or the damage that may arise from its substitution? Volker From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 5 01:22:27 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:22:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Obscure reading of the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C593383.7020901@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : IMOBO, if a lawyering player calls the TD, however >politely, to ask that a player who has claimed be >compelled to play in an absurd manner, that's contrary >to L74A principles, not with respect to the TD, but to >the opponents (the "pleasure of the game" item). Richard Hills: Alain is begging the question, petitio principii. The prime question at the basis of this thread is whether Law 74A2 has the scope to invalidate an otherwise legal summoning of the Director, and Alain merely asserts without evidence that this is so. The opening phrase of Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) does NOT begin: "When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon (but the Director should not be called upon if a resolution of disputed facts would interfere with a player's enjoyment of the game - see Law 74A2) ... " And Law 9B1 does NOT say: "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity, except that the Director should not be summoned for a trivial irregularity of a card absurdly played then retracted, since the rectification of absurd played cards and absurd revokes would interfere with a player's enjoyment of the game. For example, a declarer who makes 7H missing the ace of trumps due to an opponent's trivial revoke has infracted Law 74A2." Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100804/6708afe0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 5 01:55:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:55:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] I Heart Huckabees [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: +=+ Someone wrote: " I think we all do agree the following: 1.) Any unintended bid does not carry information, so it could be replaced by the intended one without any damage." Not necessarily the case. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ +=+ Roger Pewick wrote: "As I purported elsewhere it is conceivable [while unlikely] for a pair [together or separately, intentionally or more likely subconsciously] to contrive to use L25A corrections to convey information via multiple calls during a single turn to call." Possibilities of conveying UI to partner do exist in the areas under discussion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yes and No. As a matter of Ivory Tower Law, a Law 25A unintended call does not carry information. As a matter of at-the-table practicalities, quite often the Director will err, incorrectly ruling Law 25A unintended call instead of correctly ruling Law 25B intended call. In this case the intended call luckily deemed to be an unintended call obviously does carry information. And the fact that a Law 25 ruling is needed in the first place also carries information. For example, if I requested a Law 25A ruling from the Director, my partner could deduce that I was not paying attention due to extreme fatigue, thus my partner would manoeuvre to become declarer more frequently. Best wishes R. J. B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W569 02 6223 8453 richard (dot) hills (at) immi (dot) gov (dot) au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100804/d27a9580/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 5 09:56:17 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:56:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Obscure reading of the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C5A6EA1.1010701@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >AG : IMOBO, if a lawyering player calls the TD, however > >politely, to ask that a player who has claimed be > >compelled to play in an absurd manner, that's contrary > >to L74A principles, not with respect to the TD, but to > >the opponents (the "pleasure of the game" item). > > Richard Hills: > > Alain is begging the question, petitio principii. The > prime question at the basis of this thread is whether > Law 74A2 has the scope to invalidate an otherwise legal > summoning of the Director, and Alain merely asserts > without evidence that this is so. > AG : you're right. I pretend, with all due conviction, that lawyering often goes against L72A and that this is the only law that might allow us to act against it. Now what's wrong with expressing that idea ? From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 5 15:30:57 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:30:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] I Heart Huckabees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 4, 2010, at 7:55 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > +=+ Someone wrote: > " I think we all do agree the following: > 1.) Any unintended bid does not carry information, > so it could be replaced by the intended one > without any damage." > Not necessarily the case. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ Roger Pewick wrote: > "As I purported elsewhere it is conceivable [while > unlikely] for a pair [together or separately, > intentionally or more likely subconsciously] to > contrive to use L25A corrections to convey > information via multiple calls during a single > turn to call." > > Possibilities of conveying UI to partner do > exist in the areas under discussion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Yes and No. > > As a matter of Ivory Tower Law, a Law 25A unintended > call does not carry information. > > As a matter of at-the-table practicalities, quite > often the Director will err, incorrectly ruling Law > 25A unintended call instead of correctly ruling Law > 25B intended call. In this case the intended call > luckily deemed to be an unintended call obviously > does carry information. > Only if the receiver of the information knows (or is prepared to assume) that it was an intended call, and that the director has made a factually incorrect ruling. That would require him not only to have read the table action correctly where the director failed to do so, but also to have concealed this knowledge from the director's attempt to determine the facts. If this is a real-life problem, our directors are failing us. > And the fact that a Law 25 ruling is needed in the > first place also carries information. For example, > if I requested a Law 25A ruling from the Director, > my partner could deduce that I was not paying > attention due to extreme fatigue, thus my partner > would manoeuvre to become declarer more frequently. > Surely that is legitimate. You must be allowed to take account of your knowledge of how well your partner plays the game in general -- if not, we have been ignoring multiple violations in every session of duplicate ever played -- and I see no rationale for treating the knowledge of how well your partner is playing today in particular any differently. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From tsvecfob at iol.ie Wed Aug 11 17:59:48 2010 From: tsvecfob at iol.ie (Fearghal O'Boyle) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:59:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] May I? References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred><4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de><7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net><201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Hi, I am dummy and have not lost my rights. My partner leads a small Heart from hand, the next player discards a Spade. My partner plays a Spade from dummy although there is a Heart there ...May I enquire about the possible revoke? Regards, Fearghal. From tedying at yahoo.com Wed Aug 11 18:29:53 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] May I? In-Reply-To: References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred><4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de><7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net><201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <364431.40836.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> L42.B.2 "Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer." covers this. You can't inquire about a revoke, but you can point out that dummy needs to follow suit. -Ted Ying. ________________________________ From: Fearghal O'Boyle To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 11:59:48 AM Subject: [BLML] May I? Hi, I am dummy and have not lost my rights. My partner leads a small Heart from hand, the next player discards a Spade. My partner plays a Spade from dummy although there is a Heart there ...May I enquire about the possible revoke? Regards, Fearghal. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100811/ca1e757d/attachment.html From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Aug 11 19:08:55 2010 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:08:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] May I? References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer><4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred><4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be><4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de><7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net><201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au><4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be> <364431.40836.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <770B9C3AECDA40B691D907BF7BC1EB0D@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: Ted Ying To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] May I? L42.B.2 "Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer." covers this. You can't inquire about a revoke, but you can point out that dummy needs to follow suit. [KC] I remember this discussion (interminable) from a few years back. This was one point of view. Another was that the card played by declarer (spade) is a played card so a revoke has already been committed. And dummy cannot be the first to point out an irregularity. Because the irregularity has already happened then it is too late for dummy to "prevent" it. I don't recall which option won. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Auta kilka tysi??cy z??otych taniej? Przebieraj w??r??d tysi??cy og??osze??! Sprawdz >>> http://linkint.pl/f27c6 From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Aug 11 19:22:08 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:22:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] May I? In-Reply-To: <770B9C3AECDA40B691D907BF7BC1EB0D@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer><4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred><4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be><4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de><7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net><201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au><4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be> <364431.40836.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <770B9C3AECDA40B691D907BF7BC1EB0D@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <001e01cb3979$ba0cfaf0$2e26f0d0$@btopenworld.com> [TY] L42.B.2 "Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer" covers this. You can't inquire about a revoke, but you can point out that dummy needs to follow suit. [KC] I remember this discussion (interminable) from a few years back. This was one point of view. Another was that the card played by declarer (spade) is a played card so a revoke has already been committed. And dummy cannot be the first to point out an irregularity. Because the irregularity has already happened then it is too late for dummy to "prevent" it. [DALB] Oh, dummy is not trying to prevent declarer from revoking - declarer has already done that. What dummy is trying to do is prevent declarer from breaking Law 62A: "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." Thus, although it was illegal for dummy to be the first to tell declarer that he had revoked, it remains legal for dummy to be the first to prevent declarer from failing to correct the revoke. David Burn London, England From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Aug 11 20:27:08 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:27:08 -0800 Subject: [BLML] May I? References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer><4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred><4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be><4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de><7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net><201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au><4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be><364431.40836.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <770B9C3AECDA40B691D907BF7BC1EB0D@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <158899E5A958430F95350ACB5370F5E8@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" From: Ted Ying L42.B.2 "Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer." covers this. You can't inquire about a revoke, but you can point out that dummy needs to follow suit. [KC] I remember this discussion (interminable) from a few years back. This was one point of view. Another was that the card played by declarer (spade) is a played card so a revoke has already been committed. And dummy cannot be the first to point out an irregularity. Because the irregularity has already happened then it is too late for dummy to "prevent" it. I don't recall which option won. [MLF} Law 42B Qualified Rights 1. Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has failed to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit led. That should get a laugh: "No hearts, partner?" Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5358 (20100811) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 11 22:25:08 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:25:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] May I? In-Reply-To: <770B9C3AECDA40B691D907BF7BC1EB0D@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer><4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred><4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be><4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de><7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net><201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au><4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be> <364431.40836.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <770B9C3AECDA40B691D907BF7BC1EB0D@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <57698242-D7AD-40FC-8B7A-B15114A9EA06@starpower.net> On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > From: Ted Ying > > L42.B.2 "Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer." > covers > this. You can't inquire > about a revoke, but you can point out that dummy needs to follow suit. > > [KC] > > I remember this discussion (interminable) from a few years back. > This was one point of view. Another was that the card played by > declarer > (spade) > is a played card so a revoke has already been committed. And dummy > cannot be the first to point out an irregularity. Because the > irregularity > has already happened then it is too late for dummy to "prevent" it. > > I don't recall which option won. One that allows play to continue normally, without the need for an adjudicated or abnormal result. Which can only be a good thing. It doesn't matter whether dummy can "prevent" the revoke entirely, since he can, to the same effect, prevent a declarer who has already committed one irregularity (the unestablished revoke) from committing a more serious one (an established revoke). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 11 22:58:35 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:58:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] May I? In-Reply-To: <57698242-D7AD-40FC-8B7A-B15114A9EA06@starpower.net> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer><4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred><4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be><4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de><7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net><201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au><4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be> <364431.40836.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <770B9C3AECDA40B691D907BF7BC1EB0D@sfora4869e47f1> <57698242-D7AD-40FC-8B7A-B15114A9EA06@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000f01cb3997$f7415510$e5c3ff30$@no> May I remind the participants at this thread of Law 44C: "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." Please note in particular the last sentence in this law. No law can prevent Dummy from pointing out that Declarer revoked from dummy's hand while it is still time to correct that revoke. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Eric > Landau > Sent: 11. august 2010 22:25 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] May I? > > On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > From: Ted Ying > > > > L42.B.2 "Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer." > > covers > > this. You can't inquire > > about a revoke, but you can point out that dummy needs to follow suit. > > > > [KC] > > > > I remember this discussion (interminable) from a few years back. > > This was one point of view. Another was that the card played by > > declarer > > (spade) > > is a played card so a revoke has already been committed. And dummy > > cannot be the first to point out an irregularity. Because the > > irregularity has already happened then it is too late for dummy to > > "prevent" it. > > > > I don't recall which option won. > > One that allows play to continue normally, without the need for an adjudicated or > abnormal result. Which can only be a good thing. > > It doesn't matter whether dummy can "prevent" the revoke entirely, since he can, > to the same effect, prevent a declarer who has already committed one irregularity > (the unestablished revoke) from committing a more serious one (an established > revoke). > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Aug 11 23:32:45 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:32:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?May_I=3F?= Message-ID: <1OjIuj-2LAAjo0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Yes you may! Even if you might have lost your rights! Minute of the WBFLC in Paris, 28th October 2001: "7. It was agreed that when declarer calls for a card from dummy that is a revoke card, dummy may enquire of declarer concerning his possible revoke under Law 42B1. [Secretary?s note: the above is amended wording as agreed in the meeting of 30th October; it makes it clear that a dummy who has lost his rights is not barred from making such an enquiry in relation to declarer?s play from dummy.]" That was the decison Konrad was looking for. Peter From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > I am dummy and have not lost my rights. ?My partner leads a small > Heart from hand, the next player discards a Spade. ?My partner plays a > Spade from dummy although there is a Heart there ...May I enquire > about the possible revoke? Regards, > Fearghal. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 11 23:57:22 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:57:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] May I? In-Reply-To: <000f01cb3997$f7415510$e5c3ff30$@no> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de> <7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net> <201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be> <364431.40836.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <770B9C3AECDA40B691D907BF7BC1EB0D@sfora4869e47f1> <57698242-D7AD-40FC-8B7A-B15114A9EA06@starpower.net> <000f01cb3997$f7415510$e5c3ff30$@no> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:58:35 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > May I remind the participants at this thread of Law 44C: > > "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This > obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." Precedence over even L76, restrictions on spectators? I think it makes more sense to say that the requirement to *follow* suit takes precedence, but preventing a revoke or correcting a revoke does not have precedence. > > Please note in particular the last sentence in this law. No law can > prevent > Dummy from pointing out that Declarer revoked from dummy's hand while it > is > still time to correct that revoke. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of > Eric >> Landau >> Sent: 11. august 2010 22:25 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] May I? >> >> On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >> > From: Ted Ying >> > >> > L42.B.2 "Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer." >> > covers >> > this. You can't inquire >> > about a revoke, but you can point out that dummy needs to follow suit. >> > >> > [KC] >> > >> > I remember this discussion (interminable) from a few years back. >> > This was one point of view. Another was that the card played by >> > declarer >> > (spade) >> > is a played card so a revoke has already been committed. And dummy >> > cannot be the first to point out an irregularity. Because the >> > irregularity has already happened then it is too late for dummy to >> > "prevent" it. >> > >> > I don't recall which option won. >> >> One that allows play to continue normally, without the need for an > adjudicated or >> abnormal result. Which can only be a good thing. >> >> It doesn't matter whether dummy can "prevent" the revoke entirely, since > he can, >> to the same effect, prevent a declarer who has already committed one > irregularity >> (the unestablished revoke) from committing a more serious one (an > established >> revoke). >> >> >> Eric Landau >> 1107 Dale Drive >> Silver Spring MD 20910 >> ehaa at starpower.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Aug 12 04:53:56 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:53:56 +0800 Subject: [BLML] May I? References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer><4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred><4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be><4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de><7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net><201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au><4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be> <364431.40836.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com><770B9C3AECDA40B691D907BF7BC1EB0D@sfora4869e47f1> <001e01cb3979$ba0cfaf0$2e26f0d0$@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: <9E0A38DD50B145B9AF55C19636498FAB@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] May I? > [TY] > > L42.B.2 "Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer" covers > this. You can't inquire about a revoke, but you can point out that dummy > needs to follow suit. > > [KC] > > I remember this discussion (interminable) from a few years back. This was > one point of view. Another was that the card played by declarer (spade) is > a > played card so a revoke has already been committed. And dummy cannot be > the > first to point out an irregularity. Because the irregularity has already > happened then it is too late for dummy to "prevent" it. > > [DALB] > > Oh, dummy is not trying to prevent declarer from revoking - declarer has > already done that. What dummy is trying to do is prevent declarer from > breaking Law 62A: > > "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity > before it becomes established." > > Thus, although it was illegal for dummy to be the first to tell declarer > that he had revoked, it remains legal for dummy to be the first to prevent > declarer from failing to correct the revoke. L 43 A.1 does not restrict dummy from exercising his qualified right under L 42 B.1 to enquire about a failure to follow suit from declarers hand. I believe it follows that the L 43 A.1 does not restrict him from using his right under L 42 B.1. to enquire about a failure by declarer to follow suit in playing from dummy (however ridiculous it may appear at the table). Law 41 D D. Dummy's Hand (snip) Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy. LAW 42 - DUMMY'S RIGHTS B. Qualified Rights Dummy may exercise other rights subject to the limitations stated in Law 43. 1. Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has failed to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit led. LAW 43 - DUMMY'S LIMITATIONS Except as Law 42 allows: A. Limitations on Dummy 1. (a) Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play. (b) Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play. (c) Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. (snip) bill > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 12 09:03:54 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:03:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] May I? In-Reply-To: References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de> <455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred> <3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer> <4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be> <48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred> <4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be> <4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de> <7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net> <201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be> <364431.40836.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <770B9C3AECDA40B691D907BF7BC1EB0D@sfora4869e47f1> <57698242-D7AD-40FC-8B7A-B15114A9EA06@starpower.net> <000f01cb3997$f7415510$e5c3ff30$@no> Message-ID: <000301cb39ec$8710ee90$9532cbb0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sven Pran wrote: > > > May I remind the participants at this thread of Law 44C: > > > > "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This > > obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." > > Precedence over even L76, restrictions on spectators? Literally - in fact - YES I agree that this doesn't seem to make sense, but then spectators are not participating in the game. Dummy however " plays the cards of the dummy as declarer's agent as directed " (Law 42A3) and in this capacity is obviously "covered" by Law 44C. > I think it makes more sense to say that the requirement to *follow* suit takes > precedence, but preventing a revoke or correcting a revoke does not have > precedence. A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established. (Law 62A) This law is unconditional, it does not matter how the player becomes aware of his unestablished revoke or in case who called attention to the fact. > > > > > Please note in particular the last sentence in this law. No law can > > prevent Dummy from pointing out that Declarer revoked from dummy's > > hand while it is still time to correct that revoke. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 12 12:30:41 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:30:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] May I? In-Reply-To: <158899E5A958430F95350ACB5370F5E8@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer><4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred><4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be><4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de><7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net><201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au><4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be><364431.40836.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <770B9C3AECDA40B691D907BF7BC1EB0D@sfora4869e47f1> <158899E5A958430F95350ACB5370F5E8@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4C63CD51.9020802@ulb.ac.be> Marvin French a ?crit : > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > > From: Ted Ying > > L42.B.2 "Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer." > covers > this. You can't inquire > about a revoke, but you can point out that dummy needs to follow > suit. > > [KC] > > I remember this discussion (interminable) from a few years back. > This was one point of view. Another was that the card played by > declarer > (spade) is a played card so a revoke has already been committed. And > dummy > cannot be the first to point out an irregularity. Because the > irregularity > has already happened then it is too late for dummy to "prevent" it. > > I don't recall which option won. > > [MLF} > > Law 42B Qualified Rights > > 1. Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has failed > to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit led. > > That should get a laugh: "No hearts, partner?" > AG : Indeed, and it answers the problem definitively. Anyway, IIRC, there is no penalty for a revoke by dummy, so what's the point about mentioning it ? From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 12 12:42:32 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:42:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] May I? In-Reply-To: <4C63CD51.9020802@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C534783.2080605@vwalther.de><499F1FBD178E462EA0E0944BC8D43658@Mildred><201007310051.o6V0pLiW023502@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au><9A60FB771940420C9BEA3ACB7CAD9771@Mildred><84B998C637D5464D841BA531456CFA20@woe9f427cae481><4C5687A5.1080105@ulb.ac.be><455AE03500924105BA4859DE2DA61855@Mildred><3113E6D450834B2B829E1EDFC3916404@acer><4C56C633.7070209@ulb.ac.be><48A43C62AC51440D98138A3A63E2B0FC@Mildred><4C57CD94.10605@ulb.ac.be><4C581D65.2050606@vwalther.de><7061CF9D-49E3-4A35-9F70-8459BD80B2EB@starpower.net><201008040410.o744A81r020201@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au><4C598506.1000605@ulb.ac.be><364431.40836.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <770B9C3AECDA40B691D907BF7BC1EB0D@sfora4869e47f1> <158899E5A958430F95350ACB5370F5E8@MARVLAPTOP> <4C63CD51.! 9020802@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001101cb3a0b$12cb8490$38628db0$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ......... > AG : Indeed, and it answers the problem definitively. Anyway, IIRC, there is no > penalty for a revoke by dummy, so what's the point about mentioning it ? Laws 44C, 64C and 72B1 From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Aug 13 16:56:16 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:56:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid Message-ID: <1Ojvg8-0rmi6C0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Hello, in a big (?) team tournament the opponents bid in a Blue Club sequence (w/o interference): 1 Cl (BC) - 1 Sp (exactly 3 controls, A=2, K=1) 2 Sp (nat) - 3 Sp (nat, positiv) 4 Sp (nat) - 5 Cl (Cue) 5 Di (Cue) - ...5 Sp (undisputed huddle) 6 Sp - pass Opener holds Axxxxx, AKQx, Axx, x and makes 13 tricks. If you were called after the board, what would you decide? Peter Eidt Warendorf, Germany From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri Aug 13 17:14:54 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:14:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <1Ojvg8-0rmi6C0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <1Ojvg8-0rmi6C0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> hum, i think you want to to type 5S only, in a 5431 pattern, bidder is 6431 Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 4:56 PM Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid > > Hello, > > in a big (?) team tournament the opponents bid > in a Blue Club sequence (w/o interference): > > 1 Cl (BC) - 1 Sp (exactly 3 controls, A=2, K=1) > 2 Sp (nat) - 3 Sp (nat, positiv) > 4 Sp (nat) - 5 Cl (Cue) > 5 Di (Cue) - ...5 Sp (undisputed huddle) > 6 Sp - pass > > Opener holds Axxxxx, AKQx, Axx, x and makes 13 tricks. > > If you were called after the board, what would you decide? > > Peter Eidt > Warendorf, Germany > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base > des signatures de virus 5364 (20100813) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5364 (20100813) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Aug 13 17:19:00 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:19:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?To_bid_or_not_to_bid?= In-Reply-To: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Yes, Olivier, sorry, I'm getting shortsighted and with such a long string of 'x's, I can't count them any longer. 5-4-3-1 pattern (and it's responder who makes 13 tricks). From: "olivier.beauvillain" > i think you want to to type 5S only, in a 5431 pattern, > bidder is 6431 > > > Hello, > > > > in a big (?) team tournament the opponents bid > > in a Blue Club sequence (w/o interference): > > > > 1 Cl (BC) - 1 Sp (exactly 3 controls, A=2, K=1) > > 2 Sp (nat) - 3 Sp (nat, positiv) > > 4 Sp (nat) - 5 Cl (Cue) > > 5 Di (Cue) - ...5 Sp (undisputed huddle) > > 6 Sp - pass > > > > Opener holds Axxxxx, AKQx, Axx, x and makes 13 tricks. > > > > If you were called after the board, what would you decide? > > > > Peter Eidt > > Warendorf, Germany From blml at arcor.de Fri Aug 13 18:54:50 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:54:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> References: <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> > Yes, Olivier, sorry, I'm getting shortsighted and with such > a long string of 'x's, I can't count them any longer. > 5-4-3-1 pattern (and it's responder who makes 13 tricks). > > From: "olivier.beauvillain" > > i think you want to to type 5S only, in a 5431 pattern, > > bidder is 6431 > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > in a big (?) team tournament the opponents bid > > > in a Blue Club sequence (w/o interference): > > > > > > 1 Cl (BC) - 1 Sp (exactly 3 controls, A=2, K=1) > > > 2 Sp (nat) - 3 Sp (nat, positiv) > > > 4 Sp (nat) - 5 Cl (Cue) > > > 5 Di (Cue) - ...5 Sp (undisputed huddle) > > > 6 Sp - pass > > > > > > Opener holds Axxxxx, AKQx, Axx, x and makes 13 tricks. > > > > > > If you were called after the board, what would you decide? > > > > > > Peter Eidt > > > Warendorf, Germany The AI is o responder has the CA and one king o responder has supported spades, and did no pass 4S o 5D was NOT doubled, reducing the risk of a D lead. I think the TD should find out whether responder has shown four card spade support, or might still have only three spades. Baring different poll results, I think I'd allow 6S if responder has shown four card spade support. Thomas -- Wassertemperaturen in Deutschland Sommer, Sonne, Strand - wer braucht Abk?hlung? Die aktuellen Wassertemperaturen und Windgeschwindigkeiten f?r Deutschlands Badeseen gibt?s auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wassertemp From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 19:56:37 2010 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:56:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: >The AI is > responder has the CA and one king > responder has supported spades, and did > no pass 4S > 5D was NOT doubled, reducing the risk of a D lead. Blue Club cue bids both first and second round controls. I believe that responder could have three Kings.... Partner's tank is (obviously) based on the fact that he has a lot of extra stuff, but nothing in hearts and is stuck for a bid after 5D. It's difficult to tell whether 6S is a logical alternative. On the one hand, I have a super max for the immediate 4S bid. (In my BTC partnership's I would have cue bid 4C over 3S). Partner made a slam try opposite what could be a much much worse hand. This argues that 6S is clear cut. On the other hand, partner's tank (essentially) asks whether I have a heart control. I do, and this, in turn suggests rolling the contract back to 5S. I think that I would roll the contact back, but I'm not positive. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100813/0051131a/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Fri Aug 13 22:30:17 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:30:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1627987219.1281731417854.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> richard willey > >The AI is > > responder has the CA and one king > > responder has supported spades, and did > > no pass 4S > > 5D was NOT doubled, reducing the risk of a D lead. > Blue Club cue bids both first and second round controls. > I believe that responder could have three Kings.... They obviously are not playing cue bids as defined in Blue Club in this situation, as in Blue Club opener would have had to make a cue bid after 3S. Thomas > Partner's tank is (obviously) based on the fact that he has a lot of extra > stuff, but nothing in hearts and is stuck for a bid after 5D. > > It's difficult to tell whether 6S is a logical alternative. > > On the one hand, I have a super max for the immediate 4S bid. (In my BTC > partnership's I would have cue bid 4C over 3S). Partner made a slam try > opposite what could be a much much worse hand. This argues that 6S is > clear > cut. > > On the other hand, partner's tank (essentially) asks whether I have a heart > control. > I do, and this, in turn suggests rolling the contract back to 5S. > > I think that I would roll the contact back, but I'm not positive. > > > > -- > I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians > had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were > monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek > > Those were simpler times > > > -------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Wassertemperaturen in Deutschland Sommer, Sonne, Strand - wer braucht Abk?hlung? Die aktuellen Wassertemperaturen und Windgeschwindigkeiten f?r Deutschlands Badeseen gibt?s auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wassertemp From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 08:28:05 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 01:28:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:56 PM, richard willey wrote: > > It's difficult to tell whether 6S is a logical alternative. > It does not matter in the least whether 6S is a logical alternative. Not in the least. One never needs to know whether or not the action that was taken was a logical alternative. We need to know whether passing 5S is a logical alternative. > On the one hand, I have a super max for the immediate 4S bid. Sorry, no. If partner has a minimum balanced had with three spades, three controls, and nothing else useful, your expected haul is ten tricks. Remember the opponents could muster no interference, so the deal looks relatively balanced. My estimate of 10 tricks is easy to check out with a random dealer and a double-dummy solver. You are at least a trick short of a supermax. Opener has Axxxx, AKQx, Axx, x. A partner who bids 3S after showing 3 controls might have Kxx, xxxx, xx, Axxx Kxx, xxx, xxxx, Axx xxx, xx, Kxxx, Axxx The five level is unsafe in all of these cases. These and other similar balanced hands show that Opener most certainly does not have a supermax for his 4S bid. The assumption of Opener having a supermax is a key error, which may well allow the illicit 6S call to stand. As a matter of human weakness among directors, it is easy to assume Opener has a supermax after discovering that they took all of the tricks, but a more careful analysis is better. He is obviously not supermax for the 4S bid. > (In my BTC > partnership's I would have cue bid 4C over 3S). I doubt the relevance of this comment. We need to consider what happened, not what the director would have done before the call under study is examined. What happened was 4S over 3S. Alternatives to this do not matter. Right? >From the description we were given, it does seem obvious to me that 4S was nonforcing, showing either inadequate controls, trumps, winners, or possibly some combination of these (by partnership agreement). As it turns out, I don't think it matters much which meaning of 4S was theirs. In the deal we have here, his controls are fine, which he announces by bidding 5D rather than 5S. (With inadequate controls, Opener would surely have bid 5S over 5C.) Thus, Opener originally signed off either because of inadequate trumps or too many losers (or tricks or points or whatever he was thinking of for overall strength). Responder bids 5S, so he was not concerned about controls---the 5D bid proved the adequacy of partnership controls. His concern was either trumps, losers, or some combination of these. >? Partner made a slam try > opposite what could be a much much worse hand.? This argues that 6S is clear > cut. If Responder makes a slam try with just one extra trick, then pass is what's clear cut, not 6S. If Responder was only concerned about losers or tricks, he would have bid 6S over 5D, because 5D promises adequate controls. He must still be concerned about either about losers or tricks. > > On the other hand, partner's tank (essentially) asks whether I have a heart > control. > I do, and this, in turn suggests rolling the contract back to 5S. > > I think that I would roll the contact back, but I'm not positive. > I wish everyone were positive. I am positive I would have rolled the contract back. I would have also given Opener a PP for egregiously bidding 6S over the clear hesitation. You can't use partner's hesitation to help you navigate through inferior bidding methods and decisions. Both Opener and Responder made terrible choices at the five level, as I will try to show in my next post. Please carefully check my assertion that Opener is nowhere near a supermax for his 4S bid. If you doubt it, I have some pdfs that demonstrate this, and they are available on request. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 08:29:28 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 01:29:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <1627987219.1281731417854.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <1627987219.1281731417854.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: This is a great example, because it shows so well a common trap that directors can fall into: "Gosh, it makes 7, so how can passing 5S be a logical alternative?" The director, being human, cannot easily help but think "I would surely have bid 6S, because it makes seven, so passing 5S is not a logical alternative." But this is improper thinking. Let us look at the auction. 4S is nonforcing, and appropriate, because the hand is only worth about 10 tricks unless Responder can supply two more. I am willing to assume that 5C shows an extra queen or trick. Responder's big error, I would explain to him, is the long hesitation before 5S. He can hesitate for five minutes before bidding 5C without risk. As so often happens, a hesitation before an artificial call is not dangerous. But a hesitation before a signoff or a nonforcing action is. Put your hesitations, if you need to think, before Blackwood, transfers, Stayman, cue bids, etc.. Don't mess up the tempo on your signoffs. That applies as much to Blackwood as cue bidding. Next time, plan your auction. Hesitate before 5C if you need to, because if you bid 5S over 5D in tempo, you leave partner free to bid 6S. 5D was also a big mistake, I would explain. If the 5C cue bid was enough for you to go to slam, then why are you bidding 5D? Bid your slam, and then you can keep your result. But if you cannot go to slam over 5C, I am not going to allow you to go to slam over 5S after you show the most encouraging response possible over 5C and parter's response (5S) is the most discouraging possible, but slow, showing extra values. Either bid 6S over 5C, or pass 5S. Those are your only choices if partner bids 5S slowly. There is nothing wrong with a slow 5S, but 6S in response, as I have shown, is purely driven by UI, and therefore worthy of a PP. So directors, please, don't let them get away with using UI to solve their inefficient methods and techniques. 5C without a plan was bad. 5D instead of 6S was bad, for it is as if you need to know whether the signoff in 5S is slow or in tempo. 5S with a clear hesitation is allowable, but 6S is egregious, and deserves a large PP. Directors should not allow such illogical auctions to rescue a pair from their inefficient methods and poor planning. As I have shown earlier, Opener is nowhere near a maximum for the auction when he bids 4S. His partner might have Kxx,xxx,xxx,Axxx Kxx,xxx,Kxx,Kxxx xxx, xxx, Kxxxx, Ax and the five level is not safe. Tell Responder to put his huddle before 5C next time. Tell him that it is generally safer to huddle before an artificial bid than before a signoff. Tell Opener to bid 6S next time over 5C if 5C is sufficient for slam. He must not wait for Responder to show extra values by pausing before bidding 5S. And give Opener a PP for using the pause before 5S, the most negative possible bid in that situation, to justify bidding slam. Jerry Fusselman From blml at arcor.de Sat Aug 14 09:07:19 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:07:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2505356.1281769639794.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Jerry Fusselman > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:56 PM, richard willey > wrote: > > > > It's difficult to tell whether 6S is a logical alternative. > > > > It does not matter in the least whether 6S is a logical alternative. > Not in the least. One never needs to know whether or not the action > that was taken was a logical alternative. We need to know whether > passing 5S is a logical alternative. > > > On the one hand, I have a super max for the immediate 4S bid. > > Sorry, no. If partner has a minimum balanced had with three spades, > three controls, and nothing else useful, your expected haul is ten > tricks. Remember the opponents could muster no interference, so the > deal looks relatively balanced. My estimate of 10 tricks is easy to > check out with a random dealer and a double-dummy solver. You are at > least a trick short of a supermax. That is standard American like bidding, where you dare make a slam try only if you have lots of extras. In normal Blue Club, a cue bid below game level does not show any extras. Opener can bid 4S in this sequence only if there are not enough controls for slam, otherwise a cue bid is mandatory. I see some implication from AI that responder has a D singleton or void. > Opener has > Axxxx, AKQx, Axx, x. > A partner who bids 3S after showing 3 controls might have > Kxx, xxxx, xx, Axxx > Kxx, xxx, xxxx, Axx > xxx, xx, Kxxx, Axxx Those example hands are irrelevant. Responder must be significantly better than this, as he bid 5C over opener's 4S signoff. Thomas -- Wassertemperaturen in Deutschland Sommer, Sonne, Strand - wer braucht Abk?hlung? Die aktuellen Wassertemperaturen und Windgeschwindigkeiten f?r Deutschlands Badeseen gibt?s auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wassertemp From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Aug 14 09:47:40 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:47:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:28:05 +0200, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:56 PM, richard willey > wrote: >> >> It's difficult to tell whether 6S is a logical alternative. >> > > It does not matter in the least whether 6S is a logical alternative. > Not in the least. One never needs to know whether or not the action > that was taken was a logical alternative. We need to know whether > passing 5S is a logical alternative. > >> On the one hand, I have a super max for the immediate 4S bid. > > Sorry, no. If partner has a minimum balanced had with three spades, > three controls, and nothing else useful, your expected haul is ten > tricks. Remember the opponents could muster no interference, so the > deal looks relatively balanced. My estimate of 10 tricks is easy to > check out with a random dealer and a double-dummy solver. You are at > least a trick short of a supermax. Please note that 3S (as generally played here and also by this pair) shows slam interest. Responder would have bid 4S otherwise. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 17:10:13 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:10:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <2505356.1281769639794.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2505356.1281769639794.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Jerry Fusselman >> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:56 PM, richard willey >> wrote: >> >> > On the one hand, I have a super max for the immediate 4S bid. >> >> Sorry, no. ?If partner has a minimum balanced had with three spades, >> three controls, and nothing else useful, your expected haul is ten >> tricks. ?Remember the opponents could muster no interference, so the >> deal looks relatively balanced. ?My estimate of 10 tricks is easy to >> check out with a random dealer and a double-dummy solver. ?You are at >> least a trick short of a supermax. > > That is standard American like bidding, where you dare make a slam try > only if you have lots of extras. In normal Blue Club, a cue bid below > game level does not show any extras. Opener can bid 4S in this sequence > only if there are not enough controls for slam, otherwise a cue bid > is mandatory. I see some implication from AI that responder has > a D singleton or void. > > >> Opener has >> Axxxx, AKQx, Axx, x. >> A partner who bids 3S after showing 3 controls might have >> Kxx, xxxx, xx, Axxx >> Kxx, xxx, xxxx, Axx >> xxx, xx, Kxxx, Axxx > > > Those example hands are irrelevant. Responder must be significantly better than > this, as he bid 5C over opener's 4S signoff. > Those hands were possible at the time of 3S, and they show that Opener is not a supermax for his 4S bid, which was the subject I was addressing. How much better might Responder be when he bids 5C? Perhaps one of these: xxx, xx, x, AKQJxxx Qxx, xxx, x, AKQxxx Jxx, Jx, Kxxx, AQJx KQxx, xxxx, xxx, Ax I would not want to be in slam with these. But it hardly matters. Opener felt he was not strong enough to bid 6S over 5C, so how can he be strong enough to bid 6S over 5S? Apparently, he was only strong enough to bid 6S after a huddle. Jerry Fusselman From blml at arcor.de Sat Aug 14 17:48:56 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:48:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid Message-ID: <2012268.1281800936965.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Jerry Fusselman > >> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:56 PM, richard willey > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On the one hand, I have a super max for the immediate 4S bid. > >> > >> Sorry, no. ?If partner has a minimum balanced had with three spades, > >> three controls, and nothing else useful, your expected haul is ten > >> tricks. ?Remember the opponents could muster no interference, so the > >> deal looks relatively balanced. ?My estimate of 10 tricks is easy to > >> check out with a random dealer and a double-dummy solver. ?You are at > >> least a trick short of a supermax. > > > > That is standard American like bidding, where you dare make a slam try > > only if you have lots of extras. In normal Blue Club, a cue bid below > > game level does not show any extras. Opener can bid 4S in this sequence > > only if there are not enough controls for slam, otherwise a cue bid > > is mandatory. I see some implication from AI that responder has > > a D singleton or void. > > > > > >> Opener has > >> Axxxx, AKQx, Axx, x. > >> A partner who bids 3S after showing 3 controls might have > >> Kxx, xxxx, xx, Axxx > >> Kxx, xxx, xxxx, Axx > >> xxx, xx, Kxxx, Axxx > > > > > > Those example hands are irrelevant. Responder must be significantly better than > > this, as he bid 5C over opener's 4S signoff. > > > > Those hands were possible at the time of 3S, Not even that. Those hands would bid 4S over 2S. > and they show that Opener > is not a supermax for his 4S bid, which was the subject I was > addressing. 1C strong. 1S artificial, exactly 3 controls, game forcing 2S natural, 5+ spades. Does not limit the hand in any way relevant to this discussion. 3S confirms spades, mildy slam invitational or better (fast arrival is part of Blue Club, see page 25) Now the general slam bidding principles of Blue Club kick in, a cue bid by opener would not show any extras, it would just show first or second round control, and a hand with neutral slam interest. Opener didn't make such a "neutral slam interest" cue bid over responder's mildly slam interest 3S, and opener has a supermax for *that*. Responder's 5C cue bid then shows massive extras, not just another queen. I suggest that you open up your copy of Garrozo/Yallouze. Of course the TD has to inquire whether the pair in question was actually playing Blue Club, rather than merely Blue Club control responses over a strong 1C. Thomas -- Wassertemperaturen in Deutschland Sommer, Sonne, Strand - wer braucht Abk?hlung? Die aktuellen Wassertemperaturen und Windgeschwindigkeiten f?r Deutschlands Badeseen gibt?s auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wassertemp From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 19:08:29 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:08:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <2012268.1281800936965.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> References: <2012268.1281800936965.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> > Jerry Fusselman >> > >> >> Opener has >> >> Axxxx, AKQx, Axx, x. >> >> A partner who bids 3S after showing 3 controls might have >> >> Kxx, xxxx, xx, Axxx >> >> Kxx, xxx, xxxx, Axx >> >> xxx, xx, Kxxx, Axxx >> > >> > >> > Those example hands are irrelevant. Responder must be significantly better than >> > this, as he bid 5C over opener's 4S signoff. >> > >> >> Those hands were possible at the time of 3S, > > Not even that. Those hands would bid 4S over 2S. > Maybe so. I play last train, and perhaps that blinded me to the possibility of fast arrival, which I regard as wasteful. In my world, 4S should be a picture bid, for it removes so many cue bids from the party. It is difficult for me to understand their methods. Would you care to show or describe what a minimum 3S hand might look like to players playing the methods exhibited by auction under study? > > 1C strong. > 1S artificial, exactly 3 controls, game forcing > 2S natural, ?5+ spades. Does not limit the hand in any way relevant to this discussion. > 3S confirms spades, mildy slam invitational or better (fast arrival is part of Blue Club, see page 25) > I don't think they were really playing Blue Club, do you? > Now the general slam bidding principles of Blue Club kick in, a cue bid > by opener would not show any extras, it would just show first > or second round control, and a hand with neutral slam interest. > Opener didn't make such a "neutral slam interest" cue bid over > responder's mildly slam interest 3S, and opener has a supermax for *that*. > For the sake of argument, I agree with this. Let us see where it gets us. > > Responder's 5C cue bid then shows massive extras, not just > another queen. > > I suggest that you open up your copy of Garrozo/Yallouze. I will take your word for it, and agree with this too. > > Of course the TD has to inquire whether the pair in question > was actually playing Blue Club, rather than merely Blue Club > control responses over a strong 1C. > It seems that you have already told us that 4S instead of cue bidding shows that they were not playing Blue Club. Who cares whether they thought they were playing Garrozo/Yallouze verbatim? Go ahead and assume they were and see where it leads. I am sure that 5S denies values for slam opposite a hand that feels we have sufficient controls. I am sure that 5S is a negative given the auction so far. When Opener bid 5D, obviously he shows sufficient controls for slam. But Opener must know that Responder might huddle before bidding 5S. So 5D makes Responder the captain. If the extras that 5C shows are sufficient for slam, Opener should bid it now, before Responder huddles over 5S. I am not going to accept a claim by Opener that he is considering a possible grand slam. Queens and Jacks don't buy you that much, and their methods give no way to find out about Responder's spade suit. ----- I really think that a useful rule of thumb is to tank over your artificial bids rather than your nonforcing natural bids: In 2NT-3C-3H-4H, tank over 3C, not 4H. In 2NT-3H (transfer)-3S-4S, tank before transferring, not when bidding 4S. Tank when you ask for aces or key cards, not when you bid five of your agreed suit. Tank when you start a cue bidding sequence, not when you bid four or five of your agreed suit. Tank when you bid Jacoby 2NT, not when you bid four or your agreed suit. So 5D was an error if his hand is really good enough for slam after 5C. He should have bid 6S if he thought that slam was a good bet no matter what 5C showed. A fast 5C was an error if Responder might tank before 5S. Responder should have planned his auction before bidding 5S. A tank before 5C is safe. A tank before 5S is terrible if partner might next bid 6S in your system. In the action we have been considering, I would say that tanks before 5C and 5D are free and convey no useful UI. The information arising from 5S is extremely tempo sensitive, but it is easy to plan the auction to avoid that problem---simply plan the auction when you ask for aces or keycards or start showing controls. And directors should focus on these cases where a tank before a natural bid can only show extras. Don't allow the players to gain from their partner's tanks at these tempo-sensitive moments. Jerry Fusselman From blml at arcor.de Sat Aug 14 21:08:09 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:08:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <2012268.1281800936965.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1607063537.2333701281812889555.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Jerry Fusselman > I am sure that 5S denies values for slam opposite a hand that feels we > have sufficient controls. I am sure that 5S is a negative given the > auction so far. > > When Opener bid 5D, obviously he shows sufficient controls for slam. > But Opener must know that Responder might huddle before bidding 5S. > So 5D makes Responder the captain. If the extras that 5C shows are > sufficient for slam, Opener should bid it now, before Responder > huddles over 5S. I disagree with this one, simply because I would bid 5D over 5C, too. And then I would sign off in 5S if responder cue bids a H singleton, whereas I would bid 6S if responder does not show a H singleton. Opposite Kxxx,xxxx,x,Axxx slam is excellent, whereas opposite Kxxx,x,xxxx,Axxx slam needs 2-2 spades. Of course if they play splinters (not an inherent part of Blue Club but can be added) then responder might have splintered with those hands. Thomas -- Wassertemperaturen in Deutschland Sommer, Sonne, Strand - wer braucht Abk?hlung? Die aktuellen Wassertemperaturen und Windgeschwindigkeiten f?r Deutschlands Badeseen gibt?s auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wassertemp From B.Schelen at Claranet.NL Sat Aug 14 21:12:38 2010 From: B.Schelen at Claranet.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:12:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> Peter, Law81C5 gives the Director the power to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. Question 1: I have all the years on different level never had such a request. Would you be so kind to give me un indication under wich conditions you would fulfill such a request? Question 2: Declarer made a revoke in 6NT and the result is now 6NT+1. The director is summoned and he ascertained that the revoke trick is won by declarer and after that another trick. So two tricks have to be transfered and the result is then 6NT-1. Without the revoke 12 tricks are cold. Now the non-offending side requests to waive the rectification. Peter, what are the possibilities? Forget for a moment Question 1. 6NT+1, 6NT or 6NT-1. Yours truly, Ben From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 21:30:39 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:30:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <1607063537.2333701281812889555.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> References: <2012268.1281800936965.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> <1607063537.2333701281812889555.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Jerry Fusselman >> I am sure that 5S denies values for slam opposite a hand that feels we >> have sufficient controls. ?I am sure that 5S is a negative given the >> auction so far. >> >> When Opener bid 5D, obviously he shows sufficient controls for slam. >> But Opener must know that Responder might huddle before bidding 5S. >> So 5D makes Responder the captain. ?If the extras that 5C shows are >> sufficient for slam, Opener should bid it now, before Responder >> huddles over 5S. > > I disagree with this one, simply because I would bid 5D over 5C, too. > And then I would sign off in 5S if responder cue bids a H singleton, > whereas I would bid 6S if responder does not show a H singleton. > > Opposite Kxxx,xxxx,x,Axxx slam is excellent, whereas > opposite Kxxx,x,xxxx,Axxx slam needs 2-2 spades. > Of course if they play splinters (not an inherent part of Blue Club > but can be added) then responder might have splintered with > those hands. > Let us look at this. You say you would bid 5D over 5C. I consider this an ultra-lazy choice that handcuffs you if partner tanks before signing off. For the record, what would you do if partner next bids 5S after a clear hesitation? By the way, are you sure that a singleton heart dooms your chances for slam? Also, can you see that hesitation signoffs after starting 5-level cue bids is just as bad as hesitation Blackwood? When bidding 5D, are you considering a possible grand slam? I really want to know your answers to these questions. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 23:54:38 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:54:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > > Please note that 3S (as generally played here and also by this pair) shows > slam interest. Responder would have bid 4S otherwise. > I rather doubt this... Why did Opener bid 4S? If 3S shows extras, would you have bid 4Snext? Maybe 3S does not mean to them what it means to you. What is a minimum hand for 3S for you? What does 5C show---is it forcing to slam for you? Would you consider 6S over a very slow 5S? Jerry Fusselman From blml at arcor.de Sun Aug 15 00:00:56 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 00:00:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid Message-ID: <224227321.1281823256045.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Jerry Fusselman > >> I am sure that 5S denies values for slam opposite a hand that feels we > >> have sufficient controls. ?I am sure that 5S is a negative given the > >> auction so far. > >> > >> When Opener bid 5D, obviously he shows sufficient controls for slam. > >> But Opener must know that Responder might huddle before bidding 5S. > >> So 5D makes Responder the captain. ?If the extras that 5C shows are > >> sufficient for slam, Opener should bid it now, before Responder > >> huddles over 5S. > > > > I disagree with this one, simply because I would bid 5D over 5C, too. > > And then I would sign off in 5S if responder cue bids a H singleton, > > whereas I would bid 6S if responder does not show a H singleton. > > > > Opposite Kxxx,xxxx,x,Axxx slam is excellent, whereas > > opposite Kxxx,x,xxxx,Axxx slam needs 2-2 spades. > > Of course if they play splinters (not an inherent part of Blue Club > > but can be added) then responder might have splintered with > > those hands. > > Let us look at this. You say you would bid 5D over 5C. I consider > this an ultra-lazy choice that handcuffs you if partner tanks before > signing off. For the record, what would you do if partner next bids > 5S after a clear hesitation? The auction as described cannot happen with me holding opener's hand, as I would not have bid 4S. Whether I bid the slam at the table after a hesitation depends on the exact agreements on what responder's sequence shows. My main decision point would be whether responder has guaranteed four or more spades. If I do not know that from AI, the hesitation makes it more likely that responder has four or more spades, which resolves the potential problem in the trump suit. > By the way, are you sure that a singleton heart dooms your chances for > slam? No, I am not sure, but then I am not sure that we'll make 5S opposite a H singleton. Even four are not completely safe opposite, say, xxxx,x,QJTx,AKJT. > Also, can you see that hesitation signoffs after starting 5-level cue > bids is just as bad as hesitation Blackwood? I agree, they are about the same. Still, the law is not "he who hesitates gets a bad score". > When bidding 5D, are you considering a possible grand slam? No, I would be checking whether responder's promised extra values contain a useless H singleton. A grand slam is possible opposite a D singleton, but I would never reach it after this start. Moreover, I would be playing splinters after 2S, where a splinter shows four card support. Thomas -- Wassertemperaturen in Deutschland Sommer, Sonne, Strand - wer braucht Abk?hlung? Die aktuellen Wassertemperaturen und Windgeschwindigkeiten f?r Deutschlands Badeseen gibt?s auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wassertemp From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sun Aug 15 00:02:30 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 00:02:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?To_bid_or_not_to_bid?= In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1OkOoA-1zvYZM0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> From: Jerry Fusselman > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB > wrote: > > > > Please note that 3S (as generally played here and also by this pair) > > shows slam interest. Responder would have bid 4S otherwise. > > > > > > I rather doubt this... Why did Opener bid 4S? ?If 3S shows extras, > would you have bid 4Snext? ?Maybe 3S does not mean to them what it > means to you. ?What is a minimum hand for 3S for you? > > What does 5C show---is it forcing to slam for you? > > Would you consider 6S over a very slow 5S? ahhhhhhh, shut up !!! Nobody is interested in your understanding of Blue Club, especially as you conceded that you have no idea of it. 3 Spades shows (mild) slam interest - if you believe it or not; 3 Spades is stronger than 4 Spades. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 02:02:42 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:02:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <224227321.1281823256045.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <224227321.1281823256045.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas, Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I have followups below. On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> > Jerry Fusselman >> >> I am sure that 5S denies values for slam opposite a hand that feels we >> >> have sufficient controls. ?I am sure that 5S is a negative given the >> >> auction so far. >> >> >> >> When Opener bid 5D, obviously he shows sufficient controls for slam. >> >> But Opener must know that Responder might huddle before bidding 5S. >> >> So 5D makes Responder the captain. ?If the extras that 5C shows are >> >> sufficient for slam, Opener should bid it now, before Responder >> >> huddles over 5S. >> > >> > I disagree with this one, simply because I would bid 5D over 5C, too. >> > And then I would sign off in 5S if responder cue bids a H singleton, >> > whereas I would bid 6S if responder does not show a H singleton. >> > >> > Opposite Kxxx,xxxx,x,Axxx slam is excellent, whereas >> > opposite Kxxx,x,xxxx,Axxx slam needs 2-2 spades. >> > Of course if they play splinters (not an inherent part of Blue Club >> > but can be added) then responder might have splintered with >> > those hands. >> >> Let us look at this. ?You say you would bid 5D over 5C. ?I consider >> this an ultra-lazy choice that handcuffs you if partner tanks before >> signing off. ?For the record, what would you do if partner next bids >> 5S after a clear hesitation? > > The auction as described cannot happen with me holding opener's hand, > as I would not have bid 4S. > > Whether I bid the slam at the table after a hesitation depends on the exact > agreements on what responder's sequence shows. My main decision > point would be whether responder has guaranteed four or more spades. > If I do not know that from AI, the hesitation makes it more likely that responder > has four or more spades, which resolves the potential problem in the trump suit. > >> By the way, are you sure that a singleton heart dooms your chances for >> slam? > > No, I am not sure, but then I am not sure that we'll make 5S opposite > a H singleton. Even four are not completely safe opposite, say, xxxx,x,QJTx,AKJT. > I always like to learn about better bidding and evaluation. I checked your assertion about the negative value of a stiff heart with my random-deal program and double-dummy solver. Actually, if Responder has a singleton heart, the prospects in slam are better (by about 0.1 tricks), not worse. My results are available to anyone. For this test, the only change I made with a good Responder hand was that he had a singleton heart, and the expected number of tricks increased. It is not easy to come with legitimate cases where showing a control is worst than denying a control. Given these results, please reconsideryour assertion that denying a heart cue bid shows a better hand than showing one. Maybe it wiser to bid 6S rather than 5D. What information do you expect to get other than partner's hesitation before bidding 5S? >> Also, can you see that hesitation signoffs after starting 5-level cue >> bids is just as bad as hesitation Blackwood? > > I agree, they are about the same. Still, the law is not "he who hesitates > gets a bad score". Thanks for your agreement. But the law is also not "he who bids slam when it takes all of the tricks can bid a small slam with impunity after partner shows extras via UI." > >> When bidding 5D, are you considering a possible grand slam? > > No, I would be checking whether responder's promised > extra values contain a useless H singleton. I think that a careful computer study, like what I have done, shows that the possibility that Responder has a heart singleton is a red herring. A heart singleton is not useless when you have adequate controls and possible losers in diamonds, as we have here. The heart singleton actually improves your slam prospects. > > A grand slam is possible opposite a D singleton, but I would never > reach it after this start. Moreover, I would be playing splinters after > 2S, where a splinter shows four card support. That is interesting, but the auction went ...-2S-3S-4S. We should probably restrict ourselves to methods that start with this sequence. Jerry Fusselman From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Aug 15 02:23:49 2010 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (LarryB) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 01:23:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid References: <224227321.1281823256045.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: I have a virtual "vade mecum". It suggests that if I rule (in these kind of circumstances) for the "offending side" then an appeals committee will agree with me in short shrift. Not so by a mile. I disallow 6 LB Thomas, Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I have followups below. On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> > Jerry Fusselman >> >> I am sure that 5S denies values for slam opposite a hand that feels we >> >> have sufficient controls. I am sure that 5S is a negative given the >> >> auction so far. >> >> >> >> When Opener bid 5D, obviously he shows sufficient controls for slam. >> >> But Opener must know that Responder might huddle before bidding 5S. >> >> So 5D makes Responder the captain. If the extras that 5C shows are >> >> sufficient for slam, Opener should bid it now, before Responder >> >> huddles over 5S. >> > >> > I disagree with this one, simply because I would bid 5D over 5C, too. >> > And then I would sign off in 5S if responder cue bids a H singleton, >> > whereas I would bid 6S if responder does not show a H singleton. >> > >> > Opposite Kxxx,xxxx,x,Axxx slam is excellent, whereas >> > opposite Kxxx,x,xxxx,Axxx slam needs 2-2 spades. >> > Of course if they play splinters (not an inherent part of Blue Club >> > but can be added) then responder might have splintered with >> > those hands. >> >> Let us look at this. You say you would bid 5D over 5C. I consider >> this an ultra-lazy choice that handcuffs you if partner tanks before >> signing off. For the record, what would you do if partner next bids >> 5S after a clear hesitation? > > The auction as described cannot happen with me holding opener's hand, > as I would not have bid 4S. > > Whether I bid the slam at the table after a hesitation depends on the > exact > agreements on what responder's sequence shows. My main decision > point would be whether responder has guaranteed four or more spades. > If I do not know that from AI, the hesitation makes it more likely that > responder > has four or more spades, which resolves the potential problem in the trump > suit. > >> By the way, are you sure that a singleton heart dooms your chances for >> slam? > > No, I am not sure, but then I am not sure that we'll make 5S opposite > a H singleton. Even four are not completely safe opposite, say, > xxxx,x,QJTx,AKJT. > I always like to learn about better bidding and evaluation. I checked your assertion about the negative value of a stiff heart with my random-deal program and double-dummy solver. Actually, if Responder has a singleton heart, the prospects in slam are better (by about 0.1 tricks), not worse. My results are available to anyone. For this test, the only change I made with a good Responder hand was that he had a singleton heart, and the expected number of tricks increased. It is not easy to come with legitimate cases where showing a control is worst than denying a control. Given these results, please reconsideryour assertion that denying a heart cue bid shows a better hand than showing one. Maybe it wiser to bid 6S rather than 5D. What information do you expect to get other than partner's hesitation before bidding 5S? >> Also, can you see that hesitation signoffs after starting 5-level cue >> bids is just as bad as hesitation Blackwood? > > I agree, they are about the same. Still, the law is not "he who hesitates > gets a bad score". Thanks for your agreement. But the law is also not "he who bids slam when it takes all of the tricks can bid a small slam with impunity after partner shows extras via UI." > >> When bidding 5D, are you considering a possible grand slam? > > No, I would be checking whether responder's promised > extra values contain a useless H singleton. I think that a careful computer study, like what I have done, shows that the possibility that Responder has a heart singleton is a red herring. A heart singleton is not useless when you have adequate controls and possible losers in diamonds, as we have here. The heart singleton actually improves your slam prospects. > > A grand slam is possible opposite a D singleton, but I would never > reach it after this start. Moreover, I would be playing splinters after > 2S, where a splinter shows four card support. That is interesting, but the auction went ...-2S-3S-4S. We should probably restrict ourselves to methods that start with this sequence. Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 02:52:11 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:52:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <1Ojvg8-0rmi6C0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <1Ojvg8-0rmi6C0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: [Peter Eidt, the OP] in a big (?) team tournament the opponents bid in a Blue Club sequence (w/o interference): 1 Cl (BC) ? - ? 1 Sp (exactly 3 controls, A=2, K=1) 2 Sp (nat) ?- ? 3 Sp (nat, positiv) 4 Sp (nat) ?- ? 5 Cl (Cue) 5 Di (Cue) - ? ...5 Sp (undisputed huddle) 6 Sp ? ? ? ? ? ?- ? pass Opener holds [Axxxx], AKQx, Axx, x and makes 13 tricks. If you were called after the board, what would you decide? [Petrus Schuster OSB] Please note that 3S (as generally played here and also by this pair) shows slam interest. Responder would have bid 4S otherwise. [Jerry Fusselman] I rather doubt this... Why did Opener bid 4S? If 3S shows extras, would you have bid 4S next? Maybe 3S does not mean to them what it means to you. What is a minimum hand for 3S for you? What does 5C show---is it forcing to slam for you? Would you consider 6S over a very slow 5S? [Peter Eidt] ahhhhhhh, shut up !!! Nobody is interested in your understanding of Blue Club, especially as you conceded that you have no idea of it. 3 Spades shows (mild) slam interest - if you believe it or not; 3 Spades is stronger than 4 Spades. [Jerry Fusselman] Peter Eidt is the OP. Apparently, I struck a raw nerve, but he misunderstands my contribution. Sorry about that. Please permit to restate my intended contributions to this thread: 1. Instead of huddling before 5S, Responder should have huddled before 5C. A world of difference. 2. Instead of bidding 5D, Opener should have bid 6S if he thought that 5C gave him enough for slam. What was the point of bidding 5D when you have AKQx of hearts? 3. After the huddle before 5S, which can only show extras, Opener deserves a PP if he bids 6S, because he could not muster 6S over 5C. 4. A rule of thumb that handles these cases rather well is to plan the auction so that you huddle before your artificial calls, not before your nonforcing and natural calls. If either Opener or Responder had done this, there would be no difficulty and they would be able to keep their slam, assuming they would bid it without UI. I cannot tell which of these Peter can refute. I never claimed to be an expert on Blue Club. I don't think it matters. Which of these points does Peter disagree with? It appears that Peter claims to be a Blue Club expert. Perhaps he can tell us the meaning of 4S in this auction. Also, what is the meaning of 5D?---why not an immediate 6S? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 02:59:07 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:59:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <224227321.1281823256045.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 7:23 PM, LarryB wrote: > I have a virtual "vade mecum". It suggests that if I rule (in these kind of > circumstances) for the "offending side" then an appeals committee will agree > with me in short shrift. Not so by a mile. I disallow 6 > I agree with disallowing 6. What about a PP for use of UI? The OP called this a big (?) team tournament. Jerry Fusselman From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sun Aug 15 10:07:14 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:07:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?To_bid_or_not_to_bid?= Message-ID: <1OkYFO-1gHNuS0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> From: Jerry Fusselman > [Peter Eidt, the OP] > > in a big (?) team tournament the opponents bid > in a Blue Club sequence (w/o interference): > > 1 Cl (BC) ? - ? 1 Sp (exactly 3 controls, A=2, K=1) > 2 Sp (nat) ?- ? 3 Sp (nat, positiv) > 4 Sp (nat) ?- ? 5 Cl (Cue) > 5 Di (Cue) - ? ...5 Sp (undisputed huddle) > 6 Sp ? ? ? ? ? ?- ? pass > > Opener holds Axxxx, AKQx, Axx, x and declarer makes 13 tricks. > > If you were called after the board, what would you decide? > > [Petrus Schuster OSB] > > Please note that 3S (as generally played here and also by this pair) > shows slam interest. Responder would have bid 4S otherwise. > [snip] > [Jerry Fusselman] > > Peter Eidt is the OP. ?Apparently, I struck a raw nerve, but he > misunderstands my contribution. ?Sorry about that. ?Please permit to > restate my intended contributions to this thread: > > 1. ?Instead of huddling before 5S, Responder should have huddled > before 5C. ?A world of difference. > 2. ?Instead of bidding 5D, Opener should have bid 6S if he thought > that 5C gave him enough for slam. ?What was the point of bidding 5D > when you have AKQx of hearts? > 3. ?After the huddle before 5S, which can only show extras, Opener > deserves a PP if he bids 6S, because he could not muster 6S over 5C. > 4. ?A rule of thumb that handles these cases rather well is to plan > the auction so that you huddle before your artificial calls, not > before your nonforcing and natural calls. ?If either Opener or > Responder had done this, there would be no difficulty and they would > be able to keep their slam, assuming they would bid it without UI. > > I cannot tell which of these Peter can refute. ?I never claimed to be > an expert on Blue Club. ?I don't think it matters. ?Which of these > points does Peter disagree with? > > It appears that Peter claims to be a Blue Club expert. ?Perhaps he can > tell us the meaning of 4S in this auction. ?Also, what is the meaning > of 5D?---why not an immediate 6S? To clarify my position ... We are having a long discussion about this problem in a German mainling list which was deadlocked (the discussion ;-)) and I was asked to present it here on blml to get some other, "neutral" thoughts. I never pretended to be an expert on Blue Club. The original problem was posted by another man who was sitting opposite the pair above. He told us they were playing Blue Club and that 3 Spades was explicit better than 4 Spades would have been in that auction. The correspondent could not answer the questions, why opener did not a) cuebid after 3 Sp; nor b) jump to 6 Sp after 5 Cl - simply because nobody (not even the TD) asked opener. To clarify the problems of the problem: 1. Is there enough AI in the bidding (3 Sp, 5 Cl) to "compensate" the UI before 5 Sp (iaw the hesitation includes no "new" information) ?? 2. Is pass a LA for opener ?? If there is a "yes" to either question, IMO 6 Sp is not an infraction. I would appreciate some thoughts by blml to these aspects (only). Peter From blml at arcor.de Sun Aug 15 10:31:53 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:31:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <1OkYFO-1gHNuS0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> References: <1OkYFO-1gHNuS0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <978653.1281861113573.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Jerry Fusselman > > [Peter Eidt, the OP] > > > > in a big (?) team tournament the opponents bid > > in a Blue Club sequence (w/o interference): > > > > 1 Cl (BC) ? - ? 1 Sp (exactly 3 controls, A=2, K=1) > > 2 Sp (nat) ?- ? 3 Sp (nat, positiv) > > 4 Sp (nat) ?- ? 5 Cl (Cue) > > 5 Di (Cue) - ? ...5 Sp (undisputed huddle) > > 6 Sp ? ? ? ? ? ?- ? pass > > > > Opener holds Axxxx, AKQx, Axx, x and declarer makes 13 tricks. > > > > If you were called after the board, what would you decide? > > > > [Petrus Schuster OSB] > > > > Please note that 3S (as generally played here and also by this pair) > > shows slam interest. Responder would have bid 4S otherwise. > > > > [snip] > > > [Jerry Fusselman] > > > > Peter Eidt is the OP. ?Apparently, I struck a raw nerve, but he > > misunderstands my contribution. ?Sorry about that. ?Please permit to > > restate my intended contributions to this thread: > > > > 1. ?Instead of huddling before 5S, Responder should have huddled > > before 5C. ?A world of difference. > > 2. ?Instead of bidding 5D, Opener should have bid 6S if he thought > > that 5C gave him enough for slam. ?What was the point of bidding 5D > > when you have AKQx of hearts? > > 3. ?After the huddle before 5S, which can only show extras, Opener > > deserves a PP if he bids 6S, because he could not muster 6S over 5C. > > 4. ?A rule of thumb that handles these cases rather well is to plan > > the auction so that you huddle before your artificial calls, not > > before your nonforcing and natural calls. ?If either Opener or > > Responder had done this, there would be no difficulty and they would > > be able to keep their slam, assuming they would bid it without UI. > > > > I cannot tell which of these Peter can refute. ?I never claimed to be > > an expert on Blue Club. ?I don't think it matters. ?Which of these > > points does Peter disagree with? > > > > It appears that Peter claims to be a Blue Club expert. ?Perhaps he can > > tell us the meaning of 4S in this auction. ?Also, what is the meaning > > of 5D?---why not an immediate 6S? > > To clarify my position ... > > We are having a long discussion about this problem in a German > mainling list which was deadlocked (the discussion ;-)) and I was > asked to present it here on blml to get some other, "neutral" thoughts. > I never pretended to be an expert on Blue Club. > The original problem was posted by another man who was > sitting opposite the pair above. > He told us they were playing Blue Club and that 3 Spades was > explicit better than 4 Spades would have been in that auction. > The correspondent could not answer the questions, why opener > did not a) cuebid after 3 Sp; nor b) jump to 6 Sp after 5 Cl - simply > because nobody (not even the TD) asked opener. > > To clarify the problems of the problem: > 1. Is there enough AI in the bidding (3 Sp, 5 Cl) to "compensate" > the UI before 5 Sp (iaw the hesitation includes no "new" information) ?? > 2. Is pass a LA for opener ?? You'd need to know what exactly 3S and 5C promised, including whether responder had alternative bids available such as splinters, and implications on responder's trump length and quality, if any. You are not gonna find that out via discussion on a mailing list. Thomas -- Wassertemperaturen in Deutschland Sommer, Sonne, Strand - wer braucht Abk?hlung? Die aktuellen Wassertemperaturen und Windgeschwindigkeiten f?r Deutschlands Badeseen gibt?s auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wassertemp From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 16:15:04 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 09:15:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > > Please note that 3S (as generally played here and also by this pair) shows > slam interest. Responder would have bid 4S otherwise. > Petrus, since you have this familiarity, would you please give us an example of a minimum 3S hand (with three controls)? Are these hands about right? xxx, xxx, x, AKJxxx Qxx, xxx, Kx, Axxxx KQxx, xx, xxxx, Axx Also, what did Opener's 4S show according to their system? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 17:03:49 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:03:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <1OkYFO-1gHNuS0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> References: <1OkYFO-1gHNuS0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > > To clarify the problems of the problem: > 1. Is there enough AI in the bidding (3 Sp, 5 Cl) to "compensate" > the UI before 5 Sp (iaw the hesitation includes no "new" information) ?? > 2. Is pass a LA for opener ?? > > If there is a "yes" to either question, IMO 6 Sp is not an infraction. > > I would appreciate some thoughts by blml to these aspects (only). > It was written slightly backwards for question 2, but I think we know what Peter means. If pass is not a LA for opener, then 6S is not an infraction. I doubt we will hear any quarrel with that on BLML. But if Opener's pass was a LA after 5S, then 6S is an infraction. That's what the law states, because we all agree that the UI exists and shows extra values. I consider Peter's question 1 relevant only to the extent it helps answer question 2. Offline, a director told me he would rule no infraction if Opener, when he bid 5D, was *planning* to bid 6S over 5S. He would only rule an infraction if Opener was planning to pass 5S originally, but that this ruling would be unlikely unless Opener explicitly admitted it when asked. I know that lots of directors think this way, and when they realize they cannot read minds, they tend to rule no infraction. But this approach contains a big mistake. Opener's plan when he bid 5D is irrelevant under the laws as to whether 6S is permissible. The laws do not tell players that if you were planning to bid 6S over 5S go ahead and do it after you get that UI show of extra strength. Directors don't have to be mind readers about this. They should not even try. Instead, they should enforce the laws. What the law states is that the player must determine whether or not pass would be a logical alternative to peers playing his system. Whether or not he had been planning to bid 6S over 5S is irrelevant to that determination. If in doubt as to whether or not pass is an LA, roll it back to train the player to put his tanks into less tempo-sensitive places. This kind of auction smells just like Hesitation Blackwood to me, and should be routinely rolled back. The presumption should be to roll it back. Players, it is not that difficult---tank at the artificial bid, not the nonforcing natural bid. If they players can prove on appeal that 5S was forcing or that the auction showed absolutely certain values for the six level and therefore that pass was no LA, then I would allow 6S at that time. One other comment. If the 4S by Opener does not exist in their system, then they are not really playing the system they say they are playing, and they get no benefit of the doubt from me on what 3S and 5C show. If 4S does not exist in their system, I would rule 6S an infraction regardless of what 3S and 5C theoretically show. Jerry Fusselman From torsten.astrand at telia.com Sun Aug 15 18:04:58 2010 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:04:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1:st, 3rd or 5th Message-ID: Suppose I am holding A,K,Q,x or K,Q,J,x and decide to play K resp. Q to check if my partner has the J resp. the T? Firstly, could the opponents ask for a ruling depending on that the declarer has been misinformed by the convention card? Secondly, how should I prepare my convention card? >From A,K,Q,x,x and K,Q,J,x,x I will play the A resp. K Torsten -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100815/32f0dad6/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Sun Aug 15 18:33:01 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:33:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <1OkYFO-1gHNuS0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <14596870.1281889981618.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Jerry Fusselman > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > > > > To clarify the problems of the problem: > > 1. Is there enough AI in the bidding (3 Sp, 5 Cl) to "compensate" > > the UI before 5 Sp (iaw the hesitation includes no "new" information) ?? > > 2. Is pass a LA for opener ?? > > > > If there is a "yes" to either question, IMO 6 Sp is not an infraction. > > > > I would appreciate some thoughts by blml to these aspects (only). > > > > It was written slightly backwards for question 2, but I think we know > what Peter means. If pass is not a LA for opener, then 6S is not an > infraction. I doubt we will hear any quarrel with that on BLML. > > But if Opener's pass was a LA after 5S, then 6S is an infraction. > That's what the law states, because we all agree that the UI exists > and shows extra values. I consider Peter's question 1 relevant only > to the extent it helps answer question 2. Your understanding of the law is incomplete. 6S is an infraction only if the player did not already have AI that gives the same information as the hesitation. Does the hesitation convey anything suggesting bidding 6S that the bidding sequence of first a (mildly) slam invitational 3S and later a strong slam try with 6C does not convey? Thomas -- Wassertemperaturen in Deutschland Sommer, Sonne, Strand - wer braucht Abk?hlung? Die aktuellen Wassertemperaturen und Windgeschwindigkeiten f?r Deutschlands Badeseen gibt?s auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wassertemp From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 20:17:40 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:17:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <14596870.1281889981618.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <1OkYFO-1gHNuS0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <14596870.1281889981618.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: [Jerry Fusselman] But if Opener's pass was a LA after 5S, then 6S is an infraction. That's what the law states, because we all agree that the UI exists and shows extra values. ?I consider Peter's question 1 relevant only to the extent it helps answer question 2. [Thomas Dehn] Your understanding of the law is incomplete. 6S is an infraction only if the player did not already have AI that gives the same information as the hesitation. Does the hesitation convey anything suggesting bidding 6S that the bidding sequence of first a (mildly) slam invitational 3S and later a strong slam try with 6C does not convey? [Law 16B1a] After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. [Jerry Fusselman] Obviously, if AI makes passing 5S not a LA, then 5S is not a LA and there is no infraction. I claim that no one argues this. But I maintain that following the laws requires determining whether or not passing 5S is a LA. Thomas incorrectly disagrees with this, saying it is an infraction "only if the player did not already have AI that gives the same information as the hesitation." Which law is Thomas thinking of? I would agree with him if law 16B1a ended with the additional phrase "unless the player already had AI which gives the same information as the extraneous information." But it does not. Thomas suggested a crucial extra test must be met before ruling a UI infraction. But I don't think that Thomas's phrase it in the laws. Perhaps someone can find it for me. Does Thomas want to change law 16B1a to include an extra condition? Personally, I think the concept of logical alternative handles these cases well, and we don't need to invent a new law for UI decisions. If the quoted phrase is not in the laws, then I would not want to add it. To me, the concept of LA is complete and handles the situation rather nicely. Imagine a situation where one of opener's calls denies a spade stopper, and another shows it. It Opener later says out loud, "I have a spade stopper," would Thomas rule no infraction because part of the AI from the auction was that Opener showed a spade stopper? I hope not. We have to handle auctions where something went wrong. UI is especially valuable when the auction has fallen off its tracks, such as I suspect in this auction, where 4S seems likely to me to be nonsystemic. (My guess about the meaning 4S in this auction could be wrong.) If 4S is nonsystemic, I would certainly rule that passing 5S is a LA. The crucial question under the laws is whether passing 5S is a LA. We should use the auction to help decide this, of course. But unless Thomas or someone else can point to a law that I missed, the consideration about AI that Thomas endorses only matters to the extent that it affects LAs. Jerry Fusselman From blml at arcor.de Sun Aug 15 20:52:12 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:52:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <1OkYFO-1gHNuS0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <14596870.1281889981618.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <10605258.1281898332157.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Jerry Fusselman > [Jerry Fusselman] > > But if Opener's pass was a LA after 5S, then 6S is an infraction. > That's what the law states, because we all agree that the UI exists > and shows extra values. ?I consider Peter's question 1 relevant only > to the extent it helps answer question 2. > > [Thomas Dehn] > > Your understanding of the law is incomplete. > 6S is an infraction only if the player did not already have > AI that gives the same information as the hesitation. > > Does the hesitation convey anything suggesting bidding 6S > that the bidding sequence of first a (mildly) slam invitational 3S > and later a strong slam try with 6C does not convey? > > [Law 16B1a] > > After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information > that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a > reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by > unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, > movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical > alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another > by the extraneous information. 16A1(a) A player may use information in the auction or play if it derives from the legals calls and plays of the current board (...) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source. Also 16A1(d). A simpler example: you and partner agree to play a 12-14 NT. Your partner opens 1NT, RHO asks you "strength?", and partner answers "12-14". Thats UI, but you still can use the AI from your partnership's agreements that your 1 NT opener is 12-14, you do not have to raise him to game on your 11 count, even though raising to game on an 11 count might be an LA. Thomas -- Wassertemperaturen in Deutschland Sommer, Sonne, Strand - wer braucht Abk?hlung? Die aktuellen Wassertemperaturen und Windgeschwindigkeiten f?r Deutschlands Badeseen gibt?s auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wassertemp From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 21:11:27 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:11:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <10605258.1281898332157.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <1OkYFO-1gHNuS0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <14596870.1281889981618.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <10605258.1281898332157.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > A simpler example: you and partner agree to play > a 12-14 NT. Your partner opens 1NT, RHO asks you "strength?", > and partner answers "12-14". Thats UI, but you > still can use the AI from your partnership's agreements > that your 1 NT opener is 12-14, you do > not have to raise him to game on your 11 count, even > though raising to game on an 11 count might be an LA. > I don't get this example at all. Why did your partner announce his own strength? Usually, Opener does not state his own point range. Let us be specific. West opens 1NT, East says it shows 12-14. East is the one who decides whether to raise to game or not. What UI did East get from his own explanation? Perhaps you can fix your example somehow. Jerry Fusselman From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Aug 15 21:15:50 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:15:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: > > Petrus, since you have this familiarity, would you please give us an > example of a minimum 3S hand (with three controls)? Are these hands > about right? > > xxx, xxx, x, AKJxxx borderline. Many would show the clubs first. > Qxx, xxx, Kx, Axxxx 4S. > KQxx, xx, xxxx, Axx 3S, but pass partner's 4S. > > Also, what did Opener's 4S show according to their system? no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a hand where opener can see that there are not enough controls. FTR, the TD asked three or four players for whom, given the TD's decision, pass was not a LA. - This argues at least against a PP. Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas revolution?rem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 22:32:50 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 15:32:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thanks, Patrus! Very helpful! You answered exactly what I wanted to know. On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > >> >> Petrus, since you have this familiarity, would you please give us an >> example of a minimum 3S hand (with three controls)? ?Are these hands >> about right? >> >> xxx, xxx, x, AKJxxx > borderline. Many would show the clubs first. > >> Qxx, xxx, Kx, Axxxx > 4S. > >> KQxx, xx, xxxx, Axx > 3S, but pass partner's 4S. >> >> Also, what did Opener's 4S show according to their system? > > no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a hand where opener > can see that there are not enough controls. I see online that 1C in the Blue Club system shows 17+, and Opener has 17 HCP exactly. Since HCP is their metric, I see no evidence that Opener is a supermax. As director, I would assume he was a supermin. In one aspect I was wrong, obviously: 4S was systemtic and showed a minimum hand. But I doubt that 5C showed *two* extra tricks. If he had two extra tricks, why not bid 6S immediately? > FTR, the TD asked three or four players for whom, given the TD's decision, > pass was not a LA. - This argues at least against a PP. Did these players realize that Opener's hand was better than a standard 17 count? Instead, i.e., did they all bid 4S? May I suggest that if they bid something other than 4S, their analysis is not relevant? Jerry Fusselman From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 23:47:04 2010 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:47:04 +1200 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On 16 August 2010 08:32, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Thanks, Patrus! ?Very helpful! ?You answered exactly what I wanted to know. > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Petrus Schuster OSB > wrote: >> >>> >>> Petrus, since you have this familiarity, would you please give us an >>> example of a minimum 3S hand (with three controls)? ?Are these hands >>> about right? >>> >>> xxx, xxx, x, AKJxxx >> borderline. Many would show the clubs first. >> >>> Qxx, xxx, Kx, Axxxx >> 4S. >> >>> KQxx, xx, xxxx, Axx >> 3S, but pass partner's 4S. >>> >>> Also, what did Opener's 4S show according to their system? >> >> no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a hand where opener >> can see that there are not enough controls. > > I see online that 1C in the Blue Club system shows 17+, and Opener has > 17 HCP exactly. ?Since HCP is their metric, I see no evidence that > Opener is a supermax. ?As director, I would assume he was a supermin. > In one aspect I was wrong, obviously: ?4S was systemtic and showed a > minimum hand. ?But I doubt that 5C showed *two* extra tricks. If he > had two extra tricks, why not bid 6S immediately? > >> FTR, the TD asked three or four players for whom, given the TD's decision, >> pass was not a LA. - This argues at least against a PP. > > Did these players realize that Opener's hand was better than a > standard 17 count? ?Instead, i.e., did they all bid 4S? May I suggest > that if they bid something other than 4S, their analysis is not > relevant? > > Jerry Fusselman Just because HCP is their metric for opening the bidding does not mean that that is the same metric used for making a slam decision. This hand has: 1. Three aces which are undervalued by HCP and extremely valuable in slam decisions. We are opposite a partner who has bid at the five-level freely with at most two key-cards. I would almost always (if not always) bid a slam just based on my three aces 2. An abundance of controls generally - an average 17 count has a shade under 6 controls this hand has 7 controls. Again these are valuable for slam purposes 3. We have a singleton which may be useful in a slam 4. Three of our side cards are combined in one suit as guaranteed tricks. Again this makes our initial 17 HCP an underestimate of our playing strength and slam suitability 5. My guess is that partner's expectation for a slam try opposite a known minimum of 17 HCP is about 13+ HCP or the equivalent in a more distributional hand. Perhaps even some 13 counts would be reluctant based on their lack of controls and the inherent danger at the five-level. Opposite such hands my analysis indicates that slam will be a huge favourite to make 6. It is obvious from the auction and our hand that partner needs a control in hearts. Partner is almost never bidding a slam lacking this control. We have the required control and therefore have a strong obligation to bid more - even in otherwise minimum hands which we have not got 7. If you assume that partner has both of the missing key cards slam is even better. I would expect a partner with only three controls would have two key cards for his slam try much more often than not. Perhaps an inexperienced player would pass 5S but I cannot imagine many experienced players even considering pass. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From mustikka at charter.net Mon Aug 16 02:02:59 2010 From: mustikka at charter.net (Raija D) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 17:02:59 -0700 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier><1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de><11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" If he had two extra tricks, why not bid 6S immediately? *** Because he is looking for a grand, is a very plausible explanation. Firstm responder showed 3 controls. Then, responder showed spade support and slam interest. Then, after opener declined by bidding 4S, responder continued to investigate slam. This is the point in time when the BIT occurred, after the relevant information about the nature of responder's hand had already been conveyed through bids while there was no UI. Opposite significant extras, 6S is clear while trying for the grand is also a LA. Pass, however, is not a LA for anybody who has played bridge more than a month. Mr Fusselman has posted about 15 times in this thread with the same arguments. I would think once, or maybe twice in some cases, is enough. Is there a moderator who can stop the pointless repetition? From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Aug 16 06:49:06 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:49:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 1:st, 3rd or 5th In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The convention card says what your agreements are; you are free to deviate from your agreements as long as your partner knows no more than the opponents. If you lead the Q from KQJx, you have made the decision that you want partner to think you have QJx and to encourage with the T, even at the risk of partner miscounting the rest of the hand. The same situation occurs every time you false-card. ----- Original Message ----- From: Torsten ?strand To: Blml List Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 12:04 PM Subject: [BLML] 1:st, 3rd or 5th Suppose I am holding A,K,Q,x or K,Q,J,x and decide to play K resp. Q to check if my partner has the J resp. the T? Firstly, could the opponents ask for a ruling depending on that the declarer has been misinformed by the convention card? Secondly, how should I prepare my convention card? From A,K,Q,x,x and K,Q,J,x,x I will play the A resp. K Torsten ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100816/2d6941c7/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Aug 16 06:59:29 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:59:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <1OkYFO-1gHNuS0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de><14596870.1281889981618.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net><10605258.1281898332157.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1E612B98CA864685A0678C62BB64EF07@erdos> "Jerry Fusselman" writes: > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> A simpler example: you and partner agree to play >> a 12-14 NT. Your partner opens 1NT, RHO asks you "strength?", >> and partner answers "12-14". Thats UI, but you >> still can use the AI from your partnership's agreements >> that your 1 NT opener is 12-14, you do >> not have to raise him to game on your 11 count, even >> though raising to game on an 11 count might be an LA. >> > > I don't get this example at all. Why did your partner announce his > own strength? Usually, Opener does not state his own point range. > > Let us be specific. West opens 1NT, East says it shows 12-14. East > is the one who decides whether to raise to game or not. What UI did > East get from his own explanation? Perhaps you can fix your example > somehow. West opens 1NT. East announces the range as 16-18 and bids 2NT. West has the UI that East has 7-8 HCP, rather than the 8-9 that 2NT shows for most players. With 17 HCP, West has the LA of passing or bidding 3NT, and the UI suggests passing over bidding. Now, if West knows that the the agreement is to open 16-18 point 1NT, then the UI duplicates the AI, and West is free to pass. (Conversely, if West opened 1NT believing that he played a 15-17 point 1NT, then the UI does not duplicate the AI, and it is an infraction for West to pass.) From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Aug 16 09:26:28 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:26:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1:st, 3rd or 5th In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017b01cb3d14$5782c7e0$068857a0$@nl> If this occurs once you are of course free to do whatever you want. However, your posting suggests that from KQJxx you would always lead the K, but from KQJx you might lead the Q. If this becomes more than a just-once deviation your partner will have more reason to get it right than the opponents. In that case better discuss it and mark the CC. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Torsten ?strand Sent: zondag 15 augustus 2010 18:05 To: Blml List Subject: [BLML] 1:st, 3rd or 5th Suppose I am holding A,K,Q,x or K,Q,J,x and decide to play K resp. Q to check if my partner has the J resp. the T? Firstly, could the opponents ask for a ruling depending on that the declarer has been misinformed by the convention card? Secondly, how should I prepare my convention card? >From A,K,Q,x,x and K,Q,J,x,x I will play the A resp. K Torsten -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100816/72274191/attachment-0001.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Aug 16 10:24:31 2010 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:24:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier><1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fw d05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> Message-ID: <4C68F5BF.7050504@meteo.fr> Ben Schelen a ?crit : > Peter, > > Law81C5 gives the Director the power to waive rectification for cause, in > his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. > > Question 1: > I have all the years on different level never had such a request. > Would you be so kind to give me un indication under wich conditions you > would fulfill such a request? > > Question 2: > Declarer made a revoke in 6NT and the result is now 6NT+1. > The director is summoned and he ascertained that the revoke trick is won by > declarer and after that another trick. how can it be that a player who made a revoke at NT win the trick? jpr > So two tricks have to be transfered and the result is then 6NT-1. > Without the revoke 12 tricks are cold. > Now the non-offending side requests to waive the rectification. > > Peter, what are the possibilities? Forget for a moment Question 1. > 6NT+1, 6NT or 6NT-1. > > Yours truly, > > Ben > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 16 11:30:13 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:30:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: <4C68F5BF.7050504@meteo.fr> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier><1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fw d05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> <4C68F5BF.7050504@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000c01cb3d25$a195e270$e4c1a750$@no> > > Declarer made a revoke in 6NT and the result is now 6NT+1. > > The director is summoned and he ascertained that the revoke trick is > > won by declarer and after that another trick. > > how can it be that a player who made a revoke at NT win the trick? A defender can win a revoke trick at NT, declarer cannot! From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Mon Aug 16 12:05:16 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:05:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: <000c01cb3d25$a195e270$e4c1a750$@no> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier><1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fw d05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc><4C68F5BF.7050504@meteo.fr> <000c01cb3d25$a195e270$e4c1a750$@no> Message-ID: <216C3A806E434F999A7FA23E3E6922EB@PCdeOlivier> sorry, a defender can never win a revoke trick (his partner can when he is revoking but it's not the same ...) declarer can IF dummy lost his rights L43 AND asks first about the revoke L42B1 so declarer plays a card witch "won" the trick and it's a two tricks revoke ... a funny ruling for sure, see more in september :) Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C5 >> > Declarer made a revoke in 6NT and the result is now 6NT+1. >> > The director is summoned and he ascertained that the revoke trick is >> > won by declarer and after that another trick. >> >> how can it be that a player who made a revoke at NT win the trick? > > A defender can win a revoke trick at NT, declarer cannot! > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base > des signatures de virus 5369 (20100816) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5369 (20100816) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 16 12:52:13 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:52:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: <216C3A806E434F999A7FA23E3E6922EB@PCdeOlivier> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier><1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fw d05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc><4C68F5BF.7050504@meteo.fr> <000c01cb3d25$a195e270$e4c1a750$@no> <216C3A806E434F999A7FA23E3E6922EB@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <000d01cb3d31$162fe300$428fa900$@no> On Behalf Of olivier.beauvillain > sorry, > a defender can never win a revoke trick (his partner can when he is revoking but > it's not the same ...) declarer can IF dummy lost his rights L43 AND asks first > about the revoke L42B1 so declarer plays a card witch "won" the trick and it's a > two tricks revoke ... ............. > > A defender can win a revoke trick at NT, declarer cannot! This is really suitable as a quiz question: How can a player revoke and win the revoke trick at NT? Most people would assume this is impossible because they are stuck with the idea that a revoke trick can only be won with a trump. However: Law 61A contains the following definition (notice the last clause):: Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke. When declarer requests or forbids a defender to lead specified suit(s) in rectification of an irregularity a failure to abide by this request also constitutes a revoke. So if declarer (when so entitled) requests the lead of (say) a spade by a defender and that defender instead leads (say) the Ace of hearts in the (incorrect) belief that he has no spade to lead that defender will certainly win this trick at NT and his lead constitutes a revoke. From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Aug 16 13:30:46 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:30:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> Message-ID: <01b201cb3d36$78446e30$68cd4a90$@nl> After seeing all very clever remarks about revoking in NT let us get back to the real question. Substitute any suit for NT and answer the questions. My answers: 1) Unclear; just as Ben, I have never had the question. 2) I would not allow the request and go back to 6suit-1 Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ben Schelen Sent: zaterdag 14 augustus 2010 21:13 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 Peter, Law81C5 gives the Director the power to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. Question 1: I have all the years on different level never had such a request. Would you be so kind to give me un indication under wich conditions you would fulfill such a request? Question 2: Declarer made a revoke in 6NT and the result is now 6NT+1. The director is summoned and he ascertained that the revoke trick is won by declarer and after that another trick. So two tricks have to be transfered and the result is then 6NT-1. Without the revoke 12 tricks are cold. Now the non-offending side requests to waive the rectification. Peter, what are the possibilities? Forget for a moment Question 1. 6NT+1, 6NT or 6NT-1. Yours truly, Ben _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 16 13:43:47 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:43:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <1Ojvg8-0rmi6C0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <1Ojvg8-0rmi6C0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C692473.2000304@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Hello, > > in a big (?) team tournament the opponents bid > in a Blue Club sequence (w/o interference): > > 1 Cl (BC) - 1 Sp (exactly 3 controls, A=2, K=1) > 2 Sp (nat) - 3 Sp (nat, positiv) > 4 Sp (nat) - 5 Cl (Cue) > 5 Di (Cue) - ...5 Sp (undisputed huddle) > 6 Sp - pass > > Opener holds Axxxxx, AKQx, Axx, x and makes 13 tricks. > > If you were called after the board, what would you decide? > AG : It would depend on the card in excess. If it were a red card, I would consider obvious that when partner bids 5C over the somewhat negative 4S bid, he's ready to go to 6S facing red aces and fair trumps. If it were a spade, I'd be less certain about it (spade losers !), and therefore would tend to disallow the 6S bid. But I wouldn't be shocked if some other Td did the contrary. Best regards Alain From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Aug 16 13:46:32 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:46:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> Message-ID: <01b301cb3d38$ac67fc70$0537f550$@nl> Law81C5 gives the Director the power to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. Question 1: I have all the years on different level never had such a request. Would you be so kind to give me un indication under wich conditions you would fulfill such a request? Again, I have never had the request, but I suddenly remember an example given in some course or so. Suppose after 23 out of 24 rounds you think you are leading the field, and the last round you play 2 boards against mediocre opponents. First boards is reasonable, and you are pretty certain that only a zero on the last board can rob you of victory. Now one of your opps makes a bid out-of-turn. TD arrives, and explains options. It is not to your advantage to accept, so you don't. Now TD basically forces the player to guess the final contract. At that point you might want to request a normal result, and not bar the player. Basically you could use this strategy when a normal result for you is better than a guess result. Of course in the original example all results are already known and you would choose the best(if you had any choice at all). Hans From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 16 13:55:52 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:55:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <1OkYFO-1gHNuS0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> References: <1OkYFO-1gHNuS0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C692748.6060001@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > From: Jerry Fusselman > >> [Peter Eidt, the OP] >> >> in a big (?) team tournament the opponents bid >> in a Blue Club sequence (w/o interference): >> >> 1 Cl (BC) - 1 Sp (exactly 3 controls, A=2, K=1) >> 2 Sp (nat) - 3 Sp (nat, positiv) >> 4 Sp (nat) - 5 Cl (Cue) >> 5 Di (Cue) - ...5 Sp (undisputed huddle) >> 6 Sp - pass >> >> Opener holds Axxxx, AKQx, Axx, x and declarer makes 13 tricks. >> >> If you were called after the board, what would you decide? >> >> > > > To clarify my position ... > > We are having a long discussion about this problem in a German > mainling list which was deadlocked (the discussion ;-)) and I was > asked to present it here on blml to get some other, "neutral" thoughts. > I never pretended to be an expert on Blue Club. > The original problem was posted by another man who was > sitting opposite the pair above. > He told us they were playing Blue Club and that 3 Spades was > explicit better than 4 Spades would have been in that auction. > The correspondent could not answer the questions, why opener > did not a) cuebid after 3 Sp; nor b) jump to 6 Sp after 5 Cl - simply > because nobody (not even the TD) asked opener. > > To clarify the problems of the problem: > 1. Is there enough AI in the bidding (3 Sp, 5 Cl) to "compensate" > the UI before 5 Sp (iaw the hesitation includes no "new" information) ?? > 2. Is pass a LA for opener ?? > > If there is a "yes" to either question, IMO 6 Sp is not an infraction. > > I would appreciate some thoughts by blml to these aspects (only). > > You're right, of course. I think that there are rather plausible hands which make slam a bad proposition, or even an impossible contract, like Jxx-x-KQxx-AQJxx, whence pass is a LA. In fact, this hand is even consistent with the huddle, so even if using UI was allowed, opener wouldn't have a 6S bid ;-) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 16 14:01:48 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:01:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C6928AC.1040501@ulb.ac.be> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > > 5. My guess is that partner's expectation for a slam try opposite a > known minimum of 17 HCP is about 13+ HCP or the equivalent in a more > distributional hand. AG : see myt example : Jxx-x-KQxx-AQJxx > Perhaps even some 13 counts would be reluctant > based on their lack of controls and the inherent danger at the > five-level. AG : not relevant here because responder is known to hace exactly 3 controls, so that this doesn't affect which hands do try and which don't. > > 6. It is obvious from the auction and our hand that partner needs a > control in hearts. Partner is almost never bidding a slam lacking this > control. We have the required control and therefore have a strong > obligation to bid more - even in otherwise minimum hands which we have > not got > AG : then you have to explain why you bid 5D. If the aces in both red suits and some trick-t?aking potential were enough to bid 6S, you should have done it before. In fact, the 6S bid is mildly inconsistent with the 5D bid. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 16 13:57:50 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:57:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C6927BE.2030609@ulb.ac.be> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > I see online that 1C in the Blue Club system shows 17+, and Opener has > 17 HCP exactly. Since HCP is their metric, I see no evidence that > Opener is a supermax. As director, I would assume he was a supermin. > In one aspect I was wrong, obviously: 4S was systemtic and showed a > minimum hand. But I doubt that 5C showed *two* extra tricks. If he > had two extra tricks, why not bid 6S immediately? > Because there might be two losers in some red suit ? From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 14:49:53 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:49:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: [Wayne Burrows] Just because HCP is their metric for opening the bidding does not mean that that is the same metric used for making a slam decision. This hand has: 1. Three aces which are undervalued by HCP and extremely valuable in slam decisions. We are opposite a partner who has bid at the five-level freely with at most two key-cards. I would almost always (if not always) bid a slam just based on my three aces 2. An abundance of controls generally - an average 17 count has a shade under 6 controls this hand has 7 controls. Again these are valuable for slam purposes 3. We have a singleton which may be useful in a slam 4. Three of our side cards are combined in one suit as guaranteed tricks. Again this makes our initial 17 HCP an underestimate of our playing strength and slam suitability Perhaps an inexperienced player would pass 5S but I cannot imagine many experienced players even considering pass. [Jerry Fusselman] I agree that Opener's hand is much better than an average 17-count hand, but Petrus told us that 4S shows "no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a hand where opener can see that there are not enough controls." Opener's peers are players who bid 4S with this hand, denying slam interest. From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 16 15:36:46 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:36:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: <01b301cb3d38$ac67fc70$0537f550$@nl> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> <01b301cb3d38$ac67fc70$0537f550$@nl> Message-ID: <000301cb3d48$12fe81c0$38fb8540$@no> On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren ............ > Suppose after 23 out of 24 rounds you think you are leading the field, and the last > round you play 2 boards against mediocre opponents. First boards is reasonable, > and you are pretty certain that only a zero on the last board can rob you of > victory. > > Now one of your opps makes a bid out-of-turn. TD arrives, and explains options. It > is not to your advantage to accept, so you don't. Now TD basically forces the > player to guess the final contract. At that point you might want to request a normal > result, and not bar the player. I cannot imagine any situation where I would not accept the bid out of turn and then ask the Director to not enforce Law 31 (I assume B?). Basically I can stand ready to ask for a law 81C5 waiver when the offender is a rather inexperienced player, not else. Regards Sven. From B.Schelen at Claranet.NL Mon Aug 16 17:45:10 2010 From: B.Schelen at Claranet.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:45:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de><454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> <01b201cb3d36$78446e30$68cd4a90$@nl> Message-ID: Thanks Hans. It is my fault, because I did not check the stuff. I send this as an excuse. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 1:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C5 > After seeing all very clever remarks about revoking in NT let us get back > to > the real question. > > Substitute any suit for NT and answer the questions. > > My answers: > 1) Unclear; just as Ben, I have never had the question. > 2) I would not allow the request and go back to 6suit-1 > > Hans > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Ben Schelen > Sent: zaterdag 14 augustus 2010 21:13 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 > > Peter, > > Law81C5 gives the Director the power to waive rectification for cause, in > his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. > > Question 1: > I have all the years on different level never had such a request. > Would you be so kind to give me un indication under wich conditions you > would fulfill such a request? > > Question 2: > Declarer made a revoke in 6NT and the result is now 6NT+1. > The director is summoned and he ascertained that the revoke trick is won > by > declarer and after that another trick. > So two tricks have to be transfered and the result is then 6NT-1. > Without the revoke 12 tricks are cold. > Now the non-offending side requests to waive the rectification. > > Peter, what are the possibilities? Forget for a moment Question 1. > 6NT+1, 6NT or 6NT-1. > > Yours truly, > > Ben > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 18:16:09 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:16:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > [Jerry Fusselman] > > I agree that Opener's hand is much better than an average 17-count > hand, but Petrus told us that 4S shows > "no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a hand where > opener can see that there are not enough controls." Opener's peers > are players who bid 4S with this hand, denying slam interest. > Your argument is based on the hesitation at 5S showing extra values. However, responder made a mild slam try with 3S, and a stronger one by calling 5C over the "negative" 4S. So, responder has already shown extra values twice during the auction. Exactly how many times does responder have to show extra values before it is AI that he has them? The hesitation is highly unlikely to be due to the extra values at all. The problem is that responder is looking at the absence of a heart control and can't go past the five-level by himself. That's the likely reason for the hesitation, not the values already shown. However, opener already knows that responder doesn't have a heart control. His AKQ of hearts is AI to him. So, exactly what UI is happening here that would merit even considering an adjustment? The LA's don't matter. The hesitation didn't tell opener anything that he didn't already know. Score stands. Hirsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100816/bbee591d/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 19:25:32 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:25:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Hirsch Davis wrote: > > The LA's don't matter. The hesitation didn't tell opener anything that he > didn't already know. Score stands. > Alright, how about the complementary situation: Suppose that Responder's 5S came down with unwonted speed, and suppose that the UI from it is that Responder's 5C was borderline given the auction so far. Would you allow Opener to pass 5S, just making, score stands? Or would you adjust this case to 6S, down 1? Jerry Fusselman From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 19:42:31 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:42:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Hirsch Davis > wrote: > > > > The LA's don't matter. The hesitation didn't tell opener anything that he > > didn't already know. Score stands. > > > > Alright, how about the complementary situation: Suppose that > Responder's 5S came down with unwonted speed, and suppose that the UI > from it is that Responder's 5C was borderline given the auction so > far. Would you allow Opener to pass 5S, just making, score stands? > Or would you adjust this case to 6S, down 1? > > Jerry Fusselman > > Why "suppose" that the UI is that responder's hand is borderline? You're so hooked on responder's values that you're missing the critical part of the ruling: Exactly what UI is being transmitted? Work it out. Hirsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100816/f23967ac/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 19:52:09 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:52:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Jerry Fusselman > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Hirsch Davis >> wrote: >> > >> > The LA's don't matter. The hesitation didn't tell opener anything that >> > he >> > didn't already know. Score stands. >> > >> >> Alright, how about the complementary situation: ?Suppose that >> Responder's 5S came down with unwonted speed, and suppose that the UI >> from it is that Responder's 5C was borderline given the auction so >> far. ?Would you allow Opener to pass 5S, just making, score stands? >> Or would you adjust this case to 6S, down 1? >> >> Jerry Fusselman >> > Why "suppose" that the UI is that responder's hand is borderline?? You're so > hooked on responder's values that you're missing the critical part of the > ruling: Exactly what UI is being transmitted? Work it out. > Maybe I was not clear. Sorry. I will try again. Mine was a hypothetical question. It is a slightly different case. I wanted to see what you would say in this other case I just described, where the only thing different is Responder bids a very fast 5S and then Opener passes. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Aug 16 23:38:59 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:38:59 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) revisited Message-ID: <6010D1D75EEA4363BA4F36939F4884DD@MARVLAPTOP> Sorry to revisit this matter on BLML, but I'm getting desperate for support. I recently sent the following to some members of the ACBLC: To members of the Laws Commission: I have been having trouble explaining the new laws relating to adjusted scores when a serious error has been committed. by the non-offenders. In short, ACBL tournament directors and NABC Appeals Committee members in general don't believe me. That seems to be because they have not been instructed on the subject. Accordingly, I ask that the LC promulgate the attached explanation, which is as simple as I can make it after many hours of writing and re-writing. AWARDING AN ADJUSTED SCORE IN THE ACBL Law 12C1(e)(i): The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. Law 12C1(e)(ii): For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred (sic). Law 12C1(b): If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only. Steps to be followed when the non-offenders have committed a serious error or a wild or gambling action: 1. Adjust the scores in accordance with L12C1(e) as if there had been no self-inflicted damage. 2. Calculate the point compensation given the non-offenders in the score adjustment. 3. Determine the cost of the non-offenders' self-inflicted damage. 4. Deduct that cost from their compensation and readjust their score accordingly. If the cost exceeds the compensation, table result stands for them only. 5. If the offenders' adjusted score includes the effect of a serious error by the non-offenders, delete that effect.* * World Bridge Federation Code of Practice, October 2008, page 6: A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but the infractor's score is to be adjusted without regard to the revoke. Examples (1) A non-vulnerable player raises 3S to 4S after his partner's long hesitation, declarer taking ten tricks for +420 only because of a one-trick revoke by the other side. Normal score adjustment is 3S making four for both sides, +/-170. Normal compensation for the non-offenders is the difference between 420 and 170 points, 250 points. Cost of the revoke is 420+50=470. Since that cost exceeds the normal compensation of 250 points, there is no compensation and the table result stands for the non-offenders. For the offenders the effect of the serious error (one trick) is removed from their adjusted score, which becomes 140 points. (2) The 4S bid was made over an opposing vulnerable 4H bid that would surely have been successful for +620 points. Normal adjusted score for the non-offenders is +620, constituting a compensation of 420+620=1040 points. Cost of the serious error was 420+50=470 points. Reduce the compensation by 470 points, 1040-470=570 points. -420+570=150 points, the revised adjusted score for the non-offenders. The adjusted score for the offenders is -620 points, unaffected by the revoke because it does not apply to the 4H contract. (3) Over 4S (which would have been off one) the non-offenders bid a wild, gambling 6H. 6H was doubled down 500 points. This was a "double shot," the doubler perhaps thinking that if the gamble didn't work he would get full redress for the damage suffered by the infraction. A vain hope, as all it did was reduce the amount of redress. Cost of the double shot was 500+100=600 points (assuming that oubling 4S should have been automatic). Normal redress would have amounted to 500+ 620=1120 points. Subtracting the cost of the self-inflicted damage results in a compensation of 1120-600=520 points. The adjusted score for the non-offenders is therefore -500+520= +20 points instead of the 620 score they would have received without the double shot attempt. The adjusted score for the offenders is unaffected, -620 points. Note that a "double shot" attempt is not illegal, as many believe. If the 6H contract had somehow made, there would have been no damage from the infraction, hence no score adjustment for either side. [Adam Wildavsky, Vice Chairman of the LC, replies]. I'm speaking for myself here, not the LC. I think the problem you're having is that your interpretation of Law 12 is unique and perhaps idiosyncratic.I'm not saying that it's incorrect, only that I don't know anyone else who interprets it as you do. When you and I have discussed this in the past we've reached an impasse. I think this is because you manage to find a clear and unmistakable meaning in the law and in the WBF's "clarification" in the COP , where I find both full of ambiguity. I trust we can agree that if the WBF were to provide examples such as yours it would help us determine how the drafters of the laws intend for us to interpret them. [Marv] I think my examples are sufficient. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5371 (20100816) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Aug 17 03:54:34 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:54:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) revisited In-Reply-To: <6010D1D75EEA4363BA4F36939F4884DD@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6010D1D75EEA4363BA4F36939F4884DD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <77B5ADFA3F4C466DAAC7F5CECC290EC2@erdos> While I agree with the principle of removing the part of the adjustment for self-inflicted damae, I would add an addendum to the interpretation of Law 12C1(b): the non-offending side does not receive compensation for such part of the damage as was self-inflicated _at the form of scoring in use_, rather than in total points. That is, compute a score for the non-offenders based on the table result, then compute a score based on the self-inflicted damage not occurring; the difference between these two is the part of the damage that was self-inflicted. "Marvin French" writes: > (1) A non-vulnerable player raises 3S to 4S after his partner's long > hesitation, declarer taking ten tricks for +420 only because of a > one-trick revoke by the other side. Normal score adjustment is 3S > making four for both sides, +/-170. Normal compensation for the > non-offenders is the difference between 420 and 170 points, 250 > points. Cost of the revoke is 420+50=470. Since that cost exceeds > the normal compensation of 250 points, there is no compensation and > the table result stands for the non-offenders. For the offenders the > effect of the serious error (one trick) is removed from their > adjusted score, which becomes 140 points. Regardless of the form of scoring, -420 to the offenders is correct; they were not damaged by the infraction (which put them in a better position), but by their own revoke. I would rule +170 to the non-offenders if I believe the revoke would have been equally likely to happen in 3S, but that is a minor issue, and the WBF has ruled the other way. > (2) The 4S bid was made over an opposing vulnerable 4H bid that > would surely have been successful for +620 points. Normal adjusted > score for the non-offenders is +620, constituting a compensation of > 420+620=1040 points. Cost of the serious error was 420+50=470 > points. Reduce the compensation by 470 points, 1040-470=570 > points. -420+570=150 points, the revised adjusted score for the > non-offenders. The adjusted score for the offenders is -620 points, > unaffected by the revoke because it does not apply to the 4H > contract. Here, the adjustment may be unfair, particularly at matchpoint or board-a-match scoring. Suppose that nine other pairs in the non-offenders' direction were +620, one was +100 against 4Sx, one was +50 against 4S, and one was -100 in 5H. Without the infraction, the non-offenders were due 7.5 matchpoints out of 12. Once the infraction occurred and the non-offenders chose not to double (which we assume was not a serious error), they were assured a bad board, at most 1.5 matchpoints. Thus I would rule that the infraction did 6 matchpoints of damage, rather than 570 total points; when 4S makes on a revoke, the self-inflicted damage from the revoke was 1.5 matchpoints and the non-offenders get 6 matchpoints, not 3 by matchpointing a score of +150. Here's another example which illustrates the point more clearly. On a part-score deal, the non-offenders are misinformed and wind up playing in 3Sx rather than 3H. 3H would have made for +140; 3Sx should go down three for -800 but declarer revokes and goes for -1100 instead. Both -800 and -1100 are equally round zeros, so essentially all the damage was caused by the infraction, not the revoke, and I would restore the score for +140. Your methodology would give the non-offenders -160, which would still be a bottom. (And in this case, there is a significant difference even at IMPs; if the other table was +140, then the revoke changed a swing of 940 to 1240, or 14 IMPs to 15, and I would rule -1 IMP to the non-offenders, not -7 IMPs for the swing of 300.) > (3) Over 4S (which would have been off one) the non-offenders bid a > wild, gambling 6H. 6H was doubled down 500 points. This was a > "double shot," the doubler perhaps thinking that if the gamble > didn't work he would get full redress for the damage suffered by the > infraction. A vain hope, as all it did was reduce the amount of > redress. Cost of the double shot was 500+100=600 points (assuming > that oubling 4S should have been automatic). Normal redress would > have amounted to 500+ 620=1120 points. Subtracting the cost of the > self-inflicted damage results in a compensation of 1120-600=520 > points. The adjusted score for the non-offenders is > therefore -500+520= +20 points instead of the 620 score they would > have received without the double shot attempt. The adjusted score > for the offenders is unaffected, -620 points. Again, I would reduce the non-offenders' score by the matchpoint/IMP/BAM difference between the scores for +100 and -500, rather than 600 total points. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Aug 17 05:06:59 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:06:59 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) revisited References: <6010D1D75EEA4363BA4F36939F4884DD@MARVLAPTOP> <77B5ADFA3F4C466DAAC7F5CECC290EC2@erdos> Message-ID: From: "David Grabiner" > While I agree with the principle of removing the part of the > adjustment for > self-inflicted damae, I would add an addendum to the > interpretation of Law > 12C1(b): the non-offending side does not receive compensation for > such part of > the damage as was self-inflicated _at the form of scoring in use_, > rather than > in total points. > > That is, compute a score for the non-offenders based on the table > result, then > compute a score based on the self-inflicted damage not occurring; > the difference > between these two is the part of the damage that was > self-inflicted. > Oh, for Pete's sake. that again. The game is total point team of four, okay?? No matchpoints, no imps. Using matchpoints or imps is not mentioned in the Laws, so this would indeed need an addendum. I am only trying to explain the law as-is, not how it might be approved. The idea of adjusting with matchpoints or imps instead of points has never been considered in ACBL-land anyway, so let's forget about that. The ACBL does some things right. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5371 (20100816) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 17 12:52:08 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:52:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C6A69D8.4090107@ulb.ac.be> Hirsch Davis a ?crit : > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Jerry Fusselman > wrote: > > > > [Jerry Fusselman] > > I agree that Opener's hand is much better than an average 17-count > hand, but Petrus told us that 4S shows > "no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a hand where > opener can see that there are not enough controls." Opener's peers > are players who bid 4S with this hand, denying slam interest. > > > Your argument is based on the hesitation at 5S showing extra values. > However, responder made a mild slam try with 3S, and a stronger one by > calling 5C over the "negative" 4S. So, responder has already shown > extra values twice during the auction. Exactly how many times does > responder have to show extra values before it is AI that he has them? AG : essentially the fact that, when bidding 5C, you already know that you'll have a problem over 5D. So, I'm indeed troubled by the tempo. From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Aug 17 15:12:30 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:12:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: <000d01cb3d31$162fe300$428fa900$@no> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier><1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fw d05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc><4C68F5BF.7050504@meteo.fr> <000c01cb3d25$a195e270$e4c1a750$@no><216C3A806E434F999A7FA23E3E6922EB@PCdeOlivier> <000d01cb3d31$162fe300$428fa900$@no> Message-ID: <12EAF993C96E47CE9312A606BBAD69A5@PCdeOlivier> > On Behalf Of olivier.beauvillain >> sorry, >> a defender can never win a revoke trick (his partner can when he is > revoking but >> it's not the same ...) declarer can IF dummy lost his rights L43 AND asks > first >> about the revoke L42B1 so declarer plays a card witch "won" the trick and > it's a >> two tricks revoke ... > ............. >> > A defender can win a revoke trick at NT, declarer cannot! > > This is really suitable as a quiz question: How can a player revoke and > win > the revoke trick at NT? > > Most people would assume this is impossible because they are stuck with > the > idea that a revoke trick can only be won with a trump. > > However: Law 61A contains the following definition (notice the last > clause):: > > Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or > play, > when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when > exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a > revoke. > > When declarer requests or forbids a defender to lead specified suit(s) in > rectification of an irregularity a failure to abide by this request also > constitutes a revoke. Well done :) Olivix > > So if declarer (when so entitled) requests the lead of (say) a spade by a > defender and that defender instead leads (say) the Ace of hearts in the > (incorrect) belief that he has no spade to lead that defender will > certainly > win this trick at NT and his lead constitutes a revoke. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base > des signatures de virus 5369 (20100816) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5373 (20100817) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 17 15:13:26 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:13:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <6FB5FAE8-E267-478E-A5D6-559B75E242C1@starpower.net> On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Hirsch Davis wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Jerry Fusselman > wrote: > > I agree that Opener's hand is much better than an average 17-count > hand, but Petrus told us that 4S shows > "no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a hand where > opener can see that there are not enough controls." Opener's peers > are players who bid 4S with this hand, denying slam interest. > > Your argument is based on the hesitation at 5S showing extra > values. However, responder made a mild slam try with 3S, and a > stronger one by calling 5C over the "negative" 4S. So, responder > has already shown extra values twice during the auction. Exactly > how many times does responder have to show extra values before it > is AI that he has them? > > The hesitation is highly unlikely to be due to the extra values at > all. The problem is that responder is looking at the absence of a > heart control and can't go past the five-level by himself. That's > the likely reason for the hesitation, not the values already > shown. However, opener already knows that responder doesn't have a > heart control. His AKQ of hearts is AI to him. So, exactly what UI > is happening here that would merit even considering an adjustment? > > The LA's don't matter. The hesitation didn't tell opener anything > that he didn't already know. Score stands. The hesitation didn't tell *us* anything that the opener shouldn't have already known, but if he knew it, then (a) why didn't he make a slam try over 3S, and (b) why didn't he bid 6S over 5C? I'd want convincing answers to these questions before I allowed the 6S bid to stand. Unless 4S was forcing, which would make it easy, but that seems highly unlikely. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 17 16:02:55 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:02:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) revisited In-Reply-To: <77B5ADFA3F4C466DAAC7F5CECC290EC2@erdos> References: <6010D1D75EEA4363BA4F36939F4884DD@MARVLAPTOP> <77B5ADFA3F4C466DAAC7F5CECC290EC2@erdos> Message-ID: <34D660BF-AFC2-4EFA-BB3F-EA026AB136D5@starpower.net> On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:54 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > While I agree with the principle of removing the part of the > adjustment for > self-inflicted damae, I would add an addendum to the interpretation > of Law > 12C1(b): the non-offending side does not receive compensation for > such part of > the damage as was self-inflicated _at the form of scoring in use_, > rather than > in total points. > > That is, compute a score for the non-offenders based on the table > result, then > compute a score based on the self-inflicted damage not occurring; > the difference > between these two is the part of the damage that was self-inflicted. Before the ACBL worries about the mechanics of "serious error" adjustments, it needs to understand what it is that it is supposed to adjust for. I am troubled by the way this forum is throwing the term "self-inflicted damage" around as though it were proper to make such an adjustment any time the NOS inflicts some damage on itself. "Serious error" is itself something of an idiomatic phrase; it is not supported by any common dictionary definition of "serious". The WBF has made clear that by "serious" they mean "flagrant", "gross", "egregious" or the like. It is absolutely not a mere synonym for "self-inflicted", as some in the ACBL seem to believe. Let's convince them to worry about what to adjust before they worry about how. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 17 16:17:00 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:17:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <6FB5FAE8-E267-478E-A5D6-559B75E242C1@starpower.net> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <6FB5FAE8-E267-478E-A5D6-559B75E242C1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C6A99DC.9050705@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Hirsch Davis wrote: > > >> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Jerry Fusselman >> wrote: >> >> I agree that Opener's hand is much better than an average 17-count >> hand, but Petrus told us that 4S shows >> "no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a hand where >> opener can see that there are not enough controls." Opener's peers >> are players who bid 4S with this hand, denying slam interest. >> >> Your argument is based on the hesitation at 5S showing extra >> values. However, responder made a mild slam try with 3S, and a >> stronger one by calling 5C over the "negative" 4S. So, responder >> has already shown extra values twice during the auction. Exactly >> how many times does responder have to show extra values before it >> is AI that he has them? >> >> The hesitation is highly unlikely to be due to the extra values at >> all. The problem is that responder is looking at the absence of a >> heart control and can't go past the five-level by himself. That's >> the likely reason for the hesitation, not the values already >> shown. However, opener already knows that responder doesn't have a >> heart control. His AKQ of hearts is AI to him. So, exactly what UI >> is happening here that would merit even considering an adjustment? >> >> The LA's don't matter. The hesitation didn't tell opener anything >> that he didn't already know. Score stands. >> > > The hesitation didn't tell *us* anything that the opener shouldn't > have already known, but if he knew it, then (a) why didn't he make a > slam try over 3S, and (b) why didn't he bid 6S over 5C? AG : it is indeed very hard to imagine some hand with only 3 controls, which makes a grand plausible. Therefore, if the hand was worth 6S over 5S, it was worth 6S over 5C. (well, I suppose partner could hold Kxxxx-x-x-Axxxxx, but I guess this isn't the reason for bidding 5D rather than 6S) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Aug 17 18:30:56 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:30:56 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) revisited References: <6010D1D75EEA4363BA4F36939F4884DD@MARVLAPTOP><77B5ADFA3F4C466DAAC7F5CECC290EC2@erdos> <34D660BF-AFC2-4EFA-BB3F-EA026AB136D5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8626F79F2BE541179D05A7A53987D32B@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > "Serious error" is itself something of an idiomatic phrase; it is > not > supported by any common dictionary definition of "serious". The > WBF > has made clear that by "serious" they mean "flagrant", "gross", > "egregious" or the like. It is absolutely not a mere synonym for > "self-inflicted", as some in the ACBL seem to believe. Let's > convince them to worry about what to adjust before they worry > about how. > ACBL LC Vice Chair Adam Wildavsky wanted a good definition of serious error, knowing it was not well understood here. I sent him quotes from the WBF CoP and WBFLC minutes, quotes from Kaplan, and quoted the very excellent treatment in the EBU White Book. Adam thanked me, so now I think the ACBL will understand the principle, if only the LC promulgates properly to TDs and ACs. Then let them worry about how to adjust. It appears from Adam's reaction to my suggested procedure that there will be little or no progress in this direction. At the New Orleans NABC, opener bid 4S after a weak 2S opening because of a marked hesitation when responder signed off with 3S. UI freely admitted. We let 4S make because of a terrible blunder, it should easily have been defeated. I was eager to know how the TD would rule, but he never came back and I couldn't find him after the session. I let it go, eager to get more New Orleans grilled oysters. The next day at breakfast I asked a long-time (40 years, he said) NABC AC member what the ruling should have been. He said +/-170. So I asked an experienced ACBL TD, and he said +/-140, adding "the non-offenders should not have been in a position to make that mistake." The right ruling, of course, would have been -620 for us and +140 for the opponents. (or -100, I'm not sure about that). These people need some instruction about the new Laws. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5373 (20100817) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 22:48:12 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:48:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <6FB5FAE8-E267-478E-A5D6-559B75E242C1@starpower.net> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <6FB5FAE8-E267-478E-A5D6-559B75E242C1@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Jerry Fusselman > > wrote: > > > > I agree that Opener's hand is much better than an average 17-count > > hand, but Petrus told us that 4S shows > > "no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a hand where > > opener can see that there are not enough controls." Opener's peers > > are players who bid 4S with this hand, denying slam interest. > > > > Your argument is based on the hesitation at 5S showing extra > > values. However, responder made a mild slam try with 3S, and a > > stronger one by calling 5C over the "negative" 4S. So, responder > > has already shown extra values twice during the auction. Exactly > > how many times does responder have to show extra values before it > > is AI that he has them? > > > > The hesitation is highly unlikely to be due to the extra values at > > all. The problem is that responder is looking at the absence of a > > heart control and can't go past the five-level by himself. That's > > the likely reason for the hesitation, not the values already > > shown. However, opener already knows that responder doesn't have a > > heart control. His AKQ of hearts is AI to him. So, exactly what UI > > is happening here that would merit even considering an adjustment? > > > > The LA's don't matter. The hesitation didn't tell opener anything > > that he didn't already know. Score stands. > > The hesitation didn't tell *us* anything that the opener shouldn't > have already known, but if he knew it, then (a) why didn't he make a > slam try over 3S, and (b) why didn't he bid 6S over 5C? I'd want > convincing answers to these questions before I allowed the 6S bid to > stand. Unless 4S was forcing, which would make it easy, but that > seems highly unlikely. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net So what did the hesitation suggest? The responder has already made two slam tries, but can't go past 5S without a heart control. This apparently took him some time to figure out. The primary source of the hesitation is the absence of a heart control, coupled with the values he has already shown. So, does the absence of a heart control somehow suggest a slam? Does the responder taking time to try to figure out that he has no way to move forward when opener wakes up with 5D constitute a suggestion to bid slam? Finally, should one find out that the hesitation suggests a slam, does that negate the two slam tries previously made by responder (actually it might as L16 is now written)? I must admit that I've got a very strong reaction to people who equate a hesitation with extra values and don't try to work out the informational aspects of the hesitation. I must admit that I've also got a strong preference for letting the game be decided by the players, not the TD. If I believe that it's legal to allow a table score to stand, I'm almost always going to prefer that approach and let the AC overrule me if it must. But, to answer your questions: He likely didn't make a slam try over 3S because he underestimated his hand. He re-evaluated when responder went past game with 5C. 5D is clearly a belated move toward slam by opener...but which slam?... The following is me musing about the auction to myself, and should not be taken too seriously: As to why he didn't bid the slam directly, the interesting call in the auction is 5D. Looking at the AKQ of hearts, there is no way for responder to cue hearts unless he's got a void. In the absence of a heart control, the 5S call is forced unless responder can cue hearts, and opener knows that he almost certainly cannot. The 5D call is useless as a small slam try, so why bother? The only reason I can think of is that opener has already committed to the small slam, and is preparing the groundwork for a grand slam try. There's a rather elegant continuation available after a forced 5S with 6C. Up to that point, responder must call as though opener is investigating a small slam, with hearts as the key suit. However, a 6C call would change the picture entirely. Opener can only make that call and commit to slam if he's got a heart control himself. Further, with only a second round control, opener wouldn't bother with 6C, but would go directly to 6S. So, responder can infer from that sequence that opener has hearts under control, and is investigating a grand slam. Since diamonds and clubs have been cued, and hearts must be under opener's control, the problem suit is likely to be the trump suit for this sequence. Responder with extras specifically in the trump suit can bid the grand. That's the only plausible sequence that I can think of for the 5D call to be made by a good bidder. But if that's what opener was thinking, why didn't he follow through with 6C? This might be the real infraction produced by the hesitation. Or it could simply be a case of cold feet. Opener appears to have changed his mind about the intended 6C call and simply settled for the small slam. In that case, there is no adjustment since the infraction, if present, appears to have punished itself. This analysis can and should be ignored if opener is the kind of bidder who would bid 5D just to hear himself call. Hirsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100817/7417925d/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 18 04:21:18 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:21:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:12:38 -0400, Ben Schelen wrote: > Peter, > > Law81C5 gives the Director the power to waive rectification for cause, in > his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. > > Question 1: > I have all the years on different level never had such a request. > Would you be so kind to give me un indication under wich conditions you > would fulfill such a request? > > Question 2: > Declarer made a revoke in 6NT and the result is now 6NT+1. > The director is summoned and he ascertained that the revoke trick is won > by > declarer and after that another trick. > So two tricks have to be transfered and the result is then 6NT-1. > Without the revoke 12 tricks are cold. > Now the non-offending side requests to waive the rectification. I think a key part of the law is "with cause". They aren't giving a cause. Right if you want to say this law is ambiguous when a director should actually accept this or what counts as "cause". I guess I see it as freedom that I haven't ever minded. > > Peter, what are the possibilities? Forget for a moment Question 1. > 6NT+1, 6NT or 6NT-1. > > Yours truly, > > Ben > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 18 15:27:44 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:27:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> Message-ID: On Aug 17, 2010, at 10:21 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:12:38 -0400, Ben Schelen > > wrote: > >> Peter, >> >> Law81C5 gives the Director the power to waive rectification for >> cause, in >> his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. >> >> Question 1: >> I have all the years on different level never had such a request. >> Would you be so kind to give me un indication under wich >> conditions you >> would fulfill such a request? >> >> Question 2: >> Declarer made a revoke in 6NT and the result is now 6NT+1. >> The director is summoned and he ascertained that the revoke trick >> is won >> by >> declarer and after that another trick. >> So two tricks have to be transfered and the result is then 6NT-1. >> Without the revoke 12 tricks are cold. >> Now the non-offending side requests to waive the rectification. > > I think a key part of the law is "with cause". They aren't giving a > cause. > > Right if you want to say this law is ambiguous when a director should > actually accept this or what counts as "cause". I guess I see it as > freedom that I haven't ever minded. I would interpret "for cause" in L81C5 as referring to some external "cause" unrelated to the to the actual "bridge". Its usual invocation is to wave off mechanical errors (such as exposed cards) by physically infirm players, or in cases where the infraction resulted from some outside action beyond the control of the player (e.g. someone pushing past the table stumbles into a player causing him to drop some cards). We know that some "causes" are not valid; the TD may not waive a rectification just because "they were having a good game, and I don't want them to lose the event on a technicality". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Aug 18 15:35:55 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:35:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> Message-ID: <02c701cb3eda$49448110$dbcd8330$@nl> [Eric Landau] We know that some "causes" are not valid; the TD may not waive a rectification just because "they were having a good game, and I don't want them to lose the event on a technicality". [Hans] But if it is the other way around? We are having a good game, and opps might have their actions restricted by the combined forces of the law and the TD? Can we not ask for having a normal result? If opponents are forced to shoot, they might hit. Hans From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 18 16:15:50 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:15:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: <02c701cb3eda$49448110$dbcd8330$@nl> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> <02c701cb3eda$49448110$dbcd8330$@nl> Message-ID: <000001cb3edf$dd1fd0b0$975f7210$@no> On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren > [Eric Landau] > We know that some "causes" are not valid; the TD may not waive a rectification > just because "they were having a good game, and I don't want them to lose the > event on a technicality". > > > [Hans] > But if it is the other way around? We are having a good game, and opps might > have their actions restricted by the combined forces of the law and the TD? > Can we not ask for having a normal result? If opponents are forced to shoot, they > might hit. I would not consider that a "valid cause", especially not when the non-offending side has an option to accept the irregularity as such (e.g insufficient bid and call or lead out of turn). Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 18 16:30:24 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:30:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: <02c701cb3eda$49448110$dbcd8330$@nl> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> <02c701cb3eda$49448110$dbcd8330$@nl> Message-ID: <4C6BEE80.7090707@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > [Eric Landau] > We know that some "causes" are not valid; > the TD may not waive a rectification just because "they were having a > good game, and I don't want them to lose the event on a technicality". > > > [Hans] > But if it is the other way around? We are having a good game, and opps might > have their actions restricted by the combined forces of the law and the TD? > Can we not ask for having a normal result? If opponents are forced to shoot, > they might hit. > > AG : I think this should be allowed, as it concurs with the general principle of maximizing your own chances to win without worrying about theirs. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 18 17:41:29 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:41:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation Message-ID: A Blackwood response was explained (during the auction) as key card. Then it was explained *after the hand* as being regular Blackwood. The opps claim that if they have been given this second explanation before the opening lead, as is required, they would have cashed their two aces. I think that they are not entitled to both explanations during the auction if for some reason they legally only get one. But what about now after the auction but before play? Bob From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Aug 18 17:51:51 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:51:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?entitlement_to_right_and_wrong_explanation?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1Olkvg-1T6xhg0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> From: "Robert Frick" > A Blackwood response was explained (during the auction) as key card. > Then it was explained *after the hand* as being regular Blackwood. The > opps claim that if they have been given this second explanation before > the opening lead, as is required, they would have cashed their two > aces. > > I think that they are not entitled to both explanations during the > auction if for some reason they legally only get one. yes, they are not entitled to the second explanation; if they happen to get the second explanation they can draw inferences from that situation. > But what about now after the auction but before play? Now they have the right to learn about the true explanation and they can draw inferences from both during play (incl. the opening lead). They are not entitled to let the TD reopen the auction _soley because of that two explanations_. From tedying at yahoo.com Wed Aug 18 18:01:20 2010 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <392479.49885.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> The main issue is which is the proper agreement by the partnership? If they ARE playing key card, then they are never entitled to an explanation because it is a case of mistaken bid. A player is not required to admit that he violated their bidding agreements. If they are NOT playing keycard and it is in fact regular Blackwood, it is an incorrect explanation and the player that made the incorrect explanation must correct it as soon as (s)he becomes aware of their error. If the player does not realize it, the partner who made the incorrectly explained bid must correct the explanation after the auction but before the opening lead. The partner who made the incorrectly explained bid is not allowed to correct the mistaken explanation before the auction is over. -Ted. ________________________________ From: Robert Frick To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wed, August 18, 2010 11:41:29 AM Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation A Blackwood response was explained (during the auction) as key card. Then it was explained *after the hand* as being regular Blackwood. The opps claim that if they have been given this second explanation before the opening lead, as is required, they would have cashed their two aces. I think that they are not entitled to both explanations during the auction if for some reason they legally only get one. But what about now after the auction but before play? Bob _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100818/96f679c0/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 18 19:01:22 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:01:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:27:44 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 17, 2010, at 10:21 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:12:38 -0400, Ben Schelen >> >> wrote: >> >>> Peter, >>> >>> Law81C5 gives the Director the power to waive rectification for >>> cause, in >>> his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. >>> >>> Question 1: >>> I have all the years on different level never had such a request. >>> Would you be so kind to give me un indication under wich >>> conditions you >>> would fulfill such a request? >>> >>> Question 2: >>> Declarer made a revoke in 6NT and the result is now 6NT+1. >>> The director is summoned and he ascertained that the revoke trick >>> is won >>> by >>> declarer and after that another trick. >>> So two tricks have to be transfered and the result is then 6NT-1. >>> Without the revoke 12 tricks are cold. >>> Now the non-offending side requests to waive the rectification. >> >> I think a key part of the law is "with cause". They aren't giving a >> cause. >> >> Right if you want to say this law is ambiguous when a director should >> actually accept this or what counts as "cause". I guess I see it as >> freedom that I haven't ever minded. > > I would interpret "for cause" in L81C5 as referring to some external > "cause" unrelated to the to the actual "bridge". Its usual > invocation is to wave off mechanical errors (such as exposed cards) > by physically infirm players, or in cases where the infraction > resulted from some outside action beyond the control of the player > (e.g. someone pushing past the table stumbles into a player causing > him to drop some cards). Yes, but.... Are you saying that a when someone pushing past the table stumbles into a player, causing thim to drop some cards, that those are penalty cards unless the nonoffending side requests otherwise? It seems like we should not be using L81C5 to get to the ruling we should be giving anyway. > We know that some "causes" are not valid; > the TD may not waive a rectification just because "they were having a > good game, and I don't want them to lose the event on a technicality". > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 18 20:38:31 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:38:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> Robert poses a very interesting question, and Peter and Ted reply to a different question, both correctly, it must be said. Peter tells us (correctly, IMO) that the opponents are not entitled to the knowledge of the misunderstanding, and that the TD should not reopen the bidding (in order for them to double) just on the basis of the knowledge of the misunderstanding. Ted explains that of course it depends on the real agreements. That is however not important, as no matter what the real understanding is, on player was showing a king, while the other thought it was an ace. Due to the misunderstanding (and only that), they are playing slam with two aces out. The point that neither Peter nor Ted are touching on, but which Robert intended with his question, was this: are the opponents, during play, entitled to the knowledge of the misunderstanding? if they learn about it, they will know there are two aces out, and it becomes easier for them to cash thowe two aces. If they are not told about the misunderstanding, they may let the contract make, and they are damaged. So the question is really important: are they entitled to this knowledge? The problem has been solved for the bidding (IMO). The opponents are not entitled to the knowledge of the misunderstanding. Even the final pass cannot be changed when the misunderstanding comes to light if one of the players reveals the misinformation (and consequently the misunderstanding) after the final pass. There are two possibilities: one of the players will always know about the misunderstanding, when he hears his partner misexplain. If that player becomes dummy, there is no way for him to hide that fact, and he may well reveal it before the opening lead as well. But if this player becomes declarer, he can hide the absense of the two aces for some time longer, by (illegally) omitting to correct the misinformation (and subsequently claiming he has misbid). Do we find this acceptable? I don't, for one. Based on the obligation in the laws. More generally, I find it reasonably acceptable, and would urge for the obligation to be scrapped. But that's a long way off. Herman. Robert Frick wrote: > A Blackwood response was explained (during the auction) as key card. Then > it was explained *after the hand* as being regular Blackwood. The opps > claim that if they have been given this second explanation before the > opening lead, as is required, they would have cashed their two aces. > > I think that they are not entitled to both explanations during the auction > if for some reason they legally only get one. But what about now after > the auction but before play? > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3078 - Release Date: 08/17/10 20:35:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Aug 18 21:23:41 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:23:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?entitlement_to_right_and_wrong_explanation?= In-Reply-To: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Robert poses a very interesting question, and Peter and Ted reply to a > different question, both correctly, it must be said. > > Peter tells us (correctly, IMO) that the opponents are not entitled to > the knowledge of the misunderstanding, and that the TD should not > reopen the bidding (in order for them to double) just on the basis of > the knowledge of the misunderstanding. thank you ;-) > Ted explains that of course it depends on the real agreements. That is > however not important, as no matter what the real understanding is, on > player was showing a king, while the other thought it was an ace. Due > to the misunderstanding (and only that), they are playing slam with > two aces out. > > The point that neither Peter nor Ted are touching on, but which Robert > intended with his question, was this: are the opponents, during play, > entitled to the knowledge of the misunderstanding? mmmh ... perhaps you read my contribution once again. I definitely said they are entitled to become aware of the misunderstanding and they are now allowed to draw inferences from that situation. > if they learn about > it, they will know there are two aces out, and it becomes easier for > them to cash thowe two aces. If they are not told about the > misunderstanding, they may let the contract make, and they are > damaged. > So the question is really important: are they entitled to this > knowledge? The problem has been solved for the bidding (IMO). The > opponents are not entitled to the knowledge of the misunderstanding. > Even the final pass cannot be changed when the misunderstanding comes > to light if one of the players reveals the misinformation (and > consequently the > misunderstanding) after the final pass. > There are two possibilities: one of the players will always know about > the misunderstanding, when he hears his partner misexplain. If that > player becomes dummy, there is no way for him to hide that fact, and > he may well reveal it before the opening lead as well. But if this > player becomes declarer, he can hide the absense of the two aces for > some time longer, by (illegally) omitting to correct the > misinformation (and subsequently claiming he has misbid). > Do we find this acceptable? > > I don't, for one. Based on the obligation in the laws. More generally, > I find it reasonably acceptable, and would urge for the obligation to > be scrapped. But that's a long way off. > > Herman. > > Robert Frick wrote: > > > A Blackwood response was explained (during the auction) as key card. > > Then it was explained *after the hand* as being regular Blackwood. > > The opps claim that if they have been given this second explanation > > before the opening lead, as is required, they would have cashed > > their two aces. > > > > > > I think that they are not entitled to both explanations during the > > auction if for some reason they legally only get one. ?But what > > about now after the auction but before play? From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 18 21:28:51 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:28:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> Message-ID: <3DDCEC3E-2C8F-467C-8262-0EA9875ED766@starpower.net> On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:27:44 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> I would interpret "for cause" in L81C5 as referring to some external >> "cause" unrelated to the to the actual "bridge". Its usual >> invocation is to wave off mechanical errors (such as exposed cards) >> by physically infirm players, or in cases where the infraction >> resulted from some outside action beyond the control of the player >> (e.g. someone pushing past the table stumbles into a player causing >> him to drop some cards). > > Yes, but.... Are you saying that a when someone pushing past the table > stumbles into a player, causing thim to drop some cards, that those > are > penalty cards unless the nonoffending side requests otherwise? Yes, although only during the play period, and only by a defender: "Except in the normal course of play or application of law..., when a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face... each such card becomes a penalty card" [L49]. There are no exceptions other than those in the first clause. > It seems like we should not be using L81C5 to get to the ruling we > should > be giving anyway. Agreed. Perhaps it can go in Grattan's infamous "notebook" for 2017 (or whenever). L24, which applies before play starts, requires that such cards be exposed "because of a player's own error". I'd prefer "action" to "error" (to avoid conflating erroneously playing a (wrong) card with playing an erroneously chosen card), but it would surely be possible to add something similar to L49. In real life, I've never seen player fail to "request" a waiver in these kinds of circumstances after an "informative discussion" with the TD regarding the merits of doing so (and I hope I never do). I may have once or twice have seen a TD in these circumstances being a bit less than entirely clear about the player's legal right to insist that rectification not be waived. Two side notes: (1) The 1997 L24 did use "action" rather than error; it's not clear why TPTB chose to change it. (2) The most common application of this provision is to prevent "boxed" cards from becoming penalty cards; if this is what the lawmakers were thinking about when they added it (in 1987 IIRC), that would explain why it's in L24 but not in L49. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 18 22:11:27 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:11:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> Have people completely forgotten Law 75B or am I misunderstanding something here? Both presumed dummy and presumed declarer are during the clarification period (immediately following the closing pass) responsible for voluntarily informing their opponents that they believe their (respective) partner has given incorrect information during the auction. The fact that such correction may reveal a possibly catastrophic misunderstanding on the declaring side is completely irrelevant; Law 75B does not consider such matters at all. If this procedure for instance leads to defenders understanding that the declaring side has reached a slam with two aces missing then so be it. Defenders are entitled BOTH to the original explanation given during the auction AND if this turns out to having been incorrect ALSO to the corrected explanation given during the clarification period (at the initiative of presumed declarer or dummy as the case may be). It is IMHO correct that the declaring side needs not explicitly tell their opponents that there has been a misunderstanding during the auction; this fairly obvious fact is up to defenders to infer from the corrected explanation at their own risk. There is an interesting train of arguments that without the misunderstanding and corresponding misinformation the declaring side would not have reached the slam, so the director shall not allow the defending side to replace their closing pass with for instance a double. I cannot see any justification in Law 21B or anywhere else for this argument. If the defender that made the closing pass can show that with correct explanation and still with the same auction he would probably have doubled instead of passing he must be allowed to do so. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Peter > Eidt > Sent: 18. august 2010 21:24 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation > > From: Herman De Wael > > Robert poses a very interesting question, and Peter and Ted reply to a > > different question, both correctly, it must be said. > > > > Peter tells us (correctly, IMO) that the opponents are not entitled to > > the knowledge of the misunderstanding, and that the TD should not > > reopen the bidding (in order for them to double) just on the basis of > > the knowledge of the misunderstanding. > > thank you ;-) > > > Ted explains that of course it depends on the real agreements. That is > > however not important, as no matter what the real understanding is, on > > player was showing a king, while the other thought it was an ace. Due > > to the misunderstanding (and only that), they are playing slam with > > two aces out. > > > > The point that neither Peter nor Ted are touching on, but which Robert > > intended with his question, was this: are the opponents, during play, > > entitled to the knowledge of the misunderstanding? > > mmmh ... perhaps you read my contribution once again. > I definitely said they are entitled to become aware of the misunderstanding and > they are now allowed to draw inferences from that situation. > > > if they learn about > > it, they will know there are two aces out, and it becomes easier for > > them to cash thowe two aces. If they are not told about the > > misunderstanding, they may let the contract make, and they are > > damaged. > > So the question is really important: are they entitled to this > > knowledge? The problem has been solved for the bidding (IMO). The > > opponents are not entitled to the knowledge of the misunderstanding. > > Even the final pass cannot be changed when the misunderstanding comes > > to light if one of the players reveals the misinformation (and > > consequently the > > misunderstanding) after the final pass. > > There are two possibilities: one of the players will always know about > > the misunderstanding, when he hears his partner misexplain. If that > > player becomes dummy, there is no way for him to hide that fact, and > > he may well reveal it before the opening lead as well. But if this > > player becomes declarer, he can hide the absense of the two aces for > > some time longer, by (illegally) omitting to correct the > > misinformation (and subsequently claiming he has misbid). > > Do we find this acceptable? > > > > I don't, for one. Based on the obligation in the laws. More generally, > > I find it reasonably acceptable, and would urge for the obligation to > > be scrapped. But that's a long way off. > > > > Herman. > > > > Robert Frick wrote: > > > > > A Blackwood response was explained (during the auction) as key card. > > > Then it was explained *after the hand* as being regular Blackwood. > > > The opps claim that if they have been given this second explanation > > > before the opening lead, as is required, they would have cashed > > > their two aces. > > > > > > > > > I think that they are not entitled to both explanations during the > > > auction if for some reason they legally only get one. ?But what > > > about now after the auction but before play? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 18 23:37:01 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:37:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> Message-ID: <4C6C527D.7040709@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > If the defender that made the closing pass can show that with correct > explanation and still with the same auction he would probably have doubled > instead of passing he must be allowed to do so. > That is not in doubt. The point is however, that such "showing" mus be with only the correct explanation, not with the added knowledge of the misunderstanding. > Sven > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 19 00:00:52 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:00:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: <4C6C527D.7040709@skynet.be> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> <4C6C527D.7040709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000e01cb3f20$d3f4cbd0$7bde6370$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > If the defender that made the closing pass can show that with correct > > explanation and still with the same auction he would probably have > > doubled instead of passing he must be allowed to do so. > > > > That is not in doubt. The point is however, that such "showing" mus be with only > the correct explanation, not with the added knowledge of the misunderstanding. I agree to that. And honestly I doubt that the difference between one down doubled and undoubled in a contract that should never have been bid will turn out material. But both explanations (including the natural inference that there is a misunderstanding during the auction) are authorized information to the defenders in their play. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 19 00:08:12 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:08:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:11:27 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > Have people completely forgotten Law 75B or am I misunderstanding > something > here? It's just a curious situation. Supposea pair is given the wrong explanation and for whatever reason they are not told the correct explanation until the end of the hand. Then we adjust for damage if a. They would have done something different during the *bidding* had they had the correct explanation *instead* of the wrong explanation b. If they would have done something different during the *play* if they had the correct explanation *in addition* to the wrong explanation. And, I am not sure if (b) holds only when the NOS are defending or also when they are playing the hand. I am guessing no for if they are playing the hand. True? From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 19 00:43:26 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:43:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> Message-ID: <000f01cb3f26$c5c4d770$514e8650$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:11:27 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Have people completely forgotten Law 75B or am I misunderstanding > > something here? > > It's just a curious situation. Suppose a pair is given the wrong explanation and for > whatever reason they are not told the correct explanation until the end of the > hand. Then we adjust for damage if > > a. They would have done something different during the *bidding* had they had > the correct explanation *instead* of the wrong explanation > > b. If they would have done something different during the *play* if they had the > correct explanation *in addition* to the wrong explanation. > > > And, I am not sure if (b) holds only when the NOS are defending or also when they > are playing the hand. I am guessing no for if they are playing the hand. True? A is true even if the bidding would probably have been different had there not been any misinformation in the first place. The ruling shall consider likely calls by NOS without any change in the auction by OS other than possible changing of calls subsequent to changed calls by NOS. B is true regardless of whether NOS is declaring side or defending side. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 19 03:59:48 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 24 (was Law 81C5) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3DDCEC3E-2C8F-467C-8262-0EA9875ED766@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >Two side notes: (1) The 1997 L24 did use "action" rather >than error; it's not clear why TPTB chose to change it. [snip] 1997 Law 24: " ... player's action ... " 2007 Law 24: " ... player's own error ... " Richard Hills: The key change inserted by The Powers That Be is the adjective "own". TPTB wished to emphasise that Law 24 did not apply to a player who was incorrectly informed by an erroneous opponent that it was their opening lead. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section National Office Department Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) Telephone: (02) 6223 8453 Fax: (02) 6225 8669 Email: recruitment at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 19 04:41:38 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 03:41:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be><1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> <000f01cb3f26$c5c4d770$514e8650$@no> Message-ID: <0F0BD6DF18D745749529AC4AB68FE4C5@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:11:27 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> > Have people completely forgotten Law 75B or am I misunderstanding >> > something here? >> >> It's just a curious situation. Suppose a pair is given the wrong > explanation and for >> whatever reason they are not told the correct explanation until the end >> of > the >> hand. Then we adjust for damage if >> >> a. They would have done something different during the *bidding* had they > had >> the correct explanation *instead* of the wrong explanation >> >> b. If they would have done something different during the *play* if they > had the >> correct explanation *in addition* to the wrong explanation. >> >> >> And, I am not sure if (b) holds only when the NOS are defending or also > when they >> are playing the hand. I am guessing no for if they are playing the hand. > True? > > A is true even if the bidding would probably have been different had there > not been any misinformation in the first place. The ruling shall consider > likely calls by NOS without any change in the auction by OS other than > possible changing of calls subsequent to changed calls by NOS. > > B is true regardless of whether NOS is declaring side or defending side. > ================================================= +=+ I have just noted this topic. Reading briefly it seems everyone is conscious of WBFLC minutes 8 Sep 2009, item 12. It is very late to turn my mind to the further questions in the correspondence tonight but after sleeping on it I will look at the various assertions and propositions and see what occurs to me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ........................................................................ From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 05:50:01 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:50:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 In-Reply-To: <3DDCEC3E-2C8F-467C-8262-0EA9875ED766@starpower.net> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> <3DDCEC3E-2C8F-467C-8262-0EA9875ED766@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C6CA9E9.20201@gmail.com> On 8/18/2010 3:28 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:27:44 -0400, Eric Landau >> >> Yes, but.... Are you saying that a when someone pushing past the table >> stumbles into a player, causing thim to drop some cards, that those >> are >> penalty cards unless the nonoffending side requests otherwise? > Yes, although only during the play period, and only by a defender: > "Except in the normal course of play or application of law..., when a > defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly > see its face... each such card becomes a penalty card" [L49]. There > are no exceptions other than those in the first clause. > I don't think so. If the person who knocked the cards loose is not a player or TD (76D), 76C2 allows Regulating Authorities or Tournament Organizers to specify how to deal with infractions caused by a spectator. If there isn't a regulation in place, 81B1 gives the TD the power to act in place of the Tournament Organizer. It is worth noting that "player" is not explicitly defined in the Laws. If a contestant is only a player when actually at the table, but is a spectator when away from the table, then we're back at 76C2. There is something to be said for this definition. For instance, in a team event there may be five or six players on a team. The players not actually at the table remain contestants in the event as defined in L1, but should they be in the playing area, IMO they are not "players". In a similar manner, when a player leaves the table for any reason, he is no longer actually playing the game. He remains a contestant in the event, but all regulations regarding spectators apply as long as he is away from his table. This covers a sit-out pair very nicely, as well as "players" wandering about for other reasons. Should it be determined that a person wandering about is still a "player", then another approach is possible. 16C; Extraneous Information from Other Sources could be invoked. Since play had begun, allow the hand to be played out, and adjust if the information from the exposed cards damaged anyone. There may also be a propriety or two that applies. My own opinion, FWIW, is that anyone not sitting at a table playing the game who is not a TD is a spectator, even if that person is a contestant in the event. Note that these rulings would apply regardless of whether the exposed cards were by a defender or declarer. The damage is from an outside source, and IMO should be treated as such. Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 19 08:36:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:36:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Who is a "player"? (was 81C5) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills (1623-1662): "I have made this blml post longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter." Hirsch Davis: [snip] >It is worth noting that "player" is not explicitly defined in >the Laws. Richard Hills: It matters not that a pair lacks an explicit partnership understanding if it instead has an implicit partnership understanding. It it matters not if the Laws lack an explicit Definition of "player" if the Laws instead implicitly Define "player". Definitions: Contestant ? in an individual event, a "player"; in a pair event, two "players" playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more "players" playing as team-mates. Opponent ? a "player" of the other side; a member of the partnership to which one is opposed. Partner ? the "player" with whom one plays as a side against the other two "players" at the table. Hirsch Davis: >If a contestant is only a player when actually at the table, >but is a spectator when away from the table, then we're back >at 76C2. Richard Hills: In my opinion Law 74C8, not Law 76C2, is relevant in such a case. Law 74C8 - Violations of Procedure: The following are examples of violations of procedure: leaving the table needlessly before the round is called. Hirsch Davis: >There is something to be said for this definition. For >instance, in a team event there may be five or six players >on a team. The players not actually at the table remain >contestants in the event as defined in L1, but should they >be in the playing area, IMO they are not "players". Richard Hills: I agree. A team-of-six is a contestant in an event. But in any particular session only four of the six are deemed to be "players". Law 4 - Partnerships The four "players" at each table constitute two partnerships or sides, North-South against East-West. In pair or team events the contestants enter as pairs or teams respectively and retain the same partnerships throughout a session (except in the case of substitutions authorised by the Director). In individual events each "player" enters separately, and partnerships change during a session. Hirsch Davis: [snip] >My own opinion, FWIW, is that anyone not sitting at a >table playing the game who is not a TD is a spectator, >even if that person is a contestant in the event. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, for what it is worth, Yes and No. If a member of a team-of-six is not rostered for the session in progress, that person is a Law 76 spectator (and, indeed, the Tournament Organizer usually awards that person lesser rights than other spectators, in that that person is usually prohibited from kibitzing her own team). If a member of a team-of-six is rostered for the session in progress, that person is necessarily a Law 4 "player" throughout the session, whether or not that person temporarily leaves her designated table. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section National Office Department Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) Telephone: (02) 6223 8453 Fax: (02) 6225 8669 Email: recruitment at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 19 10:11:11 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:11:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: <000e01cb3f20$d3f4cbd0$7bde6370$@no> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> <4C6C527D.7040709@skynet.be> <000e01cb3f20$d3f4cbd0$7bde6370$@no> Message-ID: <4C6CE71F.6070804@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> That is not in doubt. The point is however, that such "showing" mus be > with only >> the correct explanation, not with the added knowledge of the > misunderstanding. > > I agree to that. And honestly I doubt that the difference between one down > doubled and undoubled in a contract that should never have been bid will > turn out material. > Not very important to the discussion, is it? This is a case where the contract trickles one down, but there are cases where it's 4 down, and then the double does matter. > But both explanations (including the natural inference that there is a > misunderstanding during the auction) are authorized information to the > defenders in their play. > But authorized is not the problem - entitled is. Of course the information is authorized, it comes from opponents, after all. But are they entitled to it? Will they receive redress for th damage which undoubtedly exists is they are not told about it? That is the problem we are trying to solve in this thread! -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 19 12:08:38 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:08:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: <4C6CE71F.6070804@skynet.be> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> <4C6C527D.7040709@skynet.be> <000e01cb3f20$d3f4cbd0$7bde6370$@no> <4C6CE71F.6070804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601cb3f86$7eefbf80$7ccf3e80$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > But authorized is not the problem - entitled is. Of course the information is > authorized, it comes from opponents, after all. > But are they entitled to it? Will they receive redress for th damage which > undoubtedly exists is they are not told about it? That is the problem we are trying > to solve in this thread! Authorized IS the important question, entitled is NOT because they have already received the information in question. I have already stated that the offending side has no obligation to explicitly state that they have had a misunderstanding; this is for their opponents to infer from the (obvious) fact that an explanation was corrected. So what IS the problem? From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 19 12:32:04 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:32:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: <000601cb3f86$7eefbf80$7ccf3e80$@no> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> <4C6C527D.7040709@skynet.be> <000e01cb3f20$d3f4cbd0$7bde6370$@no> <4C6CE71F.6070804@skynet.be> <000601cb3f86$7eefbf80$7ccf3e80$@no> Message-ID: <4C6D0824.5020901@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >> But authorized is not the problem - entitled is. Of course the information > is >> authorized, it comes from opponents, after all. >> But are they entitled to it? Will they receive redress for th damage which >> undoubtedly exists is they are not told about it? That is the problem we > are trying >> to solve in this thread! > > Authorized IS the important question, well, considering that everyone agrees on this one, it is hardly an important question (for this forum). > entitled is NOT because they have > already received the information in question. > No they have not, not if the declarer has omitted to tell them about his partner's misinformation (which reveals his misbidding/misunderstanding). The question then becomes after the play: were they entitled to this information. And that is an important question. > I have already stated that the offending side has no obligation to > explicitly state that they have had a misunderstanding; this is for their > opponents to infer from the (obvious) fact that an explanation was > corrected. > > So what IS the problem? > The problem is: What if the explanation is not corrected? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 19 12:47:23 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:47:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: <4C6D0824.5020901@skynet.be> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> <4C6C527D.7040709@skynet.be> <000e01cb3f20$d3f4cbd0$7bde6370$@no> <4C6CE71F.6070804@skynet.be> <000601cb3f86$7eefbf80$7ccf3e80$@no> <4C6D0824.5020901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4C6D0BBB.2070306@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> I have already stated that the offending side has no obligation to >> explicitly state that they have had a misunderstanding; this is for their >> opponents to infer from the (obvious) fact that an explanation was >> corrected. >> >> So what IS the problem? >> >> > > The problem is: What if the explanation is not corrected? > > Then there is MI, which is subject to correction in itself. What situation do you imagine, where the explanation would be corrected and the misunderstanding wouldn't be evident ? (a slip of the tongue ?) Notice that : 1. In rare cases, there might be a misexplanation without any misunderstandig, e.g. partner opens a Gambling 3NT and, because you see diamond honors in your hand, you know he has clubs, so you explain (wrongly) "solid clubs". In that case, you have to correct your explanation, and if they guess why you misexplained, so be it. But you don't have to say why you erred. 2. When the explanation is correct, the misunderstanding might remain hidden, but that's allowed. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 19 13:25:02 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:25:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: <4C6D0BBB.2070306@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> <4C6C527D.7040709@skynet.be> <000e01cb3f20$d3f4cbd0$7bde6370$@no> <4C6CE71F.6070804@skynet.be> <000601cb3f86$7eefbf80$7ccf3e80$@no> <4C6D0824.5020901@skynet.be> <4C6D0BBB.2070306@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C6D148E.4000505@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > >>> I have already stated that the offending side has no obligation to >>> explicitly state that they have had a misunderstanding; this is for their >>> opponents to infer from the (obvious) fact that an explanation was >>> corrected. >>> >>> So what IS the problem? >>> >>> >> >> The problem is: What if the explanation is not corrected? >> >> > Then there is MI, which is subject to correction in itself. > exactly, but not only in itself, also from itself. What we are talking about are those cases where the damage results from not knowing about the misunderstanding. > What situation do you imagine, where the explanation would be corrected > and the misunderstanding wouldn't be evident ? > (a slip of the tongue ?) > Well, let's continue the "five aces" problem. One player asks aces, and explains his partner's reply as "one ace". He bids the slam. His partner has one king, so now there are two aces out. If the partner now becomes dummy, that mistake becomes obvious, but if he is declarer, that is not the case. If that same declarer now omits to correct the "misexplanation", the opponents may well be damaged. Aha, now I see your point: The misexplanation alone is already sufficient to deduce that there may be two aces out. After the hand, it is easy for the TD to rule that with correct information (plus the seeing of dummy), a different line might have been taken. Indeed this seems to be a non-problem. So unless someone has a better example of where it may matter, let's drop it. Sorry to have contributed in some time-wasting. > Notice that : > > 1. In rare cases, there might be a misexplanation without any > misunderstandig, e.g. partner opens a Gambling 3NT and, because you see > diamond honors in your hand, you know he has clubs, so you explain > (wrongly) "solid clubs". In that case, you have to correct your > explanation, and if they guess why you misexplained, so be it. But you > don't have to say why you erred. > > 2. When the explanation is correct, the misunderstanding might remain > hidden, but that's allowed. > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3080 - Release Date: 08/18/10 20:35:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 19 14:00:06 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:00:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: <4C6D148E.4000505@skynet.be> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> <4C6C527D.7040709@skynet.be> <000e01cb3f20$d3f4cbd0$7bde6370$@no> <4C6CE71F.6070804@skynet.be> <000601cb3f86$7eefbf80$7ccf3e80$@no> <4C6D0824.5020901@skynet.be> <4C6D0BBB.2070306@ulb.ac.be> <4C6D148E.4000505@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 07:25:02 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> >> >>>> I have already stated that the offending side has no obligation to >>>> explicitly state that they have had a misunderstanding; this is for >>>> their >>>> opponents to infer from the (obvious) fact that an explanation was >>>> corrected. >>>> >>>> So what IS the problem? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> The problem is: What if the explanation is not corrected? >>> >>> >> Then there is MI, which is subject to correction in itself. >> > > exactly, but not only in itself, also from itself. What we are talking > about are those cases where the damage results from not knowing about > the misunderstanding. > >> What situation do you imagine, where the explanation would be corrected >> and the misunderstanding wouldn't be evident ? >> (a slip of the tongue ?) >> > > Well, let's continue the "five aces" problem. One player asks aces, and > explains his partner's reply as "one ace". He bids the slam. His partner > has one king, so now there are two aces out. If the partner now becomes > dummy, that mistake becomes obvious, but if he is declarer, that is not > the case. If that same declarer now omits to correct the > "misexplanation", the opponents may well be damaged. > Aha, now I see your point: The misexplanation alone is already > sufficient to deduce that there may be two aces out. After the hand, it > is easy for the TD to rule that with correct information (plus the > seeing of dummy), a different line might have been taken. > > Indeed this seems to be a non-problem. > So unless someone has a better example of where it may matter, let's > drop it. Sorry to have contributed in some time-wasting. Opening lead is before the dummy is seen. And if the misexplanation is of declarer's hand, then I don't see why there isn't damage. Again, Declarer is explained as having shown one ace but actually doesn't have any. > >> Notice that : >> >> 1. In rare cases, there might be a misexplanation without any >> misunderstandig, e.g. partner opens a Gambling 3NT and, because you see >> diamond honors in your hand, you know he has clubs, so you explain >> (wrongly) "solid clubs". In that case, you have to correct your >> explanation, and if they guess why you misexplained, so be it. But you >> don't have to say why you erred. >> >> 2. When the explanation is correct, the misunderstanding might remain >> hidden, but that's allowed. >> >> Best regards >> >> Alain >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3080 - Release Date: >> 08/18/10 20:35:00 >> > -- somepsychology.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 19 14:09:26 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:09:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> <4C6C527D.7040709@skynet.be> <000e01cb3f20$d3f4cbd0$7bde6370$@no> <4C6CE71F.6070804@skynet.be> <000601cb3f86$7eefbf80$7ccf3e80$@no> <4C6D0824.5020901@skynet.be> <4C6D0BBB.2070306@ulb.ac.be> <4C6D148E.4000505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4C6D1EF6.9050408@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > Opening lead is before the dummy is seen. > > And if the misexplanation is of declarer's hand, then I don't see why > there isn't damage. Again, Declarer is explained as having shown one ace > but actually doesn't have any. > > Nobody said there isn't any damage ; I only claim that almost always the damage would have been nullified by correcting the explanation, with the misunderstanding obvious from the need to correct. Whence there is no need to make provisions for specifically announcing the misunderstanding. Either you don't correct, and TFLB tells us what to make in case this influences play ; or yo dou and WTP ? Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 19 14:41:39 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:41:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: <000f01cb3f26$c5c4d770$514e8650$@no> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> <000f01cb3f26$c5c4d770$514e8650$@no> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:43:26 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:11:27 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> > Have people completely forgotten Law 75B or am I misunderstanding >> > something here? >> >> It's just a curious situation. Suppose a pair is given the wrong > explanation and for >> whatever reason they are not told the correct explanation until the end >> of > the >> hand. Then we adjust for damage if >> >> a. They would have done something different during the *bidding* had >> they > had >> the correct explanation *instead* of the wrong explanation >> >> b. If they would have done something different during the *play* if they > had the >> correct explanation *in addition* to the wrong explanation. >> >> >> And, I am not sure if (b) holds only when the NOS are defending or also > when they >> are playing the hand. I am guessing no for if they are playing the hand. > True? > > A is true even if the bidding would probably have been different had > there > not been any misinformation in the first place. The ruling shall consider > likely calls by NOS without any change in the auction by OS other than > possible changing of calls subsequent to changed calls by NOS. > > B is true regardless of whether NOS is declaring side or defending side. In the absence of clarification from the WBFLC, I think your claim is not true. It is controversial in the law alone whether (in the cased of a mistaken explanation during the auction corrected before the play) the correction for damage is for a. if the NOS had been given the correct information *instead of* the wrong explanation or b. if the NOS had been given the correct information *in addition to* the mistaken explanation. The WBFLC has minuted that "instead of" applied to calls during the auction. It seems logical to me to assume that the same principle applies to plays. But everyone so far seems to prefer a different logic: The OS were supposed to correct their explanation before play started. That is second infraction. The second infraction, by itself, lets us ask what would have happened if the NOS had been given the correct explanation in addition to the wrong explanation. However, that logic does not apply when the OS are defending. There is no point at which, prior to the end of play, that the OS were supposed to correct the explanation. So there is only one infraction, the mistaken explanation. Whatever the reason for the WBFLC to prefer instead-of, that applies to damage during the play here. Right? From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Aug 19 14:55:24 2010 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:55:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: <4C6D1EF6.9050408@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be><1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no><4C6C527D.7040709@skynet.be> <000e01cb3f20$d3f4cbd0$7bde6370$@no><4C6CE71F.6070804@skynet.be> <000601cb3f86$7eefbf80$7ccf3e80$@no><4C6D0824.5020901@skynet.be> <4C6D0BBB.2070306@ulb.ac.be><4C6D148E.4000505@skynet.be> <4C6D1EF6.9050408@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2720647EFD39470DACDBC6B9E82EE0C8@Lounge> Players A and B are a non regular partnership who have agreed to play A's complex system. They have a long auction to a slam. Defender on lead asks for an explanation and all bids are explained by A (in contravention of L20F). B has of course been on the wrong wavelength but is confident that A knows his system so does not offer any "corrections". If defenders had known of the misunderstanding they may have defeated the slam. Do you adjust the score? From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 19 15:09:15 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:09:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> <000f01cb3f26$c5c4d770$514e8650$@no> Message-ID: <4C6D2CFB.5040101@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > It seems logical to me to assume that the same principle applies to plays. > But everyone so far seems to prefer a different logic: The OS were > supposed to correct their explanation before play started. That is second > infraction. The second infraction, by itself, lets us ask what would have > happened if the NOS had been given the correct explanation in addition to > the wrong explanation. > > However, that logic does not apply when the OS are defending. There is no > point at which, prior to the end of play, that the OS were supposed to > correct the explanation. So there is only one infraction, the mistaken > explanation. Whatever the reason for the WBFLC to prefer instead-of, that > applies to damage during the play here. Right? > AG : Good summary. However, I expected some to discuss the idea that correction could be made compulsory before the lead even if the OS defends. That creates UI, to be sure, and I don't like it. Did you notice how the attitude of "do not tell them until the end of the deal and adjust if necessary" is close to DWS principles ? Yet TFL and most of you consider the former a good idea but not the latter. (not that I'm sure which attitude I prefer, but TFL should be made more consistent either way) From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 19 15:22:17 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:22:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: <2720647EFD39470DACDBC6B9E82EE0C8@Lounge> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be><1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no><4C6C527D.7040709@skynet.be> <000e01cb3f20$d3f4cbd0$7bde6370$@no><4C6CE71F.6070804@skynet.be> <000601cb3f86$7eefbf80$7ccf3e80$@no><4C6D0824.5020901@skynet.be> <4C6D0BBB.2070306@ulb.ac.be><4C6D148E.4000505@skynet.be> <4C6D1EF6.9050408@ulb.ac.be> <2720647EFD39470DACDBC6B9E82EE0C8@Lounge> Message-ID: <4C6D3009.1080506@ulb.ac.be> David a ?crit : > Players A and B are a non regular partnership who have agreed to play A's > complex system. > They have a long auction to a slam. Defender on lead asks for an explanation > and all bids are explained by A (in contravention of L20F). B has of course > been on the wrong wavelength but is confident that A knows his system so > does not offer any "corrections". > > If defenders had known of the misunderstanding they may have defeated the > slam. > > Do you adjust the score? > AG : consider the following scenario : A explains some bid in the pre-lead phase, which makes B realize his error. Now B explains according to the new interpretation. The munderstanding will go unnoticed, and everybody will have acted according to one's duties. Is there any difference ? This occurred to me at least once. After the bidding went 1C (1RF, Roman type) - 1S - 2H, we had several more bids and ended in 4S. Partner explained 2H as asking (which it was, but I had forgotten, as 2D wouldn't), so I explained her next two bids in an asking-bid context. And since I didn't show, but asked, one could hardly detect the misunderstainding (especially as I tabled 4 hearts). That's a rare case, but it happens, and you can hardly say we did anything wrong. Now if my partner (who was more experienced in the system) had made the whole job of explaining, what would the difference have been ? I mean, for practical purposes, not on the matter of abiding by the laws) Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 19 15:38:27 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:38:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> Message-ID: <5229F418-E280-48B9-88A7-685AE5C87F9E@starpower.net> On Aug 18, 2010, at 4:11 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Have people completely forgotten Law 75B or am I misunderstanding > something > here? > > Both presumed dummy and presumed declarer are during the clarification > period (immediately following the closing pass) responsible for > voluntarily > informing their opponents that they believe their (respective) > partner has > given incorrect information during the auction. > > The fact that such correction may reveal a possibly catastrophic > misunderstanding on the declaring side is completely irrelevant; > Law 75B > does not consider such matters at all. If this procedure for > instance leads > to defenders understanding that the declaring side has reached a > slam with > two aces missing then so be it. > > Defenders are entitled BOTH to the original explanation given > during the > auction AND if this turns out to having been incorrect ALSO to the > corrected > explanation given during the clarification period (at the > initiative of > presumed declarer or dummy as the case may be). It is IMHO correct > that the > declaring side needs not explicitly tell their opponents that there > has been > a misunderstanding during the auction; this fairly obvious fact is > up to > defenders to infer from the corrected explanation at their own risk. > > There is an interesting train of arguments that without the > misunderstanding > and corresponding misinformation the declaring side would not have > reached > the slam, so the director shall not allow the defending side to > replace > their closing pass with for instance a double. I cannot see any > justification in Law 21B or anywhere else for this argument. > > If the defender that made the closing pass can show that with correct > explanation and still with the same auction he would probably have > doubled > instead of passing he must be allowed to do so. Haven't we trod this ground before? ISTM that Sven recapitulates our earlier conclusions. The defender who made the last pass is allowed to change his call if there is reason to believe that he might have made the replacement call absent the infraction, i.e. had he been offered a correct explanation in place of the incorrect one. He may not change his call if his justification for doing so is based on his knowledge of the incorrect explanation (or of the fact that it was offered). He may, however, use that information in selecting his defense. Which of these (three) conclusions, if any, are we now revisiting? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 19 16:14:26 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:14:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be><1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott "A Blackwood response was explained (during the auction) as key card. Then it was explained *after the hand* as being regular Blackwood. The opponents claim that if they have been given this second explanation before the opening lead, as is required, they would have cashed their two aces. I think that they are not entitled to both explanations during the auction if for some reason they legally only get one. But what about now after the auction but before play?" [Grattan, opinion] +=+ Commence by studying the Laws Committee minute, item 12, of 8th September 2009 and note that this stops short of exploring entitlements during the play. When questions like this are put I like to read what the law book actually says. We should not lead ourselves astray through a habit of thinking right something that the law does not say. In this instance the first brief stop is in Law 9A4 where we learn with reference to partner's apparently mistaken explanation we should seek guidance in Law 20F5. In law 20F5 we realize it is restricted to situations where *factually* a player's partner "has given a mistaken explanation". The law does not say "when a player believes that his partner has given a mistaken explanation". The player must be sure that his partner has done so. The level of awareness must be one of certainty, not one of mere belief. Only then is the player called upon to take action in terms of 20F5(b) by expressing his opinion. That is what the law book says. If we wanted it to say differently we should have written it differently. Law 75B does not gainsay the above. An opponent, I believe, has no entitlement to other than correct explanations of calls and defenders' card plays. A player may make such inferences as he chooses at his own risk. If, lacking certainty, under Law 20F5(b) a player does not proffer his opinion it is for the Director, if he is summoned at the end of the hand (and see Law 81C3), to determine whether there is a partnership understanding and whether the player, his partner, or neither, has the true grasp of it. The Director's power of rectification may be found via Law 20F6, Law 21B3, and the aforesaid Law 81C3. So there it is; next the "formidable outcry".+=+ ........................................................... The following are the essentials of a lengthy correspondence:- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation Have people completely forgotten Law 75B or am I misunderstanding something here? Both presumed dummy and presumed declarer are during the clarification period (immediately following the closing pass) responsible for voluntarily informing their opponents that they believe their (respective) partner has given incorrect information during the auction. The fact that such correction may reveal a possibly catastrophic misunderstanding on the declaring side is completely irrelevant; Law 75B does not consider such matters at all. If this procedure for instance leads to defenders understanding that the declaring side has reached a slam with two aces missing then so be it. Defenders are entitled BOTH to the original explanation given during the auction AND if this turns out to having been incorrect ALSO to the corrected explanation given during the clarification period (at the initiative of presumed declarer or dummy as the case may be). It is IMHO correct that the declaring side needs not explicitly tell their opponents that there has been a misunderstanding during the auction; this fairly obvious fact is up to defenders to infer from the corrected explanation at their own risk. There is an interesting train of arguments that without the misunderstanding and corresponding misinformation the declaring side would not have reached the slam, so the director shall not allow the defending side to replace their closing pass with for instance a double. I cannot see any justification in Law 21B or anywhere else for this argument. If the defender that made the closing pass can show that with correct explanation and still with the same auction he would probably have doubled instead of passing he must be allowed to do so. Sven .................................................................. > From: Herman De Wael Robert poses a very interesting question, and Peter and Ted reply to a different question, both correctly, it must be said. > Peter tells us (correctly, IMO) that the opponents are not entitled to the knowledge of the misunderstanding, and that the TD should not reopen the bidding (in order for them to double) just on the basis of the knowledge of the misunderstanding. > > Ted explains that of course it depends on the real agreements. That is however not important, as no matter what the real understanding is, one player was showing a king, while the other thought it was an ace. Due to the misunderstanding (and only that), they are playing slam with two aces out. > The point that neither Peter nor Ted are touching on, but which Robert intended with his question, was this: are the opponents, during play, entitled to the knowledge of the misunderstanding? > ....... perhaps you should read my contribution once again. I definitely said they are entitled to become aware of the misunderstanding and they are now allowed to draw inferences from that situation. > if they learn about it, they will know there are two aces out, and it becomes easier for them to cash those two aces. If they are not told about the misunderstanding, they may let the contract make, and they are damaged. So the question is really important: are they entitled to this knowledge? The problem has been solved for the bidding (IMO). The opponents are not entitled to the knowledge of the misunderstanding. Even the final pass cannot be changed when the misunderstanding comes to light if one of the players reveals the misinformation (and consequently the misunderstanding) after the final pass. There are two possibilities: one of the players will always know about the misunderstanding, when he hears his partner misexplain. If that player becomes dummy, there is no way for him to hide that fact, and he may well reveal it before the opening lead as well. But if this player becomes declarer, he can hide the absence of the two aces for some time longer, by (illegally) omitting to correct the misinformation (and subsequently claiming he has misbid). Do we find this acceptable? I don't, for one. Based on the obligation in the laws. More generally, I find it reasonably acceptable, and would urge for the obligation to be scrapped. But that's a long way off. > Herman. From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 19 17:45:38 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:45:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] entitlement to right and wrong explanation In-Reply-To: References: <4C6C28A7.4010507@skynet.be> <1OloEg-28vUno0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <000d01cb3f11$8b32d770$a1988650$@no> <000f01cb3f26$c5c4d770$514e8650$@no> Message-ID: <000501cb3fb5$92a83a00$b7f8ae00$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............. > In the absence of clarification from the WBFLC, I think your claim is not true. "In the absence of clarification from the WBFLC" ????? You had better check the available files: WBFLC Minutes of 2009-09-08 Item 12: The committee returned to the subject of the status of information arising when a misexplanation is corrected. There was lengthy discussion following which it was determined: (a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judgewhether the call "could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player". Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3. (b) that when under Law 20F4 an explanation is corrected before the auction has closed the Director is pointed to Law 21B. This law does not indicate how the Director should then proceed* but it was agreed that the player may use both the misexplanation and the correct information (a) Confirms that the question of allowing a Law 21B1 retraction of a call must be ruled upon solely on the corrected explanation as if no incorrect explanation had been given. (b) Confirms that during the play (obviously including the opening lead) NOS is entitled to use all information from both the original misexplanation and from the corrected explanation. And whether NOS is declaring side or defending side is completely irrelevant. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 19 17:51:54 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:51:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> <3DDCEC3E-2C8F-467C-8262-0EA9875ED766@starpower.net> <4C6CA9E9.20201@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0F32ACF53F0348EA9921EBD635EF5ADB@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 4:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C5 On 8/18/2010 3:28 PM, Eric Landau wrote: On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:27:44 -0400, Eric Landau > Yes, but.... Are you saying that a when someone pushing past the table stumbles into a player, causing him to drop some cards, that those are penalty cards unless the nonoffending side requests otherwise? < Yes, although only during the play period, and only by a defender: "Except in the normal course of play or application of law..., when a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face... each such card becomes a penalty card" [L49]. There are no exceptions other than those in the first clause. >> (Hirsch) I don't think so. If the person who knocked the cards loose is not a player or TD (76D), 76C2 allows Regulating Authorities or Tournament Organizers to specify how to deal with infractions caused by a spectator. If there isn't a regulation in place, 81B1 gives the TD the power to act in place of the Tournament Organizer. It is worth noting that "player" is not explicitly defined in the Laws. If a contestant is only a player when actually at the table, but is a spectator when away from the table, then we're back at 76C2. > Should it be determined that a person wandering about is still a "player", then another approach is possible. < +=+ I believe that in the laws unless the context incontrovertibly requires otherwise a "player" is one of the four persons constituting the two sides at the table. See definition of 'side' and also, for example, compare such laws as 9B(b), 10A, 13D2, 13E, 16 etc. Perhaps I could ask the WBFLC to speak to the question in Philadelphia. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 19 18:36:15 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:36:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Law 81C5 - addendum Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C5 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hirsch Davis" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 4:50 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C5 > > > On 8/18/2010 3:28 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> > On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:27:44 -0400, Eric Landau >> > Yes, but.... Are you saying that a when someone > pushing past the table stumbles into a player, causing > him to drop some cards, that those are penalty cards > unless the nonoffending side requests otherwise? > < > Yes, although only during the play period, and only > by a defender: "Except in the normal course of play > or application of law..., when a defender's card is in > a position in which his partner could possibly > see its face... each such card becomes a penalty > card" [L49]. There are no exceptions other than those > in the first clause. >>> > (Hirsch) > I don't think so. If the person who knocked the cards > loose is not a player or TD (76D), 76C2 allows Regulating > Authorities or Tournament Organizers to specify how to > deal with infractions caused by a spectator. If there isn't > a regulation in place, 81B1 gives the TD the power to > act in place of the Tournament Organizer. > > It is worth noting that "player" is not explicitly defined > in the Laws. If a contestant is only a player when actually > at the table, but is a spectator when away from the table, > then we're back at 76C2. > Should it be determined that > a person wandering about is still a "player", then another > approach is possible. > < > +=+ I believe that in the laws unless the context > incontrovertibly requires otherwise a "player" is > one of the four persons constituting the two sides > at the table. See definition of 'side' and also, for > example, compare such laws as 9B(b), 10A, 13D2, > 13E, 16 etc. > Perhaps I could ask the WBFLC to speak to > the question in Philadelphia. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ <<< Addendum: While the above is, I think, a fair interpretation there are two additional points that have occurred to me: 1. In Law 76A2 we have the case of a player who is obviously still a player when away from the table. 2. I do not think we can describe a player who is a contestant in the event as a 'spectator' when he is away from the table. He must surely be subject to different regulations from those applying to spectators. ~ G ~ From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Aug 19 19:17:26 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 01:17:26 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <454C1C5E5EB747BFA15AAD7363130EDC@benspc> <3DDCEC3E-2C8F-467C-8262-0EA9875ED766@starpower.net> <4C6CA9E9.20201@gmail.com> Message-ID: I have just arrived home from what finished up being a particularly unpleasant finish to the session and I am in the mood to apply Law 50. "LAW 50 - DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49 and Law 23 may apply)." I am going to (quite possibly incorrectly) designate that each of the exposed cards is not a penalty card and then attempt to have the board played out if possible or give an adjusted score both sides being non offending. bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C5 > On 8/18/2010 3:28 PM, Eric Landau wrote: >> On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:27:44 -0400, Eric Landau >>> >>> Yes, but.... Are you saying that a when someone pushing past the table >>> stumbles into a player, causing thim to drop some cards, that those >>> are >>> penalty cards unless the nonoffending side requests otherwise? >> Yes, although only during the play period, and only by a defender: >> "Except in the normal course of play or application of law..., when a >> defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly >> see its face... each such card becomes a penalty card" [L49]. There >> are no exceptions other than those in the first clause. >> > > I don't think so. If the person who knocked the cards loose is not a > player or TD (76D), 76C2 allows Regulating Authorities or Tournament > Organizers to specify how to deal with infractions caused by a > spectator. If there isn't a regulation in place, 81B1 gives the TD the > power to act in place of the Tournament Organizer. > > It is worth noting that "player" is not explicitly defined in the Laws. > If a contestant is only a player when actually at the table, but is a > spectator when away from the table, then we're back at 76C2. There is > something to be said for this definition. For instance, in a team event > there may be five or six players on a team. The players not actually at > the table remain contestants in the event as defined in L1, but should > they be in the playing area, IMO they are not "players". In a similar > manner, when a player leaves the table for any reason, he is no longer > actually playing the game. He remains a contestant in the event, but all > regulations regarding spectators apply as long as he is away from his > table. This covers a sit-out pair very nicely, as well as "players" > wandering about for other reasons. > > Should it be determined that a person wandering about is still a > "player", then another approach is possible. 16C; Extraneous Information > from Other Sources could be invoked. Since play had begun, allow the > hand to be played out, and adjust if the information from the exposed > cards damaged anyone. There may also be a propriety or two that applies. > > My own opinion, FWIW, is that anyone not sitting at a table playing the > game who is not a TD is a spectator, even if that person is a contestant > in the event. > > Note that these rulings would apply regardless of whether the exposed > cards were by a defender or declarer. The damage is from an outside > source, and IMO should be treated as such. > > Hirsch > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 20 01:01:24 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:01:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Obscure reading of the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C5A6EA1.1010701@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Alain is begging the question, petitio principii. The >>prime question at the basis of this thread is whether >>Law 74A2 has the scope to invalidate an otherwise legal >>summoning of the Director, and Alain merely asserts >>without evidence that this is so. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : you're right. I pretend, with all due conviction, >that lawyering often goes against L72A and that this is >the only law that might allow us to act against it. Richard Hills: It seems that there are three viewpoints on this issue. Sven Pran has argued in the past that, unless specifically prohibited by Laws 20F5 and/or 43A1 and/or 65B3, a summoning of the Director is always Lawful. I argue that _if_ the Laws authorise the summoning of the Director, _then and only then_ that summoning is _always_ Lawful, even if the summoner is a "lawyering" Secretary Bird. But I differ from Sven Pran in arguing that _if_ the Laws do not authorise the summoning of the Director, then that summoning is _extraneous_ to the Lawbook, and in such a case the Director could rule that her _unnecessary_ summoning is a coffee-house infraction of Law 74A2. (Slightly off-topic note: The Drafting Committee once thought about specifically prohibiting the coffee- house technique of repeatedly questioning an opponent, but ultimately decided that other Proprieties already empowered the Director to deal with such harassment.) Alain Gottcheiner: >Now what's wrong with expressing that idea ? Richard Hills: What's wrong is the camel's nose. The reductio ad absurdum of Alain's idea is that any and all "lawyering" for a revoke rectification or a contested claim could be over-ridden by Law 74A2. But the scope of Law 74A2 is merely the deportment of the players. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 20 01:55:11 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:55:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 - addendum [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>>Yes, but.... Are you saying that a when someone >>>pushing past the table stumbles into a player, causing >>>him to drop some cards, that those are penalty cards >>>unless the non-offending side requests otherwise? >>> >>>It seems like we should not be using L81C5 to get to >>>the ruling we should be giving anyway. Richard Hills: I agree. In my opinion, the appropriate Law in Bob's scenario is not Law 81C5 but rather Law 90B7: "The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one?s hand, playing the wrong board, stumbling into a player at another table causing her to drop cards, etc.) that require an adjusted score for any contestant." So I would rule both sides at the other table to be non- offending sides, awarding Ave+ to both since play could not be completed normally. And I would rule that the stumbling player receives a procedural penalty. What's the problem? Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ I believe that in the laws unless the context >>incontrovertibly requires otherwise a "player" is one >>of the four persons constituting the two sides at the >>table. See definition of 'side' and also, for example, >>compare such laws as 9B(b), 10A, 13D2, 13E, 16 etc. >> Perhaps I could ask the WBFLC to speak to the >>question in Philadelphia. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan Endicott addendum: >Addendum: While the above is, I think, a fair >interpretation there are two additional points that >have occurred to me: > 1. In Law 76A2 we have the case of a player > who is obviously still a player when away > from the table. > 2. I do not think we can describe a player who > is a contestant in the event as a 'spectator' > when he is away from the table. He must > surely be subject to different regulations > from those applying to spectators. > ~ G ~ Richard Hills addendum: Law 16C implies that a person returning with a coffee to her own table is still a player, and hence still can gain unauthorised information "by seeing cards at another table". By definition a player infracting the tardiness Law 90B1 is not at her table. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Fri Aug 20 03:13:50 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:13:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 - addendum [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6DD6CE.4080302@gmail.com> On 8/19/2010 7:55 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Robert Frick: > >>>> Yes, but.... Are you saying that a when someone >>>> pushing past the table stumbles into a player, causing >>>> him to drop some cards, that those are penalty cards >>>> unless the non-offending side requests otherwise? >>>> >>>> It seems like we should not be using L81C5 to get to >>>> the ruling we should be giving anyway. > Richard Hills: > > I agree. In my opinion, the appropriate Law in Bob's > scenario is not Law 81C5 but rather Law 90B7: > > "The following are examples of offences subject to > procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to > these): > errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in > one?s hand, playing the wrong board, stumbling into a > player at another table causing her to drop cards, etc.) > that require an adjusted score for any contestant." > > So I would rule both sides at the other table to be non- > offending sides, awarding Ave+ to both since play could > not be completed normally. And I would rule that the > stumbling player receives a procedural penalty. > > What's the problem? Hirsch Davis: The problem is the wording of 90B7: 7. errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one?s hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that require an adjusted score for any contestant. This Law does not permit us to adjust a score. It simply allows us to impose a penalty when another procedural infraction requires us to adjust the score. I think that the principles of 16C make a sound basis for the type of adjustment that should be made. Since the hand is already in play, we don't award an artificial score. We put the cards back into the hand, monitor the rest of the play, and award an adjusted score if needed with both sides treated as non-offending. 90B7 gives us a way to penalize the person who caused the problem in the first place, but has no bearing on the actual table ruling. > Grattan Endicott: > >>> +=+ I believe that in the laws unless the context >>> incontrovertibly requires otherwise a "player" is one >>> of the four persons constituting the two sides at the >>> table. See definition of 'side' and also, for example, >>> compare such laws as 9B(b), 10A, 13D2, 13E, 16 etc. >>> Perhaps I could ask the WBFLC to speak to the >>> question in Philadelphia. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan Endicott addendum: > >> Addendum: While the above is, I think, a fair >> interpretation there are two additional points that >> have occurred to me: >> 1. In Law 76A2 we have the case of a player >> who is obviously still a player when away >> from the table. >> 2. I do not think we can describe a player who >> is a contestant in the event as a 'spectator' >> when he is away from the table. He must >> surely be subject to different regulations >> from those applying to spectators. >> Hirsch Davis: I agree, up to a point. In a club game, if the sit-out pair is kibitzing a board that they have already played, then IMO they are most definitely spectators at least for that round. So, it is likely that possible situations where a player might also be a spectator need to be dealt with at some level. There need to be different restrictions on a player though, to insure that Laws regarding UI and communication are not compromised away from the table, as well as the possibility of influencing events at another table. Most of this is already implicit in existing Laws, I think. >> ~ G ~ > Richard Hills addendum: > > Law 16C implies that a person returning with a coffee > to her own table is still a player, and hence still > can gain unauthorised information "by seeing cards at > another table". > > By definition a player infracting the tardiness Law > 90B1 is not at her table. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > - Regards, Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 20 04:31:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:31:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: >>>If he had two extra tricks, why not bid 6S immediately? Raija answered: >>*** Because he is looking for a grand, is a very plausible >>explanation. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: plausible, a. Specious, having a show of truth or reason, clever at making out a case. Richard Hills: Of course many players are plausible with their self- serving arguments, so such plausible arguments should be tested against the objective evidence available. Raija: [snip] >>Mr Fusselman has posted about 15 times in this thread with >>the same arguments. I would think once, or maybe twice in >>some cases, is enough. Is there a moderator who can stop >>the pointless repetition? Richard Hills: I disagree, both in the general and in the particular. In general, the back-and-forth of blml debate on long threads enables both sides to refine their arguments. In particular, amongst the so-called "pointless repetition" of Jerry Fussselman's posts is this golden nugget -> Jerry Fusselman: >I agree that Opener's hand is much better than an average >17-count hand, but Petrus told us that 4S shows > >"no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a >hand where opener can see that there are not enough >controls." > >Opener's peers are players who bid 4S with this hand, >denying slam interest. Richard Hills: While Wayne Burrows has convincingly proven that bidding 6S is Logical, Jerry Fusselman has equally convincingly proven that passing 5S is a Logical Alternative. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Fri Aug 20 05:37:49 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 23:37:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6DF88D.2070609@gmail.com> On 8/19/2010 10:31 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Jerry Fusselman asked: > >>>> If he had two extra tricks, why not bid 6S immediately? > Raija answered: > >>> *** Because he is looking for a grand, is a very plausible >>> explanation. > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > plausible, a. Specious, having a show of truth or reason, > clever at making out a case. > > Richard Hills: > > Of course many players are plausible with their self- > serving arguments, so such plausible arguments should be > tested against the objective evidence available. > > Raija: > > [snip] > >>> Mr Fusselman has posted about 15 times in this thread with >>> the same arguments. I would think once, or maybe twice in >>> some cases, is enough. Is there a moderator who can stop >>> the pointless repetition? > Richard Hills: > > I disagree, both in the general and in the particular. > > In general, the back-and-forth of blml debate on long > threads enables both sides to refine their arguments. > > In particular, amongst the so-called "pointless repetition" > of Jerry Fussselman's posts is this golden nugget -> > > Jerry Fusselman: > >> I agree that Opener's hand is much better than an average >> 17-count hand, but Petrus told us that 4S shows >> >> "no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a >> hand where opener can see that there are not enough >> controls." >> >> Opener's peers are players who bid 4S with this hand, >> denying slam interest. > Richard Hills: > > While Wayne Burrows has convincingly proven that bidding > 6S is Logical, Jerry Fusselman has equally convincingly > proven that passing 5S is a Logical Alternative. > Not so. That would be true if the auction had stopped at 4S. However, the 5C call was made in tempo and does alter the hand evaluation. The problem with opener's hand for slam is the thin spade suit. The 5C call shows more than just the club ace. This is responder's second slam try, and it should be a strong one. It seems likely that responder's three controls are now located: CA and SK. There should be some distributional extras as well. With a likely king 4th of spades across from opener the thin spade suit isn't so thin anymore, and the hand can be upgraded. Opener then replied with 5D, a call that serves no purpose in small slam investigation (without a heart control, responder is virtually forced to bid 5S), but may well lay the groundwork for a followup call of 6C in the investigation of a grand. So, the peers of the opener are those players who start a grand slam try after 5C. Those players aren't stopping in five. Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 20 07:25:31 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:25:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: J.B.S. Haldane (1892-1964), Scottish biologist: "The Creator, if He exists, has a special preference for beetles." Hirsch Davis, earlier posting: >I must admit that I've also got a strong preference for >letting the game be decided by the players, not the TD. > >If I believe that it's legal to allow a table score to >stand, I'm almost always going to prefer that approach >and let the AC overrule me if it must. Richard Hills, current posting: Yes and no. In my opinion some players insist to the TD that they deserve an adjusted score whenever an opponent hesitates, no matter what happens next. And when my partner happens to hesitate I obviate the need for any TD summoning by myself applying Law 73C to my logical alternatives, rather than require the TD to award a Law 73C adjusted score. But in my opinion the TD should NOT lean towards "table result stands, let the AC fix it up". In my opinion this is as flawed as Edgar Kaplan's policy of "rule in favour of the non-offending side, let the AC fix it up." WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "It is the function of the Director to make a ruling in a judgemental matter, having consulted appropriately, that executes most accurately the intention of the laws." Jerry Fusselman: >>I agree that Opener's hand is much better than an >>average 17-count hand, but Petrus told us that 4S shows >> >>"no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or >>a hand where opener can see that there are not enough >>controls." >> >>Opener's peers are players who bid 4S with this hand, >>denying slam interest. Richard Hills, previous posting: While Wayne Burrows has convincingly proven that bidding 6S is Logical, Jerry Fusselman has equally convincingly proven that passing 5S is a Logical Alternative. Hirsch Davis, later posting: >Not so. That would be true if the auction had stopped at >4S. However, the 5C call was made in tempo and does alter >the hand evaluation. Richard Hills, current posting: Ah yes, hand evaluation. In my quarter century experience as an Aussie semi-expert, I found that one of the dividing lines between semi-experts and hemidemi-experts is that a hemidemi-expert poorly evaluates her hand, often choosing to use the Milton Work pointcount at inappropriate times. Given that the initial 4S signoff was not merely poor evaluation but indeed a grotesque underbid (but not an underbid by the inappropriate Milton Work standard), this is objective evidence that the bidder is a hemidemi-expert. Hirsch Davis, later posting: [snip] >Opener then replied with 5D, a call that serves no purpose >in small slam investigation (without a heart control, >responder is virtually forced to bid 5S), but may well lay >the groundwork for a followup call of 6C in the >investigation of a grand. So, the peers of the opener are >those players who start a grand slam try after 5C. Those >players aren't stopping in five. Hirsch Davis, earlier posting: >This analysis can and should be ignored if opener is the >kind of bidder who would bid 5D just to hear himself call. Richard Hills, current posting: Yes, another characteristic of Aussie hemidemi-experts is that they do not pause for thought when cuebidding, reflexively responding to partner's cuebid with another cuebid. The problem is that Hirsch Davis has comprehensively analysed the auction Logically, but a Logical Alternative is not necessarily Logical. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 20 08:10:03 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:10:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 49 (was Law 81C5) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>Yes, but.... Are you saying that a when someone >>pushing past the table stumbles into a player, causing >>him to drop some cards, that those are penalty cards >>unless the non-offending side requests otherwise? >> >>It seems like we should not be using L81C5 to get to >>the ruling we should be giving anyway. Bill Kemp: >I have just arrived home from what finished up being a >particularly unpleasant finish to the session and I am in the >mood to apply Law 50. > >"LAW 50 - DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD > >A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a >defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates >otherwise (see Law 49 and Law 23 may apply)." > >I am going to (quite possibly incorrectly) designate that each >of the exposed cards is not a penalty card and then attempt to >have the board played out if possible or give an adjusted score >both sides being non-offending. > >bill Richard Hills: In my opinion, whether a Director "designates otherwise" must depend on whether such an otherwise designation is permitted by Law 49: "Except in the normal course of play or application of law (see for example Law 47E) ... " The key words "for example" mean that any relevant Law permits an exposed defender's card to be designated as not a Penalty Card. Initially I suggested that Robert Frick's stumbling player would fall under Law 90B7. But now I deem the collision between the two players to be an infraction of the Law 81C1 "orderly progress of the game". Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 20 11:22:39 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:22:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 49 (was Law 81C5) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301cb4049$3c98aca0$b5ca05e0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ............. > > In my opinion, whether a Director "designates otherwise" must depend on whether > such an otherwise designation is permitted by Law 49: The Director should also "designate otherwise" (See Law 11A): "for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law" Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 20 13:04:58 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:04:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 - addendum [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <5F72E2BFC6BD4CC9A278594D30627C20@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C5 - addendum [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Robert Frick: > >>>>Yes, but.... Are you saying that a when someone >>>>pushing past the table stumbles into a player, causing >>>>him to drop some cards, that those are penalty cards >>>>unless the non-offending side requests otherwise? >>>> >>>>It seems like we should not be using L81C5 to get to >>>>the ruling we should be giving anyway. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree. In my opinion, the appropriate Law in Bob's > scenario is not Law 81C5 but rather Law 90B7: > > "The following are examples of offences subject to > procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to > these): > errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in > one???s hand, playing the wrong board, stumbling into a > player at another table causing her to drop cards, etc.) > that require an adjusted score for any contestant." > > So I would rule both sides at the other table to be non- > offending sides, awarding Ave+ to both since play could > not be completed normally. And I would rule that the > stumbling player receives a procedural penalty. > > What's the problem? > > Grattan Endicott: > >>>+=+ I believe that in the laws unless the context >>>incontrovertibly requires otherwise a "player" is one >>>of the four persons constituting the two sides at the >>>table. See definition of 'side' and also, for example, >>>compare such laws as 9B(b), 10A, 13D2, 13E, 16 etc. >>> Perhaps I could ask the WBFLC to speak to the >>>question in Philadelphia. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Grattan Endicott addendum: > >>Addendum: While the above is, I think, a fair >>interpretation there are two additional points that >>have occurred to me: >> 1. In Law 76A2 we have the case of a player >> who is obviously still a player when away >> from the table. >> 2. I do not think we can describe a player who >> is a contestant in the event as a 'spectator' >> when he is away from the table. He must >> surely be subject to different regulations >> from those applying to spectators. >> ~ G ~ > > Richard Hills addendum: > > Law 16C implies that a person returning with a coffee > to her own table is still a player, and hence still > can gain unauthorised information "by seeing cards at > another table". > > By definition a player infracting the tardiness Law > 90B1 is not at her table. > (Grattan): +=+ There is a hang-up over the designation 'spectator'. This infers someone who is present to watch the game. The more significant distinction perhaps is between the players participating in the game at a table and third parties who are not participants there and who may or may not be contestants in the event. One infers from the context whether reference in a law or regulation to 'player' or 'contestant' is limited to participants at the table in question or applies to players/contestants more widely. +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 20 15:27:34 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:27:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <4C6DF88D.2070609@gmail.com> References: <4C6DF88D.2070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <58300A9D-BBF8-4C3A-A3FC-1DF9CD525430@starpower.net> On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:37 PM, Hirsch Davis wrote: > On 8/19/2010 10:31 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Raija: >> >> [snip] >> >>>> Mr Fusselman has posted about 15 times in this thread with >>>> the same arguments. I would think once, or maybe twice in >>>> some cases, is enough. Is there a moderator who can stop >>>> the pointless repetition? >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> I disagree, both in the general and in the particular. >> >> In general, the back-and-forth of blml debate on long >> threads enables both sides to refine their arguments. >> >> In particular, amongst the so-called "pointless repetition" >> of Jerry Fussselman's posts is this golden nugget -> >> >> Jerry Fusselman: >> >>> I agree that Opener's hand is much better than an average >>> 17-count hand, but Petrus told us that 4S shows >>> >>> "no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a >>> hand where opener can see that there are not enough >>> controls." >>> >>> Opener's peers are players who bid 4S with this hand, >>> denying slam interest. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> While Wayne Burrows has convincingly proven that bidding >> 6S is Logical, Jerry Fusselman has equally convincingly >> proven that passing 5S is a Logical Alternative. > > Not so. That would be true if the auction had stopped at 4S. > However, the 5C call was made in tempo and does alter the hand > evaluation. The problem with opener's hand for slam is the thin > spade suit. The 5C call shows more than just the club ace. This is > responder's second slam try, and it should be a strong one. It > seems likely that responder's three controls are now located: CA > and SK. There should be some distributional extras as well. With a > likely king 4th of spades across from opener the thin spade suit > isn't so thin anymore, and the hand can be upgraded. Opener then > replied with 5D, a call that serves no purpose in small slam > investigation (without a heart control, responder is virtually > forced to bid 5S), but may well lay the groundwork for a followup > call of 6C in the investigation of a grand. So, the peers of the > opener are those players who start a grand slam try after 5C. > Those players aren't stopping in five. But the peers of the opener are also those players who attempt to sign off in 4S over partner's 3S. So assuming Hirsch is right, they are players who would not try for a small slam over 3S, but would consider a grand slam after partner bids 5C, showing a hand worth about a trick more in playing strength than previously revealed. That makes them players who think that a one-trick or so difference in partner's hand evaluation is the difference between no interest in a slam and a commitment to slam with interest in a grand. I don't think Hirsch will be successful in finding any such "peers". Moreover, as Hirsch himself points out ("responder is virtually forced to bid 5S"), for 5D to have been the start of a grand slam try, it would have had to be followed by something other than 6S (he suggests 6C) to accomplish its purpose. So it presumably wasn't. Hirsch makes a convincing case for his analysis and evaluation of the problem hand, but fails to offer anything to suggest that the player holding it evaluated it anywhere near as successfully as Hirsch did. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 20 20:48:59 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:48:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C6DF88D.2070609@gmail.com> References: <4C6DF88D.2070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Hirsch Davis" Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 22:37 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On 8/19/2010 10:31 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Jerry Fusselman asked: >> >>>>> If he had two extra tricks, why not bid 6S immediately? >> Raija answered: >> >>>> *** Because he is looking for a grand, is a very plausible >>>> explanation. >> Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >> >> plausible, a. Specious, having a show of truth or reason, >> clever at making out a case. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Of course many players are plausible with their self- >> serving arguments, so such plausible arguments should be >> tested against the objective evidence available. >> >> Raija: >> >> [snip] >> >>>> Mr Fusselman has posted about 15 times in this thread with >>>> the same arguments. I would think once, or maybe twice in >>>> some cases, is enough. Is there a moderator who can stop >>>> the pointless repetition? >> Richard Hills: >> >> I disagree, both in the general and in the particular. >> >> In general, the back-and-forth of blml debate on long >> threads enables both sides to refine their arguments. >> >> In particular, amongst the so-called "pointless repetition" >> of Jerry Fussselman's posts is this golden nugget -> >> >> Jerry Fusselman: >> >>> I agree that Opener's hand is much better than an average >>> 17-count hand, but Petrus told us that 4S shows >>> >>> "no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a >>> hand where opener can see that there are not enough >>> controls." >>> >>> Opener's peers are players who bid 4S with this hand, >>> denying slam interest. >> Richard Hills: >> >> While Wayne Burrows has convincingly proven that bidding >> 6S is Logical, Jerry Fusselman has equally convincingly >> proven that passing 5S is a Logical Alternative. >> > Not so. That would be true if the auction had stopped at 4S. However, the > 5C call was made in tempo and does alter the hand evaluation. The problem > with opener's hand for slam is the thin spade suit. The 5C call shows more > than just the club ace. This is responder's second slam try, and it should > be a strong one. It seems likely that responder's three controls are now > located: CA and SK. There should be some distributional extras as well. > With a likely king 4th of spades across from opener the thin spade suit > isn't so thin anymore, and the hand can be upgraded. Opener then replied > with 5D, a call that serves no purpose in small slam investigation > (without a heart control, responder is virtually forced to bid 5S), but > may well lay the groundwork for a followup call of 6C in the investigation > of a grand. So, the peers of the opener are those players who start a > grand slam try after 5C. Those players aren't stopping in five. > > Hirsch I think that a system that leaves much to fantasy is best recognized for what it is worth. As in, just what is communicated via agreement by the words 'slam try'. What is relevant rests upon objective hand evaluation based upon the concrete messages conveyed via agreement. For those interested they might peruse this rgb thread that I initiated: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/browse_frm/thread/c057a29ff5d049aa?hl=en# Granted, much is left to be desired regarding the analysis but the query reflects the problem that opener would have had in this case if responder had acted in tempo. Perhaps I will leave my assessment at this: after all is said and done responder's 5C tells opener nothing more than what his 1S response did [that he has a C control]- rather than telling opener news he could use. And I'll suggest that the huddle conveys not merely more ideas than has been conveyed by agreement, but substantially more, and among those ideas were what could not have been conveyed by agreement. fwiw I would not be surprised if responder held QJTx-xxx-Kx-AQJx when it could have been Qxx-xxxx-Jxx-AKJ regards roger pewick From blml at arcor.de Fri Aug 20 21:22:40 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:22:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4C6DF88D.2070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <32896810.1282332160046.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Roger Pewick > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Hirsch Davis" > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 22:37 > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Subject: Re: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > On 8/19/2010 10:31 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Jerry Fusselman asked: > >> > >>>>> If he had two extra tricks, why not bid 6S immediately? > >> Raija answered: > >> > >>>> *** Because he is looking for a grand, is a very plausible > >>>> explanation. > >> Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > >> > >> plausible, a. Specious, having a show of truth or reason, > >> clever at making out a case. > >> > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> Of course many players are plausible with their self- > >> serving arguments, so such plausible arguments should be > >> tested against the objective evidence available. > >> > >> Raija: > >> > >> [snip] > >> > >>>> Mr Fusselman has posted about 15 times in this thread with > >>>> the same arguments. I would think once, or maybe twice in > >>>> some cases, is enough. Is there a moderator who can stop > >>>> the pointless repetition? > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> I disagree, both in the general and in the particular. > >> > >> In general, the back-and-forth of blml debate on long > >> threads enables both sides to refine their arguments. > >> > >> In particular, amongst the so-called "pointless repetition" > >> of Jerry Fussselman's posts is this golden nugget -> > >> > >> Jerry Fusselman: > >> > >>> I agree that Opener's hand is much better than an average > >>> 17-count hand, but Petrus told us that 4S shows > >>> > >>> "no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a > >>> hand where opener can see that there are not enough > >>> controls." > >>> > >>> Opener's peers are players who bid 4S with this hand, > >>> denying slam interest. > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> While Wayne Burrows has convincingly proven that bidding > >> 6S is Logical, Jerry Fusselman has equally convincingly > >> proven that passing 5S is a Logical Alternative. > >> > > Not so. That would be true if the auction had stopped at 4S. However, the > > > 5C call was made in tempo and does alter the hand evaluation. The problem > > > with opener's hand for slam is the thin spade suit. The 5C call shows more > > > than just the club ace. This is responder's second slam try, and it should > > > be a strong one. It seems likely that responder's three controls are now > > located: CA and SK. There should be some distributional extras as well. > > With a likely king 4th of spades across from opener the thin spade suit > > isn't so thin anymore, and the hand can be upgraded. Opener then replied > > with 5D, a call that serves no purpose in small slam investigation > > (without a heart control, responder is virtually forced to bid 5S), but > > may well lay the groundwork for a followup call of 6C in the investigation > > > of a grand. So, the peers of the opener are those players who start a > > grand slam try after 5C. Those players aren't stopping in five. > > > > Hirsch > > I think that a system that leaves much to fantasy is best recognized for > what it is worth. As in, just what is communicated via agreement by the > words 'slam try'. Is it really too difficult to understand that in Blue Club by the book 3S already was a slam try, which 4S rejected, and the subsequent 5C was a strong slam try, not just some random slam try? > What is relevant rests upon objective hand evaluation > based upon the concrete messages conveyed via agreement. For those > interested they might peruse this rgb thread that I initiated: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/browse_frm/thread/c057a29ff5 > d049aa?hl=en# > > Granted, much is left to be desired regarding the analysis but the query > reflects the problem that opener would have had in this case if responder > had acted in tempo. That poll is worthless, as you misrepresented what responder has shown. You might have well asked "opened has 13 cards, responder has 13 cards. Has the running back scored a home run?" Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Fri Aug 20 21:30:49 2010 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:30:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4C6DF88D.2070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: Am 20.08.2010, 20:48 Uhr, schrieb Roger Pewick : > > fwiw I would not be surprised if responder held QJTx-xxx-Kx-AQJx when it > could have been Qxx-xxxx-Jxx-AKJ definitely not. Few would bid 3S on that garbage, and only the insane would continue over opener's 4S. Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas revolution?rem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 20 22:01:30 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:01:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist Message-ID: This came up today. I decided afterwards that my table ruling was wrong. Now I am not so sure L271B1(b) is unambiguous here. 1C 2NT P 2C/3C 2NT was explained, incorrectly, as showing 20-21 HCP. North missed the opening bid. 2C was intended to be Blackwood over 2NT, so 3C has exactly the same intended meaning. Does L27B1(b) apply? From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 20 23:40:17 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 23:40:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist > > This came up today. I decided afterwards that my table ruling was wrong. > Now I am not so sure L271B1(b) is unambiguous here. > > 1C 2NT P 2C/3C > > 2NT was explained, incorrectly, as showing 20-21 HCP. North missed the opening > bid. 2C was intended to be Blackwood over 2NT, so 3C has exactly the same > intended meaning. Does L27B1(b) apply? No - for the following reason: There are hands that would bid 3C (Blackwood) over 2NT (20-21) but that are too weak to bid 2C (Blackwood) over 1NT (15-17). A popular interpretation of the requirements for L27B1(b) to apply is that there shall be no hand satisfying the replacement call that would not also satisfy the apparent meaning of the insufficient bid. Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 21 00:16:28 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:16:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> References: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> Message-ID: On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:40:17 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist >> >> This came up today. I decided afterwards that my table ruling was wrong. >> Now I am not so sure L271B1(b) is unambiguous here. >> >> 1C 2NT P 2C/3C >> >> 2NT was explained, incorrectly, as showing 20-21 HCP. North missed the > opening >> bid. 2C was intended to be Blackwood over 2NT, so 3C has exactly the >> same >> intended meaning. Does L27B1(b) apply? > > No - for the following reason: > > There are hands that would bid 3C (Blackwood) over 2NT (20-21) but that > are > too weak to bid 2C (Blackwood) over 1NT (15-17). Hmm, I think this question has different answers, but not this one. She (The 2C/3C bidder) did not bid 2C over 1NT. You are constructing an auction in your head and then ruling based on it? It would be just as logical (illogical) to say the 2C over 1S was Drury and then rule based on that imaginary auction. Her self-report is just that she was bidding Stayman. In my experience, people who make insufficient bids over 2NT decide on Stayman or Jacoby and then slip and do the more common two-level response. So the meaning Here, ironically, we have evidence that she knew her partner's bid was 2NT. > > A popular interpretation of the requirements for L27B1(b) to apply is > that > there shall be no hand satisfying the replacement call that would not > also > satisfy the apparent meaning of the insufficient bid. Going off-track to rerevisit this, but the WBFLC minuted against this "popular" interpretation. And you have to decide how an insufficient bid can have any meaning. No director can rule on that basis of this "popular interpretation". It has to be more complex than that. Bob From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 21 02:01:23 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:01:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <32896810.1282332160046.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <4C6DF88D.2070609@gmail.com> <32896810.1282332160046.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Thomas Dehn" Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 14:22 To: Subject: Re: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Roger Pewick >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Hirsch Davis" >> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 22:37 >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Subject: Re: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> > On 8/19/2010 10:31 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> Jerry Fusselman asked: >> >> >> >>>>> If he had two extra tricks, why not bid 6S immediately? >> >> Raija answered: >> >> >> >>>> *** Because he is looking for a grand, is a very plausible >> >>>> explanation. >> >> Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >> >> >> >> plausible, a. Specious, having a show of truth or reason, >> >> clever at making out a case. >> >> >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> >> >> Of course many players are plausible with their self- >> >> serving arguments, so such plausible arguments should be >> >> tested against the objective evidence available. >> >> >> >> Raija: >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >>>> Mr Fusselman has posted about 15 times in this thread with >> >>>> the same arguments. I would think once, or maybe twice in >> >>>> some cases, is enough. Is there a moderator who can stop >> >>>> the pointless repetition? >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> >> >> I disagree, both in the general and in the particular. >> >> >> >> In general, the back-and-forth of blml debate on long >> >> threads enables both sides to refine their arguments. >> >> >> >> In particular, amongst the so-called "pointless repetition" >> >> of Jerry Fussselman's posts is this golden nugget -> >> >> >> >> Jerry Fusselman: >> >> >> >>> I agree that Opener's hand is much better than an average >> >>> 17-count hand, but Petrus told us that 4S shows >> >>> >> >>> "no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a >> >>> hand where opener can see that there are not enough >> >>> controls." >> >>> >> >>> Opener's peers are players who bid 4S with this hand, >> >>> denying slam interest. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> >> >> While Wayne Burrows has convincingly proven that bidding >> >> 6S is Logical, Jerry Fusselman has equally convincingly >> >> proven that passing 5S is a Logical Alternative. >> >> >> > Not so. That would be true if the auction had stopped at 4S. However, >> > the >> >> > 5C call was made in tempo and does alter the hand evaluation. The >> > problem >> >> > with opener's hand for slam is the thin spade suit. The 5C call shows >> > more >> >> > than just the club ace. This is responder's second slam try, and it >> > should >> >> > be a strong one. It seems likely that responder's three controls are >> > now >> > located: CA and SK. There should be some distributional extras as well. >> > With a likely king 4th of spades across from opener the thin spade suit >> > isn't so thin anymore, and the hand can be upgraded. Opener then >> > replied >> > with 5D, a call that serves no purpose in small slam investigation >> > (without a heart control, responder is virtually forced to bid 5S), but >> > may well lay the groundwork for a followup call of 6C in the >> > investigation >> >> > of a grand. So, the peers of the opener are those players who start a >> > grand slam try after 5C. Those players aren't stopping in five. >> > >> > Hirsch >> >> I think that a system that leaves much to fantasy is best recognized for >> what it is worth. As in, just what is communicated via agreement by the >> words 'slam try'. > > Is it really too difficult to understand that in Blue Club by the book 3S > already > was a slam try, which 4S rejected, and the subsequent 5C was a strong slam > try, > not just some random slam try? According to Garazzo, yes I dredged up his book [and a very pathetic book it is] and it says very little upon the subject. As for 3S the subject is ignored entirely with respect to 1C, but elsewhere it is suggested that one can expect something more than minimum. as for strong slam try the book has no such suggestion as what that is systemically, but does suggest that 5C promises a club control but not necessarily anything more than already has been promised. And 5S says that he has exhausted the information that he has to say. As such the Book suggests no inferences from the auction that opener might take to establish with good probability the number of tricks the partnership can take beyond the ones that were put forth in the hand evaluation test. As to your characterization as to what a random slam try is, I reckon it is not something I will argue about since it appears to be downright on target as to just what happened- distinct from your characterization of a strong slam try which by the Book is not defined. regards roger pewick >> What is relevant rests upon objective hand evaluation >> based upon the concrete messages conveyed via agreement. For those >> interested they might peruse this rgb thread that I initiated: >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/browse_frm/thread/c057a29ff5 >> d049aa?hl=en# >> >> Granted, much is left to be desired regarding the analysis but the query >> reflects the problem that opener would have had in this case if >> responder >> had acted in tempo. > > That poll is worthless, as you misrepresented what responder has shown. > You might have well asked "opened has 13 cards, responder has 13 cards. > Has the running back scored a home run?" > > > Thomas From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 21 08:21:25 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 08:21:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: References: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> Message-ID: <000001cb40f9$162b9360$4282ba20$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:40:17 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > >> Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist > >> > >> This came up today. I decided afterwards that my table ruling was wrong. > >> Now I am not so sure L271B1(b) is unambiguous here. > >> > >> 1C 2NT P 2C/3C > >> > >> 2NT was explained, incorrectly, as showing 20-21 HCP. North missed > >> the > > opening > >> bid. 2C was intended to be Blackwood over 2NT, so 3C has exactly the > >> same intended meaning. Does L27B1(b) apply? > > > > No - for the following reason: > > > > There are hands that would bid 3C (Blackwood) over 2NT (20-21) but > > that are too weak to bid 2C (Blackwood) over 1NT (15-17). > > > Hmm, I think this question has different answers, but not this one. > > She (The 2C/3C bidder) did not bid 2C over 1NT. You are constructing an auction > in your head and then ruling based on it? It would be just as logical (illogical) to > say the 2C over 1S was Drury and then rule based on that imaginary auction. > > Her self-report is just that she was bidding Stayman. In my experience, people who > make insufficient bids over 2NT decide on Stayman or Jacoby and then slip and > do the more common two-level response. So the meaning > > Here, ironically, we have evidence that she knew her partner's bid was 2NT. > > > > > > A popular interpretation of the requirements for L27B1(b) to apply is > > that there shall be no hand satisfying the replacement call that would > > not also satisfy the apparent meaning of the insufficient bid. > > Going off-track to rerevisit this, but the WBFLC minuted against this "popular" > interpretation. > > And you have to decide how an insufficient bid can have any meaning. No director > can rule on that basis of this "popular interpretation". It has to be more complex > than that. To begin with the last question: Unless the Director can establish the "meaning" of the insufficient bid and verify that the replacement call has the same or a more precise meaning then a Law 27B1(b) correction is automatically excluded. Unfortunately the first published version of Law 27B expressed something that obviously could not be the intention of that law, a fact that I, and probably many other commentators called WBFLC attention to. The result of these comments was the new Law 27B as we now know it. May I call your attention to the following explicit example given by Max Bavin in his lecture on the new law 27 (May 30th - 31st 2008): North opens 2NT (20-22) and South bids 2C thinking that he was responding 2C Stayman to 1NT (15-17). Question: can South replace his bid with 3C, if this also happens to be Stayman? Answer: No - some hands which would bid 3C Stayman would not have bid 2C Stayman. For example, balanced 4-7 counts with a 4-card major. I'd like to know where and when WBFLC "minuted" differently? Note that if South "knew" he was responding to a 2NT opening bid and simply mispulled his bid card then a Law 25A correction (inadvertent call) should be allowed. Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 21 16:57:06 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:57:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: <000001cb40f9$162b9360$4282ba20$@no> References: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> <000001cb40f9$162b9360$4282ba20$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 02:21:25 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:40:17 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> >> Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist >> >> >> >> This came up today. I decided afterwards that my table ruling was > wrong. >> >> Now I am not so sure L271B1(b) is unambiguous here. >> >> >> >> 1C 2NT P 2C/3C >> >> >> >> 2NT was explained, incorrectly, as showing 20-21 HCP. North missed >> >> the >> > opening >> >> bid. 2C was intended to be Blackwood over 2NT, so 3C has exactly the >> >> same intended meaning. Does L27B1(b) apply? >> > >> > No - for the following reason: >> > >> > There are hands that would bid 3C (Blackwood) over 2NT (20-21) but >> > that are too weak to bid 2C (Blackwood) over 1NT (15-17). >> >> >> Hmm, I think this question has different answers, but not this one. >> >> She (The 2C/3C bidder) did not bid 2C over 1NT. You are constructing an > auction >> in your head and then ruling based on it? It would be just as logical > (illogical) to >> say the 2C over 1S was Drury and then rule based on that imaginary > auction. >> >> Her self-report is just that she was bidding Stayman. In my experience, > people who >> make insufficient bids over 2NT decide on Stayman or Jacoby and then >> slip > and >> do the more common two-level response. So the meaning >> >> Here, ironically, we have evidence that she knew her partner's bid was > 2NT. >> >> >> > >> > A popular interpretation of the requirements for L27B1(b) to apply is >> > that there shall be no hand satisfying the replacement call that would >> > not also satisfy the apparent meaning of the insufficient bid. >> >> Going off-track to rerevisit this, but the WBFLC minuted against this > "popular" >> interpretation. >> >> And you have to decide how an insufficient bid can have any meaning. No > director >> can rule on that basis of this "popular interpretation". It has to be >> more > complex >> than that. > > To begin with the last question: Unless the Director can establish the > "meaning" of the insufficient bid and verify that the replacement call > has > the same or a more precise meaning then a Law 27B1(b) correction is > automatically excluded. > > Unfortunately the first published version of Law 27B expressed something > that obviously could not be the intention of that law, a fact that I, and > probably many other commentators called WBFLC attention to. The result of > these comments was the new Law 27B as we now know it. > > May I call your attention to the following explicit example given by Max > Bavin in his lecture on the new law 27 (May 30th - 31st 2008): > > North opens 2NT (20-22) and South bids 2C thinking that he was > responding 2C > Stayman to 1NT (15-17). Right. This example by Max Bavin is irrelevant to the current problem -- the 2C/3C bidder did not think she was responding 2C Stayman to 1NT. She was responding Stayman to 2NT. This was a given of the original problem: "2C was intended to be Blackwood over 2NT," > > Question: can South replace his bid with 3C, if this also happens to be > Stayman? > > Answer: No - some hands which would bid 3C Stayman would not have bid 2C > Stayman. For example, balanced 4-7 counts with a 4-card major. > > I'd like to know where and when WBFLC "minuted" differently? Beijing, 2008 Law 27B ? Mr. Endicott?s statement on interpretation was adopted and agreed viz:? The Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non?offending side has been damaged). > > Note that if South "knew" he was responding to a 2NT opening bid and > simply > mispulled his bid card then a Law 25A correction (inadvertent call) > should > be allowed. Not a mispull. Again, 2C is both the most common Stayman response and the supreme example of a Stayman response. People see 2NT, think Stayman, then incorrectly in their heads convert that to 2C. Same for those pesky transfers. So, now how do you rule? Let's do the hard part. Am I supposed to go first? From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Aug 21 17:05:25 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:05:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: References: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> <000001cb40f9$162b9360$4282ba20$@no> Message-ID: <659BC3E2-B702-415C-9F87-CE185F7C4151@btinternet.com> On 21 Aug 2010, at 15:57, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 02:21:25 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: >> May I call your attention to the following explicit example given >> by Max >> Bavin in his lecture on the new law 27 (May 30th - 31st 2008): >> >> North opens 2NT (20-22) and South bids 2C thinking that he was >> responding 2C >> Stayman to 1NT (15-17). > > > Right. This example by Max Bavin is irrelevant to the current > problem -- > the 2C/3C bidder did not think she was responding 2C Stayman to > 1NT. She > was responding Stayman to 2NT. > > This was a given of the original problem: "2C was intended to be > Blackwood > over 2NT," Your confusion of Stayman with Blackwood doesn't help the readers. > So, now how do you rule? Let's do the hard part. Am I supposed to > go first? It doesn't seem hard to me. If the player thought he was responding Stayman to 2NT, we allow him to respond Stayman to 2NT. Gordon Rainsford From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 21 18:40:26 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:40:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: <659BC3E2-B702-415C-9F87-CE185F7C4151@btinternet.com> References: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> <000001cb40f9$162b9360$4282ba20$@no> <659BC3E2-B702-415C-9F87-CE185F7C4151@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <000301cb414f$8f3aac40$adb004c0$@no> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > On 21 Aug 2010, at 15:57, Robert Frick wrote: > > > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 02:21:25 -0400, Sven Pran > > wrote: > >> May I call your attention to the following explicit example given by > >> Max Bavin in his lecture on the new law 27 (May 30th - 31st 2008): > >> > >> North opens 2NT (20-22) and South bids 2C thinking that he was > >> responding 2C Stayman to 1NT (15-17). > > > > > > Right. This example by Max Bavin is irrelevant to the current > > problem -- > > the 2C/3C bidder did not think she was responding 2C Stayman to > > 1NT. She > > was responding Stayman to 2NT. > > > > This was a given of the original problem: "2C was intended to be > > Blackwood > > over 2NT," > > Your confusion of Stayman with Blackwood doesn't help the readers. > > > So, now how do you rule? Let's do the hard part. Am I supposed to > > go first? > > It doesn't seem hard to me. If the player thought he was responding > Stayman to 2NT, we allow him to respond Stayman to 2NT. What i cannot understand nor accept is this: If 2C really was intended as Stayman over 2NT how come it is not to be considered a mispull and qualify for a Law 25A rectification? Sleepy offender who failed to announce his mispull immediately when he became aware of it? Not being a mispull it can only have been intended as Stayman over 1NT in which case Max Bavin's example and ruling is definitely relevant, unless of course the offending side shows evidence that they use 2C Stayman over 1NT with absolutely all hand types that can use 2C Stayman over 2NT. I know of nobody who may use 2C Stayman over 1NT (15-17) with 4 HCP and a distribution like 4-3-2-4 or 4-3-1-5. Such hands may certainly use 3C Stayman over 2NT (20-21). From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Aug 21 18:45:37 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:45:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: <000301cb414f$8f3aac40$adb004c0$@no> References: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> <000001cb40f9$162b9360$4282ba20$@no> <659BC3E2-B702-415C-9F87-CE185F7C4151@btinternet.com> <000301cb414f$8f3aac40$adb004c0$@no> Message-ID: On 21 Aug 2010, at 17:40, Sven Pran wrote: > > What i cannot understand nor accept is this: > If 2C really was intended as Stayman over 2NT how come it is not to be > considered a mispull and qualify for a Law 25A rectification? Sleepy > offender who failed to announce his mispull immediately when he > became aware > of it? Or player who was confused at the time of the bid, who knows it wasn't a mispull, but who momentarily thought 2C was Stayman in response to 2NT. > > Not being a mispull it can only have been intended as Stayman over 1NT Do you really think those are the only two possibilities, Sven? Gordon Rainsford From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 21 19:02:23 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:02:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: <000301cb414f$8f3aac40$adb004c0$@no> References: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> <000001cb40f9$162b9360$4282ba20$@no> <659BC3E2-B702-415C-9F87-CE185F7C4151@btinternet.com> <000301cb414f$8f3aac40$adb004c0$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:40:26 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford >> On 21 Aug 2010, at 15:57, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 02:21:25 -0400, Sven Pran >> > wrote: >> >> May I call your attention to the following explicit example given by >> >> Max Bavin in his lecture on the new law 27 (May 30th - 31st 2008): >> >> >> >> North opens 2NT (20-22) and South bids 2C thinking that he was >> >> responding 2C Stayman to 1NT (15-17). >> > >> > >> > Right. This example by Max Bavin is irrelevant to the current >> > problem -- >> > the 2C/3C bidder did not think she was responding 2C Stayman to >> > 1NT. She >> > was responding Stayman to 2NT. >> > >> > This was a given of the original problem: "2C was intended to be >> > Blackwood >> > over 2NT," >> >> Your confusion of Stayman with Blackwood doesn't help the readers. >> >> > So, now how do you rule? Let's do the hard part. Am I supposed to >> > go first? >> >> It doesn't seem hard to me. If the player thought he was responding >> Stayman to 2NT, we allow him to respond Stayman to 2NT. > > What i cannot understand nor accept is this: > If 2C really was intended as Stayman over 2NT how come it is not to be > considered a mispull and qualify for a Law 25A rectification? Sleepy > offender who failed to announce his mispull immediately when he became > aware > of it? The ACBL is clear that L25 applies only to mistakes of the finger (when using bidding boxes). This was not a mistake of the finger. I am pretty sure: desire to bid Stayman --> choice to bid 2C [mistake caused by 2C being the normal Stayman response] --> fingers correctly following orders and taking 2C from the bidding box. The same type of error occurs over Gerber: I have two aces ---> hearts shows two aces [in Blackwood] ---> choice to bid 4 Hearts (or even 5 hearts) > > Not being a mispull it can only have been intended as Stayman over 1NT in > which case Max Bavin's example and ruling is definitely relevant, unless > of > course the offending side shows evidence that they use 2C Stayman over > 1NT > with absolutely all hand types that can use 2C Stayman over 2NT. I know > of > nobody who may use 2C Stayman over 1NT (15-17) with 4 HCP and a > distribution > like 4-3-2-4 or 4-3-1-5. Such hands may certainly use 3C Stayman over 2NT > (20-21). > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From blml at arcor.de Sat Aug 21 20:59:59 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:59:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4C6DF88D.2070609@gmail.com> <32896810.1282332160046.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <28980644.1282417199059.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Roger Pewick wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Thomas Dehn" > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 14:22 > To: > Subject: Re: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Roger Pewick > >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> From: "Hirsch Davis" > >> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 22:37 > >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >> Subject: Re: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> > >> > On 8/19/2010 10:31 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> >> Jerry Fusselman asked: > >> >> > >> >>>>> If he had two extra tricks, why not bid 6S immediately? > >> >> Raija answered: > >> >> > >> >>>> *** Because he is looking for a grand, is a very plausible > >> >>>> explanation. > >> >> Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > >> >> > >> >> plausible, a. Specious, having a show of truth or reason, > >> >> clever at making out a case. > >> >> > >> >> Richard Hills: > >> >> > >> >> Of course many players are plausible with their self- > >> >> serving arguments, so such plausible arguments should be > >> >> tested against the objective evidence available. > >> >> > >> >> Raija: > >> >> > >> >> [snip] > >> >> > >> >>>> Mr Fusselman has posted about 15 times in this thread with > >> >>>> the same arguments. I would think once, or maybe twice in > >> >>>> some cases, is enough. Is there a moderator who can stop > >> >>>> the pointless repetition? > >> >> Richard Hills: > >> >> > >> >> I disagree, both in the general and in the particular. > >> >> > >> >> In general, the back-and-forth of blml debate on long > >> >> threads enables both sides to refine their arguments. > >> >> > >> >> In particular, amongst the so-called "pointless repetition" > >> >> of Jerry Fussselman's posts is this golden nugget -> > >> >> > >> >> Jerry Fusselman: > >> >> > >> >>> I agree that Opener's hand is much better than an average > >> >>> 17-count hand, but Petrus told us that 4S shows > >> >>> > >> >>> "no slam interest, usually a fairly balanced minimum or a > >> >>> hand where opener can see that there are not enough > >> >>> controls." > >> >>> > >> >>> Opener's peers are players who bid 4S with this hand, > >> >>> denying slam interest. > >> >> Richard Hills: > >> >> > >> >> While Wayne Burrows has convincingly proven that bidding > >> >> 6S is Logical, Jerry Fusselman has equally convincingly > >> >> proven that passing 5S is a Logical Alternative. > >> >> > >> > Not so. That would be true if the auction had stopped at 4S. However, > > >> > the > >> > >> > 5C call was made in tempo and does alter the hand evaluation. The > >> > problem > >> > >> > with opener's hand for slam is the thin spade suit. The 5C call shows > >> > more > >> > >> > than just the club ace. This is responder's second slam try, and it > >> > should > >> > >> > be a strong one. It seems likely that responder's three controls are > >> > now > >> > located: CA and SK. There should be some distributional extras as > well. > >> > With a likely king 4th of spades across from opener the thin spade > suit > >> > isn't so thin anymore, and the hand can be upgraded. Opener then > >> > replied > >> > with 5D, a call that serves no purpose in small slam investigation > >> > (without a heart control, responder is virtually forced to bid 5S), > but > >> > may well lay the groundwork for a followup call of 6C in the > >> > investigation > >> > >> > of a grand. So, the peers of the opener are those players who start a > >> > grand slam try after 5C. Those players aren't stopping in five. > >> > > >> > Hirsch > >> > >> I think that a system that leaves much to fantasy is best recognized for > >> what it is worth. As in, just what is communicated via agreement by the > >> words 'slam try'. > > > > Is it really too difficult to understand that in Blue Club by the book 3S > > > already > > was a slam try, which 4S rejected, and the subsequent 5C was a strong slam > > > try, > > not just some random slam try? > > According to Garazzo, yes I dredged up his book [and a very pathetic book it > is] and it says very little upon the subject. This is not a book for beginners. It works by logic, not by listing up what to bid with which hand. > As for 3S the subject is > ignored entirely with respect to 1C, but elsewhere it is suggested that one > can expect something more than minimum. It is explained on page 24/25 (well, in the edition I have) that fast arrival is in effect throughout. That is all that is necessary to explain. 1S already was GF. Thus 4S is fast arrival, and 3S is stronger than 4S. In the original Blue Club, anyways. > as for strong slam try the book has > no such suggestion as what that is systemically, but does suggest that 5C > promises a club control but not necessarily anything more than already has > been promised. This is again plain old logic. Responder made a mild slam try. Opener rejected, by bidding 4S. Another slam try by responder must show more than the first slam try. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Sat Aug 21 23:17:51 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:17:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C70427F.5060202@gmail.com> On 8/20/2010 1:25 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > The problem is that Hirsch Davis has comprehensively > analysed the auction Logically, but a Logical Alternative > is not necessarily Logical. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets The problem with taking parts of posts out of context is that sometimes the original argument is lost. To recap what I was originally trying to say, whether I said it well or not: Opener, for reasons of his own, did not make a slam try after the first attempt by responder, but showed a minimum. Responder then made a second and stronger slam try (for those who cannot understand why 5C is a stronger slam try, do try to understand that slam tries that go past game tend to be more serious). Opener then starting to cooperate by bidding 5D. Responder can back with an almost forced 5S but hitched in doing so. Opener bid 6S, missing 7. And here we are. First step: was there any informational content to the hesitation? Well, some argue that it showed extra values, but it's hard to see how responder could have anything extra after two slam tries. What is more likely is that responder was at a loss after 5D, and finally figured out that he couldn't go past 5S with the hearts wide open. So, does this knowledge that responder has wide open hearts, which is not much of a surprise looking at AKQ, help opener bid 6S? Heck no. Does that hesitation show any values that might suggest that slam would be more successful. No, in fact general values such as middle cards in clubs would be wastage. The call that showed the key values was 5C and there was no hesitation there. Final question: Does the hesitation make it any easier to bid 6S? Again no. Opener is on a guess, and the hesitation doesn't help him at all. As far as I can tell, it's completely non-informative. And, being non-informative, it doesn't suggest one LA over another. For that reason, it really doesn't matter what the player's peers would or would not do in this situation. If the hesitation doesn't suggest a call, it simply doesn't matter. You don't punish the hesitation. You adjust a use of UI. It's an error that I've seen made by much more experienced TD's than me. In one case, I had ruled no damage after a player passed a slow penalty double. However, a slow double normally indicates doubt, and the player was 6-5 in outside suits. Slam was still a possibility for his side. He deliberately and ethically took the action that was NOT suggested by the slow double and passed. Didn't matter. The DIC polled some of the player's peers, and discovered that some would have pulled the double. So, because some of the player's peers would have pulled the double, it was pulled. Didn't seem to matter that the UI suggested the opposite action. The side that hesitated lost, even though they had been completely within the Laws. I had to take the DIC's ruling back to the table, but made sure that the players were aware of their right to appeal. I wasn't happy about that. Hirsch From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 22 00:19:59 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 00:19:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: References: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> <000001cb40f9$162b9360$4282ba20$@no> <659BC3E2-B702-415C-9F87-CE185F7C4151@btinternet.com> <000301cb414f$8f3aac40$adb004c0$@no> Message-ID: <000401cb417e$fe655690$fb3003b0$@no> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > On 21 Aug 2010, at 17:40, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > What i cannot understand nor accept is this: > > If 2C really was intended as Stayman over 2NT how come it is not to be > > considered a mispull and qualify for a Law 25A rectification? Sleepy > > offender who failed to announce his mispull immediately when he became > > aware of it? > > Or player who was confused at the time of the bid, who knows it wasn't a mispull, > but who momentarily thought 2C was Stayman in response to 2NT. > > > > Not being a mispull it can only have been intended as Stayman over 1NT > > Do you really think those are the only two possibilities, Sven? No, but if it is anything else then it cannot be rectified under law 27B1 at all so offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call and the Director needs not worry. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 22 11:50:25 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:50:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: References: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> <000001cb40f9$162b9360$4282ba20$@no> <659BC3E2-B702-415C-9F87-CE185F7C4151@btinternet.com> <000301cb414f$8f3aac40$adb004c0$@no> Message-ID: <4C70F2E1.7000909@skynet.be> I really don't think this is a good idea: Robert Frick wrote: > > > The ACBL is clear that L25 applies only to mistakes of the finger (when > using bidding boxes). This was not a mistake of the finger. I am pretty > sure: > > > desire to bid Stayman --> choice to bid 2C [mistake caused by 2C being > the normal Stayman response] --> fingers correctly following orders and > taking 2C from the bidding box. > > > The same type of error occurs over Gerber: > > I have two aces ---> hearts shows two aces [in Blackwood] ---> > choice to bid 4 Hearts (or even 5 hearts) > > > Do we really want to go into mind-reading? Do we really want to have to make a difference between a player who saw 2NT, wanted to ask for majors, and thought 2Cl was the right bid, and one who saw 2T, wanted to ask for majors, and mispulled 2Cl when he intended to go for 3Cl? I really don't see the need for such a distinction. In both cases, the original intent was to ask for majors, with a hand suitable to do so oveer 2NT. In both cases 2Cl hit the table, but the information conveyed was none other than "I want to ask for majors and I made a mistake". That meaning is contained in 3Cl, and so 3Cl should be allowed in both these cases, whether on L25A or on L27B. This is not the same case as someone responding to 1NT and bidding 2Cl, which has become insufficient by means of a non-seen overcall. There, the meaning is clearly "I want to ask for majors over 1NT", and perhaps a Rubensohl-style transfer to the bid suit with the same meaning can be accepted, but nothing else. However, I think the original question centered on a quite different problem. IIUC, 2NT was not intended as 20-22, but as some two-suiter, and misexplained. (the original poster mentioned something about North, without explaining who North was in the given auction). Now of course, 2Cl may well have the meaning "I want to ask about majors over a 20-22 NT", but 3Cl certainly does not have the same meaning (even if "North" still thinks it has - although that mistake may well become apparent to him in the meanwhile). Do we still allow "North" to bid 3Cl, knowing that this will silence South because of the UI? Or do we rule that since North now has created UI for himself - by making a bid that necessitates a TD call which allows him to wake up to the 1Cl bid - he should now no longer be allowed to change his first call to a second one, with knowledge based on the UI? You must remember that even if we rule that North is allowed to change to 3Cl without penalty, that does not mean he has no other choice - although probably, the UI would suggest whatever other choice he might make, wo we should impose him to take the "penalty-free" option. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Aug 22 14:11:02 2010 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:11:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: <000401cb417e$fe655690$fb3003b0$@no> References: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> <000001cb40f9$162b9360$4282ba20$@no> <659BC3E2-B702-415C-9F87-CE185F7C4151@btinternet.com> <000301cb414f$8f3aac40$adb004c0$@no> <000401cb417e$fe655690$fb3003b0$@no> Message-ID: <60621462-4B49-4235-BE17-D0123B6834C5@btinternet.com> On 21 Aug 2010, at 23:19, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford >> On 21 Aug 2010, at 17:40, Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> What i cannot understand nor accept is this: >>> If 2C really was intended as Stayman over 2NT how come it is not >>> to be >>> considered a mispull and qualify for a Law 25A rectification? Sleepy >>> offender who failed to announce his mispull immediately when he >>> became >>> aware of it? >> >> Or player who was confused at the time of the bid, who knows it >> wasn't a > mispull, >> but who momentarily thought 2C was Stayman in response to 2NT. >>> >>> Not being a mispull it can only have been intended as Stayman >>> over 1NT I think it's been made clear that it was not a mispull, and it was intended as Stayman over 2NT. >> >> Do you really think those are the only two possibilities, Sven? > > No, but if it is anything else then it cannot be rectified under > law 27B1 at > all I disagree > so offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call and > the > Director needs not worry. From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 22 17:17:59 2010 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:17:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C70427F.5060202@gmail.com> References: <4C70427F.5060202@gmail.com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Hirsch Davis" Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 16:17 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On 8/20/2010 1:25 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> The problem is that Hirsch Davis has comprehensively >> analysed the auction Logically, but a Logical Alternative >> is not necessarily Logical. >> >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills >> Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 >> Phone: 6223 8453 >> DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > The problem with taking parts of posts out of context is that sometimes > the original argument is lost. To recap what I was originally trying to > say, whether I said it well or not: > > Opener, for reasons of his own, did not make a slam try after the first > attempt by responder, but showed a minimum. Responder then made a second > and stronger slam try (for those who cannot understand why 5C is a > stronger slam try, do try to understand that slam tries that go past > game tend to be more serious). Opener then starting to cooperate by > bidding 5D. Responder can back with an almost forced 5S but hitched in > doing so. Opener bid 6S, missing 7. And here we are. > First step: was there any informational content to the hesitation? > Well, some argue that it showed extra values, but it's hard to see how > responder could have anything extra after two slam tries. What is more > likely is that responder was at a loss after 5D, and finally figured out > that he couldn't go past 5S with the hearts wide open. So, does this > knowledge that responder has wide open hearts, which is not much of a > surprise looking at AKQ, help opener bid 6S? Heck no. Does that > hesitation show any values that might suggest that slam would be more > successful. No, in fact general values such as middle cards in clubs > would be wastage. The call that showed the key values was 5C and there > was no hesitation there. Final question: Does the hesitation make it > any easier to bid 6S? Again no. Opener is on a guess, and the hesitation > doesn't help him at all. > As far as I can tell, it's completely > non-informative. 1C= 17+hcp artificial 1S= 3 controls exactly, artificial 2S= 5+S longest suit 3S= 3+S; probably with additional values, but not guaranteed**, no 5card+ suit, no void, 4S= signoff, partnership missing 2 aces 5C= CA, gambling that opener has lied about the number of aces the opponents have 5D= D control, implies another ace is held 5S= extra values are exhausted Hesitation before 5S= I've got undisclosed values beyond your wildest imagination and I don't know what they are worth **= since opener is strong and unlimited, 3S may be the most descriptive rebid on a minimum that allows maximum room for opener to explore slam opposite a minimum 1S- as the principle of fast arrival accords To clarify, for responder to have better than minimum and bid 3S it is clear that his longest suit cannot be 5+length otherwise he must bid it. Without a five card suit he cannot be void, and without a void he cannot have more than one first round control. Thus, because opener has denied the partnership has enough first round aces for slam then opener knows that 5C must necessarily be predicated upon responder gambling that opener lied about his controls. How does opener know that responder has bid 5C based upon a gamble of opener being significantly stronger than promised? Consider the condition for responder to know that opener lied. The necessary condition is for responder to have so many of the outstanding honors that opener must have the aces eg SKQJ-HJ-DKQJ=CKQJ. But, with these cards responder would have bid 6S or 6N instead of 5S. So, responder does not have those cards and thus must be gambling that opener is much stronger than promised. And since he is imagining that opener is stronger responder's hand can be imagined to contain fewer extras than he might have otherwise wanted to have predicated on the gamble that opener might supply those extras. And thus from opener's view, he knows that responder doesn't have the 19 hcp because of the signoff; as well as the gambling nature of 5C because he doesn't have the 19 hcp; and having gambled, responder can just as well gamble holding fewer cards than 5C might suggest he had. And the fewer putative cards that he might have had the lower the probability that the cards that he does have will be the magic cards. But opener knows that responder is not light for 5C because of responder's bidding but because of the mannerism used. in spite of not having enough data to go to the six level responder still wanted to go to the six level, and he knows not because of inferences supplied by system but because of the extraordinary length of time to reluctantly sign off- responder had a much bigger story to tell but there was too much danger in going down if opener had not lied. The hesitation makes all but a certainty that he has a source of tricks from D honors if the DK is in the pocket. Now, what has responder by agreement told opener? He has three spades, an ace, a king. Systemically, it is not clear that responder must have material extras for 3S because opener is quite unlimited and could be interested in looking for slam opposite a minimum, but only if there is enough exploration- thus to blast to 4S immediately can kill a profitable exploration before it starts. As such, it is reasonable [for instance] for opener to infer but not warranty on this sequence that responder has solid spades, perhaps four long and the CA. but no DK or CK. 5C makes responder's hand KQx-xxx-xxx-AJxx. And how many tricks can be expected? 5S,3H,1D,1C and possibly a long H; or possibly the fourth round of H might be trumped profitably after pulling the SKQ. Even so, this is only 10 or 11 tricks. Turn the CJ into the CQ and make another trick if the hook wins or lose 3 tricks when it doesn't. that is, if all you are believing in today is AI. This is not winning odds in a bridge contest for twelve tricks. The proprieties When responder bid 5C he should have known [a] that whatever opener bid it would not be helpful to him in evaluating the combined tricks of the deal and [b] that his next call will be spades without raising the level. And because opener can know that responder by bidding 5C is gambling that the partnership is not missing the two aces opener has promised to be missing, he should know that whatever he bids will be of no use to responder. So when responder hesitates before 5S, he is communicating vital bridge information to partner that can not be communicated by system and doing so is in contravention of L73B1. To recapitulate: It was the bidding that was uninformative while the hesitation was very informative. regards roger pewick / >And, being non-informative, it doesn't suggest one LA > over another. For that reason, it really doesn't matter what the > player's peers would or would not do in this situation. If the > hesitation doesn't suggest a call, it simply doesn't matter. You don't > punish the hesitation. You adjust a use of UI. > It's an error that I've seen made by much more experienced TD's than > me. In one case, I had ruled no damage after a player passed a slow > penalty double. However, a slow double normally indicates doubt, and > the player was 6-5 in outside suits. Slam was still a possibility for > his side. He deliberately and ethically took the action that was NOT > suggested by the slow double and passed. Didn't matter. The DIC polled > some of the player's peers, and discovered that some would have pulled > the double. So, because some of the player's peers would have pulled the > double, it was pulled. Didn't seem to matter that the UI suggested the > opposite action. The side that hesitated lost, even though they had been > completely within the Laws. I had to take the DIC's ruling back to the > table, but made sure that the players were aware of their right to > appeal. I wasn't happy about that. > > Hirsch > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Sun Aug 22 17:45:43 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:45:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4C70427F.5060202@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C714627.4050608@gmail.com> On 8/22/2010 11:17 AM, Roger Pewick wrote: > > **= since opener is strong and unlimited, 3S may be the most descriptive > rebid on a minimum that allows maximum room for opener to explore slam > opposite a minimum 1S- as the principle of fast arrival accords > > To clarify, for responder to have better than minimum and bid 3S it is clear > that his longest suit cannot be 5+length otherwise he must bid it. Without > a five card suit he cannot be void, and without a void he cannot have more > than one first round control. > > Thus, because opener has denied the partnership has enough first round aces > for slam then opener knows that 5C must necessarily be predicated upon > responder gambling that opener lied about his controls. > > How does opener know that responder has bid 5C based upon a gamble of opener > being significantly stronger than promised? Consider the condition for > responder to know that opener lied. The necessary condition is for > responder to have so many of the outstanding honors that opener must have > the aces eg SKQJ-HJ-DKQJ=CKQJ. But, with these cards responder would have > bid 6S or 6N instead of 5S. So, responder does not have those cards and > thus must be gambling that opener is much stronger than promised. And since > he is imagining that opener is stronger responder's hand can be imagined to > contain fewer extras than he might have otherwise wanted to have predicated > on the gamble that opener might supply those extras. And thus from opener's > view, he knows that responder doesn't have the 19 hcp because of the > signoff; as well as the gambling nature of 5C because he doesn't have the 19 > hcp; and having gambled, responder can just as well gamble holding fewer > cards than 5C might suggest he had. And the fewer putative cards that he > might have had the lower the probability that the cards that he does have > will be the magic cards. > > But opener knows that responder is not light for 5C because of responder's > bidding but because of the mannerism used. in spite of not having enough > data to go to the six level responder still wanted to go to the six level, > and he knows not because of inferences supplied by system but because of the > extraordinary length of time to reluctantly sign off- responder had a much > bigger story to tell but there was too much danger in going down if opener > had not lied. The hesitation makes all but a certainty that he has a source > of tricks from D honors if the DK is in the pocket. > > Now, what has responder by agreement told opener? He has three spades, an > ace, a king. Systemically, it is not clear that responder must have > material extras for 3S because opener is quite unlimited and could be > interested in looking for slam opposite a minimum, but only if there is > enough exploration- thus to blast to 4S immediately can kill a profitable > exploration before it starts. > > As such, it is reasonable [for instance] for opener to infer but not > warranty on this sequence that responder has solid spades, perhaps four long > and the CA. but no DK or CK. 5C makes responder's hand > KQx-xxx-xxx-AJxx. And how many tricks can be expected? 5S,3H,1D,1C and > possibly a long H; or possibly the fourth round of H might be trumped > profitably after pulling the SKQ. Even so, this is only 10 or 11 tricks. > Turn the CJ into the CQ and make another trick if the hook wins or lose 3 > tricks when it doesn't. that is, if all you are believing in today is AI. > This is not winning odds in a bridge contest for twelve tricks. > > The proprieties > > When responder bid 5C he should have known [a] that whatever opener bid it > would not be helpful to him in evaluating the combined tricks of the deal > and [b] that his next call will be spades without raising the level. And > because opener can know that responder by bidding 5C is gambling that the > partnership is not missing the two aces opener has promised to be missing, > he should know that whatever he bids will be of no use to responder. So > when responder hesitates before 5S, he is communicating vital bridge > information to partner that can not be communicated by system and doing so > is in contravention of L73B1. > > To recapitulate: It was the bidding that was uninformative while the > hesitation was very informative. > > regards > roger pewick > / > The entire analysis is predicated on a false assumption: that responder can work out that opener has more than his call. It's far more likely that responder is simply bidding his hand. Hirsch From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Aug 22 19:43:37 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:43:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: <000001cb40f9$162b9360$4282ba20$@no> References: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> <000001cb40f9$162b9360$4282ba20$@no> Message-ID: <4C7161C9.5040906@nhcc.net> On 8/21/2010 2:21 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Note that if South "knew" he was responding to a 2NT opening bid and simply > mispulled his bid card then a Law 25A correction (inadvertent call) should > be allowed. Even if there has been a pause for thought? > Not being a mispull it can only have been intended as Stayman over 1NT in > which case Max Bavin's example and ruling is definitely relevant As others have pointed out, other possibilities exist. And in any case, the WBFLC minute suggests RAs might want to adopt a liberal attitude here. Even if the 2C bid gave information, the NT bidder is hardly in a position to use it. (Yes, I wish the law had been written differently.) On 8/22/2010 5:50 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > This is not the same case as someone responding to 1NT and bidding 2Cl, > which has become insufficient by means of a non-seen overcall. There, > the meaning is clearly "I want to ask for majors over 1NT", and perhaps > a Rubensohl-style transfer to the bid suit with the same meaning can be > accepted, but nothing else. Not a takeout double?! Or a cue bid?! Depending on methods, there might be even more possibilities. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Aug 22 20:13:52 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:13:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <4C6A99DC.9050705@ulb.ac.be> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <6FB5FAE8-E267-478E-A5D6-559B75E242C1@starpower.net> <4C6A99DC.9050705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C7168E0.3030600@nhcc.net> On 8/17/2010 10:17 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > it is indeed very hard to imagine some hand with only 3 controls, > which makes a grand plausible. ... > (well, I suppose partner could hold Kxxxx-x-x-Axxxxx, [Opener held Axxxxx, AKQx, Axx, x.] How about Kxxxx xx xx Axxx ? Or 4225 with the H-J? Or 4126, especially with S-Q? In contrast to Alain, I'd be very sympathetic to a 6D bidder who was looking for a grand _except_ (as Hirsch and Eric pointed out) for the failure to follow up with another control bid on the six level. That pretty much destroys the argument that _this_ player was thinking of a grand. On 8/17/2010 4:48 PM, Hirsch Davis wrote: > I must admit that I've got a very strong reaction to people who equate a > hesitation with extra values and don't try to work out the informational > aspects of the hesitation. Fair enough, but _this_ hesitation sure looks like extra values to me. With a minimum response, and even with a minimum 5C slam try, it doesn't take long to notice that a heart control might be missing and sign off. The pause looks as though responder was trying to figure out if opener could possibly hold a strong-club hand with no heart control. _That_ would take awhile to work out. > Final question: Does the hesitation make it > any easier to bid 6S? Again no. I think yes. All in all, we seem to be back to the argument about why, if 6S is so automatic, opener didn't bid it over 5C. As someone else remarked, we're not going to settle that without asking opener what he was thinking. Too bad the TD didn't do so at the time. (Question to the working TDs on this list: is it really so hard to ask the player "Why did you decide to bid 6S?" Or is there a better approach?) From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Aug 22 21:42:05 2010 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:42:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: <4C7168E0.3030600@nhcc.net> References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <6FB5FAE8-E267-478E-A5D6-559B75E242C1@starpower.net> <4C6A99DC.9050705@ulb.ac.be> <4C7168E0.3030600@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > All in all, we seem to be back to the argument about why, if 6S is so > automatic, opener didn't bid it over 5C. ?As someone else remarked, > we're not going to settle that without asking opener what he was > thinking. ?Too bad the TD didn't do so at the time. ?(Question to the > working TDs on this list: is it really so hard to ask the player "Why > did you decide to bid 6S?" ?Or is there a better approach?) > Very interesting. Suppose that this is the answer you get when you ask "Why did you decide to bid 6S?": "When I bid 5D, I was thinking of a possible grand slam. I was always going to bid 6S at least once Responder bid 5C, because, as you see, my 4S bid was a severe underbid, which I realized almost immediately after I made it. But when Responder tanked before 5S, I knew that it probably showed extras, so the laws required me to forget the grand slam and just bid 6S." (I have tried to construct the most compelling statement of Opener's thinking that I could come up with to help Opener to get 6S allowed, but maybe someone else could do better.) Is there anyone who thought of disallowing 6S at first, but would buy this story and allow 6S? You can suppose that you know the player to be honest, and besides, you looked into his eyes and he seemed quite sincere. Or maybe I am misunderstanding Steve. What might Opener say about what was going on his mind that would let you allow 6S? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 23 09:03:02 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:03:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Annabel Crabb, Aussie political journalist: In 2002, South Australia's Mike Rann - inches from minority government - found himself negotiating with the former Liberal Party MP Peter Lewis, and anxiously addressing all of the concerns dear to Mr Lewis' heart, including the spread of a noxious plant called branched broomrape. Despite the fact that half of the Labor caucus had never heard of it ("I thought it was some sort of complicated naval disciplinary technique", confessed one MP), branched broomrape eradication became a top priority very quickly. Eric Landau: >>But the peers of the opener are also those players who >>attempt to sign off in 4S over partner's 3S. So assuming >>Hirsch is right, they are players who would not try for a >>small slam over 3S, Richard Hills: An important technical point is that the offender had a _below game_ slam try of 4D (or 4H) available, which would still permit stopping in 4S if partner was not enthused. So such a _below game_ slam try must not necessarily guarantee a huge amount of extra values, unless the pair are playing a ludicrous hemidemi-expert version of Blue Club in which a cuebid forces the pair to at least 5S. Eric Landau: >>but would consider a grand slam after partner bids 5C, >>showing a hand worth about a trick more in playing >>strength than previously revealed. That makes them >>players who think that a one-trick or so difference in >>partner's hand evaluation is the difference between no >>interest in a slam and a commitment to slam with interest >>in a grand. I don't think Hirsch will be successful in >>finding any such "peers". ... Richard Hills: There is a hemidemi-expert pair in Canberra who have very strong ethics. They frequently mangle their Symmetric Relay system, missing good slams. But they do _not_ recover from their Relay errors via judicious hesitations to reach the good slams after all, and they _do not_ fallaciously claim that their mangled Relay auction makes bidding slam the only logical alternative after partner's hesitation. Jerry Fusselman, constructed hypothetical excuse by offender: >"When I bid 5D, I was thinking of a possible grand slam. I >was always going to bid 6S at least once Responder bid >5C, because, as you see, my 4S bid was a severe >underbid, which I realized almost immediately after I made >it ... " Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Richard Hills: If I was the TD, I would want convincing objective evidence that the offender's revised hand evaluation happened BEFORE the hesitation by offender's partner demonstrably suggested that the offender should choose a new optimistic hand evaluation. Similar self-serving arguments are often made when the TD is considering a Law 75A ruling, with the putative offender captiously claiming: "I realized immediately that I had misbid, so I did not need to be reminded of our system by partner's explanation to the opponents, thus Law 75A does not apply." Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 23 15:15:18 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:15:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> References: <000901cb40b0$48639a60$d92acf20$@no> Message-ID: <831A87DD-FCC3-46E2-AC83-ED2A131F62DE@starpower.net> On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > >> Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist >> >> This came up today. I decided afterwards that my table ruling was >> wrong. >> Now I am not so sure L271B1(b) is unambiguous here. >> >> 1C 2NT P 2C/3C >> >> 2NT was explained, incorrectly, as showing 20-21 HCP. North missed >> the opening >> bid. 2C was intended to be Blackwood over 2NT, so 3C has exactly >> the same >> intended meaning. Does L27B1(b) apply? > > No - for the following reason: > > There are hands that would bid 3C (Blackwood) over 2NT (20-21) but > that are > too weak to bid 2C (Blackwood) over 1NT (15-17). That's assuming method. Around here, most pairs' agreements are such that 1NT-P-2C can be bid with a zero-count (and is the routine, expected call with, say, xxxx/xxxx/xxxx/x or xxxxx/xxxxx/x/xx). > A popular interpretation of the requirements for L27B1(b) to apply > is that > there shall be no hand satisfying the replacement call that would > not also > satisfy the apparent meaning of the insufficient bid. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 23 20:50:27 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:50:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:01:30 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > This came up today. I decided afterwards that my table ruling was wrong. > Now I am not so sure L271B1(b) is unambiguous here. > > 1C 2NT P 2C/3C > > 2NT was explained, incorrectly, as showing 20-21 HCP. North missed the > opening bid. 2C was intended to be Blackwood over 2NT, so 3C has exactly > the same intended meaning. Does L27B1(b) apply? To summarize, everyone seems to be agreeing that the problem above reduces to 2NT P 2C/3C If you allow this substitution (most would), then 3C is nonbarring on the auction above; if you judge this substitution to bar partner, then it is also barring in the original auction. That's reasonable and how I ruled at the table. I started worrying later, I guess needlessly, that although the intended meaning of 3C was Stayman, that wasn't the L20F1 meaning. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 24 02:07:21 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:07:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Old-fashioned Standard American [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: As an example of my recent argument that a Logical Alternative is not necessarily Logical, I have resurrected this July 2005 posting. Five years ago zero blmlers chose the Logical call; perhaps there will be better analysis this time round. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets * * * The July 2005 issue of the ABF Newsletter appeared at the Canberra Bridge Club last night. In it was a Letter to the Editors by Diane Brooks, who wrote: >I wish to ask the ABF to clarify the >Federation's stance on psyche bidding. > >The action of a psyche bid is to take away the >natural bid of an opponent. It changes the >results and affects the outcome of scores on >the whole field. > >It is recommended to call the director (after a >psyche) - yet nothing is done. So why bother? > >There are laws that deal with inadvertent bids >- yet not against psychic bids. The >inadvertent bid is mainly through lack of >concentration, yet the psycher deliberately >sets a bid in motion which throws natural bids >out the window. In my opinion, a form of bad >play. > >Bridge is a gentleman's game. The word "cheat" >doesn't get mentioned in the Law book, only >unethical. > >If a bid is made by the opponent and the >explanation is incorrect and a player is >disadvantaged by the opponent's action, then >there is redress. I believe the same should >hold on psychic bids. > >Active ethics are encouraged but you can still >get a slap on the wrist when using active >ethics! > >It's time the ABF outlawed psyches and put the >_sportsmanship_ back into bridge. Coincidentally, this auction occurred last night at the Canberra Bridge Club. East-West were playing old-fashioned Standard American. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1C 1H 1S Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: J84 KQJ9632 A76 --- What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 24 07:45:54 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:45:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 - addendum [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5F72E2BFC6BD4CC9A278594D30627C20@Mildred> Message-ID: Anthony Green, expert Aussie election analyst: "My only regret is that the Judean Popular People's Front isn't standing in my electorate." Grattan Endicott: >+=+ There is a hang-up over the designation 'spectator'. >This infers someone who is present to watch the game. >The more significant distinction perhaps is between the >players participating in the game at a table and third >parties who are not participants there and who may or >may not be contestants in the event. Richard Hills: In my opinion, in the context of Law 76D, a team-of-six consists of merely four players and up to two spectators. Because in my opinion, "session" (not "event") is the key word in -> Law 76D - Spectators - Status Any person in the playing area*, other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently. *The playing area includes all parts of the accommodation where a player may be present during a ++session++ in which he is participating. It may be further defined by regulation. Grattan Endicott: > One infers from the context whether reference in a >law or regulation to 'player' or 'contestant' is limited >to participants at the table in question or applies to >players/contestants more widely. +=+ Richard Hills: I agree. The Definition of "contestant" states that a team can consist of "four ++or more++ players". Therefore ..... In the ++context++ of a Law 91B disqualification of a team-of-six contestant by the Director and Tournament Organizer, it is not in any way relevant whether the offending player who drunkenly punched the Director was participating in the current session or was instead a Law 76D spectator. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 24 15:22:42 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:22:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier><1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de><11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><6FB5FAE8-E267-478E-A5D6-559B75E242C1@starpower.net><4C6A99DC.9050705@ulb.ac.be> <4C7168E0.3030600@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] To bid or not to bid On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > All in all, we seem to be back to the argument about why, if 6S is so automatic, opener didn't bid it over 5C. As someone else remarked, we're not going to settle that without asking opener what he was thinking. Too bad the TD didn't do so at the time. (Question to the working TDs on this list: is it really so hard to ask the player "Why did you decide to bid 6S?" Or is there a better approach?) > Very interesting. Suppose that this is the answer you get when you ask "Why did you decide to bid 6S?": "When I bid 5D, I was thinking of a possible grand slam. I was always going to bid 6S at least once Responder bid 5C, because, as you see, my 4S bid was a severe underbid, which I realized almost immediately after I made it. But when Responder tanked before 5S, I knew that it probably showed extras, so the laws required me to forget the grand slam and just bid 6S." (I have tried to construct the most compelling statement of Opener's thinking that I could come up with to help Opener to get 6S allowed, but maybe someone else could do better.) Is there anyone who thought of disallowing 6S at first, but would buy this story and allow 6S? You can suppose that you know the player to be honest, and besides, you looked into his eyes and he seemed quite sincere. Or maybe I am misunderstanding Steve. What might Opener say about what was going on his mind that would let you allow 6S? ............................................................ +=+ Steady on. At this point we need to return to Law 16B1(b). No matter what Opener may say we are going to put the situation to a number of the class of players to which Opener belongs and learn what proportion of them are persuaded that they should give serious consideration to settling at a lower level than 6S, and whether some might decide to do so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 24 15:37:47 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:37:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier><1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de><11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><6FB5FAE8-E267-478E-A5D6-559B75E242C1@starpower.net><4C6A99DC.9050705@ulb.ac.be> <4C7168E0.3030600@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4C73CB2B.8070405@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott **************************************************** > Skype directory: grattan.endicott > **************************************************** > " Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et > le Verbe c'est Dieu." > ('Les Contemplations'] > .................................................. > For words are The Word, and > The Word is God. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 8:42 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] To bid or not to bid > > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:13 PM, > Steve Willner wrote: > > All in all, we seem to be back to the argument > about why, if 6S is so automatic, opener didn't bid > it over 5C. As someone else remarked, we're not > going to settle that without asking opener what he > was thinking. Too bad the TD didn't do so at the > time. (Question to the working TDs on this list: is > it really so hard to ask the player "Why did you > decide to bid 6S?" Or is there a better approach?) > AG : you're absolutely right in theory, but many have already said that the player will often be able to invent arguments. Perhaps not in this precise case, but one classical case is the trial bid, turned down but self-accepted by opener : he might say he wanted to investigate other denominations, and it would rather often seem right, but was it really his intent ?? > > Very interesting. Suppose that this is the answer > you get when you ask "Why did you decide to bid > 6S?": > > "When I bid 5D, I was thinking of a possible grand > slam. I was always going to bid 6S at least once > Responder bid 5C, because, as you see, my 4S bid > was a severe underbid, which I realized almost > immediately after I made it. But when Responder > tanked before 5S, I knew that it probably showed > extras, so the laws required me to forget the grand > slam and just bid 6S." > > (I have tried to construct the most compelling > statement of Opener's thinking that I could come > up with to help Opener to get 6S allowed, but > maybe someone else could do better.) Is there > anyone who thought of disallowing 6S at first, but > would buy this story and allow 6S? You can suppose > that you know the player to be honest, and besides, > you looked into his eyes and he seemed quite sincere. > AG : really, I won't buy a player's argument that he bid only 4S, thren needed only one further encouragement to think about bidding 7. Also, I won't buy the argument that he suddenly realized. More plausibly, the tempo gave him time to realize. IMOBO any argument that might be self-serving should be considered as such, sincere look or otherwise. After all, my initial counterexample : Jxx - xx - KQJ - AQJxx (with which you'd bis a quick 5S over 5D) still holds ! But this doesn't free me from the obligation to ask him. Perhaps he really had something in mind that I didn't think of. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 24 17:21:20 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:21:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Old-fashioned Standard American [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <29481037.1282663280517.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Coincidentally, this auction occurred last night > at the Canberra Bridge Club. East-West were > playing old-fashioned Standard American. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1C 1H > 1S Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > J84 > KQJ9632 > A76 > --- > > What call do you make? Some number of hearts. > What other calls do you consider making? A different number of hearts, 2D, X. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Tue Aug 24 19:35:00 2010 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:35:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Old-fashioned Standard American [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C7402C4.2040005@gmail.com> On 8/23/2010 8:07 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Coincidentally, this auction occurred last night > at the Canberra Bridge Club. East-West were > playing old-fashioned Standard American. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1C 1H > 1S Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > J84 > KQJ9632 > A76 > --- > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > 1) X 2) 2H, 3H, 1S, 2C, pass Hirsch From blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 24 19:38:08 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:38:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Old-fashioned Standard American [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C7402C4.2040005@gmail.com> References: <4C7402C4.2040005@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2061540670.4833941282671488483.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Hirsch Davis wrote: > On 8/23/2010 8:07 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Coincidentally, this auction occurred last night > > at the Canberra Bridge Club. East-West were > > playing old-fashioned Standard American. > > > > Matchpoint pairs > > Dlr: North > > Vul: All > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- Pass 1C 1H > > 1S Pass Pass ? > > > > You, South, hold: > > > > J84 > > KQJ9632 > > A76 > > --- > > > > What call do you make? > > What other calls do you consider making? > > > 1) X > 2) 2H, 3H, 1S, 2C, pass > Too late for the popular 1S "canape" overcall. Richard forced the 1H overcall upon us. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 25 00:02:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:02:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Old-fashioned Standard American [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2061540670.4833941282671488483.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Craig (July 2005) wrote: >Is Diane Brooks a novice or an idiot? (Forced >choice, no is not a logical alternative). [snip] >As for the hand, why not 2H. Slight thought >to 3H needing a swing and with a timid >partner, but always actually bidding 2H. I >thought about pass momentarily and almost >lost my dinner. 4H would be better than that! Richard (July 2005) replies: Is Craig a novice or an idiot? (Forced choice, no is not a logical alternative). :-) Players who *think* that they are experts try to show how clever they are by frequently psyching. But players who *think* that they are experts consider old-fashioned Standard American beneath their dignity; they try to show how clever they are by playing a hyper- modern system with lots of hyper-modern gadgets. So, as for the hand, Pass is the *only* logical alternative for a player who is a *real* expert. What happened at the table (names changed to protect the guilty) -> Hideous Hog 2 854 J965 T6543 Timothy the Toucan Rueful Rabbit AQ9765 KT3 A T7 Q3 KT42 QJ87 AK92 Karapet the Unlucky J84 KQJ9632 A76 --- WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH T.T H.H. R.R. Karapet --- Pass(1) 1C 1H 1S Pass(2) Pass(3) 2H(4) 4S Pass Pass Pass(5) (1) Tends to show not many values. (2) Tends to show even fewer values. (3) The Rabbit originally intended to make the old-fashioned Standard American rebid of 1NT. But once Karapet overcalled 1H, a 1NT rebid was not possible since the Rabbit lacked a heart stopper. What could the Rabbit do but pass? (4) Too unlucky to consider passing. (5) Too pessimistic to double, but only a slightly above-average score for the Hog, since most of the East-West field failed to diagnose the perfect fit for slam. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 25 03:09:00 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:09:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <6FB5FAE8-E267-478E-A5D6-559B75E242C1@starpower.net> <4C6A99DC.9050705@ulb.ac.be> <4C7168E0.3030600@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4C746D2C.4030507@nhcc.net> On 8/22/2010 3:42 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Suppose that this is the answer you get > "When I bid 5D, I was thinking of a possible grand slam.... > But when Responder tanked before 5S, I knew that it > probably showed extras, so the laws required me to forget the grand > slam and just bid 6S." I personally would be sympathetic to such an argument, though I'd have to consider other information (see below) as well. I doubt most of the regular users of "old black magic" could come up with an argument like that at the table. As you have seen, not everyone agrees with me on this. After all, it's a close decision on bridge judgment, and reasonable people will disagree. But getting the facts about agreements and some indication of the player's judgment seem to me essential first steps. On 8/24/2010 9:37 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > After all, my initial counterexample : Jxx - xx - KQJ - AQJxx (with > which you'd bis a quick 5S over 5D) still holds ! Is this really a 3S bid? Looks like a 3C bid to me! And 5C?!! But if indeed 3S and the subsequent 5C slam try could be based on 3-card support (Kxx xx KQJ KQJxx anybody?), then pass looks like a LA after all. Still, even with this junk, make the spades KQx, and slam is fine. By the way, my last message quoted the original 14-card hand for opener. With only 13 cards, a grand seems to require responder to have either five spades or H-J or otherwise something pretty special. It still seems reasonable to try for it: responder will know five trumps are great, but he'll have no way to know which red jack is good. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 25 03:19:38 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:19:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C746FAA.8070808@nhcc.net> On 8/23/2010 2:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >I started worrying later, > I guess needlessly, that although the intended meaning of 3C was Stayman, > that wasn't the L20F1 meaning. Is L27 the most complex single law in TFLB? If not, what is? As far as I can tell, the current interpretation of L27B1b asks the Director to compare the intended meaning of the IB with the intended meaning of the substitute call. The _actual_ meaning of either (i.e., per the system card or notes) is irrelevant for this part of the ruling. I could, of course, be wrong about this, given the complexity. If there is MI (and usually accompanying UI), the issues arising from those will have to be considered at the proper time. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 25 03:32:24 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:32:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] out of order Message-ID: <4C7472A8.6000200@nhcc.net> Consider the following: A. South, declarer and on lead, leads a card. West stops to think. Declarer calls for a (legal) card from dummy. East plays a card, West not having played yet. B. As above, but dummy has a singleton in the suit led and (while West is still thinking) puts it in played position without declarer saying anything. Is East's play legal in either case? If not, suppose the sight of East's card solves West's problem; would you consider adjusting the score? Law 57C may be relevant, but I am not at all sure it's the only one that is. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 25 03:58:24 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:58:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] out of order In-Reply-To: <4C7472A8.6000200@nhcc.net> References: <4C7472A8.6000200@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:32:24 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > Consider the following: > > A. South, declarer and on lead, leads a card. West stops to think. > Declarer calls for a (legal) card from dummy. East plays a card, West > not having played yet. no rectification. Easy. > > B. As above, but dummy has a singleton in the suit led and (while West > is still thinking) puts it in played position without declarer saying > anything. > > Is East's play legal in either case? If not, suppose the sight of > East's card solves West's problem; would you consider adjusting the > score? > > Law 57C may be relevant, but I am not at all sure it's the only one that > is. Neat Problem. I have the the first sentence clearly says that there is no rectification for dummy putting a singleton in the played position. The second sentence at first seemed to contradict that. But now I see that according to the second sentence, the singleton is not played. But dummy has still illegally suggested that it be played. So there is no rectification. That of course is the fair ruling too -- the dummy committed the first irregularity. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Aug 25 03:59:33 2010 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (LarryB) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:59:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] out of order References: <4C7472A8.6000200@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Yes, yes, yes, no...where is that ***** corkscrew > > Consider the following: > > A. South, declarer and on lead, leads a card. West stops to think. > Declarer calls for a (legal) card from dummy. East plays a card, West > not having played yet. > > B. As above, but dummy has a singleton in the suit led and (while West > is still thinking) puts it in played position without declarer saying > anything. > > Is East's play legal in either case? If not, suppose the sight of > East's card solves West's problem; would you consider adjusting the score? > > Law 57C may be relevant, but I am not at all sure it's the only one that > is. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Aug 25 03:56:57 2010 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:56:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] out of order In-Reply-To: <4C7472A8.6000200@nhcc.net> References: <4C7472A8.6000200@nhcc.net> Message-ID: "Steve Willner" writes: > Consider the following: > > A. South, declarer and on lead, leads a card. West stops to think. > Declarer calls for a (legal) card from dummy. East plays a card, West > not having played yet. > > B. As above, but dummy has a singleton in the suit led and (while West > is still thinking) puts it in played position without declarer saying > anything. > > Is East's play legal in either case? If not, suppose the sight of > East's card solves West's problem; would you consider adjusting the score? > > Law 57C may be relevant, but I am not at all sure it's the only one that is. Law 57C says that there is no automatic rectification. "A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands, nor if dummy has played a card." While a singleton is not considered played just by being in dummy, it is considered played when dummy puts it in the played position. It would still be possible to adjust the score if damage occurred (from UI), as Law 64C does for revokes not subject to rectification. However, I would not adjust in this situation, as the declaring side is partly at fault for causing the UI situation. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 25 04:03:10 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:03:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C746FAA.8070808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >Is L27 the most complex single law in TFLB? If not, what is? Richard Hills: I vote Law 75 as being the most complex single Law. Especially since it is usually easy for a player to make an insufficient bid good, but it is very very hard for a player to obey Law 75A and perpetrate calls that that player now knows to be idiotic. Steve Willner: >As far as I can tell, the current interpretation of L27B1b >asks the Director to compare the intended meaning of the IB >with the intended meaning of the substitute call. The >_actual_ meaning of either (i.e., per the system card or >notes) is irrelevant for this part of the ruling. > >I could, of course, be wrong about this, given the complexity. [snip] Richard Hills: Steve Willner is 50% correct if he lived in Zone 7. The official Zone 7 interpretation is that the meaning of the insufficient bid is determined by the insufficient bidder's intent (since obviously there cannot be a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding about the IB). But ... The official Zone 7 meaning of the legal replacement call is determined by the pre-existing partnership understanding for that call, not by the infracting partner imposing a unilateral chameleon change to the partnership's methods. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Aug 25 06:10:46 2010 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:10:46 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Old-fashioned Standard American [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 6:02 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Old-fashioned Standard American [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Craig (July 2005) wrote: > >>Is Diane Brooks a novice or an idiot? (Forced >>choice, no is not a logical alternative). > Di Brooks Near expert bridge player State represenative Competent Club Director Bridge teacher (specialising in beginners) Preferred system ACOL with Mixie Twos Tireless worker for bridge and charities in Western Australia (WA) In the September 2005 issue of the ABF newsletter a letter to the editor by Keith Wignall rebutting in detail the letter by Di Brooks. There was however an error of fact in that he assumed that "psyches are recorded so that a pattern of persistent psychic bids (i.e. a concealed agreement) can be detected" This was not the case in WA and it was recently decided that this would not become the case and so only directors who wish to do so note psyches. In WA a system in which an opening bid which does not meet the rule of 18 is deemed to be a yellow sticker system (HUM). In WA a player using a green sticker (natural) system who irregularly opens NV in third seat with any 5-4-2-2 with any 7 HCP is deemed to have neither pyched nor breached systems regulations nor to have a concealed agreement. I may need reeducation but this is not my view :-) bill > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 25 07:27:55 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:27:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Old-fashioned Standard American [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bill Kemp: [big snip] >In WA a system in which an opening bid which does not meet the >rule of 18 is deemed to be a yellow sticker system (HUM). > >In WA a player using a green sticker (natural) system who >irregularly opens NV in third seat with any 5-4-2-2 with any 7 >HCP is deemed to have neither psyched nor breached systems >regulations nor to have a concealed agreement. > >I may need reeducation but this is not my view :-) > >bill G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936): "Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated." Richard Hills: Maybe I likewise need reeducation. If The Powers That Be in Western Australia bridge want to allow Rule-of-18 openings in 1st, 2nd and 4th seat, but Rule-of-16 openings in 3rd seat, then TPTB in WA should amend their HUM regulation. Leaving their HUM regulation unamended, but also unenforced, seems to me to be a ludicrous way to run a railroad. Plus it is even more clearly unLawful for The Powers That Be in Western Australia bridge to have adopted a policy in direct conflict with Law 40C1: "A player may deviate from his side?s announced understandings always provided that his ***partner has no more reason to be aware*** of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to ***implicit understandings*** which then form ***part of the partnership?s methods*** and must be ***disclosed*** in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of ***system***. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty." Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From henk at ripe.net Wed Aug 25 10:13:16 2010 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:13:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201008250813.o7P8DGJe023717@cat.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for July 2010 Posts From ----- ---- 51 svenpran (at) online.no 42 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 42 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 27 ehaa (at) starpower.net 21 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 20 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 13 henk (at) ripe.net 9 swillner (at) nhcc.net 9 diggadog (at) iinet.net.au 8 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 7 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 6 posundelin (at) yahoo.se 6 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 6 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 4 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 4 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 4 james.boyce (at) oracle.com 4 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 4 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 3 tedying (at) yahoo.com 2 schoderb (at) msn.com 2 lali808 (at) gmail.com 2 jeanmarc.boite (at) gmail.com 2 brian (at) peacenik.net 1 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 1 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 1 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 1 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 1 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 1 geller (at) nifty.com 1 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 1 ccw.in.nc (at) gmail.com 1 bridge (at) vwalther.de 1 bpark56 (at) comcast.net 1 blml (at) arcor.de 1 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 1 adam (at) tameware.com 1 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 25 14:48:16 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:48:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <93A67974-D324-490A-B15A-8BE69B0141CF@starpower.net> On Aug 24, 2010, at 6:02 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Players who *think* that they are experts try > to show how clever they are by frequently > psyching. But players who *think* that they > are experts consider old-fashioned Standard > American beneath their dignity; they try to > show how clever they are by playing a hyper- > modern system with lots of hyper-modern > gadgets. Not where I live. Since the ACBL's campaign to eliminate psychs in the 1970s, newcomers to duplicate have been taught that psyching falls into a grey area somwhere between unwise and unethical. Consequently, the only folks at all likely to psych, ever, are the old-fashioned, behind-the-times types, who are almost surely, for similar reasons, sticking to their old-fashioned, behind-the-times bidding methods. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Wed Aug 25 17:38:26 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:38:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] To bid or not to bid In-Reply-To: References: <02B76FE66B1B4EE89A2AB3746B7419FD@PCdeOlivier> <1Ojw29-0jRk9Y0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <11061239.1281718490131.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <6FB5FAE8-E267-478E-A5D6-559B75E242C1@starpower.net> <4C6A99DC.9050705@ulb.ac.be> <4C7168E0.3030600@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <12385528.1282750706465.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > > > All in all, we seem to be back to the argument about why, if 6S is so > > automatic, opener didn't bid it over 5C. ?As someone else remarked, > > we're not going to settle that without asking opener what he was > > thinking. ?Too bad the TD didn't do so at the time. ?(Question to the > > working TDs on this list: is it really so hard to ask the player "Why > > did you decide to bid 6S?" ?Or is there a better approach?) > > > > Very interesting. Suppose that this is the answer you get when you > ask "Why did you decide to bid 6S?": > > "When I bid 5D, I was thinking of a possible grand slam. I was always > going to bid 6S at least once Responder bid 5C, because, as you see, > my 4S bid was a severe underbid, which I realized almost immediately > after I made it. But when Responder tanked before 5S, I knew that it > probably showed extras, so the laws required me to forget the grand > slam and just bid 6S." Mostly irrelevant. The questions are whether there actually was UI, whether the UI actually provided extraneous information not already available via AI (or the UI "woke up" partner), whether the UI "demonstrably" suggested something, and whether there were logical alternatives. But it does not matter whether the player, being perfectly honest, would always have made the bid suggested by the hesitation. IOW: if 5S is an LA, if if you believe that the player would always have either bid 6 or investigated a grand, you can still adjust to 5S if all the necessary requirements are fulfilled. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Aug 25 18:20:20 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:20:20 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Old-fashioned Standard American References: <93A67974-D324-490A-B15A-8BE69B0141CF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <565186C10DEF489DBBC2871152F9EC68@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > On Aug 24, 2010, at 6:02 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Players who *think* that they are experts try >> to show how clever they are by frequently >> psyching. But players who *think* that they >> are experts consider old-fashioned Standard >> American beneath their dignity; they try to >> show how clever they are by playing a hyper- >> modern system with lots of hyper-modern >> gadgets. > > Not where I live. Since the ACBL's campaign to eliminate psychs > in > the 1970s, newcomers to duplicate have been taught that psyching > falls into a grey area somwhere between unwise and unethical. > Consequently, the only folks at all likely to psych, ever, are the > old-fashioned, behind-the-times types, who are almost surely, for > similar reasons, sticking to their old-fashioned, behind-the-times > bidding methods. Eric is correct. This old-timer psychs occasionally, maybe once in four sessions. Psyching is part of the game, and those who never psych should have to disclose that, as was required in the old days. As to system, I have recently devised the Skeleton (bare bones) System, which has only 3-4 simple conventions. No Stayman, no transfers, no negative doubles, no Blackwood/Gerber. Weak notrumps, four-card majors, strong jump overcalls, strong natural two bids. My aim was two-fold: (1) to eliminate tiring and error-prone struggles with complicated conventions, and (2) to demonstrate that skillful card play and sound bidding are much more important than conventions. The results have been very gratifying. Typically, poor results due to the lack of a convention have been offset by good results (e.g., penalty doubles of lousy overcalls). I doubt this would be true in an NABC+ event, but I'll check that out at the next NABC we attend. Question: How do I satisfy L40C in regard to psychs? The ACBL no longer provides "regulations governing disclosure of system" for psychs. How about this on my convention card:: Occasional long-suit psychs of opening bids in first seat, and of major suit responses over a double, usuallly with favorable vulnerability. Would that suffice? Now the opponents are just as aware as partner of a possible "deviation." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5396 (20100825) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 26 00:48:09 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:48:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Old-fashioned Standard American [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <565186C10DEF489DBBC2871152F9EC68@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Moliere (1622-1673), French comic playwright: "Good heavens! For more than forty years I have been speaking prose without knowing it." Marvin French: [snip] >Question: How do I satisfy L40C in regard to psychs? The ACBL no >longer provides "regulations governing disclosure of system" for >psychs. How about this on my convention card: > >Occasional long-suit psychs of opening bids in first seat, and >of major suit responses over a double, usually with favorable >vulnerability. > >Would that suffice? Richard Hills: No. The popular understanding of the word "psyche" - a player holding cards inconsistent with the typical meaning of that player's call - is dissonant with the technical Lawful meaning of "psyche" - a gross distortion of the mutually agreed system. If a call is systemic enough to require disclosure on the partnership's System Cards, under Law that call is too systemic to be deemed to be a psyche (thus the fully disclosed pseudo- psychic call may still be unLawful if contrary to a Law 40B2(a) regulation). Marvin French: >Now the opponents are just as aware as partner of a possible >"deviation." Richard Hills: To minimise any possibility of confusion about what a "psyche" really is, the Drafting Committee carefully avoided the use of that word in Law 40C1. Thus under Law 40C1 Marvin French's disclosable "deviations" have now metamorphosed into his "methods" and "system". What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Aug 26 03:05:40 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:05:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] out of order In-Reply-To: References: <4C7472A8.6000200@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4C75BDE4.1050807@nhcc.net> >> A. South, declarer and on lead, leads a card. West stops to think. >> Declarer calls for a (legal) card from dummy. East plays a card, West >> not having played yet. On 8/24/2010 9:56 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > Law 57C says that there is no automatic rectification. So L57A does not apply. > It would still be possible to adjust the score if damage occurred (from UI), What makes anything UI? Relevant cards are face up on the table, and nothing has been withdrawn. > I would not > adjust in this situation, as the declaring side is partly at fault This is what I wanted to know. To take a specific example: JT Ax Qx Kx Declarer leads low from hand and calls for one of dummy's cards (or dummy plays one unbidden), West not having played. East plays the Q. West will, of course, have no trouble playing low but might have found some reason to rise ace if East had not played. If East's play is legal, there's no question of an adjusted score. If it's illegal, then an adjusted score seems quite possible. Which is it? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 26 03:48:15 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:48:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C75BDE4.1050807@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >To take a specific example: > > JT >Ax Qx > Kx > >Declarer leads low from hand and calls for one of >dummy's cards (or dummy plays one unbidden), West >not having played. East plays the Q. > >West will, of course, have no trouble playing low >but might have found some reason to rise ace if >East had not played. > >If East's play is legal, there's no question of an >adjusted score. If it's illegal, then an adjusted >score seems quite possible. Which is it? Law 57C1, first sentence: "A defender is **not subject to rectification** for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands, nor if dummy has played a card or has illegally suggested that it be played." Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 26 04:39:11 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:39:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:03:10 -0400, wrote: > Steve Willner: > >> Is L27 the most complex single law in TFLB? If not, what is? > > Richard Hills: > > I vote Law 75 as being the most complex single Law. Especially > since it is usually easy for a player to make an insufficient > bid good, but it is very very hard for a player to obey Law 75A > and perpetrate calls that that player now knows to be idiotic. > > Steve Willner: > >> As far as I can tell, the current interpretation of L27B1b >> asks the Director to compare the intended meaning of the IB >> with the intended meaning of the substitute call. The >> _actual_ meaning of either (i.e., per the system card or >> notes) is irrelevant for this part of the ruling. >> >> I could, of course, be wrong about this, given the complexity. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Steve Willner is 50% correct if he lived in Zone 7. > > The official Zone 7 interpretation is that the meaning of the > insufficient bid is determined by the insufficient bidder's > intent (since obviously there cannot be a pre-existing mutual > partnership understanding about the IB). > > But ... > > The official Zone 7 meaning of the legal replacement call is > determined by the pre-existing partnership understanding for > that call, not by the infracting partner imposing a unilateral > chameleon change to the partnership's methods. I think that misses the point of this example. The meaning of the insufficient bid should also probably depend on partnership methods. Does it? 1C 1H 1D I did not see the 1H call so I responded 1D. Does my allowable replacements depend on what I think the 1D bid means, or what it actually means in our partnership agreements (when those are different). In the example I gave, there was no confusion over partnership methods. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Aug 26 09:08:33 2010 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:08:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <763A456694014B4D85DD974AEA0D0468@Lounge> -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 2:48 AM To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Steve Willner: > > [snip] > >>To take a specific example: >> >> JT >>Ax Qx >> Kx >> >>Declarer leads low from hand and calls for one of >>dummy's cards (or dummy plays one unbidden), West >>not having played. East plays the Q. >> >>West will, of course, have no trouble playing low >>but might have found some reason to rise ace if >>East had not played. >> >>If East's play is legal, there's no question of an >>adjusted score. If it's illegal, then an adjusted >>score seems quite possible. Which is it? > > Law 57C1, first sentence: > > "A defender is **not subject to rectification** for > playing before his partner if declarer has played > from both hands, nor if dummy has played a card or > has illegally suggested that it be played." > This IMO does not address the issue fully. Let us suppose that in the above position East summons the Director and asks if it is legal for him to play a card at this point. Do you tell him that this is an OFFENSE albeit with no rectification and it is a VERY serious matter to knowingly and willingly commit any offense or do you tell him it is perfectly legal? ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** > > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 26 09:44:48 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:44:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen Message-ID: <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> The bidding starts: N:1Cl - E:1NT - alert & explanation asked and given: Polish NT (diamonds and a major) Oops! says East, I did not see the opening bid. Of course he should not have said this, and we tell West that this is UI to him. The bidding continues: S:pass - W:2Di (a bid which is correct with his hand opposite the Polish NT) N:pass - E:??? 2Di is transfer over a 1NT opening. Is East obliged to bid 2He? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 26 10:22:14 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:22:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> References: <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001cb44f7$cca83e20$65f8ba60$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > The bidding starts: > N:1Cl - E:1NT - alert & explanation asked and given: Polish NT (diamonds and a > major) > > Oops! says East, I did not see the opening bid. > > Of course he should not have said this, and we tell West that this is UI to him. > > The bidding continues: > > S:pass - W:2Di (a bid which is correct with his hand opposite the Polish NT) > > N:pass - E:??? > > 2Di is transfer over a 1NT opening. Is East obliged to bid 2He? Why, of course! East is awoken to the fact that he technically has bid a Polish NT rather than the 1NT opening bid he thought by UI from his partner. He is not allowed to take this UI into consideration when selecting his further actions, so he is obliged to continue his auction as if his partner were on line with him, i.e. responding to his 1NT as being an opening bid. (East was even supposed to alert the 2D bid by his partner and explain it as transfer if asked!) And West is similarly obliged to continue his auction as if the 1NT overcall were indeed a polish overcall. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Aug 26 10:33:57 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:33:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?bid_not_seen?= In-Reply-To: <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> References: <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > The bidding starts: > N:1Cl - E:1NT - alert & explanation asked and given: Polish NT > (diamonds and a major) > > Oops! says East, I did not see the opening bid. > > Of course he should not have said this, and we tell West that this is > UI to him. > > The bidding continues: > > S:pass - W:2Di (a bid which is correct with his hand opposite the > Polish NT) > N:pass - E:??? > > 2Di is transfer over a 1NT opening. Is East obliged to bid 2He? "Sure" ;-) Although he is (technically) not obliged to bid exactly 2He, he is obliged to bid as if West has shown 5+ cards in hearts. So he might make some form of "superaccept" instead. West's Alert and explanation are UI to East - so what's the problem here, Herman?? From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 26 10:56:19 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:56:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Double penalty In-Reply-To: <000001cb44f7$cca83e20$65f8ba60$@no> References: <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <000001cb44f7$cca83e20$65f8ba60$@no> Message-ID: <4C762C33.4040708@ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Here is a live case which revives the problem of being allowed to know they had a misunderstanding, in an unusual way. N S KQxxx x Kx xx xx AKQx AKxx QJxxxx 1S 2C 2H 3NT 2C was semi-artificial (could have been a balanced hand and/or a raise) 2H wasn't alerted, because the player didn't remember the meaning (apparently, it was showing some number of points, or controls) South did remember the system, but didn't inform the opponents of the MI before the lead. (apparenntly wasn't aware of this obligation) If 2H had been alerted, then East would have had an obvious lead-directing double, after which the course of events is uncertain, but the TD decided that "the most unfavorable among plausible results" would have been 5C -1, and this seems sensible. Now East claims that, given the non-alert, if North had corrected the MI before the lead, then his partner would probably have led a heart (from 10xxx), resulting in down two. So "the most unfavorable result" that could have happened, given the first infraction, but absent the second, would be two off. Do we have to take into consideration the "intermediate state" when correcting the score ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 26 11:04:01 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:04:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> References: <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C762E01.1040500@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > From: Herman De Wael > >> The bidding starts: >> N:1Cl - E:1NT - alert & explanation asked and given: Polish NT >> (diamonds and a major) >> >> Oops! says East, I did not see the opening bid. >> >> Of course he should not have said this, and we tell West that this is >> UI to him. >> >> The bidding continues: >> >> S:pass - W:2Di (a bid which is correct with his hand opposite the >> Polish NT) >> N:pass - E:??? >> >> 2Di is transfer over a 1NT opening. Is East obliged to bid 2He? >> > > "Sure" ;-) > > Although he is (technically) not obliged to bid exactly 2He, > he is obliged to bid as if West has shown 5+ cards in hearts. > So he might make some form of "superaccept" instead. > > West's Alert and explanation are UI to East - so what's > the problem here, Herman?? > > AG : I think I understand the problem : UI is usually about partner's problem and holding, so this is as unusual case - the bidding is AI, hence it's difficult to explain them what exactly constitutes the UI. We're aware that there was UI, but unable to characterize it. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 26 11:11:31 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:11:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> References: <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> The bidding starts: >> N:1Cl - E:1NT - alert& explanation asked and given: Polish NT >> (diamonds and a major) >> >> Oops! says East, I did not see the opening bid. >> >> Of course he should not have said this, and we tell West that this is >> UI to him. >> >> The bidding continues: >> >> S:pass - W:2Di (a bid which is correct with his hand opposite the >> Polish NT) >> N:pass - E:??? >> >> 2Di is transfer over a 1NT opening. Is East obliged to bid 2He? > > "Sure" ;-) > > Although he is (technically) not obliged to bid exactly 2He, > he is obliged to bid as if West has shown 5+ cards in hearts. > So he might make some form of "superaccept" instead. > > West's Alert and explanation are UI to East - so what's > the problem here, Herman?? > The problem is that East also has information that tells him everything he needs to know: the 1C bid which is lying on the table in front of him. Do we accept that this is AI or not? FWIW, I don't believe it's AI, but I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in thinking this. Of course, having stated my view, I'm sure some will find it necessary to contradict me for the sake of it. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Aug 26 11:19:34 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:19:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?bid_not_seen?= In-Reply-To: <4C762E01.1040500@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C762E01.1040500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1OoYcR-0Z1oGm0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> From: Alain Gottcheiner > Peter Eidt a ?crit : > > From: Herman De Wael > > > >> The bidding starts: > >> N:1Cl - E:1NT - alert & explanation asked and given: Polish NT >> > (diamonds and a major) > >> > >> Oops! says East, I did not see the opening bid. > >> > >> Of course he should not have said this, and we tell West that this > is >> UI to him. > >> > >> The bidding continues: > >> > >> S:pass - W:2Di (a bid which is correct with his hand opposite the > >> Polish NT) > >> N:pass - E:??? > >> > >> 2Di is transfer over a 1NT opening. Is East obliged to bid 2He? >> > > > > > "Sure" ;-) > > > > Although he is (technically) not obliged to bid exactly 2He, > > he is obliged to bid as if West has shown 5+ cards in hearts. > > So he might make some form of "superaccept" instead. > > > > West's Alert and explanation are UI to East - so what's > > the problem here, Herman?? > > > > > AG : I think I understand the problem : UI is usually about > partner's problem and holding, so this is as unusual case - the > bidding is AI, hence it's difficult to explain them what exactly > constitutes the UI. > We're aware that there was UI, but unable to characterize it. sorry (?) East thought to have opended 1NT. Now West alerted ... ???? Then West was asked and West said "Diamonds and a major" East/West play transfer over 1NT openings. West bids 2Di and you, Alain, are not able to characterize the UI? From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Aug 26 11:42:59 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:42:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Double_penalty?= In-Reply-To: <4C762C33.4040708@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C762C33.4040708@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1OoYz6-1XFnNo0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> From: Alain Gottcheiner > Here is a live case which revives the problem of being allowed to know > they had a misunderstanding, in an unusual way. > > N S > > KQxxx x > Kx xx > xx AKQx > AKxx QJxxxx > > 1S 2C > 2H 3NT > > 2C was semi-artificial (could have been a balanced hand and/or a > raise) 2H wasn't alerted, because the player didn't remember the > meaning (apparently, it was showing some number of points, or > controls) South guess this should "North" > did remember the system, but didn't inform the > opponents of the MI before the lead. (apparenntly wasn't aware of this > obligation) > > If 2H had been alerted, then East would have had an obvious > lead-directing double, after which the course of events is uncertain, > but the TD decided that "the most unfavorable among plausible results" > would have been 5C -1, and this seems sensible. > > Now East claims that, given the non-alert, if North had corrected the > MI before the lead, then his partner would probably have led a heart > (from 10xxx), resulting in down two. > So "the most unfavorable result" that could have happened, given the > first infraction, but absent the second, would be two off. > > Do we have to take into consideration the "intermediate state" when > correcting the score ? Yes, sure ;-) One infraction here is MI, the other the failure to comply with Law 20 F5b(ii) These are seperate infractions (although not unrelated). If the TD deems that the damage through the 2nd infraction was greater than that throught the 1st one, he gives redress for the greater damage, of course. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 26 12:12:37 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:12:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> References: <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4C763E15.5040800@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Peter Eidt wrote: > >> From: Herman De Wael >> >>> The bidding starts: >>> N:1Cl - E:1NT - alert& explanation asked and given: Polish NT >>> (diamonds and a major) >>> >>> Oops! says East, I did not see the opening bid. >>> >>> Of course he should not have said this, and we tell West that this is >>> UI to him. >>> >>> The bidding continues: >>> >>> S:pass - W:2Di (a bid which is correct with his hand opposite the >>> Polish NT) >>> N:pass - E:??? >>> >>> 2Di is transfer over a 1NT opening. Is East obliged to bid 2He? >>> >> "Sure" ;-) >> >> Although he is (technically) not obliged to bid exactly 2He, >> he is obliged to bid as if West has shown 5+ cards in hearts. >> So he might make some form of "superaccept" instead. >> >> West's Alert and explanation are UI to East - so what's >> the problem here, Herman?? >> >> > > The problem is that East also has information that tells him everything > he needs to know: the 1C bid which is lying on the table in front of > him. Do we accept that this is AI or not? > > FWIW, I don't believe it's AI, but I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in > thinking this. AG : IMHO it is AI, but the fact that I didn't see it is UI. "Awakening partner" -a phenomenon which we did discuss several times- is mainly giving partner the UI that there is AI to consider. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 26 12:17:55 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:17:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <1OoYcR-0Z1oGm0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> References: <4C762E01.1040500@ulb.ac.be> <1OoYcR-0Z1oGm0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C763F53.6030203@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > From: Alain Gottcheiner > >> Peter Eidt a ?crit : >> >>> From: Herman De Wael >>> >>> >>>> The bidding starts: >>>> N:1Cl - E:1NT - alert & explanation asked and given: Polish NT >> >>>> >> (diamonds and a major) >> >>>> Oops! says East, I did not see the opening bid. >>>> >>>> Of course he should not have said this, and we tell West that this >>>> >> is >> UI to him. >> >>>> The bidding continues: >>>> >>>> S:pass - W:2Di (a bid which is correct with his hand opposite the >>>> Polish NT) >>>> N:pass - E:??? >>>> >>>> 2Di is transfer over a 1NT opening. Is East obliged to bid 2He? >> >>>> >>> "Sure" ;-) >>> >>> Although he is (technically) not obliged to bid exactly 2He, >>> he is obliged to bid as if West has shown 5+ cards in hearts. >>> So he might make some form of "superaccept" instead. >>> >>> West's Alert and explanation are UI to East - so what's >>> the problem here, Herman?? >>> >>> >>> >> AG : I think I understand the problem : UI is usually about >> partner's problem and holding, so this is as unusual case - the >> bidding is AI, hence it's difficult to explain them what exactly >> constitutes the UI. >> We're aware that there was UI, but unable to characterize it. >> > > sorry (?) > > East thought to have opended 1NT. > Now West alerted ... ???? > Then West was asked and West said "Diamonds and a major" > > East/West play transfer over 1NT openings. > > West bids 2Di and you, Alain, are not able to characterize the UI? > > Of course we all know there is UI. But that's snot the point. The point is : what exactly is consititutive of UI in this case ? Not the fact that the 1NT overcall is two-suited in their system, that's AI. Not the fact that partner's 2D bid isn't a transfer a 2-suited 1NT, that's AI too. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 26 14:14:19 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:14:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> References: <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:11:31 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Peter Eidt wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >>> The bidding starts: >>> N:1Cl - E:1NT - alert& explanation asked and given: Polish NT >>> (diamonds and a major) >>> >>> Oops! says East, I did not see the opening bid. >>> >>> Of course he should not have said this, and we tell West that this is >>> UI to him. >>> >>> The bidding continues: >>> >>> S:pass - W:2Di (a bid which is correct with his hand opposite the >>> Polish NT) >>> N:pass - E:??? >>> >>> 2Di is transfer over a 1NT opening. Is East obliged to bid 2He? >> >> "Sure" ;-) >> >> Although he is (technically) not obliged to bid exactly 2He, >> he is obliged to bid as if West has shown 5+ cards in hearts. >> So he might make some form of "superaccept" instead. >> >> West's Alert and explanation are UI to East - so what's >> the problem here, Herman?? >> > > The problem is that East also has information that tells him everything > he needs to know: the 1C bid which is lying on the table in front of > him. Do we accept that this is AI or not? > > FWIW, I don't believe it's AI, but I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in > thinking this. Of course, having stated my view, I'm sure some will find > it necessary to contradict me for the sake of it. > I'll bite. The 1C bid is of course AI, and by the time the auction returned to East, East would have seen it and realized that he misbid. So the misbid becomes AI. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 26 16:20:12 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:20:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <60643AF7-2881-46C4-B4A8-2DD42629730D@starpower.net> On Aug 25, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:03:10 -0400, wrote: > >> Steve Willner: >> >>> Is L27 the most complex single law in TFLB? If not, what is? >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> I vote Law 75 as being the most complex single Law. Especially >> since it is usually easy for a player to make an insufficient >> bid good, but it is very very hard for a player to obey Law 75A >> and perpetrate calls that that player now knows to be idiotic. >> >> Steve Willner: >> >>> As far as I can tell, the current interpretation of L27B1b >>> asks the Director to compare the intended meaning of the IB >>> with the intended meaning of the substitute call. The >>> _actual_ meaning of either (i.e., per the system card or >>> notes) is irrelevant for this part of the ruling. >>> >>> I could, of course, be wrong about this, given the complexity. >> >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Steve Willner is 50% correct if he lived in Zone 7. >> >> The official Zone 7 interpretation is that the meaning of the >> insufficient bid is determined by the insufficient bidder's >> intent (since obviously there cannot be a pre-existing mutual >> partnership understanding about the IB). >> >> But ... >> >> The official Zone 7 meaning of the legal replacement call is >> determined by the pre-existing partnership understanding for >> that call, not by the infracting partner imposing a unilateral >> chameleon change to the partnership's methods. > > I think that misses the point of this example. > > The meaning of the insufficient bid should also probably depend on > partnership methods. Does it? > > 1C 1H 1D > > I did not see the 1H call so I responded 1D. Does my allowable > replacements depend on what I think the 1D bid means, or what it > actually > means in our partnership agreements (when those are different). The latter. L27B1(b) refers to the "meaning" of the IBer's calls. Where the word "meaning" is used elsewhere in TFLB in the context of interpreting a call (see, for example, L40, or the footnotes to L17 & L26), it clearly seems to refer to the meaning by agreement, not the intention of the caller. Neither L20 nor L75 use the word specifically, but do reinforce the idea that the "meaning" of a call is to be defined by what the partnership has agreed to. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 26 17:13:57 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:13:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: References: <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4C7684B5.2040004@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : >> > > I'll bite. The 1C bid is of course AI, and by the time the auction > returned to East, East would have seen it and realized that he misbid. So > the misbid becomes AI. > AG : we have said before that AI could become UI if partner helped realize the problem, yes ? (such as by a long pause after your answer to his interrogative, because it doesn't fit his hand) I don't know whether that applies here, but surely the "becomes AI" part isn't that obvious. Of course, by passing 2D, you could as well play in a 3-3. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 26 18:11:47 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:11:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C7684B5.2040004@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C7684B5.2040004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:13:57 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> >> >> I'll bite. The 1C bid is of course AI, and by the time the auction >> returned to East, East would have seen it and realized that he misbid. >> So >> the misbid becomes AI. >> > AG : we have said before that AI could become UI if partner helped > realize the problem, yes ? (such as by a long pause after your answer to > his interrogative, because it doesn't fit his hand) > I don't know whether that applies here, but surely the "becomes AI" part > isn't that obvious. The only criteria for information to be UI is that it is not AI. In my mind, the "becomes AI" part is obvious for this situation -- East would have become aware of his mistake by his turn to bid, without any help from partner. If you judge differently on the obviousness, then I think you rule the opposite. From blml at arcor.de Thu Aug 26 19:29:10 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:29:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Double penalty Message-ID: <32353650.1282843750244.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Here is a live case which revives the problem of being allowed to know > they had a misunderstanding, in an unusual way. > > N S > > KQxxx x > Kx xx > xx AKQx > AKxx QJxxxx > > 1S 2C > 2H 3NT > > 2C was semi-artificial (could have been a balanced hand and/or a raise) > 2H wasn't alerted, because the player didn't remember the meaning > (apparently, it was showing some number of points, or controls) > South did remember the system, but didn't inform the opponents of the MI > before the lead. (apparenntly wasn't aware of this obligation) I doubt the claim that S remembered the system. Why bid 3NT on a small H doubleton if you remember that 2H is artificial? Why not bid 3C or 3D and let partner bid 3NT? When a player fails to alert, and then bids like this, the player's self-serving statement that he remembered the system is not sufficient. > If 2H had been alerted, then East would have had an obvious > lead-directing double, after which the course of events is uncertain, > but the TD decided that "the most unfavorable among plausible results" > would have been 5C -1, and this seems sensible. > > Now East claims that, given the non-alert, if North had corrected the MI > before the lead, then his partner would probably have led a heart (from > 10xxx), resulting in down two. > So "the most unfavorable result" that could have happened, given the > first infraction, but absent the second, would be two off. > > Do we have to take into consideration the "intermediate state" when > correcting the score ? I would strongly consider awarding a split score: 3NT doubled down two for N/S 3NT down two undoubled for E/W If N/S do as required by L20F5(b)(ii), and correct the failure to alert at the end of the auction at the table, E gets his final pass back, and might have doubled for the lead (L21B1(a)). Then N has UI that S might think he has four hearts, and S has UI reminding him that N does not have four hearts, and thus they both must sit 3NT X, which I deem a logical alternative. I say that this qualifies as "at all probable", maybe even as "likely had the irregularity not occured". Whereas, if N/S somehow could convince me that S really remembered the system and just forgot to alert, then I'd award 3NT undoubled down two to both sides. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From blml at arcor.de Thu Aug 26 19:47:35 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:47:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> References: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Herman De Wael > Peter Eidt wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > >> The bidding starts: > >> N:1Cl - E:1NT - alert& explanation asked and given: Polish NT > >> (diamonds and a major) > >> > >> Oops! says East, I did not see the opening bid. > >> > >> Of course he should not have said this, and we tell West that this is > >> UI to him. > >> > >> The bidding continues: > >> > >> S:pass - W:2Di (a bid which is correct with his hand opposite the > >> Polish NT) > >> N:pass - E:??? > >> > >> 2Di is transfer over a 1NT opening. Is East obliged to bid 2He? > > > > "Sure" ;-) > > > > Although he is (technically) not obliged to bid exactly 2He, > > he is obliged to bid as if West has shown 5+ cards in hearts. > > So he might make some form of "superaccept" instead. > > > > West's Alert and explanation are UI to East - so what's > > the problem here, Herman?? > > > > The problem is that East also has information that tells him everything > he needs to know: the 1C bid which is lying on the table in front of > him. Do we accept that this is AI or not? L16B1 (a) kicks in, "an unexpected alert, .i.e, unexpected in relation to the basis of his action". Thus, East is not allowed to "wake up" until he gets AI that wakes him up. I've been there a few times. Follow the law, do not use the UI. You'll have some fun auctions to remember, and then get to show your card play skills in some absurd contract. Albeit, if like me you end up in 4C redoubled in a 1-0 fit, there will be only the story to tell, but no miracle. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From bridge at vwalther.de Thu Aug 26 21:33:03 2010 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:33:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> References: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <4C76C16F.90104@vwalther.de> On 26.08.2010 19:47, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Herman De Wael >> Peter Eidt wrote: >>> From: Herman De Wael >>>> The bidding starts: >>>> N:1Cl - E:1NT - alert& explanation asked and given: Polish NT >>>> (diamonds and a major) >>>> >>>> Oops! says East, I did not see the opening bid. >>>> >>>> Of course he should not have said this, and we tell West that this is >>>> UI to him. >>>> >>>> The bidding continues: >>>> >>>> S:pass - W:2Di (a bid which is correct with his hand opposite the >>>> Polish NT) >>>> N:pass - E:??? >>>> >>>> 2Di is transfer over a 1NT opening. Is East obliged to bid 2He? >>> >>> "Sure" ;-) >>> >>> Although he is (technically) not obliged to bid exactly 2He, >>> he is obliged to bid as if West has shown 5+ cards in hearts. >>> So he might make some form of "superaccept" instead. >>> >>> West's Alert and explanation are UI to East - so what's >>> the problem here, Herman?? >>> >> >> The problem is that East also has information that tells him everything >> he needs to know: the 1C bid which is lying on the table in front of >> him. Do we accept that this is AI or not? > > L16B1 (a) kicks in, "an unexpected alert, .i.e, unexpected in relation to the basis of his action". > Thus, East is not allowed to "wake up" until he gets AI that wakes him up. > I do not think so. I think we are dealing with 16 A1a: A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it derives from the legal calls (...) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source. If you are strictly reading this, the information "North made an opening bid" may become UI because it is in some way affected by West's Alert. Even if you derive the information itself from the legal call. This looks strange to me. But suppose, bidding boxes are not in use. Than West's Alert is the only reason for East, to recognize that he did not make the opening bid. So we would have to allow passing 2 diamonds with bidding boxes and force a heart bid without them. That is even stranger.... > I've been there a few times. Follow the law, do not use the UI. You'll have > some fun auctions to remember, and then get to show your card play skills > in some absurd contract. Albeit, if like me you end up in 4C redoubled in > a 1-0 fit, there will be only the story to tell, but no miracle. > 1-0 is unlikely after a 1 NT opening ;-) It wont be worse than 3-2, I suppose. Greetings, Volker From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 26 22:45:12 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:45:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> References: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> On Aug 26, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Herman De Wael > >> Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>> From: Herman De Wael >>> >>>> The bidding starts: >>>> N:1Cl - E:1NT - alert& explanation asked and given: Polish NT >>>> (diamonds and a major) >>>> >>>> Oops! says East, I did not see the opening bid. >>>> >>>> Of course he should not have said this, and we tell West that >>>> this is >>>> UI to him. >>>> >>>> The bidding continues: >>>> >>>> S:pass - W:2Di (a bid which is correct with his hand opposite the >>>> Polish NT) >>>> N:pass - E:??? >>>> >>>> 2Di is transfer over a 1NT opening. Is East obliged to bid 2He? >>> >>> "Sure" ;-) >>> >>> Although he is (technically) not obliged to bid exactly 2He, >>> he is obliged to bid as if West has shown 5+ cards in hearts. >>> So he might make some form of "superaccept" instead. >>> >>> West's Alert and explanation are UI to East - so what's >>> the problem here, Herman?? >> >> The problem is that East also has information that tells him >> everything >> he needs to know: the 1C bid which is lying on the table in front of >> him. Do we accept that this is AI or not? > > L16B1 (a) kicks in, "an unexpected alert, .i.e, unexpected in > relation to the basis of his action". > Thus, East is not allowed to "wake up" until he gets AI that wakes > him up. But it is not the AI that "wakes him up"; it is the UI. Here partner's alert and explanation provided the UI that he thought 1NT was Polish; that was the "wake-up call". There was no unauthorized transmission of the information the North had opened 1C; that was communicated by the bidding card face-up in front of him on the table, which, in itself, certainly isn't a source of UI. We have a general sense that when the receipt of UI "causes" a player to become aware of previously available and entitled AI, that AI is somehow "tainted" (not by the UI itself, but by the fact of it having been transmitted) and cannot be legitimately used until some future time when becomes somehow "reentitled". But we may disagree wildly when it comes to deciding what that future time is, as TFLB offers no guidance. Here Herman suggests that the AI is tainted but momentarily, as it is entirely reasonable to presume that the player would have taken a second look at the bid cards on the table before making his next call, while Peter suggests that the taint lasts enough longer than that to suggest an entirely different adjudication. We seem to agree that it shouldn't last beyond the end of the auction (although if partner wakes you up to recalling your proper agreements after you've gotten them wrong, and that makes them UI, why shouldn't they be just as much UI two tables along?), and we also recognize that there are cases where even that's unsupportable (where we agree that the AI would indubitably have manifested at some point), leaving us grasping wildly in specific cases for a finding as to when the presumptive UI, by some ineffable process, "turns into" AI. It does seem a bit daft to try to define circumstances under which information that the laws require be displayed face up on the table right in front of a player's face must, by law, be not only ignored by that player, but presumed incorrect. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 27 00:23:18 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:23:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <763A456694014B4D85DD974AEA0D0468@Lounge> Message-ID: Law 57C1, first sentence: "A defender is **not subject to rectification** for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands, nor if dummy has played a card or has illegally suggested that it be played." David Barton: >This IMO does not address the issue fully. > >Let us suppose that in the above position East >summons the Director and asks if it is legal for >him to play a card at this point. > >Do you tell him that this is an OFFENSE albeit >with no rectification and it is a VERY serious >matter to knowingly and willingly commit any >offense or do you tell him it is perfectly legal? Richard Hills: My vote is "perfectly legal", since otherwise Law 57C1 would be anomalous. In the 1975 Lawbook, if there was an opening lead out of turn, declarer could become dummy if declarer was equally confused and _innocently_ started spreading her cards on the table. But if declarer summoned the Director, declarer now lost the option to become dummy. This anomaly was corrected in later editions of the Lawbook. Another reason for "perfectly legal" can be found in Law 60A - Play of Card after Irregularity: "1. A play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has led or played out of turn or prematurely, and before rectification has been assessed, forfeits the right to rectification of that offence. 2. Once the right to rectification has been forfeited, the illegal play is **treated as though it were in turn** (except when Law 53C applies). 3. If the offending side has a previous obligation to play a penalty card, or to comply with a lead or play restriction, the obligation remains at future turns." Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 27 00:34:26 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:34:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> References: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............. > But it is not the AI that "wakes him up"; it is the UI. Here partner's alert and > explanation provided the UI that he thought 1NT was Polish; that was the "wake-up > call". There was no unauthorized transmission of the information the North had > opened 1C; that was communicated by the bidding card face-up in front of him on > the table, which, in itself, certainly isn't a source of UI. > > We have a general sense that when the receipt of UI "causes" a player to become > aware of previously available and entitled AI, that AI is somehow "tainted" (not by > the UI itself, but by the fact of it having been transmitted) and cannot be > legitimately used until some future time when becomes somehow "reentitled". But > we may disagree wildly when it comes to deciding what that future time is, as TFLB > offers no guidance. Here Herman suggests that the AI is tainted but momentarily, > as it is entirely reasonable to presume that the player would have taken a second > look at the bid cards on the table before making his next call, while Peter suggests > that the taint lasts enough longer than that to suggest an entirely different > adjudication. We seem to agree that it shouldn't last beyond the end of the > auction (although if partner wakes you up to recalling your proper agreements > after you've gotten them wrong, and that makes them UI, why shouldn't they be > just as much UI two tables along?), and we also recognize that there are cases > where even that's unsupportable (where we agree that the AI would indubitably > have manifested at some point), leaving us grasping wildly in specific cases for a > finding as to when the presumptive UI, by some ineffable process, "turns into" AI. > > It does seem a bit daft to try to define circumstances under which information that > the laws require be displayed face up on the table right in front of a player's face > must, by law, be not only ignored by that player, but presumed incorrect. Just consider the following situation: West does NOT alert the 1NT bid and no question is asked and no explanation is given. Consequently East receives no information on how West understands the1NT bid. But West still bids 2D! How will East now treat the 2D bid? As it was East was awoken by West's alert and explanation which is UI to East. Therefore he may no longer use the 1C opening bid by his RHO alone (although indeed being AI to him) as a wakeup of his mistake. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 27 01:02:33 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:02:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001cb44f7$cca83e20$65f8ba60$@no> Message-ID: Norman Schwarzkopf, retired American general: "Seven months ago I could give a single command and 541,000 people would immediately obey it. Today I can't get a plumber to come to my house." Sven Pran: >.....he is obliged to continue his auction as if his partner >were on line with him, i.e. responding to his 1NT as being an >opening bid. Richard Hills: Correct. Since UI from pard informed East that 1NT was a Polish overcall rather than a natural opening, Law 75A requires East to keep bidding in accordance with East's original misinterpretation. Sven Pran: >(East was even supposed to alert the 2D bid by his partner >and explain it as transfer if asked!)..... Richard Hills: Incorrect. Law 75A requires East to misbid, but _not_ to misexplain. So while East keeps bidding under her initial mistaken assumption that 1NT is natural, East is _prohibited_ from intentionally misinforming the opponents about the pre- existing mutual partnership understanding that West's 2D is a Polish response (not a transfer). WBF Laws Committee Minutes, 10th October 2008: ".....compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings." Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 27 02:34:41 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:34:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >FWIW, I don't believe it's AI, but I'm glad to see that I'm >not alone in thinking this. Of course, having stated my >view, I'm sure some will find it necessary to contradict me >for the sake of it. Richard Hills: I am contradicting Herman De Wael for the sake of it, even though I agree 100% with Herman's analysis. :-) :-) Law 16A1(a): "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source" Richard Hills: The fact that RHO opened the bidding would normally be AI under Law 16A1(a). But in this case an attempt to observe RHO's opening bid is obviously affected by information from another source. Thomas Dehn: >>L16B1 (a) kicks in, "an unexpected alert, .i.e, unexpected >>in relation to the basis of his action". Thus, East is not >>allowed to "wake up" until he gets AI that wakes him up. >> >>I've been there a few times. Follow the law, do not use the >>UI. You'll have some fun auctions to remember, and then get >>to show your card play skills in some absurd contract. >>Albeit, if like me you end up in 4C redoubled in a 1-0 fit, >>there will be only the story to tell, but no miracle. Richard Hills: Indeed. As dealer I once held a grotty balanced 6 hcp, so I opened with the obvious Pass. But partner then unexpectedly alerted my Pass. Only then did I realise we had upgraded our Strong Club system to a Strong Pass system. So for the rest of the auction I bid in accordance with our previous Strong Club methods. However, I correctly explained partner's calls in accordance with our current Strong Pass methods. I differ from Sven Pran in arguing that UI can and should be used to answer an opponent's question accurately. Or perhaps a better way of putting it is to note that Law 16A3 prohibits "base a call or play", but Law 16A3 does NOT prohibit "base an explanation" (that is, the concept of UI is only relevant when hearing explanations from partner, but the concept of UI is not relevant to you striving to give accurate explanations to the opponents). Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 27 03:36:29 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:36:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> Message-ID: Law 75A, first two sentences: "Whether or not North?s explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North?s explanation, knows that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is 'unauthorized information' (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C)." Eric Landau: [big snip] >We seem to agree that it shouldn't last beyond the end >of the auction Richard Hills: No, I disagree. Law 75A cross-references Law 73C. And the Law 73C mandate is not in any way time-limited. Law 73C does NOT say: " ... must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information during the auction, but may go hog-wild taking all sorts of advantage during the play." Eric Landau: >(although if partner wakes you up to recalling your >proper agreements after you've gotten them wrong, and >that makes them UI, why shouldn't they be just as much >UI two tables along?) [big snip] Richard Hills: Hm. It seems that Eric's "end of the auction" may in context have been a typo for "end of the play of the board". Can one have UI between boards? John (MadDog) Probst, February 2005: >>>I think all UI bets are off once a hand has been >>>scored. You can cheerfully say "O s**t, I forgot the >>>agreement, lucky it didn't cost. Can we make sure >>>we're in agreement now?" Law 16C1: "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he ..... has **yet to play**, as ..... by overhearing ..... remarks ..... the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information ...... " John (MadDog) Probst, February 2005: >>the UI doesn't relate to the board yet to play. You >>didn't hear "We play stupid carding methods" you >>heard "I wonder how many will bid the slam". The >>former is not UI related to a board yet to play, but >>the latter is. >> >>I don't give way on this one Richard :) Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 27 04:03:03 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 03:03:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Another reason for "perfectly legal" can be found > in Law 60A - Play of Card after Irregularity: > > "1. A play by a member of the non-offending side > after his RHO has led or played out of turn or > prematurely, and before rectification has been > assessed, forfeits the right to rectification of > that offence. > 2. Once the right to rectification has been > forfeited, the illegal play is **treated as > though it were in turn** (except when Law 53C > applies). > 3. If the offending side has a previous > obligation to play a penalty card, or to comply > with a lead or play restriction, the obligation > remains at future turns." > +=+ Law 60A refers to "rectification of that offence". It is clear that although there is no rectification it remains an offence, a violation of correct procedure. In Law 53C we are told that "the illegal play is treated as though it were in turn". It is stated to be an illegal play but is to be treated *as though* it were in turn. This wording does not say it *is* in turn; it remains a violation of correct procedure. I would say neither that it is an offence albeit with no rectification (and a very serious matter to knowingly and willingly commit any offence) nor that it is perfectly legal. I would say to enquirer that it is a violation of correct procedure (of Law 44B) but that in the given circumstances the laws ordain that the normal rectification for such violation shall not apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 27 05:41:57 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:41:57 +1000 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Judge: You are extremely offensive, young man. F.E. Smith: As a matter of fact, we both are, and the only difference between us is that I am trying to be, and you can't help it. Grattan Endicott: +=+ Law 60A refers to "rectification of that offence". It is clear that although there is no rectification it remains an offence, a violation of correct procedure. Richard Hills: Correct. But is the LHO of the original out-of-turn offender now also a Law 44B offender by now also playing an out-of-turn card? Grattan Endicott: In Law 60A2 we are told that "the illegal play is treated as though it were in turn". It is stated to be an illegal play but is to be treated *as though* it were in turn. This wording does not say it *is* in turn; it remains a violation of correct procedure. [snip] Richard Hills: Correct. But I would argue that "as though it were in turn" by the original out-of-turn offender means that their LHO is no longer committing another out-of-turn infraction by playing a card. An analogous auction example would be -> WEST NORTH EAST 1H 1C 1D Although East's response is insufficient compared to West's opening bid, Law 27A states that North's 1C is "treated as legal", which in turn means that East's 1D is _actually_ legal. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 27 09:07:28 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:07:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Double penalty In-Reply-To: <32353650.1282843750244.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> References: <32353650.1282843750244.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <4C776430.5010709@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Here is a live case which revives the problem of being allowed to know >> they had a misunderstanding, in an unusual way. >> >> N S >> >> KQxxx x >> Kx xx >> xx AKQx >> AKxx QJxxxx >> >> 1S 2C >> 2H 3NT >> >> 2C was semi-artificial (could have been a balanced hand and/or a raise) >> 2H wasn't alerted, because the player didn't remember the meaning >> (apparently, it was showing some number of points, or controls) >> South did remember the system, but didn't inform the opponents of the MI >> before the lead. (apparenntly wasn't aware of this obligation) >> > > I doubt the claim that S remembered the system. Sorry, I meant North. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 27 09:26:24 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:26:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> References: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> Message-ID: <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Just consider the following situation: West does NOT alert the 1NT bid and > no question is asked and no explanation is given. Consequently East receives > no information on how West understands the1NT bid. > > But West still bids 2D! > > How will East now treat the 2D bid? > Well, that depends: if East stays asleep, he will treat it as a transfer and bid 2He. But if, in the meanwhile, he has looked at the table, he will treat it as it was intended, and he is free to bid what he wants. And this is where the problem starts. The 1C bid is certainly AI. Not only that, it is information that the players can, at their time of bidding, ask a review about. They are entitled to that information. And yet, by current Law, we are asked to treat that information as UI. Which is why I would suggest that the WBF make this information AI, regardless of when and how it came to the attention of the player. > As it was East was awoken by West's alert and explanation which is UI to > East. Therefore he may no longer use the 1C opening bid by his RHO alone > (although indeed being AI to him) as a wakeup of his mistake. > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 27 09:45:55 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:45:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> References: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4C776D33.3020808@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Sven Pran wrote: > >> Just consider the following situation: West does NOT alert the 1NT bid and >> no question is asked and no explanation is given. Consequently East receives >> no information on how West understands the1NT bid. >> >> But West still bids 2D! >> >> How will East now treat the 2D bid? >> >> > > Well, that depends: if East stays asleep, he will treat it as a transfer > and bid 2He. But if, in the meanwhile, he has looked at the table, he > will treat it as it was intended, and he is free to bid what he wants. > > And this is where the problem starts. The 1C bid is certainly AI. Not > only that, it is information that the players can, at their time of > bidding, ask a review about. They are entitled to that information. And > yet, by current Law, we are asked to treat that information as UI. > > Which is why I would suggest that the WBF make this information AI, > regardless of when and how it came to the attention of the player. > > AG : perhaps, but then you'll run across cases where partner made a strange face on seeing your bid, which also created UI that would have been AI had you realized by the time. Surely you don't want to encourage this. So it's a case of keeping one door shut to avoid opening Pandora's box. Best regards Alain From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Aug 27 10:17:00 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:17:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?bid_not_seen?= In-Reply-To: <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> References: <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1Oou7R-0Qurom0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Just consider the following situation: West does NOT alert the 1NT > > bid and no question is asked and no explanation is given. > > Consequently East receives no information on how West understands > > the1NT bid. > > > > > > But West still bids 2D! > > > > How will East now treat the 2D bid? > > > > Well, that depends: if East stays asleep, he will treat it as a > transfer and bid 2He. But if, in the meanwhile, he has looked at the > table, he will treat it as it was intended, and he is free to bid what > he wants. > > And this is where the problem starts. The 1C bid is certainly AI. Not > only that, it is information that the players can, at their time of > bidding, ask a review about. They are entitled to that information. > And yet, by current Law, we are asked to treat that information as UI. > > Which is why I would suggest that the WBF make this information AI, > regardless of when and how it came to the attention of the player. Now we start to disagree ... Of course 1C is AI (has ever been, will ever be), but only in the sense that East may draw inferences from this bid regarding North's holding. The fact that East himself made a misbid and showed something different than he _intended_ is made aware to East by UI from his partner. Therefore he is bound by Law 75A (as others said before) to treat (all of) partner's bids as replies to a 1NT opening and explain them as replies to a Polish NT. These obligations have nothing to do whether 1C is AI or UI for East. > > As it was East was awoken by West's alert and explanation which is > > UI to East. Therefore he may no longer use the 1C opening bid by his > > RHO alone (although indeed being AI to him) as a wakeup of his > > mistake. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 27 11:11:08 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:11:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <1Oou7R-0Qurom0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> References: <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> <1Oou7R-0Qurom0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C77812C.2060008@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > From: Herman De Wael > >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> Just consider the following situation: West does NOT alert the 1NT >>> bid and no question is asked and no explanation is given. >>> Consequently East receives no information on how West understands >>> the1NT bid. >>> >>> >>> But West still bids 2D! >>> >>> How will East now treat the 2D bid? >>> >>> >> Well, that depends: if East stays asleep, he will treat it as a >> transfer and bid 2He. But if, in the meanwhile, he has looked at the >> table, he will treat it as it was intended, and he is free to bid what >> he wants. >> >> And this is where the problem starts. The 1C bid is certainly AI. Not >> only that, it is information that the players can, at their time of >> bidding, ask a review about. They are entitled to that information. >> And yet, by current Law, we are asked to treat that information as UI. >> >> Which is why I would suggest that the WBF make this information AI, >> regardless of when and how it came to the attention of the player. >> > > Now we start to disagree ... > > Of course 1C is AI (has ever been, will ever be), but > only in the sense that East may draw inferences from > this bid regarding North's holding. > The fact that East himself made a misbid and showed > something different than he _intended_ is made aware > to East by UI from his partner. That's the key point, of course. The fact that someone made a misbid is irrelevant in most situations (e.g. explanations), but relevant in some cases (L25) What part of the Rules say whether it is relevant here ? (no, I don't claim to have the answer) From schoderb at msn.com Fri Aug 27 13:45:12 2010 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:45:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: what a game of semantics! Now you've added :....normal rectification ...shall not apply......" which now means that the rectification spelled out in the laws which includes the LHO's right to accept the violation is NOT NORMAL. Nice segue into bending words. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Grattan Endicott **************************************************** Skype directory: grattan.endicott **************************************************** The straight and narrow? As I heard it this morning the Road Traffic Report on the radio was brought to my bedside by Nun Uthathan Louise ...... .................................................. ----- Original Message ----- From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Another reason for "perfectly legal" can be found > in Law 60A - Play of Card after Irregularity: > > "1. A play by a member of the non-offending side > after his RHO has led or played out of turn or > prematurely, and before rectification has been > assessed, forfeits the right to rectification of > that offence. > 2. Once the right to rectification has been > forfeited, the illegal play is **treated as > though it were in turn** (except when Law 53C > applies). > 3. If the offending side has a previous > obligation to play a penalty card, or to comply > with a lead or play restriction, the obligation > remains at future turns." > +=+ Law 60A refers to "rectification of that offence". It is clear that although there is no rectification it remains an offence, a violation of correct procedure. In Law 53C we are told that "the illegal play is treated as though it were in turn". It is stated to be an illegal play but is to be treated *as though* it were in turn. This wording does not say it *is* in turn; it remains a violation of correct procedure. I would say neither that it is an offence albeit with no rectification (and a very serious matter to knowingly and willingly commit any offence) nor that it is perfectly legal. I would say to enquirer that it is a violation of correct procedure (of Law 44B) but that in the given circumstances the laws ordain that the normal rectification for such violation shall not apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100827/2b437e0b/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 27 15:05:14 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:05:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Must you revoke? Message-ID: You've counted out the hand, and are certain that your RHO has no more clubs, so you are rather startled when you see him lead one. You mutter out loud, "I could have sworn he had no clubs," at which point partner says, "That's a spade." Are you required by law to play a club, revoking? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 27 15:11:46 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:11:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Must you revoke? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C77B992.6070305@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > You've counted out the hand, and are certain that your RHO has no > more clubs, so you are rather startled when you see him lead one. > You mutter out loud, "I could have sworn he had no clubs," at which > point partner says, "That's a spade." Are you required by law to > play a club, revoking? > AG : very strange situation. Surely it's not covered. I'd say that partner's remark is similar to "no more spades, partner ?". So, the answer is to the negative. And if you did, partner would hasten to ask anyway ;-) Partners aren't allowed to draw your attention to any specific incident, but I wouldn't putl the identity of the suit led into this category. Of course there are some other problems, i.e. you created UI about how many clubs you yourself hold. Best regards Alain From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Aug 27 15:16:43 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:16:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Must_you_revoke=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1OoynU-1bW3No0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> From: Eric Landau > You've counted out the hand, and are certain that your RHO has no > more clubs, so you are rather startled when you see him lead one. > You mutter out loud, "I could have sworn he had no clubs," at which > point partner says, "That's a spade." Are you required by law to > play a club, revoking? No, you are required by law to follow suit (Law 44 C) - and if you played a club, dummy may ask you whether you have any spades left. But - apart from that requirement - dummy violated Law 43 A1c), for which he may "earn" a PP; and the TD has to judge whether dummy's remark indicated any special play. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 27 15:27:41 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:27:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> References: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> Message-ID: On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >> But it is not the AI that "wakes him up"; it is the UI. Here >> partner's alert and >> explanation provided the UI that he thought 1NT was Polish; that >> was the "wake-up >> call". There was no unauthorized transmission of the information >> the North had >> opened 1C; that was communicated by the bidding card face-up in >> front of him on >> the table, which, in itself, certainly isn't a source of UI. >> >> We have a general sense that when the receipt of UI "causes" a >> player to become >> aware of previously available and entitled AI, that AI is somehow >> "tainted" (not by >> the UI itself, but by the fact of it having been transmitted) and >> cannot be >> legitimately used until some future time when becomes somehow >> "reentitled". But >> we may disagree wildly when it comes to deciding what that future >> time is, as TFLB >> offers no guidance. Here Herman suggests that the AI is tainted >> but momentarily, >> as it is entirely reasonable to presume that the player would have >> taken a second >> look at the bid cards on the table before making his next call, >> while Peter suggests >> that the taint lasts enough longer than that to suggest an >> entirely different >> adjudication. We seem to agree that it shouldn't last beyond the >> end of the >> auction (although if partner wakes you up to recalling your proper >> agreements >> after you've gotten them wrong, and that makes them UI, why >> shouldn't they be >> just as much UI two tables along?), and we also recognize that >> there are cases >> where even that's unsupportable (where we agree that the AI would >> indubitably >> have manifested at some point), leaving us grasping wildly in >> specific cases for a >> finding as to when the presumptive UI, by some ineffable process, >> "turns into" AI. >> >> It does seem a bit daft to try to define circumstances under which >> information that >> the laws require be displayed face up on the table right in front >> of a player's face >> must, by law, be not only ignored by that player, but presumed >> incorrect. > > Just consider the following situation: West does NOT alert the 1NT > bid and > no question is asked and no explanation is given. Consequently East > receives > no information on how West understands the1NT bid. > > But West still bids 2D! > > How will East now treat the 2D bid? We don't know; that's the problem. It seems awfully likely that by the time he gets to make his second call he would have noticed the opening 1C bid, which is, after all, sitting face up in front of him on the table. But it is nevertheless possible that he would have remained in a daze and failed to notice it. We can't distinguish those cases in real-life situations, so we must accept a presumption one way or the other. > As it was East was awoken by West's alert and explanation which is > UI to > East. Therefore he may no longer use the 1C opening bid by his RHO > alone > (although indeed being AI to him) as a wakeup of his mistake. If we don't presume that he would have noticed the 1C bidding card before his next call, we must decide at what point we will presume him to have done so. Never? That might work here, where "forever" is effectively only until the auction is over, but there are cases where it might matter whether he "wakes up" to the AI on the next board, or at the next table. Or we could leave it to the director to try to make a determination as to at what point the OSs' auction may have gone sufficiently awry to presume that the offender would become aware of the fact that something is wrong and figure out what happened, and adjust the score accordingly after the fact. But that takes us to Nigel-Guthrie-land, where the odds of two directors making the same adjudication in the same situation become almost vanishingly small. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 27 15:44:36 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:44:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Must you revoke? In-Reply-To: <1OoynU-1bW3No0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> References: <1OoynU-1bW3No0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000e01cb45ed$fd724040$f856c0c0$@no> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > From: Eric Landau > > You've counted out the hand, and are certain that your RHO has no > > more clubs, so you are rather startled when you see him lead one. > > You mutter out loud, "I could have sworn he had no clubs," at which > > point partner says, "That's a spade." Are you required by law to play > > a club, revoking? > > No, you are required by law to follow suit (Law 44 C) - and if you played a club, > dummy may ask you whether you have any spades left. And remember that the obligation in Law 44C "takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws". > But - apart from that requirement - dummy violated Law 43 A1c), for which he may > "earn" a PP; and the TD has to judge whether dummy's remark indicated any > special play. I should treat this as a case of Dummy exercising his right to attempt preventing declarer from committing an irregularity? From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 27 11:00:19 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:00:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <1Oou7R-0Qurom0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> References: <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> <1Oou7R-0Qurom0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C777EA3.1000101@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: >> >> Which is why I would suggest that the WBF make this information AI, >> regardless of when and how it came to the attention of the player. > > Now we start to disagree ... > > Of course 1C is AI (has ever been, will ever be), but > only in the sense that East may draw inferences from > this bid regarding North's holding. > The fact that East himself made a misbid and showed > something different than he _intended_ is made aware > to East by UI from his partner. Therefore he is bound > by Law 75A (as others said before) to treat (all of) partner's > bids as replies to a 1NT opening and explain them > as replies to a Polish NT. > > These obligations have nothing to do whether 1C is AI or UI > for East. > I understand all this, and I accept that this is what the laws currently say. But I don't believe it is what they should say, and I don't thinnk players would accept this interpretation, if they are ruled upon it. After all, it is rather silly to have to rule that a bidding card on the table is UI, when there is a law that says that a player can at any time ask for a repeat of the bidding. With the cards, he does not need to do so, so now we are going to rule that he doesn't? And never will? Quite silly, really. And impossible to explain to the players. Try it in your club, some time. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 27 10:56:11 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:56:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C776D33.3020808@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> <4C776D33.3020808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C777DAB.5050402@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> Which is why I would suggest that the WBF make this information AI, >> regardless of when and how it came to the attention of the player. >> >> > AG : perhaps, but then you'll run across cases where partner made a > strange face on seeing your bid, which also created UI that would have > been AI had you realized by the time. > Surely you don't want to encourage this. So it's a case of keeping one > door shut to avoid opening Pandora's box. > I'm not sure you understand this correctly, Alain. In the case we are talking about, the 1Cl alone is enough to make the player realize he made a mistake. No strange face or anything needed. We assume of course that player is telling the truth in not seeing the bid initially (his hand proves that) and that he knows his system (there is nothing to suggest he doesn't). If we rule that he does not see the 1Cl, ever, then he is going to have to bid very strangely from now on. I'm not sure that is a Pandora box, and I see no need to keep it closed anyway. > Best regards > > Alain -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 27 16:01:12 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:01:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: References: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> Message-ID: <4C77C528.3030208@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Just consider the following situation: West does NOT alert the 1NT >> bid and >> no question is asked and no explanation is given. Consequently East >> receives >> no information on how West understands the1NT bid. >> >> But West still bids 2D! >> >> How will East now treat the 2D bid? > > We don't know; that's the problem. It seems awfully likely that by > the time he gets to make his second call he would have noticed the > opening 1C bid, which is, after all, sitting face up in front of him > on the table. But it is nevertheless possible that he would have > remained in a daze and failed to notice it. We can't distinguish > those cases in real-life situations, so we must accept a presumption > one way or the other. > Indeed. And, at the moment, the presumption seems to be that he will never notice. Which is a silly presumption, and based solely on the fact that although we will be 90% certain that he'll notice, we need a full 100% for the L16 notion of LA. So what would be the problem with changing that presumption, and making a bid that was made always AI? I realize this needs a WBFLC interpretation, but would that be such a bad thing? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 27 16:07:58 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:07:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Must you revoke? In-Reply-To: <1OoynU-1bW3No0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> References: <1OoynU-1bW3No0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <621B62AB-15B0-4423-98B1-6DA4D9CC207E@starpower.net> On Aug 27, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Eric Landau >> You've counted out the hand, and are certain that your RHO has no >> more clubs, so you are rather startled when you see him lead one. >> You mutter out loud, "I could have sworn he had no clubs," at which >> point partner says, "That's a spade." Are you required by law to >> play a club, revoking? > > No, you are required by law to follow suit (Law 44 C) - and if > you played a club, dummy may ask you whether you have > any spades left. > > But - apart from that requirement - dummy violated Law 43 A1c), > for which he may "earn" a PP; and the TD has to judge whether > dummy's remark indicated any special play. Declarer cannot have a penalty card. But this declarer hasn't actually played a club yet. Is he required to show the defenders one of his clubs? And if you're defending? Should not one of your clubs become a penalty card? And if you must "expose" one of your clubs, doesn't the director need to determine which of your clubs you might have revoked with absent the UI? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 27 16:20:05 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:20:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C77C528.3030208@skynet.be> References: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> <4C77C528.3030208@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4C77C995.9060806@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Eric Landau wrote: > >>> Just consider the following situation: West does NOT alert the 1NT >>> bid and >>> no question is asked and no explanation is given. Consequently East >>> receives >>> no information on how West understands the1NT bid. >>> >>> But West still bids 2D! >>> >>> How will East now treat the 2D bid? >>> >> We don't know; that's the problem. It seems awfully likely that by >> the time he gets to make his second call he would have noticed the >> opening 1C bid, which is, after all, sitting face up in front of him >> on the table. But it is nevertheless possible that he would have >> remained in a daze and failed to notice it. We can't distinguish >> those cases in real-life situations, so we must accept a presumption >> one way or the other. >> >> > > Indeed. And, at the moment, the presumption seems to be that he will > never notice. Which is a silly presumption, and based solely on the fact > that although we will be 90% certain that he'll notice, we need a full > 100% for the L16 notion of LA. > > So what would be the problem with changing that presumption, and making > a bid that was made always AI? > AG : I wouldn't have quarrels with this, but how can we distinguish this case from the one where partner reminded you of the system ? After all, a quick mind could see one's interest in saying "I didn't see the 1C bid" (which one may not), if it made one less susceptible to restrictions. So we'd have to admit that partner can awaken us in the case we forgot the system, and this I don't want. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 27 16:21:39 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:21:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Must you revoke? In-Reply-To: <621B62AB-15B0-4423-98B1-6DA4D9CC207E@starpower.net> References: <1OoynU-1bW3No0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <621B62AB-15B0-4423-98B1-6DA4D9CC207E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C77C9F3.5020304@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 27, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > > >> From: Eric Landau > >> >>> You've counted out the hand, and are certain that your RHO has no >>> more clubs, so you are rather startled when you see him lead one. >>> You mutter out loud, "I could have sworn he had no clubs," at which >>> point partner says, "That's a spade." Are you required by law to >>> play a club, revoking? >>> >> No, you are required by law to follow suit (Law 44 C) - and if >> you played a club, dummy may ask you whether you have >> any spades left. >> >> But - apart from that requirement - dummy violated Law 43 A1c), >> for which he may "earn" a PP; and the TD has to judge whether >> dummy's remark indicated any special play. >> To this the answer is easy : dummy's remark indicated that you had to follow suit by playing a spade, and this can't be called "special play", can it ? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 27 16:54:08 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:54:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C777EA3.1000101@skynet.be> References: <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> <1Oou7R-0Qurom0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <4C777EA3.1000101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7B31C6F4-EB4C-4B74-9D20-2861DEB21455@starpower.net> On Aug 27, 2010, at 5:00 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>> Which is why I would suggest that the WBF make this information AI, >>> regardless of when and how it came to the attention of the player. >> >> Now we start to disagree ... >> >> Of course 1C is AI (has ever been, will ever be), but >> only in the sense that East may draw inferences from >> this bid regarding North's holding. >> The fact that East himself made a misbid and showed >> something different than he _intended_ is made aware >> to East by UI from his partner. Therefore he is bound >> by Law 75A (as others said before) to treat (all of) partner's >> bids as replies to a 1NT opening and explain them >> as replies to a Polish NT. >> >> These obligations have nothing to do whether 1C is AI or UI >> for East. > > I understand all this, and I accept that this is what the laws > currently > say. But I don't believe it is what they should say, and I don't > thinnk > players would accept this interpretation, if they are ruled upon it. > > After all, it is rather silly to have to rule that a bidding card > on the > table is UI, when there is a law that says that a player can at any > time > ask for a repeat of the bidding. With the cards, he does not need > to do > so, so now we are going to rule that he doesn't? And never will? > Quite silly, really. > And impossible to explain to the players. > Try it in your club, some time. We seek a reasonable paradigm for dealing with use of UI, and it seems realistic to (presumptively) forbid a player to make use of information which, although authorized, he had forgotten until being made aware of it by partner's inappropriate transmission of UI. But for the paradigm to feel consistent, we need to extend "had forgotten" to "was not at that moment aware of", which may, in cases like this one, render the paradigm so unrealistic as to violate anyone's notion of plain common sense. Herman is absolutely right. There is no way to justify the notion to anyone not steeped in the minutiae of BLML debates that you can be prohibited from using information that the rules require be placed, and left, face up on the table right in front of your nose. If that means introducing an inconsistent-seeming exception to the paradigm for handling use of UI, IMO, so be it. Better to sacrifice some consistency than to outrage the common sense of our players with inexplicable presumptions that sound like total nonsense. But that leaves a troubling apparent inconsistency: In otherwise identical situations, we will make very different adjudications depending on whether the auction was conducted with bid boxes or verbally. Inconsistent as that may seem, however, it does reflect reality, and can be readily justified by applying L12C1(e); we need only decide that it is "at all probable" that a player bidding verbally would neither recall the auction nor ask for a review prior to his next call absent the UI from partner, but not at all probable that he would fail to notice that bidding card sitting face up on the table in front of him. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 27 17:11:52 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:11:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C77C995.9060806@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> <4C77C528.3030208@skynet.be> <4C77C995.9060806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <9FCE753C-A180-4B31-9C74-CF858502E9C4@starpower.net> On Aug 27, 2010, at 10:20 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>> Just consider the following situation: West does NOT alert the 1NT >>>> bid and >>>> no question is asked and no explanation is given. Consequently East >>>> receives >>>> no information on how West understands the1NT bid. >>>> >>>> But West still bids 2D! >>>> >>>> How will East now treat the 2D bid? >>> >>> We don't know; that's the problem. It seems awfully likely that by >>> the time he gets to make his second call he would have noticed the >>> opening 1C bid, which is, after all, sitting face up in front of him >>> on the table. But it is nevertheless possible that he would have >>> remained in a daze and failed to notice it. We can't distinguish >>> those cases in real-life situations, so we must accept a presumption >>> one way or the other. >> >> Indeed. And, at the moment, the presumption seems to be that he will >> never notice. Which is a silly presumption, and based solely on >> the fact >> that although we will be 90% certain that he'll notice, we need a >> full >> 100% for the L16 notion of LA. >> >> So what would be the problem with changing that presumption, and >> making >> a bid that was made always AI? > > AG : I wouldn't have quarrels with this, but how can we distinguish > this > case from the one where partner reminded you of the system ? After > all, > a quick mind could see one's interest in saying "I didn't see the 1C > bid" (which one may not), if it made one less susceptible to > restrictions. > So we'd have to admit that partner can awaken us in the case we forgot > the system, and this I don't want. You have forgotten that you play 10-12 1NT openings with your current partner. You pick up a balanced 16-count and open 1NT. Partner announces "10-12". Although your agreed range is in itself AI, you have been reminded of it by partner's remark, and therefore must treat it as UI. So you continue to bid and play as though you had not been awakened by partner's announcement, as though the announcement had never been made. The deal ends with not enough time left on the clock for discussion, so you immediately pick up your cards for the next board. You are the dealer and hold a balanced 16-count. Are you obliged to open 1NT? If not, why not? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Fri Aug 27 18:39:15 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:39:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> References: <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <13968172.1282927155338.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 26, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Herman De Wael > > > >> Peter Eidt wrote: > >> > >>> From: Herman De Wael > >>> > >>>> The bidding starts: > >>>> N:1Cl - E:1NT - alert& explanation asked and given: Polish NT > >>>> (diamonds and a major) > >>>> > >>>> Oops! says East, I did not see the opening bid. > >>>> > >>>> Of course he should not have said this, and we tell West that > >>>> this is > >>>> UI to him. > >>>> > >>>> The bidding continues: > >>>> > >>>> S:pass - W:2Di (a bid which is correct with his hand opposite the > >>>> Polish NT) > >>>> N:pass - E:??? > >>>> > >>>> 2Di is transfer over a 1NT opening. Is East obliged to bid 2He? > >>> > >>> "Sure" ;-) > >>> > >>> Although he is (technically) not obliged to bid exactly 2He, > >>> he is obliged to bid as if West has shown 5+ cards in hearts. > >>> So he might make some form of "superaccept" instead. > >>> > >>> West's Alert and explanation are UI to East - so what's > >>> the problem here, Herman?? > >> > >> The problem is that East also has information that tells him > >> everything > >> he needs to know: the 1C bid which is lying on the table in front of > >> him. Do we accept that this is AI or not? > > > > L16B1 (a) kicks in, "an unexpected alert, .i.e, unexpected in > > relation to the basis of his action". > > Thus, East is not allowed to "wake up" until he gets AI that wakes > > him up. > > But it is not the AI that "wakes him up"; it is the UI. Here > partner's alert and explanation provided the UI that he thought 1NT > was Polish; that was the "wake-up call". There was no unauthorized > transmission of the information the North had opened 1C; that was > communicated by the bidding card face-up in front of him on the > table, which, in itself, certainly isn't a source of UI. > > We have a general sense that when the receipt of UI "causes" a player > to become aware of previously available and entitled AI, that AI is > somehow "tainted" (not by the UI itself, but by the fact of it having > been transmitted) and cannot be legitimately used until some future > time when becomes somehow "reentitled". But we may disagree wildly > when it comes to deciding what that future time is, as TFLB offers no > guidance. Here Herman suggests that the AI is tainted but > momentarily, as it is entirely reasonable to presume that the player > would have taken a second look at the bid cards on the table before > making his next call, while Peter suggests that the taint lasts > enough longer than that to suggest an entirely different > adjudication. It is somewhat difficult to predict at which point the player would have noticed the opening bid he had overlooked before bidding 1NT. I think that, especially when playing with screens, or when bidding boxes are not used, it can happen easily that the player does not notice that bid until some review of the auction. I am not sure that matter, though. This example is a bit unusual because the player said that he overlooked the 1C bid. Normally, if he follows the law and is silent, the TD would assume that he overcalled 1NT thinking it is natural, and strong evidence would be needed to convince the TD that the player remembered that 1NT was raptor, and overcalled 1NT only because he overlooked the opening bid. Frequently the TD would rule MI per L21B1(b). As a general principle, a player who commits an additional infraction by saying that he overlooked 1C should not get a better ruling than somebody who does not comment partner's unexpected alert. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 27 18:41:34 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:41:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <7B31C6F4-EB4C-4B74-9D20-2861DEB21455@starpower.net> References: <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> <1Oou7R-0Qurom0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <4C777EA3.1000101@skynet.be> <7B31C6F4-EB4C-4B74-9D20-2861DEB21455@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C77EABE.6040004@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Herman is absolutely right. There is no way to justify the notion to > anyone not steeped in the minutiae of BLML debates that you can be > prohibited from using information that the rules require be placed, > and left, face up on the table right in front of your nose. If that > means introducing an inconsistent-seeming exception to the paradigm > for handling use of UI, IMO, so be it. Better to sacrifice some > consistency than to outrage the common sense of our players with > inexplicable presumptions that sound like total nonsense. > > But that leaves a troubling apparent inconsistency: In otherwise > identical situations, we will make very different adjudications > depending on whether the auction was conducted with bid boxes or > verbally. Inconsistent as that may seem, however, it does reflect > reality, and can be readily justified by applying L12C1(e); we need > only decide that it is "at all probable" that a player bidding > verbally would neither recall the auction nor ask for a review prior > to his next call absent the UI from partner, but not at all probable > that he would fail to notice that bidding card sitting face up on the > table in front of him. > Actually, Eric, there is no such inconsistency. With spoken bidding, a player may also happen to not hear the 1Cl opening, and the same thing can happen. Since a player has, at all times, the right to ask for a repeat of the bidding, why should we rule that this player is forbidden from asking it (or hearing when someone else asks) just because he has received UI that he will hear something unexpected. I don't think a rule that says: "bids actually made are AI, regardless of how a player learns about them" would be too bad, in whatever physical way of making the bids. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 27 18:43:46 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:43:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C77C995.9060806@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> <4C77C528.3030208@skynet.be> <4C77C995.9060806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C77EB42.9050607@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> So what would be the problem with changing that presumption, and making >> a bid that was made always AI? >> > AG : I wouldn't have quarrels with this, but how can we distinguish this > case from the one where partner reminded you of the system ? After all, > a quick mind could see one's interest in saying "I didn't see the 1C > bid" (which one may not), if it made one less susceptible to restrictions. > So we'd have to admit that partner can awaken us in the case we forgot > the system, and this I don't want. A valid fear, and the TD will need to distinguish between the two cases. but surely you can imagine situations in which the TD would believe the player? And do you really want to have to rule "I believe you 100%, but the laws tell me I cannot rule in your favour?". -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Fri Aug 27 18:49:37 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:49:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <9FCE753C-A180-4B31-9C74-CF858502E9C4@starpower.net> References: <9FCE753C-A180-4B31-9C74-CF858502E9C4@starpower.net> <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> <4C77C528.3030208@skynet.be> <4C77C995.9060806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <16898138.1282927777035.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau > You have forgotten that you play 10-12 1NT openings with your current > partner. You pick up a balanced 16-count and open 1NT. Partner > announces "10-12". Although your agreed range is in itself AI, you > have been reminded of it by partner's remark, and therefore must > treat it as UI. So you continue to bid and play as though you had > not been awakened by partner's announcement, as though the > announcement had never been made. > > The deal ends with not enough time left on the clock for discussion, > so you immediately pick up your cards for the next board. You are > the dealer and hold a balanced 16-count. Are you obliged to open > 1NT? If not, why not? I say you are not obliged to open 1NT because of L16A1(d). The announcement from the previous board evidently is information the player possessed before he took his hand from the next board. I don't see anything in TFLB that explicitly states that this information cannot be used in the next board, thus it is AI. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 27 18:50:20 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:50:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <13968172.1282927155338.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <13968172.1282927155338.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4C77ECCC.3040705@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Aug 26, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael >>> >>>> Peter Eidt wrote: >>>> >>>>> From: Herman De Wael >>>>> >>>>>> The bidding starts: >>>>>> N:1Cl - E:1NT - alert& explanation asked and given: Polish NT >>>>>> (diamonds and a major) >>>>>> >>>>>> Oops! says East, I did not see the opening bid. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course he should not have said this, and we tell West that >>>>>> this is >>>>>> UI to him. >>>>>> >>>>>> The bidding continues: >>>>>> >>>>>> S:pass - W:2Di (a bid which is correct with his hand opposite the >>>>>> Polish NT) >>>>>> N:pass - E:??? >>>>>> >>>>>> 2Di is transfer over a 1NT opening. Is East obliged to bid 2He? >>>>> >>>>> "Sure" ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Although he is (technically) not obliged to bid exactly 2He, >>>>> he is obliged to bid as if West has shown 5+ cards in hearts. >>>>> So he might make some form of "superaccept" instead. >>>>> >>>>> West's Alert and explanation are UI to East - so what's >>>>> the problem here, Herman?? >>>> >>>> The problem is that East also has information that tells him >>>> everything >>>> he needs to know: the 1C bid which is lying on the table in front of >>>> him. Do we accept that this is AI or not? >>> >>> L16B1 (a) kicks in, "an unexpected alert, .i.e, unexpected in >>> relation to the basis of his action". >>> Thus, East is not allowed to "wake up" until he gets AI that wakes >>> him up. >> >> But it is not the AI that "wakes him up"; it is the UI. Here >> partner's alert and explanation provided the UI that he thought 1NT >> was Polish; that was the "wake-up call". There was no unauthorized >> transmission of the information the North had opened 1C; that was >> communicated by the bidding card face-up in front of him on the >> table, which, in itself, certainly isn't a source of UI. >> >> We have a general sense that when the receipt of UI "causes" a player >> to become aware of previously available and entitled AI, that AI is >> somehow "tainted" (not by the UI itself, but by the fact of it having >> been transmitted) and cannot be legitimately used until some future >> time when becomes somehow "reentitled". But we may disagree wildly >> when it comes to deciding what that future time is, as TFLB offers no >> guidance. Here Herman suggests that the AI is tainted but >> momentarily, as it is entirely reasonable to presume that the player >> would have taken a second look at the bid cards on the table before >> making his next call, while Peter suggests that the taint lasts >> enough longer than that to suggest an entirely different >> adjudication. > > It is somewhat difficult to predict at which point > the player would have noticed the opening bid > he had overlooked before bidding 1NT. > > I think that, especially when playing with screens, or > when bidding boxes are not used, it can happen > easily that the player does not notice that bid > until some review of the auction. I am not sure > that matter, though. > > This example is a bit unusual because the player > said that he overlooked the 1C bid. Normally, if he > follows the law and is silent, the TD would assume > that he overcalled 1NT thinking it is natural, and > strong evidence would be needed to convince the > TD that the player remembered that 1NT was raptor, > and overcalled 1NT only because he overlooked > the opening bid. Frequently the TD would rule MI per L21B1(b). > > As a general principle, a player who commits an additional > infraction by saying that he overlooked 1C should not get > a better ruling than somebody who does not comment partner's > unexpected alert. > > Also a valid concern. And I accept that the system here would make the two explanations possible. Something TDs should be warned about. But I can imagine there are caases where the "opening" meaning would never be possible in the "overcall" position. > > > Thomas > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Aug 27 20:18:36 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:18:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?bid_not_seen?= In-Reply-To: <4C77EB42.9050607@skynet.be> References: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> <4C77C528.3030208@skynet.be> <4C77C995.9060806@ulb.ac.be> <4C77EB42.9050607@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1Op3Vc-0Pn1Oa0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> > >> So what would be the problem with changing that presumption, and > making >> a bid that was made always AI? > >> > > > AG : I wouldn't have quarrels with this, but how can we distinguish > > this case from the one where partner reminded you of the system ? > > After all, a quick mind could see one's interest in saying "I didn't > > see the 1C bid" (which one may not), if it made one less susceptible > > to restrictions. > > So we'd have to admit that partner can awaken us in the case we > > forgot the system, and this I don't want. > > > > A valid fear, and the TD will need to distinguish between the two > cases. > but surely you can imagine situations in which the TD would believe > the player? And do you really want to have to rule "I believe you > 100%, but the laws tell me I cannot rule in your favour?". Yes, why not. Or what do you tell a player who comitted a revoke and tells you honestly "I did not make it on purpose, and - as you can find out - it did not even cost the opponents a single trick" (which is true). ? From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Aug 28 00:06:53 2010 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:06:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C77EB42.9050607@skynet.be> References: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> <4C77C528.3030208@skynet.be> <4C77C995.9060806@ulb.ac.be> <4C77EB42.9050607@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4C7836FD.5070708@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> So what would be the problem with changing that presumption, and making >>> a bid that was made always AI? >>> >> AG : I wouldn't have quarrels with this, but how can we distinguish this >> case from the one where partner reminded you of the system ? After all, >> a quick mind could see one's interest in saying "I didn't see the 1C >> bid" (which one may not), if it made one less susceptible to restrictions. >> So we'd have to admit that partner can awaken us in the case we forgot >> the system, and this I don't want. > > A valid fear, and the TD will need to distinguish between the two cases. > but surely you can imagine situations in which the TD would believe the > player? So what? Let the best actor win? That can't be right. Say I play natural NT overcalls versus major suit opening bids, but Polish NT (5+ other minor + unknown 4 card major) vs. minor suit openings. Now I would like to bid a natural NT vs. 1C, holding 5 diamonds. So I do, because I didn't see the opening bid... If partner is strong enouh for game he will probably cue-bid, I can pass his 2D, and have to wend my way out of it if he bids a major. Maybe not the best situation in the world, but certainly not the worst. I bet you any amount I can afford that I can convince you that I am absolutely honest. I could even convince Peter, but I would not try, because it would not help me. Wrong director. Now this Polish NT may not be the best example in the world, others may be able to come up with better ideas. What worries me is that cheaters could come up with better ideas (and they probably would, because they are less lazy to hink about this than I am). > And do you really want to have to rule "I believe you 100%, but > the laws tell me I cannot rule in your favour?". > I have done so lots of times, and never had the slightest problem with it. If you explain that the laws are there to catch any cheater but, sadly, sometimes catch innocent people, too, then players understand and agree. In my experience, at least. Best regards Matthias From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 28 03:38:21 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:38:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a day in the life (trying to win an argument) Message-ID: The question was the expiration of the right to tell partner he has a trick facing the wrong way. (When the player is not declarer.) I said it was after the lead to the next trick; the person I was talking to said it was after the side involved plays to the next trick. I really thought that the lawbook would settle the question. I get that I cannot convince people to change their mind about religion or politics. I once tried to convince a bright fellow that he was not being poisoned by the CIA. I completely failed, which caused me to pretty much gave up on convincing people. But this seemed so obvious to me that I got sucked into hope. The actual law: "Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the next trick." She said she disagreed with my interpretation. She pointed out that in the laws, a side always has until they play to the next trick before their rights expired. Otherwise a player from the other side could notice the error and lead quickly. She said the intention was for the right to expire for a side when that side played to the next trick. But she did say she would check with the local expert. I guess that is a good way to settle differences in interpretation. From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 28 05:23:35 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 05:23:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a day in the life (trying to win an argument) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001cb4660$6666d0d0$33347270$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > The question was the expiration of the right to tell partner he has a trick facing the > wrong way. (When the player is not declarer.) I said it was after the lead to the > next trick; the person I was talking to said it was after the side involved plays to the > next trick. > > I really thought that the lawbook would settle the question. I get that I cannot > convince people to change their mind about religion or politics. I once tried to > convince a bright fellow that he was not being poisoned by the CIA. I completely > failed, which caused me to pretty much gave up on convincing people. But this > seemed so obvious to me that I got sucked into hope. > > The actual law: > > "Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but > for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the next trick." > > She said she disagreed with my interpretation. She pointed out that in the laws, a > side always has until they play to the next trick before their rights expired. > Otherwise a player from the other side could notice the error and lead quickly. > She said the intention was for the right to expire for a side when that side played > to the next trick. > > But she did say she would check with the local expert. I guess that is a good way > to settle differences in interpretation. "a side always has until they play to the next trick before their rights expired." Apparently she is thinking of law 63A1 about establishing a revoke. This law explicitly states "the offender or his partner". You refer to Law 65B3 and this law means exactly what it says: "when a lead is made to the next trick". It doesn't matter which side makes such lead. Regards Sven From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Sat Aug 28 06:27:47 2010 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:27:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a day in the life (trying to win an argument) In-Reply-To: <000001cb4660$6666d0d0$33347270$@no> References: <000001cb4660$6666d0d0$33347270$@no> Message-ID: <000001cb4669$5f6a8d40$1e3fa7c0$@com> Sven writes: "a side always has until they play to the next trick before their rights expired." Apparently she is thinking of law 63A1 about establishing a revoke. This law explicitly states "the offender or his partner". You refer to Law 65B3 and this law means exactly what it says: "when a lead is made to the next trick". It doesn't matter which side makes such lead. ___________________________________________________________________________ And look at Laws 66A and 66B: 66A: So long as his side had not led to the next trick... 66B: Until a card is led to the next trick... I think law makers wrote exactly what they intended in Laws 65 and 66 and the text of 65B3 is clear: ..."for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick." A lead is a lead..... Laval Du Breuil From blml at arcor.de Sat Aug 28 11:52:24 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:52:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C7836FD.5070708@t-online.de> References: <4C7836FD.5070708@t-online.de> <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <6530333.1282844855327.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <87BF61FE-0DB3-4AAE-83DA-4992C1DD4FCB@starpower.net> <000901cb456e$d841a150$88c4e3f0$@no> <4C77C528.3030208@skynet.be> <4C77C995.9060806@ulb.ac.be> <4C77EB42.9050607@skynet.be> Message-ID: <24476977.1282989144440.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>> So what would be the problem with changing that presumption, and making > >>> a bid that was made always AI? > >>> > >> AG : I wouldn't have quarrels with this, but how can we distinguish this > >> case from the one where partner reminded you of the system ? After all, > >> a quick mind could see one's interest in saying "I didn't see the 1C > >> bid" (which one may not), if it made one less susceptible to > restrictions. > >> So we'd have to admit that partner can awaken us in the case we forgot > >> the system, and this I don't want. > > > > A valid fear, and the TD will need to distinguish between the two cases. > > but surely you can imagine situations in which the TD would believe the > > player? > > So what? Let the best actor win? That can't be right. Say I play natural > NT overcalls versus major suit opening bids, but Polish NT (5+ other > minor + unknown 4 card major) vs. minor suit openings. Now I would like > to bid a natural NT vs. 1C, holding 5 diamonds. So I do, because I > didn't see the opening bid... If partner is strong enouh for game he > will probably cue-bid, I can pass his 2D, and have to wend my way out of > it if he bids a major. Maybe not the best situation in the world, but > certainly not the worst. I bet you any amount I can afford that I can > convince you that I am absolutely honest. I could even convince Peter, > but I would not try, because it would not help me. Wrong director. > > Now this Polish NT may not be the best example in the world, others may > be able to come up with better ideas. What worries me is that cheaters > could come up with better ideas (and they probably would, because they > are less lazy to hink about this than I am). I think I am able to come up with a reasonable example that requires merely the type of dishonesty a TD might encounter more often than actual deliberate cheating. See below. > > And do you really want to have to rule "I believe you 100%, but > > the laws tell me I cannot rule in your favour?". > > > I have done so lots of times, and never had the slightest problem with > it. If you explain that the laws are there to catch any cheater but, > sadly, sometimes catch innocent people, too, then players understand and > agree. In my experience, at least. A well-known general principle behind TFLB is that to make a ruling the TD normally does not have to accuse the players of deliberate cheating, or of lying to the TD. TFLB is worded carefully as to avoid putting the TD into such a difficult position. The TD simply rules against the OS provided the requirements specified in TFLB are met, and typically no accusation of cheating is made. Consider the following scenario: A pair plays that a 1S overcall over a 1C opener that shows 4+ clubs is natural, 5+ spades. A 1S overcall over a 1C opener that can contain hands with three or fewer clubs is a canape overcall. RHO opens 1C, the player notices the 1C opener, but does not notice that it does not promise 4+ clubs, because it was of a variation that did not have to be alerted. He overcalls a natural 1S. His partner alerts 1S as canape, thus waking him up, and creating UI. Later, when the TD is called, the player, familiar with this topic, claims that he overcalled 1S because he overlooked the 1C opener, and that he would have noticed the 1C opener on his own. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 28 12:39:09 2010 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:39:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a day in the life (trying to win an argument) References: <000001cb4660$6666d0d0$33347270$@no> <000001cb4669$5f6a8d40$1e3fa7c0$@com> Message-ID: <09DF0D68819D476EB7594E4D2A445FAC@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 5:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] a day in the life (trying to win an argument) > Sven writes: > > "a side always has until they play to the next trick before their rights > expired." > Apparently she is thinking of law 63A1 about establishing a revoke. This > law > explicitly states "the offender or his partner". > > You refer to Law 65B3 and this law means exactly what it says: "when a > lead > is made to the next trick". It doesn't matter which side makes such lead. > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > And look at Laws 66A and 66B: > > 66A: So long as his side had not led to the next trick... > 66B: Until a card is led to the next trick... > > I think law makers wrote exactly what they intended in Laws 65 and 66 > and the text of 65B3 is clear: ..."for these players the right expires > when a lead is made to the following trick." A lead is a lead..... > > Laval Du Breuil > +=+ And, to be clear, a lead is a lead whether it is made from the correct hand or not. A lead by either side is a lead. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 28 17:00:52 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:00:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a day in the life (trying to win an argument) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C7924A4.9090105@nhcc.net> On 8/27/2010 9:38 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > "Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed > incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made > to the next trick." ... > a side always has until they play to the next trick before their > rights expired. The Laws should all have been written that way, but for whatever reason, some of them weren't. A famous example from the past was L25B, and as others have pointed out, there are several still in TFLB. Your player is right that this is undesirable, but we seem to be stuck with it until 2017 or so. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 28 17:31:45 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:31:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] interpretation of the second "meaning" in L27B1b Message-ID: Sorry for the long essay. Been thinking about this all week. I think this is an ambiguity in the laws. It seems rare, but it did come up at the table for me. The actual auction: 1C 2NT(1) P 2C(2) 1. Unusual no trump for the two lowest suits. 2. Did not see the 1C opening. She even explained 2NT as 20-21 HCP. She meant to bid Stayman over 2NT. At the table, I ruled that the 3C replacement did not bar partner. This matches BLML, where the initial discussion was whether or not 3C is allowed as a replacement bid over an opening 2NT. Later, I realized that, on the actual auction, 3C is not Stayman. Then I began to question that ruling. As perhaps Richard and Eric were doing more recently. L27B1(b) requires determining the meaning of the replacement bid: "If ... the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning as or a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid..... It is really natural to assume that the "meaning" of the insufficient bid and the "meaning" of the replacement bid are calculated in the same way. That's a principle of English, right? But, for L20F1 purposes, the meaning of the replacement bid is its meaning in the actual auction. L20F1 doesn't use the word "meaning", however. Is that relevant? So to me, the sophisticated interpretation of L27B1(b) is that the meaning of the replacement bid as it's meaning in the actual auction. And hence the 3Cl replacement bars partner. However, using 'the meaning in the actual auction' creates a lot of problems. I think Herman might have already jumped to one of these problems in his reply. In the above, telling the player that the 3C replacement bars partner essentially tells the player about the 1Cl opening. This would allow the player to make a 3D replacement call and avoid a disasterous auction. However, the director does not want to tell the player that 3Cl does not bar partner and then after that bid is made rule that it does bar partner. Here is another nightmare: 4C 4H P 4NT 5C 5C You take the insufficient bidder aside, find out that he did not see the 5C overcall and 5C meant no aces. According to their system, he now shows one ace by doubling. You allow this bid as not barring partner and leave the table feeling that you have done your job right. But you overhear the double being explained as being penalty. Because they have some odd convention that on this auction, 4NT was not Blackwood. Obviously, we directors are not going to also take the insufficient bidder's partner aside to find out if the sufficient bidder explained the auction and their system correctly. That would slow down every insufficient bid ruling, just for the sake of this rare situation. So the "sophisticated" interpretation doesn't seem practical. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 28 17:36:17 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:36:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] interpretation of the second "meaning" in L27B1b [small correction] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:31:45 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > Sorry for the long essay. Been thinking about this all week. I think this > is an ambiguity in the laws. It seems rare, but it did come up at the > table for me. The actual auction: > > 1C 2NT(1) P 2C(2) > > > 1. Unusual no trump for the two lowest suits. > 2. Did not see the 1C opening. She even explained 2NT as 20-21 HCP. She > meant to bid Stayman over 2NT. > > > At the table, I ruled that the 3C replacement did not bar partner. This > matches BLML, where the initial discussion was whether or not 3C is > allowed as a replacement bid over an opening 2NT. > > Later, I realized that, on the actual auction, 3C is not Stayman. Then I > began to question that ruling. As perhaps Richard and Eric were doing > more > recently. > > L27B1(b) requires determining the meaning of the replacement bid: "If ... > the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the > Director's > opinion has the same meaning as or a more precise meaning than the > insufficient bid..... > > It is really natural to assume that the "meaning" of the insufficient bid > and the "meaning" of the replacement bid are calculated in the same way. > That's a principle of English, right? > > But, for L20F1 purposes, the meaning of the replacement bid is its > meaning > in the actual auction. L20F1 doesn't use the word "meaning", however. Is > that relevant? > > So to me, the sophisticated interpretation of L27B1(b) is that the > meaning > of the replacement bid as it's meaning in the actual auction. And hence > the 3Cl replacement bars partner. > > However, using 'the meaning in the actual auction' creates a lot of > problems. I think Herman might have already jumped to one of these > problems in his reply. In the above, telling the player that the 3C > replacement bars partner essentially tells the player about the 1Cl > opening. This would allow the player to make a 3D replacement call and > avoid a disasterous auction. However, the director does not want to tell > the player that 3Cl does not bar partner and then after that bid is made > rule that it does bar partner. > > Here is another nightmare: > > 4C 4H P 4NT > 5C 5C > > You take the insufficient bidder aside, find out that he did not see the > 5C overcall and 5C meant no aces. According to their system, he now shows > one ace no aces. Sorry by doubling. You allow this bid as not barring partner and leave > the table feeling that you have done your job right. But you overhear the > double being explained as being penalty. Because they have some odd > convention that on this auction, 4NT was not Blackwood. > > Obviously, we directors are not going to also take the insufficient > bidder's partner aside to find out if the sufficient bidder explained the > auction and their system correctly. That would slow down every > insufficient bid ruling, just for the sake of this rare situation. > > So the "sophisticated" interpretation doesn't seem practical. > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 28 17:45:21 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:45:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> References: <4C761B70.9060102@skynet.be> <1OoXuH-1G540u0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <4C762FC3.9080809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4C792F11.2020704@nhcc.net> On 8/26/2010 5:11 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > ...the 1C bid which is lying on the table in front of > him. Do we accept that this is AI or not? The rules about UI vastly changed in 2007, so nothing before that is guaranteed to apply. The relevant law appears to be 16C3: "No player may base a call or play on other information," combined with the fact that the 1C bid is not identified as authorized in any other law. The closest is 16A1a, "it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source," but _this_ 1C bid is affected. I suppose there could be debate about the exact meaning of "affected," and certainly it could be the subject of a WBFLC interpretation, but it looks to me as though the 1C bid -- face up on the table and all -- is UI to the player in question for the duration of the deal. The alternative would be to read "affected" more narrowly, in which case the 1C bid would be AI from the beginning. I don't see any justification for "when would he have woken up" type of questions, though. On 8/26/2010 4:45 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > why shouldn't [bidding methods] be just as much UI two tables along? This, at least, has an easy answer: L16A1d: "it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board...." The phrase "the board" must mean each individual board, so even if something -- anything -- is UI during a particular board, it becomes AI if you manage to remember it at the start of the next board. On 8/27/2010 4:17 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > he is bound > by Law 75A (as others said before) to treat (all of) partner's > bids as replies to a 1NT opening and explain them > as replies to a Polish NT. No, the UI rules restrict only choices of calls and plays. Explanations should always be given according to the correct system, no matter how the player learns of any mistake he may have made. On 8/27/2010 10:54 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > There is no way to justify the notion to > anyone not steeped in the minutiae of BLML debates that you can be > prohibited from using information that the rules require be placed, > and left, face up on the table right in front of your nose. Yep! Most players will have a very hard time understanding the rules as they are. > Better to sacrifice some > consistency than to outrage the common sense of our players with > inexplicable presumptions that sound like total nonsense. There is an easy way to keep both consistency (in fact improve it over the current situation) and common sense: make all _correct_ alerts and explanations AI. This would be a radical change from current practice but not at all from the tradition of the game. There was no such thing as UI prior to 1975, and from 1975 to 1987, correct alerts and explanations were a very mild form of UI. The current regime began in 1987 and was made much stricter (or at least clarified to be so strict) in 2007. The situation we have now is that "expected" alerts and non- alerts are AI, but all explanations are UI. That is both inconsistent and creates several complications, including those discussed in this thread. Jeff Rubens has been advocating this position for years, but few others seem to agree with him. I suppose we'll have to wait until at least 2017 for his view to prevail. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 28 18:02:43 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:02:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C793323.4010006@nhcc.net> [defender plays out of turn after declarer has played from both hands] On 8/26/2010 10:03 PM, Grattan wrote: > I would say neither that it is an offence albeit > with no rectification ... nor that > it is perfectly legal. I don't think this is very helpful. It seems to me the defender's play is either a) perfectly legal, and he's free to do it if he sees an advantage, or b) illegal, albeit with no mechanical rectification. However, if it's b, the score should still be adjusted under L12A1 if the out-of-turn play gains. > Law 60A refers to "rectification of that offence". > It is clear that although there is no rectification it > remains an offence, a violation of correct procedure. This seems to argue for b. Is everyone else in agreement with that? From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Aug 28 18:06:25 2010 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:06:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?out_of_order_=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <4C793323.4010006@nhcc.net> References: <4C793323.4010006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <1OpNvF-0oAbEu0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> From: Steve Willner > [defender plays out of turn after declarer has played from both hands] > > On 8/26/2010 10:03 PM, Grattan wrote: > > I would say neither that it is an offence albeit > > with no rectification ... nor that > > it is perfectly legal. > > I don't think this is very helpful. It seems to me the defender's > play is either a) perfectly legal, and he's free to do it if he sees > an advantage, or b) illegal, albeit with no mechanical rectification. > However, if it's b, the score should still be adjusted under L12A1 if > the out-of-turn play gains. > > > Law 60A refers to "rectification of that offence". > > It is clear that although there is no rectification it > > remains an offence, a violation of correct procedure. > > This seems to argue for b. Is everyone else in agreement with that? not me From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 28 18:11:12 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:11:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L27B1(b) with a twist In-Reply-To: <60643AF7-2881-46C4-B4A8-2DD42629730D@starpower.net> References: <60643AF7-2881-46C4-B4A8-2DD42629730D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C793520.8070305@nhcc.net> On 8/26/2010 10:20 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > L27B1(b) refers to the "meaning" of the IBer's calls. Yes, it requires comparing the "meaning" of the IB and the (potential) replacement call. > Where the word "meaning" is used elsewhere in TFLB in the context of > interpreting a call ... it clearly seems to refer to the meaning by agreement I don't think that's a good argument because it would make L27B1 essentially unenforceable. As a practical matter, the Director is going to take the IB'er away from the table and quiz him to determine the respective meanings. IB'er is going to answer in the context of his own (mis-)understanding of the auction and system. As Robert writes later, it is impractical for the Director to take further time to check whether the IB'er's understanding is mistaken. I think the meaning of 'meaning' has to rely on its context in each individual law. That's true for other words that aren't in the Definitions; why shouldn't it be true of this one? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Aug 28 21:09:10 2010 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:09:10 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Old-fashioned Standard American [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: >From Richard Hills: > Marvin French: > > [snip] > >>Question: How do I satisfy L40C in regard to psychs? The ACBL no >>longer provides "regulations governing disclosure of system" for >>psychs. How about this on my convention card: >> >>Occasional long-suit psychs of opening bids in first seat, and >>of major suit responses over a double, usually with favorable >>vulnerability. >> >>Would that suffice? > > Richard Hills: > > No. The popular understanding of the word "psyche" - a player > holding cards inconsistent with the typical meaning of that > player's call - is dissonant with the technical Lawful meaning > of "psyche" - a gross distortion of the mutually agreed system. That is your own definition. In the Laws' Definitions a psychic call is a gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length. The popular understanding of the word "psyche" is not my understanding. Psyche (two syllables) was a Greek goddess of the soul. The word has numerous other meanings, none with the pronunciation "sike." Those of us who took a psychology course referred to it as psych for short, not psyche. Dorothy Rice Sims is credited with initiating what she called psychic bidding, referring to such bids as "psychological bids," "also shortened to psyching, with "psychic," later psych, as the noun. The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge uses this spelling, thanks to editor Alan Truscott. I don't know who tacked on the "e," or why. Perhaps the same person who turned "preventive" into "preventative." It gives me a headache. Ah, there's the answer. Someone thought that "psych" should be pronounced "sick" without an "e" on the end to make the "i" long. However, all the words beginning with "psy" in my dictionary give the pronunciation "sigh," regardless of the rest of the word. RTFD. > > If a call is systemic enough to require disclosure on the > partnership's System Cards, under Law that call is too systemic > to be deemed to be a psyche (thus the fully disclosed pseudo- > psychic call may still be unLawful if contrary to a Law 40B2(a) > regulation). The ACBL has a 24-page document (Conventional Wisdom) telling players how to fill out the ACBL convention card. There is no mention of psychs, so my suggestion to include psych propensity on the CC is voluntary, not required. It was required at one time, when the CC had four boxes for psychs labeled Never, Rare, Occasional, and Frequent. The anti-psych coterie got them deleted, probably feeling that this was an endorsement of psychs, which they hated. Why not disclose such things in advance? So what does the ACBL tell TDs about this subject? From Duplicate Decisions, A Club Director's Guide for Ruling at the Table: Excessive Psychic Bidding--When three or more psychic initial actions by members of a partnership have been reported in any one session..., the Director should investigate the possibility that excessive psyching is taking place. It is up to the players to demonstrate that they were not just horsing around, to show that they happened, this once, to pick up a string of hands unusually appropriate for psychs. Score adjustments should be made only when the result was affected because the partner, due to previous experience, may have allowed for the psychic call. ### In other words, there must be possible evidence of "fielding" the psych. For a single player the criterion is two or more psychs in a session. Frivolous or unsportsmanlike psyching (well-defined) is not allowed. Tactical bids (e.g., a fake cue bid) are not considered to be psychs. Players are not instructed to report psychs by opponents (but many do), so perhaps psychers should be required to do that. It seems that my very infrequent psychs are acceptable, as they should be. They are never fielded without firm evidence from the auction (and the burden of proof is on us). > Richard Hills: > > To minimise any possibility of confusion about what a "psyche" > really is, the Drafting Committee carefully avoided the use ofs > that word in Law 40C1. Thus under Law 40C1 Marvin French's > disclosable "deviations" have now metamorphosed into his > "methods" and "system". The title of L40C is Deviation from System and Psychic Action. Psychs are a subset of system deviations, so 40C1 language includes them. Tactical bids are system deviations, but not psychs, according to the ACBL. My psychs are also deviations from system, not part of the system. Since the auction is AI to both sides, opponents know as much as my partner. In fact more, because they can communicate their strength accurately at a time when my partner is in the dark. In the absence of regulation regarding the disclosure of psych propensity, we ACBL members must do what we believe is ethical. One young male pair at our table in an NABC+ event announced "We psych a lot," before taking hands from the board. That was admirable. Those who never psych should have to disclose that fact, but of course they don't. I would love to play with Richard in an NABC sometime. I would psych occasionally, and I wonder how he wants this disclosed. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5403 (20100827) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Aug 29 00:38:11 2010 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:38:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1OpNvF-0oAbEu0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> References: <4C793323.4010006@nhcc.net> <1OpNvF-0oAbEu0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4C798FD3.4060702@aol.com> Am 28.08.2010 18:06, schrieb Peter Eidt: > From: Steve Willner >> [defender plays out of turn after declarer has played from both hands] >> >> On 8/26/2010 10:03 PM, Grattan wrote: >>> I would say neither that it is an offence albeit >>> with no rectification ... nor that >>> it is perfectly legal. >> I don't think this is very helpful. It seems to me the defender's >> play is either a) perfectly legal, and he's free to do it if he sees >> an advantage, or b) illegal, albeit with no mechanical rectification. >> However, if it's b, the score should still be adjusted under L12A1 if >> the out-of-turn play gains. >> >>> Law 60A refers to "rectification of that offence". >>> It is clear that although there is no rectification it >>> remains an offence, a violation of correct procedure. >> This seems to argue for b. Is everyone else in agreement with that? > not me > > Me neither, JE > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Aug 29 01:58:24 2010 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:58:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C793323.4010006@nhcc.net> References: <4C793323.4010006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <006101cb470c$e6dacdf0$b49069d0$@com> [SW] [defender plays out of turn after declarer has played from both hands] [GE] I would say neither that it is an offence albeit with no rectification ... nor that it is perfectly legal. [SW] I don't think this is very helpful. It seems to me the defender's play is either a) perfectly legal, and he's free to do it if he sees an advantage, or b) illegal, albeit with no mechanical rectification. However, if it's b, the score should still be adjusted under L12A1 if the out-of-turn play gains. [GE] Law 60A refers to "rectification of that offence". It is clear that although there is no rectification it remains an offence, a violation of correct procedure. [SW] This seems to argue for b. Is everyone else in agreement with that? [DALB] No, of course not. If South (declarer) plays from hand and then from dummy (North) before West has played, East can do what he likes (Law 57C1). The "offence" referred to in Law 60A1 is not East's "offence" in playing before West does (since that is no longer an offence), but South's offence in playing from dummy before West has played. East can't claim "rectification" for that once he has played a card, but he can play a card without let or hindrance. David Burn London, England From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Aug 29 02:02:49 2010 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (LarryB) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 01:02:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4C793323.4010006@nhcc.net> <006101cb470c$e6dacdf0$b49069d0$@com> Message-ID: <91728C09A11240D6955B42B9115581A6@woe9f427cae481> Normality at last... > [defender plays out of turn after declarer has played from both hands] > > [GE] > > I would say neither that it is an offence albeit with no rectification ... > nor that it is perfectly legal. > > [SW] > > I don't think this is very helpful. It seems to me the defender's play is > either a) perfectly legal, and he's free to do it if he sees an advantage, > or b) illegal, albeit with no mechanical rectification. > > However, if it's b, the score should still be adjusted under L12A1 if the > out-of-turn play gains. > > [GE] > > Law 60A refers to "rectification of that offence". It is clear that > although > there is no rectification it remains an offence, a violation of correct > procedure. > > [SW] > > This seems to argue for b. Is everyone else in agreement with that? > > [DALB] > > No, of course not. If South (declarer) plays from hand and then from dummy > (North) before West has played, East can do what he likes (Law 57C1). The > "offence" referred to in Law 60A1 is not East's "offence" in playing > before > West does (since that is no longer an offence), but South's offence in > playing from dummy before West has played. East can't claim > "rectification" > for that once he has played a card, but he can play a card without let or > hindrance. > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 29 09:42:41 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:42:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] interpretation of the second "meaning" in L27B1b In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C7A0F71.5080801@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > Sorry for the long essay. Been thinking about this all week. I think this > is an ambiguity in the laws. It seems rare, but it did come up at the > table for me. The actual auction: > > 1C 2NT(1) P 2C(2) > > > 1. Unusual no trump for the two lowest suits. > 2. Did not see the 1C opening. She even explained 2NT as 20-21 HCP. She > meant to bid Stayman over 2NT. > > > At the table, I ruled that the 3C replacement did not bar partner. This > matches BLML, where the initial discussion was whether or not 3C is > allowed as a replacement bid over an opening 2NT. > > Later, I realized that, on the actual auction, 3C is not Stayman. Then I > began to question that ruling. As perhaps Richard and Eric were doing more > recently. > > L27B1(b) requires determining the meaning of the replacement bid: "If ... > the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director's > opinion has the same meaning as or a more precise meaning than the > insufficient bid..... > > It is really natural to assume that the "meaning" of the insufficient bid > and the "meaning" of the replacement bid are calculated in the same way. > That's a principle of English, right? > > But, for L20F1 purposes, the meaning of the replacement bid is its meaning > in the actual auction. L20F1 doesn't use the word "meaning", however. Is > that relevant? > > So to me, the sophisticated interpretation of L27B1(b) is that the meaning > of the replacement bid as it's meaning in the actual auction. And hence > the 3Cl replacement bars partner. > > However, using 'the meaning in the actual auction' creates a lot of > problems. I think Herman might have already jumped to one of these > problems in his reply. In the above, telling the player that the 3C > replacement bars partner essentially tells the player about the 1Cl > opening. This would allow the player to make a 3D replacement call and > avoid a disasterous auction. However, the director does not want to tell > the player that 3Cl does not bar partner and then after that bid is made > rule that it does bar partner. > > Here is another nightmare: > > 4C 4H P 4NT > 5C 5C > > You take the insufficient bidder aside, find out that he did not see the > 5C overcall and 5C meant no aces. According to their system, he now shows > one ace by doubling. You allow this bid as not barring partner and leave > the table feeling that you have done your job right. But you overhear the > double being explained as being penalty. Because they have some odd > convention that on this auction, 4NT was not Blackwood. > > Obviously, we directors are not going to also take the insufficient > bidder's partner aside to find out if the sufficient bidder explained the > auction and their system correctly. That would slow down every > insufficient bid ruling, just for the sake of this rare situation. > > So the "sophisticated" interpretation doesn't seem practical. > I think it does. We need to ask the IBer what he thought he saw, in order to determine what the "meaning" was of his IB. So why don't we also ask him what the "meaning" of his replacement bid would be? And rule upon that one. Robert said he did not want to have to rule that 3C would not bar partner, and then rule that it does. Well, he doesn't have to: he can rule that 3Cl would not normally bar partner, except for UI restrictions on him. Basically, the ruling would be: "I have told you the law: if you bid 3Cl, which you believe to have the same as your IB, then you won't bar your partner. However, your partner has UI, which may well bar him from bidding on over 3Cl; also you have UI, and this may well bar you from chosing some other alternative than 3Cl." It's a bit awkward, but not difficult, I think. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Aug 29 21:39:09 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:39:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C793323.4010006@nhcc.net> References: <4C793323.4010006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4C7AB75D.6010702@nhcc.net> [defender plays out of turn after declarer has played from both hands] I think we have five votes for "a) perfectly legal" and possibly one for "b) illegal, score adjustment (but not mechanical rectification) may ensue." Is everyone except Grattan happy with a)? I've always believed a) myself, but a careful look at the actual text seems to me to suggest b). From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Aug 30 00:36:38 2010 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:36:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C7AB75D.6010702@nhcc.net> References: <4C793323.4010006@nhcc.net> <4C7AB75D.6010702@nhcc.net> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Steve Willner" Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 8:39 PM To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [defender plays out of turn after declarer has played from both hands] > > I think we have five votes for "a) perfectly legal" and possibly one for > "b) illegal, score adjustment (but not mechanical rectification) may > ensue." Is everyone except Grattan happy with a)? > > I've always believed a) myself, but a careful look at the actual text > seems to me to suggest b). > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > I have always believed (a) It is an infraction (albeit with a zero rectification) (b) The laws are there to provide rectification for ACCIDENTAL transgressions Deliberate transgressions to be subject to disciplinary action ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 30 00:56:13 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:56:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7B31C6F4-EB4C-4B74-9D20-2861DEB21455@starpower.net> Message-ID: An anonymous "intelligent Russian" upon Czarist Russia (1868): "Every country has its own constitution; ours is absolutism moderated by assassination." Eric Landau: [big snip] >Herman is absolutely right. There is no way to justify the notion >to anyone not steeped in the minutiae of BLML debates that you can >be prohibited from using information that the rules require be >placed, and left, face up on the table right in front of your nose. [big snip] Richard Hills: Eric is absolutely wrong. There is no way to justify the notion to anyone steeped in the idea of equity that a forgetful player who gets an alarm clock signal from partner should gain a better score than an equally forgetful player who does not receive such an alarm clock signal from partner. A slight variation on the original case. North opens 1C, then East at two tables forgetfully opens an weak 1NT (11-14), when the system meaning for an overcall is a strong 1NT (15-18). This is an Aussie tournament, so the two Easts do not yet have UI since there are not any Announcements of 1NT ranges in Australia. At one table South foolishly asks West about East's 1NT range, and West's 15-18 response causes East to notice the 1C opening. Thus when West invites game in hearts East declines for -50. At the other table South and North cleverly keep schtum, East is therefore not reminded of her error, accepts the game invitation, resulting in -300 in 4Hx. So at the first table Law 75A is used to likewise adjust the score to 4Hx -300. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 30 01:42:50 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:42:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Old-fashioned Standard American [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French: [big snip] >My psychs are also deviations from system, not part of the >system. [big snip] Incorrect. A system consists of: (a) explicit partnership understandings and (b) implicit partnership understandings but not (c) deviations (gross psyches and less gross tactical calls) However ..... Repeated deviations (c) transmogrify into implicit partnership understandings (b) if "partner has more reason to be aware" of the repeated deviations, Law 40C1. And Law 40C1 also states that all implicit partnership understandings are part of the "partnership's methods", which means that implicit partnership understanding "psyches" by Marvin French could be classified by an ACBL TD as illegal conventions. Marvin French: >I would love to play with Richard in an NABC sometime. I >would psych occasionally, and I wonder how he wants this >disclosed. Richard Hills: If Marv and I were one-off partners for a single-session NABC event, then ..... On the first deal, before the first call is made, I would summon the ACBL TD and advise her that French-Hills implicit partnership understandings meant that we were playing an illegal system. I would request that the ACBL TD give us two SAYC system cards with the words "We never psyche" featured prominently on the system cards. Then, of course, since the French-Hills pseudo-psychic pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understandings have been cancelled, it would be entirely legal for Marv to perpetrate one and only one real psyche in the session (a.k.a. a Law 40A3 deviation which causes all three opponents to be equally surprised). Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 30 02:25:00 2010 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:25:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:56:13 -0400, wrote: > An anonymous "intelligent Russian" upon Czarist Russia (1868): > > "Every country has its own constitution; ours is absolutism > moderated by assassination." > > Eric Landau: > > [big snip] > >> Herman is absolutely right. There is no way to justify the notion >> to anyone not steeped in the minutiae of BLML debates that you can >> be prohibited from using information that the rules require be >> placed, and left, face up on the table right in front of your nose. > > [big snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Eric is absolutely wrong. There is no way to justify the notion to > anyone steeped in the idea of equity that a forgetful player who > gets an alarm clock signal from partner should gain a better score > than an equally forgetful player who does not receive such an alarm > clock signal from partner. > > A slight variation on the original case. North opens 1C, then East > at two tables forgetfully opens an weak 1NT (11-14), when the system > meaning for an overcall is a strong 1NT (15-18). This is an Aussie > tournament, so the two Easts do not yet have UI since there are not > any Announcements of 1NT ranges in Australia. > > At one table South foolishly asks West about East's 1NT range, and > West's 15-18 response causes East to notice the 1C opening. Thus > when West invites game in hearts East declines for -50. > > At the other table South and North cleverly keep schtum, East is > therefore not reminded of her error, accepts the game invitation, > resulting in -300 in 4Hx. > > So at the first table Law 75A is used to likewise adjust the score > to 4Hx -300. > > What's the problem? The problem is your example is irrelevant to the point you originally tried to make. Right? I once asked on BLML what to do about the dummy saying a lead was out of turn. Assuming this is done quickly, Ton suggested that declarer would have noticed the lead out of turn anyway and hence that there is no need for rectification. That suggests to me that the director does not have to be 100% certain the player would have gotten to the same information as suggested by the UI. In the original case, I am comfortably confident that the player will see the 1Cl opening before he bids again -- it is right on the table. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 30 03:21:42 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:21:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006101cb470c$e6dacdf0$b49069d0$@com> Message-ID: Lord Sandwich (1718-1792), First Lord of the Admiralty: "If any man will draw up his case, and put his name at the foot of the first page, I will give him an immediate reply. Where he compels me to turn over the sheet, he must wait my leisure." Steve Willner: [defender plays out of turn after declarer has played from both hands] I think we have five votes for "a) perfectly legal" and possibly one for "b) illegal, score adjustment (but not mechanical rectification) may ensue." Is everyone except Grattan happy with a)? I've always believed a) myself, but a careful look at the actual text seems to me to suggest b). David Burn: No, of course not. If South (declarer) plays from hand and then from dummy (North) before West has played, East can do what he likes (Law 57C1). Richard Hills: Steve Willner's "careful look at the actual text" may be noting that Law 57C1's "not subject to rectification" is not the same as "not an infraction". (Perhaps this is a typo which can be corrected by a WBF LC interpretation in Philadelphia.) Note that Law 64B revokes are most definitely infractions, but have no rectifications. David Burn: The "offence" referred to in Law 60A1 is not East's "offence" in playing before West does (since that is no longer an offence), but South's offence in playing from dummy before West has played. East can't claim "rectification" for that once he has played a card, but he can play a card without let or hindrance. Richard Hills: I agree. While it is ambiguous under Law 57C1 whether or not East has committed an infraction by accepting North's out-of-turn card, Law 60A1 begins: "A play by a member of the non-offending side" So East is necessarily non-offending when playing to North's out-of-turn card. QED Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 30 05:32:21 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:32:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Two declarers (was Bid not seen) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >I once asked on BLML what to do about the dummy saying a lead >was out of turn. Assuming this is done quickly, Ton suggested >that declarer would have noticed the lead out of turn anyway >and hence that there is no need for rectification. Law 45F - Dummy Indicates Card: After dummy's hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer. If he does so the Director should be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested. Beijing WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008: Law 45F ? Mr. Kooijman's proposal that the Director should not adjust the score if the player would have played the indicated card anyway was agreed. Dummy is liable to a procedural penalty. Robert Frick: >That suggests to me that the director does not have to be >100% certain the player would have gotten to the same >information as suggested by the UI. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the two cases are not analogous. In the original thread a player has already perpetrated a Law 75A misbid and is now getting a Law 40C3(a) aid from her partner. But in this new discussion about Law 45F the issue is not usually whether declarer has failed to observe a card; rather the question is one of logical alternatives. For example, if dummy indicates a card which executes a double squeeze, is declarer a squeeze aficionado for whom this card is the only logical alternative? Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 30 08:10:30 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:10:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Confessions of an online moderator [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2997092.htm 4. Less is more. If it has been said once, and someone else has had a turn saying it again, and then another poster says the same thing in their own particular way, then perhaps you might consider that as it has already been said and despite the fact that you want to say it your way, that might not be a good enough reason Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 30 09:30:41 2010 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:30:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C7B5E21.9060606@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > An anonymous "intelligent Russian" upon Czarist Russia (1868): > > "Every country has its own constitution; ours is absolutism > moderated by assassination." > > Eric Landau: > > [big snip] > >> Herman is absolutely right. There is no way to justify the notion >> to anyone not steeped in the minutiae of BLML debates that you can >> be prohibited from using information that the rules require be >> placed, and left, face up on the table right in front of your nose. > > [big snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Eric is absolutely wrong. There is no way to justify the notion to > anyone steeped in the idea of equity that a forgetful player who > gets an alarm clock signal from partner should gain a better score > than an equally forgetful player who does not receive such an alarm > clock signal from partner. > > A slight variation on the original case. North opens 1C, then East > at two tables forgetfully opens an weak 1NT (11-14), when the system > meaning for an overcall is a strong 1NT (15-18). This is an Aussie > tournament, so the two Easts do not yet have UI since there are not > any Announcements of 1NT ranges in Australia. > > At one table South foolishly asks West about East's 1NT range, and > West's 15-18 response causes East to notice the 1C opening. Thus > when West invites game in hearts East declines for -50. > > At the other table South and North cleverly keep schtum, East is > therefore not reminded of her error, accepts the game invitation, > resulting in -300 in 4Hx. > > So at the first table Law 75A is used to likewise adjust the score > to 4Hx -300. > > What's the problem? > The problem is that your story is highly unlikely, at the second table. The chances are that East will notice the 1C bid (lying on the table) and also go for -50. Should we really assume that the player at the first table would not have noticed the 1Cl at some stage? OK, at the second table, the chances of East noticing are 90%, while at the second, they have become 99%, but do we really care that much? Herman. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 30 10:42:36 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:42:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <7B31C6F4-EB4C-4B74-9D20-2861DEB21455@starpower.net> References: <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> <1Oou7R-0Qurom0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <4C777EA3.1000101@skynet.be> <7B31C6F4-EB4C-4B74-9D20-2861DEB21455@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C7B6EFC.6070202@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 27, 2010, at 5:00 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>>> Which is why I would suggest that the WBF make this information AI, >>>> regardless of when and how it came to the attention of the player. >>>> >>> Now we start to disagree ... >>> >>> Of course 1C is AI (has ever been, will ever be), but >>> only in the sense that East may draw inferences from >>> this bid regarding North's holding. >>> The fact that East himself made a misbid and showed >>> something different than he _intended_ is made aware >>> to East by UI from his partner. Therefore he is bound >>> by Law 75A (as others said before) to treat (all of) partner's >>> bids as replies to a 1NT opening and explain them >>> as replies to a Polish NT. >>> >>> These obligations have nothing to do whether 1C is AI or UI >>> for East. >>> >> I understand all this, and I accept that this is what the laws >> currently >> say. But I don't believe it is what they should say, and I don't >> thinnk >> players would accept this interpretation, if they are ruled upon it. >> >> After all, it is rather silly to have to rule that a bidding card >> on the >> table is UI, when there is a law that says that a player can at any >> time >> ask for a repeat of the bidding. With the cards, he does not need >> to do >> so, so now we are going to rule that he doesn't? And never will? >> Quite silly, really. >> And impossible to explain to the players. >> Try it in your club, some time. >> > > We seek a reasonable paradigm for dealing with use of UI, and it > seems realistic to (presumptively) forbid a player to make use of > information which, although authorized, he had forgotten until being > made aware of it by partner's inappropriate transmission of UI. But > for the paradigm to feel consistent, we need to extend "had > forgotten" to "was not at that moment aware of", which may, in cases > like this one, render the paradigm so unrealistic as to violate > anyone's notion of plain common sense. > > Herman is absolutely right. There is no way to justify the notion to > anyone not steeped in the minutiae of BLML debates that you can be > prohibited from using information that the rules require be placed, > and left, face up on the table right in front of your nose. If that > means introducing an inconsistent-seeming exception to the paradigm > for handling use of UI, IMO, so be it. Better to sacrifice some > consistency than to outrage the common sense of our players with > inexplicable presumptions that sound like total nonsense. > AG : I don't see this as an outrage. We only need to state that there is strong evidence that he didn't see it, so wouldn't have unless partner had created UI. However, I agree that we'd rather avoid any rule that would be rejected by 99% of the players. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Aug 30 13:06:07 2010 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:06:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8F9C6FA0E2E54BB7B7AE97D90555AB16@Lounge> -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 2:21 AM To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Lord Sandwich (1718-1792), First Lord of the Admiralty: > > "If any man will draw up his case, and put his name at the > foot of the first page, I will give him an immediate reply. > Where he compels me to turn over the sheet, he must wait my > leisure." > > Steve Willner: > > [defender plays out of turn after declarer has played from > both hands] > > I think we have five votes for "a) perfectly legal" and > possibly one for "b) illegal, score adjustment (but not > mechanical rectification) may ensue." Is everyone except > Grattan happy with a)? > > I've always believed a) myself, but a careful look at the > actual text seems to me to suggest b). > > David Burn: > > No, of course not. If South (declarer) plays from hand > and then from dummy (North) before West has played, East > can do what he likes (Law 57C1). > > Richard Hills: > > Steve Willner's "careful look at the actual text" may be > noting that Law 57C1's "not subject to rectification" is > not the same as "not an infraction". (Perhaps this is a > typo which can be corrected by a WBF LC interpretation > in Philadelphia.) Note that Law 64B revokes are most > definitely infractions, but have no rectifications. > > David Burn: > > The "offence" referred to in Law 60A1 is not East's > "offence" in playing before West does (since that is no > longer an offence), but South's offence in playing from > dummy before West has played. East can't claim > "rectification" for that once he has played a card, but > he can play a card without let or hindrance. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree. While it is ambiguous under Law 57C1 whether > or not East has committed an infraction by accepting > North's out-of-turn card, Law 60A1 begins: > > "A play by a member of the non-offending side" > > So East is necessarily non-offending when playing to > North's out-of-turn card. QED > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills Not so QED in my opinion. (1) L60A refers to a play by a RHO. In the case under consideration both plays are made by LHO (since declarer plays dummy's cards). (2) L60A only refers to plays made *** before rectification has been assessed***.' In the case under consideration the Director has been called after declarer has played from both hands and BEFORE any defender played. So one may assume the rectification (whatever that may be) WILL have been assessed before either defender plays. So IMO L60A is irrelevant to this case. ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 30 15:59:20 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:59:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 29, 2010, at 6:56 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > > [big snip] > >> Herman is absolutely right. There is no way to justify the notion >> to anyone not steeped in the minutiae of BLML debates that you can >> be prohibited from using information that the rules require be >> placed, and left, face up on the table right in front of your nose. > > [big snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Eric is absolutely wrong. There is no way to justify the notion to > anyone steeped in the idea of equity that a forgetful player who > gets an alarm clock signal from partner should gain a better score > than an equally forgetful player who does not receive such an alarm > clock signal from partner. > > A slight variation on the original case. North opens 1C, then East > at two tables forgetfully opens an weak 1NT (11-14), when the system > meaning for an overcall is a strong 1NT (15-18). This is an Aussie > tournament, so the two Easts do not yet have UI since there are not > any Announcements of 1NT ranges in Australia. If we want our legal presumptions to reflect reality (whether this is a useful objective is subject for a separate debate), we would recognize that while East, concentrating on the problem of what to open, may have momenrarily missed seeing the 1C bid card face up on the table in front of him, he is overwhelmingly likely to have noticed it as soon as his attention returned to the table in front of him, for whatever reason. By the time it is again his turn to call, North will have made his second call, putting that bid card immediately adjacent to and overlapping the 1C card, making it impossible for East to continue to overlook the 1C opening, unless he manages not to notice North's second call either. > At one table South foolishly asks West about East's 1NT range, and > West's 15-18 response causes East to notice the 1C opening. Thus > when West invites game in hearts East declines for -50. Richard assumes his conclusion by using the word "causes". Any table action, including South saying no more than "pass", is just as likely to have "caused" East to notice the 1C opening. To borrow a phrase, East's noticing the 1C bid card is merely subsequent, but not consequent, to the particular action at this table. To borrow another, it is not at all probable that East would have continued to fail to notice the 1C bid card absent it. > At the other table South and North cleverly keep schtum, East is > therefore not reminded of her error, accepts the game invitation, > resulting in -300 in 4Hx. Richard assumes his conclusion by using the word "therefore". One can make a case for his presumption being useful, but not for its being realistic. At a real other table, N-S can keep as quiet as mice, but East will have nevertheless seen that 1C bid card sitting face up on the table in front of her before taking her next call. > So at the first table Law 75A is used to likewise adjust the score > to 4Hx -300. > > What's the problem? The assumption expressed by the word "likewise", which assumes, IMO incorrectly, that the situation described in Richard's second paragraph might, with some probability significantly different from zero, actually produce an unadjudicated result of 4HX -300 as a result of East's remaining selectively blind to the 1C bid card through the conclusion of the auction. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 30 16:54:43 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:54:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <122FA2D6-70FC-4DCC-80BE-708FCAB85975@starpower.net> On Aug 29, 2010, at 7:42 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Marvin French: > > [big snip] > >> My psychs are also deviations from system, not part of the >> system. > > [big snip] > > Incorrect. A system consists of: > > (a) explicit partnership understandings > > and > > (b) implicit partnership understandings > > but not > > (c) deviations (gross psyches and less gross tactical calls) > > However ..... > > Repeated deviations (c) transmogrify into implicit partnership > understandings (b) if "partner has more reason to be aware" of > the repeated deviations, Law 40C1. And Law 40C1 also states > that all implicit partnership understandings are part of the > "partnership's methods", which means that implicit partnership > understanding "psyches" by Marvin French could be classified > by an ACBL TD as illegal conventions. > > Marvin French: > >> I would love to play with Richard in an NABC sometime. I >> would psych occasionally, and I wonder how he wants this >> disclosed. > > Richard Hills: > > If Marv and I were one-off partners for a single-session NABC > event, then ..... > > On the first deal, before the first call is made, I would > summon the ACBL TD and advise her that French-Hills implicit > partnership understandings meant that we were playing an > illegal system. I would request that the ACBL TD give us two > SAYC system cards with the words "We never psyche" featured > prominently on the system cards. Then, of course, since the > French-Hills pseudo-psychic pre-existing mutual implicit > partnership understandings have been cancelled, it would be > entirely legal for Marv to perpetrate one and only one real > psyche in the session (a.k.a. a Law 40A3 deviation which > causes all three opponents to be equally surprised). This is how the ACBL went entirely off the rails, and Richard seems prepared to follow. The key phrase in L40C1 is "aware of the deviation", which is quite different from "aware of the possibility of a deviation". Logic and common sense along with TFLB's use of "the deviation" suggest instanting a particular deviation. So if you become aware from partnership experience that partner tends to psych in a particular type of auction, or with a particular type of holding, that transmogrifies into a partnership understanding which then becomes part of your "system", and is no longer a psych. But the mere knowledge that partner is likely to deviate, on some unknown auction with some unknown holding, regardless of the frequency with which he may do so, can never rise to the level of a systemic understanding, and must not be conflated with some particular ("the") deviation that does. Otherwise you get what Edgar Kaplan famously called the "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule, which renders the first sentence of L40C1 meaningless. Which is exactly what the ACBL hoped to achieve, both by conflating these two "knowledges" and, as Marv points out, by removing the CC line for frequency of psychs so as to suggest that there is no acceptable frequency above zero. That when you open 1NT as dealer you hold a balanced 15-17 HCP is a partnership understanding as TFLB uses the term. That you are likely to open 1NT as dealer a couple of times during the forthcoming session is not, no matter how aware partner is of it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 30 17:17:13 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:17:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8C874419-8C37-4E35-99FB-9E67DA862E58@starpower.net> On Aug 29, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:56:13 -0400, wrote: > >> An anonymous "intelligent Russian" upon Czarist Russia (1868): >> >> "Every country has its own constitution; ours is absolutism >> moderated by assassination." >> >> Eric Landau: >> >> [big snip] >> >>> Herman is absolutely right. There is no way to justify the notion >>> to anyone not steeped in the minutiae of BLML debates that you can >>> be prohibited from using information that the rules require be >>> placed, and left, face up on the table right in front of your nose. >> >> [big snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Eric is absolutely wrong. There is no way to justify the notion to >> anyone steeped in the idea of equity that a forgetful player who >> gets an alarm clock signal from partner should gain a better score >> than an equally forgetful player who does not receive such an alarm >> clock signal from partner. >> >> A slight variation on the original case. North opens 1C, then East >> at two tables forgetfully opens an weak 1NT (11-14), when the system >> meaning for an overcall is a strong 1NT (15-18). This is an Aussie >> tournament, so the two Easts do not yet have UI since there are not >> any Announcements of 1NT ranges in Australia. >> >> At one table South foolishly asks West about East's 1NT range, and >> West's 15-18 response causes East to notice the 1C opening. Thus >> when West invites game in hearts East declines for -50. >> >> At the other table South and North cleverly keep schtum, East is >> therefore not reminded of her error, accepts the game invitation, >> resulting in -300 in 4Hx. >> >> So at the first table Law 75A is used to likewise adjust the score >> to 4Hx -300. >> >> What's the problem? > > The problem is your example is irrelevant to the point you originally > tried to make. Right? > > I once asked on BLML what to do about the dummy saying a lead was > out of > turn. Assuming this is done quickly, Ton suggested that declarer would > have noticed the lead out of turn anyway and hence that there is no > need > for rectification. > > That suggests to me that the director does not have to be 100% > certain the > player would have gotten to the same information as suggested by > the UI. > In the original case, I am comfortably confident that the player > will see > the 1Cl opening before he bids again -- it is right on the table. The mechanics of the use of bid cards makes it 100% certain that the player would have noticed the 1C bid before he made his next call, unless he is equally unaware that his RHO has made a subsequent call (which must be placed on top of the 1C card, offset enough so that "1C" remains visible) and thinks he's bidding out of turn. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 30 19:48:10 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:48:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C7B6EFC.6070202@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> <1Oou7R-0Qurom0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <4C777EA3.1000101@skynet.be> <7B31C6F4-EB4C-4B74-9D20-2861DEB21455@starpower.net> <4C7B6EFC.6070202@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6A2E22C7-82D4-466C-92CD-05A7DB996663@starpower.net> On Aug 30, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> We seek a reasonable paradigm for dealing with use of UI, and it >> seems realistic to (presumptively) forbid a player to make use of >> information which, although authorized, he had forgotten until being >> made aware of it by partner's inappropriate transmission of UI. But >> for the paradigm to feel consistent, we need to extend "had >> forgotten" to "was not at that moment aware of", which may, in cases >> like this one, render the paradigm so unrealistic as to violate >> anyone's notion of plain common sense. >> >> Herman is absolutely right. There is no way to justify the notion to >> anyone not steeped in the minutiae of BLML debates that you can be >> prohibited from using information that the rules require be placed, >> and left, face up on the table right in front of your nose. If that >> means introducing an inconsistent-seeming exception to the paradigm >> for handling use of UI, IMO, so be it. Better to sacrifice some >> consistency than to outrage the common sense of our players with >> inexplicable presumptions that sound like total nonsense. > > AG : I don't see this as an outrage. We only need to state that > there is > strong evidence that he didn't see it, so wouldn't have unless partner > had created UI. We can state whatever we want -- presumptions are like that -- but I don't see how we can possibly bring ourselves to believe it. We can stipulate that he didn't see it -- if he had, we wouldn't have the situation in the first place -- but the notion that he "so wouldn't have unless partner had created UI" doesn't in any way follow. As I suggested in a previous post, the mechanics of bidding with bid boxes effectively insure that he would have seen it prior to his next call, totally independently of whatever his partner may or may not do or create. > However, I agree that we'd rather avoid any rule that would be > rejected > by 99% of the players. Legal fictions can be sensibly maintained for a variety of reasons -- convenience, consistency, fairness, etc. -- up to a point. But we go well beyond that point when we try to enforce a presumption that is literally incredible, and I think this is one of those cases. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Mon Aug 30 22:40:54 2010 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:40:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Commentaires sur le code 2007 In-Reply-To: <6A2E22C7-82D4-466C-92CD-05A7DB996663@starpower.net> References: <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be><1Oou7R-0Qurom0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <4C777EA3.1000101@skynet.be><7B31C6F4-EB4C-4B74-9D20-2861DEB21455@starpower.net><4C7B6EFC.6070202@ulb.ac.be> <6A2E22C7-82D4-466C-92CD-05A7DB996663@starpower.net> Message-ID: Hello, My apologies to the non french-speaking members, but this is for a french book about the 2007 code ... if useful, a translation in english is possible, just let me know, *** Donc, le bridgeur va ?diter un ouvrage que j'ai ?crit sur le code, avec en vis ? vis de chaque Loi une page de commentaire, explication, relation entre les Lois, exemples, de quoi aider les arbitres isol?s ? mieux comprendre et expliquer ces lois, je voudrais entre en contact avec les responsables des f?d?rations ?trang?res mais francophones (Belgique, Suisse, Canada-Qu?bec, Maroc, etc.) afin de leur soumettre ce livre qui peut ?tre utile ?galement ? leurs arbitres, merci de me donner leurs coordonn?es, et si vous ?tes "int?ress?s" de me contacter! Cordialement *** Thanks Olivier Beauvillain __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5410 (20100830) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 31 00:59:07 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:59:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8F9C6FA0E2E54BB7B7AE97D90555AB16@Lounge> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [big snip] >>So East is necessarily non-offending when playing to >>North's out-of-turn card. QED David Barton: >Not so QED in my opinion. > >(1) L60A refers to a play by a RHO. In the case under >consideration both plays are made by LHO (since >declarer plays dummy's cards). Richard Hills: Still QED. David has incorrectly identified "RHO" by misunderstanding the word "his". Law 60A1, first phrase: "A play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has led or played out of turn or prematurely" Richard Hills: North (dummy) has played out of turn. East is a member of the non-offending side. North is East's ("his") RHO. QED Or perhaps I misunderstand David. He may be posing the novel argument that East's RHO North dummy is in actuality East's LHO North dummy because South plays North's cards. Not so. Throughout the Laws it is clearly stated that while declarer plays dummy's cards, declarer is not dummy. See, for example, the second and third footnotes to Law 41. And see also the Definitions of "Opponent" and "RHO". David Barton: >(2) L60A only refers to plays made *** before >rectification has been assessed***.' > >In the case under consideration the Director has >been called after declarer has played from both >hands and BEFORE any defender played. So one may >assume the rectification (whatever that may be) WILL >have been assessed before either defender plays. > >So IMO L60A is irrelevant to this case. Richard Hills: No, David's argument is irrelevant to this case. He has forgotten Law 9B1(c): "Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled." Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 31 01:42:26 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:42:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Gold standard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Resurrection of a March 2005 thread. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets * * * Gold Coast Congress, February?2005 Matchpoint Pairs; Section H consolation final Board 13; both vul; North dealer The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2H(1) Pass ? (1) 6-10hcp; 5+ hearts and 4+ cards in an unspecified second suit (but the unspecified second suit is *usually* 5+ cards also). You, South, hold: J982 K8 Q3 AK972 In your system: (a) 2S = pass or correct (b) 2NT = artificial strong enquiry (c) 3C = undiscussed What call do you make? What other call do you consider making? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Aug 31 02:24:45 2010 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:24:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 11:59 PM To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > [big snip] > >>>So East is necessarily non-offending when playing to >>>North's out-of-turn card. QED > > David Barton: > >>Not so QED in my opinion. >> >>(1) L60A refers to a play by a RHO. In the case under >>consideration both plays are made by LHO (since >>declarer plays dummy's cards). > > Richard Hills: > > Still QED. David has incorrectly identified "RHO" by > misunderstanding the word "his". > > Law 60A1, first phrase: > > "A play by a member of the non-offending side after > his RHO has led or played out of turn or prematurely" > > Richard Hills: > > North (dummy) has played out of turn. East is a > member of the non-offending side. North is East's > ("his") RHO. QED > See, for example, the > second and third footnotes to Law 41. And see also > the Definitions of "Opponent" and "RHO". Footnote 2 - Declarer's first turn to play is from dummy ...... It is absolutely clear that the play from dummy is made by East's LHO (declarer) > > David Barton: > >>(2) L60A only refers to plays made *** before >>rectification has been assessed***.' >> >>In the case under consideration the Director has >>been called after declarer has played from both >>hands and BEFORE any defender played. So one may >>assume the rectification (whatever that may be) WILL >>have been assessed before either defender plays. >> >>So IMO L60A is irrelevant to this case. > > Richard Hills: > > No, David's argument is irrelevant to this case. He > has forgotten Law 9B1(c): > > "Summoning the Director does not cause a player to > forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be > entitled." > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills No I have not forgotten L9B1(c) You have to ASSUME your conclusion that East has the right to play at this point to determine that he would lose this "right". My position is that he never had such a "right" so L9B1(c) is not applicable. ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 31 03:43:19 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:43:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Barton >Footnote 2 - Declarer's first turn to play is from >dummy ...... > >It is absolutely clear that the play from dummy is >made by East's LHO (declarer) Richard Hills: But it is "no way Jose" absolutely clear that North must therefore be East's LHO, as David asserts: West South (LHO) North (LHO) East The Definition of "Opponent": "a player of the other side; a member of the partnership to which one is opposed." Richard Hills: Dummy is a player, since dummy is entitled to participate in the play to a limited extent under Law 42. Law 45G also refers to four players, NOT to merely three players. And the other bridge partnership necessarily consists of two opponents; it does not matter if one of those two opponents is now temporarily constrained by Law 43. David Barton: [snip] >My position is that he never had such a "right" >so L9B1(c) is not applicable. Sven Pran (12th July 2010): >>I have said it before, and apparently it is >>time to say it again: >>Please do not read the laws like Old Eric (aka >>the devil) reads the Holy Bible. [snip] Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Aug 31 04:03:49 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:03:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] out of order In-Reply-To: References: <4C793323.4010006@nhcc.net> <4C7AB75D.6010702@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4C7C6305.8050806@nhcc.net> >> [defender plays out of turn after declarer has played from both hands] On 8/29/2010 6:36 PM, David wrote: > I have always believed > (a) It is an infraction (albeit with a zero rectification) > (b) The laws are there to provide rectification for ACCIDENTAL > transgressions > Deliberate transgressions to be subject to disciplinary action While that last is true, it shouldn't affect score adjustment, which is the question here. If the play out of turn is an infraction, would you apply L23 to it? In practice, that will nearly always result in score adjustment if the OOT play gains. (I suppose it's possible to construct a layout where "East" could not have known, but it seems difficult. Maybe at an early trick...?) Ton, Grattan: should (could) this question be on the agenda for Philadelphia? If there's agreement within the LC, it shouldn't take long to find that out, and if there's not agreement, some of us would like an official interpretation. In truth I don't think it much matters which way this is treated, but I'd hate to get different rulings from different Directors. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Aug 31 04:07:00 2010 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:07:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C7C63C4.30501@nhcc.net> On 8/29/2010 8:25 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > That suggests to me that the director does not have to be 100% certain the > player would have gotten to the same information as suggested by the UI. > In the original case, I am comfortably confident that the player will see > the 1Cl opening before he bids again -- it is right on the table. I don't see why anyone wants to get into the question of whether the player would have noticed. Either the not-noticed bid is UI or it's AI. As others have written, having a bid face-up on the table be UI seems ludicrous, but if that's the rule, so be it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 31 05:44:22 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:44:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] out of order [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C7C6305.8050806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >Ton, Grattan: should (could) this question be on the agenda for >Philadelphia? If there's agreement within the LC, it shouldn't >take long to find that out, and if there's not agreement, Richard Hills: After carefully rereading this entire thread, it seems that the apparent disagreement between Grattan and Kojak was due to them arguing at cross-purposes, so I would expect agreement from the entire WBF Laws Committee on this fundamental issue: (a) Law 55A permits a defender to accept RHO's lead out of turn (b) Law 57C permits a defender to accept RHO's play out of turn (c) Law 60A permits a defender to accept RHO's play out of turn Off-topic note: Perhaps Law 57C1 could be merged into Law 60 in the 2018 Lawbook for the convenience of grass-roots Directors. Steve Willner: >some of us would like an official interpretation. [snip] Richard Hills: I suspect that many grass-roots Directors may believe that there can be two LHOs and zero RHOs, due to the LHO on the left being declarer, so I would like an official interpretation on this issue also. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 31 07:28:58 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:28:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Blood Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- 1C Pass 1H 2D X (1) ? (1) Alerted and explained as "extra values" with diamonds (i.e. a penalty double) You, East, hold: KQ987 T875 T T64 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Aug 31 08:00:30 2010 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:00:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Gold standard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ea01cb48d1$d1748430$745d8c90$@nl> [RH] The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2H(1) Pass ? (1) 6-10hcp; 5+ hearts and 4+ cards in an unspecified second suit (but the unspecified second suit is *usually* 5+ cards also). You, South, hold: J982 K8 Q3 AK972 In your system: (a) 2S = pass or correct (b) 2NT = artificial strong enquiry (c) 3C = undiscussed What call do you make? What other call do you consider making? [HvS] Well I always play Dutch two's, where the second suit is always a minor and 4+. Then I would certainly pass. In this case the chance of hitting gold increases, so a bid of 2S starts to make some sense. It is matchpoints. All in all I would still pass, 2H should be reasonable. I might bid 2S. Other calls are out. Hans From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 31 08:24:52 2010 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:24:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Paul Stephanie Lamford Rohan --- --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S Pass 4S X Pass ? (1) 12-14 balanced (2) Astro convention, spades and another suit You, West, hold: --- QT7 KT2 KT76432 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 Phone: 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 31 10:56:50 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:56:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <6A2E22C7-82D4-466C-92CD-05A7DB996663@starpower.net> References: <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> <1Oou7R-0Qurom0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <4C777EA3.1000101@skynet.be> <7B31C6F4-EB4C-4B74-9D20-2861DEB21455@starpower.net> <4C7B6EFC.6070202@ulb.ac.be> <6A2E22C7-82D4-466C-92CD-05A7DB996663@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4C7CC3D2.7000600@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > We can state whatever we want -- presumptions are like that -- but I > don't see how we can possibly bring ourselves to believe it. Just some personal experience from some live cases. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 31 11:02:57 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:02:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blood Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C7CC541.70704@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- 1C Pass > 1H 2D X (1) ? > > (1) Alerted and explained as "extra values" with > diamonds (i.e. a penalty double) > > You, East, hold: > > KQ987 > T875 > T > T64 > > What call do you make? > AG : it's a matter of style. I have a partner who believes in bailing out in such situations, arguing that you aren't doubled yet in 2S. Other partners will kill you for doing that. So, both pass and 2S are LAs. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 31 11:05:44 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:05:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C7CC5E8.4000202@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Paul Stephanie > Lamford Rohan > --- --- Pass Pass > 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S > Pass 4S X Pass > ? > > (1) 12-14 balanced > (2) Astro convention, spades and another suit > > You, West, hold: > > --- > QT7 > KT2 > KT76432 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > Isn't that a case of "when you psyche, averything that happens to you thereafter is your fault" ? Anyway, I'm bidding 5C. They seem to be serious. They weren't pushed into 4S. 5H is a possible alternative. From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Aug 31 12:18:16 2010 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:18:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blood Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C7CD6E8.8060006@vwalther.de> On 31.08.2010 07:28, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- 1C Pass > 1H 2D X (1) ? > > (1) Alerted and explained as "extra values" with > diamonds (i.e. a penalty double) > > You, East, hold: > > KQ987 > T875 > T > T64 > > What call do you make? 1S > What other calls do you consider making? > > pass From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Aug 31 12:25:27 2010 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:25:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C7CD897.4080605@vwalther.de> On 31.08.2010 08:24, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Paul Stephanie > Lamford Rohan > --- --- Pass Pass > 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S > Pass 4S X Pass > ? > > (1) 12-14 balanced > (2) Astro convention, spades and another suit > > You, West, hold: > > --- > QT7 > KT2 > KT76432 > > What call do you make? 5H > What other calls do you consider making? 5C,pass > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 31 12:41:20 2010 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:41:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blood Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C7CD6E8.8060006@vwalther.de> References: <4C7CD6E8.8060006@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <4C7CDC50.8090500@ulb.ac.be> Volker Walther a ?crit : > On 31.08.2010 07:28, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: North >> Vul: North-South >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >> --- --- 1C Pass >> 1H 2D X (1) ? >> >> (1) Alerted and explained as "extra values" with >> diamonds (i.e. a penalty double) >> >> You, East, hold: >> >> KQ987 >> T875 >> T >> T64 >> >> What call do you make? >> > > 1S > > >> What other calls do you consider making? >> >> >> > > pass > _ Well, I really think 1S is the bestd bid, but they won't let you make it :-P From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 31 12:56:26 2010 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:56:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blood Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C7CDC50.8090500@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C7CD6E8.8060006@vwalther.de> <4C7CDC50.8090500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000e01cb48fb$29027850$7b0768f0$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >> Matchpoint pairs > >> Dlr: North > >> Vul: North-South > >> > >> The bidding has gone: > >> > >> SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > >> --- --- 1C Pass > >> 1H 2D X (1) ? > >> > >> (1) Alerted and explained as "extra values" with > >> diamonds (i.e. a penalty double) > >> > >> You, East, hold: > >> > >> KQ987 > >> T875 > >> T > >> T64 > >> > >> What call do you make? > >> > > > > 1S > > > > > >> What other calls do you consider making? > >> > >> > >> > > > > pass > > _ > Well, I really think 1S is the best bid, but they won't let you make it :-P Even if 1S had been legal I would have passed and not considered any other call at this round. I do not "rescue" partner unless he asks for it. If he redoubles and my RHO then passes I shall bid 2S. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Aug 31 13:00:00 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:00:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/8/31 : > > Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST ? ? ? ?NORTH ? ? ? EAST ? ? ? ?SOUTH > Paul ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Stephanie > Lamford ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Rohan > --- ? ? ? ? --- ? ? ? ? Pass ? ? ? ?Pass > 1NT(1) ? ? ?2D (2) ? ? ?2H ? ? ? ? ?3S > Pass ? ? ? ?4S ? ? ? ? ?X ? ? ? ? ? Pass > ? > > (1) 12-14 balanced > (2) Astro convention, spades and another suit > > You, West, hold: > > --- > QT7 > KT2 > KT76432 > Creative opening bid. Looks like it might have bacfired, but that's not sure. > What call do you make? I'll take my medicine, and pass. After all, partner might have a trump stack. > What other calls do you consider making? 5C, 5H > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Aug 31 13:01:15 2010 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:01:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Blood Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C7CDC50.8090500@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C7CD6E8.8060006@vwalther.de> <4C7CDC50.8090500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 2010/8/31 Alain Gottcheiner : > Volker Walther a ?crit : >> On 31.08.2010 07:28, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> Matchpoint pairs >>> Dlr: North >>> Vul: North-South >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> SOUTH ? ? WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST >>> --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? 1C ? ? ? ?Pass >>> 1H ? ? ? ?2D ? ? ? ?X (1) ? ? ? >>> >>> (1) Alerted and explained as "extra values" with >>> ? ? diamonds (i.e. a penalty double) >>> >>> You, East, hold: >>> >>> KQ987 >>> T875 >>> T >>> T64 >>> >>> What call do you make? >>> >> >> 1S >> >> >>> What other calls do you consider making? >>> >>> >>> >> >> pass >> _ > Well, I really think 1S is the bestd bid, but they won't let you make it Maybe 1S one round earlier instead. A tad light, but.... > :-P > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 31 15:11:37 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:11:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Gold standard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7393F83A-EFB8-4180-9612-2664695C5CA0@starpower.net> On Aug 30, 2010, at 7:42 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Gold Coast Congress, February 2005 > Matchpoint Pairs; > Section H consolation final > Board 13; both vul; North dealer > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2H(1) Pass ? > > (1) 6-10hcp; 5+ hearts and 4+ cards in an > unspecified second suit (but the unspecified > second suit is *usually* 5+ cards also). > > You, South, hold: > > J982 > K8 > Q3 > AK972 > > In your system: > > (a) 2S = pass or correct > (b) 2NT = artificial strong enquiry > (c) 3C = undiscussed > > What call do you make? Pass. > What other call do you consider making? None. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 31 15:14:11 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:14:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Blood Diamonds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 31, 2010, at 1:28 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- 1C Pass > 1H 2D X (1) ? > > (1) Alerted and explained as "extra values" with > diamonds (i.e. a penalty double) > > You, East, hold: > > KQ987 > T875 > T > T64 > > What call do you make? 2H. > What other calls do you consider making? None. Assuming 1C was natural. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 31 15:18:44 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:18:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1686F96C-E598-46B4-96FD-C2272519E4BF@starpower.net> On Aug 31, 2010, at 2:24 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Paul Stephanie > Lamford Rohan > --- --- Pass Pass > 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S > Pass 4S X Pass > ? > > (1) 12-14 balanced > (2) Astro convention, spades and another suit > > You, West, hold: > > --- > QT7 > KT2 > KT76432 > > What call do you make? 5C. > What other calls do you consider making? 5H. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 31 15:31:48 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:31:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <4C7CC3D2.7000600@ulb.ac.be> References: <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> <1Oou7R-0Qurom0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <4C777EA3.1000101@skynet.be> <7B31C6F4-EB4C-4B74-9D20-2861DEB21455@starpower.net> <4C7B6EFC.6070202@ulb.ac.be> <6A2E22C7-82D4-466C-92CD-05A7DB996663@starpower.net> <4C7CC3D2.7000600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1523A151-7142-4899-95B3-F9659F1B643F@starpower.net> On Aug 31, 2010, at 4:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> We can state whatever we want -- presumptions are like that -- but I >> don't see how we can possibly bring ourselves to believe it. > > Just some personal experience from some live cases. Live cases? Really? Using bidding boxes? I cannot picture a scenario in which a player, having failed to notice his RHO's opening bid at his first turn, could apprehend RHO's subsequent calls without becoming aware of the overlooked opening bid. ISTM that the mechanics of placing the bid cards would make it impossible. How did it actually happen? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 31 18:15:23 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:15:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9399851.1283271323607.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs) > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Paul Stephanie > Lamford Rohan > --- --- Pass Pass > 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S > Pass 4S X Pass > ? > > (1) 12-14 balanced > (2) Astro convention, spades and another suit > > You, West, hold: > > --- > QT7 > KT2 > KT76432 > > What call do you make? I order a drink for partner. > What other calls do you consider making? pass, 5C, suicide Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 31 18:19:32 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:19:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Blood Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17270596.1283271572910.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- 1C Pass > 1H 2D X (1) ? > > (1) Alerted and explained as "extra values" with > diamonds (i.e. a penalty double) > > You, East, hold: > > KQ987 > T875 > T > T64 > > What call do you make? pass. Partner didn't double, didn't bid 1NT for takeout either, and thus is likely to have at most three spades. > What other calls do you consider making? None, but I could probably be convinced that 2S is an LA. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 31 18:23:24 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:23:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Blood Diamonds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12874777.1283271804589.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 31, 2010, at 1:28 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Matchpoint pairs > > Dlr: North > > Vul: North-South > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > > --- --- 1C Pass > > 1H 2D X (1) ? > > > > (1) Alerted and explained as "extra values" with > > diamonds (i.e. a penalty double) > > > > You, East, hold: > > > > KQ987 > > T875 > > T > > T64 > > > > What call do you make? > > 2H. LHO's hearts? Why? Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 31 18:28:34 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:28:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Gold standard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21205840.1283272114810.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Resurrection of a March 2005 thread. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569 > Phone: 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > * * * > > Gold Coast Congress, February?2005 > Matchpoint Pairs; > Section H consolation final > Board 13; both vul; North dealer > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2H(1) Pass ? > > (1) 6-10hcp; 5+ hearts and 4+ cards in an > unspecified second suit (but the unspecified > second suit is *usually* 5+ cards also). > > You, South, hold: > > J982 > K8 > Q3 > AK972 > > In your system: > > (a) 2S = pass or correct > (b) 2NT = artificial strong enquiry > (c) 3C = undiscussed > > What call do you make? Pass. > What other call do you consider making? None. With a weaker hand, I might consider 2NT. But not with this one - they probably won't have game. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 31 18:35:00 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:35:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <1523A151-7142-4899-95B3-F9659F1B643F@starpower.net> References: <1523A151-7142-4899-95B3-F9659F1B643F@starpower.net> <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> <1Oou7R-0Qurom0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <4C777EA3.1000101@skynet.be> <7B31C6F4-EB4C-4B74-9D20-2861DEB21455@starpower.net> <4C7B6EFC.6070202@ulb.ac.be> <6A2E22C7-82D4-466C-92CD-05A7DB996663@starpower.net> <4C7CC3D2.7000600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1529145.1283272500304.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 31, 2010, at 4:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > >> We can state whatever we want -- presumptions are like that -- but I > >> don't see how we can possibly bring ourselves to believe it. > > > > Just some personal experience from some live cases. > > Live cases? Really? Using bidding boxes? Yes. > I cannot picture a scenario in which a player, having failed to > notice his RHO's opening bid at his first turn, could apprehend RHO's > subsequent calls without becoming aware of the overlooked opening > bid. ISTM that the mechanics of placing the bid cards would make it > impossible. How did it actually happen? The most common scenario is screens. Tray not pushed completely through. The next common scenario is doubles and redoubles (of course those are not opening bids). Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Aug 31 20:09:35 2010 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:09:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] out of order In-Reply-To: <4C7472A8.6000200@nhcc.net> References: <4C7472A8.6000200@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4C7D455F.7000704@vwalther.de> On 25.08.2010 03:32, Steve Willner wrote: > Consider the following: > > A. South, declarer and on lead, leads a card. West stops to think. > Declarer calls for a (legal) card from dummy. East plays a card, West > not having played yet. > > B. As above, but dummy has a singleton in the suit led and (while West > is still thinking) puts it in played position without declarer saying > anything. > > Is East's play legal in either case? If not, suppose the sight of > East's card solves West's problem; would you consider adjusting the score? > > Law 57C may be relevant, but I am not at all sure it's the only one that is. What about Law 16? The fact that East is not subject to rectification (L57) does not tell that the play itself is a legal play. The played card created UI that West must not use. (L16). L57 does not tell us that West is not subject to rectification if he violates L16. Volker From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 31 22:37:40 2010 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:37:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bid not seen In-Reply-To: <1529145.1283272500304.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> References: <1523A151-7142-4899-95B3-F9659F1B643F@starpower.net> <4C7768A0.9070407@skynet.be> <1Oou7R-0Qurom0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <4C777EA3.1000101@skynet.be> <7B31C6F4-EB4C-4B74-9D20-2861DEB21455@starpower.net> <4C7B6EFC.6070202@ulb.ac.be> <6A2E22C7-82D4-466C-92CD-05A7DB996663@starpower.net> <4C7CC3D2.7000600@ulb.ac.be> <1529145.1283272500304.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <5669104A-A5CD-45C4-8B63-340ED2444110@starpower.net> On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> Live cases? Really? Using bidding boxes? > > Yes. > >> I cannot picture a scenario in which a player, having failed to >> notice his RHO's opening bid at his first turn, could apprehend RHO's >> subsequent calls without becoming aware of the overlooked opening >> bid. ISTM that the mechanics of placing the bid cards would make it >> impossible. How did it actually happen? > > The most common scenario is screens. Tray not pushed completely > through. > The next common scenario is doubles and redoubles (of course those > are not opening bids). I've never used bid boxes and screens, so my earlier remark wasn't intended to subsume that context. I would have thought that the bid cards were placed on the tray in the usual manner, though, so I wouldn't expect it to matter. It's easy enough to miss an opening bid by simply not looking at it. But when you have two bid cards literally stacked together, with the upper one offset so that the print on the lower one is clearly visible and directly adjacent, how do you manage to read one without even seeing the other? That would be like reading this paragraph starting at the second sentence without noticing that there was a first sentence in front of it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 31 23:19:12 2010 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:19:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] bid not seen Message-ID: <27258536.1283289552184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> Live cases? Really? Using bidding boxes? > > > > Yes. > > > >> I cannot picture a scenario in which a player, having failed to > >> notice his RHO's opening bid at his first turn, could apprehend RHO's > >> subsequent calls without becoming aware of the overlooked opening > >> bid. ISTM that the mechanics of placing the bid cards would make it > >> impossible. How did it actually happen? > > > > The most common scenario is screens. Tray not pushed completely > > through. > > The next common scenario is doubles and redoubles (of course those > > are not opening bids). > > I've never used bid boxes and screens, so my earlier remark wasn't > intended to subsume that context. I would have thought that the bid > cards were placed on the tray in the usual manner, though, so I > wouldn't expect it to matter. Really, you never used bid boxes and screens??? That surprises me. Or are you pulling my leg? Screens are great, I prefer playing with screens, but they have unique problems. One problem with screens is that there can be quite a bit of static friction on the tray while the screen door is closed. If you push the tray too hard, you might hit a beverage on the other side of the screen. That is embarrassing, thus one tries to avoid that. If you don't push enough, though, some bidding cards might not be visible on the other side of the screen. How likely that is to happen depends on the design of the screen door, some of which come with some thick cloth that is great at blocking the view to the other side, and at blocking sound, but increases friction substantially; not just friction of the tray itself, but also friction on the bidding cards on the tray. The player who operates the tray on the other side is supposed to ensure that the tray has been pushed through sufficiently, but that does not always happen. The end result then might be one of those "two dummies" hands, and you probably can remember that we had such threads on BLML. Look at this image: http://www.fisu.net/medias/images/271109_bridge1.jpg Here, the tray apparently isn't pushed through completely because of all the other stuff on player has on the table. That is another possible reason for overlooked bids when using screens. Thomas -- Der Newskiosk Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der gro?en Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de. http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk