From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 1 03:06:34 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:06:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] dummy calls with hand gestures Message-ID: Declarer points to hearts in dummy and calls for spade. It is very reasonable that declarer in fact wanted a heart, and when declarer realizes his mistake or is asked, quickly asserts he wanted a spade. I think the correct ruling here is that he can change to a heart. Um, people don't point to the wrong suit. But, for inadvertent bids, the ACBL asks us to distinguish slips of the finger from slips of the mind. This can't be a slip of the tongue. Slips of the tongue are works like "hirt" or "heat" or even "thirt" -- not compeltely different intact words. It was presumably a slip between thinking of what suit to lead and actually constructing the name. So how is this ruling justified? (If it is correct.) I am assuming that if declarer doesn't point to hearts and says "a spade" that he can't take it back no matter what. (Even if he changes in the same breath, though I am not sure that is the issue here.) What happened today is declarer, allegedly, pointed to the top clubs and said "a club". It was pretty clear that he wanted to play the jack from J1095. (The ace, king, and queen had already been played.) Card called is a card played? The gesture, a little vaguer here, takes precedence? And five minutes later, LHO led the king of spades and declarer waved at the ace and said "play". The board had A10x. Again, there didn't seem to be an issue that declarer meant to play the ace, the question is if declarer is stuck with what she said. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 1 03:39:38 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 11:39:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 10A versus Law 74A2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: It was highly relevant that last night's walk-in pairs was scored by Butler imps via an Olympic datum, not scored by matchpoints. The relevance rested in almost the entire field making a cold 3NT. Therefore, whether my declarer play was adequate to the task of making 3NT did not affect the scores of other tables (while at matchpoints pairs the other contestants would gain or lose a matchpoint when I botched the play in 3NT, depending upon which direction the other contestants were sitting). In that cold 3NT I committed a meaningless revoke, and the arbitrary penalty over-compensating equity would have changed +600 into -100. Both my partner and myself summoned the Director against our own interests. However, our opponents were genuinely distressed, not wishing to gain random imps due to my trivial error (if I had been taking a little more concentration I would have claimed the trick before I revoked), so they requested the cancellation of our summoning of the Director. Normally my holier-than-thou super-ethics makes the other pair happy, but in this case it would be contrary to the spirit (but not the letter) of Law 74A2. So for the first time in many years I intentionally infracted 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." Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110701/5cf3bb08/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Jul 1 12:34:34 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 11:34:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] dummy calls with hand gestures In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22DBE0E3-C2B4-4882-A487-4C3920F4F875@btinternet.com> On 1 Jul 2011, at 02:06, Robert Frick wrote: Um, > people don't point to the wrong suit. Some do. I've known more than one person routinely do that - it always looks to me as though they're pointing at a different suit to the one they state. Parallax, arthritis, poor proprioception? I don't know. Gordon Rainsford From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 1 13:39:48 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:39:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] dummy calls with hand gestures In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E0DB204.40304@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/07/2011 3:06, Robert Frick a ?crit : > Declarer points to hearts in dummy and calls for spade. It is very > reasonable that declarer in fact wanted a heart, and when declarer > realizes his mistake or is asked, quickly asserts he wanted a spade. > > I think the correct ruling here is that he can change to a heart. AG : I don't understand on which grounds, if when asked he asserts he wanted a spade, you can allow him to play a heart (after all, he said the contrary twice) > Um, > people don't point to the wrong suit. But, for inadvertent bids, the ACBL > asks us to distinguish slips of the finger from slips of the mind. This > can't be a slip of the tongue. Slips of the tongue are works like "hirt" > or "heat" or even "thirt" -- not compeltely different intact words. It was > presumably a slip between thinking of what suit to lead and actually > constructing the name. AG : and that is called a slip of the tongue. Now I re-read the beginning of your post and my response, and realize you most probably slipped yourself. You meant "he wanted a heart" and said "spade". Didn't you ? So, complete errors might indeed happen. > So how is this ruling justified? (If it is correct.) > > I am assuming that if declarer doesn't point to hearts and says "a spade" > that he can't take it back no matter what. (Even if he changes in the same > breath, though I am not sure that is the issue here.) AG : I would always consider "spade, er, heart" without pausing as a correct change of denomination. > What happened today is declarer, allegedly, pointed to the top clubs and > said "a club". It was pretty clear that he wanted to play the jack from > J1095. (The ace, king, and queen had already been played.) Card called is > a card played? The gesture, a little vaguer here, takes precedence? AG : it has been ruled umpteen times that, when you hold the master card in a suit and draw the suit, and call for the suit without specifying the card, you're deemed to have called for the master card ("uncontrovertibly different") > And five minutes later, LHO led the king of spades and declarer waved at > the ace and said "play". The board had A10x. Again, there didn't seem to > be an issue that declarer meant to play the ace, the question is if > declarer is stuck with what she said. AG : in this case, however, there are often good reasons for not playing the ace, so I would say declarer indeed played the small card. Generally speaking, if the designation is contradictory (e.g. naming a suit and pointing to another), I'd rule that there was no designation. As if declarer picked two cards from the dummy. Best regards, Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 1 13:47:53 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:47:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] dummy calls with hand gestures In-Reply-To: <22DBE0E3-C2B4-4882-A487-4C3920F4F875@btinternet.com> References: <22DBE0E3-C2B4-4882-A487-4C3920F4F875@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4E0DB3E9.5050102@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/07/2011 12:34, Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : > On 1 Jul 2011, at 02:06, Robert Frick wrote: > > Um, >> people don't point to the wrong suit. > Some do. I've known more than one person routinely do that - it > always looks to me as though they're pointing at a different suit to > the one they state. Parallax, arthritis, poor proprioception? I don't > know. AG : there are other interesting cases. West leads, dummy spreads, South thinks, then says "go on" or the like, while raising his finger forward and up . He didn't designate any card by any word, but his gesture means "high". I'd deem this enough. Same if he said "spade" while raising his finger. This gesture incontrovertibly means" high" . There isn't any contradiction, and that's subtle : - if he says "small spade" and raises his finger, then there is a contradiction ; - if he doiesn't sate the level of the card, then the rules say he is deemed to have played a small one because the designation is incomplete ; but if there is a gestutre, it makes it complete, so this law doesn't apply anymore. "small" is a kind of default value. BTW, I regularly use gestures when playing against foreigners. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 1 14:15:01 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 14:15:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] dummy calls with hand gestures In-Reply-To: <22DBE0E3-C2B4-4882-A487-4C3920F4F875@btinternet.com> References: <22DBE0E3-C2B4-4882-A487-4C3920F4F875@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <000f01cc37e8$80e9fb60$82bdf220$@online.no> > Gordon Rainsford > On 1 Jul 2011, at 02:06, Robert Frick wrote: > > Um, > > people don't point to the wrong suit. > > Some do. I've known more than one person routinely do that - it always > looks to me as though they're pointing at a different suit to the one they > state. Parallax, arthritis, poor proprioception? I don't know. [Sven Pran] Sure, squint-eyed people do. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Jul 1 15:47:55 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:47:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] dummy calls with hand gestures In-Reply-To: <4E0DB3E9.5050102@ulb.ac.be> References: <22DBE0E3-C2B4-4882-A487-4C3920 F4F875@btinternet.com> <4E0DB3E9.5050102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4E0DD00B.5090708@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Le 1/07/2011 12:34, Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : >> On 1 Jul 2011, at 02:06, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> Um, >>> people don't point to the wrong suit. >> Some do. I've known more than one person routinely do that - it >> always looks to me as though they're pointing at a different suit to >> the one they state. Parallax, arthritis, poor proprioception? I don't >> know. > > AG : there are other interesting cases. West leads, dummy spreads, South > thinks, then says "go on" or the like, while raising his finger forward > and up . He didn't designate any card by any word, but his gesture means > "high". I'd deem this enough. Same if he said "spade" while raising his > finger. This gesture incontrovertibly means" high" . There isn't any > contradiction, and that's subtle : what is subtle is the way you create new rules. gestures have nothing to do with designation of a card from dummy. designation is only naming the suit and the rank. anything else is an infraction. it's only because there are too frequent infractions that there are predifined dispositions for some wrong designations (low, high, no rank...). the more lenient you are with infractions the more problems you will meet as you can see. and it can even lead to perversion: once a top player (gawrys), in a 3nt contract, needed to run a diamond suit of AKQ10987 in dummy (without any side communication) and 32 in his own hand. he played his D2 and called DA: so far so good; then called DK from dummy: discard from lho; then "diamond" from dummy: rho followed with his D6. everybody thought it was a very clever trick and should be nominated for the best play of the year! > > - if he says "small spade" and raises his finger, then there is a > contradiction ; > - if he doiesn't sate the level of the card, then the rules say he is > deemed to have played a small one because the designation is incomplete > ; but if there is a gestutre, it makes it complete, so this law doesn't > apply anymore. "small" is a kind of default value. > > BTW, I regularly use gestures when playing against foreigners. i could understand it against deaf players or from dumb players. otherwise, english is the international language by regulations and you are also allowed to play cards from dummy by picking them yourself. jpr > > > Best regards > > Alain -- _______________________________________________ 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 ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 1 16:21:12 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:21:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] dummy calls with hand gestures In-Reply-To: <4E0DD00B.5090708@meteo.fr> References: <22DBE0E3-C2B4-4882-A487-4C3920 F4F875@btinternet.com> <4E0DB3E9.5050102@ulb.ac.be> <4E0DD00B.5090708@meteo.fr> Message-ID: On Jul 1, 2011, at 9:47 AM, jean-pierre.rocafort wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > >> Le 1/07/2011 12:34, Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : >> >>> On 1 Jul 2011, at 02:06, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>> Um, >>> people don't point to the wrong suit. >>> Some do. I've known more than one person routinely do that - it >>> always looks to me as though they're pointing at a different suit to >>> the one they state. Parallax, arthritis, poor proprioception? I >>> don't >>> know. >> >> AG : there are other interesting cases. West leads, dummy spreads, >> South >> thinks, then says "go on" or the like, while raising his finger >> forward >> and up . He didn't designate any card by any word, but his gesture >> means >> "high". I'd deem this enough. Same if he said "spade" while >> raising his >> finger. This gesture incontrovertibly means" high" . There isn't any >> contradiction, and that's subtle : > > what is subtle is the way you create new rules. gestures have > nothing to > do with designation of a card from dummy. designation is only > naming the > suit and the rank. anything else is an infraction. it's only because > there are too frequent infractions that there are predifined > dispositions for some wrong designations (low, high, no rank...). the > more lenient you are with infractions the more problems you will > meet as > you can see. and it can even lead to perversion: once a top player > (gawrys), in a 3nt contract, needed to run a diamond suit of > AKQ10987 in > dummy (without any side communication) and 32 in his own hand. he > played > his D2 and called DA: so far so good; then called DK from dummy: > discard > from lho; then "diamond" from dummy: rho followed with his D6. > everybody thought it was a very clever trick and should be > nominated for > the best play of the year! > >> - if he says "small spade" and raises his finger, then there is a >> contradiction ; >> - if he doiesn't sate the level of the card, then the rules say he is >> deemed to have played a small one because the designation is >> incomplete >> ; but if there is a gestutre, it makes it complete, so this law >> doesn't >> apply anymore. "small" is a kind of default value. >> >> BTW, I regularly use gestures when playing against foreigners. > > i could understand it against deaf players or from dumb players. > otherwise, english is the international language by regulations and > you > are also allowed to play cards from dummy by picking them yourself. Every club and locality will inevitably have its own quirks. If at Alain's regular game, a raised finger is universally taken to mean "high", then that's what it means. The authors of TFLB understood this, which is why we are instructed to rule as Jean-Pierre would have us rule "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertable" [L46B]. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 1 18:05:34 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:05:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] dummy calls with hand gestures In-Reply-To: <4E0DD00B.5090708@meteo.fr> References: <22DBE0E3-C2B4-4882-A487-4C3920 F4F875@btinternet.com> <4E0DB3E9.5050102@ulb.ac.be> <4E0DD00B.5090708@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4E0DF04E.4040403@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/07/2011 15:47, jean-pierre.rocafort a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : >> Le 1/07/2011 12:34, Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : >>> On 1 Jul 2011, at 02:06, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>> Um, >>>> people don't point to the wrong suit. >>> Some do. I've known more than one person routinely do that - it >>> always looks to me as though they're pointing at a different suit to >>> the one they state. Parallax, arthritis, poor proprioception? I don't >>> know. >> AG : there are other interesting cases. West leads, dummy spreads, South >> thinks, then says "go on" or the like, while raising his finger forward >> and up . He didn't designate any card by any word, but his gesture means >> "high". I'd deem this enough. Same if he said "spade" while raising his >> finger. This gesture incontrovertibly means" high" . There isn't any >> contradiction, and that's subtle : > what is subtle is the way you create new rules. gestures have nothing to > do with designation of a card from dummy. designation is only naming the > suit and the rank. anything else is an infraction. it's only because > there are too frequent infractions that there are predifined > dispositions for some wrong designations (low, high, no rank...). the > more lenient you are with infractions the more problems you will meet as > you can see. and it can even lead to perversion: once a top player > (gawrys), in a 3nt contract, needed to run a diamond suit of AKQ10987 in > dummy (without any side communication) and 32 in his own hand. he played > his D2 and called DA: so far so good; then called DK from dummy: discard > from lho; then "diamond" from dummy: rho followed with his D6. > everybody thought it was a very clever trick and should be nominated for > the best play of the year! AG : one of the reasons why I use general rules giving 'default values' is to avoid such tricks, which I consider very sharp (to Jean-Pierre : absolument d?plac?). Sorry, but the 'everybody' hereabove won't be my friends. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 1 18:11:33 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:11:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] dummy calls with hand gestures In-Reply-To: References: <22DBE0E3-C2B4-4882-A487-4C3920 F4F875@btinternet.com> <4E0DB3E9.5050102@ulb.ac.be> <4E0DD00B.5090708@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4E0DF1B5.7020108@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/07/2011 16:21, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jul 1, 2011, at 9:47 AM, jean-pierre.rocafort wrote: > >> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : >> >>> Le 1/07/2011 12:34, Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : >>> >>>> On 1 Jul 2011, at 02:06, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> >>>> Um, >>>> people don't point to the wrong suit. >>>> Some do. I've known more than one person routinely do that - it >>>> always looks to me as though they're pointing at a different suit to >>>> the one they state. Parallax, arthritis, poor proprioception? I >>>> don't >>>> know. >>> AG : there are other interesting cases. West leads, dummy spreads, >>> South >>> thinks, then says "go on" or the like, while raising his finger >>> forward >>> and up . He didn't designate any card by any word, but his gesture >>> means >>> "high". I'd deem this enough. Same if he said "spade" while >>> raising his >>> finger. This gesture incontrovertibly means" high" . There isn't any >>> contradiction, and that's subtle : >> what is subtle is the way you create new rules. gestures have >> nothing to >> do with designation of a card from dummy. designation is only >> naming the >> suit and the rank. anything else is an infraction. it's only because >> there are too frequent infractions that there are predifined >> dispositions for some wrong designations (low, high, no rank...). the >> more lenient you are with infractions the more problems you will >> meet as >> you can see. and it can even lead to perversion: once a top player >> (gawrys), in a 3nt contract, needed to run a diamond suit of >> AKQ10987 in >> dummy (without any side communication) and 32 in his own hand. he >> played >> his D2 and called DA: so far so good; then called DK from dummy: >> discard >> from lho; then "diamond" from dummy: rho followed with his D6. >> everybody thought it was a very clever trick and should be >> nominated for >> the best play of the year! >> >>> - if he says "small spade" and raises his finger, then there is a >>> contradiction ; >>> - if he doiesn't sate the level of the card, then the rules say he is >>> deemed to have played a small one because the designation is >>> incomplete >>> ; but if there is a gestutre, it makes it complete, so this law >>> doesn't >>> apply anymore. "small" is a kind of default value. >>> >>> BTW, I regularly use gestures when playing against foreigners. >> i could understand it against deaf players or from dumb players. >> otherwise, english is the international language by regulations and >> you >> are also allowed to play cards from dummy by picking them yourself. > Every club and locality will inevitably have its own quirks. If at > Alain's regular game, a raised finger is universally taken to mean > "high", then that's what it means. The authors of TFLB understood > this, which is why we are instructed to rule as Jean-Pierre would > have us rule "except when declarer's different intention is > incontrovertable" [L46B]. > AG :and a small raking gesture (as if gathering small objects) means 'small' etc. After all, avoiding naming cards (e.g. by pointing to them) helps avoiding the transmission of extraneous information to other tables. 'Ace of spades' means that said card ended in dummy ; 'take it'or 'high' doesn't. Sometimes one can't help but hear it. From adam at tameware.com Fri Jul 1 23:14:17 2011 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 23:14:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) Casebook Comments Posted Message-ID: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Orlando2010.html If you want to discuss a particular case please post a new message > with the case number in the Subject: line rather than replying to this > one. Even better, follow up on an existing thread discussing that case. > -- Adam Wildavsky adam at tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110701/1abc89c5/attachment.html From clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jul 1 23:17:33 2011 From: clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk (Alan Hill) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 22:17:33 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Law 10A versus Law 74A2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1309555053.17888.YahooMailNeo@web27903.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> If you are playing in a club where your opponents ( and you play simply for pleasure) play in the spirit of the game. if you are playing in a serious competition play the rules. For a revoke your opponents should be summoning the TD. Alan H >________________________________ >From: "richard.hills at immi.gov.au" >To: blml at rtflb.org >Sent: Friday, 1 July 2011, 2:39 >Subject: [BLML] Law 10A versus Law 74A2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >It was highly relevant that last night's walk-in pairs was >scored by Butler imps via an Olympic datum, not scored by >matchpoints. The relevance rested in almost the entire field >making a cold 3NT. Therefore, whether my declarer play was >adequate to the task of making 3NT did not affect the scores >of other tables (while at matchpoints pairs the other >contestants would gain or lose a matchpoint when I botched >the play in 3NT, depending upon which direction the other >contestants were sitting). > >In that cold 3NT I committed a meaningless revoke, and the >arbitrary penalty over-compensating equity would have >changed +600 into -100. Both my partner and myself summoned >the Director against our own interests. However, our >opponents were genuinely distressed, not wishing to gain >random imps due to my trivial error (if I had been taking a >little more concentration I would have claimed the trick >before I revoked), so they requested the cancellation of >our summoning of the Director. > >Normally my holier-than-thou super-ethics makes the other >pair happy, but in this case it would be contrary to the >spirit (but not the letter) of Law 74A2. So for the first >time in many years I intentionally infracted 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." > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section >Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 >DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >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/20110701/71e6ea47/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sat Jul 2 00:01:55 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 23:01:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 10A versus Law 74A2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <1309555053.17888.YahooMailNeo@web27903.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <228A3FB111924F45A2B2A9BBE9F1676B@changeme1> One either plays duplicate contract bridge or not. If not, do as you will. If at an affiliated club, master points etac. thay not should, but MUST call the lovely sweet td. If you are playing in a club where your opponents ( and you play simply for pleasure) play in the spirit of the game. if you are playing in a serious competition play the rules. For a revoke your opponents should be summoning the TD. Alan H ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "richard.hills at immi.gov.au" To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Friday, 1 July 2011, 2:39 Subject: [BLML] Law 10A versus Law 74A2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] It was highly relevant that last night's walk-in pairs was scored by Butler imps via an Olympic datum, not scored by matchpoints. The relevance rested in almost the entire field making a cold 3NT. Therefore, whether my declarer play was adequate to the task of making 3NT did not affect the scores of other tables (while at matchpoints pairs the other contestants would gain or lose a matchpoint when I botched the play in 3NT, depending upon which direction the other contestants were sitting). In that cold 3NT I committed a meaningless revoke, and the arbitrary penalty over-compensating equity would have changed +600 into -100. Both my partner and myself summoned the Director against our own interests. However, our opponents were genuinely distressed, not wishing to gain random imps due to my trivial error (if I had been taking a little more concentration I would have claimed the trick before I revoked), so they requested the cancellation of our summoning of the Director. Normally my holier-than-thou super-ethics makes the other pair happy, but in this case it would be contrary to the spirit (but not the letter) of Law 74A2. So for the first time in many years I intentionally infracted 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." Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3737 - Release Date: 07/01/11 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110701/d9cd08e8/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 4 04:03:43 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 12:03:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 4th September 2009 item 9(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: It was agreed that in no circumstances can the application of Law 69B2 lead to a weighted score. The law requires that "such trick" shall be transferred or not transferred as determined by the Director's ascertainment of facts. =+= Law 69B - Agreed Claim or Concession - Director's Decision Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C: 1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or 2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. Law 63 - Establishment of a Revoke ... revoke becomes established ... the offending side makes ... a claim ... it may no longer be corrected ... Law 64C - Director Responsible for Equity ... shall assign an adjusted score. Law 12C1(c) - Awarding an Adjusted Score ... an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results. =+= So if: (a) declarer revokes, and (b) declarer then establishes that revoke by immediately thereafter claiming, but (c) these two errors are not discovered until the next round, then (d) a Director who decides to rectify the invalid claim by using Law 69B2 must not award a weighted score, but (e) a Director who decides to rectify the revoke by using Law 64C may indeed award a weighted score. W.S. Gilbert, The Pirates of Penzance How quaint the ways of Paradox! At common sense she gaily mocks! Though counting in the usual way, Years twenty-one I've been alive, Yet, reckoning by my natal day, I am a little boy of five! -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110704/0a45c545/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 4 08:58:36 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 08:58:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 4th September 2009 item 9(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E11649C.4040901@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > It was agreed that in no circumstances can the application > of Law 69B2 lead to a weighted score. The law requires > that "such trick" shall be transferred or not transferred > as determined by the Director's ascertainment of facts. > > =+= > > Law 69B - Agreed Claim or Concession - Director's Decision > > Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be > withdrawn within the Correction Period established under > Law 79C: > 1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, > in fact, won; or > 2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his > side would likely have won had the play continued. > The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. > > Law 63 - Establishment of a Revoke > > ... revoke becomes established ... the offending side > makes ... a claim ... it may no longer be corrected ... > > Law 64C - Director Responsible for Equity > > ... shall assign an adjusted score. > > Law 12C1(c) - Awarding an Adjusted Score > > ... an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect > the probabilities of a number of potential results. > > =+= > > So if: > > (a) declarer revokes, and > (b) declarer then establishes that revoke by immediately > thereafter claiming, but > (c) these two errors are not discovered until the next > round, then > (d) a Director who decides to rectify the invalid claim > by using Law 69B2 must not award a weighted score, but > (e) a Director who decides to rectify the revoke by > using Law 64C may indeed award a weighted score. > I don't think that is true, Richard. Indeed under L64C a weighted score is possible. In fact, such a score was given in Poznan. However, the weighted options are simply those of "what would have happened if ...". Now if a claim has been made in the meantime, this "what would have happened" is biased against the claimer. So I don't believe such a condition could exist. We cold contrive to make situations in which: - the claim occurs earlier in the deal, and was not discovered; - defenders than had to make no decision, whereas without the revoke, they would have needed to; - the claim only occurs after that decision is taken. Then we could have a case where L64C implies a weighted score, based on the defenders' actions, and the claim resolution after each of the options becomes routine. But then we'd just be ruling on L64C. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 5 07:06:30 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 15:06:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring - constitutional Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E08AFA3.5010403@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael [snip] Most of you take the mechanistic view that the revoke occurs when declarer detaches the heart from hand and puts it on the table. Maybe it is better to take the mentalistic view that the revoke occurs when declarer plays the queen of clubs, intending to discard the heart on it. Richard Hills No and No. Law 61A - Definition of Revoke Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 ... Law 44C - Requirement to Follow Suit In playing __to__ a trick, each player must follow suit ... Pocket Oxford Dictionary to, prep. effected or produced (do to death, found to his dismay, tear to pieces) Herman De Wael And I am certain we shall not disagree that at that point the equity is 11 tricks. Richard Hills Yes and No. One of my personal preferences for the 2019 Lawbook would be to abolish Laws 64A and 64B so that the 2007 Law 64C is the only surviving clause of the 2019 Law 64. If that Utopia did take effect, then I do agree that if the case under debate recurred in 2019 a Director and Appeals Committee awarding 11 tricks would not only achieve equity, but would also achieve an unquestionably legal outcome. A "mechanistic view" is that equity in a game is defined by its rules. But when a Drafting Committee is changing the rules, it must indeed decide which of two alternative draft rules will become the most equitable final rule. William Morris "Billy" Hughes, Aussie Member of Parliament from 1901 to 1952, Aussie Prime Minister from 1915 to 1923 "I don't want justice, I want mercy." (on having his portrait painted) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110705/245f6128/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Jul 5 09:40:56 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:40:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 4th September 2009 item 9(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard, Are you aware of how difficult your posts are to read, because of the ridiculously small type-face you use? Generally I don't bother, unless someone else has replied and thereby rendered it readable (in form at any rate). Gordon On 4 Jul 2011, at 03:03, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > It was agreed that in no circumstances can the application > of Law 69B2 lead to a weighted score. The law requires > that "such trick" shall be transferred or not transferred > as determined by the Director's ascertainment of facts. > > =+= > > Law 69B - Agreed Claim or Concession - Director's Decision > > Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be > withdrawn within the Correction Period established under > Law 79C: > 1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, > in fact, won; or > 2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his > side would likely have won had the play continued. > The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. > > Law 63 - Establishment of a Revoke > > ... revoke becomes established ... the offending side > makes ... a claim ... it may no longer be corrected ... > > Law 64C - Director Responsible for Equity > > ... shall assign an adjusted score. > > Law 12C1(c) - Awarding an Adjusted Score > > ... an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect > the probabilities of a number of potential results. > > =+= > > So if: > > (a) declarer revokes, and > (b) declarer then establishes that revoke by immediately > thereafter claiming, but > (c) these two errors are not discovered until the next > round, then > (d) a Director who decides to rectify the invalid claim > by using Law 69B2 must not award a weighted score, but > (e) a Director who decides to rectify the revoke by > using Law 64C may indeed award a weighted score. > > W.S. Gilbert, The Pirates of Penzance > > How quaint the ways of Paradox! > At common sense she gaily mocks! > Though counting in the usual way, > Years twenty-one I've been alive, > Yet, reckoning by my natal day, > I am a little boy of five! > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/20110705/867d098b/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Jul 5 09:59:36 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:59:36 +1000 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 4th September 2009 item 9(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201107050759.p657xvtO023043@mail15.syd.optusnet.com.au> I think this is our government attempting to save on bandwidth. Or perhaps Richard's opinions are becoming less certain, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) At 05:40 PM 5/07/2011, you wrote: >Richard, > >Are you aware of how difficult your posts are to read, because of >the ridiculously small type-face you use? Generally I don't bother, >unless someone else has replied and thereby rendered it readable (in >form at any rate). > >Gordon > > >On 4 Jul 2011, at 03:03, >richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>It was agreed that in no circumstances can the application >>of Law 69B2 lead to a weighted score. The law requires >>that "such trick" shall be transferred or not transferred >>as determined by the Director's ascertainment of facts. >> >>=+= >> >>Law 69B - Agreed Claim or Concession - Director's Decision >> >>Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be >>withdrawn within the Correction Period established under >>Law 79C: >>1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, >>in fact, won; or >>2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his >>side would likely have won had the play continued. >>The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. >> >>Law 63 - Establishment of a Revoke >> >>... revoke becomes established ... the offending side >>makes ... a claim ... it may no longer be corrected ... >> >>Law 64C - Director Responsible for Equity >> >>... shall assign an adjusted score. >> >>Law 12C1(c) - Awarding an Adjusted Score >> >>... an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect >>the probabilities of a number of potential results. >> >>=+= >> >>So if: >> >>(a) declarer revokes, and >>(b) declarer then establishes that revoke by immediately >>thereafter claiming, but >>(c) these two errors are not discovered until the next >>round, then >>(d) a Director who decides to rectify the invalid claim >>by using Law 69B2 must not award a weighted score, but >>(e) a Director who decides to rectify the revoke by >>using Law 64C may indeed award a weighted score. >> >>W.S. Gilbert, The Pirates of Penzance >> >>How quaint the ways of Paradox! >>At common sense she gaily mocks! >>Though counting in the usual way, >>Years twenty-one I've been alive, >>Yet, reckoning by my natal day, >>I am a little boy of five! >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>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 > >_______________________________________________ >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/20110705/7b09722f/attachment-0001.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 5 11:20:19 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:20:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring - constitutional Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E08AFA3.5010403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <81A388622E2C4D69A46A3FF5200D697D@Thain> Grattan Endicott On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:52:55 -0400, wrote: > > > >> >> Richard Hills >> >> Perhaps relevant to Grattan's point is that Law 12B1 does >> NOT use this (perhaps Gampas-preferred) criterion: >> >> "...the expectation at the moment before the infraction..." >> >> but instead Law 12B1 actually uses this criterion: >> >> "...the expectation had the infraction not occurred..." > > These are going to come to the same thing. Right? Everything that occurs > before the infraction would have still occurred if the infraction had not > occurred. > > Don't we all agree that equity for the first revoke is determined by the > expectation at the moment before the revoke occurred? As opposed to, for > example, the expectation at the start of the hand or the expectation a > trick before the revoke? Yes, we all agree about that. What we don't agree is when the revoke actually occurs. Most of you take the mechanistic view that the revoke occurs when declarer detaches the heart from hand and puts it on the table. Maybe it is better to take the mentalistic view that the revoke occurs when declarer plays the queen of clubs, intending to discard the heart on it. And I am certain we shall not disagree that at that point the equity is 11 tricks. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gampas at aol.com Tue Jul 5 19:51:10 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 13:51:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 4th September 2009 item 9(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CE095342219E59-B58-31F90@Webmail-d107.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Rainsford To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 8:40 Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 4th September 2009 item 9(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] [Gordon Rainsford] Richard, Are you aware of how difficult your posts are to read, because of the ridiculously small type-face you use? Generally I don't bother, unless someone else has replied and thereby rendered it readable (in form at any rate). Gordon [Paul Lamford] I think you mean readable (in point size). I am unaware of any posts readable in either form or substance. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 6 00:49:27 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 08:49:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Paul appealing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard, Are you aware of how difficult your posts are to read, because of the ridiculously small type-face you use? Generally I don't bother, unless someone else has replied and thereby rendered it readable (in form at any rate). Gordon Hello Gordon, I have upgraded my font from Courier New 10 to Default Sans Serif 12. Is this easier to read? Best wishes Richard Hills Presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson was invited to speak to a Baptist convention in Texas during the 1952 campaign "just as a courtesy, because Doctor Norman Vincent Peale has already instructed us to vote for your opponent". The opening sentence of Adlai Stevenson's address: "Well, speaking as a Christian, I would like to say that I find the Apostle Paul appealing and the Apostle Peale appalling." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110705/d1fdcbda/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 6 07:31:13 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:31:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Paul appealing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Swiss (matchpointed) Pairs Dlr: South Vul: Both The bidding has gone W N E S --- --- --- Pass 1S X 4C(1) ? (1) splinter You, South, hold: --- JT42 875 QT9642 What call should you make? What call should you avoid? Best wishes Richard Hills Paul Lamford is a Grandmaster and winner of a few national events. He is author of Starting Out in Bridge and 50 Bridge Puzzles and a regular contributor to the International Bridge Laws Forum and the Bridge Laws Mailing List. He is a former Executive Editor of Bridge magazine and Macmillan bridge books. Richard Hills is a Grossmeister (grossly fat) and loser of many national events. He is author of the Bridge is Hobbit Forming series of articles and a regular contributor to the Daily Bulletins of Aussie National Championships and the Bridge Laws Mailing list (in which his postings are by some automatically deleted). He was formerly a co-author of the Index to the Lawbook and also is currently a co-author of movie reviews for the Australian National University Film Group. Note: Movie reviews are emailed ad hoc to gafiated blmler Marvin French; other blmlers may request to be added to this movie review mailing list. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110706/3a4e97e7/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jul 6 15:51:06 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:51:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Paul appealing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Many thanks Richard. Now I can get down to the business of assessing their content! Gordon On 5 Jul 2011, at 23:49, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard, > > Are you aware of how difficult your posts are to read, because of > the ridiculously small type-face you use? Generally I don't bother, > unless someone else has replied and thereby rendered it readable > (in form at any rate). > > Gordon > > Hello Gordon, > > I have upgraded my font from Courier New 10 to Default Sans Serif > 12. Is this easier to read? > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > > Presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson was invited to speak to a > Baptist convention in Texas during the 1952 campaign "just as a > courtesy, because Doctor Norman Vincent Peale has already > instructed us to vote for your opponent". The opening sentence of > Adlai Stevenson's address: > > "Well, speaking as a Christian, I would like to say that I find the > Apostle Paul appealing and the Apostle Peale appalling." > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/20110706/b475bbaf/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 8 21:20:46 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:20:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding Message-ID: I know this is probably discussed out, but I had a perfect example today. 1S P 1NT P 2H P 3NT The problem was the 2H rebid. The players agreed on 2/1 with forcing NT, for which almost everyone knows that 2H shows 4. East didn't know that part of the convention, and he bid 2H with only 3 hearts. The claims of damage seemed reasonable so the ruling reduced to misbid versus mistaken explanation. Again, if all they say is a convention name -- or in this case, a system -- what is their agreement when they have a different understanding of what the convention is? Fortunately, today was a special game and I could just bump the decision up to the director in charge, a National Director. He responded, "Did the nt bidder believe, even a bit, that partner could have only 3 hearts? The answer should point the way." Since the answer to this was no, I ruled misbid. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Jul 9 12:53:56 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:53:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1907D0AE-3185-4CB0-98E5-C7194CA0FDC1@btinternet.com> On 8 Jul 2011, at 20:20, Robert Frick wrote: The players agreed on 2/1 with forcing NT, > for which almost everyone knows that 2H shows 4. East didn't know that > part of the convention, It's not part of a convention to rebid 2H showing four. Gordon Rainsford From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 9 15:59:14 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 09:59:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <1907D0AE-3185-4CB0-98E5-C7194CA0FDC1@btinternet.com> References: <1907D0AE-3185-4CB0-98E5-C7194CA0FDC1@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 06:53:56 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 8 Jul 2011, at 20:20, Robert Frick wrote: > > The players agreed on 2/1 with forcing NT, >> for which almost everyone knows that 2H shows 4. East didn't know that >> part of the convention, > > It's not part of a convention to rebid 2H showing four. ?? There is some part of the world in which this does not show 4? That's interesting. I would like to know where. Anyway, it shows 4 here. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Jul 9 17:55:30 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 16:55:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: <1907D0AE-3185-4CB0-98E5-C7194CA0FDC1@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On 9 Jul 2011, at 14:59, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 06:53:56 -0400, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> >> On 8 Jul 2011, at 20:20, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> The players agreed on 2/1 with forcing NT, >>> for which almost everyone knows that 2H shows 4. East didn't know >>> that >>> part of the convention, >> >> It's not part of a convention to rebid 2H showing four. > > ?? There is some part of the world in which this does not show 4? > That's > interesting. I would like to know where. Anyway, it shows 4 here. On the contrary, you said it was part of a convention, whereas to me it's just natural bridge. Gordon Rainsford From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 9 22:21:55 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 16:21:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: <1907D0AE-3185-4CB0-98E5-C7194CA0FDC1@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 11:55:30 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 9 Jul 2011, at 14:59, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 06:53:56 -0400, Gordon Rainsford >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 20:20, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>> The players agreed on 2/1 with forcing NT, >>>> for which almost everyone knows that 2H shows 4. East didn't know >>>> that >>>> part of the convention, >>> >>> It's not part of a convention to rebid 2H showing four. >> >> ?? There is some part of the world in which this does not show 4? >> That's >> interesting. I would like to know where. Anyway, it shows 4 here. > > On the contrary, you said it was part of a convention, whereas to me > it's just natural bridge. > > Gordon Rainsford > No, pretty sure about it not being natural bridge. In 1NT forcing, the opener often has to bid a 3-card suit, and responder has to realize that opener might be rebidding a 3-card suit. So it is somewhat natural to bid 2H with a 3-card suit, expecting partner to know it could be three. indeed, I was once castigated by partner for leaving him in a 3-3 heart fit. At that time, I found one reference saying that 2H shows 4. I played it as showing 4 from my K-S days, but it was reasonable to me that it had changed. And, as the example shows, this player found it natural to be 2H with three. So I am next to positive that 2H showing 4 is conventional. Or, you are walking into very dangerous waters. Is it just bridge that over new-minor-forcing I should 3-card support? Is it just bridge that I would show a 4-card heart suit? Is it just bridge that I jump the biodding with extra values? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 11 04:23:10 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:23:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Verbal discussion without mutual understanding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills Three slightly deaf Aussie tourists are driving around London. 1st Aussie: "Is this Wembley?" 2nd Aussie: "No, it's Thursday." 3rd Aussie: "Some am I, let's find a pub." While those three are having a verbal discussion, and each one "knows" the topic being discussed, one cannot say that they have a verbal agreement about the topic being discussed. Hence the change in the subject line of this thread from the contradiction-in-terms "Verbal agreement without mutual understanding" to "Verbal discussion without mutual understanding". Robert Frick I know this is probably discussed out, but I had a perfect example today. 1S P 1NT P 2H P 3NT The problem was the 2H rebid. The players agreed on 2/1 with forcing NT, for which almost everyone knows that 2H shows 4. East didn't know that part of the convention, and he bid 2H with only 3 hearts. The claims of damage seemed reasonable so the ruling reduced to misbid versus mistaken explanation. Again, if all they say is a convention name -- or in this case, a system -- what is their agreement when they have a different understanding of what the convention is? Fortunately, today was a special game and I could just bump the decision up to the director in charge, a National Director. He responded, "Did the NT bidder believe, even a bit, that partner could have only 3 hearts? The answer should point the way." Since the answer to this was no, I ruled misbid. Richard Hills On the facts given, both the National Director and Robert Frick asked the wrong question. It is not relevant whether the NT bidder believed that a London suburb or the current day of the week or a beer or at least four cards in hearts is the agreed meaning of 2H. The relevant question is whether the 2H bidder: (a) had read and understood the same textbook as the 1NT bidder, which specified that a 2C or 2D rebid could be 3 cards, but a 2H rebid guarantees 4 cards, then later had a memory lapse = misbid or (b) had instead read and understood "The Hoffmeister Notrump" textbook, which specified that a 2H response to a forcing notrump must be made if and only if holding exactly 3 cards in hearts= misexplanation (the correct explanation would be "No agreement, because pard thinks Wembley while I think Thursday."). Best wishes Richard Powell, Tickets to the Devil -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110711/ce210c0f/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 11 04:29:19 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:29:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Verbal discussion without mutual understanding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:23:10 -0400, wrote: > > Richard Hills > > Three slightly deaf Aussie tourists are driving around London. > > 1st Aussie: "Is this Wembley?" > 2nd Aussie: "No, it's Thursday." > 3rd Aussie: "Some am I, let's find a pub." > > While those three are having a verbal discussion, and each one "knows" > the > topic being discussed, one cannot say that they have a verbal agreement > about the topic being discussed. Hence the change in the subject line of > this thread from the contradiction-in-terms "Verbal agreement without > mutual understanding" to "Verbal discussion without mutual > understanding". > > Robert Frick > > I know this is probably discussed out, but I had a perfect example today. > > 1S P 1NT P > 2H P 3NT > > The problem was the 2H rebid. The players agreed on 2/1 with forcing NT, > for which almost everyone knows that 2H shows 4. East didn't know that > part > of the convention, and he bid 2H with only 3 hearts. The claims of > damage > seemed reasonable so the ruling reduced to misbid versus mistaken > explanation. Again, if all they say is a convention name -- or in this > case, a system -- what is their agreement when they have a different > understanding of what the convention is? > > Fortunately, today was a special game and I could just bump the decision > up > to the director in charge, a National Director. He responded, "Did the NT > bidder believe, even a bit, that partner could have only 3 hearts? The > answer should point the way." Since the answer to this was no, I ruled > misbid. > > Richard Hills > > On the facts given, both the National Director and Robert Frick asked the > wrong question. It is not relevant whether the NT bidder believed that a > London suburb or the current day of the week or a beer or at least four > cards in hearts is the agreed meaning of 2H. The relevant question is > whether the 2H bidder: > > (a) had read and understood the same textbook as the 1NT bidder, which > specified that a 2C or 2D rebid could be 3 cards, but a 2H rebid > guarantees > 4 cards, then later had a memory lapse = misbid This didn't happen > > or > > (b) had instead read and understood "The Hoffmeister Notrump" textbook, > which specified that a 2H response to a forcing notrump must be made if > and > only if holding exactly 3 cards in hearts= misexplanation (the correct > explanation would be "No agreement, because pard thinks Wembley while I > think Thursday."). > This didn't happen either From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Jul 11 12:25:52 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:25:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: <1907D0AE-3185-4CB0-98E5-C7194CA0FDC1@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <7B3B0F81-0686-4BF9-BAB5-36A1F7B4B91C@btinternet.com> On 9 Jul 2011, at 21:21, Robert Frick wrote: (of the sequence 1S-1NT(F1)-2H) > No, pretty sure about it not being natural bridge. In 1NT forcing, the > opener often has to bid a 3-card suit, and responder has to realize > that > opener might be rebidding a 3-card suit. For three-card suit read three-card minor. > So it is somewhat natural to bid > 2H with a 3-card suit, expecting partner to know it could be three. Were this the case, it would be the three-card major that would be conventional, not the requirement for four cards to rebid 2H. > > So I am next to positive that 2H showing 4 is conventional. And I am even more positive that it is not. > > Or, you are walking into very dangerous waters. Is it just bridge that > over new-minor-forcing I should 3-card support? Yes > Is it just bridge that I > would show a 4-card heart suit? Yes > Is it just bridge that I jump the biodding > with extra values? In many circumstances, yes From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 11 12:31:43 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:31:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/07/2011 21:20, Robert Frick a ?crit : > I know this is probably discussed out, but I had a perfect example today. > > 1S P 1NT P > 2H P 3NT > > The problem was the 2H rebid. The players agreed on 2/1 with forcing NT, > for which almost everyone knows that 2H shows 4. East didn't know that > part of the convention, and he bid 2H with only 3 hearts. The claims of > damage seemed reasonable so the ruling reduced to misbid versus mistaken > explanation. Again, if all they say is a convention name -- or in this > case, a system -- what is their agreement when they have a different > understanding of what the convention is? > > Fortunately, today was a special game and I could just bump the decision > up to the director in charge, a National Director. He responded, "Did the > nt bidder believe, even a bit, that partner could have only 3 hearts? The > answer should point the way." Since the answer to this was no, I ruled > misbid. AG : if I understand the case, there was no explanation ; just a non-alert of 2H, which means that West thought that the bid showed 4 hearts. Since this is consistent with standard style, I'm tempted to rule your way. An important element is that "forcing NT" has no bearing here, as the rebid (as opposed to 2m) has the same meaning as in, say , Acol. Whence there wasn't any item of poteltially misdercriptive information. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 11 12:38:25 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:38:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: <1907D0AE-3185-4CB0-98E5-C7194CA0FDC1@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4E1AD2A1.2000204@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/07/2011 22:21, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 11:55:30 -0400, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> On 9 Jul 2011, at 14:59, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 06:53:56 -0400, Gordon Rainsford >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 20:20, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> >>>> The players agreed on 2/1 with forcing NT, >>>>> for which almost everyone knows that 2H shows 4. East didn't know >>>>> that >>>>> part of the convention, >>>> It's not part of a convention to rebid 2H showing four. >>> ?? There is some part of the world in which this does not show 4? >>> That's >>> interesting. I would like to know where. Anyway, it shows 4 here. >> On the contrary, you said it was part of a convention, whereas to me >> it's just natural bridge. >> >> Gordon Rainsford >> > No, pretty sure about it not being natural bridge. In 1NT forcing, the > opener often has to bid a 3-card suit, and responder has to realize that > opener might be rebidding a 3-card suit. So it is somewhat natural to bid > 2H with a 3-card suit, expecting partner to know it could be three. > indeed, I was once castigated by partner for leaving him in a 3-3 heart > fit. At that time, I found one reference saying that 2H shows 4. I played > it as showing 4 from my K-S days, but it was reasonable to me that it had > changed. And, as the example shows, this player found it natural to be 2H > with three. AG : in which case he erred about the system. No infraction. notice that "bidding 3-card suits up the line when you can't find a 4-card suit to bid" is the standard in many cases. I wouldn't call it conventional. And if that's the case, 2H should shos 4. > So I am next to positive that 2H showing 4 is conventional. > > Or, you are walking into very dangerous waters. Is it just bridge that > over new-minor-forcing I should 3-card support? Is it just bridge that I > would show a 4-card heart suit? Is it just bridge that I jump the biodding > with extra values? AG : nope, but it is standard bridge. Claiming that their system is different, only because somebody once bid differently, is a big position. From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Jul 11 13:49:59 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:49:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> As almost usual I do not seem to understand the problem. A pair *agreed* forcing 1NT, without discussing the answers. One of the pair thought it meant he should rebid whatever came close. The other thought the rebid would only be a 3crd in a minor. Thus, they had no agreement on the meaning of the 2H bid. The opponents therefore had the right to get this *no agreement* as an answer to the meaning of the 2H bid. Thus, if they can make a valid claim they would have bid/defended better over this *no agreement* answer I would make up an adjusted score. It seems to me highly unlikely, but not impossible, they can make such a case. Hans From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 11 14:51:36 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:51:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> Message-ID: <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/07/2011 13:49, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > As almost usual I do not seem to understand the problem. > A pair *agreed* forcing 1NT, without discussing the answers. > One of the pair thought it meant he should rebid whatever came close. > The other thought the rebid would only be a 3crd in a minor. > > Thus, they had no agreement on the meaning of the 2H bid. > > The opponents therefore had the right to get this *no agreement* as an > answer to the meaning of the 2H bid. AG : apparently they didn't ask. From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Jul 11 16:10:12 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:10:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <028601cc3fd4$402365a0$c06a30e0$@nl> Makes no difference, if it was not alerted they still should have a right to know the meaning. Pairs playing a system where this simple sequence has no agreed meaning have an obligation to make this non-agreed meaning known. This is of course all theoretical, nobody can blame the pair for not alerting etc, but still their opponents have the right to the non-agreement. Hans -----Original Message----- From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] Sent: maandag 11 juli 2011 14:52 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: Hans van Staveren Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding Le 11/07/2011 13:49, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > As almost usual I do not seem to understand the problem. > A pair *agreed* forcing 1NT, without discussing the answers. > One of the pair thought it meant he should rebid whatever came close. > The other thought the rebid would only be a 3crd in a minor. > > Thus, they had no agreement on the meaning of the 2H bid. > > The opponents therefore had the right to get this *no agreement* as an > answer to the meaning of the 2H bid. AG : apparently they didn't ask. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 11 16:14:03 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:14:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:51:36 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 11/07/2011 13:49, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : >> As almost usual I do not seem to understand the problem. >> A pair *agreed* forcing 1NT, without discussing the answers. >> One of the pair thought it meant he should rebid whatever came close. >> The other thought the rebid would only be a 3crd in a minor. >> >> Thus, they had no agreement on the meaning of the 2H bid. >> >> The opponents therefore had the right to get this *no agreement* as an >> answer to the meaning of the 2H bid. > AG : apparently they didn't ask. Sorry, I left that part out. They did ask and were told that 2H showed 4 hearts. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 11 16:27:31 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:27:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Verbal discussion without mutual understanding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:23:10 -0400, wrote: > > Richard Hills > > Three slightly deaf Aussie tourists are driving around London. > > 1st Aussie: "Is this Wembley?" > 2nd Aussie: "No, it's Thursday." > 3rd Aussie: "Some am I, let's find a pub." > > While those three are having a verbal discussion, and each one "knows" > the > topic being discussed, one cannot say that they have a verbal agreement > about the topic being discussed. Hence the change in the subject line of > this thread from the contradiction-in-terms "Verbal agreement without > mutual understanding" to "Verbal discussion without mutual > understanding". > > Robert Frick > > I know this is probably discussed out, but I had a perfect example today. > > 1S P 1NT P > 2H P 3NT > > The problem was the 2H rebid. The players agreed on 2/1 with forcing NT, > for which almost everyone knows that 2H shows 4. East didn't know that > part > of the convention, and he bid 2H with only 3 hearts. The claims of > damage > seemed reasonable so the ruling reduced to misbid versus mistaken > explanation. Again, if all they say is a convention name -- or in this > case, a system -- what is their agreement when they have a different > understanding of what the convention is? > > Fortunately, today was a special game and I could just bump the decision > up > to the director in charge, a National Director. He responded, "Did the NT > bidder believe, even a bit, that partner could have only 3 hearts? The > answer should point the way." Since the answer to this was no, I ruled > misbid. > > Richard Hills > > On the facts given, both the National Director and Robert Frick asked the > wrong question. It is not relevant whether the NT bidder believed that a > London suburb or the current day of the week or a beer or at least four > cards in hearts is the agreed meaning of 2H. The relevant question is > whether the 2H bidder: > > (a) had read and understood the same textbook as the 1NT bidder, which > specified that a 2C or 2D rebid could be 3 cards, but a 2H rebid > guarantees > 4 cards, then later had a memory lapse = misbid > > or > > (b) had instead read and understood "The Hoffmeister Notrump" textbook, > which specified that a 2H response to a forcing notrump must be made if > and > only if holding exactly 3 cards in hearts= misexplanation (the correct > explanation would be "No agreement, because pard thinks Wembley while I > think Thursday."). > There is something very odd about this answer. You are saying that the answer relies upon mutual understanding, and when there is no mutual understanding, the correct answer is one that *neither* person has. Isn't that illogical? Put another way, you (and others) are saying: If both people understand the same thing, that's an understanding, but when one person believes one thing and another person believes another, their understanding is actually something that neither one understands. This is not just being picky. I have fewer problems with the answer "no agreement" when both players believe that. (I assume you mean "no understanding" instead of "no agreement") From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 11 16:37:29 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:37:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <7B3B0F81-0686-4BF9-BAB5-36A1F7B4B91C@btinternet.com> References: <1907D0AE-3185-4CB0-98E5-C7194CA0FDC1@btinternet.com> <7B3B0F81-0686-4BF9-BAB5-36A1F7B4B91C@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:25:52 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 9 Jul 2011, at 21:21, Robert Frick wrote: > > (of the sequence 1S-1NT(F1)-2H) > >> No, pretty sure about it not being natural bridge. In 1NT forcing, the >> opener often has to bid a 3-card suit, and responder has to realize >> that >> opener might be rebidding a 3-card suit. > > For three-card suit read three-card minor. > >> So it is somewhat natural to bid >> 2H with a 3-card suit, expecting partner to know it could be three. > > Were this the case, it would be the three-card major that would be > conventional, not the requirement for four cards to rebid 2H. >> >> So I am next to positive that 2H showing 4 is conventional. > > And I am even more positive that it is not. Again, I am wondering about this use of terms. I am pretty sure my old K-S book said that the 2H rebid showed 4 hearts. Why would they say that? I am positive that if players do not read or hear this, at least some of them will conclude that they can bid 2H with 3. Did I already write this: I passed out 2H with 3 hearts and 2 spades, thinking it better to play in a 4-3 fit than a 5-2 fit. That left us in a 3-3 heart fit, for which my partner criticized my pass, explained to me that 2H only promised 3, and told me not to do it again. He was not a stupid person. How do we explain that behavior? The only explanation I can think of, which seems obvious to me, is that it is an agreement that 2H promises 4, that the agreement could be otherwise, that other ways are not illogical, and that he did not read the agreement. >> >> Or, you are walking into very dangerous waters. Is it just bridge that >> over new-minor-forcing I should 3-card support? > > Yes > >> Is it just bridge that I >> would show a 4-card heart suit? > > Yes > >> Is it just bridge that I jump the biodding >> with extra values? > > In many circumstances, yes So the auction is 1D P 1S P 1NT P 2C(1) P 2NT P P P (1) New Minor Forcing Opening leader asks about the meaning of 2NT. The answer is "natural". Is that good enough for you? I don't think the explanation has to include information that is general knowledge, right? I don't think that explanation would be enough here. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 11 18:16:04 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:16:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: <1907D0AE-3185-4CB0-98E5-C7194CA0FDC1@btinternet.com> <7B3B0F81-0686-4BF9-BAB5-36A1F7B4B91C@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4E1B21C4.2000904@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/07/2011 16:37, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:25:52 -0400, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> On 9 Jul 2011, at 21:21, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> (of the sequence 1S-1NT(F1)-2H) >> >>> No, pretty sure about it not being natural bridge. In 1NT forcing, the >>> opener often has to bid a 3-card suit, and responder has to realize >>> that >>> opener might be rebidding a 3-card suit. >> For three-card suit read three-card minor. >> >>> So it is somewhat natural to bid >>> 2H with a 3-card suit, expecting partner to know it could be three. >> Were this the case, it would be the three-card major that would be >> conventional, not the requirement for four cards to rebid 2H. >>> So I am next to positive that 2H showing 4 is conventional. >> And I am even more positive that it is not. > Again, I am wondering about this use of terms. I am pretty sure my old K-S > book said that the 2H rebid showed 4 hearts. Why would they say that? I am > positive that if players do not read or hear this, at least some of them > will conclude that they can bid 2H with 3. AG : and I'm positive that "If you have to lie, do it in a minor" is well-known in the most remote bridge-playing places. > So the auction is > > 1D P 1S P > 1NT P 2C(1) P > 2NT P P P > > (1) New Minor Forcing > > Opening leader asks about the meaning of 2NT. The answer is "natural". Is > that good enough for you? I don't think the explanation has to include > information that is general knowledge, right? I don't think that > explanation would be enough here. AG : if I was called at the table, I could well decide that the explanation means "partner describes his hand as best as he can", and judge accordingly; There are many, many pairs who play 4th suit force and don't bother to discuss the meaning of the rebids, relying on partner to bid as naturally as possible, especially in cases where the force is a game force. I don't see anything wrong with this. Having no agreement could be judged an infraction, or even impossible, by some of us. But having the agreement of "making a natural bid, as descriptive as possible" can't be wrong. Of course, any sane being would deduce that, in your case, it means that one hasn't 4H nor 3S (or doesn't want to show them). Best regards Alain From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Jul 11 20:23:34 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:23:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: <1907D0AE-3185-4CB0-98E5-C7194CA0FDC1@btinternet.com> <7B3B0F81-0686-4BF9-BAB5-36A1F7B4B91C@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <7135549E-9002-49E8-8EBA-40B177669AB0@btinternet.com> On 11 Jul 2011, at 15:37, Robert Frick wrote: > >>> >>> Or, you are walking into very dangerous waters. Is it just bridge >>> that >>> over new-minor-forcing I should 3-card support? >> >> Yes >> >>> Is it just bridge that I >>> would show a 4-card heart suit? >> >> Yes >> >>> Is it just bridge that I jump the biodding >>> with extra values? >> >> In many circumstances, yes > > So the auction is > > 1D P 1S P > 1NT P 2C(1) P > 2NT P P P > > (1) New Minor Forcing > > Opening leader asks about the meaning of 2NT. The answer is > "natural". Is > that good enough for you? I don't think the explanation has to include > information that is general knowledge, right? I don't think that > explanation would be enough here. No, I think the meaning should be fully disclosed when asked, but that doesn't make it necessarily alertable (which depends on the regulations in force), and nor does it make it conventional. With almost all of my partners I have the agreement that a 1D opening shows four cards in the suit - either because we play four-cards suit opening, or because we play a 2+ club opening. If we were asked about it, we would explain, but that doesn't make it alertable or conventional. Gordon Rainsford From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 12 00:23:03 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:23:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Interactive Workshop for Directors [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Australian Bridge Directors? Association in association with New South Wales Bridge Association Presents an Interactive Workshop for Directors North Shore Bridge Club (Club Willoughby, 26 Crabbes Avenue, WILLOUGHBY 2068) 1 & 2 October, 2011 Programme Saturday Morning |--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 9:45am Morning tea on arrival |Registration | |--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 10:00am |Sean Mullamphy, ABDA President, ABF - CTD | | Welcome and Introductions | | |--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 10.05am |Sean Mullamphy, ABF ? CTD | | Workshop ? the seminar will break into |Arie Geursen ? Chief Director, NZ Bridge | | small groups to reproduce problems |Matthew McManus, NSWBA ? CTD | | regularly experienced from club play. |Laurie Kelso, VBA - CTD, Chair ABF | | |Regulations | |--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 11:30am Morning Tea | | |--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 11.45pm |Arie Geursen ? Chief Director, NZ Bridge | | Insufficient Bid Law in depth | | |--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 1.00pm (approx) Lunch | | |--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| Afternoon |---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 1:30pm | Matthew McManus | | Unauthorised Information ? with work groups | | |---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 3:00pm | Laurie Kelso | | Dealing with errors (dealing machine, | | | scoring and director!) ? Part 1 | | |---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 3.30pm Afternoon Tea | | |---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 3:45pm |Sean Mullamphy | | Law 12 Adjusted Scores | | |---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 4.15pm | Arie Geursen, Laurie Kelso, Matthew McManus| | Appeals Committee Demonstration | & Sean Mullamphy | |---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 4.30pm | Arie Geursen, Laurie Kelso, Matthew McManus| | Q & A Panel Discussion (Bring all your | & Sean Mullamphy | | questions) | | |---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| Sunday Morning |--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 9:45am Morning tea on arrival | | |--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 10:00am |Sean Mullamphy | | Procedural Penalties ? Slow play, late | | | arrival etc | | |--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 11.00am |Arie Geursen | | The Appeals process ? with workgroups | | |--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 12:30pm (approx) Lunch | | |--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| Afternoon |---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 1:00pm | Laurie Kelso | | Dealing with errors (dealing machine, | | | scoring and director!) ? Part 2 | | |---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 1.30pm |Matthew McManus | | ?Awkward Customers I?ve Dealt with? | | | Role play ? Misinformation, misbids, failure|Assisted by Laurie Kelso, Arie Geursen & | | to alert. |Sean Mullamphy | | The seminar will break into small groups to | | | reproduce and workshop DIFFICULT problems | | | and discuss the solutions. At the end there| | | will be a general discussion of the | | | decisions made by each group. | | |---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 3:00pm |Arie Geursen, Laurie Kelso, Matthew, McManus| | General discussion ? Question and answers |& Sean Mullamphy | | Bring all your questions | | |---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| | 3:30pm Farewell |Sean Mullamphy | |---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------| Cost: $55 for both days includes lunch each day $30 for one day includes lunch Subsidy: ABDA financial members travelling more than 100km to the venue will be eligible for a travel subsidy at 30cents/km capped at $400. Country-NSW directors may be eligible for a further subsidy from the NSWBA ? contact Warren Lazer, warren at nswba.com.au. Entries may be submitted on the slip below by post to PO Box 836, Artarmon, NSW 1570, with cheque for full amount, or by email to abda at abf.com.au with payment by EFT to ANZ Bank, Crows Nest, NSW, BSB 012-275 Account no 202326295 quoting ABF number and ?Seminar?. To provide for accurate catering, entries and entry fees must be received by 16 October. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ENTRY DETAILS REQUIRED Name:??????????????????????..??ABF No:?????????.?. Club:??????????????????.Email address:?????????????? Hometown & State:??????????????????????. Saturday Y/N ??.. Sunday Y/N ??.. Cheque for $............enclosed OR Paid by EFT Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110711/2a70ded0/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ecblank.gif Type: image/gif Size: 45 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110711/2a70ded0/attachment-0001.gif From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 12 01:07:41 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:07:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Verbal discussion without mutual understanding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E1B21C4.2000904@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner AG : and I'm positive that "If you have to lie, do it in a minor" is well-known in the most remote bridge-playing places. [snip] Richard Hills Since Canberra is in the antipodes, my city must be more remote than the most remote bridge-playing places. On one occasion my RHO dealt and opened 1S and I overcalled 2H on a 3-card suit. However: (a) the scoring was by matchpoints, not by imps (b) I was not vul versus vul (c) my 3-card heart suit was AKQ, and (d) criteria (a), (b) and (c) were irrelevant because my overcall was NOT a pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understanding, hence completely legal under Law 40A3. Robert Frick [snip] Put another way, you (and others) are saying: If both people understand the same thing, that's an understanding, Law 40A1(a) Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players. Robert Frick but when one person believes one thing and another person believes another, their understanding is actually something that neither one understands. [snip] Richard Hills Pedantic quibble -> the dictionary meaning of "understands" (a verb) is different in meaning from the Laws of Duplicate Bridge specialist meaning of "pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understanding" (a noun), so Robert Frick's attempt to create a paradox fails. And a pair can only have a pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understanding if that pair has a pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understanding. A unilateral belief of one partner is not a mutual understanding of both partners. Laws 20 and 40 require mutual understandings to be described, not unilateral beliefs to be described. When a partnership does not have a mutual understanding, the correct response to a question is "We do not have a mutual understanding" or "No agreement" or (in Australia only) "Undiscussed". What's the problem? In my opinion, the problem is that Robert Frick is unwilling or unable to understand a fundamental principle of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. But in my opinion this is partly the fault of the Lawbook itself -- the revised 2018 edition should contain many more indicative examples. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110711/01d583bf/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 12 09:58:57 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:58:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <02bd01cc4069$8d4a1cd0$a7de5670$@nl> I can assure you that I would be the last to fall into this trap. The original poster stated that this player thought that 2H could show 3 by agreement, his partner did not. Therefore the correct explanation is *no agreement* not 4+ Hans -----Original Message----- From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 9:05 To: Hans van Staveren Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding Le 12/07/2011 8:12, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > This is tricky. In a sense you cannot be forced to alert just any > non-agreement. This is obvious. > On the other hand in the very simple bidding sequence given in this example > I believe in most circles there would be the belief that 2H shows 4+. > > Therefore if this pair does *not* have the agreement that it shows 4+, which > evidently they had not, AG : sorry, Hans, you fell into a classical trap. The fact that a player did bid 2H with 3 doesn't mean that they've agreed they could It is an element of proof, but a minor one compared to written notes and partnership history. The 2H bid could have been an error in the system, a lapse of the finger, a flight of fancy, a semi-psyche etc. Also notice that most TDs would judge that, in absence of any agreement, they play "standard", here 4-card heart suit. The fact that they have no explicit agreement doesn't mean there isn't the implicit agreement to play "as others do". Best regards Alain NB : sorry, no further contribution from me in the next days. From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 12 10:41:43 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:41:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bc01cc4067$a935b460$fba11d20$@nl> <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> How you take the answer *no agreement* is up to you. There is no law that requires someone to state what he thinks the *no agreement* bid actually means. Both sides are free to use their judgement. Hans -----Original Message----- From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 10:26 To: Hans van Staveren Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding Le 12/07/2011 9:45, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > I can assure you that I would be the last to fall into this trap. > > The original poster stated that this player thought that 2H could show 3 by > agreement, his partner did not. Therefore the correct explanation is *no > agreement* not 4+ Okay then, but I, for one, would take "no agreement" as "nothing uncommon", whence 4+. Playing 3+ must be explicitly agreed upon. Not playing 4+ . From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 12 12:02:10 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:02:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <02bd01cc4069$8d4a1cd0$a7de5670$@nl> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bd01cc4069$8d4a1cd0$a7de5670$@nl> Message-ID: <4E1C1BA2.7070501@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren wrote: > I can assure you that I would be the last to fall into this trap. > > The original poster stated that this player thought that 2H could show 3 by > agreement, his partner did not. Therefore the correct explanation is *no > agreement* not 4+ > > Hans > Yesterday, I thought my 2NT (after 1Di X) showed 0-5 with diamonds. My partner did not alert. Did we have "no agreement"? Or did she forget? Or did I misbid? I told my opponents that she misbid, and I accepted an adjustment. But what if I don't admit to the misinformation. What happened to "the TD is to rule misinformation rather than misbid"? Herman > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] > Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 9:05 > To: Hans van Staveren > Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding > > Le 12/07/2011 8:12, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : >> This is tricky. In a sense you cannot be forced to alert just any >> non-agreement. This is obvious. >> On the other hand in the very simple bidding sequence given in this > example >> I believe in most circles there would be the belief that 2H shows 4+. >> >> Therefore if this pair does *not* have the agreement that it shows 4+, > which >> evidently they had not, > > AG : sorry, Hans, you fell into a classical trap. > > The fact that a player did bid 2H with 3 doesn't mean that they've > agreed they could > It is an element of proof, but a minor one compared to written notes and > partnership history. > The 2H bid could have been an error in the system, a lapse of the > finger, a flight of fancy, a semi-psyche etc. > > Also notice that most TDs would judge that, in absence of any agreement, > they play "standard", here 4-card heart suit. > The fact that they have no explicit agreement doesn't mean there isn't > the implicit agreement to play "as others do". > > Best regards > > > Alain > > NB : sorry, no further contribution from me in the next days. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3759 - Release Date: 07/11/11 > > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 12 12:03:35 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:03:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bc01cc4067$a935b460$fba11d20$@nl> <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> Message-ID: <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren wrote: > How you take the answer *no agreement* is up to you. There is no law that > requires someone to state what he thinks the *no agreement* bid actually > means. Both sides are free to use their judgement. > > Hans > Yes, but by not alerting the partner is effectively telling the opponents "we have an agreement that this shows 4 cards in hearts". And that is MI, whether there is an agreement that it can be 3, or there is no such agreement. Herman. > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] > Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 10:26 > To: Hans van Staveren > Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding > > Le 12/07/2011 9:45, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : >> I can assure you that I would be the last to fall into this trap. >> >> The original poster stated that this player thought that 2H could show 3 > > by >> agreement, his partner did not. Therefore the correct explanation is *no > >> agreement* not 4+ > > Okay then, but I, for one, would take "no agreement" as "nothing > uncommon", whence 4+. > Playing 3+ must be explicitly agreed upon. Not playing 4+ . > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3759 - Release Date: 07/11/11 > > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 12 12:09:28 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:09:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bc01cc4067$a935b460$fba11d20$@nl> <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301cc407b$c97f73f0$5c7e5bd0$@nl> Correct. That is why I said that in certain jurisdictions you might well have to alert the 2H(theoretically that is) as *undiscussed* Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 12:04 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding Hans van Staveren wrote: > How you take the answer *no agreement* is up to you. There is no law that > requires someone to state what he thinks the *no agreement* bid actually > means. Both sides are free to use their judgement. > > Hans > Yes, but by not alerting the partner is effectively telling the opponents "we have an agreement that this shows 4 cards in hearts". And that is MI, whether there is an agreement that it can be 3, or there is no such agreement. Herman. > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] > Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 10:26 > To: Hans van Staveren > Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding > > Le 12/07/2011 9:45, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : >> I can assure you that I would be the last to fall into this trap. >> >> The original poster stated that this player thought that 2H could show 3 > > by >> agreement, his partner did not. Therefore the correct explanation is *no > >> agreement* not 4+ > > Okay then, but I, for one, would take "no agreement" as "nothing > uncommon", whence 4+. > Playing 3+ must be explicitly agreed upon. Not playing 4+ . > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3759 - Release Date: 07/11/11 > > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Jul 12 12:13:22 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:13:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bc01cc4067$a935b460$fba11d20$@nl> <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 12 Jul 2011, at 11:03, Herman De Wael wrote: > Yes, but by not alerting the partner is effectively telling the > opponents "we have an agreement that this shows 4 cards in hearts". No, he is effectively telling them "we have no agreement that this shows other than four cards." From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 12 12:16:18 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:16:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <4E1C1BA2.7070501@skynet.be> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bd01cc4069$8d4a1cd0$a7de5670$@nl> <4E1C1BA2.7070501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401cc407c$bd8ba630$38a2f290$@nl> You must have had a reason to suspect 2NT showed that diamond raise. Or were you totally brain-dead at the time? If after the non-alert (which is UI to you) you suddenly realize that your 2NT in your *system* is natural, you do not have to correct her non-alert, although of course you are still required to bid as if it was. Etc, etc... If after the non-alert you still think she is mistaken, you have to correct at the appropriate time, etc etc... The TD is to rule misinformation if she cannot figure out which of the two cases occurred. We have been here before a googol times. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 12:02 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding Hans van Staveren wrote: > I can assure you that I would be the last to fall into this trap. > > The original poster stated that this player thought that 2H could show 3 by > agreement, his partner did not. Therefore the correct explanation is *no > agreement* not 4+ > > Hans > Yesterday, I thought my 2NT (after 1Di X) showed 0-5 with diamonds. My partner did not alert. Did we have "no agreement"? Or did she forget? Or did I misbid? I told my opponents that she misbid, and I accepted an adjustment. But what if I don't admit to the misinformation. What happened to "the TD is to rule misinformation rather than misbid"? Herman > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] > Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 9:05 > To: Hans van Staveren > Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding > > Le 12/07/2011 8:12, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : >> This is tricky. In a sense you cannot be forced to alert just any >> non-agreement. This is obvious. >> On the other hand in the very simple bidding sequence given in this > example >> I believe in most circles there would be the belief that 2H shows 4+. >> >> Therefore if this pair does *not* have the agreement that it shows 4+, > which >> evidently they had not, > > AG : sorry, Hans, you fell into a classical trap. > > The fact that a player did bid 2H with 3 doesn't mean that they've > agreed they could > It is an element of proof, but a minor one compared to written notes and > partnership history. > The 2H bid could have been an error in the system, a lapse of the > finger, a flight of fancy, a semi-psyche etc. > > Also notice that most TDs would judge that, in absence of any agreement, > they play "standard", here 4-card heart suit. > The fact that they have no explicit agreement doesn't mean there isn't > the implicit agreement to play "as others do". > > Best regards > > > Alain > > NB : sorry, no further contribution from me in the next days. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3759 - Release Date: 07/11/11 > > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 12 13:25:18 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:25:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <000401cc407c$bd8ba630$38a2f290$@nl> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bd01cc4069$8d4a1cd0$a7de5670$@nl> <4E1C1BA2.7070501@skynet.be> <000401cc407c$bd8ba630$38a2f290$@nl> Message-ID: <4E1C2F1E.8010402@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren wrote: > You must have had a reason to suspect 2NT showed that diamond raise. Or were > you totally brain-dead at the time? > > If after the non-alert (which is UI to you) you suddenly realize that your > > 2NT in your *system* is natural, you do not have to correct her non-alert, > > although of course you are still required to bid as if it was. Etc, etc... > > > If after the non-alert you still think she is mistaken, you have to correct > at the appropriate time, etc etc... > > The TD is to rule misinformation if she cannot figure out which of the two > > cases occurred. > > We have been here before a googol times. > > Hans Yes indeed Hans, we have, but my story was a reaction to your ruling of "no agreement" in the 3-card heart 2H. There too, the 2H bidder "thought" he knew what system he was playing. Why is that example any different from mine? Now, I know the example is different, because "no-one" plays 2H on a 3-card. But your statement was simply that since both players thought differently, they had "no agreement". I believe my example shows that this reasoning is too simple. FWIW, I agree with the ruling "no misinformation" in the 3-card 2H case. But only because "no-one plays it that way, so the explanation was right", not because of your "they had a different idea, so they had no agreement". Herman. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 12:02 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding > > Hans van Staveren wrote: >> I can assure you that I would be the last to fall into this trap. >> >> The original poster stated that this player thought that 2H could show 3 > > by >> agreement, his partner did not. Therefore the correct explanation is *no > >> agreement* not 4+ >> >> Hans >> > > Yesterday, I thought my 2NT (after 1Di X) showed 0-5 with diamonds. > My partner did not alert. > Did we have "no agreement"? Or did she forget? Or did I misbid? > I told my opponents that she misbid, and I accepted an adjustment. > But what if I don't admit to the misinformation. > What happened to "the TD is to rule misinformation rather than misbid"? > > Herman > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] >> Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 9:05 >> To: Hans van Staveren >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding >> >> Le 12/07/2011 8:12, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : >>> This is tricky. In a sense you cannot be forced to alert just any >>> non-agreement. This is obvious. >>> On the other hand in the very simple bidding sequence given in this >> example >>> I believe in most circles there would be the belief that 2H shows 4+. >>> >>> Therefore if this pair does *not* have the agreement that it shows 4+, >> which >>> evidently they had not, >> >> AG : sorry, Hans, you fell into a classical trap. >> >> The fact that a player did bid 2H with 3 doesn't mean that they've >> agreed they could >> It is an element of proof, but a minor one compared to written notes and > >> partnership history. >> The 2H bid could have been an error in the system, a lapse of the >> finger, a flight of fancy, a semi-psyche etc. >> >> Also notice that most TDs would judge that, in absence of any agreement, > >> they play "standard", here 4-card heart suit. >> The fact that they have no explicit agreement doesn't mean there isn't >> the implicit agreement to play "as others do". >> >> Best regards >> >> >> Alain >> >> NB : sorry, no further contribution from me in the next days. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3759 - Release Date: 07/11/11 >> >> >> > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 12 13:27:32 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:27:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bc01cc4067$a935b460$fba11d20$@nl> <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4E1C2FA4.6090607@skynet.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 12 Jul 2011, at 11:03, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Yes, but by not alerting the partner is effectively telling the >> opponents "we have an agreement that this shows 4 cards in hearts". > > No, he is effectively telling them "we have no agreement that this shows other than four cards." Grammatically you may have a point, but bridgewise - do these two sentences not say the same thing? we have no agreement that this shows not 4 cards ?=? we have an agreement that this shows 4 cards I think it is the same thing, and if it isn't, we could be in for many very difficult rulings. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3759 - Release Date: 07/11/11 > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 12 13:38:11 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:38:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <4E1C2F1E.8010402@skynet.be> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bd01cc4069$8d4a1cd0$a7de5670$@nl> <4E1C1BA2.7070501@skynet.be> <000401cc407c$bd8ba630$38a2f290$@nl> <4E1C2F1E.8010402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001701cc4088$2e196d50$8a4c47f0$@nl> I did not say no misinformation. I said 99% certain no damage. Without all the info I cannot really rule. But having said that I think there is misinformation, but no damage. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 13:25 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding Hans van Staveren wrote: > You must have had a reason to suspect 2NT showed that diamond raise. Or were > you totally brain-dead at the time? > > If after the non-alert (which is UI to you) you suddenly realize that your > > 2NT in your *system* is natural, you do not have to correct her non-alert, > > although of course you are still required to bid as if it was. Etc, etc... > > > If after the non-alert you still think she is mistaken, you have to correct > at the appropriate time, etc etc... > > The TD is to rule misinformation if she cannot figure out which of the two > > cases occurred. > > We have been here before a googol times. > > Hans Yes indeed Hans, we have, but my story was a reaction to your ruling of "no agreement" in the 3-card heart 2H. There too, the 2H bidder "thought" he knew what system he was playing. Why is that example any different from mine? Now, I know the example is different, because "no-one" plays 2H on a 3-card. But your statement was simply that since both players thought differently, they had "no agreement". I believe my example shows that this reasoning is too simple. FWIW, I agree with the ruling "no misinformation" in the 3-card 2H case. But only because "no-one plays it that way, so the explanation was right", not because of your "they had a different idea, so they had no agreement". Herman. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 12:02 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding > > Hans van Staveren wrote: >> I can assure you that I would be the last to fall into this trap. >> >> The original poster stated that this player thought that 2H could show 3 > > by >> agreement, his partner did not. Therefore the correct explanation is *no > >> agreement* not 4+ >> >> Hans >> > > Yesterday, I thought my 2NT (after 1Di X) showed 0-5 with diamonds. > My partner did not alert. > Did we have "no agreement"? Or did she forget? Or did I misbid? > I told my opponents that she misbid, and I accepted an adjustment. > But what if I don't admit to the misinformation. > What happened to "the TD is to rule misinformation rather than misbid"? > > Herman > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] >> Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 9:05 >> To: Hans van Staveren >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding >> >> Le 12/07/2011 8:12, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : >>> This is tricky. In a sense you cannot be forced to alert just any >>> non-agreement. This is obvious. >>> On the other hand in the very simple bidding sequence given in this >> example >>> I believe in most circles there would be the belief that 2H shows 4+. >>> >>> Therefore if this pair does *not* have the agreement that it shows 4+, >> which >>> evidently they had not, >> >> AG : sorry, Hans, you fell into a classical trap. >> >> The fact that a player did bid 2H with 3 doesn't mean that they've >> agreed they could >> It is an element of proof, but a minor one compared to written notes and > >> partnership history. >> The 2H bid could have been an error in the system, a lapse of the >> finger, a flight of fancy, a semi-psyche etc. >> >> Also notice that most TDs would judge that, in absence of any agreement, > >> they play "standard", here 4-card heart suit. >> The fact that they have no explicit agreement doesn't mean there isn't >> the implicit agreement to play "as others do". >> >> Best regards >> >> >> Alain >> >> NB : sorry, no further contribution from me in the next days. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3759 - Release Date: 07/11/11 >> >> >> > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 12 14:03:52 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:03:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <001701cc4088$2e196d50$8a4c47f0$@nl> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bd01cc4069$8d4a1cd0$a7de5670$@nl> <4E1C1BA2.7070501@skynet.be> <000401cc407c$bd8ba630$38a2f290$@nl> <4E1C2F1E.8010402@skynet.be> <001701cc4088$2e196d50$8a4c47f0$@nl> Message-ID: <4E1C3828.6070706@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren wrote: > I did not say no misinformation. > > I said 99% certain no damage. > > Without all the info I cannot really rule. But having said that I think > there is misinformation, but no damage. > > Hans > Well, we shall disagree about that. Of course I don't know about the no damage-bit (neither do you, I think) In fact, I think the damage can be easily claimed (although perhaps not accepted): "If I'd know there could be a 3-card there, I would have ...". So I would rule "no misinformation" because "no-one plays that 2H can be on 3-cards". Herman > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 13:25 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding > > Hans van Staveren wrote: >> You must have had a reason to suspect 2NT showed that diamond raise. Or > were >> you totally brain-dead at the time? >> >> If after the non-alert (which is UI to you) you suddenly realize that your >> >> 2NT in your *system* is natural, you do not have to correct her non-alert, >> >> although of course you are still required to bid as if it was. Etc, etc... >> >> >> If after the non-alert you still think she is mistaken, you have to > correct >> at the appropriate time, etc etc... >> >> The TD is to rule misinformation if she cannot figure out which of the two >> >> cases occurred. >> >> We have been here before a googol times. >> >> Hans > > Yes indeed Hans, we have, but my story was a reaction to your ruling of > "no agreement" in the 3-card heart 2H. There too, the 2H bidder > "thought" he knew what system he was playing. Why is that example any > different from mine? > > Now, I know the example is different, because "no-one" plays 2H on a > 3-card. But your statement was simply that since both players thought > differently, they had "no agreement". I believe my example shows that > this reasoning is too simple. > > FWIW, I agree with the ruling "no misinformation" in the 3-card 2H case. > But only because "no-one plays it that way, so the explanation was > right", not because of your "they had a different idea, so they had no > agreement". > > Herman. > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Herman De Wael >> Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 12:02 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding >> >> Hans van Staveren wrote: >>> I can assure you that I would be the last to fall into this trap. >>> >>> The original poster stated that this player thought that 2H could show 3 >> >> by >>> agreement, his partner did not. Therefore the correct explanation is *no >> >>> agreement* not 4+ >>> >>> Hans >>> >> >> Yesterday, I thought my 2NT (after 1Di X) showed 0-5 with diamonds. >> My partner did not alert. >> Did we have "no agreement"? Or did she forget? Or did I misbid? >> I told my opponents that she misbid, and I accepted an adjustment. >> But what if I don't admit to the misinformation. >> What happened to "the TD is to rule misinformation rather than misbid"? >> >> Herman >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] >>> Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 9:05 >>> To: Hans van Staveren >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding >>> >>> Le 12/07/2011 8:12, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : >>>> This is tricky. In a sense you cannot be forced to alert just any >>>> non-agreement. This is obvious. >>>> On the other hand in the very simple bidding sequence given in this >>> example >>>> I believe in most circles there would be the belief that 2H shows 4+. >>>> >>>> Therefore if this pair does *not* have the agreement that it shows 4+, > >>> which >>>> evidently they had not, >>> >>> AG : sorry, Hans, you fell into a classical trap. >>> >>> The fact that a player did bid 2H with 3 doesn't mean that they've >>> agreed they could >>> It is an element of proof, but a minor one compared to written notes and >> >>> partnership history. >>> The 2H bid could have been an error in the system, a lapse of the >>> finger, a flight of fancy, a semi-psyche etc. >>> >>> Also notice that most TDs would judge that, in absence of any agreement, >> >>> they play "standard", here 4-card heart suit. >>> The fact that they have no explicit agreement doesn't mean there isn't >>> the implicit agreement to play "as others do". >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> >>> Alain >>> >>> NB : sorry, no further contribution from me in the next days. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3759 - Release Date: 07/11/11 > >>> >>> >>> >> > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jul 12 19:50:38 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:50:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) Casebook Comments Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E1C896E.80200@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110712/a78d8d5a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 13 00:22:52 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:22:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> Message-ID: Law 21A - Call Based on Caller's Misunderstanding No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding. Alain Gottcheiner Okay then, but I, for one, would take "no agreement" as "nothing uncommon" [snip] Richard Hills "We have an implicit mutual partnership understanding that we play nothing uncommon" has a completely different meaning under Law to "we have neither an explicit nor an implicit mutual partnership understanding (that is, we have no agreement)". So either Law 21A would apply to (hypothetical) Alain, or a Law 40B6(a) MI infraction would have been committed by Alain's (hypothetical) opponent. Neville Longbottom "Thing was they bit off a bit more than they can chew with Gran. Little old witch living alone, they probably thought they didn't need to send anyone particularly powerful. Anyway, Dawlish is still in St. Mungo's and Gran's on the run." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110712/a5a485e0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 13 01:43:07 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:43:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E1C2FA4.6090607@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael Grammatically you may have a point, but bridgewise - do these two sentences not say the same thing? we have no agreement that this shows not 4 cards ?=? we have an agreement that this shows 4 cards I think it is the same thing, and if it isn't, we could be in for many very difficult rulings. Richard Hills I know this is not the same thing. Once again Herman is (as Grattan would be too polite to say) talking through his hat. A classic counter-example -> After several rounds of bidding, one partner bids 4C, then they have no agreement that this shows not Gerber =+= they have an agreement that this shows Gerber Those two Gerber statements are NOT logically identical. The partnership may have an agreement that 4C shows Gerber, which one partner is about to forget. The partnership may have an agreement that 4C is natural, which the other partner is about to forget. The partnership may have ambiguous / incomplete methods, with contradictory meta-rules as to whether 4C is Gerber or natural, hence "no agreement". Sure, deciding exactly what agreement (or non-agreement) a partnership has is a "very difficult ruling" for a Director, but the 2007 Preface states: Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them. In addition, the Appeals process has been improved considerably by the introduction of the ?Code of Practice for Appeals Committees?, to which attention is drawn. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110712/c6a0280b/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 13 03:59:13 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:59:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E1C3828.6070706@skynet.be> Message-ID: George Bernard Shaw, Back to Methuselah (1921) You see things; and you say "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?" Herman De Wael [snip] So I would rule "no misinformation" because "no-one plays that 2H can be on 3-cards". Richard Hills A counter-example occurred in the previous century, when an expert Canberra father-son partnership said "Why not?" to a slight modification of SAYC. Instead of playing five card majors and better minor (opening 1C with equal length in the minors) they mutually agreed to play five card minors and better major (opening 1S with equal length in the majors). There were certain theoretical advantages to this CYAS system. Firstly, whenever holding a weak notrump with 4333 or 4432 shape, more bidding space was stolen from an opponent about to overcall, as an SAYC opening bid of 1C or 1D was replaced with the CYAS opening bid of 1H or 1S. Secondly a 3-card 1H or 1S opening bid -- which "no-one plays" -- would sometimes steal the o pponents' heart or spade partscore or game. George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1898) Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110713/df7d2cde/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Jul 13 06:21:25 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:21:25 +0800 Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships References: Message-ID: <64CEE9E2742B4A7C91B888BF5AAC2B44@acer> This appeal was brought to my attention last night by one of those involved. For your interest I have pasted the appeal from http://www.2011apbf.com/BULLETIN_06.pdf APPEAL NO 2 Chairman: Richard Grenside (Australia) Members: Nakatani, Santje Panelewan, Leo Cheung Event: Open Round 13 Board 4 Team: New Zealand vs Macau Players: North: Tsang South: Cheong East: Burrows West: Livingston #4......................S J963 W/All.................H 864 ..........................D T8 ..........................C K954 S AK8 ....................................S Q42 H QT7 ....................................H K53 D 9653 ..................................D AQJ C A32 ...................................C QT86 .........................S T72 .........................H AJ92 .........................D K742 ........................ C J7 East West appealed Tournament Director's statement of facts and ruling "I was called to the table at trick 11, West was the declarer in 3NT and she had taken 7 tricks from hand. She lead a diamond, North played D10, dummy's diamonds were AQ and another CQ which was good. So if she played DA and CQ, contract would be made at this moment. South pulled a card out of his hand and the declarer saw this was D7. So the declarer played the diamond queen, South then played DK and cashed a side suit trick and contract went one down. When I was at the table, I have confirmed from all plays that the D7 was detached from hand but not a position that his partner could see. Therefore according to Law 45A, it was not a card played and also Law 45C could not apply. I ruled that he could change that D and so the contract was one down. Also I have thought about Law 74B3, But this is a matter of courtesy and should apply to changing this result. And Law 73F, should not apply as from the seating position, I ruled that the detached card seen by the declarer was accidental rather than on purpose." Decision of the Appeals Committee Declarer on lead with 7 tricks needing 2 more for the contract of 3NT. Lead small diamond towards AQ. The South player took out the D7 before the play from dummy which was placed in such position that declarer could not fail to see it. Declarer then called for the Q upon which the next player retracted the 7D and played the K!!! South cashed a side suit winner and 3NT - 1. 13 Determined that the D7 was not a played card, however determined that the declarer failed to make the contract through inferior play thus causing his own bad score. The committee determined that the action of taking the 7D prematurely influenced the declarer into taking the finesse, as in a previous trick a Diamond had been finessed, holding the trick. There was therefore a strong probability almost a certainty that the finesse would be successful again; especially when South took a card from his hand in anticipation rather than waiting for his turn to play. Law 74B3 and 23 (Authority to adjust) applied. Decision: 3NT, 9 tricks. Deposit: Returned. bill kemp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110713/eff4fa72/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Jul 13 07:36:12 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:36:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships In-Reply-To: <64CEE9E2742B4A7C91B888BF5AAC2B44@acer> References: <64CEE9E2742B4A7C91B888BF5AAC2B44@acer> Message-ID: <201107130536.p6D5acjg028261@mail11.syd.optusnet.com.au> t 02:21 PM 13/07/2011, you wrote: >This appeal was brought to my attention last night by one of those involved. > >For your interest > >I have pasted the appeal >from >http://www.2011apbf.com/BULLETIN_06.pdf > >APPEAL NO 2 >Chairman: Richard Grenside (Australia) >Members: Nakatani, Santje Panelewan, Leo Cheung > >Event: Open Round 13 Board 4 > >Team: New Zealand vs Macau > >Players: >North: Tsang South: Cheong >East: Burrows West: Livingston > >#4......................S J963 >W/All.................H 864 >..........................D T8 >..........................C K954 >S AK8 ....................................S Q42 >H QT7 ....................................H K53 >D 9653 ..................................D AQJ >C A32 ...................................C QT86 >.........................S T72 >.........................H AJ92 >.........................D K742 >........................ C J7 > > >East West appealed >Tournament Director?s statement of facts and ruling >?I was called to the table at trick 11, West was >the declarer in 3NT and she had taken 7 tricks >from hand. She lead a diamond, North played D10, >dummy?s diamonds were AQ and another CQ >which was good. So if she played DA and CQ, >contract would be made at this moment. South >pulled a card out of his hand and the declarer >saw this was D7. So the declarer played the >diamond queen, South then played DK and cashed a >side suit trick and contract went one down. >When I was at the table, I have confirmed from >all plays that the D7 was detached from hand >but not a position that his partner could see. >Therefore according to Law 45A, it was not a >card played and also Law 45C could not apply. I >ruled that he could change that D and so the >contract was one down. Also I have thought about >Law 74B3, But this is a matter of courtesy and >should apply to changing this result. And Law >73F, should not apply as from the seating >position, I ruled that the detached card seen by the >declarer was accidental rather than on purpose.? >Decision of the Appeals Committee >Declarer on lead with 7 tricks needing 2 more >for the contract of 3NT. Lead small diamond >towards AQ. The South player took out the D7 >before the play from dummy which was placed in >such position that declarer could not fail to >see it. Declarer then called for the Q upon which the >next player retracted the 7D and played the K!!! >South cashed a side suit winner and 3NT ? 1. >13 >Determined that the D7 was not a played card, >however determined that the declarer failed to >make the contract through inferior play thus causing his own bad score. > >The committee determined that the action of >taking the 7D prematurely influenced the declarer >into taking the finesse, as in a previous trick >a Diamond had been finessed, holding the trick. >There was therefore a strong probability almost >a certainty that the finesse would be successful >again; especially when South took a card from >his hand in anticipation rather than waiting for >his turn to play. >Law 74B3 and 23 (Authority to adjust) applied. >Decision: 3NT, 9 tricks. >Deposit: Returned. > >bill kemp Well done Mr Cheong! I have actually played once against a person like you. If I meet you again I hit first and ask questions later, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110713/9eef86aa/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 13 08:07:10 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:07:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships In-Reply-To: <64CEE9E2742B4A7C91B888BF5AAC2B44@acer> References: <64CEE9E2742B4A7C91B888BF5AAC2B44@acer> Message-ID: <007f01cc4123$1a378a10$4ea69e30$@nl> FWIW I agree with the AC. Prematurely showing a card when *you could have known* it could work to your advantage can lead to an adjusted score. If only South had not done that there was the slight chance that declarer was fooled by the earlier hold-up. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Bill & Helen Kemp Sent: woensdag 13 juli 2011 6:21 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships This appeal was brought to my attention last night by one of those involved. For your interest I have pasted the appeal from http://www.2011apbf.com/BULLETIN_06.pdf APPEAL NO 2 Chairman: Richard Grenside (Australia) Members: Nakatani, Santje Panelewan, Leo Cheung Event: Open Round 13 Board 4 Team: New Zealand vs Macau Players: North: Tsang South: Cheong East: Burrows West: Livingston #4......................S J963 W/All.................H 864 ..........................D T8 ..........................C K954 S AK8 ....................................S Q42 H QT7 ....................................H K53 D 9653 ..................................D AQJ C A32 ...................................C QT86 .........................S T72 .........................H AJ92 .........................D K742 ........................ C J7 East West appealed Tournament Director's statement of facts and ruling "I was called to the table at trick 11, West was the declarer in 3NT and she had taken 7 tricks from hand. She lead a diamond, North played D10, dummy's diamonds were AQ and another CQ which was good. So if she played DA and CQ, contract would be made at this moment. South pulled a card out of his hand and the declarer saw this was D7. So the declarer played the diamond queen, South then played DK and cashed a side suit trick and contract went one down. When I was at the table, I have confirmed from all plays that the D7 was detached from hand but not a position that his partner could see. Therefore according to Law 45A, it was not a card played and also Law 45C could not apply. I ruled that he could change that D and so the contract was one down. Also I have thought about Law 74B3, But this is a matter of courtesy and should apply to changing this result. And Law 73F, should not apply as from the seating position, I ruled that the detached card seen by the declarer was accidental rather than on purpose." Decision of the Appeals Committee Declarer on lead with 7 tricks needing 2 more for the contract of 3NT. Lead small diamond towards AQ. The South player took out the D7 before the play from dummy which was placed in such position that declarer could not fail to see it. Declarer then called for the Q upon which the next player retracted the 7D and played the K!!! South cashed a side suit winner and 3NT - 1. 13 Determined that the D7 was not a played card, however determined that the declarer failed to make the contract through inferior play thus causing his own bad score. The committee determined that the action of taking the 7D prematurely influenced the declarer into taking the finesse, as in a previous trick a Diamond had been finessed, holding the trick. There was therefore a strong probability almost a certainty that the finesse would be successful again; especially when South took a card from his hand in anticipation rather than waiting for his turn to play. Law 74B3 and 23 (Authority to adjust) applied. Decision: 3NT, 9 tricks. Deposit: Returned. bill kemp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110713/2dc7f663/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 13 08:33:39 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:33:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201107130536.p6D5acjg028261@mail11.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Captain Hector Barbossa First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I "must" do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual _rules_. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner. Law 74B3 - Etiquette As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: detaching a card before it is his turn to play. Director's ruling [snip] Also I have thought about Law 74B3, But this is a matter of courtesy and should [not] apply to changing this result. [snip] Richard Hills Perhaps this Director is from the Golden Age of the 1975 Lawbook, when the Code of the Proprieties were more what you'd call guidelines than actual _rules_. But ever since the 1987 Lawbook the Proprieties have indeed been actual _rules_, with Law numbers. Thus the Appeals Committee rectified the Director's Error by applying Law 23 to the Law 74B3 infraction and therefore adjusting the score. Tony Musgrove Well done Mr [snip]! I have actually played once against a person like you. If I meet you again I hit first and ask questions later, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) Richard Hills Indeed. Had I been the Director I would have used the Law 85 balance of probabilities to rule a prima facie infraction of the Law 74C5 footnote, and hence a prima facie infraction of Law 73D2, thus consequently a prima facie "must not" infraction of Law 72B1. So I would not only have adjusted the score, but also used Law 91A to suspend Mr [snip] for the rest of the session, pending a Disciplinary Committee investigating, pursuant to Law 91B, whether Mr [snip]'s prima facie "must not" infraction was an actual "must not" infraction deserving disqualification from the event. Best wishes Richard (Canberra) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110713/c6b1ef2a/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jul 13 10:57:22 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:57:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) Casebook Comments Posted In-Reply-To: <4E1C896E.80200@aol.com> References: <4E1C896E.80200@aol.com> Message-ID: <4E1D5DF2.2050609@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110713/6990312c/attachment.html From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 13 14:02:09 2011 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:02:09 +1200 Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships In-Reply-To: <64CEE9E2742B4A7C91B888BF5AAC2B44@acer> References: <64CEE9E2742B4A7C91B888BF5AAC2B44@acer> Message-ID: On 13 July 2011 16:21, Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > ** > This appeal was brought to my attention last night by one of those > involved. > > For your interest > > I have pasted the appeal from http://www.2011apbf.com/BULLETIN_06.pdf > > APPEAL NO 2 > Chairman: Richard Grenside (Australia) > Members: Nakatani, Santje Panelewan, Leo Cheung > > Event: Open Round 13 Board 4 > > Team: New Zealand vs Macau > > Players: > North: Tsang South: Cheong > East: Burrows West: Livingston > > #4......................S J963 > W/All.................H 864 > ..........................D T8 > ..........................C K954 > S AK8 ....................................S Q42 > H QT7 ....................................H K53 > D 9653 ..................................D AQJ > C A32 ...................................C QT86 > .........................S T72 > .........................H AJ92 > .........................D K742 > ........................ C J7 > > > East West appealed > Tournament Director?s statement of facts and ruling > ?I was called to the table at trick 11, West was the declarer in 3NT and > she had taken 7 tricks > from hand. She lead a diamond, North played D10, dummy?s diamonds were AQ > and another CQ > which was good. So if she played DA and CQ, contract would be made at this > moment. South > pulled a card out of his hand and the declarer saw this was D7. So the > declarer played the > diamond queen, South then played DK and cashed a side suit trick and > contract went one down. > When I was at the table, I have confirmed from all plays that the D7 was > detached from hand > but not a position that his partner could see. > Therefore according to Law 45A, it was not a card played and also Law 45C > could not apply. I > ruled that he could change that D and so the contract was one down. Also I > have thought about > Law 74B3, But this is a matter of courtesy and should apply to changing > this result. And Law > 73F, should not apply as from the seating position, I ruled that the > detached card seen by the > declarer was accidental rather than on purpose.? > Decision of the Appeals Committee > Declarer on lead with 7 tricks needing 2 more for the contract of 3NT. Lead > small diamond > towards AQ. The South player took out the D7 before the play from dummy > which was placed in > such position that declarer could not fail to see it. Declarer then called > for the Q upon which the > next player retracted the 7D and played the K!!! South cashed a side suit > winner and 3NT ? 1. > 13 > Determined that the D7 was not a played card, however determined that the > declarer failed to > make the contract through inferior play thus causing his own bad score. > > The committee determined that the action of taking the 7D prematurely > influenced the declarer > into taking the finesse, as in a previous trick a Diamond had been > finessed, holding the trick. > There was therefore a strong probability almost a certainty that the > finesse would be successful > again; especially when South took a card from his hand in anticipation > rather than waiting for > his turn to play. > Law 74B3 and 23 (Authority to adjust) applied. > Decision: 3NT, 9 tricks. > Deposit: Returned. > > bill kemp > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > This hand was discussed in another forum. I was at the table. Here is what I wrote in the previous discussion: "I was at the table in the east seat so I was dummy. I believe south detached the card before even his partner played to the trick. I could not tell that my partner could see the card but she was able to name the card and this was not disputed. We never made a claim that the card had been played so were surprised by the director's ruling that it was not played. I don't believe that the director initially addressed the issue of the deceptive manner of the play. He subsequently returned to the table and made a comment along the lines that claiming that there was a deception was a very serious accusation. I have never seen my partner risk her contract in a similar situation for an overtrick except when she had miscounted her tricks because she had placed a played card in an incorrect position. This had not happened on this hand. Before she played the queen she stopped and looked at south's card (I did not realize she could see the face) and then said "oh i might as well play the queen then" or something similar. In my mind this made it clear that this was not her original intention and she had been deceived by the illegal and improper action of south. Interestingly I also informed the director that south had played similarly on the first round of diamonds when the finesse was successful. I am not sure if Pam (declarer) had noticed this. Now that I think about it I did not notice that this player played any other cards in this manner during this hand or on the previous hands in this match. He also did not detach any cards after this incident prematurely that I noticed. The incident occurred about half way through the sixteen board match. However the director had warned him that it was improper to detach cards prematurely. Given that this manner of playing only occurred in the suit where the player was attempting to deceive declarer by ducking it certainly appears that the illegal deception was intentional. I don't agree with David that the result should be 3NT-1 for the non offenders as I do not believe it is a serious error taking a finesse when an opponent has shown you that the finesse will win. " -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110713/d26ba8a4/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jul 13 16:34:33 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:34:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <4E1C2FA4.6090607@skynet.be> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bc01cc4067$a935b460$fba11d20$@nl> <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> <4E1C2FA4.6090607@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 12 Jul 2011, at 12:27, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >> On 12 Jul 2011, at 11:03, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Yes, but by not alerting the partner is effectively telling the >>> opponents "we have an agreement that this shows 4 cards in hearts". >> >> No, he is effectively telling them "we have no agreement that this >> shows other than four cards." > > Grammatically you may have a point, but bridgewise - do these two > sentences not say the same thing? No, yours says it more strongly than mine. Yours says you've discussed it and agreed it. Mine says we may well not have discussed it. > > we have no agreement that this shows not 4 cards > ?=? > we have an agreement that this shows 4 cards > > I think it is the same thing, and if it isn't, we could be in for many > very difficult rulings. > Gordon From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 14 01:03:15 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:03:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E1C3828.6070706@skynet.be> Message-ID: All men are mortal Lionel is mortal Therefore Lionel is a man Herman De Wael [snip] So I would rule "no misinformation" because "no-one plays that 2H can be on 3-cards". Richard Hills So I would rule "misinformation" because I know that Lionel is my cat (but Lionel knows that I am his slave). Hypothetical Herman De Wael [hypothetical snip] So I would rule "no misinformation" because "no-one plays that 1NT - (Pass) - 2C can be other than the Stayman convention". Hypothetical Richard Hills Most bridge players bid 2C as Stayman 2C was bid Therefore 2C is Stayman This is a Director's Error -- the logical fallacy of stereotyping. Before arbitrarily ruling that a partnership plays the Stayman convention, the Director should examine the partnership's System Card. For example, the partnership may instead be playing Ron Klinger's idiosyncratic invention, the Keri convention (used by a select group of EBU and ABF experts). Nothing is better than eternal happiness. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness. Hypothetical Grattan Endicott, 12th April 2005 +=+ You mean this is not true? I'll take the immediate fulfilment above the idyllic dream, please! ~ G ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110713/f6cae78a/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Thu Jul 14 07:37:48 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:37:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships Message-ID: <1306340025.235334.1310621868184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > This appeal was brought to my attention last night by one of those > involved. > > For your interest > > I have pasted the appeal from http://www.2011apbf.com/BULLETIN_06.pdf > > APPEAL NO 2 > Chairman: Richard Grenside (Australia) > Members: Nakatani, Santje Panelewan, Leo Cheung > > Event: Open Round 13 Board 4 > > Team: New Zealand vs Macau > > Players: > North: Tsang South: Cheong > East: Burrows West: Livingston > > #4......................S J963 > W/All.................H 864 > ..........................D T8 > ..........................C K954 > S AK8 ....................................S Q42 > H QT7 ....................................H K53 > D 9653 ..................................D AQJ > C A32 ...................................C QT86 > .........................S T72 > .........................H AJ92 > .........................D K742 > ........................ C J7 > > > East West appealed > > Tournament Director's statement of facts and ruling > "I was called to the table at trick 11, West was the declarer in 3NT and she > had taken 7 tricks > from hand. She lead a diamond, North played D10, dummy's diamonds were AQ > and another CQ > which was good. So if she played DA and CQ, contract would be made at this > moment. South > pulled a card out of his hand and the declarer saw this was D7. So the > declarer played the > diamond queen, South then played DK and cashed a side suit trick and > contract went one down. > When I was at the table, I have confirmed from all plays that the D7 was > detached from hand > but not a position that his partner could see. > Therefore according to Law 45A, it was not a card played and also Law 45C > could not apply. I > ruled that he could change that D and so the contract was one down. Also I > have thought about > Law 74B3, But this is a matter of courtesy and should apply to changing this > result. And Law > 73F, should not apply as from the seating position, I ruled that the > detached card seen by the > declarer was accidental rather than on purpose." > Decision of the Appeals Committee > Declarer on lead with 7 tricks needing 2 more for the contract of 3NT. Lead > small diamond > towards AQ. The South player took out the D7 before the play from dummy > which was placed in > such position that declarer could not fail to see it. Declarer then called > for the Q upon which the > next player retracted the 7D and played the K!!! South cashed a side suit > winner and 3NT - 1. > 13 > Determined that the D7 was not a played card, however determined that the > declarer failed to > make the contract through inferior play thus causing his own bad score. > > The committee determined that the action of taking the 7D prematurely > influenced the declarer > into taking the finesse, as in a previous trick a Diamond had been finessed, > holding the trick. > There was therefore a strong probability almost a certainty that the finesse > would be successful > again; especially when South took a card from his hand in anticipation > rather than waiting for > his turn to play. > Law 74B3 and 23 (Authority to adjust) applied. > Decision: 3NT, 9 tricks. > Deposit: Returned. L74C3 and L73D2 also apply. I agree with the AC, but assuming the incident took place as described, including the extra bit about the earlier trick in the D suit, I think they are not coming down hard enough on East. I consider East's behavior to be coffeehousing, perhaps intentional, perhaps merely a bad habit he developed. On this hand, I consider giving him a small extra PP. If I get the impression that this is the way he plays bridge, his team mates will soon be short a player. Declarer, in turn, needs to understand that when she draws inferences from the unintentional variations in tempo and manner in opponents' play, she does so at her own risk, L73D. Thomas 'Der dritte Platz ist nur was f?r M?nner' - diese und andere originelle E-Cards gib?s hier http://www.arcor.de/ecards/ecards_type.jsp?parentID=177&selectID=277 From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 14 10:36:55 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:36:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships In-Reply-To: <1306340025.235334.1310621868184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <1306340025.235334.1310621868184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4E1EAAA7.8090302@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Declarer, in turn, needs to understand that > when she draws inferences from the unintentional variations > in tempo and manner in opponents' play, she does > so at her own risk, L73D. > And this is precisely the road one should have taken on this case. This is not a L23 case, since prematurily detaching a card is not an infraction (it is covered by L74B - etiquette. But declarer has been misled, and L73F applies. Defender has no bridge reason for detaching a card prematurily - we could argue that it is OK to do so if one has no choice regardless of the card played in dummy - and so his "action" which has deceived declarer, is subject to rectification. I find it strange that L73F has not been mentioned either in the AC, or on blml here before. Or am I mistaken? > > Thomas > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 14 10:40:56 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:40:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships In-Reply-To: <4E1EAAA7.8090302@skynet.be> References: <1306340025.235334.1310621868184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <4E1EAAA7.8090302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501cc4201$bf9cda30$3ed68e90$@nl> I have not mentioned it explicitly, but of course I meant it Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: donderdag 14 juli 2011 10:37 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Declarer, in turn, needs to understand that > when she draws inferences from the unintentional variations > in tempo and manner in opponents' play, she does > so at her own risk, L73D. > And this is precisely the road one should have taken on this case. This is not a L23 case, since prematurily detaching a card is not an infraction (it is covered by L74B - etiquette. But declarer has been misled, and L73F applies. Defender has no bridge reason for detaching a card prematurily - we could argue that it is OK to do so if one has no choice regardless of the card played in dummy - and so his "action" which has deceived declarer, is subject to rectification. I find it strange that L73F has not been mentioned either in the AC, or on blml here before. Or am I mistaken? > > Thomas > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 14 11:11:24 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:11:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships In-Reply-To: <4E1EAAA7.8090302@skynet.be> References: <1306340025.235334.1310621868184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <4E1EAAA7.8090302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001401cc4206$014444b0$03ccce10$@online.no> > Herman De Wael [...] > This is not a L23 case, since prematurily detaching a card is not an infraction (it > is covered by L74B - etiquette. [Sven Pran] This would have been a correct comment until 1987, but beginning with the 1987 laws the proprieties became part of the laws proper. And beginning with the 2007 laws Law 23 is not limited to enforcing pass damaging non-offending side. So Law 23 is fully applicable in this situation. > But declarer has been misled, and L73F applies. Defender has no bridge > reason for detaching a card prematurily - we could argue that it is OK to do so > if one has no choice regardless of the card played in dummy - and so his > "action" which has deceived declarer, is subject to rectification. > > I find it strange that L73F has not been mentioned either in the AC, or on blml > here before. Or am I mistaken? > > > > > Thomas > > > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 14 12:21:14 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:21:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships In-Reply-To: <001401cc4206$014444b0$03ccce10$@online.no> References: <1306340025.235334.1310621868184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <4E1EAAA7.8090302@skynet.be> <001401cc4206$014444b0$03ccce10$@online.no> Message-ID: <4E1EC31A.6050709@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> Herman De Wael > [...] >> This is not a L23 case, since prematurily detaching a card is not an > infraction (it >> is covered by L74B - etiquette. > > [Sven Pran] This would have been a correct comment until 1987, but beginning > with the 1987 laws the proprieties became part of the laws proper. That comment is totally irrelevant, since I was actually quoting one of the laws proper. > And beginning with the 2007 laws Law 23 is not limited to enforcing pass > damaging non-offending side. That is also tru, but please read L23. > So Law 23 is fully applicable in this situation. > L23 applies to irregularities. The index refers this to infractions, which are referred to L72. Prematurily detaching ones card is covered by L74 - conduct and etiquette, which means this is not an infraction, nor an irregularity. Grattan? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 14 23:44:46 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:44:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E1EC31A.6050709@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael L23 applies to irregularities. The index refers this to infractions, which are referred to L72. Richard Hills (co-author of the Index) The Index -- and the Preface -- do not form part of the Laws. Instead the Introduction states -> "For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of the Laws." Herman De Wael Prematurely detaching ones card is covered by L74 - conduct and etiquette, which means this is not an infraction, nor an irregularity. Grattan? Richard Hills (not Grattan) The Definitions state -> "Irregularity ? a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." and "Infraction ? a player?s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation." Ergo a player has committed an infraction if that player has breached the most important Law in the Lawbook, the conduct and etiquette Law 74A2 -> "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." Samuel Butler, The Way of All Flesh (1903) "All animals, except man, know that the principal business of life is to enjoy it." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110714/c3a97d10/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 15 02:45:19 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:45:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L27, not meaning, not intended meaning. Message-ID: Today: There was some NS bidding, South bid 4NT, and North responded 4H. I took North aside and ask her what four hearts was. It was RCKB, but she got the level wrong *and* the major wrong, she meant to show two aces and the queen of trumps. I am pretty sure that the best ruling is to allow a nonbarring 5H replacement. But how do you get there from here? If I try to use the laws as they are written, I need to discover the meaning of an insufficient bid. Insufficient bids have no meaning. (So any replacement is more precise? Anyway, I can't use the lawbook as written.) I have always corrected the law book in my head to refer to "intended meaning". So when I applied that criterion, I ended up with 5S being a nonbarring replacement (because it shows exactly what she intended to show). I guess I could follow the lawbook to it's illogical conclusion, but I don't really think that is best directing, and anyway here it is my rewrite of the lawbook. I can't really think of any better way to rewrite the lawbook, and "intended meaning" works probably 99+% of the time. Do other people use different rewrites? To analyze this situation, she was making two mistakes, only one of which was relevant to the bid being insufficient. It didn't seem right that the second mistake allowed her to correct the first mistake. So I forced her to keep her first mistake, then allowed a replacement bid that was as precise or more precise than the one-mistake bid (5H). That seems right to me. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 15 02:52:11 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:52:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: <000301cc407b$c97f73f0$5c7e5bd0$@nl> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bc01cc4067$a935b460$fba11d20$@nl> <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> <000301cc407b$c97f73f0$5c7e5bd0$@nl> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 06:09:28 -0400, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Correct. That is why I said that in certain jurisdictions you might well > have to alert the 2H(theoretically that is) as *undiscussed* This of course cannot be a solution to the original problem. The players agreed to play 2/1 with forcing 1NT response to one of a major. They didn't discuss the meaning of the 2H rebid. But we cannot allow "undiscussed" to be an answer when players have agreed to play a convention but have not talked about the specific bids in the convention. Then the answer to most questions would be undiscussed. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 12:04 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding > > Hans van Staveren wrote: >> How you take the answer *no agreement* is up to you. There is no law >> that >> requires someone to state what he thinks the *no agreement* bid actually >> means. Both sides are free to use their judgement. >> >> Hans >> > > Yes, but by not alerting the partner is effectively telling the > opponents "we have an agreement that this shows 4 cards in hearts". And > that is MI, whether there is an agreement that it can be 3, or there is > no such agreement. > > Herman. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] >> Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2011 10:26 >> To: Hans van Staveren >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding >> >> Le 12/07/2011 9:45, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : >>> I can assure you that I would be the last to fall into this trap. >>> >>> The original poster stated that this player thought that 2H could show >>> 3 >> >> by >>> agreement, his partner did not. Therefore the correct explanation is >>> *no >> >>> agreement* not 4+ >> >> Okay then, but I, for one, would take "no agreement" as "nothing >> uncommon", whence 4+. >> Playing 3+ must be explicitly agreed upon. Not playing 4+ . >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3759 - Release Date: 07/11/11 >> >> >> > -- http://somepsychology.com From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 15 10:07:48 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:07:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E1FF554.2060801@skynet.be> Having thought some more about this, it seems as if I was wrong in not applying L23. Irregularities may well include those of L74. However! In the actual case, declarer was deceived not just by the premature detachment, but also by his seeing the card actually detached, the seven. And showing ones cards to an opponent is not an irregularity. So I do maintain that one needs L47F to get to an adjustment, L23 won't achieve the same result. Herman. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael > > L23 applies to irregularities. The index refers this to infractions, > which are referred to L72. > > Richard Hills (co-author of the Index) > > The Index -- and the Preface -- do not form part of the Laws. Instead > the Introduction states -> > > "For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that > follow form part of the Laws." > > Herman De Wael > > Prematurely detaching ones card is covered by L74 - conduct and > etiquette, which means this is not an infraction, nor an irregularity. > Grattan? > > Richard Hills (not Grattan) > > The Definitions state -> > > "Irregularity ? a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not > limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." > > and > > "Infraction ? a player?s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation." > > Ergo a player has committed an infraction if that player has breached > the most important Law in the Lawbook, the conduct and etiquette Law 74A2 -> > > "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause > annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the > enjoyment of the game." > > Samuel Butler, The Way of All Flesh (1903) > > "All animals, except man, know that the principal business of life is to > enjoy it." > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3765 - Release Date: 07/14/11 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Jul 15 11:32:49 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:32:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bc01cc4067$a935b460$fba11d20$@nl> <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> <000301cc407b$c97f73f0$5c7e5bd0$@nl> Message-ID: <6F7BBD0B-16F6-4353-8305-CC793056CBA3@btinternet.com> On 15 Jul 2011, at 01:52, Robert Frick wrote: > > The players agreed to play 2/1 with forcing 1NT response to one of > a major. > They didn't discuss the meaning of the 2H > rebid. But we cannot allow "undiscussed" to be an answer when > players have > agreed to play a convention but have not talked about the specific > bids in > the convention. We can if they haven't discussed it. However, I can't see in what sense the 2H rebid is "in" the convention. Are all continuations after a conventional bid "in" that convention? You think natural continuations after Stayman may not be undiscussed? Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110715/c2c6abb2/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 15 18:37:07 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:37:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim with unestablished revoke In-Reply-To: <6F7BBD0B-16F6-4353-8305-CC793056CBA3@btinternet.com> References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bc01cc4067$a935b460$fba11d20$@nl> <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> <000301cc407b$c97f73f0$5c7e5bd0$@nl> <6F7BBD0B-16F6-4353-8305-CC793056CBA3@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Declarer played a heart. No one followed. He was in a no trump situation, he had all hearts in his hand. So he claimed. LHO disputed the claim, having two hearts. So I correct the revoke. The best sense BLML could make of the recent WBFLC minute was that he still has to claim, but he can change his claiming statement. But he had no interest in claiming. I force him to claim? Fortunately, for me making a ruling today, all ways of playing the remaining cards led to the same result. Assuming he saves the right card in dummy. But the general problem remains. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 18 00:47:56 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:47:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E1FF554.2060801@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael [snip] And showing one's cards to an opponent is not an irregularity. [snip] Richard Hills Yes and No. If one _intentionally_ shows one's cards to an opponent, then that may be an infraction. Law 74C5 bracketed statement (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent's card*) Law 74C5 footnote * See Law 73D2 when a player may have shown his cards intentionally. Law 73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110717/cf155545/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 18 08:48:27 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:48:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] asia pacific bridge federation championships [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E23D73B.9030800@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael > > [snip] > And showing one's cards to an opponent is not an irregularity. > [snip] > > Richard Hills > > Yes and No. If one _intentionally_ shows one's cards to an opponent, > then that may be an infraction. > > > * See Law 73D2 when a player may have shown his cards intentionally. > > Law 73D2 > > A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or > gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating > before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made > or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills Circular reasoning, Richard. L23 does not apply because showing ones cards is not an irregularity. L73D does apply because showing ones cards is an action. The irregularity Richard refers to is the one in L73D2, which is illegal deception. Illegal deception is an irregularity, not the showing of the cards. L73D2 in itself solves our case. There is no need to drag in L23 after that. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 18 15:14:21 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:14:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bc01cc4067$a935b460$fba11d20$@nl> <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> <000301cc407b$c97f73f0$5c7e5bd0$@nl> Message-ID: On Jul 14, 2011, at 8:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 06:09:28 -0400, Hans van Staveren > > wrote: > >> Correct. That is why I said that in certain jurisdictions you >> might well >> have to alert the 2H(theoretically that is) as *undiscussed* > > This of course cannot be a solution to the original problem. The > players > agreed to play 2/1 with forcing 1NT > response to one of a major. They didn't discuss the meaning of the 2H > rebid. But we cannot allow "undiscussed" to be an answer when > players have > agreed to play a convention but have not talked about the specific > bids in > the convention. Then the answer to most questions would be > undiscussed. You can discuss a convention without discussing specific follow-ups, but they are made and decoded with reference to the discussion of the convention. Your opponents are entitled to the same knowledge of the meaning of your partner's bid as you have. Therefore "undiscussed", by itself, is insufficient here. I believe that proper disclosure (assuming no implicit understanding from prior experience) is something like, "We agreed to play 2/1 with forcing 1NT, but made no specific agreement about a 2H rebid." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 18 16:04:43 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:04:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott After several rounds of bidding, one partner bids 4C, then they have no agreement that this shows not Gerber =+= they have an agreement that this shows Gerber Those two Gerber statements are NOT logically identical. The partnership may have an agreement that 4C shows Gerber, which one partner is about to forget. The partnership may have an agreement that 4C is natural, which the other partner is about to forget. The partnership may have ambiguous / incomplete methods, with contradictory meta-rules as to whether 4C is Gerber or natural, hence "no agreement". Sure, deciding exactly what agreement (or non-agreement) a partnership has is a "very difficult ruling" for a Director, but the 2007 Preface states: Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them. In addition, the Appeals process has been improved considerably by the introduction of the "Code of Practice for Appeals Committees", to which attention is drawn. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110718/1b24cc94/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 18 16:09:52 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:09:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bc01cc4067$a935b460$fba11d20$@nl> <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> <000301cc407b$c97f73f0$5c7e5bd0$@nl> Message-ID: <4E243EB0.8030200@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > You can discuss a convention without discussing specific follow-ups, > but they are made and decoded with reference to the discussion of the > convention. Your opponents are entitled to the same knowledge of the > meaning of your partner's bid as you have. Therefore "undiscussed", > by itself, is insufficient here. I believe that proper disclosure > (assuming no implicit understanding from prior experience) is > something like, "We agreed to play 2/1 with forcing 1NT, but made no > specific agreement about a 2H rebid." > And even this is not enough. To those opponents who know little or nothing about 2/1, you should add: "and the great majority of sources on 2/1 state that 2H is done on 4-cards or more". I believe this complete sentence is the same as saying "that shows 4 hearts", or to a non-alert. I prefer to say "no particular deviances from standard" or something like that, presuming of course that opponents know what standard means. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 18 18:39:15 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:39:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bc01cc4067$a935b460$fba11d20$@nl> <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> <000301cc407b$c97f73f0$5c7e5bd0$@nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:14:21 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 14, 2011, at 8:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 06:09:28 -0400, Hans van Staveren >> >> wrote: >> >>> Correct. That is why I said that in certain jurisdictions you >>> might well >>> have to alert the 2H(theoretically that is) as *undiscussed* >> >> This of course cannot be a solution to the original problem. The >> players >> agreed to play 2/1 with forcing 1NT >> response to one of a major. They didn't discuss the meaning of the 2H >> rebid. But we cannot allow "undiscussed" to be an answer when >> players have >> agreed to play a convention but have not talked about the specific >> bids in >> the convention. Then the answer to most questions would be >> undiscussed. > > You can discuss a convention without discussing specific follow-ups, > but they are made and decoded with reference to the discussion of the > convention. Your opponents are entitled to the same knowledge of the > meaning of your partner's bid as you have. I think an important nitpic: Your last sentence is ambiguous, and this ambiguity relates to the original ruling. Your opponents are entitled to the same meaning of your partner's bid as you have *and* they are sometimes entitled to more. It is an error to think they are entitled only to what you know; I am now thinking this is a dangerous sentence to say. Right? The obvious case is when you forget a convention. Another obvious case is when you agree on a well-known convention but do not understand it. If we agree to play Gerber and I tell the opponents that my partner's two heart response shows two aces, I think they can claim damage, even if that is how I understand Gerber. Of course, that is precisely what we are discussing. The question here is whether the oppoents have agreed that the 2H rebid shows 4. Only then can you settle whether or not the opponents are entitled to this explanation. > Therefore "undiscussed", > by itself, is insufficient here. I believe that proper disclosure > (assuming no implicit understanding from prior experience) is > something like, "We agreed to play 2/1 with forcing 1NT, but made no > specific agreement about a 2H rebid." This seems to be wildly impractical. I once spent a 40 minute car ride discussing what we would play, and it was almost exclusively agreements about conventions. Should every explanation be lie, "We agreed to play Rosenkrantz doubles but we did not make any specific agreement whether they apply in this situation or what they mean; we agreed to play RKCB but we made no specific agreement whether that 4NT was RKCB in this situation or what any of the responses would mean; etc. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 18 19:36:23 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:36:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bc01cc4067$a935b460$fba11d20$@nl> <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> <000301cc407b$c97f73f0$5c7e5bd0$@nl> Message-ID: On Jul 18, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:14:21 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Jul 14, 2011, at 8:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 06:09:28 -0400, Hans van Staveren >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Correct. That is why I said that in certain jurisdictions you >>>> might well >>>> have to alert the 2H(theoretically that is) as *undiscussed* >>> >>> This of course cannot be a solution to the original problem. The >>> players >>> agreed to play 2/1 with forcing 1NT >>> response to one of a major. They didn't discuss the meaning of >>> the 2H >>> rebid. But we cannot allow "undiscussed" to be an answer when >>> players have >>> agreed to play a convention but have not talked about the specific >>> bids in >>> the convention. Then the answer to most questions would be >>> undiscussed. >> >> You can discuss a convention without discussing specific follow-ups, >> but they are made and decoded with reference to the discussion of the >> convention. Your opponents are entitled to the same knowledge of the >> meaning of your partner's bid as you have. > > I think an important nitpic: Your last sentence is ambiguous, and this > ambiguity relates to the original ruling. Your opponents are > entitled to > the same meaning of your partner's bid as you have *and* they are > sometimes entitled to more. It is an error to think they are > entitled only > to what you know; I am now thinking this is a dangerous sentence to > say. > > Right? The obvious case is when you forget a convention. Another > obvious > case is when you agree on a well-known convention but do not > understand > it. If we agree to play Gerber and I tell the opponents that my > partner's > two heart response shows two aces, I think they can claim damage, > even if > that is how I understand Gerber. Of course, that is precisely what > we are > discussing. > > The question here is whether the oppoents have agreed that the 2H > rebid > shows 4. Only then can you settle whether or not the opponents are > entitled to this explanation. > >> Therefore "undiscussed", >> by itself, is insufficient here. I believe that proper disclosure >> (assuming no implicit understanding from prior experience) is >> something like, "We agreed to play 2/1 with forcing 1NT, but made no >> specific agreement about a 2H rebid." > > This seems to be wildly impractical. I once spent a 40 minute car ride > discussing what we would play, and it was almost exclusively > agreements > about conventions. Should every explanation be lie, "We agreed to play > Rosenkrantz doubles but we did not make any specific agreement whether > they apply in this situation or what they mean; we agreed to play > RKCB but > we made no specific agreement whether that 4NT was RKCB in this > situation > or what any of the responses would mean; etc. Bob is right, of course; I wrote sloppily. Your opponents are entitled to all of the knowledge of the meaning of your partner's bid as you would have if you possessed perfect recall. But you can't reveal what you don't know (even if you once did), and the question to which I was responding was with regard to what you should say at the table. Any information you don't know but to which they are entitled is for the TD/AC to deal with later, and cannot, perforce, affect what you tell them at the table. But it is important to understand that we're talking about the substance of conversation here, not just the literal words used. You must know -- or at least think you know -- what you agreed to during your 40 minute car ride. Presumably, your partner was not a total stranger, so there was some context to your conversation; otherwise you would have made sure, for example, that you had some common understanding of what, say, "RKCB" meant. When partner bids 4NT, sometimes it will be RKCB for sure, so you tell the opponents that. Other times it will be, "We agreed to play RKCB, but it is unclear whether it applies in this situation", so you tell your opponents that. You tell them whichever one you think is the truth. It's about the understandings you reach, not the words you use to get there. The key criterion is whether (were it possible) you might give thought to continuing the auction in such a way as to hedge against the possibility that it might not be RKCB. I can easily imagine sitting down with a stranger in Toronto next week, agreeing to play "five-card majors with forcing notrump", encountering the undiscussed auction 1S-P-1NT-P-2H, and being asked about it. Now if my total stranger is from anywhere near my home area, I will confidently say, "Shows four," but if he is from, say, Bulgaria, I will say, "We agreed on five-card majors and forcing notrumps; where I come from, that rebid shows four, but we haven't explicitly discussed it." If I'm telling them a bit more than what they're technically entitled to, then I'm telling them a bit more than what they;re technically entitled to. I don't have a problem with that. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at tameware.com Tue Jul 19 01:15:00 2011 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 01:15:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Louisville (Spring 2011) NABC+ Cases Posted Message-ID: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Louisville2011.php If you'd like to discuss a particular case please start a new thread > with the case number in the Subject: line rather than replying to this > message. > I don't know when the six Non-NABC+ cases will be posted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110718/9e6d4bcf/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 19 01:38:31 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:38:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Belconnen Bowl 2011 (a.k.a. practice match ACT Open Team vs other experts) Dlr: North Vul: Nil ........KQT4 ........KJ4 ........KQJ ........J97 962............85 AT753..........Q 97.............5432 AK3............Q86542 ........AJ73 ........9862 ........AT86 ........T WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Nixon(1)..Hills(2)..Waters(3).Ali(4) ---.......1C (5)....Pass......1H (6) Pass......1S (7)....Pass......1NT(8) Pass......2C (7)....Pass......2D (9) Pass......2H (7)....Pass......2NT(10) Pass......3C (7)....X (11)....3S (12) Pass......6S........Pass......Pass Pass (1) Roy Nixon is the non-playing captain of the ACT Open Team. (2) Richard Hills is a non-captaining player of the ACT Open Team. (3) Bernie Waters is Roy's regular partner. (4) Hashmat Ali is Richard's regular victim (brainwashed into playing the Symmetric Relay system, notes emailed on request). (5) 15+ hcp, any shape (6) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls (A = 2, K = 1), 4+ hearts (7) relay, asking partner to describe his hand further (8) and 4+ spades (9) and 4+ unspecified minor (10) 4=4=4=1 shape (11) Bernie attempted a joke as he doubled, "I am sick of passing". Unfortunately, this joke caused Hashmat to assume that Bernie had indeed passed, so Hashmat did not bother glancing to his right to observe Bernie's actual bidding box card. (12) 3S would have been the correct call if Bernie had passed, showing 4 controls. But once Bernie doubled 3S systemically showed 6 controls (due to the extra step responses of Pass and Redouble). Bernie led the queen of hearts to Roy's ace. Roy cashed the king of clubs, just in case, then gave Bernie his heart ruff. Two off, -100. If this had not been a practice match, should the score have been adjusted? If the score should have been adjusted, should a split score have been awarded? (That is, should Hashmat's failure to observe the Double card have been deemed "wild or gambling"?) At the other table South declared 4S redoubled. West astutely led the ace of hearts, then continued with the _trey_ of hearts, so a second heart ruff ensued. +200 and 3 imps to the good guys. :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills (Belconnen) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110718/8748ce2f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 19 08:34:15 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:34:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Louisville NABC+ case 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: The Decision: The Committee decided that the ruling could follow one of two paths: 1) East was misinformed by the non-obvious alert of the double and the failure to alert 2C. If so, East-West are +110, since that is the table result; 2) East-West were not misinformed. In that case, West would double and East would bid 2H, which would also lead to East-West +110. Therefore, the Appeals Committee decided that the final result would be East-West +110, but disagreed on which rationale was appropriate for the decision. The Committee was unable to form a consensus about the rationale for the decision, but agreed on the final result. Note that in choice #2 each side is non-offending, but no result other than 2H making 2 for +110 was deemed likely. Since the ruling was unclear enough that the Appeals Committee disagreed on the final approach, no Appeal Without Merit Warning was issued. The Committee: Jeff Goldsmith (Chairman), Aaron Silverstein, Patty Tucker, Jacob Morgan, and Fred King. Richard Hills: In my opinion the Committee erred. When they held differing views on whether or not an infraction occurred, they should have decided that point by majority vote. That is why, as in this case, a Committee ideally consists of three or five members, so that a majority decision can be achieved without the Chair being required to exercise a casting vote.(1) Note that whether or not an infraction occurred, while possibly irrelevant to score adjustment, could indeed have had relevance to a Law 90 Procedural Penalty (if one side was offending) or an Appeal Without Merit Warning (if neither side was offending). Best wishes Richard Hills (1) On at least one occasion Grattan Endicott chaired an Appeals Committee with an even number of members. Grattan voted to over-rule the Director's decision. But when the vote was tied, Grattan then used his casting vote to uphold the Director's decision. This was because Grattan was obeying the English tradition that casting votes should preserve the status quo. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110719/5f2e78e6/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 19 09:20:01 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:20:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E1C1BA2.7070501@skynet.be> Message-ID: What happened to "the TD is to rule misinformation rather than misbid"? Herman "It never existed. What never existed?" (Title of a card from the silly [but fun] time travelling card game Chrononauts.) What Law 21B1(b) actually says is -> The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call ***in the absence of evidence to the contrary.*** Self-serving verbal evidence is still evidence -- possibly but not necessarily(1) of little weight -- so for almost all disputes about whether misinformation exists the Director should apply the Law 85 "balance of probabilities" instead of the Law 21B1(b) tiebreak. Best wishes Richard Hills (1) For example, self-serving verbal evidence by Hashmat Ali that Richard Hills has misbid (with Richard Hills concurring) has the weight of a neutron star, due to Hashmat's decades of consistent veracity and active ethics. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110719/4831b86b/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 19 10:46:34 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:46:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Verbal agreement without mutual understanding In-Reply-To: References: <4E1AD10F.6010401@ulb.ac.be> <027e01cc3fc0$a9b390d0$fd1ab270$@nl> <4E1AF1D8.4090009@ulb.ac.be> <027f01cc3fcd$c5df19c0$519d4d40$@nl> <4E1B1EC4.8050302@ulb.ac.be> <02b101cc405a$b45c3d80$1d14b880$@nl> <4E1BF20D.6040700@ulb.ac.be> <02bc01cc4067$a935b460$fba11d20$@nl> <4E1C050A.9050506@ulb.ac.be> <02c601cc406f$86ec1c70$94c45550$@nl> <4E1C1BF7.7070907@skynet.be> <000301cc407b$c97f73f0$5c7e5bd0$@nl> Message-ID: <4E25446A.4050100@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > I can easily imagine sitting down with a stranger in Toronto next > week, agreeing to play "five-card majors with forcing notrump", > encountering the undiscussed auction 1S-P-1NT-P-2H, and being asked > about it. Now if my total stranger is from anywhere near my home > area, I will confidently say, "Shows four," but if he is from, say, > Bulgaria, I will say, "We agreed on five-card majors and forcing > notrumps; where I come from, that rebid shows four, but we haven't > explicitly discussed it." If I'm telling them a bit more than what > they're technically entitled to, then I'm telling them a bit more > than what they;re technically entitled to. I don't have a problem > with that. > The problem is not what you tell them - the problem is what they understand about it. Let's for the moment suppose that in Bulgaria 2H can be made on a three-card suit. So yes, you agreed on 2/1, and no, you did not realize that there was a difference between American and Bulgarian 2/1. Now transpose this whole story from Toronto to Lusaka and make your opponents Korean. They don't know what 2/1 means, so they ask you. You say it shows 4H, adding that you have not specifically checked if that is true in Bulgaria. What are they to do with that added sentence? Nothing. They are entitled to treat your explanation as meaning that 2H shows four H. And so your partner shows up with 3 hearts. You told them the truth, but how is the TD to determine whether it is the truth or whether you are clever enough to lie afterwards that you did not know of the Bulgarian system. And how should one treat your agreements in Zambia? Are you playing American or Bulgarian 2/1? Surely we should protect the NOS and rule that you were in fact playing Bulgarian 2/1. Note that I'm defending a different position here than in some previous posts. That is because we assumed Bulgarian 2/1 has 3 card-hearts. I know for a fact that it doesn't, nor do I know of anyone who plays it that way. That is why in the real case I can rule misbid, whereas in this hypothetical I would rule MI. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 19 12:34:48 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:34:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <018101cc45ff$7c33fa60$749bef20$@nl> I don't think this remark passes the *could well have been aware* test of 73F. I would let this score stand. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: dinsdag 19 juli 2011 1:39 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Belconnen Bowl 2011 (a.k.a. practice match ACT Open Team vs other experts) Dlr: North Vul: Nil ........KQT4 ........KJ4 ........KQJ ........J97 962............85 AT753..........Q 97.............5432 AK3............Q86542 ........AJ73 ........9862 ........AT86 ........T WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Nixon(1)..Hills(2)..Waters(3).Ali(4) ---.......1C (5)....Pass......1H (6) Pass......1S (7)....Pass......1NT(8) Pass......2C (7)....Pass......2D (9) Pass......2H (7)....Pass......2NT(10) Pass......3C (7)....X (11)....3S (12) Pass......6S........Pass......Pass Pass (1) Roy Nixon is the non-playing captain of the ACT Open Team. (2) Richard Hills is a non-captaining player of the ACT Open Team. (3) Bernie Waters is Roy's regular partner. (4) Hashmat Ali is Richard's regular victim (brainwashed into playing the Symmetric Relay system, notes emailed on request). (5) 15+ hcp, any shape (6) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls (A = 2, K = 1), 4+ hearts (7) relay, asking partner to describe his hand further (8) and 4+ spades (9) and 4+ unspecified minor (10) 4=4=4=1 shape (11) Bernie attempted a joke as he doubled, "I am sick of passing". Unfortunately, this joke caused Hashmat to assume that Bernie had indeed passed, so Hashmat did not bother glancing to his right to observe Bernie's actual bidding box card. (12) 3S would have been the correct call if Bernie had passed, showing 4 controls. But once Bernie doubled 3S systemically showed 6 controls (due to the extra step responses of Pass and Redouble). Bernie led the queen of hearts to Roy's ace. Roy cashed the king of clubs, just in case, then gave Bernie his heart ruff. Two off, -100. If this had not been a practice match, should the score have been adjusted? If the score should have been adjusted, should a split score have been awarded? (That is, should Hashmat's failure to observe the Double card have been deemed "wild or gambling"?) At the other table South declared 4S redoubled. West astutely led the ace of hearts, then continued with the _trey_ of hearts, so a second heart ruff ensued. +200 and 3 imps to the good guys. :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills (Belconnen) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110719/fa2624ab/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 19 12:50:40 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:50:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <018101cc45ff$7c33fa60$749bef20$@nl> References: <018101cc45ff$7c33fa60$749bef20$@nl> Message-ID: <4E256180.200@ulb.ac.be> L > > Belconnen Bowl 2011 > (a.k.a. practice match ACT Open Team vs other experts) > > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > ........KQT4 > ........KJ4 > ........KQJ > ........J97 > 962............85 > AT753..........Q > 97.............5432 > AK3............Q86542 > ........AJ73 > ........9862 > ........AT86 > ........T > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > Nixon(1)..Hills(2)..Waters(3).Ali(4) > ---.......1C (5)....Pass......1H (6) > Pass......1S (7)....Pass......1NT(8) > Pass......2C (7)....Pass......2D (9) > Pass......2H (7)....Pass......2NT(10) > Pass......3C (7)....X (11)....3S (12) > Pass......6S........Pass......Pass > Pass > > (1) Roy Nixon is the non-playing captain of the ACT Open Team. > (2) Richard Hills is a non-captaining player of the ACT Open Team. > (3) Bernie Waters is Roy's regular partner. > (4) Hashmat Ali is Richard's regular victim (brainwashed into playing > the Symmetric Relay system, notes emailed on request). > (5) 15+ hcp, any shape > (6) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls (A = 2, K = 1), 4+ hearts > (7) relay, asking partner to describe his hand further > (8) and 4+ spades > (9) and 4+ unspecified minor > (10) 4=4=4=1 shape > (11) Bernie attempted a joke as he doubled, "I am sick of passing". > Unfortunately, this joke caused Hashmat to assume that Bernie had > indeed passed, so Hashmat did not bother glancing to his right to > observe Bernie's actual bidding box card. > (12) 3S would have been the correct call if Bernie had passed, showing > 4 controls. But once Bernie doubled 3S systemically showed 6 controls > (due to the extra step responses of Pass and Redouble). > > Bernie led the queen of hearts to Roy's ace. Roy cashed the king of > clubs, just in case, then gave Bernie his heart ruff. Two off, -100. > > If this had not been a practice match, should the score have been > adjusted? > If the score should have been adjusted, should a split score have been > awarded? (That is, should Hashmat's failure to observe the Double card > have been deemed "wild or gambling"?) > AG : to that second question, the answer seems clear to me : "wild" and "gambling" categorize states of mind with which a voluntary action is taken. Since the sight error can't be voluntary, they can't apply. If this had not been a practice match, I would : 1) penalize East, who isn't entitled to any remarks during the bidding or play ; 2) refuse to take into consideration the "could have known" proviso ; this could hardly be the case ; to the contrary, stepping out of normal procedure could have drawn opponents' attention ; 3) tell N/S that, given their level, they shouldn't let themselves be distracted by a mere remark ; 4) advice NS, based on 30+ years of experience with relay systems, not to vary their anwers after a double. Rdbl is best used "to play" and Pass to ask for control in the suit ; furthermore, either of those would only be possible after a double, therefore avoiding any lapse of sight by partner.. One last point remains : couldthe remark have drawn *partner's* attention to the double ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110719/9093bcd4/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Wed Jul 20 01:00:30 2011 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:00:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Louisville (Spring 2011) NABC+ Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Louisville2011.php > > If you'd like to discuss a particular case please start a new thread > >> with the case number in the Subject: line rather than replying to this > >> message. > >> > I don't know when the six Non-NABC+ cases will be posted. > The Non-NABC+ cases are now posted as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110719/8f4f3f3a/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 20 01:35:38 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:35:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E256180.200@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner [snip] 4) advice NS, based on 30+ years of experience with relay systems, not to vary their answers after a double. Rdbl is best used "to play" and Pass to ask for control in the suit [snip] Richard Hills 4) advise Alain, based upon my 30+ years of _success_ with relay systems, to _definitely_ vary relay answers after a Double, as two (possibly vital) bidding steps are gained. Redouble _by the relay captain_ is best used to play (I fondly remember declaring 2Sxx holding a singleton queen, with pard holding sufficient values to overcome a 6-0 trump break, therefore a score of +1240) and Pass _by the relay captain_ is best used to continue the relay. A voluntary break in the relay by the relay captain sets trumps (unless the relay captain breaks the relay by cuebidding the opponents' suit, when the relay captain is seeking a stopper for 3NT). Which leads to an interesting Law 40B6(a) question. During the auction itself almost all calls were alerted (except for the final 6S bid) but Nixon-Waters sensibly did not bother enquiring at that time, hence not any misinformation then. At the conclusion of a lengthy explanation during the Clarification Period -> Richard: " ... and Hashmat is showing 6 controls." Hashmat: "What? Oops, I did not notice the Double." Richard: "Systemically Hashmat is showing 6 controls, but if Hashmat did not notice the Double then Hashmat is showing 4 controls." If instead I had given the truncated explanation "Systemically Hashmat is showing 6 controls" full stop, would that truncated explanation have been consistent with the Law 40B6(a) requirement that "a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through ... partnership experience"? Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110719/f8db02d6/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 20 08:12:31 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:12:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E2671CF.9090901@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > any misinformation then. At the conclusion of a lengthy explanation > during the Clarification Period -> > > Richard: " ... and Hashmat is showing 6 controls." > Hashmat: "What? Oops, I did not notice the Double." > Richard: "Systemically Hashmat is showing 6 controls, but if Hashmat did > not notice the Double then Hashmat is showing 4 controls." > > If instead I had given the truncated explanation "Systemically Hashmat > is showing 6 controls" full stop, would that truncated explanation have > been consistent with the Law 40B6(a) requirement that "a player shall > disclose all special information conveyed to him through ... partnership > experience"? > > Best wishes > This is the same as the 4NT case where the answer indicated a number of aces, but systemically just shows preference. According to Grattan et.al., one is not required to answer the question "how many aces would if show if 4NT were Blackwood?". Ludicrous, of course, and I am glad that at least in one point, Richard agrees with me. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Jul 20 09:33:37 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:33:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E2684D1.5020403@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner > > [snip] > 4) advice NS, based on 30+ years of experience with relay systems, not to > vary their answers after a double. Rdbl is best used "to play" and Pass to > ask for control in the suit > [snip] > > Richard Hills > > 4) advise Alain, based upon my 30+ years of _success_ with relay systems, > to _definitely_ vary relay answers after a Double, as two (possibly vital) > bidding steps are gained. Redouble _by the relay captain_ is best used to > play (I fondly remember declaring 2Sxx holding a singleton queen, with pard > holding sufficient values to overcome a 6-0 trump break, therefore a score > of +1240) and Pass _by the relay captain_ is best used to continue the > relay. redouble to continue the relay and pass as a puppet to redouble obviously opens more options. > A voluntary break in the relay by the relay captain sets trumps > (unless the relay captain breaks the relay by cuebidding the opponents' > suit, when the relay captain is seeking a stopper for 3NT). > > Which leads to an interesting Law 40B6(a) question. During the auction > itself almost all calls were alerted (except for the final 6S bid) but > Nixon-Waters sensibly did not bother enquiring at that time, hence not any > misinformation then. At the conclusion of a lengthy explanation during the > Clarification Period -> > > Richard: " ... and Hashmat is showing 6 controls." > Hashmat: "What? Oops, I did not notice the Double." > Richard: "Systemically Hashmat is showing 6 controls, but if Hashmat did > not notice the Double then Hashmat is showing 4 controls." > > If instead I had given the truncated explanation "Systemically Hashmat is > showing 6 controls" full stop, would that truncated explanation have been > consistent with the Law 40B6(a) requirement that "a player shall disclose > all special information conveyed to him through ... partnership > experience"? 6 controls is the complete disclosure of the agreement. if the opponents notice a circonstance propicious to a misbid, they can ask what it could have meant absent the double. jpr > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator > -- _______________________________________________ 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 ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 20 15:43:30 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:43:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13BF6C6C-E501-474B-974A-3B11AA7DB70C@starpower.net> On Jul 19, 2011, at 7:35 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Which leads to an interesting Law 40B6(a) question. During the > auction itself almost all calls were alerted (except for the final > 6S bid) but Nixon-Waters sensibly did not bother enquiring at that > time, hence not any misinformation then. At the conclusion of a > lengthy explanation during the Clarification Period -> > > Richard: " ... and Hashmat is showing 6 controls." > Hashmat: "What? Oops, I did not notice the Double." > Richard: "Systemically Hashmat is showing 6 controls, but if > Hashmat did not notice the Double then Hashmat is showing 4 controls." > > If instead I had given the truncated explanation "Systemically > Hashmat is showing 6 controls" full stop, would that truncated > explanation have been consistent with the Law 40B6(a) requirement > that "a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to > him through ... partnership experience"? > I don't know, but it would certainly be inconsistent with being as helpful and forthcoming as possible. That means that if there's an obvious follow-up question the opponents ought to ask, you should provide the answer even if they fail to notice the need for the question. That leads us back to an old thread, in which I argued strongly that one's opponents are perfectly entitled to ask questions like, "What would that mean if I hadn't doubled?" (or, "How many aces would that have shown had 4NT been Blackwood?") but it's not clear that that argument was ever fully resolved. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Wed Jul 20 19:16:59 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:16:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 In-Reply-To: <13BF6C6C-E501-474B-974A-3B11AA7DB70C@starpower.net> References: <13BF6C6C-E501-474B-974A-3B11AA7DB70C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001cc4700$e69a0f50$b3ce2df0$@com> Eric Landau writes: That leads us back to an old thread, in which I argued strongly that one's opponents are perfectly entitled to ask questions like, "What would that mean if I hadn't doubled?" (or, "How many aces would that have shown had 4NT been Blackwood?") but it's not clear that that argument was ever fully resolved. _____________________________________________________________ Despite Law 20F1 ? During the auction... He is entitle to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and ... Laval Du Breuil From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 20 21:13:04 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:13:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 In-Reply-To: <000001cc4700$e69a0f50$b3ce2df0$@com> References: <13BF6C6C-E501-474B-974A-3B11AA7DB70C@starpower.net> <000001cc4700$e69a0f50$b3ce2df0$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:16:59 -0400, laval dubreuil wrote: > Eric Landau writes: > That leads us back to an old thread, in which I argued strongly that > one's opponents are perfectly entitled to ask questions like, "What > would that mean if I hadn't doubled?" (or, "How many aces would that > have shown had 4NT been Blackwood?") but it's not clear that that > argument was ever fully resolved. > _____________________________________________________________ > Despite Law 20F1 ? > > During the auction... He is entitle to know about calls actually > made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, > and ... > > Laval Du Breuil That's the old L20F1. The WBFLC minuted a new one saying that you are not entitled to know about the meaning of bids that could not have been made in the actual auction. From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jul 20 21:42:54 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:42:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <13BF6C6C-E501-474B-974A-3B11AA7DB70C@starpower.net> <000001cc4700$e69a0f50$b3ce2df0$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:16:59 -0400, laval dubreuil wrote: > > > Eric Landau writes: > > That leads us back to an old thread, in which I argued strongly that > > one's opponents are perfectly entitled to ask questions like, "What > > would that mean if I hadn't doubled?" (or, "How many aces would that > > have shown had 4NT been Blackwood?") but it's not clear that that > > argument was ever fully resolved. > > _____________________________________________________________ > > Despite Law 20F1 ? > > > > During the auction... ? He is entitle to know about calls actually > > made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, > > and ... > > > > Laval Du Breuil > > That's the old L20F1. The WBFLC minuted a new one saying that you are not > entitled to know about the meaning of bids that could not have been made > in the actual auction. But how do they define "could not have been made"? If it is obvious to all at the table that 5D was intended to show some number of aces or key cards, under what circumstances might a director deem that 5D could not have meant some number of aces or key cards? Jerry Fusselman From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 20 21:58:20 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:58:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <13BF6C6C-E501-474B-974A-3B11AA7DB70C@starpower.net> <000001cc4700$e69a0f50$b3ce2df0$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:42:54 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:16:59 -0400, laval dubreuil wrote: >> >> > Eric Landau writes: >> > That leads us back to an old thread, in which I argued strongly that >> > one's opponents are perfectly entitled to ask questions like, "What >> > would that mean if I hadn't doubled?" (or, "How many aces would that >> > have shown had 4NT been Blackwood?") but it's not clear that that >> > argument was ever fully resolved. >> > _____________________________________________________________ >> > Despite Law 20F1 ? >> > >> > During the auction... He is entitle to know about calls actually >> > made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, >> > and ... >> > >> > Laval Du Breuil >> >> That's the old L20F1. The WBFLC minuted a new one saying that you are >> not >> entitled to know about the meaning of bids that could not have been made >> in the actual auction. > > But how do they define "could not have been made"? If it is obvious > to all at the table that 5D was intended to show some number of aces > or key cards, under what circumstances might a director deem that 5D > could not have meant some number of aces or key cards? The 5D bidder has described the 4NT bid as Blackwood, but that was a mistake, 4NT was some other bid, like unusual for the minors. Another example is an opening bid of 1S following by a 1D overcall, perhaps with the player mumbling that they did not see the 1S bid. You are not allowed to find out what an opening 1D bid meant (except, I guess, if the player before the 1S bidder has passed). From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 20 23:21:52 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:21:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <13BF6C6C-E501-474B-974A-3B11AA7DB70C@starpower.net> <000001cc4700$e69a0f50$b3ce2df0$@com> Message-ID: <001a01cc4723$0caaf660$2600e320$@online.no> > Robert Frick > > Eric Landau writes: [...] > > Despite Law 20F1 ? > > > > During the auction... He is entitle to know about calls actually > > made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, > > and ... > That's the old L20F1. The WBFLC minuted a new one saying that you are not > entitled to know about the meaning of bids that could not have been made > in the actual auction. [Sven Pran] The WBFLC minute in question did not change the understanding of Law 20F1. A player has never been entitled to know the meaning of an opponent's call that could not have been made in the questioned auction. This means that when a player incorrectly explains a 4NT bid as Blackwood when the correct explanation is minor search then his partner has no obligation to inform opponents on how many Aces or key-cards or whatever he believes that player has shown with his "answer". From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 21 00:34:41 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:34:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Paul appealing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "_definitely_ vary [cuebid] answers after a Double, as two (possibly vital) bidding steps are gained." Swiss (matchpointed) Pairs Dlr: South Vul: Both The bidding has gone WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......---.......---.......Pass 1S........X.........4C (1)....? (1) splinter You, South, hold: --- JT42 875 QT9642 What call should you make? What call should you avoid? What actually happened -> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......---.......---.......Pass 1S........X.........4C (1)....X (2) 4S........X (3).....Pass......5C Pass......Pass......X.........Pass Pass......Pass (1) splinter (2) intending to sacrifice in 5C on the next round of the auction (3) North asked the meaning of 4C before doubling; told a splinter bid Table result: 5Cx +750, the contract making due to a Law 12C1(b) "serious error" in defence by East-West (if they were experts), or due to a trivial error in defence by East-West (if they were non-experts). Director's statement of facts: North's question may have conveyed UI to South. Director's ruling: Score assigned for both sides: 4Sx - 1 by West Details of ruling: Extraneous information from partner. Law 16B1(a). Appeals Committee (which included blmler Paul Lamford) decision: Table result re-instated. Deposit returned. Appeals Committee's comments: We don't understand how the TD ruled UI. S seems to have [a hand] that justifies the removal of double, given original take out double. Richard Hills' comments: Yes, the Director was correct in saying, "North's question may have conveyed UI to South". But the Director failed to ask the next question, "Was bidding 5C South's only logical alternative?" Yes, South was incompetent, doubling 4C and only later bidding 5C, when a better pressure action would be to bid 5C directly. But unintentional incompetence is not prohibited by the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. So in my opinion the Appeals Committee was right and the Director was wrong. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110720/3716e4f0/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 21 01:09:51 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:09:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E2684D1.5020403@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Jean-Pierre Rocafort redouble to continue the relay and pass as a puppet to redouble obviously opens more options. Richard Hills Not obvious at all. If we assume that the Double is perpetrated by the RHO of the relay captain, then systemically using Pass to continue the relay gains two bidding steps, while the alternative of systemically using Redouble to continue the relay gains merely one bidding step. In reasonably frequent cases one step of bidding space can make a difference in the slam zone. (In my opinion, the primary advantage of relay systems is not in bidding good slams, but rather in avoiding poor slams.) Jean-Pierre Rocafort 6 controls is the complete disclosure of the agreement. if the opponents notice a circumstance propitious to a misbid, they can ask what it could have meant absent the double. jpr WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents? prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An "alternative" call is not the same call with another meaning ? for example, if the reply to an opponent is that "5D shows diamonds preference", any reply to a further question "what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?" is given ***voluntarily*** and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.) Richard Hills To me it is obvious that 3S "absent the double" is "the same call with another meaning", hence while the opponents could ask, any answer by me would be voluntary (as indeed my full and free disclosure at the table was voluntary). Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110720/1c72b38f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 21 03:13:47 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:13:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents? prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An "alternative" call is not the same call with another meaning ? for example, if the reply to an opponent is that "5D shows diamonds preference", any reply to a further question "what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?" is given ***voluntarily*** and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.) Richard Hills (initial statement) To me it is obvious that 3S "absent the double" is "the same call with another meaning", hence while the opponents could ask, any answer by me would be voluntary (as indeed my full and free disclosure at the table was voluntary). WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Nixon(1)..Hills(2)..Waters(3).Ali(4) ---.......1C (5)....Pass......1H (6) Pass......1S (7)....Pass......1NT(8) Pass......2C (7)....Pass......2D (9) Pass......2H (7)....Pass......2NT(10) Pass......3C (7)....X (11)....3S (12) Pass......6S........Pass......Pass Pass (1) Roy Nixon is the non-playing captain of the ACT Open Team. (2) Richard Hills is a non-captaining player of the ACT Open Team. (3) Bernie Waters is Roy's regular partner. (4) Hashmat Ali is Richard's regular victim (brainwashed into playing the Symmetric Relay system, notes emailed on request). (5) 15+ hcp, any shape (6) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls (A = 2, K = 1), 4+ hearts (7) relay, asking partner to describe his hand further (8) and 4+ spades (9) and 4+ unspecified minor (10) 4=4=4=1 shape (11) Bernie attempted a joke as he doubled, "I am sick of passing". Unfortunately, this joke caused Hashmat to assume that Bernie had indeed passed, so Hashmat did not bother glancing to his right to observe Bernie's actual bidding box card. (12) 3S would have been the correct call if Bernie had passed, showing 4 controls. But once Bernie doubled 3S systemically showed 6 controls (due to the extra step responses of Pass and Redouble). Richard Hills (clarifying statement) Consistent with Law 20F1 would be the opponents asking, "On the auction up to the point where Hashmat bid 3S, what would Hashmat selecting 4C instead have systemically shown?" To which, in accordance with Law 20F1, I would have replied, "A hypothetical 4C instead of the actual 3S would have promised 8 controls instead of the actually promised 6 controls." But asking "What would 3S have shown on this auction if this auction was not this auction, for example if East had passed throughout, or for example if North had opened the bidding with 1D?" is a question not in accordance with Law 20F1. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110721/09cc39ba/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 21 09:06:14 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:06:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: But asking "What would 3S have shown on this auction if this auction was not this auction, for example if ..... North had opened the bidding with 1D [instead of North's actual opening bid of a strong 1C]?" is a question not in accordance with Law 20F1. =+= As an exercise in reductio ad absurdum, here is that revised auction and its (non-)systemic meaning(s). WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Nixon.....Hills.....Waters....Ali ---.......1D (1)....Pass......1H (2) Pass......1S (3)....Pass......1NT(4) Pass......2C (5)....Pass......2D (6) Pass......2H (6)....Pass......2NT(4) Pass......3C (5)....X.........3S (6) Pass......6S (6)....Pass......Pass Pass (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually denies a 5-card major (unless 5/5 in both majors), may or may not have one or both 4-card majors, and does not necessarily hold any diamonds. (2) Either natural with 4+ hearts and less than a game force, or an artificial game force relay with or without a heart suit. (3) Exactly 4 spades. Either 4 spades with a 5+ unspecified minor, or three-suited with both black suits and an unspecified red suit. (4) Natural and non-forcing, therefore holding 4 or 5 hearts. (5) Natural and non-forcing, therefore holding 6 or 7 clubs. (6) Non-systemic. =+= Law 20F1 " ..... about ***relevant*** alternative calls ***available*** that were not made ..... " Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110721/9b771bd5/attachment-0001.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Jul 21 09:48:02 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:48:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E27D9B2.4010506@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008 > > 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may > request and receive an explanation of the opponents? prior auction. At this > time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant > available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as > to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An > "alternative" call is not the same call with another meaning ? for example, > if the reply to an opponent is that "5D shows diamonds preference", any > reply to a further question "what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?" is > given ***voluntarily*** and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.) all that is rhetorical. you are allowed to read the opponent's CC and look in it for whatever you mind. and if it is incompletely written, you may require it to be completed. you don't need to rely on opponents' goodwill. jpr > > Richard Hills (initial statement) > > To me it is obvious that 3S "absent the double" is "the same call with > another meaning", hence while the opponents could ask, any answer by me > would be voluntary (as indeed my full and free disclosure at the table was > voluntary). > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > Nixon(1)..Hills(2)..Waters(3).Ali(4) > ---.......1C (5)....Pass......1H (6) > Pass......1S (7)....Pass......1NT(8) > Pass......2C (7)....Pass......2D (9) > Pass......2H (7)....Pass......2NT(10) > Pass......3C (7)....X (11)....3S (12) > Pass......6S........Pass......Pass > Pass > > (1) Roy Nixon is the non-playing captain of the ACT Open Team. > (2) Richard Hills is a non-captaining player of the ACT Open Team. > (3) Bernie Waters is Roy's regular partner. > (4) Hashmat Ali is Richard's regular victim (brainwashed into playing the > Symmetric Relay system, notes emailed on request). > (5) 15+ hcp, any shape > (6) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls (A = 2, K = 1), 4+ hearts > (7) relay, asking partner to describe his hand further > (8) and 4+ spades > (9) and 4+ unspecified minor > (10) 4=4=4=1 shape > (11) Bernie attempted a joke as he doubled, "I am sick of passing". > Unfortunately, this joke caused Hashmat to assume that Bernie had indeed > passed, so Hashmat did not bother glancing to his right to observe Bernie's > actual bidding box card. > (12) 3S would have been the correct call if Bernie had passed, showing 4 > controls. But once Bernie doubled 3S systemically showed 6 controls (due to > the extra step responses of Pass and Redouble). > > Richard Hills (clarifying statement) > > Consistent with Law 20F1 would be the opponents asking, "On the auction up > to the point where Hashmat bid 3S, what would Hashmat selecting 4C instead > have systemically shown?" To which, in accordance with Law 20F1, I would > have replied, "A hypothetical 4C instead of the actual 3S would have > promised 8 controls instead of the actually promised 6 controls." > > But asking "What would 3S have shown on this auction if this auction was > not this auction, for example if East had passed throughout, or for example > if North had opened the bidding with 1D?" is a question not in accordance > with Law 20F1. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator > > -- _______________________________________________ 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 gampas at aol.com Thu Jul 21 17:05:40 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:05:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Paul appealing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E284044.9030801@aol.com> On 20/07/2011 23:34, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Table result: > 5Cx +750, the contract making due to a Law 12C1(b) "serious error" in > defence by East-West (if they were experts), or due to a trivial error > in defence by East-West (if they were non-experts). My recollection here is that 5C was cold, and there was no serious error at all. And the AC agreed that with or without UI 5C was the only LA at this stage; we were not being asked to hold up cards marking the North-South actions for technical merit and artistic impression, so the discussion of the auction up to this point is interesting but irrelevant. I have now found the hand: S7 3 ?A K 6 3 DA K 6 CJ 8 7 3 SK Q 10 6 5 4SA J 9 8 2 HQ 8 5H9 7 DJ 3 DQ 10 9 4 2 CK 5CA S- HJ 10 4 2 D8 7 5 CQ 10 9 6 4 2 Board 7 : Dealer South : All vulnerable: Swiss Pairs */WestNorthEastSouth/* Pass 1SDbl4CDbl 4SDbl (1)Pass5C PassPassDbl (2)All Pass 1)N asked the meaning of 4?before doubling. Told a splinter bid 2)TD called while auction still in progress, before E doubled 5? It should be trivial, on a spade lead (nothing else works) to ruff, and play a club. East wins and whatever he plays we run the jack of hearts, cash the red winners, ruff a spade, exit with another club and claim. Given that there is no other line, the contract will always make, except if a weak pair are N/S. And sorry for the wrong characters or poor tabbing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110721/fdf9f881/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jul 21 19:46:53 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:46:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 In-Reply-To: <4E27D9B2.4010506@meteo.fr> References: <4E27D9B2.4010506@meteo.fr> Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:48:02 -0400, jean-pierre.rocafort wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008 >> >> 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player >> may >> request and receive an explanation of the opponents? prior auction. At >> this >> time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, >> relevant >> available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding >> as >> to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An >> "alternative" call is not the same call with another meaning ? for >> example, >> if the reply to an opponent is that "5D shows diamonds preference", any >> reply to a further question "what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood >> ?" is >> given ***voluntarily*** and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.) > > all that is rhetorical. you are allowed to read the opponent's CC and > look in it for whatever you mind. and if it is incompletely written, you > may require it to be completed. you don't need to rely on opponents' > goodwill. I always wonder what happens if the card is filled out incorrectly. Certainly you don't get rectification just for any errors you can find in a car. What if there is an error that is relevant to the play but is not information you are entitled to? And of course people write down just convention names. When I played Precision, my explanation of the 1D opening had more information than whatever I had on the card. Or maybe it is on the card and you can't find it. Ironically, I have heard this as a defense for the WBFLC minute. They went through a lot of trouble to say that players are not entitled to a class of information, but it doesn't do that much hard because they can get it elsewhere. > jpr >> >> Richard Hills (initial statement) >> >> To me it is obvious that 3S "absent the double" is "the same call with >> another meaning", hence while the opponents could ask, any answer by me >> would be voluntary (as indeed my full and free disclosure at the table >> was >> voluntary). >> >> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >> Nixon(1)..Hills(2)..Waters(3).Ali(4) >> ---.......1C (5)....Pass......1H (6) >> Pass......1S (7)....Pass......1NT(8) >> Pass......2C (7)....Pass......2D (9) >> Pass......2H (7)....Pass......2NT(10) >> Pass......3C (7)....X (11)....3S (12) >> Pass......6S........Pass......Pass >> Pass >> >> (1) Roy Nixon is the non-playing captain of the ACT Open Team. >> (2) Richard Hills is a non-captaining player of the ACT Open Team. >> (3) Bernie Waters is Roy's regular partner. >> (4) Hashmat Ali is Richard's regular victim (brainwashed into playing >> the >> Symmetric Relay system, notes emailed on request). >> (5) 15+ hcp, any shape >> (6) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls (A = 2, K = 1), 4+ hearts >> (7) relay, asking partner to describe his hand further >> (8) and 4+ spades >> (9) and 4+ unspecified minor >> (10) 4=4=4=1 shape >> (11) Bernie attempted a joke as he doubled, "I am sick of passing". >> Unfortunately, this joke caused Hashmat to assume that Bernie had indeed >> passed, so Hashmat did not bother glancing to his right to observe >> Bernie's >> actual bidding box card. >> (12) 3S would have been the correct call if Bernie had passed, showing 4 >> controls. But once Bernie doubled 3S systemically showed 6 controls >> (due to >> the extra step responses of Pass and Redouble). >> >> Richard Hills (clarifying statement) >> >> Consistent with Law 20F1 would be the opponents asking, "On the auction >> up >> to the point where Hashmat bid 3S, what would Hashmat selecting 4C >> instead >> have systemically shown?" To which, in accordance with Law 20F1, I would >> have replied, "A hypothetical 4C instead of the actual 3S would have >> promised 8 controls instead of the actually promised 6 controls." >> >> But asking "What would 3S have shown on this auction if this auction was >> not this auction, for example if East had passed throughout, or for >> example >> if North had opened the bidding with 1D?" is a question not in >> accordance >> with Law 20F1. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills >> Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section >> Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 >> DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator >> >> > -- http://somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 22 01:14:03 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:14:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Paul appealing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E284044.9030801@aol.com> Message-ID: Paul Lamford [snip] Given that there is no other line, the contract will always make, except if a weak pair are N/S. Richard Hills The South declarer may well have been a weak player, since part of the East-West written comments on the appeals form was this statement: "I am aware that we misdefended 5Cx to let it make." Not only is South's bidding consistent with that of a weak player, but North asking about an obvious 4C splinter is likewise consistent with North being a weak player (alternatively North's question is consistent with an expert North infracting Law 20G1). Indeed, East's grotesque splinter holding a singleton ace also indicates that East is a weak player. The good news is that an Appeals Committee consisting entirely of experts was able to assess that removing pard's penalty double of 4S to 5C was the only logical alternative for a weak player. The bad news is that the same Appeals Committee may well(2) have ruled that an expert(1) passing out 4Sx is not a logical alternative. My experience is that an expert is inclined to sacrifice if pard does not double a high-level contract for penalties, and inclined to pass if pard does double a high-level contract for penalties. My experience is that a non-expert is inclined to sacrifice if pard does double a high-level contract for penalties, and inclined to pass if pard does not double a high-level contract for penalties. This is because non-experts merely look at the superficial possibilities of -620 versus -790, not digging deeper to determine the relative probabilities of cheap save versus phantom save. An expert, however, carefully processes all data received to quite accurately assess the probabilities, including processing Unauthorised Information data from partner which skews prior probabilities. At that UI point a Director discovers whether the expert has careful Law 73C active ethics, or careless "I would have bid 5C anyway" inactive ethics. Best wishes Richard Hills (1) If one assumes that an expert had a momentary brain snap, doubling 4C instead of bidding 5C immediately. (2) Which, if "may well" is correct, in turn suggests that I _may well_ have been generous in assessing "an Appeals Committee consisting entirely of experts". -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110721/60c86540/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 22 02:33:37 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:33:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 20F1 " ..... about ***relevant*** alternative calls ***available*** that were not made ..... " I would argue that a non-systemic call is not "available". Of course, if one or both partners repeatedly executed a non-systemic call with a particular intent, then the ineffable workings of Law 40C1 would redefine that non-systemic call as a systemic call, and therefore subject to Law 20F1 disclosure. Hashmat Ali has problems with his peripheral vision, due to him being as old as the hills. Therefore he has repeatedly erred in relay auctions, due to him repeatedly failing to observe his RHO's call. Is dodgy peripheral vision a Law 40C1 implicit partnership understanding? Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20110722/2a2a565a/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 22 04:10:27 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:10:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Class of player can be empty? Message-ID: Today: P 3D 3H HP HP The 3D bid was made at favorable vulnerability. The 3D opener called me about the second hesitation pass. In the conversation, his partner admitted that she hesitated too, so he ended up calling me on himself. After hearing my various warnings, he then bid 4D anyway, which was passed out. It looks really straightforword -- the pass suggests him bidding 4D, pass is a logical alternative for almost everyone, and the opponents were damaged by his 4D call. But. Then I realized that this player often does that -- preempts and then bids again. Many players are taught that the preempter never bids again, and it isn't fair to include them in the poll. So who should be in the poll? I really want to poll players who will rebid their suit after preempting. I couldn't think of any other players here who do that. I consulted with one good player, who confirmed all of my judgments on the hand. Then I asked him who in the room would rebid his suit after a preempt. He quickly named the player in question. After some thought, he came up with another player who might. Which to me was not close enough to be relevant to the question. So, in a relevant way of defining class, he was in a class all by himself. I don't think this is an impossible ruling at either the tournament or club level. But it seemed interesting BTW, my impossible ruling today was the sameold-sameold. Two players agree on Standard American, one player makes a bid that is IMO Standard American here (a splinter bid), and her partner doesn't know what it means. What is there agreement? It hinges on what players agree to when they agree on a convention. I decided today she had to tell the opps it was a splinter. She didn't mind. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 22 11:02:36 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:02:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E293CAC.5040001@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/07/2011 1:35, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner > > [snip] > 4) advice NS, based on 30+ years of experience with relay systems, not > to vary their answers after a double. Rdbl is best used "to play" and > Pass to ask for control in the suit > [snip] > > Richard Hills > > 4) advise Alain, based upon my 30+ years of _success_ with relay > systems, to _definitely_ vary relay answers after a Double, as two > (possibly vital) bidding steps are gained. > AG : if they are so vital then one shouldn't have relayed in the first place, as one couldn't expect the double. Okay, let's mention passes from the non-captain player. Even plain staymanists have seen that it's useful to distinguish between hands that include a stopper and those which don't (the pass covers one of the cases, with redouble a further relay). I don't claim that it's the best use of the pass ; only that it is a good use and one that doesn't strain memory (and attention ;-) As for the redouble ... AKJ xx Kx Q108xx xxx KQJx KQxxx Ax 1C 2D 2H X XX 1C = 15+ 2D = 12-14, 4+diamonds, denies 4+ clubs, unbalanced, may have a longer major Wouldn't it have been a shame to have only step responses at your disposal ? (here, 3H, showing either 2542 or X74X or, according to your theory, 3C) > Richard: " ... and Hashmat is showing 6 controls." > Hashmat: "What? Oops, I did not notice the Double." > Richard: "Systemically Hashmat is showing 6 controls, but if Hashmat > did not notice the Double then Hashmat is showing 4 controls." > > If instead I had given the truncated explanation "Systemically Hashmat > is showing 6 controls" full stop, would that truncated explanation > have been consistent with the Law 40B6(a) requirement that "a player > shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through ... > partnership experience"? > AG : IMOBO this doesn't come from partner's experience, but from partner's mannerism, that you aren't allowed to take into account. So, no problem. 1. Hashmat isn't compelled to state that he erred. 2. However, I find it necessary from an ethical point of view and to avoid resentment. If he said "I did something wrong ; we can check in the system notes that the explanation was correct", that would be enough. and opponents wouldn't be entitled to know what was wrong. 3. Now that he stated that he didn't see the double, perhaps opponents are allowed to ask what the bid would have meant in the absence of a double, as is is relevant to the actual auction. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110722/eae59225/attachment-0001.html From blml at arcor.de Fri Jul 22 12:19:54 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:19:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1036895070.795984.1311329994288.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner > > [snip] > 4) advice NS, based on 30+ years of experience with relay systems, not to > vary their answers after a double. Rdbl is best used "to play" and Pass to > ask for control in the suit > [snip] > > Richard Hills > > 4) advise Alain, based upon my 30+ years of _success_ with relay systems, > to _definitely_ vary relay answers after a Double, as two (possibly vital) > bidding steps are gained. Redouble _by the relay captain_ is best used to > play (I fondly remember declaring 2Sxx holding a singleton queen, with pard > holding sufficient values to overcome a 6-0 trump break, therefore a score > of +1240) and Pass _by the relay captain_ is best used to continue the > relay. I agree with Richard up to this point - that is how I am playing the relays in my system. Generally, you need to have solid understandings, as a misunderstanding in a relay sequence can lead to total disaster. Using Pass as the next relay gives you two valuable extra steps of bidding space - you can ask for controls later. Thomas 'Der dritte Platz ist nur was f?r M?nner' - diese und andere originelle E-Cards gib?s hier http://www.arcor.de/ecards/ecards_type.jsp?parentID=177&selectID=277 From gampas at aol.com Fri Jul 22 12:41:25 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:41:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Paul appealing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E2953D5.2080504@aol.com> > The good news is that an Appeals Committee consisting entirely of > experts was able to assess that removing pard's penalty double of 4S > to 5C was the only logical alternative for a weak player. The bad news > is that the same Appeals Committee may well(2) have ruled that an > expert(1) passing out 4Sx is not a logical alternative. > > The AC actually thought it would be even less of a logical alternative for an expert to pass out 5Cx, and actually thought that the question did not demonstrably suggest defending. North's second double would be played by weak players as penalties, and the weak South would still pull because he has no defence. An expert would play North's second double as convertible values, at least that is the opinion of a few strong players I surveyed. South would still bid 5C. But the main requirement to adjust, that 5C is demonstrably suggested over Pass by the question, is not present. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110722/e0d742e1/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 22 13:59:50 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:59:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Belconnen Bowl 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1036895070.795984.1311329994288.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> References: <1036895070.795984.1311329994288.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4E296636.1040907@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/07/2011 12:19, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Alain Gottcheiner >> >> [snip] >> 4) advice NS, based on 30+ years of experience with relay systems, not to >> vary their answers after a double. Rdbl is best used "to play" and Pass to >> ask for control in the suit >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills >> >> 4) advise Alain, based upon my 30+ years of _success_ with relay systems, >> to _definitely_ vary relay answers after a Double, as two (possibly vital) >> bidding steps are gained. Redouble _by the relay captain_ is best used to >> play (I fondly remember declaring 2Sxx holding a singleton queen, with pard >> holding sufficient values to overcome a 6-0 trump break, therefore a score >> of +1240) and Pass _by the relay captain_ is best used to continue the >> relay. > I agree with Richard up to this point - that is how I am playing > the relays in my system. > > Generally, you need to have solid understandings, as a misunderstanding > in a relay sequence can lead to total disaster. Using Pass as the next relay > gives you two valuable extra steps of bidding space - you can ask for > controls later. > AG : IIRC the case, the doubled bid was 3H. So, if you want to check below 3NT, you'd rather hurry. Here is a live case (hands approximative, was long ago) : AQJx Kxx Qxx xxx AKxx Jx Qx AKJxx 1C(1) 2C(2) 2D(3) 2NT(4) 3C(3) 3D(5) 3H(3) Dbl (1) 15+ (2) 12-14, 4+ clubs, may have a longer suit (3) relay (4) 1-suited, 5, 6 or 8 cards (5) 3325 or (322)6 or XXX8 Now the right bid (without the double) is 3NT, showing 3325. According to the economy theory it might be Rdbl. But now, how are you going to ascertain the stopper ? Here it's easy : East passes (no stopper), West redoubles as a relay and they find 4S. From adam at tameware.com Sat Jul 23 23:50:13 2011 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:50:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Louisville (Spring 2011) NABC+ Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Louisville2011.php > > If you'd like to discuss a particular case please start a new thread > >> with the case number in the Subject: line rather than replying to this > >> message. > Here are my draft comments on the NABC+ cases: 1. Per the A/C's reasoning, this appeal had not a shred of merit. Where's the AWMW? The TD"s adjustment is incorrect as a matter of law. I suspect the fault lies in the writeup, not the ruling. Every adjustment under 12c1e requires two adjustments, one for the OS and one for the NOS. The criteria for the two sides are only slightly different, so usually the adjustment for both sides is the same. Here the writeup suggests that the TD improperly applied to criteria for the NOS to both sides. 2. I agree fully with the AWMW. I'd have assessed a procedural penalty as well. Inexperienced or not, players must understand that when they appeal they risk a worse score than they achieved at the table. In fact they sign a notice to that effect. The fact that E/W appealed shows that they do not understand the law here. Nothing will help their future understanding more than a score penalty would. It also serves as an incentive to others to follow the laws. The laws must apply equally to all. 3. I fully agree that the appeal lacked merit. I'd have assessed a procedural penalty as well. I'll note in passing that while the screening director informed N/S that they were at risk for an AWMW, screening directors seldom do so, since they properly do not wish to be seen as discouraging potentially legitimate appeals. When a screener does not discourage a pair from continuing their appeal it is in no way an endorsement of their case, and a TD's admonitions or lack thereof should have no influence on the AC's determination of merit. One exception occurs when a TD believes his ruling is close enough that he appeals it himself -- in that case he is the appealing party, and neither side is at risk of an AWMW. 4. I do not fault the TD for ruling in favor of the NOS. I agree with the AC, though, that here no damage resulted. 5. I do not understand the AC's reluctance to rule as the TD did regarding a matter of ACBL policy. How could they have determined otherwise? It was clear that North did not follow correct alert procedure, that he also did not make sure that East was aware of the alert, that East was in fact unaware of the alert, and that East would have taken a different call had she been made aware of the alert. Might the late alert have helped clarify the meaning of the double, takeout versus penalty? Certainly it might have, but that information was authorized for E/W since it arose out of North's infraction. I see no merit to this appeal. 6. I do not understand the TD's and AC's contention that the redouble is commonly played as SOS and so East ought to have interpreted it that way. It is not relevant how common the treatment is, only how N/S play the sequence, and East understood North to have said that the redouble was natural. That said, with no written evidence of a mis-explanation I too would have ruled "score stands." Players understand that when behind screens all questions and answers should be written. I have been guilty of violating this rule myself, but when I do I know better than to expect redress. 7. The A/C reasoning seems thorough. This was a close case and I could see it going the other way. I certainly agree that the appeal had substantial merit. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110723/e14039e7/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Jul 24 01:21:17 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:21:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Louisville NABC+ case 1: fast bid over skip-bid warning, and overriding partner Message-ID: NABC+ IMP pairs, N-S vul W N E S P 1D 2D 2S 4H 5C P 7D P P 7H P P X P 7NT A STOP card was used before the 4H call, but North bid 2 seconds later; then, North took about 7 seconds to double 7H. South held A AK5 QJT98 KJ98. The TD ruled that the fast 5C bid provided UI; the AC ruled that the double of 7H was slow in the context of the fast 5C bid. The AC didn't say why it found the appeal to have merit, but the only possible reason is that there was uncertainty as to whether there was UI. But I would say that this appeal has to be without merit because South's own actions imply that he had UI. He passed a decision to partner, then overrode the decision. There is no logical reason for a player in the finals of an NABC+ event to do that, and at the seven level, this cannot be a pass-and-pull situation. (If 7NT had gone down, South deserved a different penalty, loss of a partner as well as a bunch of IMPs.) I would like to ask South why he bid 7NT. TDs and ACs rule impose procedural penalties for hesitation Blackwood. They should be just as willing to impose penalties for other situations in which a player overrides a decision which he has left to partner, since honoring a decision which you asked partner to make is usually a logical alternative. In addition, there should have been a procedural penalty against North for ignoring the STOP card in a tempo-sensitive situation and causing a problem. I could rule against N-S based on either source of UI. If North had held Kxx - AKxxx Axxxx, he would have been less likely to bid 5C quickly, and also less likely to double 7H slowly. And opposite that North hand, 7Hx is down eight for +2000 as the cards lie, and making a grand depends on picking up the clubs (which could be impossible if West has QTx). From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jul 28 19:14:57 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:14:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] let her withdraw her card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A similar situation came up this week. Declarer called for the 4 of spades from Dummy. East (defending) played his last spade, the six. Dummy did have a small spade, but it was the 5 of spades. So the call from dummy is voided. Declarer in fact wanted the 4 of clubs. Is the 6 of spades a penalty card? I ruled no, on roughly an analogy to the situation below. Except it is not as easy to characterize declarer's call as an infraction. Bob F. On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:34:30 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > Declarer has good clubs in dummy and the losing king of diamonds. He > plays a club from his hand, and I think before he can even call for a > card from dummy, RHO plays her ace of diamonds. Declarer, either during > this trick or before has said "Ah, a singleton king." He was referring > to the club suit. But RHO obvious thought he meant that the singleton > king should be played from dummy. She even has clubs; in any case, she > has absolutely no reason to pitch the ace of diamonds looking at the > king in dummy and having other trash she can throw. > > How do you rule? Is it obvious? Declarer is allowed to make gratuitous > comments, but is declarer allowed to freely make gratuitous comments > that can be interpreted as calls for a card from the dummy? > > At the time I was conceding that RHO was not paying sufficient > attention. Now I am not sure, because from her perspective the play of > the hand can be reduced to "play my ace of diamonds on the king." > > If the statement "Ah, a singleton king" occurred before he led the club > from hand, then "singleton king" could be construed as leading from the > wrong hand and RHO's play as accepting that lead. But I think this just > goes back to the same problem. > > To me, it is a tough ruling and anything should be accepted graciously. > And too confusing for the rule book to cover? I decided that declarer > was the offending side, making a gratuitous comment that could be and > was construed as a play from dummy. So I let her withdraw her ace of > diamonds. > > This is not high-level play. It is just a club game. -- http://somepsychology.com From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 28 22:54:34 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:54:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] let her withdraw her card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000d01cc4d68$8f314490$ad93cdb0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > A similar situation came up this week. Declarer called for the 4 of spades > from Dummy. East (defending) played his last spade, the six. Dummy did > have a small spade, but it was the 5 of spades. So the call from dummy is > voided. Declarer in fact wanted the 4 of clubs. Is the 6 of spades a penalty > card? > > I ruled no, on roughly an analogy to the situation below. Except it is not as > easy to characterize declarer's call as an infraction. > > Bob F. I haven't looked at the original posts, but this ruling here is incorrect: The applicable law is L46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card" so East actually played (led) a card out of turn. The correct ruling is that declarer should replace his call for the non-existing 4 of spades with a call for any card available in Dummy, and if East's 6 of spades then becomes a revoke he must replace it with a legal play and the 6 of spades becomes a major penalty card. Sorry East, you had better be more observant! From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Fri Jul 29 01:32:52 2011 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:32:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] let her withdraw her card? In-Reply-To: <000d01cc4d68$8f314490$ad93cdb0$@online.no> References: <000d01cc4d68$8f314490$ad93cdb0$@online.no> Message-ID: <781BBA70649643B1BA7C434CBE708728@mikePC> -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:54 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] let her withdraw her card? > Robert Frick > A similar situation came up this week. Declarer called for the 4 of spades > from Dummy. East (defending) played his last spade, the six. Dummy did > have a small spade, but it was the 5 of spades. So the call from dummy is > voided. Declarer in fact wanted the 4 of clubs. Is the 6 of spades a penalty > card? > > I ruled no, on roughly an analogy to the situation below. Except it is not as > easy to characterize declarer's call as an infraction. > > Bob F. I haven't looked at the original posts, but this ruling here is incorrect: The applicable law is L46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card" so East actually played (led) a card out of turn. The correct ruling is that declarer should replace his call for the non-existing 4 of spades with a call for any card available in Dummy, and if East's 6 of spades then becomes a revoke he must replace it with a legal play and the 6 of spades becomes a major penalty card. Sorry East, you had better be more observant! Mike writes Sorry I don't agree I believe that 45D claearly applies and I see nothing in what you have written that tells us why it does not apply Mike Amos From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jul 29 03:59:55 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 21:59:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] let her withdraw her card? In-Reply-To: <000d01cc4d68$8f314490$ad93cdb0$@online.no> References: <000d01cc4d68$8f314490$ad93cdb0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4E32141B.4060104@nhcc.net> On 7/28/2011 4:54 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I haven't looked at the original posts, but this ruling here is incorrect: > The applicable law is L46B4: > "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer > may designate any legal card" so East actually played (led) a card out of > turn. If dummy actually moved a card, L45D applies. Assuming this hasn't happened... > The correct ruling is that declarer should replace his call for the > non-existing 4 of spades with a call for any card available in Dummy, and if > East's 6 of spades then becomes a revoke he must replace it with a legal > play and the 6 of spades becomes a major penalty card. But then at the end, you adjust under L23, don't you? Declarer "could have known" that calling for a nonexistent card could create a penalty card and an advantage. It seems much simpler for the Director to "designate otherwise" in the first place. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 29 08:19:32 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:19:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] let her withdraw her card? In-Reply-To: <4E32141B.4060104@nhcc.net> References: <000d01cc4d68$8f314490$ad93cdb0$@online.no> <4E32141B.4060104@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001cc4db7$7c32ce00$74986a00$@online.no> > Steve Willner (and to Mike Amos) > On 7/28/2011 4:54 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > I haven't looked at the original posts, but this ruling here is incorrect: > > The applicable law is L46B4: > > "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and > > declarer may designate any legal card" so East actually played (led) a > > card out of turn. > > If dummy actually moved a card, L45D applies. Assuming this hasn't > happened... [Sven Pran] That is correct. My comment was based on the assumption that dummy did not move his 5 of spades. > > The correct ruling is that declarer should replace his call for the > > non-existing 4 of spades with a call for any card available in Dummy, > > and if East's 6 of spades then becomes a revoke he must replace it > > with a legal play and the 6 of spades becomes a major penalty card. > > But then at the end, you adjust under L23, don't you? Declarer "could have > known" that calling for a nonexistent card could create a penalty card and an > advantage. > > It seems much simpler for the Director to "designate otherwise" in the first > place. [Sven Pran] This will very much be a matter of judgment: My ruling was based on the assumption that Declarer's call was a slip of the tongue. If instead I get the feeling that it was deliberate I shall of course apply Law 23. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 29 16:01:31 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:01:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] let her withdraw her card? In-Reply-To: <000001cc4db7$7c32ce00$74986a00$@online.no> References: <000d01cc4d68$8f314490$ad93cdb0$@online.no> <4E32141B.4060104@nhcc.net> <000001cc4db7$7c32ce00$74986a00$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 02:19:32 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Steve Willner (and to Mike Amos) >> On 7/28/2011 4:54 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> > I haven't looked at the original posts, but this ruling here is > incorrect: >> > The applicable law is L46B4: >> > "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and >> > declarer may designate any legal card" so East actually played (led) a >> > card out of turn. >> >> If dummy actually moved a card, L45D applies. Assuming this hasn't >> happened... > > [Sven Pran] That is correct. My comment was based on the assumption that > dummy did not move his 5 of spades. Right, dummy did not play the 5 of spades. > >> > The correct ruling is that declarer should replace his call for the >> > non-existing 4 of spades with a call for any card available in Dummy, >> > and if East's 6 of spades then becomes a revoke he must replace it >> > with a legal play and the 6 of spades becomes a major penalty card. >> >> But then at the end, you adjust under L23, don't you? Declarer "could > have >> known" that calling for a nonexistent card could create a penalty card >> and > an >> advantage. >> >> It seems much simpler for the Director to "designate otherwise" in the > first >> place. > > [Sven Pran] This will very much be a matter of judgment: My ruling was > based > on the assumption that Declarer's call was a slip of the tongue. If > instead > I get the feeling that it was deliberate I shall of course apply Law 23. Right, slip of tongue. Of course, people differ in how to apply Law 23. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 29 17:34:48 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:34:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] let her withdraw her card? In-Reply-To: <000d01cc4d68$8f314490$ad93cdb0$@online.no> References: <000d01cc4d68$8f314490$ad93cdb0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:54:34 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> A similar situation came up this week. Declarer called for the 4 of >> spades >> from Dummy. East (defending) played his last spade, the six. Dummy did >> have a small spade, but it was the 5 of spades. So the call from dummy >> is >> voided. Declarer in fact wanted the 4 of clubs. Is the 6 of spades a > penalty >> card? >> >> I ruled no, on roughly an analogy to the situation below. Except it is >> not > as >> easy to characterize declarer's call as an infraction. >> >> Bob F. > I haven't looked at the original posts, but this ruling here is > incorrect: > The applicable law is L46B4: > "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and > declarer > may designate any legal card" so East actually played (led) a card out of > turn. > > The correct ruling is that declarer should replace his call for the > non-existing 4 of spades with a call for any card available in Dummy, > and if > East's 6 of spades then becomes a revoke he must replace it with a legal > play and the 6 of spades becomes a major penalty card. > > Sorry East, you had better be more observant! The player in question is one of the most observant in the club. He strongly feels he was being sufficiently observant. I am sympathetic to this claim. It seems that when the laws run amok, one solution is to say that the players should be different. Are you saying that here? We probably all feel that calling for a nonexistant card from dummy is not part of the proper procedures of the game. We can read the lawbook to see if this is actually an infraction, but it seems to me like a coin-flip whether the authors wrote the lawbook that way or not. It seems they did not. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 29 18:14:45 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:14:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] let her withdraw her card? In-Reply-To: References: <000d01cc4d68$8f314490$ad93cdb0$@online.no> <4E32141B.4060104@nhcc.net> <000001cc4db7$7c32ce00$74986a00$@online.no> Message-ID: <000601cc4e0a$a27ca920$e775fb60$@online.no> > Robert Frick > >> If dummy actually moved a card, L45D applies. Assuming this hasn't > >> happened... > > > > [Sven Pran] That is correct. My comment was based on the assumption > > that dummy did not move his 5 of spades. > > Right, dummy did not play the 5 of spades. [Sven Pran] In that case East's play to the trick was premature and the ruling below is correct. > > > > >> > The correct ruling is that declarer should replace his call for the > >> > non-existing 4 of spades with a call for any card available in > >> > Dummy, and if East's 6 of spades then becomes a revoke he must > >> > replace it with a legal play and the 6 of spades becomes a major penalty > card. > >> > >> But then at the end, you adjust under L23, don't you? Declarer > >> "could > > have > >> known" that calling for a nonexistent card could create a penalty > >> card and > > an > >> advantage. > >> > >> It seems much simpler for the Director to "designate otherwise" in > >> the > > first > >> place. > > > > [Sven Pran] This will very much be a matter of judgment: My ruling was > > based on the assumption that Declarer's call was a slip of the tongue. > > If instead I get the feeling that it was deliberate I shall of course > > apply Law 23. > > Right, slip of tongue. Of course, people differ in how to apply Law 23. [Sven Pran] There is never any cause for Law 23 when the irregularity was a slip of the tongue. Law 23 requires some intent. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 29 18:21:30 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:21:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] let her withdraw her card? In-Reply-To: References: <000d01cc4d68$8f314490$ad93cdb0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4E32DE0A.8040103@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/07/2011 17:34, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:54:34 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Robert Frick >>> A similar situation came up this week. Declarer called for the 4 of >>> spades >>> from Dummy. East (defending) played his last spade, the six. Dummy did >>> have a small spade, but it was the 5 of spades. So the call from dummy >>> is >>> voided. Declarer in fact wanted the 4 of clubs. Is the 6 of spades a >> penalty >>> card? >>> >>> I ruled no, on roughly an analogy to the situation below. Except it is >>> not >> as >>> easy to characterize declarer's call as an infraction. >>> >>> Bob F. >> I haven't looked at the original posts, but this ruling here is >> incorrect: >> The applicable law is L46B4: >> "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and >> declarer >> may designate any legal card" so East actually played (led) a card out of >> turn. >> >> The correct ruling is that declarer should replace his call for the >> non-existing 4 of spades with a call for any card available in Dummy, >> and if >> East's 6 of spades then becomes a revoke he must replace it with a legal >> play and the 6 of spades becomes a major penalty card. >> >> Sorry East, you had better be more observant! > The player in question is one of the most observant in the club. He > strongly feels he was being sufficiently observant. I am sympathetic to > this claim. > > It seems that when the laws run amok, one solution is to say that the > players should be different. Are you saying that here? > > We probably all feel that calling for a nonexistant card from dummy is not > part of the proper procedures of the game. We can read the lawbook to see > if this is actually an infraction, but it seems to me like a coin-flip > whether the authors wrote the lawbook that way or not. It seems they did > not. I come late in this thread, but I'd like to express the opinion that East's error was prompted by South's infraction (naming an inexistant card), and that could have been foreseen, so that it shouldn't be treated as a revoke, no more than a wrong contract reached after a misexplanation should de endorsed. Come to think of it, if we judged otherwise, it could open the door to a legal Alcatraz coup. Best regards Alain From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 30 03:15:04 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:15:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] let her withdraw her card? In-Reply-To: <000001cc4db7$7c32ce00$74986a00$@online.no> References: <000d01cc4d68$8f314490$ad93cdb0$@online.no> <4E32141B.4060104@nhcc.net> <000001cc4db7$7c32ce00$74986a00$@online.no> Message-ID: <4E335B18.8060701@nhcc.net> On 7/29/2011, Sven Pran wrote: > My ruling was based > on the assumption that Declarer's call was a slip of the tongue. If instead > I get the feeling that it was deliberate I shall of course apply Law 23. So if you are directing, I can get away with an Alcatraz Coup if I convince you it was an accident? > Law 23 requires some intent. Which part of L23 suggests that? This does, however, suggest a route to what I believe to be the correct ruling. If informed of the pending L23 adjustment, any sensible declarer will ask to have the penalty card waived. The Director should grant this request. Indeed the advantage to declarer is so obvious, the Director should just rule that way -- waiving the penalty card, i.e., "designating otherwise" -- in the first place. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 30 09:26:14 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:26:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] let her withdraw her card? In-Reply-To: <4E335B18.8060701@nhcc.net> References: <000d01cc4d68$8f314490$ad93cdb0$@online.no> <4E32141B.4060104@nhcc.net> <000001cc4db7$7c32ce00$74986a00$@online.no> <4E335B18.8060701@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001cc4e89$f6c3e0a0$e44ba1e0$@online.no> > Steve Willner [...] > > Law 23 requires some intent. > > Which part of L23 suggests that? [Sven Pran] "could have known"