From allevy at aol.com Thu Mar 1 16:33:25 2012 From: allevy at aol.com (Al Levy) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:33:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 36, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CEC5D7C72CD9D0-D8C-5FE3@webmail-d150.sysops.aol.com> Hi Bob, Maybe I came in the middle of the 'debate' but what was presented was taking a shot that some of the three panelists would have bid without the hesitation. No mention was made that they would think that the bid was so clear that there was no logical alternative. In fact, from a director ruling and a prior poll, it was already determined (to the reader of this discussion) that Pass was strongly considered a logical alternate by many...otherwise the original ruling would have been different. So, if the first Director(s) did their work...and in the WBF it is strongly assumed to be the case...and in the ACBL (in top events) it most assuredly is the case...then that should end the matter. Further appealing to get a second bite of the apple has its consequences. Wanting to start over because there is a probability that you will win, even if it is small chance is one's prerogative. (All cases fit that description.) In cases like this I would hope the committee gives an appeal without merit if they see no change in the ruling, even if not unanimous, and if the appealer continues with other similar appeals, disciplinary action should be taken. Also, Appeals should be posted to further be open and informative, and names of players, Directors and committee members should be given. Al -----Original Message----- From: blml-request To: blml Sent: Thu, Mar 1, 2012 6:00 am Subject: Blml Digest, Vol 36, Issue 1 Send Blml mailing list submissions to blml at rtflb.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to blml-request at rtflb.org You can reach the person managing the list at blml-owner at rtflb.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Blml digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: 25A - but what now (Alain Gottcheiner) 2. Re: Blml Digest, Vol 35, Issue 50 (Robert Frick) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:46:21 +0100 From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-ID: <4F4E2C2D.3000405 at ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Le 28/02/2012 20:28, Roger Pewick a ?crit : > > > > >> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:51:00 +0800 >> From: diggadog at iinet.net.au >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now >> >> On 28/02/2012 7:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> Ed Reppert >>>>> [Sven Pran] >>>>> We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had >>>>> just been introduced). >>>>> Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and places >>>>> it on the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call. >>>>> >>>>> The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player >>>>> should be required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and >>>>> then apply Laws 29 and 31. >>>>> >>>>> Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded. >>>> Okay, but why? What was the reasoning behind this finding? >>> [Sven Pran] No justification anywhere in the laws. Also implicit violation >>> of Law 9A3. >> Laws Committee Minute >> >> "7. When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the call >> withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. No unauthorized information >> is conveyed by it. Law 16D does not apply to the change of an unintended >> call. If the Director allows a call that should not be allowed under >> this Law it is a Director?s error and Law 82C applies." >> >> At the point where the call is withdrawn it may be opportune for the >> director to determine that nothing has happened out of turn and return >> to the player whose turn it was to call. >> >> bill > What the law and its crafters have demonstrated is not knowing the crucial nexus. > > The crucial nexus is [a] the principle of one action per turn and [b] the principle that what players do, counts. > > When a player BOOT he has gained turns [plural] while depriving the opponents of turns to which they were entitled. To be a rightful remedy it must strive to restore the turns to their proper balance. But only so much can in fact be done?. Offender's extra turn must be canceled. The offender's partner must be silenced until the balance of turns has been restored- which cannot happen before offender has repeated his canceled action. The fact is that every communication has the effect of taking a turn. So, even though a bid can be undone, the spatial communication- the communication of haste/eagerness due to not waiting for his turn cannot be undone. AG : in my own experience, this isn't the main message. The main message is that the player was mentally away from the table . Now, occaisonally, this might constitute UI. > > Now, the law states: "?a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call?" > > In other words, players are entitled to more turns than their opponents. AG : No more, IMHO, than when a player picks back his revoke card and substitutes a legal card. There will be a penalty, but it is indeed the new card which counts. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:01:38 -0500 From: "Robert Frick" Subject: Re: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 35, Issue 50 To: blml at rtflb.org, "Al Levy" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:54:21 -0500, Al Levy wrote: > Re: Appealing a correct ruling in hopes of getting a different result of > the coin flip. > > > The question for the committee is not what they would bid in the absence > of a hesitation, but if Pass is a logical alternative. So, even if all > three panelists would have bid at the table without the hesitation, if > the decide, based on reason or a poll, that pass is a logical > alternative.... Hi Al. based on reason? What is the possible reason? If I poll 3 players, and they are all bidding, and apparently none are seriously considering passing, isn't that end-of-story? What other conclusion could anyone reach except the pass is a logical alternative? (No one challenged the quality of the polling process.) Should the committee decide, based on their own reasoning, what players *of that ability evaluating the hand that way) will bid? One committee member tried that -- she guessed they would all pass. Or if you think a logical alternative is just an alternative that is logical, then I can see a reasoning process. But I don't read the lawbook that way. And if it supposed to be read that way, I am not sure why I would have bothered with a poll. > , then they will rule against the appeal and, in cases like this, should > rule it frivolous. Ruling it frivolous, in itself, just says that the > ruling is clear and without doubt. > > > Further comments... > (1) The Directors' decision should be assumed to be correct (WBF); > (2) The Appeals should be published, with all names involved. It is > important for future appeals that it set a clear standard; > (3) Players who continually appeal in this type of situation (trying to > get a better ruling even though they know they have been given a fair > shot and are likely to be ruled against), establish a 'reputation' and > have to live with it. > (4) Repeat offenders should be disciplined. > > > AL Levy > ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml End of Blml Digest, Vol 36, Issue 1 *********************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120301/e5ea1db0/attachment.html From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sun Mar 4 20:17:23 2012 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 19:17:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Create UI - do I have a choice? In-Reply-To: <4F4E2C2D.3000405@ulb.ac.be> References: , <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no>, <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com><38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net><0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com><001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no>, <4FCD3FCC-E417-4BCD-92CB-FA7CCF7EB024@mac.com>, <001701ccf5a9$3fc4c500$bf4e4f00$@online.no>, <4F4C3304.9090100@iinet.net.au> <4F4E2C2D.3000405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <83B7D747798F4145B8FE258CC4C05C36@Lounge> >From my local club W N E S 1H 1S 2C P At this point S pulled a call such that it just cleared the bidding box. There was a chorus of "It's not your turn" followed by "Director". The bidding box regulations state that a call is made if the call is removed from the box "with intent". I determined that therefore a call had been made, but no one (other than S) knew what it was. What I really wanted to do was revert the bidding to E and advise that South's attempt to bid was unauthorised and that I should be recalled if this may have caused damage. However it does not appear that I have this option. I must get S to reveal his call hence creating UI that did not previously exist as well as creating (possible) lead penalties. Does this seem sensible to you? ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From petereidt at t-online.de Sun Mar 4 21:23:00 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 21:23:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Create_UI_-_do_I_have_a_choice=3F?= In-Reply-To: <83B7D747798F4145B8FE258CC4C05C36@Lounge> References: <83B7D747798F4145B8FE258CC4C05C36@Lounge> Message-ID: <1S4HxM-08YRLE0@fwd13.aul.t-online.de> Von: "David" > >From my local club > > W N E S > 1H 1S > 2C P > > At this point S pulled a call such that it just cleared the bidding > box. > There was a chorus of "It's not your turn" followed by "Director". > > The bidding box regulations state that a call is made if the call is > removed from the box "with intent". > > I determined that therefore a call had been made, but no one > (other than S) knew what it was. > > What I really wanted to do was revert the bidding to E and advise that > South's attempt to bid was unauthorised and that I should > be recalled if this may have caused damage. > > However it does not appear that I have this option. > I must get S to reveal his call hence creating UI that did not > previously exist as well as creating (possible) lead penalties. > > Does this seem sensible to you? Yes, that is what the law says. The call was made even if noone - besides South - may have seen it. So, go on there ... From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 21:39:38 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 21:39:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Create UI - do I have a choice? In-Reply-To: <1S4HxM-08YRLE0@fwd13.aul.t-online.de> References: <83B7D747798F4145B8FE258CC4C05C36@Lounge> <1S4HxM-08YRLE0@fwd13.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Den 21:23 4. mars 2012 skrev Peter Eidt f?lgende: > Von: "David" >> >From my local club >> >> W ? ? N ? ? E ? ? S >> 1H ? 1S >> 2C ? ?P >> >> At this point S pulled a call such that it just cleared the bidding >> box. >> There was a chorus of "It's not your turn" followed by "Director". >> >> The bidding box regulations state that a call is made if the call is >> removed from the box "with intent". >> >> I determined that therefore a call had been made, but no one >> (other than S) knew what it was. >> >> What I really wanted to do was revert the bidding to E and advise that >> South's attempt to bid was unauthorised and that I should >> be recalled if this may have caused damage. >> >> However it does not appear that I have this option. >> I must get S to reveal his call hence creating UI that did not >> previously exist as well as creating (possible) lead penalties. >> >> Does this seem sensible to you? > > Yes, that is what the law says. The law is silent on the matter. The RA's bidding box regulations say the call has been made. You might think this is a good or bad regulation. > > The call was made even if noone - besides South - > may have seen it. So, go on there ... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Mar 4 22:55:03 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:55:03 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F06A8EF.8010903@gmail.com> Message-ID: Brian Meadows: [snip] >if you think it's sufficiently bad, or by far the >most common way (IMO) is to just leave at the >end of the hand and dump the player into >your enemies list. That way you only have to >play against them again if you play tourneys, >and in the tourneys there are TDs. > >Sure, playing out double dummy for the non- >claimers isn't perfect, but I'm on Nigel's side >here, it's the best practical online solution >when you have a situation where there's >disagreement, especially given that the four >players may not even have a common >language. Richard Hills: I am on Brian's side here, but I am not on Nigel's side out there. Sure, modified double dummy claim Laws may be practical (if not ideal) for online duplicate sessions which lack an online duplicate Director and/or a common language. But non-double dummy claim Laws are both practical and ideal for face-to-face duplicate sessions which have both a Director and also players who share a common language. Nigel has consistently advocated that the practical online claim Laws would necessarily be practical for face-to-face duplicate bridge, tripping into the fallacy of secundum quid. Best wishes, Richard Hills Example of secundum quid from Wikipedia: A blmler travels through a town for the first time. The blmler sees 10 people, all of them children. The blmler then concludes that there are no adult residents in the town. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120304/700abc46/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Mar 4 23:21:29 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:21:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 2017 footnote to Laws 70 and 71 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: [snip] >Rather than submitting suggestions directly to >the WBF or ACBL I suggest discussing them >here first. I further suggest than any such posts >contain "2017" in the Subject line so that they >can be identified relatively easily. 2017 footnote to Laws 70 and 71: For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or somewhat inferior. "Normal" does not include play that would be weird or very inferior. For example, in a 7NT contract's two card ending of Kx in dummy and Ax in hand, it would be weird and very inferior for declarer to crash ace and king at trick twelve to create a defensive winner at trick thirteen. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120304/cd0b258f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 5 05:20:05 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:20:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Laws 73D2 and 81C5 (was Law 67B1(b)) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1760332904.139652.1329990902840.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >I sometimes get the impression that some >people, though Richard is perhaps not one of >them, think that the example of hesitating with a >singleton means that if you fail to play a >singleton in tempo, you are *automatically* in >violation of this law [73D2]. Yet there is another >necessary condition: that there be an attempt >to mislead. [snip] Richard Hills: The question therefore is: by what criteria should a Director determine "attempt to mislead"??? Some useful analogous advice was given by Edgar Kaplan on what is now Law 81C5: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director?s duties and powers normally include also the following: to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side." As an indicative example of "for cause", Edgar gave the scenario of declarer accidentally spilling her coffee into a defender's lap, which meant that that defender exposed her cards. An application by declarer to then waive the consequent Penalty Cards should, in Edgar's opinion, then be accepted -- because the non- offending side was partially responsible for the offending side's infraction. Likewise, if I was Director when a defender hesitated with a singleton without "a demonstrable bridge reason", I would rule that that defender did not "attempt to mislead" if declarer had just spilled coffee into her lap. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120305/5a026680/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 5 05:59:24 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:59:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] mille tre [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F47622F.2020907@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >While in Vlakenburg last year, I did >not read my blml messages. > >And then I started writing >suggestions for Grattan. > >And I did not read blml. > >I now notice that there are 1003 >messages waiting for me. > >I shall start reading this weekend. >Prepare to be flooded with reactions. Andrew Marvell, To His Coy Mistress: My vegetable love should grow Vaster than empires, and more slow -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120305/a86ea506/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Mar 5 09:40:41 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:40:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Laws 73D2 and 81C5 (was Law 67B1(b)) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1760332904.139652.1329990902840.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <005f01ccfaab$a61509d0$f23f1d70$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens richard.hills at immi.gov.au Verzonden: maandag 5 maart 2012 5:20 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Laws 73D2 and 81C5 (was Law 67B1(b)) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Ed Reppert: >I sometimes get the impression that some >people, though Richard is perhaps not one of >them, think that the example of hesitating with a >singleton means that if you fail to play a >singleton in tempo, you are *automatically* in >violation of this law [73D2]. Yet there is another >necessary condition: that there be an attempt >to mislead. [snip] ton: I don?t think that the laws are with you calling this a necessary condition. 73D2 doesn?t say so. 73F adds ?could have known? as a necessary condition, combined with having no demonstrable bridge reason. Richard Hills: The question therefore is: by what criteria should a Director determine "attempt to mislead"??? Some useful analogous advice was given by Edgar Kaplan on what is now Law 81C5: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director?s duties and powers normally include also the following: to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side." As an indicative example of "for cause", Edgar gave the scenario of declarer accidentally spilling her coffee into a defender's lap, which meant that that defender exposed her cards. An application by declarer to then waive the consequent Penalty Cards should, in Edgar's opinion, then be accepted -- because the non- offending side was partially responsible for the offending side's infraction. ton: A recent nice example: I was called at a table were a player had passed out of turn when RHO had to call. RHO told me that while starting to think about this call he had tapped on the table with his fingers and had touched his pass card from the previous round of calling. His LHO had taken this as another pass, which he could understand and he requested to solve this in an elegant way. So I used L81C5, but I am waiting for a complaint from one of you. Where is the innocent side? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120305/4e351dcb/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 5 14:09:31 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:09:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Laws 73D2 and 81C5 (was Law 67B1(b)) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005f01ccfaab$a61509d0$f23f1d70$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1760332904.139652.1329990902840.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <005f01ccfaab$a61509d0$f23f1d70$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 03:40:41 -0500, ton wrote: > > > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens > richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Verzonden: maandag 5 maart 2012 5:20 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Laws 73D2 and 81C5 (was Law 67B1(b)) > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Ed Reppert: > >> I sometimes get the impression that some >> people, though Richard is perhaps not one of >> them, think that the example of hesitating with a >> singleton means that if you fail to play a >> singleton in tempo, you are *automatically* in >> violation of this law [73D2]. Yet there is another >> necessary condition: that there be an attempt >> to mislead. > [snip] > > > > ton: > > I don?t think that the laws are with you calling this a > necessary condition. 73D2 doesn?t say so. > > 73F adds ?could have known? as a necessary condition, > combined with having no demonstrable bridge reason. > > > Richard Hills: > > The question therefore is: by what criteria > should a Director determine "attempt to > mislead"??? > > Some useful analogous advice was given by > Edgar Kaplan on what is now > > Law 81C5: > > "The Director (not the players) has the > responsibility for rectifying irregularities and > redressing damage. The Director?s duties and > powers normally include also the following: > to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, > upon the request of the non-offending side." > > As an indicative example of "for cause", Edgar > gave the scenario of declarer accidentally > spilling her coffee into a defender's lap, which > meant that that defender exposed her cards. > An application by declarer to then waive the > consequent Penalty Cards should, in Edgar's > opinion, then be accepted -- because the non- > offending side was partially responsible for the > offending side's infraction. > > > > ton: > > A recent nice example: I was called at a table were a player had passed > out of turn when RHO had to call. > > RHO told me that while starting to think about this call he had tapped > on the table with his fingers and had touched his pass card from the > previous round of calling. His LHO had taken this as another pass, which > he could understand and he requested to solve this in an elegant way. > So I used L81C5, but I am waiting for a complaint from one of you. Where > is the innocent side? > If it is fair to remove that pass, then shouldn't the director be ruling that way? In general, I have a problem with hoping players will be nice as a way of getting to the right ruling. This situation is similar to mine, where the player said "Ah, stiff king" and RHO thought declarer was calling for the stiff king from dummy. I ruled in favor of the defender, though the ACBL judged that the correct ruling was that the defender had revoked. -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 5 14:12:47 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:12:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mille tre [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 23:59:24 -0500, wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> While in Vlakenburg last year, I did >> not read my blml messages. >> >> And then I started writing >> suggestions for Grattan. >> >> And I did not read blml. >> >> I now notice that there are 1003 >> messages waiting for me. >> >> I shall start reading this weekend. >> Prepare to be flooded with reactions. > > Andrew Marvell, To His Coy Mistress: > > My vegetable love should grow > Vaster than empires, and more slow relevance? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 5 16:26:39 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:26:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Create UI - do I have a choice? In-Reply-To: <1S4HxM-08YRLE0@fwd13.aul.t-online.de> References: <83B7D747798F4145B8FE258CC4C05C36@Lounge> <1S4HxM-08YRLE0@fwd13.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4F54DB2F.50205@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/03/2012 21:23, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Von: "David" >> > From my local club >> >> W N E S >> 1H 1S >> 2C P >> >> At this point S pulled a call such that it just cleared the bidding >> box. >> There was a chorus of "It's not your turn" followed by "Director". >> >> The bidding box regulations state that a call is made if the call is >> removed from the box "with intent". >> >> I determined that therefore a call had been made, but no one >> (other than S) knew what it was. >> >> What I really wanted to do was revert the bidding to E and advise that >> South's attempt to bid was unauthorised and that I should >> be recalled if this may have caused damage. >> >> However it does not appear that I have this option. >> I must get S to reveal his call hence creating UI that did not >> previously exist as well as creating (possible) lead penalties. >> >> Does this seem sensible to you? > Yes, that is what the law says. I beg your pardon, Sir; "Is is sensible" and "Is it lawful ?" are two different questions ; and in this cases the aswers are different. > > The call was made even if noone - besides South - > may have seen it. So, go on there ... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 5 21:43:27 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 07:43:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Laws 73D2 and 81C5 (was Law 67B1(b)) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005f01ccfaab$a61509d0$f23f1d70$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: An apocryphal anecdote is that a bridge giant from the 1930s, P. Hal Sims, was challenged to a rubber by two bunnies. However, the bunnies demanded a handicap from Sims to compensate for his redoubtable skill. Sims thought for a while, then said, "All right, you can cheat". In the recent Aussie Nationals at the Gold Coast in Queensland I was playing very poorly throughout the main Swiss teams event. So therefore towards the end of the event we were drawn against a bunny team. Whenever I was dummy in that match, and partner led towards one of my kings, I noticed that my RHO would always play in tempo when ducking an ace, but he would always hesitate when forced to duck a non- ace. Of course my expert partner, Dorothy Jesner (winner of zillions of Aussie women's championships), also noticed RHO's Law 16A2 "traits" so therefore she used that AI at her own non-risk. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120305/683450d4/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 5 22:00:55 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 08:00:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Create UI - do I have a choice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F54DB2F.50205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Charles Dickens, Bleak House (1853): Jarndyce and Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the Court, perennially hopeless. Alain Gottcheiner: >I beg your pardon, Sir; > >"Is it sensible?" and "Is it lawful?" are >two different questions; and in this >case the answers are different. Charles Dickens, Bleak House (1853): The one great principle of the English law is, to make business for itself. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120305/69f37b1a/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Tue Mar 6 00:55:23 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:55:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Laws 73D2 and 81C5 (was Law 67B1(b)) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005f01ccfaab$a61509d0$f23f1d70$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1760332904.139652.1329990902840.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <005f01ccfaab$a61509d0$f23f1d70$%kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Mar 5, 2012, at 3:40 AM, ton wrote: > > > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Verzonden: maandag 5 maart 2012 5:20 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Laws 73D2 and 81C5 (was Law 67B1(b)) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Ed Reppert: > > >I sometimes get the impression that some > >people, though Richard is perhaps not one of > >them, think that the example of hesitating with a > >singleton means that if you fail to play a > >singleton in tempo, you are *automatically* in > >violation of this law [73D2]. Yet there is another > >necessary condition: that there be an attempt > >to mislead. > [snip] > > > ton: > > I don?t think that the laws are with you calling this a necessary condition. 73D2 doesn?t say so. > Doesn't it? "A player may not attempt to deceive". Seems to me that if the player did not attempt to deceive, he did not violate this law. However, see below. > 73F adds ?could have known? as a necessary condition, combined with having no demonstrable bridge reason. > 73F begins "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent?" so we have to decide which of the proprieties in 73 has been violated. 73D1 includes "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side". Clearly, a hesitation with a singleton may work to the benefit of the OS, so *this* is the propriety which has been violated - not being particularly careful ? not "attempt[ing] to deceive" in 73D2. You may say "what does it matter, the outcome is the same". It seems to me we want TDs to make the right ruling for the right reasons, and if so, it matters which law is applied here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120305/5e3d87bb/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 7 05:16:38 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:16:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] mille tre [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeff Easterson, 20th July 2007: >>I haven't followed this thread from the >>beginning and am confused. >> >>Herman says that he said that he "always" >>opened these hands with 1H. >> >>Now he says that he doesn't always open >>them with 1H. (Later he seems to say that >>he will no longer say that he does one or >>the other.) >> >>What is his practice? Does he always or >>doesn't he always? If the latter why did he >>maintain the former earlier in the thread? >>I have a sneaking suspicion that, had he >>not done so we could have saved >>ourselves about 10 million lines of >>discussion. JE Eric Landau, 21st July 2007: >Jeff clearly does not understand BLML. We >live for 10 million lines of discussion; that's >what we do here. > >Herman's contradictory statements as to >whether he "always" psychs certain hands >have the fortuitous potential to make the >discussion far more, um, interesting (is >"more endless" something like "very >unique" or "a little bit pregnant"?). If we >had a clear answer, we might merely wind >up debating the legal implications of >Herman's actual practice -- whichever it is. >As it is, we have no choice but to tackle the >issue from both directions, addressing the >question of whether or how the answer to >"does he or doesn't he?" affects his legal >position and obligations. He does us a >service by keeping the answer to himself. Richard Marvell, To His Coy Herman: An hundred years should go to praise Thine thoughts and on thy postings gaze; Two hundred to adore finesses, But thirty thousand to thy guesses; An age at least to every part, And the last age should psyche One Heart. For, Herman, you deserve this state, Nor would I love at lower rate. But at my back I always hear Time's wing?d chariot hurrying near; The grave's a fine and private place, Bridge partners do not there embrace. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120307/20db5410/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 7 15:06:12 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:06:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 36, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: <8CEC5D7C72CD9D0-D8C-5FE3@webmail-d150.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CEC5D7C72CD9D0-D8C-5FE3@webmail-d150.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 10:33:25 -0500, Al Levy wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > > Maybe I came in the middle of the 'debate' but what was presented was > taking a shot that some of the three panelists would have bid without > the hesitation. No mention was made that they would think that the bid > was so clear that there was no logical alternative. Hi Al. You describe a nice picture, one that corresponds to how I would like things to work. But you seem to undercut everything with your phrase "and reason". ("if they decide, based on reason or a poll, that pass is a logical alternative....") If I understand you correctly, the committee is supposed to use the results of the poll *and their reasoning* to decide if a call is a logical alternative. I want to know what this reasoning is and (depending on what it is) how you justify the committee using it. Suppose I do a good poll, the results are clear, the judgment I make is straightforward. Actually, it does not really involve any judgment at all. Can the players appeal that the results of the poll are wrong? If the committee is just going to look at the results of the poll too, the appeal is silly and destined to lose. The committee is right to assess a penalty. If the committee is going to look at the hand, and then *reason* about what is or is not a logical alternative based on their opinions of the hand, then the committee is using a different process than the director. The committee could easily come to a different answer. The players are completely justified in appealing. (In my second example, it was given that half of the players would bid without the hesitation and not consider passing. I find that relatively typical for a bid that is a logical alternative. People see hands different ways.) So I wanted to know what this reasoning is that the committee is doing. They are not blind to the correct bid. They are maybe not in the class of player. If you want to say there is no possible reasoning for them to do, great! As far as I am concerned, they don't need to look at the hand. It is well agreed that they can use their bridge expertise to judge that the polled players were not of the relevant class. Is that the only reason for a committee to be involved in this decision? > > > In fact, from a director ruling and a prior poll, it was already > determined (to the reader of this discussion) that Pass was strongly > considered a logical alternate by many...otherwise the original ruling > would have been different. So, if the first Director(s) did their > work...and in the WBF it is strongly assumed to be the case...and in the > ACBL (in top events) it most assuredly is the case...then that should > end the matter. > > > Further appealing to get a second bite of the apple has its > consequences. Wanting to start over because there is a probability that > you will win, even if it is small chance is one's prerogative. (All > cases fit that description.) In cases like this I would hope the > committee gives an appeal without merit if they see no change in the > ruling, even if not unanimous, and if the appealer continues with other > similar appeals, disciplinary action should be taken. Also, Appeals > should be posted to further be open and informative, and names of > players, Directors and committee members should be given. > > > Al > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-request > To: blml > Sent: Thu, Mar 1, 2012 6:00 am > Subject: Blml Digest, Vol 36, Issue 1 > > > Send Blml mailing list submissions to > blml at rtflb.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > blml-request at rtflb.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > blml-owner at rtflb.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Blml digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 25A - but what now (Alain Gottcheiner) > 2. Re: Blml Digest, Vol 35, Issue 50 (Robert Frick) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:46:21 +0100 > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Subject: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Message-ID: <4F4E2C2D.3000405 at ulb.ac.be> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Le 28/02/2012 20:28, Roger Pewick a ?crit : >> >> >> >> >>> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:51:00 +0800 >>> From: diggadog at iinet.net.au >>> To: blml at rtflb.org >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now >>> >>> On 28/02/2012 7:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>>> Ed Reppert >>>>>> [Sven Pran] >>>>>> We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had >>>>>> just been introduced). >>>>>> Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and >>>>>> places >>>>>> it on the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call. >>>>>> >>>>>> The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player >>>>>> should be required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and >>>>>> then apply Laws 29 and 31. >>>>>> >>>>>> Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded. >>>>> Okay, but why? What was the reasoning behind this finding? >>>> [Sven Pran] No justification anywhere in the laws. Also implicit >>>> violation >>>> of Law 9A3. >>> Laws Committee Minute >>> >>> "7. When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the >>> call >>> withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. No unauthorized information >>> is conveyed by it. Law 16D does not apply to the change of an >>> unintended >>> call. If the Director allows a call that should not be allowed under >>> this Law it is a Director?s error and Law 82C applies." >>> >>> At the point where the call is withdrawn it may be opportune for the >>> director to determine that nothing has happened out of turn and return >>> to the player whose turn it was to call. >>> >>> bill >> What the law and its crafters have demonstrated is not knowing the >> crucial > nexus. >> >> The crucial nexus is [a] the principle of one action per turn and [b] >> the > principle that what players do, counts. >> >> When a player BOOT he has gained turns [plural] while depriving the >> opponents > of turns to which they were entitled. To be a rightful remedy it must > strive to > restore the turns to their proper balance. But only so much can in fact > be > done?. Offender's extra turn must be canceled. The offender's partner > must be > silenced until the balance of turns has been restored- which cannot > happen > before offender has repeated his canceled action. The fact is that every > communication has the effect of taking a turn. So, even though a bid can > be > undone, the spatial communication- the communication of haste/eagerness > due to > not waiting for his turn cannot be undone. > > AG : in my own experience, this isn't the main message. The main message > is that the player was mentally away from the table . Now, occaisonally, > this might constitute UI. >> >> Now, the law states: "?a player may substitute his intended call for an > unintended call?" >> >> In other words, players are entitled to more turns than their opponents. > > AG : No more, IMHO, than when a player picks back his revoke card and > substitutes a legal card. There will be a penalty, but it is indeed the > new card which counts. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:01:38 -0500 > From: "Robert Frick" > Subject: Re: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 35, Issue 50 > To: blml at rtflb.org, "Al Levy" > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; > delsp=yes > > On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:54:21 -0500, Al Levy wrote: > >> Re: Appealing a correct ruling in hopes of getting a different result of >> the coin flip. >> >> >> The question for the committee is not what they would bid in the absence >> of a hesitation, but if Pass is a logical alternative. So, even if all >> three panelists would have bid at the table without the hesitation, if >> the decide, based on reason or a poll, that pass is a logical >> alternative.... > > Hi Al. > > based on reason? What is the possible reason? > > If I poll 3 players, and they are all bidding, and apparently none are > seriously considering passing, isn't that end-of-story? What other > conclusion could anyone reach except the pass is a logical alternative? > (No one challenged the quality of the polling process.) > > Should the committee decide, based on their own reasoning, what players > *of that ability evaluating the hand that way) will bid? One committee > member tried that -- she guessed they would all pass. > > > Or if you think a logical alternative is just an alternative that is > logical, then I can see a reasoning process. But I don't read the lawbook > that way. And if it supposed to be read that way, I am not sure why I > would have bothered with a poll. > > > >> , then they will rule against the appeal and, in cases like this, should >> rule it frivolous. Ruling it frivolous, in itself, just says that the >> ruling is clear and without doubt. >> >> >> Further comments... >> (1) The Directors' decision should be assumed to be correct (WBF); >> (2) The Appeals should be published, with all names involved. It is >> important for future appeals that it set a clear standard; >> (3) Players who continually appeal in this type of situation (trying to >> get a better ruling even though they know they have been given a fair >> shot and are likely to be ruled against), establish a 'reputation' and >> have to live with it. >> (4) Repeat offenders should be disciplined. >> >> >> AL Levy >> > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > End of Blml Digest, Vol 36, Issue 1 > *********************************** > > -- http://somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 8 00:20:06 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:20:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Dancing then dropping dead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Isaac Asimov's Treasury of Humor: A friend, whose family was slightly more affluent than my own in its time, had been condemned to endless piano practice despite the fact that she was virtually tone deaf. Painstakingly, she memorized enough piano compositions of one sort or another to complete the course and then never ceased to bewail the fact that she had not been allowed to have dancing lessons, for it was dancing that she had really wanted to learn. I said, "At least you won't make your mother's mistake with your own daughter." "Certainly not," she said fiercely. "Whether she likes it or not, my daughter is going to dance!" Eric Landau, July 2008: >>In a hypothetical (possibly ideal?) society in >>which there were no possibility of criminal >>penalty or civil liability potentially resulting >>from dancing naked on the table, I would >>think that the TD (unless instructed to the >>contrary by the relevant bridge authority) >>would be within the authority granted by L90A >>if he were to impose a procedural penalty on >>a player who refused to do so. [snip] Richard Hills, July 2008: [snip] >With regards to Eric's assertion that Law 90B8 >allows the Director to give (almost) any >instruction and require that instruction to be >obeyed, I would argue that such an instruction >must be consistent with the Director's Law 81C1 >power "to maintain discipline and to ensure the >orderly progress of the game". > >It seems to me undisciplined and disorderly to >dance naked on the table. John (MadDog) Probst, July 2008: I did tell a particularly happy noisy (aka drunk) player at the YC on one occasion to "drop dead" under this Law. He averred that this indeed was a reasonable request but he was currently unable to comply, so I told him I'd waive the PP :) He did quieten down so I obviously did the right thing. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120307/fae0248a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 8 01:40:19 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:40:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Mirror of Galadriel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <26EBB102-7C35-4F31-B006-5CA062502833@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >We can spend forever parsing every word >and punctuation mark of the disclosure laws, Richard Hills: De minimis non curat lex. (The Law does not concern itself with trifles.) Eric Landau: >but all you need to do the right thing is to >follow this formula, "The opponents deserve >as much information to guess with as you >have." That's full disclosure in cases of >uncertainty in a nutshell. ABF alert reg introduction, final sentence: General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there has been no prior discussion, are not alertable, but any inferences that can be drawn from partnership experience must be disclosed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120308/385f63bf/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 8 06:17:20 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:17:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Mirror of Galadriel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F461336.6090104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>>Also, if the Mirror had enquired >>>about 6C, is then Frodo obliged to >>>respond with the hobbits' pre- >>>existing mutual partnership >>>understanding of, "Shows four non- >>>club aces"? That is, may a pair >>>agree to oxymoronic understandings? Alain Gottcheiner: >>AG : the question is less futile that it was >>intended to be (or was it?). If a system >>includes strict step responses, and all >>possible steps are bypassed, is the >>response "non-systemic" or >>"impossible"? What if "contextually >>impossible"? >> >>Kxx >>KJ >>AJ >>Kxxxxx >> >>Following modern practice, you open a >>strong notrump. Partner staymans, then >>relays with 2S, first asking for clubs (it >>might well be that he won't use the >>response, but with 2S he must begin if he >>wants to relay). You shall answer 2NT >>with at most 3, 3C with 4, 3D with 5, 3H >>with 6 and 3S with 7 (yes, you allow >>yourself a 1NT opening on 2227 with >>stoppers). >> >>Now you realize that you missorted your >>cards and your hand in fact is: >> >>K >>KJ >>AJ >>Kxxxxxxx >> >>Understanding the system, which includes >>many such step responses in cases of >>unlimited length, you bid 3NT, showing 8 >>clubs. >> >>Partner, who can count up to 6 steps, >>knows that you've shown 8. >> >>What's his response to the enquiry? >> >>a) non-systemic >>b) implicitly, it should show 8 clubs, but >>that's impossible >>c) by system logic, it shows 8 clubs. Your >>guess is as good as mine >>d) by system logic, he has missorted his >>cards >> >>I vote for c). Your opinion please? [snip] Grattan Endicott opinion, 18th July 2008: [snip] >Incidentally I am not sure that the pass of >a forcing bid, when the bidding may end >without reaching partner, can be said to >be a psyche; it is for sure anti-systemic >and I would account it a matter of general >bridge knowledge that it constitutes a >grandma's warning that all is not as it >seemed. +=+ Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST.....NORTH....EAST.....SOUTH ---......2NT(1)...Pass.....3H(2) Dble.....4C(3)....Pass.....? (1) 22-23 hcp balanced (2) Transfer to spades (3) Super-accept in spades, cue-bidding the ace of clubs You, South, hold: J6432 --- J876 A654 Two aces of clubs is "a grandma's warning that all is not as it seemed." What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120308/b6d34a91/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 12 23:14:34 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:14:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim Message-ID: Table Procedure Following a Claim A claim may be accompanied by a clarification statement, saying how the claimant will play his remaining cards or achieve his stated claim. When declarer claims, declarer should also show his cards. Following any claim, the nonclaimants should wait for a clarification statement, or for it to be obvious that the claimer did not intend to make a clarification statement. The director may be called at any time after this to protest the claim; players are encouraged to call the director as soon as they suspect the claim may not be valid. If there is no immediate protest, everyone exposes their hand for inspection. Commentary It's kind of silly to expect defenders to protest a claim by declarer without seeing declarer's cards. It is widely agreed that defenders may look at each others hand and then protest the claim. Oddly enough, the laws do not allow this unless the director is present. Less obviously, after claiming, it should be mandatory that declarer be given the opportunity to examine the defenders' hands. One reason is to see if a revoke or other irregularity has occurred. Another reason is to see if declarer is conceding a trick to a card that has already been played (and there is no way to lose that trick). Declarer should not have to suspect that an irregularity has occurred! He should be allowed to be completely duped and naive, but still see the defenders' hands. I do not like going to the table and hearing the defender's say there was no clarification statement and hearing declarer say that he was going to make one and didn't get a chance,. The Current Laws "The Director *may* require players to put their cards face up on the table." L70B3. This is after director has heard the objections to the claim (L70B2). From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 12 23:14:37 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:14:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Director asking for further clarification Message-ID: DIRECTOR ASKING FOR A LINE OF PLAY FOLLOWING A CLAIM A player might claim the rest of the tricks without specifying the order of play. But the order of play might be relevant, for example if one or more suits are blocked. How should the director rule? There is a substantial problem with asking declarer to specify the order of play and taking that as evidence of how declarer would play the hand. The director is alerting declarer to the need for care in the hand, and declarer is now likely to look for potential problems and play the hand with more care than he otherwise would have. However. Suppose Meckstroth claims at trick 1 with 13 tricks on top. One or two suits are blocked. I certainly am not going to disallow the claim. Now suppose some player of lesser (or much lesser) ability claims in exactly the same situation. Can I disallow the claim for this player? Very awkward It would be useful to ask how they would play the hand before awarding them their claim, to verify that they would play the hand correctly. The director can also look for how quickly they are able to diagnose and solve the problem -- a claimer should be able to quickly state the order of play. This should be used only when the director would otherwise feel compelled to award the claim. In other words, the director is collecting evidence to be used against the claimant. Suggested wording: As further test of an apparently valid claim, director may require claimer to state the order of play. CURRENT STATUS There is nothing in the laws that allows the director to ask this, and the WBFLC has minuted that anything not allowed in the laws is disallowed. Someone on blml said this question was disallowed and no one disagreed. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 13 00:16:42 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:16:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Mirror of Galadriel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott opinion, 18th July 2008: [snip] >Incidentally I am not sure that the pass of >a forcing bid, when the bidding may end >without reaching partner, can be said to >be a psyche; it is for sure anti-systemic >and I would account it a matter of general >bridge knowledge that it constitutes a >grandma's warning that all is not as it >seemed. +=+ Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST.....NORTH....EAST.....SOUTH ---......2NT(1)...Pass.....3H(2) Dble.....4C(3)....Pass.....? (1) 22-23 hcp balanced (2) Transfer to spades (3) Super-accept in spades, cue-bidding the ace of clubs * You, South, hold: J6432 --- J876 A654 Two aces of clubs is "a grandma's warning that all is not as it seemed." What call did South make at the table? South chose to Pass North's 4C. The TD and AC accepted South's argument that UI received by South that North held a weak 5/5 in the minors corresponded to the AI received by South of the "grandma's warning". I disagree with the TD and AC. In my opinion there are many plausible reasons for the "grandma's warning" (for example North may have indeed held 22-23 hcp balanced, but improvised a cuebid with KQ of clubs), so South must choose an explanation for the "grandma's warning" which is not an explanation demonstrably suggested by UI. Best wishes, Richard Hills * Unlike the earlier logically inconsistent example in this thread, here South only knows the partnership agreement is impossible by looking at her hand. So therefore South should explain that North holds the ace of clubs if East enquires. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120312/0c2415e0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 13 04:33:24 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:33:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40A1(b) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: A new 2017 Law 40A1(b) example is: WEST.....NORTH.....EAST.....SOUTH ---......---.......Pass.....Pass 1NT(1)...Pass......2C.......? (1) "Typically" 12-14 balanced To protect North's known values, South is considering balancing in a major. But South does not want to overcall the major if West is about to respond to Stayman in that major. So South waits for the guaranteed second chance on the next round. Then... WEST.....NORTH.....EAST.....SOUTH ---......---.......Pass.....Pass 1NT(1)...Pass......2C.......Pass Pass.....Pass(2) (1) "Typically" 12-14 balanced (2) Strong, but too balanced to balance North-South get a bottom, with the rest of the field making a part- score in a major their way. South needed to know if a question needed to be asked about 1NT being "typically" 12-14 balanced. Bernard Woolley clarifies: "The fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt the information he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120313/56aabaf1/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Mar 13 07:57:47 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:57:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Den 23:14 12. mars 2012 skrev Robert Frick f?lgende: > Table Procedure Following a Claim > > A claim may be accompanied by a clarification statement, saying how the > claimant will play his remaining cards or achieve his stated claim. When > declarer claims, declarer should also show his cards. L68C say a claim SHOULD be accompanied at once by a clarification statement. > > Following any claim, the nonclaimants should wait for a clarification > statement, or for it to be obvious that the claimer did not intend to make > a clarification statement. The director may be called at any time after > this to protest the claim; players are encouraged to call the director as > soon as they suspect the claim may not be valid. > > If there is no immediate protest, everyone exposes their hand for > inspection. > > > Commentary > It's kind of silly to expect defenders to protest a claim by declarer > without seeing declarer's cards. Agreed. > > It is widely agreed that defenders may look at each others hand and then > protest the claim. Oddly enough, the laws do not allow this unless the > director is present. Where is this widely agreed? I've never seen it happen. > > Less obviously, after claiming, it should be mandatory that declarer be > given the opportunity to examine the defenders' hands. One reason is to > see if a revoke or other irregularity has occurred. Another reason is to > see if declarer is conceding a trick to a card that has already been > played (and there is no way to lose that trick). > > Declarer should not have to suspect that an irregularity has occurred! He > should be allowed to be completely duped and naive, but still see the > defenders' hands. > > I do not like going to the table and hearing the defender's say there was > no clarification statement and hearing declarer say that he was going to > make one and didn't get a chance,. This is very easy to avoid. Start with the claim statement at the same time you start showing your hand. > > The Current Laws > "The Director *may* require players to put their cards face up on the > table." L70B3. This is after director has heard the objections to the > claim (L70B2). > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From blml at arcor.de Tue Mar 13 13:09:06 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:09:06 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Mirror of Galadriel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1886703290.458358.1331640546795.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott opinion, 18th July 2008: > > [snip] > >Incidentally I am not sure that the pass of > >a forcing bid, when the bidding may end > >without reaching partner, can be said to > >be a psyche; it is for sure anti-systemic > >and I would account it a matter of general > >bridge knowledge that it constitutes a > >grandma's warning that all is not as it > >seemed. +=+ > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST.....NORTH....EAST.....SOUTH > ---......2NT(1)...Pass.....3H(2) > Dble.....4C(3)....Pass.....? > > (1) 22-23 hcp balanced > (2) Transfer to spades > (3) Super-accept in spades, cue-bidding > the ace of clubs * > > You, South, hold: > > J6432 > --- > J876 > A654 > > Two aces of clubs is "a grandma's warning > that all is not as it seemed." > > What call did South make at the table? > > South chose to Pass North's 4C. The TD > and AC accepted South's argument that UI > received by South that North held a weak > 5/5 in the minors corresponded to the AI > received by South of the "grandma's > warning". > > I disagree with the TD and AC. In my opinion > there are many plausible reasons for the > "grandma's warning" (for example North may > have indeed held 22-23 hcp balanced, but > improvised a cuebid with KQ of clubs), so > South must choose an explanation for the > "grandma's warning" which is not an > explanation demonstrably suggested by UI. >From the auction alone, I don't think one can definitely conclude that N has a weak 5-5 in the minors. For example, N could also have a *strong* 5-5 in the minors. Now, if N/S have other partnership agreements, where they considered or actually played 2NT as showing a weak 5-5 in the minors, that combined with the CA in S's hand is probably enough AI to allow S to figure it out. But absent any such additional AI, I'd rule that South must choose an explanation for the "grandma's warning" which is not an explanation demonstrably suggested by UI. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 13 13:35:25 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:35:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) L70E -- any line of play Message-ID: L70E. "...unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit an any normal line of play or unless failulre to adopt that line of play would be irrational." The problem is the middle conditional, "or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit an any normal line of play". Director is examining a line of play. If a player behind the finesse has shown out in hearts *on that line of play*, the director will allow the finesse. The other lines of play are irrelevant. If the player behind the finesse has not shown out in hearts *in that line of play* (and neither of the other conditions are met), the director will not allow the finesse. What happens in other lines of play is still irrelevant. CHANGE TO.. "or previously in the line of play under consideration". COMMENTARY As stands, I can claim and always win all the tricks in AJxxx opposite K10xxx. If one player is void, I am allowed to finesse on the first round because the player shows out on a different line of play. This particular problem can be solved by replacing "any" with "every". However, that still is wrong. It is also impractical, as it would require the director to examine every possible line of play before allowing a finesse,. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 13 14:28:17 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:28:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Mirror of Galadriel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F5F4B71.9070203@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/03/2012 0:16, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Grattan Endicott opinion, 18th July 2008: > > [snip] > >Incidentally I am not sure that the pass of > >a forcing bid, when the bidding may end > >without reaching partner, can be said to > >be a psyche; it is for sure anti-systemic > >and I would account it a matter of general > >bridge knowledge that it constitutes a > >grandma's warning that all is not as it > >seemed. +=+ > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST.....NORTH....EAST.....SOUTH > ---......2NT(1)...Pass.....3H(2) > Dble.....4C(3)....Pass.....? > > (1) 22-23 hcp balanced > (2) Transfer to spades > (3) Super-accept in spades, cue-bidding > the ace of clubs * > > You, South, hold: > > J6432 > --- > J876 > A654 > > Two aces of clubs is "a grandma's warning > that all is not as it seemed." > > What call did South make at the table? > > South chose to Pass North's 4C. The TD > and AC accepted South's argument that UI > received by South that North held a weak > 5/5 in the minors corresponded to the AI > received by South of the "grandma's > warning". > AG : I suppose UI is described in some other post > > I disagree with the TD and AC. In my opinion > there are many plausible reasons for the > "grandma's warning" (for example North may > have indeed held 22-23 hcp balanced, but > improvised a cuebid with KQ of clubs > Of course : - partner might have thought that after the double, responses were changed - partner might have been playing some other kind of superacceptances (weak suit is popular after opening 1NT, why not here ?) - partner might have intended to bid 4D, and pulled the wrong card - partner might have placed his SA within his clubs > , so > South must choose an explanation for the > "grandma's warning" which is not an > explanation demonstrably suggested by UI. > > It very much depends on which Ui it is ; if partner reacted to the explanation of 4C, UI indeed matches AI and partner is free to guess ; however, there might be a problem is partnership history helps the guess. If partner had a hiccup between his two bids, it might be another story - although a hiccup might just be a hiccup, after all. To put it shortly, the decision depends on many factors that aren't available, whence disagreeing strongly is perhaps as wrong as agreeing strongly. Best regards, Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120313/423a0232/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 13 23:05:41 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:05:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Mirror of Galadriel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1886703290.458358.1331640546795.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: North >>Vul: North-South >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST.....NORTH....EAST.....SOUTH >>---......2NT(1)...Pass.....3H(2) >>Dble.....4C(3)....Pass.....? >> >>(1) 22-23 hcp balanced >>(2) Transfer to spades >>(3) Super-accept in spades, cue- >>bidding the ace of clubs >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>J6432 >>--- >>J876 >>A654 >> >>Two aces of clubs is "a grandma's >>warning that all is not as it >>seemed." >> >>What call did South make at the >>table? >> >>South chose to Pass North's 4C. >>The TD and AC accepted South's >>argument that UI received by >>South that North held a weak >>5/5 in the minors corresponded >>to the AI received by South of >>the "grandma's warning". >> >>I disagree with the TD and AC. In >>my opinion there are many >>plausible reasons for the >>"grandma's warning" (for example >>North may have indeed held 22-23 >>hcp balanced, but improvised a >>cuebid with KQ of clubs), so >>South must choose an explanation >>for the "grandma's warning" which >>is not an explanation >>demonstrably suggested by UI. Thomas Dehn: >From the auction alone, I don't >think one can definitely conclude >that N has a weak 5-5 in the >minors. For example, N could also >have a *strong* 5-5 in the minors. Richard Hills: Yes, North could also hold eleven cards in hearts. The auction alone does not create AI in one-to-one correspondence with the UI. Thomas Dehn: >Now, if N/S have other partnership >agreements, where they considered >or actually played 2NT as showing >a weak 5-5 in the minors, that >combined with the CA in S's hand >is probably enough AI to allow S >to figure it out. [snip] Richard Hills: In the Aussie Mixed Pairs event in which the newly formed North-South partnership played, almost half of the contestants defined 2NT as strong and balanced, and the other almost half of the contestants defined 2NT as weak 5/5 minors. But all of the contestants used transfers over natural 1NT and 2NT opening bids. So when, in response to West's question, North described South's 3H as "natural and forcing", South was constrained in her future calls by Law 75A (changed to fit): Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North's explanation, knows that her own 3H bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is "unauthorized information" (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If she does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if North rebids four clubs, South has the unauthorized information that this bid merely shows a minimum weak 5/5 minors; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a slam try in spades holding KQ of clubs and a balanced hand with 22-23 hcp. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120313/f63aa2ac/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 14 00:45:07 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:45:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:57:47 -0400, Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > Den 23:14 12. mars 2012 skrev Robert Frick f?lgende: >> Table Procedure Following a Claim >> >> A claim may be accompanied by a clarification statement, saying how the >> claimant will play his remaining cards or achieve his stated claim. When >> declarer claims, declarer should also show his cards. > > L68C say a claim SHOULD be accompanied at once by a clarification > statement. >> >> Following any claim, the nonclaimants should wait for a clarification >> statement, or for it to be obvious that the claimer did not intend to >> make >> a clarification statement. The director may be called at any time after >> this to protest the claim; players are encouraged to call the director >> as >> soon as they suspect the claim may not be valid. >> >> If there is no immediate protest, everyone exposes their hand for >> inspection. >> >> >> Commentary >> It's kind of silly to expect defenders to protest a claim by declarer >> without seeing declarer's cards. > > Agreed. >> >> It is widely agreed that defenders may look at each others hand and then >> protest the claim. Oddly enough, the laws do not allow this unless the >> director is present. > > Where is this widely agreed? I've never seen it happen. Very strange! Is this a huge regional difference? Just to make sure we understand each other. Declarer claims, the defenders don't object, then they see each other's hands and realize that if they lead a diamond, they get one more trick. They call you, the director. The players have not yet put their hands back in the board. You rule... 1. Law 69, they have agreed to the claim so they only get a trick if it was likely that they lead a diamond. (L69B2) or 2. UI, they have to treat each other's hands as UI and can only lead a diamond if no other lead is a logical alternative. Here in the US, I am pretty sure it would be an easy ruling to give them the trick. They would be perceived as being allowed to construct a double-dummy defense knowing each other's hands. (Mike Flader expressed that opiniont in the ACBL Bulletin.) >> see if a revoke or other irregularity has occurred. Another reason is to >> see if declarer is conceding a trick to a card that has already been >> played (and there is no way to lose that trick). >> >> Declarer should not have to suspect that an irregularity has occurred! >> He >> should be allowed to be completely duped and naive, but still see the >> defenders' hands. >> >> I do not like going to the table and hearing the defender's say there >> was >> no clarification statement and hearing declarer say that he was going to >> make one and didn't get a chance,. > > This is very easy to avoid. Start with the claim statement at the same > time you start showing your hand. >> >> The Current Laws >> "The Director *may* require players to put their cards face up on the >> table." L70B3. This is after director has heard the objections to the >> claim (L70B2). >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- http://somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 14 01:47:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:47:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted: >>>It is widely agreed that defenders may look at >>>each others hand and then protest the claim. >>>Oddly enough, the laws do not allow this >>>unless the director is present. Harald Skj?ran quibbled: >>Where is this widely agreed? I've never seen >>it happen. Robert Frick asked: >Very strange! Is this a huge regional difference? Richard Hills answers: Yes and No. It is not merely ACBL-land which contains grey-ethics declarers who claim without showing their cards, thus gaining an unearned trick or trick. ABF-land also contains such expert declarers who steal tricks from bunny victims. But the overwhelming number of declarers in ABF-land who claim reveal their cards in so doing, therefore it is unnecessary for any defender to look at her partner's cards. Robert Frick example: >Just to make sure we understand each other. >Declarer claims, the defenders don't object, >then they see each other's hands and realize >that if they lead a diamond, they get one more >trick. They call you, the director. The players >have not yet put their hands back in the board. >You rule... > >1. Law 69, they have agreed to the claim so >they only get a trick if it was likely that they lead >a diamond. (L69B2) Richard Hills ruling: Law 82C Director Frick error. Law 69A defines when agreement with a claim is established. Since the players have not yet put their hands back in the board, Law 69A defines that agreement with the claim is NOT established. Robert Frick example: >or > >2. UI, they have to treat each other's hands as >UI and can only lead a diamond if no other >lead is a logical alternative. Richard Hills ruling: Law 82C Director Frick error. Law 68D states that "play ceases", hence Law 16B1(a) no longer applies. Robert Frick example: >Here in the US, I am pretty sure it would be >an easy ruling to give them the trick. They >would be perceived as being allowed to >construct a double-dummy defense >knowing each other's hands. Richard Hills ruling: Law 82C Director Frick error. If the defenders are incapable of finding a one-card guard stepping stone squeeze, then Law 70A demands -- "as equitably as possible to both sides" -- that the defenders are not given that unearned double-dummy trick by a Director whose hobby is double-dummy problems. ACBL 2008 Duplicate Decisions, page 67: There can be no pat solution to rulings on claims. A degree of bridge judgment is required since the intent of the Laws is to resolve each individual case as equitably as possible to both sides. [snip] The director?s most difficult task, in dealing with claims, is to distinguish between a poor claim and a poorly stated claim. In the first instance the player has erred, the claim is likely to be faulty. In the second instance the player has solved the bridge problem, though stating it poorly; the director should allow the claim. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120314/0424077a/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 14 02:48:37 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:48:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:47:00 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick asserted: > >>>> It is widely agreed that defenders may look at >>>> each others hand and then protest the claim. >>>> Oddly enough, the laws do not allow this >>>> unless the director is present. > > Harald Skj?ran quibbled: > >>> Where is this widely agreed? I've never seen >>> it happen. > > Robert Frick asked: > >> Very strange! Is this a huge regional difference? > > Richard Hills answers: > > Yes and No. It is not merely ACBL-land which > contains grey-ethics declarers who claim without > showing their cards, thus gaining an unearned > trick or trick. ABF-land also contains such expert > declarers who steal tricks from bunny victims. > > But the overwhelming number of declarers in > ABF-land who claim reveal their cards in so > doing, therefore it is unnecessary for any > defender to look at her partner's cards. > > Robert Frick example: > >> Just to make sure we understand each other. >> Declarer claims, the defenders don't object, >> then they see each other's hands and realize >> that if they lead a diamond, they get one more >> trick. They call you, the director. The players >> have not yet put their hands back in the board. >> You rule... >> >> 1. Law 69, they have agreed to the claim so >> they only get a trick if it was likely that they lead >> a diamond. (L69B2) > > Richard Hills ruling: > > Law 82C Director Frick error. Law 69A defines > when agreement with a claim is established. > Since the players have not yet put their hands > back in the board, Law 69A defines that > agreement with the claim is NOT established. I am not sure what you think you are saying. I am trying to figure out what Harold meant and how he handles this situation that he says he has never seen happen. I don't rule this way, I am in ACBL-land. But, chalk up another mangled straw man. > > Robert Frick example: > >> or >> >> 2. UI, they have to treat each other's hands as >> UI and can only lead a diamond if no other >> lead is a logical alternative. > > Richard Hills ruling: > > Law 82C Director Frick error. Law 68D states > that "play ceases", hence Law 16B1(a) no > longer applies. same > > Robert Frick example: > >> Here in the US, I am pretty sure it would be >> an easy ruling to give them the trick. They >> would be perceived as being allowed to >> construct a double-dummy defense >> knowing each other's hands. > > Richard Hills ruling: > > Law 82C Director Frick error. If the defenders > are incapable of finding a one-card guard > stepping stone squeeze, then Law 70A > demands -- "as equitably as possible to both > sides" -- that the defenders are not given that > unearned double-dummy trick by a Director > whose hobby is double-dummy problems. Perhaps. The actual situation was the defenders finding a defense that would give them another trick. The defenders were (and are) adament that they would never have found that defense at the table. So the ruling pits "equity", which you quote but I believe is a throwaway line that no one uses, against principles that aren't in the law book. Mike Flader said that the defense should get another trick. I believe that is a fairly standard ruling here in the US. While I am not quibbling with the notion that you say, I am not sure it is widely supported. And of course you are not going to find it in the laws, as they put no limit on director's skill and creativity, nor do they mention who is to find the problems with the claims, nor do the laws allow the players to see each other's hands without director permission. Look, the point is to improve the laws. Harald is claiming some huge regional difference. I would like to know what it is, if it exists. We all know there isn't going to be any clarification on the current laws. > > ACBL 2008 Duplicate Decisions, page 67: > > There can be no pat solution to rulings on > claims. A degree of bridge judgment is > required since the intent of the Laws is to > resolve each individual case as equitably > as possible to both sides. Which is bullshit, right? We treat the faulty claimer as the offending side. > [snip] > The director?s most difficult task, in dealing > with claims, is to distinguish between a poor > claim and a poorly stated claim. In the first > instance the player has erred, the claim is > likely to be faulty. In the second instance the > player has solved the bridge problem, > though stating it poorly; the director should > allow the claim. great advice. Not always so easy to follow. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 14 04:11:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:11:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 2008 excellent claim Law 68C (was 2017...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), philosopher: "How often misused words generate misleading thoughts." Robert Frick's misused words: [snip] >While I am not quibbling with the notion >that you say, I am not sure it is widely >supported. Richard Hills: A valid interpretation of the 2008 Lawbook is decided by the ACBL Laws Commission, NOT by widely supported beliefs of ACBL hoi polloi. Robert Frick's misused words: >And of course Richard Hills: Petitio principii. Robert Frick's misused words: >you are not going to find it in the laws, >as they put no limit on director's skill and >creativity, Law 85A1, limits on TD's skill and creativity: In determining the facts the Director +++shall+++ base his view on +++the balance of probabilities+++, which is to say +++in accordance+++ with the +++weight of the evidence he is able to collect+++. Robert Frick's misused words: >nor do they mention who is to find the >problems with the claims, [snip] Law 70B2, mentioning who are to find: Next, the Director hears the opponents? objections to the claim (but the Director?s considerations are not limited only to the opponents? objections). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120314/866451b9/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Mar 14 04:58:21 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:58:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:48 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > The actual situation was the defenders finding a defense that > would give them another trick. The defenders were (and are) adament that > they would never have found that defense at the table. So the ruling pits > "equity", which you quote but I believe is a throwaway line that no one > uses, against principles that aren't in the law book. Mike Flader said > that the defense should get another trick. I believe that is a fairly > standard ruling here in the US. I believe your out of your mind. If the defenders are adamant that they would never find this defense at the table, whyinhell would *anyone* give it to them? From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Mar 14 05:01:11 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:01:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09042495-A815-4D6C-9944-EC93DACCB1A6@mac.com> On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:48 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Which is bullshit, right? We treat the faulty claimer as the offending > side. We do? Sez who? Which law has been breached? What is the offense? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 14 06:01:58 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:01:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <09042495-A815-4D6C-9944-EC93DACCB1A6@mac.com> Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>We treat the faulty claimer as the offending side. Ed Reppert: >We do? Sez who? Which law has been >breached? What is the offense? Law 84D, first sentence: The Director rules any +++doubtful point+++ in favour of the non-offending side. Law 70A, analogous clause: ...any +++doubtful point+++ as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer... -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120314/db18cbc4/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 14 07:09:49 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:09:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Mirror of Galadriel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Christopher Isherwood (1904-1986): The common cormorant (or shag) Lays eggs inside a paper bag, You follow the idea, no doubt? It's to keep the lightning out. But what these unobservant birds Have never thought of, is that herds Of wandering bears may come with buns And steal the bags to hold the crumbs. Edgar Kaplan, Bridge World June 1984, Appeals Committee XVII, Issues of Fact: "... A Committee should consider the surrounding circumstances and the inherent probabilities. In the long run, though, it will have to trust to common sense and ordinary human intuition in deciding whom to believe. Thus, it is important to hear all four players, not just one from each side - sometimes, questions will reveal that one player is not nearly so sure as his partner, that he is merely being loyal in backing up his partner's version (if one player fails to appear at the hearing, it is fair to conclude that this may be the case). Still, there is no arithmetical rule. Even if the witnesses appear to be two-to-one, or three-to-one, for a particular version, the committee members may find themselves more impressed by the one. Then they should rule that way, the way their instincts tell them the balance of probability lies. ..." Grattan Endicott, 8th August 2008: +=+ What Edgar was describing was his own personal approach to situations in appeals committees. Other AC members have their several ways and there are as many as there are committeemen. The most useful asset for a committee member is a third ear, the one that listens to what lies behind the words spoken. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120314/8b8fe992/attachment-0001.html From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Mar 14 09:33:23 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:33:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences Message-ID: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> Yesterday I heard about the following case: A board was played, dummy was away. Declarer called the cards and opponents handled the dummy. Now dummy contained both red fives and was on lead. RHO heard heart five, and played the heart ace from his hand before picking up the heart five from dummy. Now declarer said that he specified the diamond five. Director! Director ruled the diamond five played and the heart ace a major penalty card. This led to the contract, a doubled game, making instead of going one off. I have my thoughts about this, but first want to hear some opinions. Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120314/dc44a418/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Mar 14 09:48:33 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:48:33 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences In-Reply-To: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> References: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> Message-ID: <4F605B61.1000609@btinternet.com> It's worth noting that there are no limits on the power of a director to deem that an exposed card is not a penalty card. I'm not sure that this is appropriate here however, because I can't see how this case differs from one where the dummy is present and RHO plays, having misheard, before dummy puts the card in the played position. Gordon Rainsford On 14/03/2012 08:33, Hans van Staveren wrote: > > Yesterday I heard about the following case: > > A board was played, dummy was away. > > Declarer called the cards and opponents handled the dummy. > > Now dummy contained both red fives and was on lead. > > RHO heard heart five, and played the heart ace from his hand before > picking up the heart five from dummy. > > Now declarer said that he specified the diamond five. Director! > > Director ruled the diamond five played and the heart ace a major > penalty card. This led to the contract, a doubled game, making instead > of going one off. > > I have my thoughts about this, but first want to hear some opinions. > > Hans > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120314/16777f49/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 10:06:49 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:06:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Den 01:47 14. mars 2012 skrev f?lgende: > Robert Frick asserted: > >>>>It is widely agreed that defenders may look at >>>>each others hand and then protest the claim. >>>>Oddly enough, the laws do not allow this >>>>unless the director is present. > > Harald Skj?ran?quibbled: > >>>Where is this widely agreed? I've never seen >>>it happen. > > Robert Frick asked: > >>Very strange! Is this a huge regional difference? > > Richard Hills answers: > > Yes and No. It is not merely ACBL-land which > contains grey-ethics declarers who claim without > showing their cards, thus gaining an unearned > trick or trick. ABF-land also contains such expert > declarers who steal tricks from bunny victims. There was no mention of declarer not showing his/her cards. Robert was talking about defenders looking at each other hands after a claim. I'm accustomed to claimers not showing their hand when they play against people they know will know what's going on. I've seen claims on a simple or double squeeze or a throw-in been done without saying a word or showing a hand. And defenders conceding without saying anything at all in the same circumstances. Geir Helgemo as a defender conceded the rest of the tricks when declarer went into the tank on one occasion. Declarer protested, since he hadn't seen the ending yet, but Geir insisted that he'd get the rest of the tricks, which he eventually would have. > > But the overwhelming number of declarers in > ABF-land who claim reveal their cards in so > doing, therefore it is unnecessary for any > defender to look at her partner's cards. > > Robert Frick example: > >>Just to make sure we understand each other. >>Declarer claims, the defenders don't object, >>then they see each other's hands and realize >>that if they lead a diamond, they get one more >>trick. They call you, the director. The players >>have not yet put their hands back in the board. >>You rule... >> >>1. Law 69, they have agreed to the claim so >>they only get a trick if it was likely that they lead >>a diamond. (L69B2) > > Richard Hills ruling: > > Law 82C Director Frick error. Law 69A defines > when agreement with a claim is established. > Since the players have not yet put their hands > back in the board, Law 69A defines that > agreement with the claim is NOT established. > > Robert Frick example: > >>or >> >>2. UI, they have to treat each other's hands as >>UI and can only lead a diamond if no other >>lead is a logical alternative. > > Richard Hills ruling: > > Law 82C Director Frick error. Law 68D states > that "play ceases", hence Law 16B1(a) no > longer applies. > > Robert Frick example: > >>Here in the US, I am pretty sure it would be >>an easy ruling to give them the trick. They >>would be perceived as being allowed to >>construct a double-dummy defense >>knowing each other's hands. > > Richard Hills ruling: > > Law 82C Director Frick error. If the defenders > are incapable of finding a one-card guard > stepping stone squeeze, then Law 70A > demands -- "as equitably as possible to both > sides" -- that the defenders are not given that > unearned double-dummy trick by a Director > whose hobby is double-dummy problems. > > ACBL 2008 Duplicate Decisions, page 67: > > There can be no pat solution to rulings on > claims. A degree of bridge judgment is > required since the intent of the Laws is to > resolve each individual case as equitably > as possible to both sides. > [snip] > The director?s most difficult task, in dealing > with claims, is to distinguish between a poor > claim and a poorly stated claim. In the first > instance the player has erred, the claim is > likely to be faulty. In the second instance the > player has solved the bridge problem, > though stating it poorly; the director should > allow the claim. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Mar 14 10:18:05 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:18:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Absent_dummy_and_consequences?= In-Reply-To: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> References: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> Message-ID: <1S7kLO-2HtVh20@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> RHO played his card before dummy's card was in a played position. He misheard declarer's order. Do we feel sorry for hin? Yes and No. Yes, because he managed dummy's cards although it is not his duty to do (he wants to be kind) and now he feels being punished for that; and No, because he shouldn't have play his card until dummy's card was in a played position. I'm with the director. Maybe RHO will never be kind to a lonely declarer again ... Von: "Hans van Staveren" > Yesterday I heard about the following case: > > A board was played, dummy was away. > > Declarer called the cards and opponents handled the dummy. > > Now dummy contained both red fives and was on lead. > > RHO heard heart five, and played the heart ace from his hand before > picking up the heart five from dummy. > > Now declarer said that he specified the diamond five. Director! > > Director ruled the diamond five played and the heart ace a major > penalty card. This led to the contract, a doubled game, making instead > of going one off. > > I have my thoughts about this, but first want to hear some opinions. > > Hans From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Mar 14 10:51:32 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:51:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences In-Reply-To: <1S7kLO-2HtVh20@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> <1S7kLO-2HtVh20@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4F606A24.2090401@btinternet.com> On 14/03/2012 09:18, Peter Eidt wrote: > Maybe RHO will never be kind to a lonely declarer again ... Personally I don't find it kind. I find it quite irritating if defenders try to turn over dummy's cards for me, when I'm perfectly capable of doing it myself by pulling them towards the middle of the table, and I find it just as annoying if a declarer expects me to do it rather than doing it himself. Gordon Rainsford From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 10:53:26 2012 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:53:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences In-Reply-To: <1S7kLO-2HtVh20@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> <1S7kLO-2HtVh20@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4F606A96.4030700@gmail.com> W dniu 2012-03-14 10:18, Peter Eidt pisze: > RHO played his card before dummy's card was in a played > position. He misheard declarer's order. > Do we feel sorry for hin? > > Yes and No. > Yes, because he managed dummy's cards although it is > not his duty to do (he wants to be kind) and now he feels > being punished for that; and > No, because he shouldn't have play his card until dummy's > card was in a played position. BTW - we (me and someone ;)) are trying to "introduce" this way: "RHO should not play his card until dummy's card is in a played position". But all say: "no, the named card contributes to the trick, RHO can/should". It would be much easier to rule. Ech... ?K From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Wed Mar 14 11:20:41 2012 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:20:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences In-Reply-To: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> References: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> Message-ID: A subtil way, IMHO, to handle with this : RHO as a penalty car, nothing to do with this, RHO score stands, Dummy is not alowed to leave the table before end of play, just give him a PP equivalent to the gain between contractX -1 (?) and =, in teams, it's 2-34 VP's, in pairs, 65-74-83% of a board, just calculate this PP, Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: Hans van Staveren To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:33 AM Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences Yesterday I heard about the following case: A board was played, dummy was away. Declarer called the cards and opponents handled the dummy. Now dummy contained both red fives and was on lead. RHO heard heart five, and played the heart ace from his hand before picking up the heart five from dummy. Now declarer said that he specified the diamond five. Director! Director ruled the diamond five played and the heart ace a major penalty card. This led to the contract, a doubled game, making instead of going one off. I have my thoughts about this, but first want to hear some opinions. Hans __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 6964 (20120313) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 6964 (20120313) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 6965 (20120314) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120314/ef162c36/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Mar 14 11:50:18 2012 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:50:18 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences References: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> Message-ID: <508749A7C8C548158039B4254FF0DA60@changeme1> Whilst leaving the table is permissible...some reasons being more valid than others, handling another players cards, with certain exceptions for declarer, is prohited by law (7b3). I find that latter-day smoking regs are the biggest culprit for absent dummies. L A subtil way, IMHO, to handle with this : RHO as a penalty car, nothing to do with this, RHO score stands, Dummy is not alowed to leave the table before end of play, just give him a PP equivalent to the gain between contractX -1 (?) and =, in teams, it's 2-34 VP's, in pairs, 65-74-83% of a board, just calculate this PP, Olivier Beauvillain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120314/d19cc1fd/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Mar 14 12:10:25 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:10:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences In-Reply-To: <508749A7C8C548158039B4254FF0DA60@changeme1> References: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> <508749A7C8C548158039B4254FF0DA60@changeme1> Message-ID: <4F607CA1.5080606@btinternet.com> On 14/03/2012 10:50, Larry wrote: > I find that latter-day smoking regs are the biggest culprit for absent > dummies. Ah, it's the regulations, not the smoking that are the problem! Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120314/233ac635/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Wed Mar 14 12:16:19 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:16:19 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences In-Reply-To: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> References: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> Message-ID: <1761656673.5419.1331723779276.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail23.arcor-online.net> Hans van Staveren wrote: > Yesterday I heard about the following case: > > > > A board was played, dummy was away. > > Declarer called the cards and opponents handled the dummy. > > > > Now dummy contained both red fives and was on lead. > > > > RHO heard heart five, and played the heart ace from his hand before picking > up the heart five from dummy. > > Now declarer said that he specified the diamond five. Director! > > > > Director ruled the diamond five played and the heart ace a major penalty > card. This led to the contract, a doubled game, making instead of going one > off. First of all the director needs to investigate what exactly declarer said, how declarer indicated which card should be played from dummy. It is not sufficient that declarer intended the diamond five. Generally, I am inclined to agree with the director, because RHO played the heart ace before a card from dummy was actually played. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 14 17:11:30 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:11:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <09042495-A815-4D6C-9944-EC93DACCB1A6@mac.com> References: <09042495-A815-4D6C-9944-EC93DACCB1A6@mac.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:01:11 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:48 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Which is bullshit, right? We treat the faulty claimer as the offending >> side. > > We do? Sez who? Which law has been breached? What is the offense? Thank you for asking. The point is fairly complicated. Suppose a player claims with a trump out. If the conditions are right for L70C, we apply that law. Perhaps "equity" is built into that law, but the director does not consider "equity" in making the ruling. The director just follows the law. That in general seems to be how claim laws are applied. There is a procedure, worked out over time (and probably varying by region). Except for a WBFLC minute, the sentence about equity seems to be ignored. I would be very interested if you could find one (other) ruling that you would rule differently depending on whether or that sentence was in the laws. Interestingly, there seems to be no definition of "equity" in the laws. I suspect people use it differently. I would be very happy to hear anyone's definition, though I suspect the term needs WBFLC clarification. Now to answer your question. If the goal is equity, then -- I assume -- director should be attempting to determine what would have happened had the claim not occurred. Basically, directors do not do this. Right? For most points, but not all, judgment goes against the claimer. In other words, the claimer is treated almost as if he was the offending side. (And of course if there is no clear clarification statement, the claimer is at fault.) You apparently draw the line in a different place from Mike Flader -- he allowed an extra trick for the defense the players could find only with the claim. You are not as sympathetic to defenders. (For all I know, you do not allow them to see each other's hand or talk -- if you did, you are facilitating a double dummy defense.) So perhaps you are considering equity, but you are still biasing things against the claimer. Right? I can see no guidance in the laws for you (or him), so IMO you are on solid ground to say he is out of his mind. Bob From g3 at nige1.com Wed Mar 14 17:26:13 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:26:13 -0000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <09042495-A815-4D6C-9944-EC93DACCB1A6@mac.com> References: <09042495-A815-4D6C-9944-EC93DACCB1A6@mac.com> Message-ID: [Nigel] IMO.... This will run and run. But, to an unbiased observer, the whole argument would appear ridiculous. Again, it would spoil the fun for directors, especially BLMLers, but a trivial simplification to the laws would remove yet another daft and unnecessary anomaly. As has been suggested many times, all law-makers need to do is to stipulate that declarer places his hand, face-up on the table and leaves it there, while stating his claim. (When the play is over, on the request of a player, an opponent should always be compelled to face his hand -- but that proposal, although even simpler, is more contentious). Our problem is worse than mere player apathy and WBFLC procrastination: many directors seem to prefer unnecessarily complex and confusing laws. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 14 17:54:30 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:54:30 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B2 References: Message-ID: <17315E371A2544B692F80D434950D1B8@MARVIN> >From Richard Hills > > A valid interpretation of the 2008 Lawbook > is decided by the ACBL Laws Commission, > NOT by widely supported beliefs of ACBL > hoi polloi. Many members of the ACBLLC are also members of the ACBL hoi polloi, as when a poll of the members by Adam Wildavsky showed an apparently majority opinion that when a significant break in normal tempo occurs, the TD should be called immediatly by the other side. This is a non-valid interpretation of the current 2008 version of L16B2, which says a player of the other side *may* call attention to the UI, and if the UI is denied it is the *UI side* who should call the Director. Conversations wtih top TDs and LC members have revealed (so far) that none of them understand this law. I'll check further at the Memphis NABC. In ACBL-land you had better call opponents' attenion to the UI at the time it occurs, because failure to do that will likely get redress denied if you are damaged. You typically will not be believed if the opponents deny the UI. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 14 18:04:53 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:04:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <09042495-A815-4D6C-9944-EC93DACCB1A6@mac.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:26:13 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nigel] IMO.... > > This will run and run. But, to an unbiased observer, the whole argument > would appear ridiculous. > > Again, it would spoil the fun for directors, especially BLMLers, but a > trivial simplification to the laws would remove yet another daft and > unnecessary anomaly. > > As has been suggested many times, all law-makers need to do is to > stipulate > that declarer places his hand, face-up on the table and leaves it there, > while stating his claim. > > (When the play is over, on the request of a player, an opponent should > always be compelled to face his hand -- but that proposal, although even > simpler, is more contentious). What would make this contentious? I can't see the problem. I do see real problems with letting players put their hands in the board without showing them. If I want to see an opponent's hand, I should have the right to do that. Correct? > > Our problem is worse than mere player apathy and WBFLC procrastination: > many > directors seem to prefer unnecessarily complex and confusing laws. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 18:15:51 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:15:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B2 In-Reply-To: <17315E371A2544B692F80D434950D1B8@MARVIN> References: <17315E371A2544B692F80D434950D1B8@MARVIN> Message-ID: Den 17:54 14. mars 2012 skrev Marvin French f?lgende: > > >From Richard Hills > >> >> A valid interpretation of the 2008 Lawbook >> is decided by the ACBL Laws Commission, >> NOT by widely supported beliefs of ACBL >> hoi polloi. > > Many ?members of the ACBLLC are also members of the ACBL hoi polloi, as when > a poll of the members by Adam Wildavsky showed an apparently majority > opinion that when a significant break in normal tempo occurs, the TD should > be called immediatly by the other side. What you're saying is that if my one of my opps go into the tank for some time, I have to call the TD in ACBL at once. Else I may forfeit my right to redress IF the potential UI transmitted LATER is used by his/her partner? That is, at a time nothing indicates that UI has been used? That leads to lots of totally unneccesary TD calls, in all cases where no UI is used. Over here normal procedure is for me or my partner to ask opps if they agree there's been a long hesitation. If they do, nothing happens in all cases where no UI is used later. Only if they disagree about the hesitation, TD is called at this time. > This is a non-valid interpretation > of the current 2008 version of L16B2, which says a player of the other side > *may* call attention to the UI, and if the UI is denied it is the *UI side* > who should call the Director. Conversations wtih top TDs and LC members have > revealed (so far) that none of them understand this law. I'll check further > at the Memphis NABC. I can't believe none of them understand this law, since it is (should be) impossible to misunderstand it. There's nothing there to interpret in any way. I suppose you mean none of them agree that this is how the law should be. > > In ACBL-land you had better call opponents' attenion to the UI at the time > it occurs, because failure to do that will likely get redress denied if you > are damaged. You typically will not be believed if the opponents deny the > UI. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Mar 14 18:47:58 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:47:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences In-Reply-To: <508749A7C8C548158039B4254FF0DA60@changeme1> References: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> <508749A7C8C548158039B4254FF0DA60@changeme1> Message-ID: <007601cd020a$97f61db0$c7e25910$@nl> Interesting: indeed 7B prohibits defenders from providing this assistance. However, this is often done, at least where I come from, and as the story was told to me, declarer was leaning back and actually expecting defenders to handle the dummy. If the RHO had pushed the heart five forward one cm and then played the heart Ace, would it make a difference? If the dummy was replaced by a wandering TD for the duration of play, as I often do, and the TD heard the heart 5 and pushed it forward, RHO played AH, would it make a difference? Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Larry Sent: woensdag 14 maart 2012 11:50 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences Whilst leaving the table is permissible...some reasons being more valid than others, handling another players cards, with certain exceptions for declarer, is prohited by law (7b3). I find that latter-day smoking regs are the biggest culprit for absent dummies. L A subtil way, IMHO, to handle with this : RHO as a penalty car, nothing to do with this, RHO score stands, Dummy is not alowed to leave the table before end of play, just give him a PP equivalent to the gain between contractX -1 (?) and =, in teams, it's 2-34 VP's, in pairs, 65-74-83% of a board, just calculate this PP, Olivier Beauvillain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120314/7a5e8264/attachment-0001.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 14 19:17:27 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:17:27 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B2 References: <17315E371A2544B692F80D434950D1B8@MARVIN> Message-ID: From: "Harald Berre Skj?ran" > Den 17:54 14. mars 2012 skrev Marvin French > f?lgende: >> >> >From Richard Hills >> >>> >>> A valid interpretation of the 2008 Lawbook >>> is decided by the ACBL Laws Commission, >>> NOT by widely supported beliefs of ACBL >>> hoi polloi. >> > > What you're saying is that if my one of my opps go into the tank for > some time, I have to call the TD in ACBL at once. Else I may forfeit > my right to redress IF the potential UI transmitted LATER is used by > his/her partner? That is, at a time nothing indicates that UI has been > used? Many NABC AC decisions since 2008 have reflected this attitude. > > That leads to lots of totally unneccesary TD calls, in all cases where > no UI is used. Fully agreed, and I have unsuccessfully argued against this waste of time for years. > > Over here normal procedure is for me or my partner to ask opps if they > agree there's been a long hesitation. If they do, nothing happens in > all cases where no UI is used later. Only if they disagree about the > hesitation, TD is called at this time. But who calls?? Not you, according to the law. That is, unless you call attention to their failure to do so. Then an irregularity has been noted by you and the TD must be called by someone at the table. If you don't teach them the law (which is not your job), then it is they who should call the TD, not you. > > > I can't believe none of them understand this law, since it is (should > be) impossible to misunderstand it. There's nothing there to interpret > in any way. I suppose you mean none of them agree that this is how the > law should be. Some may understand it, I haven't questioned everyone. The others do not say it's what the law should be, but what current law is. One trouble is that the ACBL opted to require a TD call in the previous version of the Laws,. but not in the 2008 version. They could have, but they ddn't. It is a shame that so many ACBL TDs and LC members seem unaware of that. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 20:37:20 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:37:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B2 In-Reply-To: References: <17315E371A2544B692F80D434950D1B8@MARVIN> Message-ID: Den 19:17 14. mars 2012 skrev Marvin French f?lgende: > > From: "Harald Berre Skj?ran" > >> Den 17:54 14. mars 2012 skrev Marvin French >> f?lgende: >>> >>> >From Richard Hills >>> >>>> >>>> A valid interpretation of the 2008 Lawbook >>>> is decided by the ACBL Laws Commission, >>>> NOT by widely supported beliefs of ACBL >>>> hoi polloi. >>> >> >> What you're saying is that if my one of my opps go into the tank for >> some time, I have to call the TD in ACBL at once. Else I may forfeit >> my right to redress IF the potential UI transmitted LATER is used by >> his/her partner? That is, at a time nothing indicates that UI has been >> used? > > Many NABC AC decisions since 2008 ?have reflected this attitude. >> >> That leads to lots of totally unneccesary TD calls, in all cases where >> no UI is used. > > Fully agreed, and I have unsuccessfully argued against this waste of time > for years. >> >> Over here normal procedure is for me or my partner to ask opps if they >> agree there's been a long hesitation. If they do, nothing happens in >> all cases where no UI is used later. Only if they disagree about the >> hesitation, TD is called at this time. > > But who calls?? Not you, according to the law. Acutally, I don't care who calls. The disagreement can't be resolved without a TD, so if they don't call, I call. > That is, unless you call > attention to their failure to do so. Then an irregularity has been noted by > you and the TD must be called by someone at the table. If you don't teach > them the law (which is not your job), then it is they who should call the > TD, not you. >> >> >> I can't believe none of them understand this law, since it is (should >> be) impossible to misunderstand it. There's nothing there to interpret >> in any way. I suppose you mean none of them agree that this is how the >> law should be. > > Some may understand it, I haven't questioned everyone. The others do not say > it's what the law should be, but what current law is. One trouble is that > the ACBL opted to require a TD call in the previous version of the Laws,. > but not in the 2008 version. They could have, but they ddn't. It is a shame > that so many ACBL TDs and LC members seem unaware of that. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From g3 at nige1.com Wed Mar 14 22:34:31 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:34:31 -0000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <09042495-A815-4D6C-9944-EC93DACCB1A6@mac.com> Message-ID: Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:04 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:26:13 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: [Nigel] [snip] (When the play is over, on the request of a player, an opponent should always be compelled to face his hand -- but that proposal, although even simpler, is more contentious). [Robert Frick] What would make this contentious? I can't see the problem. I do see real problems with letting players put their hands in the board without showing them. If I want to see an opponent's hand, I should have the right to do that. Correct? [Nigel] IMO, In Bridge Utopia, Robert is right. The ostensible objection is that asking an opponent to show their hand might slow the game :) The real objection may be that no director is involved :( Seemingly, it is quicker to call a director and tell him that you want to check for a possible revoke :( Laws that go out on a limb to encourage such secretary-bird ploys are ... --- "sufficient unto the day" ! From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 14 23:48:21 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:48:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007601cd020a$97f61db0$c7e25910$@nl> Message-ID: Law 7B3, second sentence: No player shall touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may play dummy?s cards in accordance with Law 45) during or after play except by permission of the Director. Hans van Staveren: >Interesting: indeed 7B prohibits defenders >from providing this assistance. > >However, this is often done, at least where I >come from, and as the story was told to me, >declarer was leaning back and actually >expecting defenders to handle the dummy. Richard Hills: Great Expectations. Another example of un- resolved problems caused by the Lawbook being silent on rectifications when both sides are offending. (Indeed it is possible that the dummy player started this chain of events by infracting Law 74C8, "leaving the table needlessly before the round is called".) As Director, with both sides offending, I would use the Law 50 prologue "the Director designates otherwise" to rule that RHO's exposed card did not become a penalty card. (I advocate the abolition of penalty cards in the 2017 Lawbook, but that is another battle for another day.) Hans van Staveren: >If the RHO had pushed the heart five >forward one cm and then played the >heart Ace, would it make a difference? Richard Hills: No, I would rule as above. Hans van Staveren: >If the dummy was replaced by a >wandering TD for the duration of play, >as I often do, and the TD heard the >heart 5 and pushed it forward, RHO >played HA, would it make a >difference? Richard Hills: Yes. In my opinion, the wandering TD has invoked Law 4 and appointed herself as a substitute for the dummy player. Then Law 45D applies and RHO's HA is returned to RHO's hand. A wandering TD I --- A thing of shreds and patches, Of rulings, songs and snatches, And dreamy lullaby! My catalogue is long, Through ninety-three Laws ranging, And to your humours changing I tune my supple song! Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120314/d748ac00/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 15 00:18:43 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:18:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French: >>Conversations with top TDs and LC members >>have revealed (so far) that none of them >>understand this law. I'll check further at the >>Memphis NABC. Harald Skj?ran: >I can't believe none of them understand this >law, since it is (should be) impossible to mis- >understand it. There's nothing there to interpret >in any way. Richard Hills: The motto of this mailing list is RTFLB, Read The (Fine) Law Book. It is easy to misinterpret what a Law says if one does not bother reading that Law. :-( Beware the blowing winds of arbitrary rulings. Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons (1960) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- Man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120314/3b9ff0b5/attachment-0001.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Mar 15 04:10:03 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:10:03 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences In-Reply-To: <4F607CA1.5080606@btinternet.com> References: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> <508749A7C8C548158039B4254FF0DA60@changeme1> <4F607CA1.5080606@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4F615D8B.5070501@iinet.net.au> On 14/03/2012 7:10 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > On 14/03/2012 10:50, Larry wrote: >> I find that latter-day smoking regs are the biggest culprit for >> absent dummies. > > Ah, it's the regulations, not the smoking that are the problem! > > Gordon Rainsford > > It has to be the regs. It wasn't nearly as prevalent when players could smoke at the table. bill kemp > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120315/504a160d/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Mar 15 06:55:40 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 01:55:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <719A1810-B13C-4F46-B334-9A66A80E231E@mac.com> On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:01 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Robert Frick: > > >>We treat the faulty claimer as the offending side. > > Ed Reppert: > > >We do? Sez who? Which law has been > >breached? What is the offense? > > Law 84D, first sentence: > > The Director rules any +++doubtful point+++ in > favour of the non-offending side. > > Law 70A, analogous clause: > > ...any +++doubtful point+++ as to a claim shall be > resolved against the claimer... > So claiming is an offense. Interesting approach, that. :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120315/9c9450a8/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Mar 15 07:26:03 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 02:26:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences In-Reply-To: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> References: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> Message-ID: On Mar 14, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Yesterday I heard about the following case: > > A board was played, dummy was away. > Declarer called the cards and opponents handled the dummy. > > Now dummy contained both red fives and was on lead. > > RHO heard heart five, and played the heart ace from his hand before picking up the heart five from dummy. > Now declarer said that he specified the diamond five. Director! > > Director ruled the diamond five played and the heart ace a major penalty card. This led to the contract, a doubled game, making instead of going one off. > > I have my thoughts about this, but first want to hear some opinions. Interestingly, today, for the first time *ever*, I heard dummy ask her partner "will you turn my cards for me, please?" I agree with Richard Hills. Rule the HA is not a penalty card, tell him to pick it up and follow suit. Tell him to be more careful in future about making sure of dummy's played card before playing his own. Although I note that a card from dummy is "actually played" when it is designated, so there is some basis for the argument that one can play (in turn) after the designation but before the movement to the played position. I wouldn't, though. I think waiting until it's in the played position is a good idea. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120315/2e0d8a80/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 15 07:38:58 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 07:38:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <719A1810-B13C-4F46-B334-9A66A80E231E@mac.com> References: <719A1810-B13C-4F46-B334-9A66A80E231E@mac.com> Message-ID: <002401cd0276$4dc03110$e9409330$@online.no> Claiming is a deviation from normal progress of the play, an interruption. It is only reasonable that disputed claims are handled with the claiming side as offending. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Ed Reppert Sendt: 15. mars 2012 06:56 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:01 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: Robert Frick: >>We treat the faulty claimer as the offending side. Ed Reppert: >We do? Sez who? Which law has been >breached? What is the offense? Law 84D, first sentence: The Director rules any +++doubtful point+++ in favour of the non-offending side. Law 70A, analogous clause: ...any +++doubtful point+++ as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer... So claiming is an offense. Interesting approach, that. :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120315/29fa7e67/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Mar 15 07:52:16 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 02:52:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002401cd0276$4dc03110$e9409330$@online.no> References: <719A1810-B13C-4F46-B334-9A66A80E231E@mac.com> <002401cd0276$4dc03110$e9409330$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mar 15, 2012, at 2:38 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Claiming is a deviation from normal progress of the play, an interruption. > It is only reasonable that disputed claims are handled with the claiming side as offending. No, it's not "only reasonable". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120315/f2ebb78a/attachment-0001.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 08:14:40 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:14:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002401cd0276$4dc03110$e9409330$@online.no> References: <719A1810-B13C-4F46-B334-9A66A80E231E@mac.com> <002401cd0276$4dc03110$e9409330$@online.no> Message-ID: Den 07:38 15. mars 2012 skrev Sven Pran f?lgende: > Claiming is a deviation from normal progress of the play, an interruption. I disagree. Claiming is a normal progress of play. Not claiming is normally prolonging play. I always claim when the outcome of the hand is undisputable, unless I believe claiming and the claim statement will take longer time than playing the hand out. Not claiming is a breach of L74B4. > > It is only reasonable that disputed claims are handled with the claiming > side as offending. > > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Ed > Reppert > Sendt: 15. mars 2012 06:56 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > > On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:01 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Robert Frick: > >>>We treat the faulty claimer as the offending side. > > Ed Reppert: > >>We do? Sez who? Which law has been >>breached? What is the offense? > > Law 84D, first sentence: > > The Director rules any +++doubtful point+++ in > favour of the non-offending side. > > Law 70A, analogous clause: > > ...any +++doubtful point+++ as to a claim shall be > resolved against the claimer... > > So claiming is an offense. Interesting approach, that. :-) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 15 08:37:11 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:37:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <719A1810-B13C-4F46-B334-9A66A80E231E@mac.com> <002401cd0276$4dc03110$e9409330$@online.no> Message-ID: <003e01cd027e$6f5fda20$4e1f8e60$@online.no> The essential question is how to handle _disputed_ (or questioned) claims. There are four options: - Both sides are non-offending. - Both sides are offending. - The claiming side is offending and the disputing side is non-offending. - The claiming side is non-offending and the disputing side is offending. I fully agree that a problem-free claim is part of normal procedure, but we are (as far as I have noticed) discussing the handling of claims that are not free from problems? The problem is then usually that the situation is not obvious to the opponents of the claiming side. Are such claims irregularities or not? And if they are irregularities then which side (if any) is offending? I still have a strong opinion that once a claim is disputed, or even just questioned, we have an irregularity with the claiming side as the offending side. > Harald Berre Skj?ran > Den 07:38 15. mars 2012 skrev Sven Pran f?lgende: > > Claiming is a deviation from normal progress of the play, an interruption. > > I disagree. Claiming is a normal progress of play. Not claiming is normally > prolonging play. > I always claim when the outcome of the hand is undisputable, unless I > believe claiming and the claim statement will take longer time than playing > the hand out. Not claiming is a breach of L74B4. > > > > > It is only reasonable that disputed claims are handled with the > > claiming side as offending. > > > > > > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > > av Ed Reppert > > Sendt: 15. mars 2012 06:56 > > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Emne: Re: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim > > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:01 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >>>We treat the faulty claimer as the offending side. > > > > Ed Reppert: > > > >>We do? Sez who? Which law has been > >>breached? What is the offense? > > > > Law 84D, first sentence: > > > > The Director rules any +++doubtful point+++ in favour of the > > non-offending side. > > > > Law 70A, analogous clause: > > > > ...any +++doubtful point+++ as to a claim shall be resolved against > > the claimer... > > > > So claiming is an offense. Interesting approach, that. :-) > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Berre Skj?ran > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Thu Mar 15 13:16:03 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:16:03 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003e01cd027e$6f5fda20$4e1f8e60$@online.no> References: <003e01cd027e$6f5fda20$4e1f8e60$@online.no> <719A1810-B13C-4F46-B334-9A66A80E231E@mac.com> <002401cd0276$4dc03110$e9409330$@online.no> Message-ID: <1109210613.46036.1331813763696.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Sven Pran wrote: > The essential question is how to handle _disputed_ (or questioned) claims. > There are four options: > > - Both sides are non-offending. > - Both sides are offending. > - The claiming side is offending and the disputing side is non-offending. > - The claiming side is non-offending and the disputing side is offending. > > I fully agree that a problem-free claim is part of normal procedure, but we > are (as far as I have noticed) discussing the handling of claims that are > not free from problems? The problem is then usually that the situation is > not obvious to the opponents of the claiming side. Are such claims > irregularities or not? And if they are irregularities then which side (if > any) is offending? > > I still have a strong opinion that once a claim is disputed, or even just > questioned, we have an irregularity with the claiming side as the offending > side. Example: the claiming side makes a perfectly fine claim. The non-claiming side says "please play out the hand, we paid the session entry fee to play cards." In this example, I cannot see any reason to consider the claiming side offending. I am confident that I can come up with more examples of problems with claims where the claiming side is not offending. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Thu Mar 15 13:32:55 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:32:55 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] (2017) L70E -- any line of play In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <390785426.46495.1331814775961.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > L70E. "...unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card > before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that > suit an any normal line of play or unless failulre to adopt that line of > play would be irrational." > > The problem is the middle conditional, "or would subsequently fail to > follow to that suit an any normal line of play". Director is examining a > line of play. If a player behind the finesse has shown out in hearts *on > that line of play*, the director will allow the finesse. The other lines > of play are irrelevant. If the player behind the finesse has not shown out > in hearts *in that line of play* (and neither of the other conditions are > met), the director will not allow the finesse. What happens in other lines > of play is still irrelevant. > > CHANGE TO.. > "or previously in the line of play under consideration". > > COMMENTARY > As stands, I can claim and always win all the tricks in AJxxx opposite > K10xxx. If one player is void, I am allowed to finesse on the first round > because the player shows out on a different line of play. > > This particular problem can be solved by replacing "any" with "every". > However, that still is wrong. It is also impractical, as it would require > the director to examine every possible line of play before allowing a > finesse,. I agree that the meaning is "every" (line under consideration), and that "any" can be misinterpreted. The "every" is necessary. Consider the following bad claim by an inexperienced player. S AKQJ9 xxx H xxx Axxxx Spades split 5-0, onside. Claim statement "I get six tricks from the top". There are two normal lines: o cash the SA, notice that spades split 5-0, go to the HA, finesse spades, make six trick. o cash the HA, beginning running spades, notice that spades are 5-0. Too late now to finesse spapes, as the HA entry is gone. Make five tricks only. Here, we rule that according to the claim statement playing the HA first is a normal line. Declarer gets only five tricks. Thomas From g3 at nige1.com Thu Mar 15 14:19:24 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:19:24 -0000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <719A1810-B13C-4F46-B334-9A66A80E231E@mac.com><002401cd0276$4dc03110$e9409330$@online.no> Message-ID: When opponents disputes a clam they implicitly *allege* that the claim is faulty. Hence it seems blatantly obvious that the claimer is the *putative* offender. This is how the director treats all other *alleged* infractions, so why make an exception here -- unless the urge for needless complexity is over-powering. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 15 14:41:37 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:41:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) L70E -- any line of play In-Reply-To: <390785426.46495.1331814775961.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> References: <390785426.46495.1331814775961.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:32:55 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> L70E. "...unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card >> before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that >> suit an any normal line of play or unless failulre to adopt that line of >> play would be irrational." >> >> The problem is the middle conditional, "or would subsequently fail to >> follow to that suit an any normal line of play". Director is examining a >> line of play. If a player behind the finesse has shown out in hearts *on >> that line of play*, the director will allow the finesse. The other lines >> of play are irrelevant. If the player behind the finesse has not shown >> out >> in hearts *in that line of play* (and neither of the other conditions >> are >> met), the director will not allow the finesse. What happens in other >> lines >> of play is still irrelevant. >> >> CHANGE TO.. >> "or previously in the line of play under consideration". >> >> COMMENTARY >> As stands, I can claim and always win all the tricks in AJxxx opposite >> K10xxx. If one player is void, I am allowed to finesse on the first >> round >> because the player shows out on a different line of play. >> >> This particular problem can be solved by replacing "any" with "every". >> However, that still is wrong. It is also impractical, as it would >> require >> the director to examine every possible line of play before allowing a >> finesse,. > > I agree that the meaning is "every" (line under consideration), and that > "any" can be misinterpreted. Consider this example. Declarer claims, saying his hand is good. It is not. One rational line of play is to lead a heart. LHO wins, with RHO showing out in hearts. LHO now leads a heart. Do you allow declarer to finesse in dummy? My guess is that every director will allow the finesse. In my mind, it is irrelevant whether RHO shows out in other lines of play. Right? > > The "every" is necessary. > > Consider the following bad claim by an inexperienced player. > S AKQJ9 xxx > H xxx Axxxx > > Spades split 5-0, onside. > Claim statement "I get six tricks from the top". > > There are two normal lines: > o cash the SA, notice that spades split 5-0, go to the HA, finesse > spades, make six trick. > o cash the HA, beginning running spades, notice that spades are 5-0. Too > late now to finesse spapes, as the HA entry is gone. > Make five tricks only. > > Here, we rule that according to the claim statement playing the HA first > is a normal line. > Declarer gets only five tricks. > > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Mar 15 15:18:45 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:18:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) L70E -- any line of play In-Reply-To: References: <390785426.46495.1331814775961.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <013d01cd02b6$8879f5d0$996de170$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Consider this example. Declarer claims, saying his hand is good. It is not. One rational line of play is to lead a heart. LHO wins, with RHO showing out in hearts. LHO now leads a heart. Do you allow declarer to finesse in dummy? My guess is that every director will allow the finesse. In my mind, it is irrelevant whether RHO shows out in other lines of play. Right? ton: I am confused. The answer on your question is yes, but this is the wrong question. Only when declarer would find out with all reasonable lines of play that RHO doesn't have hearts left the TD should base the score on a finesse if needed. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 15 16:50:22 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:50:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) L70E -- any line of play In-Reply-To: <013d01cd02b6$8879f5d0$996de170$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <390785426.46495.1331814775961.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <013d01cd02b6$8879f5d0$996de170$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:18:45 -0400, ton wrote: > > > Consider this example. Declarer claims, saying his hand is good. It is > not. One rational line of play is to lead a heart. LHO wins, with RHO > showing out in hearts. LHO now leads a heart. Do you allow declarer to > finesse in dummy? > > My guess is that every director will allow the finesse. In my mind, it is > irrelevant whether RHO shows out in other lines of play. Right? > > > ton: > I am confused. The answer on your question is yes, If the answer is yes, then we allow the finesse and we do not consider other lines of play. but this is the wrong > question. Only when declarer would find out with all reasonable lines of > play that RHO doesn't have hearts left the TD should base the score on a > finesse if needed. Here you are saying that we perhaps do not allow the finesse and we first need to consider other lines of play. My turn to be confused. How do you make this ruling? Or are you saying that every director will allow the finesse but you will not if there is some other line of play in which RHO's lack of hearts is not revealed? > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Mar 15 17:07:55 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:07:55 -0700 Subject: [BLML] (2017) L70E -- any line of play References: <390785426.46495.1331814775961.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net><013d01cd02b6$8879f5d0$996de170$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <7C42DAD915244608B3A4CDBAADF56E4A@MARVIN> From: "Robert Frick" > >> question. Only when declarer would find out with all reasonable lines of >> play that RHO doesn't have hearts left the TD should base the score on a >> finesse if needed. > Misquote of the law, which says "any" normal line of play. The word "any" is ambiguous. Does it mean all normal lines of play or just any one line? I believe the French have it right, adding "no matter which" in order to remove the ambiguity. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 15 17:19:22 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:19:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) L70E -- any line of play In-Reply-To: <7C42DAD915244608B3A4CDBAADF56E4A@MARVIN> References: <390785426.46495.1331814775961.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <013d01cd02b6$8879f5d0$996de170$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <7C42DAD915244608B3A4CDBAADF56E4A@MARVIN> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:07:55 -0400, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Robert Frick" > > >>> question. Only when declarer would find out with all reasonable lines >>> of >>> play that RHO doesn't have hearts left the TD should base the score on >>> a >>> finesse if needed. >> > Misquote of the law, which says "any" normal line of play. The word > "any" is > ambiguous. Actually, it is not ambiguous. "any" and "all" are two different words with two different meanings. In a logical context, they can come to the same thing. But this is not a logical context. (Ironically, if it was a logical context, it would not help to substitute "all" for "any" -- because the two come to the same thing. The only reason people want to make this substitution is that the two words do not have the same meaning.) > Does it mean all normal lines of play or just any one line? And to paraphrase your question, does "any" mean 'any' or 'all'? Answer: It means any. Consider the three possibilities 1. declarer can finesse if RHO shows out on any line of play 2. declarer can finesse if RHO shows out on every line of play 3. declarer can finesse if RHO showed out on this particular line of play. #3 is the only rational ruling and corresponds to how directors rule. So there is really no good reason to choose #2. I > believe the French have it right, adding "no matter which" in order to > remove the ambiguity. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 15 18:45:21 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:45:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1109210613.46036.1331813763696.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> References: <003e01cd027e$6f5fda20$4e1f8e60$@online.no> <719A1810-B13C-4F46-B334-9A66A80E231E@mac.com> <002401cd0276$4dc03110$e9409330$@online.no> <1109210613.46036.1331813763696.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <002001cd02d3$64bff870$2e3fe950$@online.no> > Thomas Dehn > Sven Pran wrote: > > The essential question is how to handle _disputed_ (or questioned) claims. > > There are four options: > > > > - Both sides are non-offending. > > - Both sides are offending. > > - The claiming side is offending and the disputing side is non-offending. > > - The claiming side is non-offending and the disputing side is offending. > > > > I fully agree that a problem-free claim is part of normal procedure, > > but we are (as far as I have noticed) discussing the handling of > > claims that are not free from problems? The problem is then usually > > that the situation is not obvious to the opponents of the claiming > > side. Are such claims irregularities or not? And if they are > > irregularities then which side (if > > any) is offending? > > > > I still have a strong opinion that once a claim is disputed, or even > > just questioned, we have an irregularity with the claiming side as the > > offending side. > > Example: the claiming side makes a perfectly fine claim. > The non-claiming side says "please play out the hand, we paid the session > entry fee to play cards." > > In this example, I cannot see any reason to consider the claiming side > offending. [Sven Pran] Of course not. It is illegal to request a playout when a claim has been made. (Requesting a playout is not legally disputing a claim) From blml at arcor.de Thu Mar 15 18:45:49 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:45:49 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] (2017) L70E -- any line of play In-Reply-To: References: <390785426.46495.1331814775961.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <013d01cd02b6$8879f5d0$996de170$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <477185982.43270.1331833549540.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:18:45 -0400, ton wrote: > > > > > > > Consider this example. Declarer claims, saying his hand is good. It is > > not. One rational line of play is to lead a heart. LHO wins, with RHO > > showing out in hearts. LHO now leads a heart. Do you allow declarer to > > finesse in dummy? > > > > My guess is that every director will allow the finesse. In my mind, it is > > irrelevant whether RHO shows out in other lines of play. Right? > > > > > > ton: > > I am confused. The answer on your question is yes, > > If the answer is yes, then we allow the finesse and we do not consider > other lines of play. After finding out what claim statement was made (L70B1), the declarer checks whether the claim statement defines one specific line of play, or rather is incomplete, ambiguous, or otherwise flawed. In case declarer has made a clear, unambiguous claim statement that defines one specific line of play, and in course of carrying out that claim statement declarer would lead a heart, and a defender would shows out there, then claimer is assumed to noticed that, and the line of the claim gets adjusted accordingly. That is part of L70E. In case declarer has made an incomplete or flawed claim statement, where the claim statement does not specify whether he will lead a H or a S, then each of those lines need to be evaluated separately. Declarer then gets the worst out of all normal lines which match the incomplete or flawed claim statement. The worse the claim has been worded, the more lines the TD has to consider. In the frequent case where declarer just said something like "the rest are mine" the director has to consider all possible orders of cashing the cards declarer implied are winners. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Thu Mar 15 19:21:09 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:21:09 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002001cd02d3$64bff870$2e3fe950$@online.no> References: <002001cd02d3$64bff870$2e3fe950$@online.no> <003e01cd027e$6f5fda20$4e1f8e60$@online.no> <719A1810-B13C-4F46-B334-9A66A80E231E@mac.com> <002401cd0276$4dc03110$e9409330$@online.no> <1109210613.46036.1331813763696.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1953727250.89276.1331835669759.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Sven Pran wrote: > > Thomas Dehn > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > The essential question is how to handle _disputed_ (or questioned) claims. > > > There are four options: > > > > > > - Both sides are non-offending. > > > - Both sides are offending. > > > - The claiming side is offending and the disputing side is non-offending. > > > - The claiming side is non-offending and the disputing side is offending. > > > > > > I fully agree that a problem-free claim is part of normal procedure, > > > but we are (as far as I have noticed) discussing the handling of > > > claims that are not free from problems? The problem is then usually > > > that the situation is not obvious to the opponents of the claiming > > > side. Are such claims irregularities or not? And if they are > > > irregularities then which side (if > > > any) is offending? > > > > > > I still have a strong opinion that once a claim is disputed, or even > > > just questioned, we have an irregularity with the claiming side as the > > > offending side. > > > > Example: the claiming side makes a perfectly fine claim. > > The non-claiming side says "please play out the hand, we paid the session > > entry fee to play cards." > > > > In this example, I cannot see any reason to consider the claiming side > > offending. > > [Sven Pran] > Of course not. It is illegal to request a playout when a claim has been > made. (Requesting a playout is not legally disputing a claim) I can easily bring more examples. Declarer has S AKQxx opposite xxx. He cashes the SAK, on the second round, both opponents follow. Declarer now claims. LHO still has the SJx, "director". The director investigates and finds out that LHO started with Jxxx, and RHO started with a spade singleton. RHO revoked by playing a C on the first S. I am confident you do not think that you now have an irregularity with the claiming side as the only offending side. RHO opens 2D, altered as weak two in hearts or a strong two in S, D, or C. Much later, declarer claims on a double squeeze, with H being covered only by RHO. The line stated in the claim statement breaks down because RHO actually holds a strong 4441 hand, a hand type also contained in their multi. Misinformation. Again, I am confident you do not think that you now have an irregularity with the claiming side as the only offending side. The director needs to first gather all the facts, and then decide who is offending. Not the other way round. Thomas From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 15 20:14:04 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:14:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1953727250.89276.1331835669759.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <002001cd02d3$64bff870$2e3fe950$@online.no> <003e01cd027e$6f5fda20$4e1f8e60$@online.no> <719A1810-B13C-4F46-B334-9A66A80E231E@mac.com> <002401cd0276$4dc03110$e9409330$@online.no> <1109210613.46036.1331813763696.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <1953727250.89276.1331835669759.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <002401cd02df$c9e45780$5dad0680$@online.no> Just keep on going. You are doing fine twisting. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Thomas Dehn > Sendt: 15. mars 2012 19:21 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: Re: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Thomas Dehn > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > The essential question is how to handle _disputed_ (or questioned) > claims. > > > > There are four options: > > > > > > > > - Both sides are non-offending. > > > > - Both sides are offending. > > > > - The claiming side is offending and the disputing side is non-offending. > > > > - The claiming side is non-offending and the disputing side is offending. > > > > > > > > I fully agree that a problem-free claim is part of normal > > > > procedure, but we are (as far as I have noticed) discussing the > > > > handling of claims that are not free from problems? The problem is > > > > then usually that the situation is not obvious to the opponents of > > > > the claiming side. Are such claims irregularities or not? And if > > > > they are irregularities then which side (if > > > > any) is offending? > > > > > > > > I still have a strong opinion that once a claim is disputed, or > > > > even just questioned, we have an irregularity with the claiming > > > > side as the offending side. > > > > > > Example: the claiming side makes a perfectly fine claim. > > > The non-claiming side says "please play out the hand, we paid the > > > session entry fee to play cards." > > > > > > In this example, I cannot see any reason to consider the claiming > > > side offending. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Of course not. It is illegal to request a playout when a claim has > > been made. (Requesting a playout is not legally disputing a claim) > > I can easily bring more examples. > > Declarer has S AKQxx opposite xxx. > He cashes the SAK, on the second round, both opponents follow. Declarer > now claims. > LHO still has the SJx, "director". > The director investigates and finds out > that LHO started with Jxxx, and RHO started with a spade singleton. RHO > revoked by playing a C on the first S. > > I am confident you do not think that you now have an irregularity with the > claiming side as the only offending side. > > RHO opens 2D, altered as weak two in hearts or a strong two in S, D, or C. > Much later, declarer claims on a double squeeze, with H being covered only > by RHO. > The line stated in the claim statement breaks down because RHO actually > holds a strong 4441 hand, a hand type also contained in their multi. > Misinformation. > > Again, I am confident you do not think that you now have an irregularity with > the claiming side as the only offending side. > > The director needs to first gather all the facts, and then decide who is > offending. Not the other way round. > > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 16 00:04:55 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:04:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003e01cd027e$6f5fda20$4e1f8e60$@online.no> Message-ID: Law 84D, first sentence: The Director rules any +++doubtful point+++ in favour of the non-offending side. Law 70A, analogous clause: ...any +++doubtful point+++ as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer... Ed Reppert: >>So claiming is an offense. Interesting >>approach, that. :-) Sven Pran: >The essential question is how to handle >_disputed_ (or questioned) claims. There >are four options: > >- Both sides are non-offending. >- Both sides are offending. >- The claiming side is offending and the >disputing side is non-offending. >- The claiming side is non-offending and >the disputing side is offending. [snip] >I still have a strong opinion that once a >claim is disputed, or even just >questioned, we have an irregularity with >the claiming side as the offending side. Richard Hills: So if one's claim is disputed, one is necessarily vulnerable to a Law 90 procedural penalty??? And one's initial highly legal action suddenly trans- mogrifies into a highly illegal action if and only if an opponent so designates??? Perhaps an analogy will distinguish my metaphysical semantic quibbling with Sven. An insufficient bid is always an infraction. But Law 27A1 says that the IB may be "treated as legal" (but NOT become legal, so the IB is still subject to a potential Law 90 PP) if LHO desires. Contrariwise, a claim is always(1) a non- infraction, but the claim may be "treated as illegal" (but NOT become illegal, so the claim is NOT subject to a potential Law 90 PP) when the Director is ruling on "any doubtful point". What's the problem? Richard Hills (1) if Law 79A2 does not apply -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120315/a9d65597/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 16 00:38:20 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:38:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Procedure penalties? Message-ID: <003101cd0304$b51c84b0$1f558e10$@online.no> So if one's claim is disputed, one is necessarily vulnerable to a Law 90 procedural penalty??? And one's initial highly legal action suddenly trans- mogrifies into a highly illegal action if and only if an opponent so designates??? Perhaps an analogy will distinguish my metaphysical semantic quibbling with Sven. An insufficient bid is always an infraction. But Law 27A1 says that the IB may be "treated as legal" (but NOT become legal, so the IB is still subject to a potential Law 90 PP) if LHO desires. Contrariwise, a claim is always(1) a non- infraction, but the claim may be "treated as illegal" (but NOT become illegal, so the claim is NOT subject to a potential Law 90 PP) when the Director is ruling on "any doubtful point". What's the problem? [Sven Pran] I do indeed wonder about the seemingly consistent view that a major purpose of defining some action an irregularity is the opportunity to impose a Procedure Penalty? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120315/6fba4cfa/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Mar 16 01:09:15 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:09:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Procedure penalties? In-Reply-To: <003101cd0304$b51c84b0$1f558e10$@online.no> References: <003101cd0304$b51c84b0$1f558e10$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I do indeed wonder about the seemingly consistent view that a major purpose of defining some action an irregularity is the opportunity to impose a Procedure Penalty? Then you're missing the point. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120316/2d73aab4/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Mar 16 02:10:59 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:10:59 -0000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13A36039FC6044649D5751375CB2B7E0@G3> [Richard Hills] Contrariwise, a claim is always(1) a non- infraction, but the claim may be "treated as illegal" (but NOT become illegal, so the claim is NOT subject to a potential Law 90 PP) when the Director is ruling on "any doubtful point". [Nigel] This argument grows increasingly surreal. It is hard to believe that a director would *never* impose a penalty on the perpetrator of a disputed faulty claim. I fondly imagine that a brave and competent director might do so, when he judges that the cunning claimer could have well have known that his contract would certainly fail if he played it out and his only hope was that gullible opponents would accept a claim. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Mar 16 03:02:58 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:02:58 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Procedure penalties? In-Reply-To: References: <003101cd0304$b51c84b0$1f558e10$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F629F52.5050000@iinet.net.au> On 16/03/2012 8:09 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> *I do indeed wonder about the seemingly consistent view that a major >> purpose of defining some action an irregularity is the opportunity to >> impose a Procedure Penalty?* > > Then you're missing the point. > To me Law 70 does not imply an offender. It appears to just give a guide to the director to resolve any doubtful points against the claimer in an otherwise equitable ruling. I think it was wise to include this guidance bill > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120316/4d58c9cd/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Fri Mar 16 05:49:12 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 05:49:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <13A36039FC6044649D5751375CB2B7E0@G3> References: <13A36039FC6044649D5751375CB2B7E0@G3> Message-ID: <1072130191.101905.1331873352182.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Richard Hills] > > Contrariwise, a claim is always(1) a non- > infraction, but the claim may be "treated > as illegal" (but NOT become illegal, so > the claim is NOT subject to a potential > Law 90 PP) when the Director is ruling > on "any doubtful point". > > [Nigel] > This argument grows increasingly surreal. > > It is hard to believe that a director would *never* impose a penalty on the > perpetrator of a disputed faulty claim. I fondly imagine that a brave and > competent director might do so, when he judges that the cunning claimer > could have well have known that his contract would certainly fail if he > played it out and his only hope was that gullible opponents would accept a > claim. I've seen that. A couple of tricks into the hand, declarer noticed that he had 12 cards, and dummy 14. Rather than call the director, declarer made a claim, which opponents accepted. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 16 06:44:11 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:44:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Procedure penalties? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F629F52.5050000@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: Bill Kemp: >To me Law 70 does not imply an offender. It >appears to just give a guide to the director to >resolve any doubtful points against the >claimer in an otherwise equitable ruling. > >I think it was wise to include this guidance. Richard Hills: I agree to both of Bill's points ("does not imply" and "wise"). On the other hand, I also believe that Law 79A2 "does imply" an offender, and that the Drafting Committee were again "wise" to include 79A2: "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." A significant number of Law 79A2 infractions are as a result of intentionally erroneous claims. In such cases, because Law 79A2 uses the word "knowingly", it is inappropriate for the local Conduct and Ethics Committee to apply a mere Law 90 Procedural Penalty. Rather the C&EC should apply a Law 91 Disciplinary Penalty. In my opinion, in many such cases an appropriate DP would be expulsion from the Regulating Authority for a year and a day. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, "Fooled by Randomness", page 190: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western businesspeople involved in what became Russia discovered an annoying (or entertaining) fact about the legal system: It had conflicting and contradictory laws. It just depended on which chapter you looked up. I don't know whether the Russians wanted it as a prank (after all, they lived long, humourless years of oppression) but the confusion led to situations where someone had to violate a law to comply with another. [snip] You add a law here and there and the situation is too complicated as there is no central system that is consulted every time to ensure compatibility of all the parts together. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120316/3942f764/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Mar 16 12:21:28 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:21:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences In-Reply-To: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> References: <001e01cd01bd$1edcdc90$5c9695b0$@nl> Message-ID: <017301cd0366$eec3f6a0$cc4be3e0$@nl> As usual it turns out facts are not quite what I heard at first. Indeed, dummy was away, to do an important duty(fetch drinks) The tables were not square, and declarer would have had a problem playing dummies cards. As it turns out declarers LHO played all of dummies cards. Now RHO played before dummy played a card. I am inclined to treat this as if dummy was present(being represented by LHO) and in that case RHO gets his penalty card. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren Sent: woensdag 14 maart 2012 9:33 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] Absent dummy and consequences Yesterday I heard about the following case: A board was played, dummy was away. Declarer called the cards and opponents handled the dummy. Now dummy contained both red fives and was on lead. RHO heard heart five, and played the heart ace from his hand before picking up the heart five from dummy. Now declarer said that he specified the diamond five. Director! Director ruled the diamond five played and the heart ace a major penalty card. This led to the contract, a doubled game, making instead of going one off. I have my thoughts about this, but first want to hear some opinions. Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120316/8b4397f5/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Mar 16 22:21:31 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:21:31 -0000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediatelyfollowing a claim[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1072130191.101905.1331873352182.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <13A36039FC6044649D5751375CB2B7E0@G3> <1072130191.101905.1331873352182.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: [Thomas Dehn] I've seen that. A couple of tricks into the hand, declarer noticed that he had 12 cards, and dummy 14. Rather than call the director, declarer made a claim, which opponents accepted. [Nige1] Another case where a director might consider a penalty is when declarer claims after he has revoked. A faulty claim is an irregularity and sometimes an infraction. From vip at centrum.is Sun Mar 18 19:49:29 2012 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:49:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2023563689.191076.1332096569458.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Hello all. Vigfus Palsson from Iceland here. In Iceland, I have problems about Alert rules. 2 large ones. More that 90% of Players in Iceland use transfers over 1NT and 2NT. Recently, one expert pair , starting new partnership, decided to use new partnership agreement. They decided not to use transfers of 2D for Hearts, or 2H for Spades. And they started playing. And they sure did not alert their 2Diamonds or 2Hearts. To play 5+ over 1NT. The problem was that everyone thought they were using transfers. Sure they did not obey any Alert rules, but made confusion. (And opp's sometimes got bad score because of it.) Can we do something to make things more clear in those situations ? The second problem is that it is not supposed to alert on any doubles ( including redoubles ) I think this rule was made about 40 years ago because of the "sputnik" double which was getting common, and common to be forgot. Today in Iceland, the double has often turned out to have a special meaning in some situations. And many players have come to me and asked me what to do, because they want to inform the opp's about the special meaning, but can not, because of the rules. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Mar 18 22:36:03 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 17:36:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 claiming: following the stated line of play until.... Message-ID: ADD TO THE CLAIMING LAWS The stated line of play is followed until: 1. It cannot be followed -- a trick is unexpectedly won by the opponents or in the wrong hand. 2. The opponents would play an unexpected card obviously derailing the claimer's plan and making that plan irrational. 3. It specifies an infraction (a revoke or lead from the wrong hand). 4. The correction of an unestablished revoke after the claim suggests a change in the play. DISPUTE The only disputable issue I know of is this. Suppose declarer claims with Ax opposite KQJ9x, saying he will play ace of hearts, a heart to the king, and run the suit. On the play of the ace, RHO shows out (or would show out). Is declarer allowed to take the marked finesse? I don't think people should be claiming if there remaining play depends on how suits break; I don't think I as director should be watching to notice bad breaks or whatever. So to me, the finesse should not be allowed. Some directors would allow the finesse. They would site L70E. However, it is very reasonable to consider Laws 70C-E to be about what happens when the stated claim cannot be followed -- no one would ever let L70C override a stated claim. So, as written, it seems reasonable that 70E would apply to the stated claim, until you realize that 70C cannot apply. So it should be made clear that L70C-E do not apply to the stated claim. Or if L70E does and L70C does not, the organization of the law should be different. There is a point here that the procedures governing an ambiguous claim might not be the same as the procedures governing a claim that has gone off the tracks. OTHER COMMENTS #3: "Unless it specifies an infraction (a revoke or lead from the wrong hand". This follows the WBFLC minute. However, supposed declarer's claim is to incorrectly lead a card from dummy, ruff in hand, then draw trump, and the defense would get a trick from this line of play but will not if the lead is corrected to declarer's hand. This is not a popular ruling. It seems more equitable to allow the defense to accept a lead from the wrong hand. #4. "Unless the correction of an unestablished revoke after the claim suggests a change in the play." This attempts to state the underlying goal of a WBFLC minute. I believe the WBFLC intent was to allow declarer to change his stated line of play to reflect new information from the correction of the revoke, but not to allow other changes unrelated to the correction of the revoke. #2. Declarer claims, forgetting that there is a trump out. We would not allow him to draw that trump, but I think we would allow him to overruff a defender when that trump unexpectedly appears. L70C: Suppose I claim, holding just the ace of trumps and an outside ace. I state that trump are out, but I also state I will play my ace of trumps first. In fact, there is a trump out, and if I play my outside ace first, it will be ruffed. All the conditions of L70C apply, but no director would actually apply L70C to the stated claim. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Mar 18 22:38:05 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 17:38:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? In-Reply-To: <2023563689.191076.1332096569458.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> References: <2023563689.191076.1332096569458.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: <57C992D0-D74E-43B7-B87D-0BBECC16FE8A@mac.com> On Mar 18, 2012, at 2:49 PM, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > Hello all. Vigfus Palsson from Iceland here. > > In Iceland, I have problems about Alert rules. 2 large ones. > > More that 90% of Players in Iceland use transfers over 1NT and 2NT. Recently, one expert pair , starting new partnership, decided to use new partnership agreement. > They decided not to use transfers of 2D for Hearts, or 2H for Spades. And they started playing. > And they sure did not alert their 2Diamonds or 2Hearts. To play 5+ over 1NT. > The problem was that everyone thought they were using transfers. Sure they did not obey any Alert rules, but made confusion. (And opp's sometimes got bad score because of it.) > > Can we do something to make things more clear in those situations ? > > The second problem is that it is not supposed to alert on any doubles ( including redoubles ) > I think this rule was made about 40 years ago because of the "sputnik" double which was getting common, and common to be forgot. > Today in Iceland, the double has often turned out to have a special meaning in some situations. And many players have come to me > and asked me what to do, because they want to inform the opp's about the special meaning, but can not, because of the rules. You need to take this up with your NBO, as they're the ones responsible for alerting regulations. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Mar 18 22:50:46 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:50:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2023563689.191076.1332096569458.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: Vigfus Palsson: >Hello all. Vigfus Palsson from Iceland here. > >In Iceland, I have problems about Alert >rules. 2 large ones. > >More that 90% of Players in Iceland use >transfers over 1NT and 2NT. Recently, one >expert pair, starting new partnership, >decided to use new partnership >agreement. They decided not to use >transfers of 2D for Hearts, or 2H for Spades. >And they started playing. And they sure did >not alert their 2Diamonds or 2Hearts. To >play 5+ over 1NT. The problem was that >everyone thought they were using transfers. >Sure they did not disobey any Alert rules, >but made confusion. (And opp's sometimes >got bad score because of it.) > >Can we do something to make things more >clear in those situations? > >The second problem is that it is not >supposed to alert on any doubles (including >redoubles). I think this rule was made about >40 years ago because of the "sputnik" >double which was getting common, and >common to be forgot. Today in Iceland, the >double has often turned out to have a >special meaning in some situations. And >many players have come to me and asked >me what to do, because they want to inform >the opp's about the special meaning, but >can not, because of the rules. Ed Reppert: >>You need to take this up with your NBO, as >>they're the ones responsible for alerting >>regulations. Richard Hills: The Icelandic NBO may wish to adopt part or all of the state-of-the-art ABF alert regulation, particularly the ABF concepts of pre-alerts and self-alerts. See: http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120318/149a3945/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Mar 18 23:27:57 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:27:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 81C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July 2011, items 1, 2 and 3: 1. The Commission discussed the Louisville minutes. The Commission members discussed Item 7 from the Louisville minutes. The Louisville minutes were modified to reflect that the Commission discussed whether the Director should correct the revoke before it becomes established. Robb Gordon moved and Georgia Heth seconded the approval of the minutes from the Louisville meeting. The minutes were unanimously adopted as amended. 2. The Commission discussed the definition of ?Rectify? under Law 81C.3. Matt Smith discussed the Director?s obligation when at the table to adjudicate a penalty card. Should the Director stop a player from revoking? Gary Blaiss made a distinction between situations where the Director is at the table officially versus a situation in which the Director is just observing the table. Gary Blaiss indicated that a Director at the table formally should address any irregularity within his view. Chip Martel pointed out the Current Laws do not make this distinction. Robb Gordon argued that if a player revokes in front of the director that the non-offenders should have the right to get the revoke penalty if the revoke becomes established. Allan Falk argued that the Tournament Organizer should tell the Director how to resolve this question under Law 81a. 3. The Commission members discussed that the WBF has answered this question by determining that ?Rectify? means to restore equity in the context of a revoke. Chip Martel pointed out that restoring equity is the current practice. Allan Falk pointed out that the definition of ?Rectify? under the Laws indicates that ?Rectify? means to impose the remedial provisions of the Law. A motion was made to adopt the WBF version of ?Rectify? but no second was made. The issue was tabled for future discussion. Hypothetical 2017 Law 81C3: to rectify an error or irregularity of which the Director becomes aware (but not necessarily as soon as the Director becomes aware*) in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. * For example, the Director may become aware of an established revoke during the play of a deal, but the non- offending side may be blissfully unaware of the established revoke. In that case the Director should delay drawing attention to the established revoke until only Law 64C (Director Responsible for Equity) is applicable. An earlier intervention by the Director during the play could well unfairly** disadvantage the offending side, due to them being unfairly** outnumbered in the play by three to two. ** ?Fairness? is an adequate remedy (not a more-than-adequate windfall remedy) which is not a punishment, in accordance with the Introduction's first two sentences, ?The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120318/fb93554c/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Mar 19 00:03:34 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 23:03:34 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? In-Reply-To: <57C992D0-D74E-43B7-B87D-0BBECC16FE8A@mac.com> References: <2023563689.191076.1332096569458.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <57C992D0-D74E-43B7-B87D-0BBECC16FE8A@mac.com> Message-ID: Vigf?s P?lsson draws our attention to some of wide variety of problems currently created by the vast morass of alert regulations. I brought my harp to the party... Several times, in this discussion group, I've suggested (what I think is) a childishly simple solution that would improve disclosure, reduce unauthorised information, speed the game up, and employ just one set of disclosure laws that all jurisdiction can use. -----Original Message----- From: Ed Reppert Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 9:38 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? On Mar 18, 2012, at 2:49 PM, wrote: > Hello all. Vigfus Palsson from Iceland here. > > In Iceland, I have problems about Alert rules. 2 large ones. > > More that 90% of Players in Iceland use transfers over 1NT and 2NT. > Recently, one expert pair , starting new partnership, decided to use new > partnership agreement. > They decided not to use transfers of 2D for Hearts, or 2H for Spades. > And they started playing. > And they sure did not alert their 2Diamonds or 2Hearts. To play 5+ over > 1NT. > The problem was that everyone thought they were using transfers. Sure > they did not obey any Alert rules, but made confusion. (And opp's > sometimes got bad score because of it.) > > Can we do something to make things more clear in those situations ? > > The second problem is that it is not supposed to alert on any doubles ( > including redoubles ) > I think this rule was made about 40 years ago because of the "sputnik" > double which was getting common, and common to be forgot. > Today in Iceland, the double has often turned out to have a special > meaning in some situations. And many players have come to me > and asked me what to do, because they want to inform the opp's about the > special meaning, but can not, because of the rules. You need to take this up with your NBO, as they're the ones responsible for alerting regulations. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 19 01:03:45 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:03:45 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert, Iolanthe (1882): When in that House M.P.?s divide, If they?ve a brain and cerebellum, too, They?ve got to leave that brain outside, And vote just as their leaders tell ?em to. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Several times, in this discussion group, >I've suggested (what I think is) W.S. Gilbert, Iolanthe (1882): But then the prospect of a lot Of dull M. P.?s in close proximity, All thinking for themselves, is what No man can face with equanimity. Nigel Guthrie: >a childishly simple solution that would >improve disclosure, reduce unauthorised >information, speed the game up, and >employ just one set of disclosure laws >that all jurisdiction can use. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 2008: Mr Gignoux would have liked screen regulations to have been incorporated into the laws, and it is known some would like to see the alert procedure there also. The Chairman felt it would be a long time before these moves came about. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120319/9114db53/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 19 04:56:42 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:56:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Heart's content [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: 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. Alain Gottcheiner, 29 October 2009: AG : I do agree that long thought with a singleton, in advance of a possible future problem, is grossly improper, but it doesn't seem to be covered by the above excerpt, which considers only the case when the intent is to deceive. Perhaps L72B1 [2007 Law 23] ("could have known"), applied to L74 (which considers variations of tempo in a more general setting), is better suited. Grattan Endicott, 30 October 2009: +=+ When I was oh so young there used to be a courtesy of remarking "I am thinking about the hand generally, not this trick". Have we recklessly used language in the laws that precludes courtesies, have times changed the custom, or is it the rude self- interest of the present breed of player that leaves the subject open to discussion? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ William (Kojak) Schoder, 30 October 2009: Here I go again. I don't see where there is room for "discussion". You have a singleton in a closed hand which you must play to this trick. So you stop to think about the rest of the hand? Why not play the singleton in tempo AND THEN THINK TO YOUR HEART'S CONTENT? Or is that asking too much? Is there any other action that AS CLEARLY gives no chance for creating a false premise? "I'm not thinking about this trick but about the rest of the hand", -- or something like that -- is a poor excuse for not playing in tempo. I don't see that as a courtesy -- if anything it leads to confusion. 73D is fine, but let's not forget 73F. Just for fun give me the "...demonstrable bridge reason..." for breaking tempo in this circumstance. And while you are at it explain "....could have known...." not applying along the way. Kojak Richard Hills, 19 March 2012: "I'm not thinking about this trick but about the rest of the hand" is not only an improper statement by a defender, infracting Laws 73A1 and 73B1 by creating unnecessary Unauthorized Information for partner, but also sometimes infracting Law 73E with unnecessary Deceptive Information for declarer, as sometimes the defender is indeed "thinking about this trick". On a different heart's content topic, I will be away from blml until 2nd April, having minor heart surgery in Sydney. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120319/daf3a6ed/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 08:19:56 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:19:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Heart's content [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Den 04:56 19. mars 2012 skrev f?lgende: > 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. > > Alain Gottcheiner, 29 October 2009: > > AG : I do agree that long thought with a > singleton, in advance of a possible future > problem, is grossly improper, but it doesn't > seem to be covered by the above excerpt, > which considers only the case when the > intent is to deceive. Perhaps L72B1 [2007 > Law 23] ("could have known"), applied to > L74 (which considers variations of tempo in > a more general setting), is better suited. > > Grattan Endicott, 30 October 2009: > > +=+ When I was oh so young there used to > be a courtesy of remarking "I am thinking > about the hand generally, not this trick". > Have we recklessly used language in the > laws that precludes courtesies, have times > changed the custom, or is it the rude self- > interest of the present breed of player that > leaves the subject open to discussion? > ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > > William (Kojak) Schoder, 30 October 2009: > > Here I go again. > > I don't see where there is room for > "discussion". You have a singleton in a > closed hand which you must play to this > trick. So you stop to think about the rest > of the hand? Why not play the singleton > in tempo AND THEN THINK TO YOUR > HEART'S CONTENT? Or is that asking > too much? Is there any other action that > AS CLEARLY gives no chance for > creating a false premise? "I'm not thinking > about this trick but about the rest of the > hand", -- or something like that -- is a > poor excuse for not playing in tempo. ?I > don't see that as a courtesy -- ?if anything > it leads to confusion. 73D is fine, but let's > not forget 73F. > > Just for fun give me the "...demonstrable > bridge reason..." for breaking tempo in > this circumstance. And while you are at it > explain "....could have known...." not > applying along the way. > > Kojak > > Richard Hills, 19 March 2012: > > "I'm not thinking about this trick but > about the rest of the hand" is not only > an improper statement by a defender, > infracting Laws 73A1 and 73B1 by > creating unnecessary Unauthorized > Information for partner, but also > sometimes infracting Law 73E with > unnecessary Deceptive Information for > declarer, as sometimes the defender is > indeed "thinking about this trick". > > On a different heart's content topic, I > will be away from blml until 2nd April, > having minor heart surgery in Sydney. Good luck! > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 09:03:15 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:03:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> On 18/03/2012 22:50, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Vigfus Palsson: >> More that 90% of Players in Iceland use transfers over 1NT and 2NT. >> Recently, one expert pair, starting new partnership, decided to use new >> partnership agreement. They decided not to use transfers of 2D for Hearts, >> or 2H for Spades. And they started playing. And they sure did not alert >> their 2Diamonds or 2Hearts. To play 5+ over 1NT. The problem was that >> everyone thought they were using transfers. Sure they did not disobey any >> Alert rules, but made confusion. (And opp's sometimes got bad score because >> of it.) This looks as if the opponents themselves created the problem: 1N-2H, not alerted and the opponent assuming that one forgot to alert rather than assuming that the bid was natural. Once you go down this road, the whole system falls apart. I think the basic assumption should be: if the bid is not alerted, then assume that it is not alertable. If the opponent forgot to alert, one is protected anyway. >> The second problem is that it is not supposed to alert on any doubles >> (including redoubles). I think this rule was made about 40 years ago >> because of the "sputnik" double which was getting common, and common to be >> forgot. Today in Iceland, the double has often turned out to have a special >> meaning in some situations. And many players have come to me and asked me >> what to do, because they want to inform the opp's about the special >> meaning, but can not, because of the rules. Doesn't this automatically follow from the rules? If a double is not alertable, then the opponents will have to protect themselves by asking rather than assuming that the opponents play the same system. They know that, so where is the problem? BTW. We used to have a rule that no double was alertable here. It is now amended to "no double is alertable unless you can seriously expect that your opponents at the time won't understand its meaning". That works pretty well in practice. > Richard Hills: > > The Icelandic NBO may wish to adopt part or all of the state-of-the-art ABF > alert regulation, particularly the ABF concepts of pre-alerts and > self-alerts. See: > > http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html 11 pages! While I'm sure that this is fine, I noticed that players tend not read and remember anything longer than 1 page. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From vip at centrum.is Mon Mar 19 10:00:51 2012 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:00:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> Message-ID: <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Hello all Thank you all for your input to this discussion. Henk's input from Netherlands, "no double is alertable unless you can seriously expect that your opponents at the time won't understand its meaning". Is great. I will put it into the discussion group in Iceland. In Iceleand we want to have clear Alert rules, the same ones as they are on international level, so when playing in international torunaments, we want to play by international rules about Alerts. There are more situations who troubles us in Iceland. Opening 1NT Well it has almost come to standard to use 15-17 1NT opening, but it has become more and more popular to use all kind of 1NT opening bids. 10-12, 13-15, 15-17, depending on various kind of vulnerability Playin in long team events 16+ this does usually not create problems, but in Pairs, it does. This has been discussed a lot here in Iceland, and we are thinking of "Self-Alert". When opening 1NT, the opener himself alerts upload, 10-12, 13-15, 15-17 or something else... Also we have been talking about transfers over 1NT. The person who transfers, makes himself "Self-Alert" Vigfus ----- Original Message ----- Fr?: "Henk Uijterwaal" Til: blml at rtflb.org Sent: M?nudagur, 19. Mars, 2012 08:03:15 Efni: Re: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On 18/03/2012 22:50, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Vigfus Palsson: >> More that 90% of Players in Iceland use transfers over 1NT and 2NT. >> Recently, one expert pair, starting new partnership, decided to use new >> partnership agreement. They decided not to use transfers of 2D for Hearts, >> or 2H for Spades. And they started playing. And they sure did not alert >> their 2Diamonds or 2Hearts. To play 5+ over 1NT. The problem was that >> everyone thought they were using transfers. Sure they did not disobey any >> Alert rules, but made confusion. (And opp's sometimes got bad score because >> of it.) This looks as if the opponents themselves created the problem: 1N-2H, not alerted and the opponent assuming that one forgot to alert rather than assuming that the bid was natural. Once you go down this road, the whole system falls apart. I think the basic assumption should be: if the bid is not alerted, then assume that it is not alertable. If the opponent forgot to alert, one is protected anyway. >> The second problem is that it is not supposed to alert on any doubles >> (including redoubles). I think this rule was made about 40 years ago >> because of the "sputnik" double which was getting common, and common to be >> forgot. Today in Iceland, the double has often turned out to have a special >> meaning in some situations. And many players have come to me and asked me >> what to do, because they want to inform the opp's about the special >> meaning, but can not, because of the rules. Doesn't this automatically follow from the rules? If a double is not alertable, then the opponents will have to protect themselves by asking rather than assuming that the opponents play the same system. They know that, so where is the problem? BTW. We used to have a rule that no double was alertable here. It is now amended to "no double is alertable unless you can seriously expect that your opponents at the time won't understand its meaning". That works pretty well in practice. > Richard Hills: > > The Icelandic NBO may wish to adopt part or all of the state-of-the-art ABF > alert regulation, particularly the ABF concepts of pre-alerts and > self-alerts. See: > > http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html 11 pages! While I'm sure that this is fine, I noticed that players tend not read and remember anything longer than 1 page. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 19 10:32:31 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:32:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> Rather that "self alert" we introduced in Norway an "announcements" regulation effective from July 1st 2011: Opening bids in the range 1NT - 2Sp are never to be alerted, but the opener's partner shall immediately (without being asked) "announce" the meaning of that bid. The announcement shall include all important features of the bid. With for instance ("natural") 1NT opening bids this includes the HCP range and possible special distributional features like "may contain a singleton" or "may contain a 5-card major" etc. I don't think it would have been a wise regulation to have the opener himself describe his own bid. Regards Sven > Vigf?s P?lsson > Sendt: 19. mars 2012 10:01 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Hello all > Thank you all for your input to this discussion. > > Henk's input from Netherlands, > "no double is alertable unless you can seriously expect that your opponents > at the time won't understand its meaning". > > Is great. I will put it into the discussion group in Iceland. > > In Iceleand we want to have clear Alert rules, the same ones as they are on > international level, so when playing in international torunaments, we want to > play by international rules about Alerts. > > There are more situations who troubles us in Iceland. Opening 1NT Well it > has almost come to standard to use 15-17 1NT opening, but it has become > more and more popular to use all kind of 1NT opening bids. 10-12, 13-15, 15- > 17, depending on various kind of vulnerability Playin in long team events 16+ > this does usually not create problems, but in Pairs, it does. > > This has been discussed a lot here in Iceland, and we are thinking of "Self- > Alert". When opening 1NT, the opener > himself alerts upload, 10-12, 13-15, 15-17 or something else... > Also we have been talking about transfers over 1NT. The person who > transfers, makes himself "Self-Alert" > > Vigfus > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > Fr?: "Henk Uijterwaal" > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Sent: M?nudagur, 19. Mars, 2012 08:03:15 > Efni: Re: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On 18/03/2012 22:50, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Vigfus Palsson: > > >> More that 90% of Players in Iceland use transfers over 1NT and 2NT. > >> Recently, one expert pair, starting new partnership, decided to use > >> new partnership agreement. They decided not to use transfers of 2D > >> for Hearts, or 2H for Spades. And they started playing. And they sure > >> did not alert their 2Diamonds or 2Hearts. To play 5+ over 1NT. The > >> problem was that everyone thought they were using transfers. Sure > >> they did not disobey any Alert rules, but made confusion. (And opp's > >> sometimes got bad score because of it.) > > This looks as if the opponents themselves created the problem: 1N-2H, not > alerted and the opponent assuming that one forgot to alert rather than > assuming that the bid was natural. Once you go down this road, the whole > system falls apart. > > I think the basic assumption should be: if the bid is not alerted, then assume > that it is not alertable. If the opponent forgot to alert, one is protected > anyway. > > >> The second problem is that it is not supposed to alert on any doubles > >> (including redoubles). I think this rule was made about 40 years ago > >> because of the "sputnik" double which was getting common, and > common > >> to be forgot. Today in Iceland, the double has often turned out to > >> have a special meaning in some situations. And many players have come > >> to me and asked me what to do, because they want to inform the opp's > >> about the special meaning, but can not, because of the rules. > > Doesn't this automatically follow from the rules? If a double is not alertable, > then the opponents will have to protect themselves by asking rather than > assuming that the opponents play the same system. They know that, so > where is the problem? > > BTW. We used to have a rule that no double was alertable here. It is now > amended to "no double is alertable unless you can seriously expect that your > opponents at the time won't understand its meaning". That works pretty > well in practice. > > > Richard Hills: > > > > The Icelandic NBO may wish to adopt part or all of the > > state-of-the-art ABF alert regulation, particularly the ABF concepts > > of pre-alerts and self-alerts. See: > > > > http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html > > 11 pages! While I'm sure that this is fine, I noticed that players tend not read > and remember anything longer than 1 page. > > Henk > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl > http://www.uijterwaal.nl > Phone: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. > (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Mar 19 13:20:12 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:20:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> I don't like this. In some of the clubs I know there are pairs who vary the strength of their 1NT openings and one player occasionally forgets. He opens 1NT with 10-12 but the partner thinks it is 13-15 or stronger. (Depends on vulnerability or position, such as third hand). This usually leads to a (deserved) bad score for them. With the announcement they have insurance against this, there can be no misunderstanding. Ciao, JE Am 19.03.2012 10:32, schrieb Sven Pran: > Rather that "self alert" we introduced in Norway an "announcements" regulation effective from July 1st 2011: > > Opening bids in the range 1NT - 2Sp are never to be alerted, but the opener's partner shall immediately (without being asked) "announce" the meaning of that bid. The announcement shall include all important features of the bid. > > With for instance ("natural") 1NT opening bids this includes the HCP range and possible special distributional features like "may contain a singleton" or "may contain a 5-card major" etc. > > I don't think it would have been a wise regulation to have the opener himself describe his own bid. > Regards Sven > >> Vigf?s P?lsson >> Sendt: 19. mars 2012 10:01 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Hello all >> Thank you all for your input to this discussion. >> >> Henk's input from Netherlands, >> "no double is alertable unless you can seriously expect that your opponents >> at the time won't understand its meaning". >> >> Is great. I will put it into the discussion group in Iceland. >> >> In Iceleand we want to have clear Alert rules, the same ones as they are on >> international level, so when playing in international torunaments, we want to >> play by international rules about Alerts. >> >> There are more situations who troubles us in Iceland. Opening 1NT Well it >> has almost come to standard to use 15-17 1NT opening, but it has become >> more and more popular to use all kind of 1NT opening bids. 10-12, 13-15, 15- >> 17, depending on various kind of vulnerability Playin in long team events 16+ >> this does usually not create problems, but in Pairs, it does. >> >> This has been discussed a lot here in Iceland, and we are thinking of "Self- >> Alert". When opening 1NT, the opener >> himself alerts upload, 10-12, 13-15, 15-17 or something else... >> Also we have been talking about transfers over 1NT. The person who >> transfers, makes himself "Self-Alert" >> >> Vigfus >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> Fr?: "Henk Uijterwaal" >> Til: blml at rtflb.org >> Sent: M?nudagur, 19. Mars, 2012 08:03:15 >> Efni: Re: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> On 18/03/2012 22:50, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> Vigfus Palsson: >>>> More that 90% of Players in Iceland use transfers over 1NT and 2NT. >>>> Recently, one expert pair, starting new partnership, decided to use >>>> new partnership agreement. They decided not to use transfers of 2D >>>> for Hearts, or 2H for Spades. And they started playing. And they sure >>>> did not alert their 2Diamonds or 2Hearts. To play 5+ over 1NT. The >>>> problem was that everyone thought they were using transfers. Sure >>>> they did not disobey any Alert rules, but made confusion. (And opp's >>>> sometimes got bad score because of it.) >> This looks as if the opponents themselves created the problem: 1N-2H, not >> alerted and the opponent assuming that one forgot to alert rather than >> assuming that the bid was natural. Once you go down this road, the whole >> system falls apart. >> >> I think the basic assumption should be: if the bid is not alerted, then assume >> that it is not alertable. If the opponent forgot to alert, one is protected >> anyway. >> >>>> The second problem is that it is not supposed to alert on any doubles >>>> (including redoubles). I think this rule was made about 40 years ago >>>> because of the "sputnik" double which was getting common, and >> common >>>> to be forgot. Today in Iceland, the double has often turned out to >>>> have a special meaning in some situations. And many players have come >>>> to me and asked me what to do, because they want to inform the opp's >>>> about the special meaning, but can not, because of the rules. >> Doesn't this automatically follow from the rules? If a double is not alertable, >> then the opponents will have to protect themselves by asking rather than >> assuming that the opponents play the same system. They know that, so >> where is the problem? >> >> BTW. We used to have a rule that no double was alertable here. It is now >> amended to "no double is alertable unless you can seriously expect that your >> opponents at the time won't understand its meaning". That works pretty >> well in practice. >> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> The Icelandic NBO may wish to adopt part or all of the >>> state-of-the-art ABF alert regulation, particularly the ABF concepts >>> of pre-alerts and self-alerts. See: >>> >>> http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html >> 11 pages! While I'm sure that this is fine, I noticed that players tend not read >> and remember anything longer than 1 page. >> >> Henk >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl >> http://www.uijterwaal.nl >> Phone: +31.6.55861746 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. >> (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 19 13:58:42 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:58:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> Message-ID: <000401cd05d0$039eaf00$0adc0d00$@online.no> With an announcement the opener has (in case) UI that either he or his partner has forgot the agreement. Using this UI is a violation of Law 16B, should not be difficult to discover and should be handled as such. Self alert "allows" the opener to vary his opening bid according to his own preferences in the particular case, and implicitly to inform his partner of the actual understanding of his bid. Although clearly illegal this is much more difficult to discover. So what do you prefer: Announcement, self alert or no information (other than alert or no alert) at all to opponents unless they ask? Regards Sven > Jeff Easterson > I don't like this. In some of the clubs I know there are pairs who vary the > strength of their 1NT openings and one player occasionally forgets. > He opens 1NT with 10-12 but the partner thinks it is 13-15 or stronger. > (Depends on vulnerability or position, such as third hand). This usually leads > to a (deserved) bad score for them. With the announcement they have > insurance against this, there can be no misunderstanding. > > Ciao, JE > > Am 19.03.2012 10:32, schrieb Sven Pran: > > Rather that "self alert" we introduced in Norway an "announcements" > regulation effective from July 1st 2011: > > > > Opening bids in the range 1NT - 2Sp are never to be alerted, but the > opener's partner shall immediately (without being asked) "announce" the > meaning of that bid. The announcement shall include all important features > of the bid. > > > > With for instance ("natural") 1NT opening bids this includes the HCP range > and possible special distributional features like "may contain a singleton" or > "may contain a 5-card major" etc. > > > > I don't think it would have been a wise regulation to have the opener > himself describe his own bid. > > Regards Sven > > > >> Vigf?s P?lsson > >> Sendt: 19. mars 2012 10:01 > >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> > >> Hello all > >> Thank you all for your input to this discussion. > >> > >> Henk's input from Netherlands, > >> "no double is alertable unless you can seriously expect that your > >> opponents at the time won't understand its meaning". > >> > >> Is great. I will put it into the discussion group in Iceland. > >> > >> In Iceleand we want to have clear Alert rules, the same ones as they > >> are on international level, so when playing in international > >> torunaments, we want to play by international rules about Alerts. > >> > >> There are more situations who troubles us in Iceland. Opening 1NT > >> Well it has almost come to standard to use 15-17 1NT opening, but it > >> has become more and more popular to use all kind of 1NT opening bids. > >> 10-12, 13-15, 15- 17, depending on various kind of vulnerability > >> Playin in long team events 16+ this does usually not create problems, but > in Pairs, it does. > >> > >> This has been discussed a lot here in Iceland, and we are thinking of > >> "Self- Alert". When opening 1NT, the opener > >> himself alerts upload, 10-12, 13-15, 15-17 or something else... > >> Also we have been talking about transfers over 1NT. The person who > >> transfers, makes himself "Self-Alert" > >> > >> Vigfus > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> Fr?: "Henk Uijterwaal" > >> Til: blml at rtflb.org > >> Sent: M?nudagur, 19. Mars, 2012 08:03:15 > >> Efni: Re: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> > >> On 18/03/2012 22:50, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>> Vigfus Palsson: > >>>> More that 90% of Players in Iceland use transfers over 1NT and 2NT. > >>>> Recently, one expert pair, starting new partnership, decided to use > >>>> new partnership agreement. They decided not to use transfers of 2D > >>>> for Hearts, or 2H for Spades. And they started playing. And they > >>>> sure did not alert their 2Diamonds or 2Hearts. To play 5+ over 1NT. > >>>> The problem was that everyone thought they were using transfers. > >>>> Sure they did not disobey any Alert rules, but made confusion. (And > >>>> opp's sometimes got bad score because of it.) > >> This looks as if the opponents themselves created the problem: 1N-2H, > >> not alerted and the opponent assuming that one forgot to alert rather > >> than assuming that the bid was natural. Once you go down this road, > >> the whole system falls apart. > >> > >> I think the basic assumption should be: if the bid is not alerted, > >> then assume that it is not alertable. If the opponent forgot to > >> alert, one is protected anyway. > >> > >>>> The second problem is that it is not supposed to alert on any > >>>> doubles (including redoubles). I think this rule was made about 40 > >>>> years ago because of the "sputnik" double which was getting common, > >>>> and > >> common > >>>> to be forgot. Today in Iceland, the double has often turned out to > >>>> have a special meaning in some situations. And many players have > >>>> come to me and asked me what to do, because they want to inform > the > >>>> opp's about the special meaning, but can not, because of the rules. > >> Doesn't this automatically follow from the rules? If a double is not > >> alertable, then the opponents will have to protect themselves by > >> asking rather than assuming that the opponents play the same system. > >> They know that, so where is the problem? > >> > >> BTW. We used to have a rule that no double was alertable here. It is > >> now amended to "no double is alertable unless you can seriously expect > that your > >> opponents at the time won't understand its meaning". That works pretty > >> well in practice. > >> > >>> Richard Hills: > >>> > >>> The Icelandic NBO may wish to adopt part or all of the > >>> state-of-the-art ABF alert regulation, particularly the ABF concepts > >>> of pre-alerts and self-alerts. See: > >>> > >>> http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html > >> 11 pages! While I'm sure that this is fine, I noticed that players > >> tend not read and remember anything longer than 1 page. > >> > >> Henk > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl > >> http://www.uijterwaal.nl > >> Phone: +31.6.55861746 > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> --------- > >> > >> There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. > >> (John Glanfield, on an engineering > >> project) _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 19 15:39:53 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:39:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? In-Reply-To: <2023563689.191076.1332096569458.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> References: <2023563689.191076.1332096569458.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: <4F674539.80106@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/03/2012 19:49, Vigf?s P?lsson a ?crit : > Hello all. Vigfus Palsson from Iceland here. > > In Iceland, I have problems about Alert rules. 2 large ones. > > More that 90% of Players in Iceland use transfers over 1NT and 2NT. Recently, one expert pair , starting new partnership, decided to use new partnership agreement. > They decided not to use transfers of 2D for Hearts, or 2H for Spades. And they started playing. > And they sure did not alert their 2Diamonds or 2Hearts. To play 5+ over 1NT. > The problem was that everyone thought they were using transfers. Sure they did not obey any Alert rules, but made confusion. (And opp's sometimes got bad score because of it.) > > Can we do something to make things more clear in those situations ? Yes. As one of those meanings (transfer or natural) is standardized and not alertable ; the other one is alerrtable, even if it's the natural one (this is the case in France). If transfers are still alertable, then the non-alert is understandable. > > The second problem is that it is not supposed to alert on any doubles ( including redoubles ) > I think this rule was made about 40 years ago because of the "sputnik" double which was getting common, and common to be forgot. > Today in Iceland, the double has often turned out to have a special meaning in some situations. And many players have come to me > and asked me what to do, because they want to inform the opp's about the special meaning, but can not, because of the rules. We have the same rule in Belgium, and it is silly. The right rle IMHO woud be : do not alert any doubles with general meaning (takeout, sputnik, values, optional ...) ; do alert any special doubles (with meaning related to a suit / suits beyond takeout context) ; ex : 1C - 1D - X (4+ hearts, T-Walsh) ; 2D (Multi) - Dbl (spades and another suit) etc.. In Belgium, the non-alertability enxtends to redoubles, which means that e.g. 1C - Dbl - Rdbl (5-7 HCP, no 5-card major), as I play it in one partnership will obviously mislead them, especially as a double by opener (1C D RD 1Y D) would then be sputnik. Some have the problem which you mentioned (as I do) ; some devise very special doubles because they know they wouldn't be detected. When it goes this far, something is rotten. Best regards Alain From g3 at nige1.com Mon Mar 19 15:42:32 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:42:32 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Heart's content [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C3CD8997EB045F58F4B7B01294CC388@G3> [Richard Hills, 19 March 2012] "I'm not thinking about this trick but about the rest of the hand" is not only an improper statement by a defender, infracting Laws 73A1 and 73B1 by creating unnecessary Unauthorized Information for partner, but also sometimes infracting Law 73E with unnecessary Deceptive Information for declarer, as sometimes the defender is indeed "thinking about this trick". [Nige1] RAs should take the ?compulsory pause at trick one? option. Better if that were the default option. Better still, no other option. [Richard Hills, 19 March 2012] On a different heart's content topic, I will be away from blml until 2nd April, having minor heart surgery in Sydney. [Nige1] Safe journey. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120319/781d43b5/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 19 15:52:18 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:52:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401cd05d0$039eaf00$0adc0d00$@online.no> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <000401cd05d0$039eaf00$0adc0d00$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F674822.5090409@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/03/2012 13:58, Sven Pran a ?crit : > With an announcement the opener has (in case) UI that either he or his partner has forgot the agreement. Using this UI is a violation of Law 16B, should not be difficult to discover and should be handled as such. > > Self alert "allows" the opener to vary his opening bid according to his own preferences in the particular case, and implicitly to inform his partner of the actual understanding of his bid. Although clearly illegal this is much more difficult to discover. > > So what do you prefer: Announcement, self alert or no information (other than alert or no alert) at all to opponents unless they ask? The current laws don't seem absurd (apart from not being allowed to alert any doubles), but pre-alerts might be needed ; for example, variable NT ranges should be pre-alertable (at leat, one should pre-alert the fact that they are), which would solve much. Also, players should be advised to fill in the "important notes" section and to look at it. To see how the rules about doubles are illogical : 1C 1S 2S pass = OK for spade lead : alertable 1C 1S 2S Dbl = no spade lead : not alertable If one is unexpected , isn't the other one ? Best regards Alain From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Mar 19 17:59:10 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:59:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> Message-ID: <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com> On 19/03/2012 12:20, Jeff Easterson wrote: > I don't like this. In some of the clubs I know there are pairs who vary > the strength of their 1NT openings and one player occasionally forgets. > He opens 1NT with 10-12 but the partner thinks it is 13-15 or stronger. > (Depends on vulnerability or position, such as third hand). This > usually leads to a (deserved) bad score for them. With the announcement > they have insurance against this, there can be no misunderstanding. > > Ciao, JE Not really. In practice we don't see this sort of thing, but if we did the players would be constrained by UI. So a player who opened a 12 point 1NT and heard a 13-15 announcement would be asked why he hadn't accepted an invitation. Gordon Rainsford From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 18:03:46 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:03:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> On 19/03/2012 17:59, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > On 19/03/2012 12:20, Jeff Easterson wrote: >> I don't like this. In some of the clubs I know there are pairs who vary >> the strength of their 1NT openings and one player occasionally forgets. >> He opens 1NT with 10-12 but the partner thinks it is 13-15 or stronger. >> (Depends on vulnerability or position, such as third hand). This >> usually leads to a (deserved) bad score for them. With the announcement >> they have insurance against this, there can be no misunderstanding. >> >> Ciao, JE > > Not really. In practice we don't see this sort of thing, but if we did > the players would be constrained by UI. So a player who opened a 12 > point 1NT and heard a 13-15 announcement would be asked why he hadn't > accepted an invitation. Well, I guess he'd say that he upgraded his 12 count to 13, opened a 13-15 1NT (as expected) then rejected an invitation. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Mar 19 18:22:38 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:22:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com> <4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com> Well, not everyone lies, and even if they do I'd ask them what feature of the hand led them to upgrade. There might be an occasional hand that's a plausible upgrade, but I don't think Jeff's concerns are really justified in practice. Gordon Rainsford On 19/03/2012 17:03, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > On 19/03/2012 17:59, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >> On 19/03/2012 12:20, Jeff Easterson wrote: >>> I don't like this. In some of the clubs I know there are pairs who vary >>> the strength of their 1NT openings and one player occasionally forgets. >>> He opens 1NT with 10-12 but the partner thinks it is 13-15 or stronger. >>> (Depends on vulnerability or position, such as third hand). This >>> usually leads to a (deserved) bad score for them. With the announcement >>> they have insurance against this, there can be no misunderstanding. >>> >>> Ciao, JE >> Not really. In practice we don't see this sort of thing, but if we did >> the players would be constrained by UI. So a player who opened a 12 >> point 1NT and heard a 13-15 announcement would be asked why he hadn't >> accepted an invitation. > Well, I guess he'd say that he upgraded his 12 count to 13, opened a 13-15 > 1NT (as expected) then rejected an invitation. > > Henk > > > From g3 at nige1.com Mon Mar 19 22:31:36 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:31:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com><901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> Message-ID: [Sven Pran] Opening bids in the range 1NT - 2Sp are never to be alerted, but the opener's partner shall immediately (without being asked) "announce" the meaning of that bid. The announcement shall include all important features of the bid. With for instance ("natural") 1NT opening bids this includes the HCP range and possible special distributional features like "may contain a singleton" or "may contain a 5-card major" etc. [Nige1] I agree with what Sven says but go a little further... - For *all* partner's calls (not just 2-openers), you *announce* the meaning (*No alert, no question*). - Each table has a card with a matrix of common explanations (e.g. Natural, Take-out, Penalty, Negative, Lead-directing, Responsive, Competitive, Action, Support, Game-try, Weak, Sign-off, Constructive, Invitational, Transfer, FQ, FG, Transgfer, relay, Asking, Splinter, Fit, Mixed, and so on, and so on). When partner makes a call with a simple explanation, instead of announcing, you point to the appropriate cell. - Opponents can stipulate whether or not you announce calls. If opponents switch off announcing and you still announce, alert, or whatever, then the director treats it as unauthorised information. - If opponents have switched off announcements, at the end of the auction, (i) The declaring side must explain their calls, unprompted (ii) On request, the defending side must also explain their calls. - An opponent may ask "from your partner's calls, what do you know about partner's hand". Then you must collate all the information from partner's calls into a description of likely shape, strength, etc. - Each player in a partnership must present for perusal identical cards in a universal standard format: an enhanced version of the current WBF card. IMO, such a law - Improves disclosure. - Is simpler than current laws and regulations. - Is easier for players to understand and directors to implement. - Reduces unauthorised information (If, like many players I know, you would normally take the "switch-off" option, it would virtually eliminate UI from alerts, alert-failures, questions, and answers). - Saves time (waiting for alerts, questions, and so on). - Could replace all local regulations on disclosure. - Produces a more level playing-field. it is human nature for RAs to exploit the opportunity given them by current laws, to concoct alert/system-card/other regulations that give local players a significant advantage over foreigners and strangers. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 19 22:38:16 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:38:16 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>The Icelandic NBO may wish to adopt part or >>all of the state-of-the-art ABF alert regulation, >>particularly the ABF concepts of pre-alerts >>and self-alerts. See: http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html Henk Uijterwaal: >11 pages! While I'm sure that this is fine, I >noticed that players tend not read and >remember anything longer than 1 page. Richard Hills: Only nine-and-a-half pages. And the half- page of page ten plus the bottom half of page nine is Henk's desired one-page Summary and Guidelines for players. Bisy Backson, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120319/824e7c4a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 19 23:26:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:26:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662): I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter. Richard Hills: >Only nine-and-a-half pages. And the >half-page of page ten plus the bottom >half of page nine is Henk's desired one- >page Summary and Guidelines for >players. For blml's convenience, the ABF's one- page summary of its alert reg is below. Bisy Backson, Richard Hills 13. Summary and Guidelines for Players This summary constitutes part of the regulations, but is intended only as a brief guide to players. Players should be familiar with the full regulations. 13.1 The Laws and these regulations require full disclosure of your agreements. You should make active efforts to ensure the opponents are aware of your agreements. You do so by pre-alerts (before the auction), alerts during the auction and delayed alerts at the end of the auction. 13.1.1 The pre-alert is the stage where you warn opponents of any very unusual agreements. Pay special attention to self-alerting calls that may surprise the opponents, (e.g. unusual doubles, unusual cue bids of opponents? suit) and to any unusual agreements to which the opponents may need to devise a defence. 13.1.2 Calls are alerted during the auction by audibly saying, ?Alert? and by circling the alertable call on the bidding pad. 13.1.3 At the end of the auction, the declaring side should draw attention to any unusual undisclosed features by placing a plus sign (+) in one corner of the relevant square(s) of the bidding pad. 13.2 Self-alerting calls include all doubles and redoubles, calls at the 4- level or higher [but a conventional _opening_ bid at the 4-level or higher is immediately alerted], cue bids of an opponent?s suit and any 2C response to a 1NT opening bid. These should not be alerted during the auction, but may need to be alerted in the pre-alert or the delayed alert stage. Be aware that such calls by opponents may not mean what you assume, and ask if necessary. 13.3 All conventional calls (other than self-alerting calls) must be alerted. Note that an opening 1C or 1D bid that may contain fewer than three cards in the suit is conventional. Note also that any call showing two suits is conventional, even where one of the suits is named, e.g. 2H showing hearts and a minor. 13.4 A natural call must be alerted if it is forcing or non-forcing in a way the opponents might not expect (e.g. inverted minor raises, preemptive raises, negative free bids) or if its meaning is affected by other agreements (e.g. a 1H opening that denies 4+ spades). 13.5 Your policy should be to alert any call by partner (other than a self-alerting call) that the opponents could reasonably misunderstand. 13.6 In explanations, do not use the names of conventions; give specific explanations. For example, do not just say ?Michaels?, but explain the meaning of the bid by saying ?At least 5-5 in hearts and a minor suit, any strength?. Similarly, refrain from using the terms ?weak?, ?strong?, ?intermediate?, ?natural? or ?standard? if there exist, from partnership experience, certain expectations of suit quality and/or point count. The opponents? views of these descriptive terms may differ from yours. 13.7 You may ask questions only at your turn to call or play. It is improper to ask questions for the benefit of partner. 13.8 Irregularities 13.8.1 Any misexplanation, alert or failure to alert by partner is unauthorised information to you, and you must avoid taking any subsequent action suggested by that unauthorised information. 13.8.2 If you realise that you have given a wrong explanation during the auction or failed to alert, call the Director immediately. 13.8.3 If you believe your partner has given a wrong explanation or there has been a material failure to alert, call the Director before the opening lead if you are the declaring side. If you are defending, you may not call until the end of the hand, whereupon you are required to do so. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120319/64f3c58d/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 20 14:43:12 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:43:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com> <4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/03/2012 18:22, Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : > Well, not everyone lies, and even if they do I'd ask them what feature > of the hand led them to upgrade. There might be an occasional hand > that's a plausible upgrade, but I don't think Jeff's concerns are really > justified in practice. AG : change the example to 12-14 announced as 14-16, and the problem reappears. > > Gordon Rainsford > > On 19/03/2012 17:03, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> On 19/03/2012 17:59, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>> On 19/03/2012 12:20, Jeff Easterson wrote: >>>> I don't like this. In some of the clubs I know there are pairs who vary >>>> the strength of their 1NT openings and one player occasionally forgets. >>>> He opens 1NT with 10-12 but the partner thinks it is 13-15 or stronger. >>>> (Depends on vulnerability or position, such as third hand). This >>>> usually leads to a (deserved) bad score for them. With the announcement >>>> they have insurance against this, there can be no misunderstanding. >>>> >>>> Ciao, JE >>> Not really. In practice we don't see this sort of thing, but if we did >>> the players would be constrained by UI. So a player who opened a 12 >>> point 1NT and heard a 13-15 announcement would be asked why he hadn't >>> accepted an invitation. >> Well, I guess he'd say that he upgraded his 12 count to 13, opened a 13-15 >> 1NT (as expected) then rejected an invitation. >> >> Henk >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 20 14:56:10 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:56:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com><901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F688C7A.1000601@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/03/2012 22:31, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Sven Pran] > > Opening bids in the range 1NT - 2Sp are never to be alerted, but the > opener's partner shall immediately (without being asked) "announce" the > meaning of that bid. The announcement shall include all important features > of the bid. With for instance ("natural") 1NT opening bids this includes the > HCP range and possible special distributional features like "may contain a > singleton" or "may contain a 5-card major" etc. > > [Nige1] > > I agree with what Sven says but go a little further... > > - For *all* partner's calls (not just 2-openers), you *announce* the meaning > (*No alert, no question*). > > - Each table has a card with a matrix of common explanations (e.g. Natural, > Take-out, Penalty, Negative, Lead-directing, Responsive, Competitive, > Action, Support, Game-try, Weak, Sign-off, Constructive, Invitational, > Transfer, FQ, FG, Transgfer, relay, Asking, Splinter, Fit, Mixed, and so on, > and so on). When partner makes a call with a simple explanation, instead of > announcing, you point to the appropriate cell. AG : I used this with some success. It is still used by some pairs in Leuven. However, the matrix would need to be the same for all, else it might serve as a reminder. > > - Opponents can stipulate whether or not you announce calls. If opponents > switch off announcing and you still announce, alert, or whatever, then the > director treats it as unauthorised information. > > - If opponents have switched off announcements, at the end of the auction, > (i) The declaring side must explain their calls, unprompted (ii) On request, > the defending side must also explain their calls. > > - An opponent may ask "from your partner's calls, what do you know about > partner's hand". Then you must collate all the information from partner's > calls into a description of likely shape, strength, etc. AG : this is difficult. - if you aren't able to do this synthesis, what happens ? Bridge players are requested to be honest, not clever. - it might lead to all sorts of SBing. Especially as "likely" would be understood differently by different persons. - it might lead to embarrassing situations at the table. One live case : 1NTa Dbl Rdbl pass 2Sa Dbl 3D pass pass ask Partner's answer : "he has 1444 pattern with a lone spade honor" Opponent : "Director, they're making fun of the alert procedure ! Now if we had to explain every single bid, opponent would have heard : Rdbll : "any long suit, signoff or game force" 2S : "as he bypassed all other suits, he has 4 cards in each of them (Multi style), whence 1444" - Reduces unauthorised information (If, like many players I know, you would normally take the "switch-off" option AG : agreed, but you should also be allowed to ask. (yes, UI, but when you play different defenses to strong and weak NTs ...) Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 20 18:33:49 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:33:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim law organization Message-ID: Simplifying a hand from today. Declarer claims, saying the board is good. She is in fact in her hand. In hand, she has two good spades and two bad diamonds. Everyone at the table knows the spades are good and everyone knows she knows the spades are good. So I give her the two spade tricks. (She has two small diamonds and the suit has only been played once.) But if she claimed saying her hand was good, then I would have made her lead a diamond (and lose the remaining 4 tricks). My problem isn't the ruling (I think), my problem is the organization of the laws. They cover the situation where the order of play is not specified, without differentiating a vague claim from a claim that has gone off the tracks. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Mar 20 20:04:24 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:04:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com> <4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com> <4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4F68D4B8.9000808@aol.com> This is not exclusively a case of NT strength. Many other more serious disasters would be avoided. One player opens 2 in major, believing it to be strong, partner considersit weak. Guaranteed disaster without announcements. Player opens 2 diamonds multi and partner thinks it is a weak 2. Blackwoood: one player thinks it is with 5 controls, the other with 4. Doubles: no confusion as to whether it is for penalties, takeout oroptional or even something else (responsive, &c.). One player considers a bid (or even call) forcing, gthe other does not. The list is endless, all almost always lead to very bad scores. With announcements this does not happen. It seems to me to totally change the game. Ciao, JE Am 20.03.2012 14:43, schrieb Alain Gottcheiner: > Le 19/03/2012 18:22, Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : >> Well, not everyone lies, and even if they do I'd ask them what feature >> of the hand led them to upgrade. There might be an occasional hand >> that's a plausible upgrade, but I don't think Jeff's concerns are really >> justified in practice. > AG : change the example to 12-14 announced as 14-16, and the problem > reappears. > > > >> Gordon Rainsford >> >> On 19/03/2012 17:03, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >>> On 19/03/2012 17:59, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>>> On 19/03/2012 12:20, Jeff Easterson wrote: >>>>> I don't like this. In some of the clubs I know there are pairs who vary >>>>> the strength of their 1NT openings and one player occasionally forgets. >>>>> He opens 1NT with 10-12 but the partner thinks it is 13-15 or stronger. >>>>> (Depends on vulnerability or position, such as third hand). This >>>>> usually leads to a (deserved) bad score for them. With the announcement >>>>> they have insurance against this, there can be no misunderstanding. >>>>> >>>>> Ciao, JE >>>> Not really. In practice we don't see this sort of thing, but if we did >>>> the players would be constrained by UI. So a player who opened a 12 >>>> point 1NT and heard a 13-15 announcement would be asked why he hadn't >>>> accepted an invitation. >>> Well, I guess he'd say that he upgraded his 12 count to 13, opened a 13-15 >>> 1NT (as expected) then rejected an invitation. >>> >>> Henk >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Mar 21 01:09:02 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:09:02 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F68D4B8.9000808@aol.com> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com> <4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com> <4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be> <4F68D4B8.9000808@aol.com> Message-ID: <4F691C1E.9080607@btinternet.com> Does anywhere actually have announcements like this, or have you misunderstood how it works? Here in England, where they have been successfully implemented for some years, they are limited to a few situations, carefully chosen so that they are not commonly forgotten by partnerships. So, we announce an opening NT range, opening two-bid strength if natural, Stayman, & transfers to the majors in response to an opening 1NT. That's it. I'm not aware of anywhere that has announcements of doubles, Blackwood responses or whether or not a bid is forcing. So no, the list is not endless. Even in the situations you cite though, announcements do not assist wrong-doing: as I said before, the announcement is UI, so if I opened a strong two hearts and heard it announced as weak, I would be constrained to pass a game-raise even though knowing we were possibly missing a slam. In fact I had the reverse situation a few weeks ago when I forgot I was playing strong twos: it was the six-level (and doubled) before I was able to get out of the auction. Similarly, there is no overlap between a Multi-2D and a weak-2D, so even knowing of the confusion would not provide any sort of escape mechanism. I can't really see any basis for your fears in the system of announcements as I have seen it function. Gordon Rainsford On 20/03/2012 19:04, Jeff Easterson wrote: > This is not exclusively a case of NT strength. Many other more serious > disasters would be avoided. One player opens 2 in major, believing it > to be strong, partner considersit weak. Guaranteed disaster without > announcements. Player opens 2 diamonds multi and partner thinks it is a > weak 2. Blackwoood: one player thinks it is with 5 controls, the other > with 4. Doubles: no confusion as to whether it is for penalties, > takeout oroptional or even something else (responsive,&c.). One player > considers a bid (or even call) forcing, gthe other does not. The list > is endless, all almost always lead to very bad scores. With > announcements this does not happen. It seems to me to totally change the > game. > > Ciao, JE > > Am 20.03.2012 14:43, schrieb Alain Gottcheiner: >> Le 19/03/2012 18:22, Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : >>> Well, not everyone lies, and even if they do I'd ask them what feature >>> of the hand led them to upgrade. There might be an occasional hand >>> that's a plausible upgrade, but I don't think Jeff's concerns are really >>> justified in practice. >> AG : change the example to 12-14 announced as 14-16, and the problem >> reappears. >> >> >> >>> Gordon Rainsford >>> >>> On 19/03/2012 17:03, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >>>> On 19/03/2012 17:59, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>>>> On 19/03/2012 12:20, Jeff Easterson wrote: >>>>>> I don't like this. In some of the clubs I know there are pairs who vary >>>>>> the strength of their 1NT openings and one player occasionally forgets. >>>>>> He opens 1NT with 10-12 but the partner thinks it is 13-15 or stronger. >>>>>> (Depends on vulnerability or position, such as third hand). This >>>>>> usually leads to a (deserved) bad score for them. With the announcement >>>>>> they have insurance against this, there can be no misunderstanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ciao, JE >>>>> Not really. In practice we don't see this sort of thing, but if we did >>>>> the players would be constrained by UI. So a player who opened a 12 >>>>> point 1NT and heard a 13-15 announcement would be asked why he hadn't >>>>> accepted an invitation. >>>> Well, I guess he'd say that he upgraded his 12 count to 13, opened a 13-15 >>>> 1NT (as expected) then rejected an invitation. >>>> >>>> Henk >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From g3 at nige1.com Wed Mar 21 02:25:12 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 01:25:12 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F691C1E.9080607@btinternet.com> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com><901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is><004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no><4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com><4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com><4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be> <4F68D4B8.9000808@aol.com> <4F691C1E.9080607@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <85C04B36C18E4111BD88DC18055F2B40@G3> [Gordon Rainsford] Does anywhere actually have announcements like this, or have you misunderstood how it works? Here in England, where they have been successfully implemented for some years, they are limited to a few situations, carefully chosen so that they are not commonly forgotten by partnerships. So, we announce an opening NT range, opening two-bid strength if natural, Stayman, & transfers to the majors in response to an opening 1NT. That's it. I'm not aware of anywhere that has announcements of doubles, Blackwood responses or whether or not a bid is forcing. So no, the list is not endless. Even in the situations you cite though, announcements do not assist wrong-doing: as I said before, the announcement is UI, so if I opened a strong two hearts and heard it announced as weak, I would be constrained to pass a game-raise even though knowing we were possibly missing a slam. In fact I had the reverse situation a few weeks ago when I forgot I was playing strong twos: it was the six-level (and doubled) before I was able to get out of the auction. Similarly, there is no overlap between a Multi-2D and a weak-2D, so even knowing of the confusion would not provide any sort of escape mechanism. I can't really see any basis for your fears in the system of announcements as I have seen it function. [nige1] - Jeff Easterson is right that announcements provide information on which partners can act. A fascinating case at Brighton last year: The auction started (1N "12-14") P (2D "Hearts") P; (2H) After making a partscore in hearts, declarer said that he was sure that he had opened 1S. Only when his partner announced "12-14" was he woken up to the fact that his bid was 1N. He was able to recover by announcing "Hearts" and "completing the transfer. The director ruled that the announcement is authorised information. Of course, most such cases go unremarked and unreported. The problem (if there is a problem) only surfaced because declarer voluntarily confessed to his mistake. Arguably, alert-explanations and announcements should be authorised to *both* sides because otherwise you just penalise a handful of honest players. On the whole, however, I agree with Gordon Rainsford that announcements are a great success. When the EBU decided to implement (limited) announcements, many objected. I confess my own dire predictions did not materialise. In practice... - Players at neighbouring tables do not seem to overhear announcements. Alerts, questions and answers are more likely to be noticed. - Players remember to announce most of the time; although they sometimes announce conventions not yet covered by announcements - IMO, penalty and take-out doubles should urgently be included in announcement legislation; because there is considerable confusion in the EBU about what doubles should be alerted. - e.g. (1N "12-14") P (2D "Hearts") P; (2H) X : Transfer completion is sometimes passed, so could be argued to be "natural" even when bid on a small doubleton. Directors can't seem to agree whether or not the double is alertable. - e.g. (1H) X (1S) X: I think should be alerted in the EBU, if penalty - The suggestion that *all* calls be announced would, of course, remedy such problems. From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Mar 21 07:45:45 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 07:45:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <85C04B36C18E4111BD88DC18055F2B40@G3> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com><901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is><004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no><4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com><4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com><4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be> <4F68D4B8.9000808@aol.com> <4F691C1E.9080607@btinternet.com> <85C04B36C18E4111BD88DC18055F2B40@G3> Message-ID: <009101cd072e$3e62ba00$bb282e00$@nl> [nige1] - Jeff Easterson is right that announcements provide information on which partners can act. A fascinating case at Brighton last year: The auction started (1N "12-14") P (2D "Hearts") P; (2H) After making a partscore in hearts, declarer said that he was sure that he had opened 1S. Only when his partner announced "12-14" was he woken up to the fact that his bid was 1N. He was able to recover by announcing "Hearts" and "completing the transfer. The director ruled that the announcement is authorised information. [HvS] Not only is it authorized, but it should have given him the chance to change his opening to 1S under law 25A. This of course assuming it was never his intention to open 1NT. Hans From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 08:50:52 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:50:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009101cd072e$3e62ba00$bb282e00$@nl> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com><901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is><004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no><4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com><4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com><4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be> <4F68D4B8.9000808@aol.com> <4F691C1E.9080607@btinternet.com> <85C04B36C18E4111BD88DC18055F2B40@G3> <009101cd072e$3e62ba00$bb282e00$@nl> Message-ID: <4F69885C.8010709@gmail.com> On 21/03/2012 07:45, Hans van Staveren wrote: > [nige1] > - Jeff Easterson is right that announcements provide information on which > partners can act. A fascinating case at Brighton last year: The auction > started (1N "12-14") P (2D "Hearts") P; (2H) After making a partscore in > hearts, declarer said that he was sure that he had opened 1S. Only when his > partner announced "12-14" was he woken up to the fact that his bid was 1N. > He was able to recover by announcing "Hearts" > and "completing the transfer. The director ruled that the announcement is > authorised information. I think the fact that he announced should be AI, but the content of the announcement UI. Case #1: Playing 15-17 1NT, I believe I opened 1NT and hear an "alert" or "announcement: weak 2D or strong". In both cases, I think should be allowed to look the card I just pulled from the bidding box, notice that I accidentally pulled the 2C card, and change my bid under 25A. Example #2: I play variable NT ranges and open 1NT in a situation where I think it is 10-12 but our agreement is 15-17. Partner alerts or announces "10-12". Here I should not be allowed to change 1NT into something else, nor should use the fact that I have misbid when partner, say, invites game. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Mar 21 10:23:00 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:23:00 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009101cd072e$3e62ba00$bb282e00$@nl> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com><901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is><004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no><4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com><4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com><4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be> <4F68D4B8.9000808@aol.com> <4F691C1E.9080607@btinternet.com> <85C04B36C18E4111BD88DC18055F2B40@G3> <009101cd072e$3e62ba00$bb282e00$@nl> Message-ID: <4F699DF4.3020806@btinternet.com> On 21/03/2012 06:45, Hans van Staveren wrote: > [HvS] > > Not only is it authorized, but it should have given him the chance to change > his opening to 1S under law 25A. This of course assuming it was never his > intention to open 1NT. He would have been given the chance to change it had he complied with L25a by saying something as soon as he realised. As it was he made no attempt to change the call and gave no indication that he had misbid; he didn't request a change. Gordon Rainsford From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Mar 21 10:34:16 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:34:16 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <85C04B36C18E4111BD88DC18055F2B40@G3> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com><901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is><004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no><4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com><4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com><4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be> <4F68D4B8.9000808@aol.com> <4F691C1E.9080607@btinternet.com> <85C04B36C18E4111BD88DC18055F2B40@G3> Message-ID: <4F69A098.4080204@btinternet.com> On 21/03/2012 01:25, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [nige1] > - Jeff Easterson is right that announcements provide information on which > partners can act. A fascinating case at Brighton last year: The auction > started > (1N "12-14") P (2D "Hearts") P; (2H) > After making a partscore in hearts, declarer said that he was sure that he > had opened 1S. Only when his partner announced "12-14" was he woken up to > the fact that his bid was 1N. He was able to recover by announcing "Hearts" > and "completing the transfer. The director ruled that the announcement is > authorised information. Of course, most such cases go unremarked and > unreported. The problem (if there is a problem) only surfaced because > declarer voluntarily confessed to his mistake. Arguably, alert-explanations > and announcements should be authorised to *both* sides because otherwise you > just penalise a handful of honest players. Of course this situation wouldn't have been any different before announcements were the regulation: the player would have been woken up by an alert instead. > > On the whole, however, I agree with Gordon Rainsford that announcements are > a great success. When the EBU decided to implement (limited) announcements, > many objected. I confess my own dire predictions did not materialise. > > In practice... > > - Players at neighbouring tables do not seem to overhear announcements. > Alerts, questions and answers are more likely to be noticed. > > - Players remember to announce most of the time; although they sometimes > announce conventions not yet covered by announcements > > - IMO, penalty and take-out doubles should urgently be included in > announcement legislation; because there is considerable confusion in the EBU > about what doubles should be alerted. I don't share your enthusiasm for this, because I think there is just as much confusion as to what many doubles mean as there is about which should be alerted. I think announcements should be limited to those aspects of the auction that few players get wrong. > - e.g. (1N "12-14") P (2D "Hearts") P; (2H) X : Transfer completion is > sometimes passed, so could be argued to be "natural" even when bid on a > small doubleton. Directors can't seem to agree whether or not the double is > alertable. I think the last update of the Orange Book clarified that this is not alertable if for takeout. > - e.g. (1H) X (1S) X: I think should be alerted in the EBU, if penalty That is correct, it should. > > - The suggestion that *all* calls be announced would, of course, remedy such > problems. That, I think, would open the doors to problems of the sort that concern Jeff. Gordon Rainsford From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 21 12:32:43 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:32:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F69A098.4080204@btinternet.com> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com><901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is><004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no><4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com><4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com><4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be> <4F68D4B8.9000808@aol.com> <4F691C1E.9080607@btinternet.com> <85C04B36C18E4111BD88DC18055F2B40@G3> <4F69A098.4080204@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <002b01cd0756$55480ea0$ffd82be0$@online.no> > Gordon Rainsford [...] > > - The suggestion that *all* calls be announced would, of course, > > remedy such problems. > > That, I think, would open the doors to problems of the sort that concern Jeff. [Sven Pran] There is a tale from the youth of duplicate when Culbertson had just introduced his "asking bids". A drop-in guest in a club asked her (his?) partner: "Do we use asking bids?" and the reply was "yes". So during one auction the player suddenly asked {sic!} "Do you have the King of Diamonds, partner?". Another incident that once really happened in Norway was the player who bid 5 Hearts over a Blackwood 4NT. His LHO sitting there with his two aces thought for a while and then exclaimed: "You took the words out of my mouth!" Information exchange during the auction shall be by means of the limited bridge language consisting of 15 different tokens and nothing more. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 21 14:53:31 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:53:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F691C1E.9080607@btinternet.com> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com> <4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com> <4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be> <4F68D4B8.9000808@aol.com> <4F691C1E.9080607@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4F69DD5B.1050506@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/03/2012 1:09, Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : > Does anywhere actually have announcements like this, or have you > misunderstood how it works? Here in England, where they have been > successfully implemented for some years, they are limited to a few > situations, carefully chosen so that they are not commonly forgotten by > partnerships. > > So, we announce an opening NT range, opening two-bid strength if > natural, Stayman,& transfers to the majors in response to an opening > 1NT. That's it. I'm not aware of anywhere that has announcements of > doubles, Blackwood responses or whether or not a bid is forcing. So no, > the list is not endless. > > Even in the situations you cite though, announcements do not assist > wrong-doing: as I said before, the announcement is UI, so if I opened a > strong two hearts and heard it announced as weak, I would be constrained > to pass a game-raise even though knowing we were possibly missing a > slam. AG : you're right, but I think that the matter under discussion is the other way round : if you open 2H and state it is weak, partner will be able to use this information ; it won't even be UI if that's the right meaning of the bid. IOW, the "reminder effect" of alerts will be expanded. From g3 at nige1.com Wed Mar 21 15:37:28 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:37:28 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002b01cd0756$55480ea0$ffd82be0$@online.no> References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com><901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is><004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no><4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com><4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com><4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be> <4F68D4B8.9000808@aol.com><4F691C1E.9080607@btinternet.com> <85C04B36C18E4111BD88DC18055F2B40@G3><4F69A098.4080204@btinternet.com> <002b01cd0756$55480ea0$ffd82be0$@online.no> Message-ID: [Sven Pran] There is a tale from the youth of duplicate when Culbertson had just introduced his "asking bids". A drop-in guest in a club asked her (his?) partner: "Do we use asking bids?" and the reply was "yes". So during one auction the player suddenly asked {sic!} "Do you have the King of Diamonds, partner?". Another incident that once really happened in Norway was the player who bid 5 Hearts over a Blackwood 4NT. His LHO sitting there with his two aces thought for a while and then exclaimed: "You took the words out of my mouth!" Information exchange during the auction shall be by means of the limited bridge language consisting of 15 different tokens and nothing more. [Nigel] IMO Bridge would be a simpler, more enjoyable, more testing game if the only table-communication between partners were their calls and plays. Unfortunately, law makers seem to disagree with Sven. 1. If players can get away with it, they seem to use partner's alert-explanations and announcements to wake them up to bidding mistakes and to compensate for them . (Admittedly, a handful of honest masochists do penalize themselves). Unfortunately, the law specifically allows players to use such information to change calls that they successfully claim to be "mechanical" errors. This problem would be mitigated by law-simplifications: (a) Players should not be allowed to correct mechanical mistakes. (b) Players should be allowed to *switch-off* opponents' alerts and explanations. 2. After an infraction (like an insufficient bid), depending on RA electives, players may use the legal-options given to both sides, to vary their systemic understandings. For example, if you accept an opponent's call out of turn, you may agree that bids promise first round control in their suit. Whatever the RA elective, unauthorised-information problems remain. if you knowingly accept an out-of-turn 4H opening bid and double it, common-sense implies that it is for penalties, whatever your normal conventional treatment of this double. As usual, there is a simple solution: - The law should rectify the infraction without giving options to either side. (e.g. cancel the offending call and silence the offending side) 3. British players rely mainly on count signals. Americans, presumably, rely mainly on attitude signals :) This is a logical inference, given that they are accustomed to receiving count-information, whenever players show out and partners ask "having none". (Presumably, partners ask this question, when they haven't seem all outstanding cards in the suit). Law-makers recently decided to legalize this rich source of unauthorised information. I wonder how long it will be before UK players switch to attitude signals :) . Again, Sven has the solution - Restrict partnership-communication to unadorned calls and plays. Unfortunately , the reverse trend appears to be a policy change by the WBFLC :( Arguably, however it is not as pernicious as reliance on (so-called) "Equity" :) From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 22 02:35:57 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:35:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com> <4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com> <4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be> <4F68D4B8.9000808@aol.com> <4F691C1E.9080607@btinternet.com> <85C04B36C18E4111BD88DC18055F2B40@G3> <4F69A098.4080204@btinternet.com> <002b01cd0756$55480ea0$ffd82be0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:37:28 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Sven Pran] > There is a tale from the youth of duplicate when Culbertson had just > introduced his "asking bids". A drop-in guest in a club asked her (his?) > partner: "Do we use asking bids?" and the reply was "yes". > So during one auction the player suddenly asked {sic!} "Do you have the > King > of Diamonds, partner?". > > Another incident that once really happened in Norway was the player who > bid > 5 Hearts over a Blackwood 4NT. His LHO sitting there with his two aces > thought for a while and then exclaimed: "You took the words out of my > mouth!" > > Information exchange during the auction shall be by means of the limited > bridge language consisting of 15 different tokens and nothing more. > > [Nigel] IMO > > Bridge would be a simpler, more enjoyable, more testing game if the only > table-communication between partners were their calls and plays. > Unfortunately, law makers seem to disagree with Sven. > > 1. If players can get away with it, they seem to use partner's > alert-explanations and announcements to wake them up to bidding mistakes > and > to compensate for them . (Admittedly, a handful of honest masochists > do > penalize themselves). Unfortunately, the law specifically allows players > to > use such information to change calls that they successfully claim to be > "mechanical" errors. This problem would be mitigated by > law-simplifications: > > (a) Players should not be allowed to correct mechanical mistakes. I saw a player pull a card out the bidding box, see that it was not what he meant, shake his head no, carefully place those cards in the played position in front of him, then immediately go to his bidding box to find the correct bid. Everyone at the table knew he did not mean the first bid. The director would not have been called. This seems to be common, I just don't see it as director because no one calls me for the obvious replacement of mechanical bids. Another time, the player pulled the correct bid out of the bidding box. A pass also came out and fell on the table by the bidding box. I noted at the time that according to ACBL regulations, the pass was a made call (which happens as soon as the call hits the table). So, this particular proposal seems to be completely unfeasible. > > (b) Players should be allowed to *switch-off* opponents' alerts and > explanations. > > 2. After an infraction (like an insufficient bid), depending on RA > electives, players may use the legal-options given to both sides, to vary > their systemic understandings. For example, if you accept an opponent's > call out of turn, you may agree that bids promise first round control in > their suit. Whatever the RA elective, unauthorised-information problems > remain. if you knowingly accept an out-of-turn 4H opening bid and double > it, common-sense implies that it is for penalties, whatever your normal > conventional treatment of this double. As usual, there is a simple > solution: > > - The law should rectify the infraction without giving options to either > side. (e.g. cancel the offending call and silence the offending side) > > 3. British players rely mainly on count signals. Americans, presumably, > rely > mainly on attitude signals :) This is a logical inference, given that > they > are accustomed to receiving count-information, whenever players show out > and > partners ask "having none". (Presumably, partners ask this question, when > they haven't seem all outstanding cards in the suit). Law-makers > recently > decided to legalize this rich source of unauthorised information. I > wonder > how long it will be before UK players switch to attitude signals :) . > Again, > Sven has the solution > > - Restrict partnership-communication to unadorned calls and plays. > > Unfortunately , the reverse trend appears to be a policy change by the > WBFLC > :( Arguably, however it is not as pernicious as reliance on (so-called) > "Equity" :) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From g3 at nige1.com Thu Mar 22 03:20:52 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 02:20:52 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com><901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is><004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com><4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com> <4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com><4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com> <4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be><4F68D4B8.9000808@aol.com> <4F691C1E.9080607@btinternet.com><85C04B36C18E4111BD88DC18055F2B40@G3> <4F69A098.4080204@btinternet.com><002b01cd0756$55480ea0$ffd82be0$@online.no> Message-ID: {nigel] (a) Players should not be allowed to correct mechanical mistakes. [Robert Frick] I saw a player pull a card out the bidding box, see that it was not what he meant, shake his head no, carefully place those cards in the played position in front of him, then immediately go to his bidding box to find the correct bid. Everyone at the table knew he did not mean the first bid. The director would not have been called. This seems to be common, I just don't see it as director because no one calls me for the obvious replacement of mechanical bids. Another time, the player pulled the correct bid out of the bidding box. A pass also came out and fell on the table by the bidding box. I noted at the time that according to ACBL regulations, the pass was a made call (which happens as soon as the call hits the table). So, this particular proposal seems to be completely unfeasible. [Nigel] Robert implies that players would be unhappy if the law prevented them from correcting a bidding mistake by claiming it to be a mechanical error. I agree that some would be unhappy. It seems to many, however, that most bidding errors that are allowed to be corrected are are not mechanical at all. They are slips of the *mind* rather than the *hand*. Hence this law penalizes honest players. Players accept the consequences of *other* mistakes -- even mechanical mistakes. Two examples from the weekend. In a notrump contract, I was left with five good clubs (AKQxx) and no side entry. I led a small club rather than an honour and took no more tricks. A slip of the hand. In a diamond contract, I mistook my ace of hearts for the ace of diamonds. I ruffed a heart and led to the next trick. The established revoke cost me about thee tricks. A slip of the eye. I'm not complaining. Bridge is an game of mistakes and I enjoy playing by the rules. I shall try to be less careless in future. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 22 03:52:58 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:52:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4F66E843.6020605@gmail.com> <901338263.195779.1332147651110.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> <004201cd05b3$35c28dc0$a147a940$@online.no> <4F67247C.6080101@aol.com> <4F6765DE.7010508@btinternet.com> <4F6766F2.4020703@gmail.com> <4F676B5E.4050900@btinternet.com> <4F688970.7000908@ulb.ac.be> <4F68D4B8.9000808@aol.com> <4F691C1E.9080607@btinternet.com> <85C04B36C18E4111BD88DC18055F2B40@G3> <4F69A098.4080204@btinternet.com> <002b01cd0756$55480ea0$ffd82be0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:20:52 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > {nigel] > (a) Players should not be allowed to correct mechanical mistakes. > > [Robert Frick] > I saw a player pull a card out the bidding box, see that it was not what > he meant, shake his head no, carefully place those cards in the played > position in front of him, then immediately go to his bidding box to find > the correct bid. Everyone at the table knew he did not mean the first > bid. > The director would not have been called. > > This seems to be common, I just don't see it as director because no one > calls me for the obvious replacement of mechanical bids. > > Another time, the player pulled the correct bid out of the bidding box. A > pass also came out and fell on the table by the bidding box. I noted at > the time that according to ACBL regulations, the pass was a made call > (which happens as soon as the call hits the table). > > So, this particular proposal seems to be completely unfeasible. > > [Nigel] > > Robert implies that players would be unhappy if the law prevented them > from > correcting a bidding mistake by claiming it to be a mechanical error. I > agree that some would be unhappy. It seems to many, however, that most > bidding errors that are allowed to be corrected are are not mechanical at > all. I am guessing this is not true. I started collecting the times I was called to the table to judge mechanical error, and I would guess that half or more are mental mistakes. The most recent was someone overcalling 1NT, claiming it was a mechanical error, and wanting to change to a double. I didn't allow that, and I was not the least bit surprised that he had 16 HCP. But I noticed that when I played, there were frequent mispulls, they were obviously mechanical, the table allowed the change without calling me, and no one thought anything of it. So my guess is that at least 80% of the errors are mechanical and the director isn't called. The director gets called when there is something suspicious, and those are likely to be mental. They are slips of the *mind* rather than the *hand*. Hence this law > penalizes honest players. > > Players accept the consequences of *other* mistakes -- even mechanical > mistakes. Two examples from the weekend. > > In a notrump contract, I was left with five good clubs (AKQxx) and no > side > entry. I led a small club rather than an honour and took no more tricks. > A > slip of the hand. > > In a diamond contract, I mistook my ace of hearts for the ace of > diamonds. I > ruffed a heart and led to the next trick. The established revoke cost me > about thee tricks. A slip of the eye. > > I'm not complaining. Bridge is an game of mistakes and I enjoy playing by > the rules. I shall try to be less careless in future. There are some excellent games for following the rules, like Simon Says. I don't particular enjoy them. It is worthwhile to think about what makes bridge enjoyable and to try to increase that. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Mar 22 09:53:50 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:53:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] claim law organization In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F6AE89E.4040208@btinternet.com> On 20/03/2012 17:33, Robert Frick wrote: > Simplifying a hand from today. Declarer claims, saying the board is good. > She is in fact in her hand. In hand, she has two good spades and two bad > diamonds. Everyone at the table knows the spades are good and everyone > knows she knows the spades are good. So I give her the two spade tricks. > (She has two small diamonds and the suit has only been played once.) > > But if she claimed saying her hand was good, then I would have made her > lead a diamond (and lose the remaining 4 tricks). That's because we wouldn't know that she knows the spades are good and the diamonds are not. Gordon Rainsford From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Mar 22 10:18:31 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:18:31 +0800 Subject: [BLML] claim law organization In-Reply-To: <4F6AE89E.4040208@btinternet.com> References: <4F6AE89E.4040208@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4F6AEE67.4010509@iinet.net.au> On 22/03/2012 4:53 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > When Shesays "the board is good" is she referring to dummy as "the board" and if so what was dummies holding. cheers bill > On 20/03/2012 17:33, Robert Frick wrote: >> Simplifying a hand from today. Declarer claims, saying the board is good. >> She is in fact in her hand. In hand, she has two good spades and two bad >> diamonds. Everyone at the table knows the spades are good and everyone >> knows she knows the spades are good. So I give her the two spade tricks. >> (She has two small diamonds and the suit has only been played once.) >> >> But if she claimed saying her hand was good, then I would have made her >> lead a diamond (and lose the remaining 4 tricks). > That's because we wouldn't know that she knows the spades are good and > the diamonds are not. > > Gordon Rainsford > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 22 18:29:47 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:29:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim law organization In-Reply-To: <4F6AEE67.4010509@iinet.net.au> References: <4F6AE89E.4040208@btinternet.com> <4F6AEE67.4010509@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 05:18:31 -0400, bill kemp wrote: > On 22/03/2012 4:53 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> When Shesays "the board is good" is she referring to dummy as "the >> board" and if so what was dummies holding. yes, she meant to say the dummy was good. In the actual hand, QJ10xx of clubs. > > cheers > > bill > > > >> On 20/03/2012 17:33, Robert Frick wrote: >>> Simplifying a hand from today. Declarer claims, saying the board is >>> good. >>> She is in fact in her hand. In hand, she has two good spades and two >>> bad >>> diamonds. Everyone at the table knows the spades are good and everyone >>> knows she knows the spades are good. So I give her the two spade >>> tricks. >>> (She has two small diamonds and the suit has only been played once.) >>> >>> But if she claimed saying her hand was good, then I would have made her >>> lead a diamond (and lose the remaining 4 tricks). >> That's because we wouldn't know that she knows the spades are good and >> the diamonds are not. >> >> Gordon Rainsford >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 22 18:39:02 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:39:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim law organization In-Reply-To: <4F6AE89E.4040208@btinternet.com> References: <4F6AE89E.4040208@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:53:50 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > On 20/03/2012 17:33, Robert Frick wrote: >> Simplifying a hand from today. Declarer claims, saying the board is >> good. >> She is in fact in her hand. In hand, she has two good spades and two bad >> diamonds. Everyone at the table knows the spades are good and everyone >> knows she knows the spades are good. So I give her the two spade tricks. >> (She has two small diamonds and the suit has only been played once.) >> >> But if she claimed saying her hand was good, then I would have made her >> lead a diamond (and lose the remaining 4 tricks). > That's because we wouldn't know that she knows the spades are good and > the diamonds are not. I am looking at the law "The director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced inthe original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful." Like it or not, this law makes no reference to what declarer is thinking. The cards are exactly the same. How can leading sometimes be normal and sometimes not be normal? Or are you disagreeing with the first ruling? > > Gordon Rainsford > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Mar 24 11:25:33 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:25:33 +0000 Subject: [BLML] claim law organization In-Reply-To: References: <4F6AE89E.4040208@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4F6DA11D.8040103@btinternet.com> On 22/03/2012 17:39, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:53:50 -0400, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> On 20/03/2012 17:33, Robert Frick wrote: >>> Simplifying a hand from today. Declarer claims, saying the board is >>> good. >>> She is in fact in her hand. In hand, she has two good spades and two bad >>> diamonds. Everyone at the table knows the spades are good and everyone >>> knows she knows the spades are good. So I give her the two spade tricks. >>> (She has two small diamonds and the suit has only been played once.) >>> >>> But if she claimed saying her hand was good, then I would have made her >>> lead a diamond (and lose the remaining 4 tricks). >> That's because we wouldn't know that she knows the spades are good and >> the diamonds are not. > I am looking at the law "The director shall not accept from claimer any > successful line of play not embraced inthe original clarification > statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be > less successful." > > Like it or not, this law makes no reference to what declarer is thinking. > > The cards are exactly the same. How can leading sometimes be normal and > sometimes not be normal? > > Or are you disagreeing with the first ruling? I am looking at the law that says "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." Since it is a given, it is not a doubtful point that she knows the spades are good and the diamonds are not, so it would not be normal for her to play the losing diamonds once she knows which hand she is in. (It is the subject of a WBF minute that we do not allow that part of a claim that includes an infraction, such as leading out of turn). In your second case she clearly would not know which of her cards was good and which not, and so it would be normal for her to play them in any order, since she believed them all to be good. Resolving doubt against the claimer, we would give her the result of the least advantageous play of her remaining cards. Gordon Rainsford From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 24 15:56:00 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:56:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim law organization In-Reply-To: <4F6DA11D.8040103@btinternet.com> References: <4F6AE89E.4040208@btinternet.com> <4F6DA11D.8040103@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:25:33 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > On 22/03/2012 17:39, Robert Frick wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:53:50 -0400, Gordon Rainsford >> wrote: >> >>> On 20/03/2012 17:33, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> Simplifying a hand from today. Declarer claims, saying the board is >>>> good. >>>> She is in fact in her hand. In hand, she has two good spades and two >>>> bad >>>> diamonds. Everyone at the table knows the spades are good and everyone >>>> knows she knows the spades are good. So I give her the two spade >>>> tricks. >>>> (She has two small diamonds and the suit has only been played once.) >>>> >>>> But if she claimed saying her hand was good, then I would have made >>>> her >>>> lead a diamond (and lose the remaining 4 tricks). >>> That's because we wouldn't know that she knows the spades are good and >>> the diamonds are not. >> I am looking at the law "The director shall not accept from claimer any >> successful line of play not embraced inthe original clarification >> statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be >> less successful." >> >> Like it or not, this law makes no reference to what declarer is >> thinking. >> >> The cards are exactly the same. How can leading sometimes be normal and >> sometimes not be normal? >> >> Or are you disagreeing with the first ruling? > I am looking at the law that says "In ruling on a contested claim or > concession, the Director adjudicates the > result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any > doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." > > Since it is a given, it is not a doubtful point that she knows the > spades are good and the diamonds are not, so it would not be normal for > her to play the losing diamonds once she knows which hand she is in. (It > is the subject of a WBF minute that we do not allow that part of a claim > that includes an infraction, such as leading out of turn). > > In your second case she clearly would not know which of her cards was > good and which not, and so it would be normal for her to play them in > any order, since she believed them all to be good. Resolving doubt > against the claimer, we would give her the result of the least > advantageous play of her remaining cards. So, when you judge which lines of play are normal, you take into account what declarer knows. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Mar 24 21:23:36 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:23:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] claim law organization In-Reply-To: References: <4F6AE89E.4040208@btinternet.com> <4F6DA11D.8040103@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4F6E2D48.5080504@btinternet.com> On 24/03/2012 14:56, Robert Frick wrote: > So, when you judge which lines of play are normal, you take into account > what declarer knows. Well, of course. Gordon Rainsford From jimfox00 at cox.net Thu Mar 29 18:01:04 2012 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:01:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is There a Problem? Message-ID: No messages for a week. Jim Fox Jimfox00 at cox.net From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 18:13:32 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:13:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is There a Problem? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F748A2C.4080508@gmail.com> On 29/03/2012 18:01, Jim Fox wrote: > No messages for a week. > > Jim Fox > Jimfox00 at cox.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml No, the setup is running fine (as this messages got through), I guess BLML folks have nothing to say right now. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Mar 30 05:30:10 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:30:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] No diamonds in dummy Message-ID: <4F7528C2.6000006@nhcc.net> At notrump, declarer leads a diamond in which dummy is void. LHO discards, declarer says "small," dummy does nothing, and RHO wins the trick. RHO now leads a spade to the next trick. Dummy has a spade winner, but declarer might have discarded it on the diamond trick. I get as far as: L46B1c: "small" means dummy's lowest diamond L46B4: no diamonds in dummy, call is void, declarer designates any legal card Is RHO's spade AI or UI to declarer at the moment he has to designate a discard from dummy? After declarer chooses a discard, does L47D apply either to RHO's play to the diamond trick or to RHO's subsequent spade lead? Would you be likely to apply L23 to declarer's incorrect designation? From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Mar 30 06:08:21 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:08:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] No diamonds in dummy In-Reply-To: <4F7528C2.6000006@nhcc.net> References: <4F7528C2.6000006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <17C23B0D-A71F-4887-9E9F-D26EF582538B@mac.com> On Mar 29, 2012, at 11:30 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > At notrump, declarer leads a diamond in which dummy is void. LHO > discards, declarer says "small," dummy does nothing, and RHO wins the > trick. RHO now leads a spade to the next trick. Dummy has a spade > winner, but declarer might have discarded it on the diamond trick. > > I get as far as: > L46B1c: "small" means dummy's lowest diamond > L46B4: no diamonds in dummy, call is void, declarer designates any legal > card My opinions: > Is RHO's spade AI or UI to declarer at the moment he has to designate a > discard from dummy? AI. > After declarer chooses a discard, does L47D apply either to RHO's play > to the diamond trick or to RHO's subsequent spade lead? No. > Would you be likely to apply L23 to declarer's incorrect designation? No. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Mar 30 06:47:13 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:47:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A again Message-ID: <000601cd0e30$2d3ec580$87bc5080$@optusnet.com.au> Many years ago, I offered the opinion that Australian directors were somewhat lenient in allowing L25A changes of call for inadvertent bids. The example was the usual 1NT 2H alterted and explained as a transfer whereupon the 1NT bidder (distracted at having explained the alert, passes (inadvertently, of course). John Probst gave what I have taken as definitive guidance in this case, and ruled that L25A does not apply as the bidder meant to pass at the moment of withdrawing the pass card. So the other night the bidding went as follows 1NT.2H alert, but no explanation, 3H (meant to be a super accept for spades), at which time I am called to rule whether a change to 3S can be effected. I agree reluctantly as it seems to be a bit different to the canonical example, and in any case partner would have the opportunity to correct to 3S himself. (As I have done on at least 1 occasion with a dozy partner). My worry is that the 2 cases seem to be much the same. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120330/67c31ead/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Fri Mar 30 08:26:48 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:26:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_25A_again?= In-Reply-To: <000601cd0e30$2d3ec580$87bc5080$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000601cd0e30$2d3ec580$87bc5080$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1SDVIO-0cGXyK0@fwd15.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Tony Musgrove" > Many years ago, I offered the opinion that Australian directors were > > somewhat lenient in allowing L25A changes of call for inadvertent > bids. > > The example was the usual 1NT 2H alterted and explained as a > transfer whereupon the 1NT bidder (distracted at having explained the alert, > passes (inadvertently, of course). John Probst gave what I have > taken as definitive guidance in this case, and ruled that L25A does not > apply as the bidder meant to pass at the moment of withdrawing the pass card. > > So the other night the bidding went as follows 1NT...2H alert, but > no explanation, 3H (meant to be a super accept for spades), at which > time I am called to rule whether a change to 3S can be effected. I > agree reluctantly as it seems to be a bit different to the canonical > example, and in any case partner would have the opportunity to > correct to 3S himself. (As I have done on at least 1 occasion with > a dozy partner). > > My worry is that the 2 cases seem to be much the same. The two cases are not the same - in the possible outcome, but it is not you to be worried about that. Ask the 3H bidder - as Maddog would ask : "What bidding card did you intend to pull, Sir (Ma'am) ?" or (in Australia) "What call did you intend to wright down, Sir?". If he / she says "3S" let the auction continue with 3S and if you are still suspicious, check the hand after play ceases. As you noted above your ruling would not make much difference as the bidding is still going on (and the meaning is not much different). But if this bidder has a super accept with H values and partner might have used this "information" you may still adjust the score and "mark" this person on your black list. From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Mar 30 08:33:59 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 02:33:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A again In-Reply-To: <000601cd0e30$2d3ec580$87bc5080$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000601cd0e30$2d3ec580$87bc5080$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <6FF879AF-1482-45F2-B37E-5AED71762A56@mac.com> On Mar 30, 2012, at 12:47 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Many years ago, I offered the opinion that Australian directors were > somewhat lenient in allowing L25A changes of call for inadvertent bids. > > The example was the usual 1NT 2H alterted and explained as a transfer > whereupon the 1NT bidder (distracted at having explained the alert, > passes (inadvertently, of course). John Probst gave what I have taken > as definitive guidance in this case, and ruled that L25A does not apply as > the bidder meant to pass at the moment of withdrawing the pass card. > > So the other night the bidding went as follows 1NT?2H alert, but > no explanation, 3H (meant to be a super accept for spades), at which > time I am called to rule whether a change to 3S can be effected. I > agree reluctantly as it seems to be a bit different to the canonical > example, and in any case partner would have the opportunity to > correct to 3S himself. (As I have done on at least 1 occasion with > a dozy partner). > > My worry is that the 2 cases seem to be much the same. "Meant to be" sounds like 3H was an intended bid and so could not be changed under 25A. If you just meant that was the agreement, I'd still be leery. The key question for the bidder is "what bidding card did you think you were pulling when you pulled out 3H?" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120330/b65531ee/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Mar 30 08:45:44 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:45:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A again In-Reply-To: <1SDVIO-0cGXyK0@fwd15.aul.t-online.de> References: <000601cd0e30$2d3ec580$87bc5080$@optusnet.com.au> <1SDVIO-0cGXyK0@fwd15.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <003301cd0e40$bbeb0590$33c110b0$@optusnet.com.au> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Peter Eidt Sent: Friday, 30 March 2012 5:27 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A again Von: "Tony Musgrove" > Many years ago, I offered the opinion that Australian directors were > > somewhat lenient in allowing L25A changes of call for inadvertent > bids. > > The example was the usual 1NT 2H alterted and explained as a > transfer whereupon the 1NT bidder (distracted at having explained the > alert, passes (inadvertently, of course). John Probst gave what I > have taken as definitive guidance in this case, and ruled that L25A > does not apply as the bidder meant to pass at the moment of withdrawing the pass card. > > So the other night the bidding went as follows 1NT...2H alert, but > no explanation, 3H (meant to be a super accept for spades), at which > time I am called to rule whether a change to 3S can be effected. I > agree reluctantly as it seems to be a bit different to the canonical > example, and in any case partner would have the opportunity to correct > to 3S himself. (As I have done on at least 1 occasion with a dozy > partner). > > My worry is that the 2 cases seem to be much the same. The two cases are not the same - in the possible outcome, but it is not you to be worried about that. Ask the 3H bidder - as Maddog would ask : "What bidding card did you intend to pull, Sir (Ma'am) ?" or (in Australia) "What call did you intend to wright down, Sir?". If he / she says "3S" let the auction continue with 3S and if you are still suspicious, check the hand after play ceases. As you noted above your ruling would not make much difference as the bidding is still going on (and the meaning is not much different). But if this bidder has a super accept with H values and partner might have used this "information" you may still adjust the score and "mark" this person on your black list. Thanks, As you say the bidding is still live but with a lot of UI when director is called. 3H is almost certainly not some other system bid. Cheers Tony (Sydney) _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml