From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Fri Feb 1 10:06:37 2013 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:06:37 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.064B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3185@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <87B9EEAD9800427A87F8C60B2EAA8434@changeme1> The LEB concept is not one used by tds / acs. It is the call that the player thinks that they might well 'get away with' if pard has indeed psyched. The chosen action would be one that may be highly suspected as fielding, but is just within the bounds of an LA. Law 40A3: A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1). Law 40C1: A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty. Paul, EBU-land: >>>I have no problem with 2S or 3S. I would >>>choose >>>the former. I think I know the hand and >>>partner >>>psyched 1S. There is a different duty when >>>you >>>have UI and when you might be fielding a >>>psyche. >>>If one passed here, that would be fielding. >>>If you >>>have UI then you are obliged to select the LA >>>that >>>is not demonstrably suggested by the UI. >>>There is >>>no requirement whatsoever to select between >>>LAs >>>one that does not cater for partner having >>>psyched. Pass would strongly suggest a CPU. >>>Neither 2S nor 3S suggest that at all. Larry, EBU-land: >>Around these parts, there has long been the >>concept >>of 'lowest ethical bid' (LEB). >> >>In this case, where one may suspect that pard >>has >>psyched (why ??), then I reckon that 2S is the >>LEB. >> >>However, if this pard has a 'history', then >>some TDs >>and ACs may consider that an attempt at >>limiting >>damage. >> >>L DALB, EBU-land, January 2010: >..... >Terminology has become sloppy, beginning with >the >"controlled psyche" that formed part of the >"methods" >of some top American players for many years. >There >is no such thing as, and there never was any >such thing >as, a "controlled psyche"; the term is and >always was >self-contradictory, like a "triangular circle" >..... Richard, ABF-land: There are no such things as, and there never were any such things as, an unLawful "Fielding" response or a Lawful "Lowest Ethical Bid" response. It is not the responses by one partner which are defined as Lawful or unLawful. Rather, it is the initial call by the other partner which is either a Lawful Law 40A3 psyche (in which case all responses are so-called "ethical"), or an unLawful Law 40C1 undisclosed implicit partnership understanding (in which case all responses cannot alter the infraction). What's the problem? In my opinion muddy thinking in EBU-land is caused by the sloppy names of their Red Psyche / Amber Psyche / Green Psyche regulations. If EBU-land switched to the different terminology of Red Heffalump / Amber Heffalump / Green Heffalump, then EBU players and TDs might better be able to understand what is and is not an infraction according to the Laws. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 1 17:32:53 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:32:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] intended meaning? Message-ID: P P 1H P 2C P 2D 2D 2D was insufficient. He meant to double to show diamonds (the opps were in a Drury sequence). So the intended meaning was to show diamonds. Do you allow the replacement of a double? It would seem to depend on the precise wording of whatever L227B1(b) should be. The background is a player answers 4H to Blackwood, intending to show 2 controls and the queen. The bid of 5S has exactly the intended meaning, but in the unwritten small print of L27B1(b), I think the nonbarring replacement is 5H. Bob From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 1 18:05:38 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:05:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] intended meaning? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000d01ce009e$5d4ea130$17ebe390$@online.no> > Robert Frick> > > P P 1H P > 2C P 2D 2D > > > 2D was insufficient. He meant to double to show diamonds (the opps were in > a Drury sequence). > > So the intended meaning was to show diamonds. Do you allow the > replacement of a double? It would seem to depend on the precise wording > of whatever > L227B1(b) should be. [Sven Pran] For correct application of Law 27B1(b) you should investigate the question: Is there ANY hand with which the player (according to partnership understanding) would double in this situation but NOT have bid 2D if that bid had been sufficient - that is in the auction: P P 1H P 2C P P 2D? If you cannot find such a hand then the double does NOT introduce the possibility of any hand that would not have made the insufficient bid if that had been legal, consequently the double has the same or a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid. > The background is a player answers 4H to Blackwood, intending to show 2 > controls and the queen. The bid of 5S has exactly the intended meaning, but > in the unwritten small print of L27B1(b), I think the nonbarring replacement is > 5H. [Sven Pran] No, the same question must be investigated here. However, I fail to see how the response 4H to any kind of Blackwood can ever show 2 aces and the trump queen? Nor can any answer to any kind of Blackwood (AFAIK) ever be incontrovertibly not artificial, so unless Law 25A applies I don't see any non-barring replacement call possible in this situation. > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 2 00:37:52 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:37:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] intended meaning? In-Reply-To: <000d01ce009e$5d4ea130$17ebe390$@online.no> References: <000d01ce009e$5d4ea130$17ebe390$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:05:38 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick> >> >> P P 1H P >> 2C P 2D 2D >> >> >> 2D was insufficient. He meant to double to show diamonds (the opps were >> in >> a Drury sequence). >> >> So the intended meaning was to show diamonds. Do you allow the >> replacement of a double? It would seem to depend on the precise wording >> of whatever >> L227B1(b) should be. > > [Sven Pran] > For correct application of Law 27B1(b) you should investigate the > question: > > Is there ANY hand with which the player (according to partnership > understanding) would double in this situation but NOT have bid 2D if that > bid had been sufficient - that is in the auction: > P P 1H P > 2C P P 2D? Is there some reason you made up this auction? The player bidding 2D saw the 2D bid in front of him. And a double would not just show diamonds in this auction, so you would not allow that change anyway. > > If you cannot find such a hand then the double does NOT introduce the > possibility of any hand that would not have made the insufficient bid if > that had been legal, consequently the double has the same or a more > precise > meaning than the insufficient bid. > >> The background is a player answers 4H to Blackwood, intending to show 2 >> controls and the queen. The bid of 5S has exactly the intended meaning, > but >> in the unwritten small print of L27B1(b), I think the nonbarring > replacement is >> 5H. > > [Sven Pran] > No, the same question must be investigated here. However, I fail to see > how > the response 4H to any kind of Blackwood can ever show 2 aces and the > trump > queen? Nor can any answer to any kind of Blackwood (AFAIK) ever be > incontrovertibly not artificial, so unless Law 25A applies I don't see > any > non-barring replacement call possible in this situation. > >> Bob >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 2 00:40:29 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:40:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? Message-ID: Declarer spoke first: "I said "3 of jack of hearts." "3 of referred to the 3 of clubs in dummy. The correct ruling, I am pretty sure, except in Belgium, is that she did not finish designating her card, so she can change. But I am not fond of making that ruling. The opponents both said declarer said "3 of clubs". So I asked dummy, who said her partner just said "three". The ruling here in ACBL-land is that the call of "three" can't be changed. So on a vote of 3 to 1, I made her play the 3 of clubs. Ah well, any time there is a dispute of facts, it is not a happy ruling. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 2 00:46:27 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:46:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] intended meaning? In-Reply-To: <000d01ce009e$5d4ea130$17ebe390$@online.no> References: <000d01ce009e$5d4ea130$17ebe390$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:05:38 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick> >> >> P P 1H P >> 2C P 2D 2D >> >> >> 2D was insufficient. He meant to double to show diamonds (the opps were >> in >> a Drury sequence). >> >> So the intended meaning was to show diamonds. Do you allow the >> replacement of a double? It would seem to depend on the precise wording >> of whatever >> L227B1(b) should be. > > [Sven Pran] > For correct application of Law 27B1(b) you should investigate the > question: > > Is there ANY hand with which the player (according to partnership > understanding) would double in this situation but NOT have bid 2D if that > bid had been sufficient - that is in the auction: > P P 1H P > 2C P P 2D? > > If you cannot find such a hand then the double does NOT introduce the > possibility of any hand that would not have made the insufficient bid if > that had been legal, consequently the double has the same or a more > precise > meaning than the insufficient bid. > >> The background is a player answers 4H to Blackwood, intending to show 2 >> controls and the queen. The bid of 5S has exactly the intended meaning, > but >> in the unwritten small print of L27B1(b), I think the nonbarring > replacement is >> 5H. > > [Sven Pran] > No, the same question must be investigated here. However, I fail to see > how > the response 4H to any kind of Blackwood can ever show 2 aces and the > trump > queen? I think it is agreed that all insufficient bids are meaningless. If we found that a partnership had an agreement on the meaning of an insufficient bid, I think we would be upset with the partnership. Therefore, it is common to talk about the intended meaning. Even though the laws refer to meaning. That works well, but there is the .3% where it doesn't. There are other formulations. Nor can any answer to any kind of Blackwood (AFAIK) ever be > incontrovertibly not artificial, so unless Law 25A applies I don't see > any > non-barring replacement call possible in this situation. > >> Bob >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From svenpran at online.no Sat Feb 2 06:38:58 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 06:38:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] intended meaning? In-Reply-To: References: <000d01ce009e$5d4ea130$17ebe390$@online.no> Message-ID: <000301ce0107$99867dd0$cc937970$@online.no> > Robert Frick > > [Sven Pran] > > For correct application of Law 27B1(b) you should investigate the > > question: > > > > Is there ANY hand with which the player (according to partnership > > understanding) would double in this situation but NOT have bid 2D if > > that bid had been sufficient - that is in the auction: > > P P 1H P > > 2C P P 2D? > > > Is there some reason you made up this auction? [Sven Pran] It was the only alternative auction I could imagine the offender had "seen" that would make his 2D bid sufficient. The "meaning" of the insufficient bid when trying for Law 27B1{b} must be investigated under the presumption that the offender thought his bid was sufficient at the time he made it. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 3 01:17:47 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 19:17:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] intended meaning? In-Reply-To: <000301ce0107$99867dd0$cc937970$@online.no> References: <000d01ce009e$5d4ea130$17ebe390$@online.no> <000301ce0107$99867dd0$cc937970$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 00:38:58 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> > [Sven Pran] >> > For correct application of Law 27B1(b) you should investigate the >> > question: >> > >> > Is there ANY hand with which the player (according to partnership >> > understanding) would double in this situation but NOT have bid 2D if >> > that bid had been sufficient - that is in the auction: >> > P P 1H P >> > 2C P P 2D? >> >> >> Is there some reason you made up this auction? > > [Sven Pran] > It was the only alternative auction I could imagine the offender had > "seen" > that would make his 2D bid sufficient. > > The "meaning" of the insufficient bid when trying for Law 27B1{b} must be > investigated under the presumption that the offender thought his bid was > sufficient at the time he made it. > I hope you have a Plan B. He saw the 2D bid. A double of an artificial bid shows that suit, in this case diamonds. Somewhere between here and and there, the idea of double morphed into actually biding 2 Diamonds. I believe your attempt to "make his bid sufficient" includes changing his bid. So you can change his bid to double, making the auction sufficient. Then of course double has the same meaning as double. Problem solved. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 4 05:21:55 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 04:21:55 +0000 Subject: [BLML] It's illegal but ethical?? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED34E1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Marvin French, December 2012: >>>..... >>>It's unethical, but legal >>>..... Ed Reppert, December 2012: >>To me, this statement is self-contradictory. The rules of the game >>define its ethics. If it's unethical, there is a law that makes it so. Alan LeBendig's encomium on Edgar Kaplan: >I was appointed co-chairman of NABC Appeals in 1988 and have >sought advice from Edgar many times when dealing with weighty >issues. He was always available to help me gain insight into the >intent of the laws. > >Trying to achieve equity has always been a primary motive of most >of us involved in the appeals process. It is not uncommon to be >faced with a problem and the "appropriate" law does not achieve >this elusive equity. I will never forget Edgar telling me "if you don't >like what a law says, find another law." and he could always show >me a way to apply a less obvious law that would allow us to >approach that equity which we so desperately sought. Grattan Endicott, July 2008, reminiscence of achieving equity: +=+ Some forty plus years ago there were a couple of elderly does (female dears) in the local club who had an evident understanding (disclosure being approximate*) that in the sequence 1'w'-double-1'y' responder's shortest suit was 'y'. So we developed a counter that 1w - double - 1y - 'double' expressed a desire to defend whatever contract they escaped into. Ah, for the lost liberality of that regime. (*we believed largely as to length through siting of the handbag) +=+ UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130204/abb10d74/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Feb 4 06:19:04 2013 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:19:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] It's illegal but ethical?? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED34E1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED34E1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <000901ce0297$279ab290$76d017b0$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard HILLS Sent: Monday, 4 February 2013 3:22 PM To: Laws Bridge Subject: [BLML] It's illegal but ethical?? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Marvin French, December 2012: >>>..... >>>It's unethical, but legal >>>..... Ed Reppert, December 2012: >>To me, this statement is self-contradictory. The rules of the game >>define its ethics. If it's unethical, there is a law that makes it so. Alan LeBendig's encomium on Edgar Kaplan: >I was appointed co-chairman of NABC Appeals in 1988 and have >sought advice from Edgar many times when dealing with weighty >issues. He was always available to help me gain insight into the >intent of the laws. > >Trying to achieve equity has always been a primary motive of most >of us involved in the appeals process. It is not uncommon to be >faced with a problem and the "appropriate" law does not achieve >this elusive equity. I will never forget Edgar telling me "if you don't >like what a law says, find another law." and he could always show >me a way to apply a less obvious law that would allow us to >approach that equity which we so desperately sought. Grattan Endicott, July 2008, reminiscence of achieving equity: +=+ Some forty plus years ago there were a couple of elderly does (female dears) in the local club who had an evident understanding (disclosure being approximate*) that in the sequence 1'w'-double-1'y' responder's shortest suit was 'y'. So we developed a counter that 1w - double - 1y - 'double' expressed a desire to defend whatever contract they escaped into. Ah, for the lost liberality of that regime. (*we believed largely as to length through siting of the handbag) +=+ UNOFFICIAL [tony] I had a lady who would respond to partner's 1C, with 1s (written bidding) with 4, and 1S with 5. No problem, we always alert! Cheers, Tony (Sydney) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130204/fe33251c/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Feb 4 06:23:48 2013 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:23:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] intended meaning? In-Reply-To: References: <000d01ce009e$5d4ea130$17ebe390$@online.no> <000301ce0107$99867dd0$cc937970$@online.no> Message-ID: <000e01ce0297$d0fea670$72fbf350$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013 11:18 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] intended meaning? > > On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 00:38:58 -0500, Sven Pran > wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> > [Sven Pran] > >> > For correct application of Law 27B1(b) you should investigate the > >> > question: > >> > > >> > Is there ANY hand with which the player (according to partnership > >> > understanding) would double in this situation but NOT have bid 2D if > >> > that bid had been sufficient - that is in the auction: > >> > P P 1H P > >> > 2C P P 2D? > >> > >> > >> Is there some reason you made up this auction? > > > > [Sven Pran] > > It was the only alternative auction I could imagine the offender had > > "seen" > > that would make his 2D bid sufficient. > > > > The "meaning" of the insufficient bid when trying for Law 27B1{b} must be > > investigated under the presumption that the offender thought his bid was > > sufficient at the time he made it. > > > > I hope you have a Plan B. He saw the 2D bid. [] [tony] This is what us directors call a DIS ( Deliberate Insufficient Bid) as when you bid 2S after partner has already bid 3S. Sounds as if you might get away with L25a here at a pinch. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > A double of an artificial bid shows that suit, in this case diamonds. > Somewhere between here and and there, the idea of double morphed into > actually biding 2 Diamonds. > > I believe your attempt to "make his bid sufficient" includes changing his > bid. So you can change his bid to double, making the auction sufficient. > Then of course double has the same meaning as double. Problem solved. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Mon Feb 4 14:50:02 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:50:02 -0000 Subject: [BLML] It's illegal but ethical?? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED34E1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED34E1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <7E1A3557ADA64C42917F46FEDDAD4B49@G3> [Marvin French] It's unethical, but legal [Ed Reppert, December 2012] To me, this statement is self-contradictory. The rules of the game define its ethics. If it's unethical, there is a law that makes it so. [Nigel] A game?s rules define it. Nevertheless behaviour that conforms with bridge-rules may transgress other ethical criteria. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130204/ae255a24/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 4 18:57:57 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:57:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] intended meaning? In-Reply-To: <000e01ce0297$d0fea670$72fbf350$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000d01ce009e$5d4ea130$17ebe390$@online.no> <000301ce0107$99867dd0$cc937970$@online.no> <000e01ce0297$d0fea670$72fbf350$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 00:23:48 -0500, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Robert Frick >> Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013 11:18 AM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] intended meaning? >> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 00:38:58 -0500, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> Robert Frick >> >> > [Sven Pran] >> >> > For correct application of Law 27B1(b) you should investigate the >> >> > question: >> >> > >> >> > Is there ANY hand with which the player (according to partnership >> >> > understanding) would double in this situation but NOT have bid 2D > if >> >> > that bid had been sufficient - that is in the auction: >> >> > P P 1H P >> >> > 2C P P 2D? >> >> >> >> >> >> Is there some reason you made up this auction? >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > It was the only alternative auction I could imagine the offender had >> > "seen" >> > that would make his 2D bid sufficient. >> > >> > The "meaning" of the insufficient bid when trying for Law 27B1{b} > must be >> > investigated under the presumption that the offender thought his bid > was >> > sufficient at the time he made it. >> > >> >> I hope you have a Plan B. He saw the 2D bid. > [] > [tony] This is what us directors call a DIS ( Deliberate > Insufficient Bid) as when you bid 2S after partner has > already bid 3S. Sounds as if you might get away with > L25a here at a pinch. Good point to look for this. Here, it wasn't deliberate. He was sheepish about the bid. His thought was to double the artificial 2 Diamond bid to show diamonds. Then somewhere between here and there it turned into a bid of 2 Diamonds. (Or maybe he recognized the sequence as one in which he could double to show diamonds and the call morphed even sooner.) And there was nothing to be gained. He had AJxxx of diamonds, which is about exactly what the immediate double would show. He had a good partner who was sure to understand the double. > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > >> >> A double of an artificial bid shows that suit, in this case diamonds. >> Somewhere between here and and there, the idea of double morphed into >> actually biding 2 Diamonds. >> >> I believe your attempt to "make his bid sufficient" includes changing > his >> bid. So you can change his bid to double, making the auction > sufficient. >> Then of course double has the same meaning as double. Problem solved. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 4 19:02:52 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:02:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] It's illegal but ethical?? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7E1A3557ADA64C42917F46FEDDAD4B49@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED34E1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <7E1A3557ADA64C42917F46FEDDAD4B49@G3> Message-ID: On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:50:02 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Marvin French] > > It's unethical, but legal > > > > [Ed Reppert, December 2012] > > To me, this statement is self-contradictory. The rules of the game > define its ethics. If it's unethical, there is a law that makes it so. > > > > [Nigel] > > A game?s rules define it. Nevertheless behaviour that conforms with > bridge-rules may transgress other ethical criteria. What about if the director makes a wrong ruling in your favor? What about declarer claims and you put your cards in the box without showing them because you know you revoked? What about leading to the next trick when declarer just revoked and seems confused about what is happening and hasn't turned over her card from the last trick? What about loudly summoning the director when your inexperienced opponents have made a face-up opening lead, with the intention of rattling them? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 4 23:02:46 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 22:02:46 +0000 Subject: [BLML] It's illegal but ethical?? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED35A7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 72A: Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws. Nigel Guthrie: >A game's rules define it. Nevertheless behaviour that conforms >with bridge-rules may transgress other ethical criteria. Richard Hills: Yes and No. Many years ago Edgar Kaplan wrote an editorial in The Bridge World advocating what is now the second sentence of Law 72A. A reader attempted "reduction ad absurdum" by posing this hypothetical scenario: a) you have agreed to play a major pairs event with a sweet old lady who needs a few masterpoints to become a Life Master, and b) now an aggressive young expert offers to partner you in that major pairs event, so c) you cancel your partnership with the sweet old lady so as "to obtain a higher score" partnering the aggressive young expert. Edgar observed that choosing a partner was outside the scope of the Laws, so of course it is ethical for one to keep partnering a sweet old lady. But Edgar also observed that one should not give the opponents an inch (the false ethics, for example, of ignoring the Director to illegally waive the rectification for a revoke) in one's quest to acquire the Life Master title for one's sweet old lady partner. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130204/1ecd9357/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Feb 5 03:27:58 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:27:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 Message-ID: <51106E2E.7070105@nhcc.net> "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result he may announce..." Are there any restrictions on _when_ the player may so announce? I've always assumed it had to be done immediately, but now that I look, I don't see a time limit (or "immediately" or such) in the Law. Did the law change? Announcing a possible tempo break much later in the auction ("Do we agree your partner's 2C bid [three rounds of the auction ago when we're now at the five level] was slow?") is very distracting. Is it legal? It seems pointless because if there was UI, it has probably already been "used." From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Feb 5 20:41:57 2013 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:41:57 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 References: <51106E2E.7070105@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com Steve Willner wrote: > "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information > available and that damage could well result he may announce..." > > Are there any restrictions on _when_ the player may so announce? I've > always assumed it had to be done immediately, but now that I look, I > don't see a time limit (or "immediately" or such) in the Law. Did the > law change? Announcing a possible tempo break much later in the auction > ("Do we agree your partner's 2C bid [three rounds of the auction ago > when we're now at the five level] was slow?") is very distracting. Is > it legal? It seems pointless because if there was UI, it has probably > already been "used." Steve, just read L16B2 and your questions are answered. The only "immediate" action allowed a player is to advise the opponents that "he reserves the right to call the Director later." Not now, later. The "may announce" means it is not required. Not saying anything at the time is polite (avoiding any implication of possible wrongdoing that could result) and in no way should jeopardize a potential redress for any damage caused by the UI. (The RA option in L16B2 was not exercised by the ACBL). However, if the opponents disagree with this optional comment, it is *they*, not you, who should summon the Director immediately. L16B2 concerns the auction period, while L16B3 concerns the play period. During that time when there is "substantial reason to believe..." (which can only come from sight of dummy or play of declarer's cards), "he should summon the Director when play ends.*" Not before! The footnote to L16B3 (* It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later.) means earlier in the play (e.g., at sight of dummey), not during the auction. Grattan says calling the TD immediately when there is evidence of probable damage nstead of at play's end (as specified), while not an infraction, is an irregularity. The ACBL National Appeals Commission ignores the wording of these Laws, preferring their own version, an unofficial hodgepodge of older Laws and word-of-mouth traditions among ACBL TDs. Accordingly, a player is wise to call the TD immediately when potentilally damaging UI is observed. Illegal, of course, but the AC won't believe a player later if this is not done. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 7 05:03:00 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 04:03:00 +0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3E5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/td-training/default.htm WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1NT.......Pass......2H A few seconds pass. Before South calls East calls the Director and asks to change his call to 2D because he forgot he was playing transfers. South is happy to allow the change. The Director will not allow the change and rules the 2H bid must stand. TRUE FALSE Law references: Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130207/02cb1226/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 7 09:11:04 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 09:11:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3E5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3E5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <001801ce050a$ad56ecd0$0804c670$@online.no> Oh dear! Law 25B1: A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender?s LHO. Send the Director back to school! Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 7. februar 2013 05:03 Til: Laws Bridge Emne: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/td-training/default.htm WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1NT.......Pass......2H A few seconds pass. Before South calls East calls the Director and asks to change his call to 2D because he forgot he was playing transfers. South is happy to allow the change. The Director will not allow the change and rules the 2H bid must stand. TRUE FALSE Law references: Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130207/9c336c16/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Feb 7 09:15:48 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 08:15:48 +0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001801ce050a$ad56ecd0$0804c670$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3E5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001801ce050a$ad56ecd0$0804c670$@online.no> Message-ID: <511362B4.1080103@btinternet.com> There was no director: it was a question with true/false choice of answers provided. You've given your answer. What makes you think anyone disagrees with it? Gordon Rainsford On 07/02/2013 08:11, Sven Pran wrote: > > Oh dear! > > Law 25B1: > > A substituted call not permitted by A */may be accepted by the > offender's LHO/*. > > Send the Director back to school! > > *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > av* Richard HILLS > *Sendt:* 7. februar 2013 05:03 > *Til:* Laws Bridge > *Emne:* [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > UNOFFICIAL > > http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/td-training/default.htm > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > > 1NT.......Pass......2H > > A few seconds pass. Before South calls East calls the > > Director and asks to change his call to 2D because he > > forgot he was playing transfers. South is happy to > > allow the change. > > The Director will not allow the change and rules the > > 2H bid must stand. > > TRUE > > FALSE > > Law references: > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/20130207/76829aed/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 7 10:01:11 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:01:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <511362B4.1080103@btinternet.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3E5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001801ce050a$ad56ecd0$0804c670$@online.no> <511362B4.1080103@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <003101ce0511$ad780530$08680f90$@online.no> I certainly hope nobody would disagree with me. My comment was related to the words in your post: The Director will not allow the change and rules the 2H bid must stand. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Gordon Rainsford Sendt: 7. februar 2013 09:16 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] There was no director: it was a question with true/false choice of answers provided. You've given your answer. What makes you think anyone disagrees with it? Gordon Rainsford On 07/02/2013 08:11, Sven Pran wrote: Oh dear! Law 25B1: A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender?s LHO. Send the Director back to school! Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 7. februar 2013 05:03 Til: Laws Bridge Emne: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/td-training/default.htm WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1NT.......Pass......2H A few seconds pass. Before South calls East calls the Director and asks to change his call to 2D because he forgot he was playing transfers. South is happy to allow the change. The Director will not allow the change and rules the 2H bid must stand. TRUE FALSE Law references: Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130207/d9d8f480/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Thu Feb 7 10:11:29 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:11:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?EBU_Director_exam_2009_question_8_=5BSEC=3DUNOFF?= =?utf-8?q?ICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <003101ce0511$ad780530$08680f90$@online.no> References: <003101ce0511$ad780530$08680f90$@online.no> Message-ID: <1U3NVx-0OecsK0@fwd55.aul.t-online.de> Hi Sven, I disagree with you. The TD will not allow the change of call, because the change was not yet made. See also Ton Kooijman's inofficial Commentary to the 2007 Edition of the laws concerning Law 25: "It is no longer allowed to change an intended call, old Law 25B has been removed. Only when a player has substituted his intended call do the provisions in B1 apply; the TD should not give a player the opportunity to change an intended call." Peter Von: "Sven Pran" > I certainly hope nobody would disagree with me. > > My comment was related to the words in your post: The Director will > not allow the change and rules the 2H bid must stand. > > FRA: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? VEGNE > AV Gordon Rainsford > SENDT: 7. februar 2013 09:16 > TIL: Bridge Laws Mailing List > EMNE: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > There was no director: it was a question with true/false choice of > answers provided. You've given your answer. What makes you think > anyone disagrees with it? > > Gordon Rainsford > > On 07/02/2013 08:11, Sven Pran wrote: > > Oh dear! > > Law 25B1: > > A substituted call not permitted by A _MAY BE ACCEPTED BY THE > OFFENDER'S LHO_. > > Send the Director back to school! > > FRA: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [1] [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org [2]] > P? VEGNE AV Richard HILLS > SENDT: 7. februar 2013 05:03 > TIL: Laws Bridge > EMNE: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > UNOFFICIAL > > http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/td-training/default.htm [3] > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > > 1NT.......Pass......2H > > A few seconds pass. Before South calls East calls the > > Director and asks to change his call to 2D because he > > forgot he was playing transfers. South is happy to > > allow the change. > > The Director will not allow the change and rules the > > 2H bid must stand. > > TRUE > > FALSE > > Law references: > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > UNOFFICIAL From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Feb 7 10:17:24 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:17:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <511362B4.1080103@btinternet.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3E5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001801ce050a$ad56ecd0$0804c670$@online.no> <511362B4.1080103@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <002101ce0513$f0cac0a0$d26041e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: if I understand the question correctly I am one of anyone. The TD does not allow the change. So the these is true. Only in the case where a player changes an intended call himself before the TD is called the option to accept that substituted call LHO is offered to accept it. Not if a player asks the TD permission to change it. ton There was no director: it was a question with true/false choice of answers provided. You've given your answer. What makes you think anyone disagrees with it? Gordon Rainsford On 07/02/2013 08:11, Sven Pran wrote: Oh dear! Law 25B1: A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender?s LHO. Send the Director back to school! Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 7. februar 2013 05:03 Til: Laws Bridge Emne: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/td-training/default.htm WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1NT.......Pass......2H A few seconds pass. Before South calls East calls the Director and asks to change his call to 2D because he forgot he was playing transfers. South is happy to allow the change. The Director will not allow the change and rules the 2H bid must stand. TRUE FALSE Law references: Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2013.0.2897 / Virusdatabase: 2639/6085 - datum van uitgifte: 02/06/13 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130207/c8c39a09/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 7 10:29:57 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:29:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1U3NVx-0OecsK0@fwd55.aul.t-online.de> References: <003101ce0511$ad780530$08680f90$@online.no> <1U3NVx-0OecsK0@fwd55.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <004b01ce0515$b29e1640$17da42c0$@online.no> The now removed Law 25B allowed a player to change his intended call even when his LHO did not accept the change. This unfortunate law has been removed. If the player just says that he wants to change his intended call without naming a new call I agree that he may not do so, but once he names a new call I consider this as he has already made the change. Technically he has called out of turn at his LHO's turn to call, see Law 30B3 (leading to Law 25). That IMHO is the case here. (But I may of course be wrong?) > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Peter Eidt > Sendt: 7. februar 2013 10:11 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Hi Sven, > > I disagree with you. > > The TD will not allow the change of call, because the change was not yet > made. > > See also Ton Kooijman's inofficial Commentary to the > 2007 Edition of the laws concerning Law 25: > "It is no longer allowed to change an intended call, old Law 25B has been > removed. Only when a player has substituted his intended call do the > provisions in B1 apply; the TD should not give a player the opportunity to > change an intended call." > > Peter > > > Von: "Sven Pran" > > I certainly hope nobody would disagree with me. > > > > My comment was related to the words in your post: The Director will > > not allow the change and rules the 2H bid must stand. > > > > FRA: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? VEGNE > > AV Gordon Rainsford > > SENDT: 7. februar 2013 09:16 > > TIL: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > EMNE: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > There was no director: it was a question with true/false choice of > > answers provided. You've given your answer. What makes you think > > anyone disagrees with it? > > > > Gordon Rainsford > > > > On 07/02/2013 08:11, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Oh dear! > > > > Law 25B1: > > > > A substituted call not permitted by A _MAY BE ACCEPTED BY THE > > OFFENDER'S LHO_. > > > > Send the Director back to school! > > > > FRA: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [1] [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org [2]] P? > > VEGNE AV Richard HILLS > > SENDT: 7. februar 2013 05:03 > > TIL: Laws Bridge > > EMNE: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/td-training/default.htm [3] > > > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > > > > 1NT.......Pass......2H > > > > A few seconds pass. Before South calls East calls the > > > > Director and asks to change his call to 2D because he > > > > forgot he was playing transfers. South is happy to > > > > allow the change. > > > > The Director will not allow the change and rules the > > > > 2H bid must stand. > > > > TRUE > > > > FALSE > > > > Law references: > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 7 10:32:15 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:32:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002101ce0513$f0cac0a0$d26041e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3E5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001801ce050a$ad56ecd0$0804c670$@online.no> <511362B4.1080103@btinternet.com> <002101ce0513$f0cac0a0$d26041e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <004c01ce0516$04bb82a0$0e3287e0$@online.no> Then what are the consequences (if any) of the named pass? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av ton Sendt: 7. februar 2013 10:17 Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Emne: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ton: if I understand the question correctly I am one of anyone. The TD does not allow the change. So the these is true. Only in the case where a player changes an intended call himself before the TD is called the option to accept that substituted call LHO is offered to accept it. Not if a player asks the TD permission to change it. ton There was no director: it was a question with true/false choice of answers provided. You've given your answer. What makes you think anyone disagrees with it? Gordon Rainsford On 07/02/2013 08:11, Sven Pran wrote: Oh dear! Law 25B1: A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender?s LHO. Send the Director back to school! Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 7. februar 2013 05:03 Til: Laws Bridge Emne: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/td-training/default.htm WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1NT.......Pass......2H A few seconds pass. Before South calls East calls the Director and asks to change his call to 2D because he forgot he was playing transfers. South is happy to allow the change. The Director will not allow the change and rules the 2H bid must stand. TRUE FALSE Law references: Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2013.0.2897 / Virusdatabase: 2639/6085 - datum van uitgifte: 02/06/13 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130207/97caf31c/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Thu Feb 7 10:39:03 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:39:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?EBU_Director_exam_2009_question_8_=5BSEC=3DUNOFF?= =?utf-8?q?ICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <004b01ce0515$b29e1640$17da42c0$@online.no> References: <004b01ce0515$b29e1640$17da42c0$@online.no> Message-ID: <1U3Nwd-0Fbf6W0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Sven Pran" > The now removed Law 25B allowed a player to change his intended call > even when his LHO did not accept the change. This unfortunate law has > been removed. > > If the player just says that he wants to change his intended call > without naming a new call I agree that he may not do so, but once he > names a new call I consider this as he has already made the change. How do you make calls in Norway? In most countries they are made by taking some piece of cardboard out of the bidding box or by writing something on a bidding pad and not by naming it. > Technically he has called out of turn at his LHO's turn to call, see > Law 30B3 (leading to Law 25). ???? > That IMHO is the case here. (But I may of course be wrong?) From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 7 10:40:47 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:40:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004c01ce0516$04bb82a0$0e3287e0$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3E5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001801ce050a$ad56ecd0$0804c670$@online.no> <511362B4.1080103@btinternet.com> <002101ce0513$f0cac0a0$d26041e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <004c01ce0516$04bb82a0$0e3287e0$@online.no> Message-ID: <005c01ce0517$35297860$9f7c6920$@online.no> Sorry, I mixed in another thread, I meant (of course) Then what are the consequences (if any) of the named 2D? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Sven Pran Sendt: 7. februar 2013 10:32 Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Emne: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Then what are the consequences (if any) of the named pass? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av ton Sendt: 7. februar 2013 10:17 Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Emne: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ton: if I understand the question correctly I am one of anyone. The TD does not allow the change. So the these is true. Only in the case where a player changes an intended call himself before the TD is called the option to accept that substituted call LHO is offered to accept it. Not if a player asks the TD permission to change it. ton There was no director: it was a question with true/false choice of answers provided. You've given your answer. What makes you think anyone disagrees with it? Gordon Rainsford On 07/02/2013 08:11, Sven Pran wrote: Oh dear! Law 25B1: A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender?s LHO. Send the Director back to school! Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 7. februar 2013 05:03 Til: Laws Bridge Emne: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/td-training/default.htm WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1NT.......Pass......2H A few seconds pass. Before South calls East calls the Director and asks to change his call to 2D because he forgot he was playing transfers. South is happy to allow the change. The Director will not allow the change and rules the 2H bid must stand. TRUE FALSE Law references: Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2013.0.2897 / Virusdatabase: 2639/6085 - datum van uitgifte: 02/06/13 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130207/eb9ca903/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 7 10:47:36 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:47:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1U3Nwd-0Fbf6W0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <004b01ce0515$b29e1640$17da42c0$@online.no> <1U3Nwd-0Fbf6W0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <006c01ce0518$2993d030$7cbb7090$@online.no> Usually the same (using bid boxes) But that doesn't change the fact that a spoken call has the effect of a call made, and the use of bid boxes is not compulsory. (And my law reference should have been to Law 31B footnote, I inadvertently mixed in a separate discussion where the replacement call was a pass.) > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Peter Eidt > Sendt: 7. februar 2013 10:39 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Von: "Sven Pran" > > The now removed Law 25B allowed a player to change his intended call > > even when his LHO did not accept the change. This unfortunate law has > > been removed. > > > > If the player just says that he wants to change his intended call > > without naming a new call I agree that he may not do so, but once he > > names a new call I consider this as he has already made the change. > > How do you make calls in Norway? > > In most countries they are made by taking some piece of cardboard out of > the bidding box or by writing something on a bidding pad and not by naming > it. > > > Technically he has called out of turn at his LHO's turn to call, see > > Law 30B3 (leading to Law 25). > > ???? > > > That IMHO is the case here. (But I may of course be wrong?) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Feb 7 10:50:52 2013 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 09:50:52 -0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003101ce0511$ad780530$08680f90$@online.no> <1U3NVx-0OecsK0@fwd55.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Now then...who thought that RH would post a trivial problem? The mentioning of 2H is serpently UI at this stage but does it constitute a call? That is the crux. L > Hi Sven, > > I disagree with you. > > The TD will not allow the change of call, > because the > change was not yet made. > > See also Ton Kooijman's inofficial Commentary > to the > 2007 Edition of the laws concerning Law 25: > "It is no longer allowed to change an intended > call, old > Law 25B has been removed. Only when a player > has > substituted his intended call do the > provisions in B1 apply; > the TD should not give a player the > opportunity to change > an intended call." > > Peter > > > Von: "Sven Pran" >> I certainly hope nobody would disagree with >> me. >> >> My comment was related to the words in your >> post: The Director will >> not allow the change and rules the 2H bid >> must stand. >> >> FRA: blml-bounces at rtflb.org >> [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? VEGNE >> AV Gordon Rainsford >> SENDT: 7. februar 2013 09:16 >> TIL: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> EMNE: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 >> question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> There was no director: it was a question with >> true/false choice of >> answers provided. You've given your answer. >> What makes you think >> anyone disagrees with it? >> >> Gordon Rainsford >> >> On 07/02/2013 08:11, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> Oh dear! >> >> Law 25B1: >> >> A substituted call not permitted by A _MAY BE >> ACCEPTED BY THE >> OFFENDER'S LHO_. >> >> Send the Director back to school! >> >> FRA: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [1] >> [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org [2]] >> P? VEGNE AV Richard HILLS >> SENDT: 7. februar 2013 05:03 >> TIL: Laws Bridge >> EMNE: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question >> 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> UNOFFICIAL >> >> http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/td-training/default.htm >> [3] >> >> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >> >> 1NT.......Pass......2H >> >> A few seconds pass. Before South calls East >> calls the >> >> Director and asks to change his call to 2D >> because he >> >> forgot he was playing transfers. South is >> happy to >> >> allow the change. >> >> The Director will not allow the change and >> rules the >> >> 2H bid must stand. >> >> TRUE >> >> FALSE >> >> Law references: >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> UNOFFICIAL > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gampas at aol.com Thu Feb 7 10:59:42 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 09:59:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3E5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3E5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <51137B0E.90907@aol.com> > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > > 1NT.......Pass......2H > > > A few seconds pass. Before South calls East calls the > > Director and asks to change his call to 2D because he > > forgot he was playing transfers. South is happy to > > allow the change. > > The Director will not allow the change and rules the > > 2H bid must stand. > > TRUE > > FALSE > > Law references: > > My answer is that there is no way of tellling where the statement is true or false, as I was not there. It would have been more relevant to ask whether the director's decision was CORRECT or WRONG. I am sure now that GordonTD is Chief TD, the exam material will be tidied up! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130207/d316b896/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Feb 7 11:07:33 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:07:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004b01ce0515$b29e1640$17da42c0$@online.no> References: <003101ce0511$ad780530$08680f90$@online.no> <1U3NVx-0OecsK0@fwd55.aul.t-online.de> <004b01ce0515$b29e1640$17da42c0$@online.no> Message-ID: <004901ce051a$f24e4f30$d6eaed90$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> You are wrong. The case as presented is that this player asks the TD for the possibility to change it. The answer is 'no' and furthermore this creates UI. Which in this case means that partner has to bid 2S after which East can do what he wants, but it probably won't help him anymore. Bidding 3H now probably shows 5+/4+ game force in the majors. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: donderdag 7 februari 2013 10:30 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] The now removed Law 25B allowed a player to change his intended call even when his LHO did not accept the change. This unfortunate law has been removed. If the player just says that he wants to change his intended call without naming a new call I agree that he may not do so, but once he names a new call I consider this as he has already made the change. Technically he has called out of turn at his LHO's turn to call, see Law 30B3 (leading to Law 25). That IMHO is the case here. (But I may of course be wrong?) > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > av Peter Eidt > Sendt: 7. februar 2013 10:11 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Hi Sven, > > I disagree with you. > > The TD will not allow the change of call, because the change was not > yet made. > > See also Ton Kooijman's inofficial Commentary to the > 2007 Edition of the laws concerning Law 25: > "It is no longer allowed to change an intended call, old Law 25B has > been removed. Only when a player has substituted his intended call do > the provisions in B1 apply; the TD should not give a player the > opportunity to change an intended call." > > Peter > > > Von: "Sven Pran" > > I certainly hope nobody would disagree with me. > > > > My comment was related to the words in your post: The Director will > > not allow the change and rules the 2H bid must stand. > > > > FRA: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? VEGNE > > AV Gordon Rainsford > > SENDT: 7. februar 2013 09:16 > > TIL: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > EMNE: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > There was no director: it was a question with true/false choice of > > answers provided. You've given your answer. What makes you think > > anyone disagrees with it? > > > > Gordon Rainsford > > > > On 07/02/2013 08:11, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Oh dear! > > > > Law 25B1: > > > > A substituted call not permitted by A _MAY BE ACCEPTED BY THE > > OFFENDER'S LHO_. > > > > Send the Director back to school! > > > > FRA: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [1] [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org [2]] > > P? VEGNE AV Richard HILLS > > SENDT: 7. februar 2013 05:03 > > TIL: Laws Bridge > > EMNE: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/td-training/default.htm [3] > > > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > > > > 1NT.......Pass......2H > > > > A few seconds pass. Before South calls East calls the > > > > Director and asks to change his call to 2D because he > > > > forgot he was playing transfers. South is happy to > > > > allow the change. > > > > The Director will not allow the change and rules the > > > > 2H bid must stand. > > > > TRUE > > > > FALSE > > > > Law references: > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2013.0.2897 / Virusdatabase: 2639/6085 - datum van uitgifte: 02/06/13 From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Feb 7 11:14:43 2013 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:14:43 +0800 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <51137B0E.90907@aol.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3E5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <51137B0E.90907@aol.com> Message-ID: <51137E93.5080804@iinet.net.au> On 7/02/2013 5:59 PM, PL wrote: > >> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >> >> 1NT.......Pass......2H >> >> >> A few seconds pass. Before South calls East calls the >> >> Director and asks to change his call to 2D because he >> >> forgot he was playing transfers. South is happy to >> >> allow the change. >> >> The Director will not allow the change and rules the >> >> 2H bid must stand. >> >> TRUE >> >> FALSE >> >> Law references: >> >> > My answer is that there is no way of tellling where the statement is > true or false, as I was not there. It would have been more relevant to > ask whether the director's decision was CORRECT or WRONG. I am sure > now that GordonTD is Chief TD, the exam material will be tidied up! So far it sounds like excellent exam material bill > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Best wishes Helen and Bill Kemp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130207/a365be56/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Thu Feb 7 11:20:11 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:20:11 +0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <51137E93.5080804@iinet.net.au> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3E5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <51137B0E.90907@aol.com> <51137E93.5080804@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <51137FDB.1020804@aol.com> On 07/02/2013 10:14, bill kemp wrote: > On 7/02/2013 5:59 PM, PL wrote: >> >>> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >>> >>> 1NT.......Pass......2H >>> >>> >>> A few seconds pass. Before South calls East calls the >>> >>> Director and asks to change his call to 2D because he >>> >>> forgot he was playing transfers. South is happy to >>> >>> allow the change. >>> >>> The Director will not allow the change and rules the >>> >>> 2H bid must stand. >>> >>> TRUE >>> >>> FALSE >>> >>> Law references: >>> >>> >> My answer is that there is no way of tellling where the statement is >> true or false, as I was not there. It would have been more relevant >> to ask whether the director's decision was CORRECT or WRONG. I am >> sure now that GordonTD is Chief TD, the exam material will be tidied up! > > > So far it sounds like excellent exam material > > bill I did not say that it was not excellent. When is something that is untidy necessarily bad? My argument was that it was not a True or False question. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130207/2bf93666/attachment-0001.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Feb 7 11:24:44 2013 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:24:44 -0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003101ce0511$ad780530$08680f90$@online.no><1U3NVx-0OecsK0@fwd55.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <6910F5FCFA6C4561B41B651D7DF93BD3@changeme1> Sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrry...mentioning of 2D (haven't had 2nd coffee yet. L > Now then...who thought that RH would post a > trivial problem? > The mentioning of 2H is serpently UI at this > stage but does it constitute a call? That is > the > crux. > > L > > >> Hi Sven, >> >> I disagree with you. >> >> The TD will not allow the change of call, >> because the >> change was not yet made. >> >> See also Ton Kooijman's inofficial Commentary >> to the >> 2007 Edition of the laws concerning Law 25: >> "It is no longer allowed to change an >> intended >> call, old >> Law 25B has been removed. Only when a player >> has >> substituted his intended call do the >> provisions in B1 apply; >> the TD should not give a player the >> opportunity to change >> an intended call." >> >> Peter >> >> >> Von: "Sven Pran" >>> I certainly hope nobody would disagree with >>> me. >>> >>> My comment was related to the words in your >>> post: The Director will >>> not allow the change and rules the 2H bid >>> must stand. >>> >>> FRA: blml-bounces at rtflb.org >>> [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? VEGNE >>> AV Gordon Rainsford >>> SENDT: 7. februar 2013 09:16 >>> TIL: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> EMNE: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 >>> question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> There was no director: it was a question >>> with >>> true/false choice of >>> answers provided. You've given your answer. >>> What makes you think >>> anyone disagrees with it? >>> >>> Gordon Rainsford >>> >>> On 07/02/2013 08:11, Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> Oh dear! >>> >>> Law 25B1: >>> >>> A substituted call not permitted by A _MAY >>> BE >>> ACCEPTED BY THE >>> OFFENDER'S LHO_. >>> >>> Send the Director back to school! >>> >>> FRA: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [1] >>> [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org [2]] >>> P? VEGNE AV Richard HILLS >>> SENDT: 7. februar 2013 05:03 >>> TIL: Laws Bridge >>> EMNE: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question >>> 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> UNOFFICIAL >>> >>> http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/td-training/default.htm >>> [3] >>> >>> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >>> >>> 1NT.......Pass......2H >>> >>> A few seconds pass. Before South calls East >>> calls the >>> >>> Director and asks to change his call to 2D >>> because he >>> >>> forgot he was playing transfers. South is >>> happy to >>> >>> allow the change. >>> >>> The Director will not allow the change and >>> rules the >>> >>> 2H bid must stand. >>> >>> TRUE >>> >>> FALSE >>> >>> Law references: >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> >>> UNOFFICIAL >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Feb 7 11:30:42 2013 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:30:42 -0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003101ce0511$ad780530$08680f90$@online.no><1U3NVx-0OecsK0@fwd55.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Additional... Had one of these a few years ago. Opener had a max with good spades and 'broke the spade transfer' with 3H...that was passed out ! L >>> http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/td-training/default.htm >>> [3] >>> >>> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >>> >>> 1NT.......Pass......2H >>> >>> A few seconds pass. Before South calls East >>> calls the >>> >>> Director and asks to change his call to 2D >>> because he >>> >>> forgot he was playing transfers. South is >>> happy to >>> >>> allow the change. >>> >>> The Director will not allow the change and >>> rules the >>> >>> 2H bid must stand. >>> >>> TRUE >>> >>> FALSE >>> >>> Law references: >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> >>> UNOFFICIAL From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 7 12:32:36 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 12:32:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004901ce051a$f24e4f30$d6eaed90$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <003101ce0511$ad780530$08680f90$@online.no> <1U3NVx-0OecsK0@fwd55.aul.t-online.de> <004b01ce0515$b29e1640$17da42c0$@online.no> <004901ce051a$f24e4f30$d6eaed90$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <009601ce0526$d523c370$7f6b4a50$@online.no> Would it make any difference if the player instead of saying words to the effect: "May I change my bid to 2D?" Says words to the effect: "I should bid 2D." > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > ton > Sendt: 7. februar 2013 11:08 > Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Emne: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > You are wrong. The case as presented is that this player asks the TD for the > possibility to change it. > > The answer is 'no' and furthermore this creates UI. Which in this case means > that partner has to bid 2S after which East can do what he wants, but it > probably won't help him anymore. Bidding 3H now probably shows 5+/4+ > game force in the majors. > > ton > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven > Pran > Verzonden: donderdag 7 februari 2013 10:30 > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > The now removed Law 25B allowed a player to change his intended call even > when his LHO did not accept the change. This unfortunate law has been > removed. > > If the player just says that he wants to change his intended call without > naming a new call I agree that he may not do so, but once he names a new > call I consider this as he has already made the change. Technically he has > called out of turn at his LHO's turn to call, see Law 30B3 (leading to Law 25). > > That IMHO is the case here. (But I may of course be wrong?) > > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > > av Peter Eidt > > Sendt: 7. februar 2013 10:11 > > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Emne: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > Hi Sven, > > > > I disagree with you. > > > > The TD will not allow the change of call, because the change was not > > yet made. > > > > See also Ton Kooijman's inofficial Commentary to the > > 2007 Edition of the laws concerning Law 25: > > "It is no longer allowed to change an intended call, old Law 25B has > > been removed. Only when a player has substituted his intended call do > > the provisions in B1 apply; the TD should not give a player the > > opportunity to change an intended call." > > > > Peter > > > > > > Von: "Sven Pran" > > > I certainly hope nobody would disagree with me. > > > > > > My comment was related to the words in your post: The Director will > > > not allow the change and rules the 2H bid must stand. > > > > > > FRA: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? VEGNE > > > AV Gordon Rainsford > > > SENDT: 7. februar 2013 09:16 > > > TIL: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > EMNE: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > > There was no director: it was a question with true/false choice of > > > answers provided. You've given your answer. What makes you think > > > anyone disagrees with it? > > > > > > Gordon Rainsford > > > > > > On 07/02/2013 08:11, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > Oh dear! > > > > > > Law 25B1: > > > > > > A substituted call not permitted by A _MAY BE ACCEPTED BY THE > > > OFFENDER'S LHO_. > > > > > > Send the Director back to school! > > > > > > FRA: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [1] [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org [2]] > > > P? VEGNE AV Richard HILLS > > > SENDT: 7. februar 2013 05:03 > > > TIL: Laws Bridge > > > EMNE: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > > http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/td-training/default.htm [3] > > > > > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > > > > > > 1NT.......Pass......2H > > > > > > A few seconds pass. Before South calls East calls the > > > > > > Director and asks to change his call to 2D because he > > > > > > forgot he was playing transfers. South is happy to > > > > > > allow the change. > > > > > > The Director will not allow the change and rules the > > > > > > 2H bid must stand. > > > > > > TRUE > > > > > > FALSE > > > > > > Law references: > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Richard Hills > > > > > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > ----- > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com > Versie: 2013.0.2897 / Virusdatabase: 2639/6085 - datum van uitgifte: 02/06/13 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petereidt at t-online.de Thu Feb 7 12:40:12 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 12:40:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?EBU_Director_exam_2009_question_8_=5BSEC=3DUNOFF?= =?utf-8?q?ICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <009601ce0526$d523c370$7f6b4a50$@online.no> References: <009601ce0526$d523c370$7f6b4a50$@online.no> Message-ID: <1U3Pps-1fAMdM0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Sven Pran" > Would it make any difference if the player instead of saying words to > the effect: "May I change my bid to 2D?" > Says words to the effect: > "I should bid 2D." no. After TD arrived there will be no chance for a 2D bid. From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 7 14:22:59 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 14:22:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1U3Pps-1fAMdM0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <009601ce0526$d523c370$7f6b4a50$@online.no> <1U3Pps-1fAMdM0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001e01ce0536$40f56540$c2e02fc0$@online.no> And what if he just bids 2D anyway? (before TD arrives if that makes any difference) > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Peter Eidt > Sendt: 7. februar 2013 12:40 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Von: "Sven Pran" > > Would it make any difference if the player instead of saying words to > > the effect: "May I change my bid to 2D?" > > Says words to the effect: > > "I should bid 2D." > > no. After TD arrived there will be no chance for a 2D bid. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 7 15:26:12 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 09:26:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01ce0536$40f56540$c2e02fc0$@online.no> References: <009601ce0526$d523c370$7f6b4a50$@online.no> <1U3Pps-1fAMdM0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <001e01ce0536$40f56540$c2e02fc0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 08:22:59 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > And what if he just bids 2D anyway? (before TD arrives if that makes any > difference) Or after? As I understand it, if he asks the director if he can change his call, the answer is no. But if then does it anyway, wouldn't L25B1 apply? > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Peter Eidt >> Sendt: 7. februar 2013 12:40 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Von: "Sven Pran" >> > Would it make any difference if the player instead of saying words to >> > the effect: "May I change my bid to 2D?" >> > Says words to the effect: >> > "I should bid 2D." >> >> no. After TD arrived there will be no chance for a 2D bid. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From g3 at nige1.com Thu Feb 7 16:13:43 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:13:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01ce0536$40f56540$c2e02fc0$@online.no> References: <009601ce0526$d523c370$7f6b4a50$@online.no><1U3Pps-1fAMdM0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <001e01ce0536$40f56540$c2e02fc0$@online.no> Message-ID: [Nigel] Ordinary players can't understand why the law provides seemingly unnecessary options for both sides after illegal bids and plays These options spawn a morass of complex and confusing rules. In turn, these generate inconsistent and incomprehensible rulings . Admittedly, they open up a cornucopia of ploys for the secretary bird who has learnt exactly how to answer the director's questions and has designed cunning systemic variations to exploit each option choice. The main benefits, however, come to lawmakers, administrators, and directors: They are provided with sophisticated and intriguing ruling problems and fodder for endless fascinating but inconclusive discussion, as here. -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 1:22 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] And what if he just bids 2D anyway? (before TD arrives if that makes any difference) > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Peter Eidt > Sendt: 7. februar 2013 12:40 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Von: "Sven Pran" > > Would it make any difference if the player instead of saying words to > > the effect: "May I change my bid to 2D?" > > Says words to the effect: > > "I should bid 2D." > > no. After TD arrived there will be no chance for a 2D bid. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Feb 7 16:51:58 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:51:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <009601ce0526$d523c370$7f6b4a50$@online.no> <1U3Pps-1fAMdM0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <001e01ce0536$40f56540$c2e02fc0$@online.no> Message-ID: <003101ce054b$101c2890$305479b0$@online.no> That is exactly my point: If he asks "can I change my call" (without naming any replacement call) then the answer is of course no (unless he convinces the Director that his first call was inadvertent so that Law 25A applies) and the only irregularity is the unauthorized (to his partner) information that he somehow wanted to change his call. However once he has named a specific (desired) replacement call the irregularity to be rectified is precisely as if he already had changed his call, whether or not the Director was present at the table when he did that. So rather than just a Law 16 case we should now IMHO apply Law 25 in this situation. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 7. februar 2013 15:26 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 08:22:59 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > > > And what if he just bids 2D anyway? (before TD arrives if that makes > > any > > difference) > > Or after? > > As I understand it, if he asks the director if he can change his call, the answer > is no. But if then does it anyway, wouldn't L25B1 apply? > > > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > >> av Peter Eidt > >> Sendt: 7. februar 2013 12:40 > >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Emne: Re: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> > >> Von: "Sven Pran" > >> > Would it make any difference if the player instead of saying words > >> > to the effect: "May I change my bid to 2D?" > >> > Says words to the effect: > >> > "I should bid 2D." > >> > >> no. After TD arrived there will be no chance for a 2D bid. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > -- > Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 7 17:21:57 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:21:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 In-Reply-To: References: <009601ce0526$d523c370$7f6b4a50$@online.no> <1U3Pps-1fAMdM0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <001e01ce0536$40f56540$c2e02fc0$@online.no> Message-ID: <71E754DF-BAAC-4696-934F-9E036044E064@starpower.net> On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 08:22:59 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > >> And what if he just bids 2D anyway? (before TD arrives if that makes any >> difference) > > Or after? > > As I understand it, if he asks the director if he can change his call, the > answer is no. But if then does it anyway, wouldn't L25B1 apply? > >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >>> Peter Eidt >>> >>> Von: "Sven Pran" >>> >>>> Would it make any difference if the player instead of saying words to >>>> the effect: "May I change my bid to 2D?" >>>> Says words to the effect: >>>> "I should bid 2D." >>> >>> no. After TD arrived there will be no chance for a 2D bid. We can't make our rulings dependent on trivial semantic quibbles. It is absurd to argue that, "I change my bid to 2D!" versus "May I change my bid to 2D?" should produce opposite rulings. We either apply L25B1 to the situation or we don't, regardless of how (politely) the player phrased his intention. I would argue that we should apply L25B1 in these cases, on the general principle that a non-offender shouldn't lose options by calling the director. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 7 22:29:19 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 21:29:19 +0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED4065@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Eric Landau: >We can't make our rulings dependent on trivial semantic quibbles. It is absurd to >argue that, "I change my bid to 2D!" versus "May I change my bid to 2D?" should >produce opposite rulings. Richard Hills: I would quibble that they should produce the same ruling of a nullity (assuming that spoken bidding is not in use), as neither option abides by Law 18F. And if spoken bidding is in use then "I change my bid to 2D!" is an infraction of Law 9A2: "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification." Eric Landau: >We either apply L25B1 to the situation or we don't, regardless of how (politely) >the player phrased his intention. > >I would argue that we should apply L25B1 in these cases, on the general principle >that a non-offender shouldn't lose options by calling the director. Richard Hills: I would quibble that we should apply Law 25B1 to a past unintentional infraction, but that the Director should not permit a future intentional infraction. Law 10C1: "When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available." Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130207/c504fa0c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 8 01:08:29 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 00:08:29 +0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED40D9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Larry: >Now then...who thought that RH would post a trivial problem? Richard: The exam setter thought it trivially unnecessary to refer to Ton's commentary on the 2007 Law 25 when posing this question, so if the Chair of the WBF Laws Committee was sitting this exam he would be awarded Zero (Nix, Nought, Nothing) marks for his answer. Larry: >The mentioning of 2H [Sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrry...mentioning of 2D >(haven't had 2nd coffee yet.] is serpently UI at this stage but >does it constitute a call? That is the crux. > >L Richard: The play Law 45C4(a) states: "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play." but there is not as such any parallel auction Law which states: "A call must be chosen if a player names or otherwise designates it as the call she proposes to make." Monty Python's Flying Circus: ..... Customer: Uuuuuh, Wensleydale. Owner: Yes? Customer: Ah, well, I'll have some of that! Owner: Oh! I thought you were talking to me, sir. Mister Wensleydale, that's my name. Customer: (pause) Greek Feta? Owner: Uh, not as such. ..... Customer: It's not much of a cheese shop, is it? Owner: Finest in the district! Customer: (annoyed) Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please. Owner: Well, it's so clean, sir! Customer: It's certainly uncontaminated by cheese.... UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130208/2d802d8e/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 8 04:16:42 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 03:16:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED414E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie: >Ordinary players can't understand why the law provides >seemingly unnecessary options for both sides after illegal >bids and plays. These options spawn a morass of complex >and confusing rules. Richard Hills: The key word above is "seemingly". If the Laws were changed so that all four hands were exposed face up on the table throughout the auction and play, then there would no longer be any need for the morass of complex and confusing MI rules. :) :) Nigel Guthrie: >In turn, these generate inconsistent and incomprehensible >rulings. Admittedly, they open up a cornucopia of ploys >for The Secretary Bird who has learnt exactly how to >answer the Director's questions Richard Hills: At the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge I was partnering Dorothy's sister, Alison (who was substituting due to Dorothy being incapacitated with severe back pain). Although we were playing together for the first time, we had a very firm explicit partnership understanding to use the SW1NE convention (not only was SW1NE written on our System Cards, but also SW1NE is the default method that Canberra Bridge Club experts use to escape from 1NTx). Richard.....LHO......Alison.....RHO 1NT(1)......X........Pass(2)....Pass XX (3)......Pass.....2C (4).....X 2D (5)......X........2H (6).....Pass Pass........X........Pass.......Pass Pass (1) 12-14 hcp balanced. (2) The SW1NE convention showing either a desire for +1160 or a weak hand with two touching suits, duly alerted and explained. (3) Compulsory puppet call. (4) In principle a weak hand with at least 4/4 in the minors, but could be 4333 with a four-card minor, duly alerted and explained. (5) Preference for diamonds over clubs. (6) Non-systemic, alerted and explained as inexplicable. With myself and Alison both holding a four-card heart suit the number in 2Hx was +670. When LHO started grumbling, I summoned the Director. This was not a complex and confusing MI ruling, but rather a simple and straightforward Law 85 ruling. The Director asked Alison, "Was Richard's description of your 2C bid an accurate description of your partnership understanding?" "Yes." He asked me, "Was your description of Alison's 2C bid an accurate description of your partnership understanding?" Richard Hills, aka The Secretary Bird answered: "Yes." For a Law 85 ruling on disputed facts verbal evidence is still evidence, so the Director ruled that the table score stood. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130208/7fcbc840/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 8 15:59:34 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:59:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002101ce0513$f0cac0a0$d26041e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED3E5B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001801ce050a$ad56ecd0$0804c670$@online.no> <511362B4.1080103@btinternet.com> <002101ce0513$f0cac0a0$d26041e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <511512D6.7040404@nhcc.net> On 2013-02-07 4:17 AM, ton wrote: > Only in the case where a player changes an intended call himself before > the TD is called the option to accept that substituted call LHO is > offered to accept it. Not if a player asks the TD permission to change it. Has L9B1c been repealed? If not, why doesn't it apply? I'm reminded of the pre-1987 (or maybe pre-1975) rule about an opening lead out of turn. If presumed-declarer put his cards face up on the table, his partner became declarer, but if instead the Director was called, the presumed declarer had no right to do that. Nowadays "let dummy become declarer" is an explicit right in dealing with a LOOT, but I thought the intent of 9B1c was to grant the same sort of right for all other situations, even if not explicitly mentioned. That is, a player who knows all the Laws and reacts quickly shouldn't benefit over a person who is unfamiliar with the Laws or reacts slowly. From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Feb 8 17:16:31 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 11:16:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94E0F079-C325-4558-855B-96928B8E815C@mac.com> On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Declarer spoke first: "I said "3 of jack of hearts." "3 of referred to the > 3 of clubs in dummy. > > The correct ruling, I am pretty sure, except in Belgium, is that she did > not finish designating her card, so she can change. But I am not fond of > making that ruling. > > The opponents both said declarer said "3 of clubs". So I asked dummy, who > said her partner just said "three". The ruling here in ACBL-land is that > the call of "three" can't be changed. > > So on a vote of 3 to 1, I made her play the 3 of clubs. Ah well, any time > there is a dispute of facts, it is not a happy ruling. 1. I have no idea how you get "3 to 1" out of that. Looks like 2 to 2 to me. 2. Did you comply with your obligation under Law 83 in making this ruling? 3. 'Not fond of it' is not a valid reasoning for not making a ruling. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 8 19:14:55 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:14:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? In-Reply-To: <94E0F079-C325-4558-855B-96928B8E815C@mac.com> References: <94E0F079-C325-4558-855B-96928B8E815C@mac.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 11:16:31 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Declarer spoke first: "I said "3 of jack of hearts." "3 of referred to >> the >> 3 of clubs in dummy. >> >> The correct ruling, I am pretty sure, except in Belgium, is that she did >> not finish designating her card, so she can change. But I am not fond of >> making that ruling. >> >> The opponents both said declarer said "3 of clubs". So I asked dummy, >> who >> said her partner just said "three". The ruling here in ACBL-land is that >> the call of "three" can't be changed. >> >> So on a vote of 3 to 1, I made her play the 3 of clubs. Ah well, any >> time >> there is a dispute of facts, it is not a happy ruling. > > 1. I have no idea how you get "3 to 1" out of that. Looks like 2 to 2 to > me. no, if she said just "three", that is a complete designation and can't be changed. So her partner was undercutting her by not saying there was an "of". She was the only one saying she said "three of" > 2. Did you comply with your obligation under Law 83 in making this > ruling? always. > 3. 'Not fond of it' is not a valid reasoning for not making a ruling. Didn't say it was. The problem is this. "Three" is a complete designation and can't be changed. At least in ACBL-land. But "Three of" is an incomplete designation and presumably can be changed. You are fond of this? I would allow the change, but not be fond of that ruling. From g3 at nige1.com Fri Feb 8 17:50:34 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 16:50:34 -0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED414E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3ED414E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <58AC2DAF4C3F4E11A19BDE41095DE654@G3> Richard Hills: The key word above is ?seemingly?. If the Laws were changed so that all four hands were exposed face up on the table throughout the auction and play, then there would no longer be any need for the morass of complex and confusing MI rules. [Nige2] Another Richard Straw man argument :) Followed by [SNIPPED] Straw man example :} Richard's suggestion would render most of the auction superfluous. For some players, it would make the play pointless. Richard is aware that other suggestions have been proposed that would preserve Bridge's enjoyable nature but would make ruling simpler clearer, and more consistent. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 11 00:56:31 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:56:31 +0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDA483@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Example of Jane Austen irony: It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. Example of Richard Hills irony: >>If the Laws were changed so that all four hands were >>exposed face up on the table throughout the auction and >>play, then there would no longer be any need for the >>morass of complex and confusing MI rules. Nigel Guthrie: >..... >Richard's suggestion would render most of the auction >superfluous. For some players, it would make the play >pointless. Richard Hills: Precisely my point: that Law changes to fix one problem may have unintended consequences which create many other problems. Nigel Guthrie: >Richard is aware that other suggestions have been >proposed that would preserve Bridge's enjoyable nature >but would make ruling simpler clearer, and more >consistent. Richard Hills: Richard is aware that Nigel Guthrie is so enamoured of his proposed changes to the claim Laws that he assumes that the WBF Laws Committee "must" have an ulterior motive (i.e. providing entertainment for Directors) in their refusal to adopt Nigel's "obviously" superior idea. But Duplicate Bridge's enjoyable nature would not be preserved if it became easier for unethical declarers to ch**t with dubious claims. That is why the powers- that-be sensibly require that after a doubted claim: a) play ceases, and b) the Director adjudicates the claim, and c) doubtful points are decided against the claimer. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130210/1a61118e/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Feb 11 04:00:20 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:00:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 In-Reply-To: <51106E2E.7070105@nhcc.net> References: <51106E2E.7070105@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <51185EC4.8060000@nhcc.net> On 2013-02-04 9:27 PM, I wrote: > "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information > available and that damage could well result he may announce..." > > Are there any restrictions on _when_ the player may so announce? My question was not about the procedure but about the timing. The 1997 version (and I think previous versions) contained the word "immediately." That was removed in 2007, and I don't see any replacement. So is it now OK to say "Do we agree that your 1S bid three rounds of the auction ago was slow?" If not, why not? If so, why does it make sense? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 11 07:09:40 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 06:09:40 +0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB4F9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 9B1(c): Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled. Steve Willner asked: >Has L9B1c been repealed? If not, why doesn't it apply? Law 31B footnote, Bid Out of Rotation, Partner's or LHO's Turn: Later calls at LHO's turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies. Richard Hills: Law 9B1(c) does not apply, since one does not have a "right" to compel an opponent to commit a foreshadowed BOOT infraction. Steve Willner reminisced: >I'm reminded of the pre-1987 (or maybe pre-1975) rule about an >opening lead out of turn. If presumed-declarer put his cards face >up on the table, his partner became declarer, but if instead the >Director was called, the presumed declarer had no right to do >that. Nowadays "let dummy become declarer" is an explicit right >in dealing with a LOOT, Richard Hills reminisces: I'm reminded of the Prime Debacle of the 1997 Lawbook, its notorious Law 25B. That gave a player the "explicit right" to change an intended (but disastrous) call to a better call, at the cost of scoring at most Average-minus on the board. So while the 1987 Lawbook was more liberal than the 1975 Lawbook in permitting declarer to intentionally become the dummy, the 2007 Lawbook is less liberal than the 1997 Lawbook in now deeming a change of an intended call a BOOT infraction. Steve Willner: >but I thought the intent of 9B1c was to grant the same sort of >right for all other situations, even if not explicitly mentioned. >That is, a player who knows all the Laws and reacts quickly >shouldn't benefit over a person who is unfamiliar with the >Laws or reacts slowly. Richard Hills: What's the problem? In my opinion the problem is that Steve has failed to consider another change in the 2007 Lawbook, the new second sentence of Law 9A3: However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43). Richard Hills: In the exam question a player prevented an opponent from committing an infraction by quickly reacting with a prompt Director summoning. QED Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130211/49b3c11a/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 11 16:08:08 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:08:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 In-Reply-To: <51185EC4.8060000@nhcc.net> References: <51106E2E.7070105@nhcc.net> <51185EC4.8060000@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:00:20 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2013-02-04 9:27 PM, I wrote: >> "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information >> available and that damage could well result he may announce..." >> >> Are there any restrictions on _when_ the player may so announce? > > My question was not about the procedure but about the timing. The 1997 > version (and I think previous versions) contained the word > "immediately." That was removed in 2007, and I don't see any > replacement. So is it now OK to say "Do we agree that your 1S bid three > rounds of the auction ago was slow?" If not, why not? If so, why does > it make sense? Is there a good solution to this? I actually note any informative hesitations right after they occur. My opponents usually seem annoyed, like I am trying to take advantage of them and the laws. But as director, I do not like being called after there was a hesitation by one player and then a bid by his partner. The problem arises when it is an experienced pair that might not have noted the hesitation or might not know the ramifications. I once got protection for a hesitation. My memory is not calling the director until after the hand was over. But it was an egregious use of UI, and I do not recall the opponents arguing about the existence of the hesitation. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Feb 11 22:05:48 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:05:48 -0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDA483@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDA483@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: [Richard Hills] [SNIP] Nigel Guthrie is so enamoured of his proposed changes to the claim Laws that he assumes that the WBF Laws Committee ?must? have an ulterior motive (i.e. providing entertainment for Directors) in their refusal to adopt Nigel?s ?obviously? superior idea. But Duplicate Bridge?s enjoyable nature would not be preserved if it became easier for unethical declarers to ch**t with dubious claims. That is why the powers- that-be sensibly require that after a doubted claim: a) play ceases, and b) the Director adjudicates the claim, and c) doubtful points are decided against the claimer. [nigel] Richard and I were arguing about *options after illegal bids*. But Richard?s attempt to change the subject is understandable so I?m happy to go along with it. Yes I've suggested that duplicate claim-law be simplified, so that it is similar to rubber-bridge claim-law. Acrimonious disputes over claim-rulings are less common at rubber-bridge than at duplicate. Duplicate claim-rulings generate inconclusive discussions about the meaning of duplicate-law and how to interpret it. Yes, law-makers and directors seem to enjoy such disputes. I fear that players are less happy with inconsistent and incomprehensible rulings. I've no experience of opponents cheating at duplicate, rubber-bridge, or on-line. In general, however, the more sophisticated the law, the more scope for skulduggery. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 11 23:39:58 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:39:58 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB577@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Steve Willner: >My question was not about the procedure but about the timing. >The 1997 version (and I think previous versions) contained the >word "immediately". That was removed in 2007, and I don't see >any replacement. So is it now OK to say "Do we agree that your >1S bid three rounds of the auction ago was slow?" If not, why >not? If so, why does it make sense? Grattan Endicott, November 2008, Law 16B2 timing with screens: +=+ When the player on the receiving side of the screen does neither what he "may" do (Law 16B2) nor what he "should" do (Law 16B3) there is an obvious presumption that at the time he saw no irregularity. If the question is raised later the Director, being appropriately sceptical, may well think that the player's partner has drawn his attention to the fact that there was a delay, something he had not particularly noticed previously. The fact that the player who paused says "oh yes, I did take some time to reach a decision" does not add anything relevant to the facts. The question is what the players on the receiving side of the screen observed. This is the kind of thing the Director should determine, and is best placed to explore, before the question goes to the appeal committee. In the AC it is easy to get drawn into facts as worked out jointly by the two partners rather than facts as observed only on the receiving side of the screen. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130211/e2ac43d0/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Feb 12 00:43:19 2013 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:43:19 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 References: <51106E2E.7070105@nhcc.net> <51185EC4.8060000@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <16FECD6ABBD143D3B310CF0DE592DE9D@MARVIN> Steve Willner wrote: > > My question was not about the procedure but about the timing. The 1997 > version (and I think previous versions) contained the word > "immediately." That was removed in 2007, and I don't see any > replacement. So is it now OK to say "Do we agree that your 1S bid three > rounds of the auction ago was slow?" You may say "I reserve the right....", if the RA does not prohibit it. The ACBL did prohibit that in earlier versions but not in the latest, option not taken. Also, the RA may require that the TD be called immediately, another option not adopted by the ACBL. I have always felt that "I reserve the right..." is a haughty implolite thing to say. I prefer the equivalent, "We may need the Director later," or something like that. I doubt that any TD or AC would have trouble with this wording, since it conveys the same intent. Your "Do we agree...?" is not appropriate, however. It can lead to unnecessary wrangling and bad feelings, and nothing in the law says that agreement should be sought by anyone but the TD. Since the law says you *may* say something without specifying "immediately," three rounds ago seems okay. Saying nothing is the best course outside of ACBL land. "Immediately" applies to the other side only, who "should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed." The other side should never call the TD for this purpose. In a qualifying session of a big NABC pair event, I thought for a while after partner's 1NT rebid and my RHO said, "If you do that again I'm calling the Director!" In the same event my partner asked about a 1S rebid by responder on his right, before passing with me on lead. That was dumb but innocent. Since 1S was not Alerted as Fourth Suit Forcing (it wasn't), partner (holding five spades) was just curious. When I led a spade from J10x declarer immediately screamed for the Director, who ruled afterwards that I had no logical alternative. These unnecessary time-wasting TD calls in ACBL events are never discouraged, and players are not educated on the subject. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 12 01:30:50 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:30:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB5D3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sensible third sentence of Law 73D1: Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Marvin French, atypically sensible ACBL player: >..... >Saying nothing is the best course outside of ACBL land. >..... >In a qualifying session of a big NABC pair event, I thought for a while >after partner's 1NT rebid and my RHO said, "If you do that again I'm >calling the Director!" >..... WBF Laws Committee minutes, 4th September 2009, item 4: A request had been received from the ACBL for the committee to consider whether following a tempo breach and a call having a logical alternative, it would be possible to regard the hesitation as part of the infraction. Mr. Wildavsky reported that the ACBL has now gone away from this thought and the question may be laid to rest. The committee noted as a future possibility deletion of 'in itself' from Law 73D1. Not "gone away from this thought", a typical ACBL player: >>Is there a good solution to this? Richard Hills: Yes and Yes. Yes, it is sensible to say nothing after Law 73D1 legal creation-of-UI. Yes, it is sensible to summon the Director when one has reasonable cause to suspect a Law 73C infracting use-of-UI. Not "gone away from this thought", a typical ACBL player: >>I actually note any informative hesitations right after they occur. >>My opponents usually seem annoyed, like I am trying to take >>advantage of them and the laws. >>..... Richard Hills: Unnecessarily annoying the opponents cannot be a "good solution". Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130212/7c7e7c04/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 12 04:29:31 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:29:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB5D3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB5D3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:30:50 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Sensible third sentence of Law 73D1: > > Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call > or play is made is not in itself an infraction. > > Marvin French, atypically sensible ACBL player: > >> ..... >> Saying nothing is the best course outside of ACBL land. >> ..... >> In a qualifying session of a big NABC pair event, I thought for a while >> after partner's 1NT rebid and my RHO said, "If you do that again I'm >> calling the Director!" >> ..... > > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 4th September 2009, item 4: > > A request had been received from the ACBL for the committee to > consider whether following a tempo breach and a call having a logical > alternative, it would be possible to regard the hesitation as part of the > infraction. Mr. Wildavsky reported that the ACBL has now gone away > from this thought and the question may be laid to rest. The committee > noted as a future possibility deletion of 'in itself' from Law 73D1. > > Not "gone away from this thought", a typical ACBL player: > >>> Is there a good solution to this? > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and Yes. > > Yes, it is sensible to say nothing after Law 73D1 legal creation-of-UI. > > Yes, it is sensible to summon the Director when one has reasonable > cause to suspect a Law 73C infracting use-of-UI. > > Not "gone away from this thought", a typical ACBL player: > >>> I actually note any informative hesitations right after they occur. >>> My opponents usually seem annoyed, like I am trying to take >>> advantage of them and the laws. >>> ..... > > Richard Hills: > > Unnecessarily annoying the opponents cannot be a "good solution". You snipped the explanation of why this is a good thing to do. As far as I know, this is ACBL procedure. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 12 06:19:22 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 05:19:22 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB6FC@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL In this thread Richard Hills earlier wrote: >>>..... >>>Unnecessarily annoying the opponents cannot be a "good >>>solution". A typical ACBL player wrote: >>You snipped the explanation of why this is a good thing to do. A typical ACBL player's snipped explanation: >>>>But as director, I do not like being called after there was a >>>>hesitation by one player and then a bid by his partner. In a parallel thread atypical ACBL player Ed Reppert wrote: >..;... >3. 'Not fond of it' is not a valid reasoning for not making a ruling. Richard Hills: Nor is it a valid reason for unnecessarily annoying the opponents. A typical ACBL player wrote: >As far as I know, this is ACBL procedure. Richard Hills: I know for sure that this is an optional ACBL procedure, NOT a mandatory ACBL procedure, to take an action which unnecessarily annoys the opponents. Law 16B2: ...... he may [failure to do so is not wrong] announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called) ..... Richard Hills: See the Elections at the end of the ACBL Lawbook, whereby the ACBL Laws Commission declined to mandate a Director call. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130212/97a08a3b/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 13 02:25:37 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:25:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB6FC@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB6FC@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:19:22 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > In this thread Richard Hills earlier wrote: > >>>> ..... >>>> Unnecessarily annoying the opponents cannot be a "good >>>> solution". > > A typical ACBL player wrote: > >>> You snipped the explanation of why this is a good thing to do. > > A typical ACBL player's snipped explanation: > >>>>> But as director, I do not like being called after there was a >>>>> hesitation by one player and then a bid by his partner. > > In a parallel thread atypical ACBL player Ed Reppert wrote: > >> ..;... >> 3. 'Not fond of it' is not a valid reasoning for not making a ruling. > > Richard Hills: > > Nor is it a valid reason for unnecessarily annoying the opponents. > > A typical ACBL player wrote: > >> As far as I know, this is ACBL procedure. > > Richard Hills: > > I know for sure that this is an optional ACBL procedure, NOT a > mandatory ACBL procedure, to take an action which unnecessarily > annoys the opponents. > > Law 16B2: > > ...... > he may [failure to do so is not wrong] announce, unless prohibited > by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director > be called) > ..... > > Richard Hills: > > See the Elections at the end of the ACBL Lawbook, whereby the > ACBL Laws Commission declined to mandate a Director call. It is very clever to change what I say and then argue that it is wrong. It takes straw-man arguments to a whole new level. I said I note the hesitation (not call the director). That seems to be ACBL policy. The policy advises players to do that, it does not mandate it. This is an interesting issue. If there was some easy answer, people would have adopted it. For example... If I am called at the time of the hesitation, I sometimes explain to a newer player that his partner probably has hesitated, this hesitation shows values. If he is going to pass, there is no problem. He can bid if he is reasonably certain that most people will make the same bid with his hand. (There are different ways of stating the last sentence.) Obviously, this is way too much bridge advice for a typical director ruling. But the reality is, the player deserves to know all of it, both morally, practically, and legally. The need for this information is a good reason for players to call the director immediately -- they should call when their opponents seem to lack knowledge about what is happening legally. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 13 04:53:39 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 03:53:39 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB925@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: An apocryphal story about an American bridge titan of the 1930s, P. Hal Sims, is that he was challenged to a rubber bridge game by a bunny partnership. However, the bunnies wanted a handicap given to them by Sims. He thought for a while, and then said: "Okay, you can cheat." This reminds me of Law 16B2 and 16B3 advice given to me by the late great Chief Director of Tasmania, Roger Penny (so esteemed that the Aussie national championship allotted to the state of Tasmania is named after Roger). Roger advised me that if one of my bunny opponents infracted Law 16B2 (and Law 73A2) by intentionally hesitating, and my other bunny opponent intentionally infracted Law 16B3 (and Law 73C) by trying to take advantage of the hesitation, then there would usually be no need for me to summon the Director. This was because the bunnies would usually be too incompetent to inflict damage. For example, suppose the field were in 2H, cold for ten tricks, but the bunnies used UI to reach 4H. More than likely the bunny declarer would misplay 4H for nine tricks. No damage to my partnership, no need to summon the Director at any time, no need to drive the bunnies away from Duplicate Bridge by an officious "reserving of rights". Of course an officious player might argue that an undamaged pair should nevertheless summon the Director, so that their infracting opponents could be publicly "taught a lesson" by a Procedural or Disciplinary Penalty. ACBL Appeals Casebook, Kansas City 2001, Case Five (celeritous Pass by South over East's 4H): Casebook panellist Grattan Endicott, first paragraph: "East has no duty toward 'educating her opponents'. This arrogant and offensive concept should be removed at once from her understanding of the game: Players at the table have no such duty or prerogative. The 'Recorder' system and parallel arrangements around the world exist to attend to these matters." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130213/dfe27ce5/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 13 22:16:47 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:16:47 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The WBF and Junior Bridge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDB9D8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Press release from the World Bridge Federation As you know, the World Bridge Federation is committed to the promotion of Youth Bridge, which we strongly believe represents the future of our wonderful sport. Because of this, it has been decided that a new series of Simultaneous Pairs events will be introduced, the money from which will be used specifically to assist the development of Youth Bridge. The WBF's Youth Projects will include: * better teaching aids for countries trying to encourage young players, * assistance for youngsters to attend World Championships * special Simultaneous Pairs for schools * and other initiatives to encourage youngsters to learn bridge. We hope that you will appreciate this and will also join us for other Simultaneous Pairs that we plan to run in the future. Jaime Ortiz-Pati?o, President Emeritus of the World Bridge Federation introduced the World Junior Championships in 1987 and when Jos? Damiani became President of the WBF he continued the development of this sector by introducing a Schools Bridge Championship for younger players, and later introduced a Pairs Championship and a Girls Team Championship. The various World Youth Championships are now fixtures in the WBF Calendar, but the new WBF President, Gianarrigo Rona, hopes to develop World Youth Bridge further. It is recognised that for some countries, trying to send teams or pairs to the World Youth Championship events is an insurmountable financial burden. The President hopes that by setting up some fund-raising events it may be possible to assist these countries to send youngsters to participate at least in the Pairs or Individual events, where they have the opportunity to meet with young players from all over the world and further develop their game and their enthusiasm for Bridge. Mr Rona would also like to develop better teaching aids for countries trying to encourage and bring on young players. He hopes to introduce special simultaneous pairs events with commentaries specifically designed for young people learning the game to enjoy. He wishes to offer discounted entry to events like the World Wide Bridge Contest, so that young players can join in and compete against the international field. Another possibility would be to offer talks or lectures for youngsters during a world championship - the local young players could come along, watch some of the top players on vu-graph then attend a talk from one of the bridge teachers or perhaps from one of the top players themselves. Another way in which the WBF would like to get involved is by assisting NBOs to set up teaching programmes, or advising on running local Junior Camps or Youth events. There are so many ways in which the WBF could help with the development of Youth Bridge but to undertake this in a meaningful way requires funding. So we very much hope that NBOs and also the local clubs will see the value of this and encourage many of their clubs / players to take part. The WBF really needs your help on this. It was once said that "with music, bridge is a universal language" and this is so true - it is a medium that can join young people from all over the world without any prejudice, where they can play in partnership or as opponents, without understanding each other's language, but still find enjoyment, challenge and excitement. And what other sport can you think of where a newcomer has the chance to play against one of the top pairs in the world as they can at bridge ? To meet your heroes at the bridge table is a very special experience and - when all is said and done - you win whatever happens ! If they win the board, then you have a great story to tell about how good they were, and if you win, well, that's just wonderful and you can boast about it for months afterwards! Help us to help them to reach a point where they can join in and pit their wits against the best in the world - and maybe in due course, become the best in the world themselves! Join us and help us to develop Youth Bridge - it is the future of our wonderful game ! UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130213/a3985278/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 14 02:08:06 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 01:08:06 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Flushed with success [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBA74@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/06/15/346883/-Our-Love-Of-Sewers-A-Lesson-in-Path-Dependence Richard Hills, November 2008: >> ..... due to "path dependence". An initial semi-random >>setting of a standard ..... followed by a lock-in of that >>standard. Alain Gottcheiner, November 2008: >AG : do you mean that those who act Lawfully do it only by >chance ? Richard Hills, November 2008: No, I am saying that the exceedingly odd rules of bridge arose by Darwinian chance, not by Intelligent Design. The classic case was the introduction of the concept of vulnerability. As Harold Vanderbilt was beta-testing contract bridge in 1925, a fleeting acquaintance (so fleeting an acquaintance that Vanderbilt forgot her name) suggested that vulnerability be added to the rules. Had she not been there, contract bridge would have evolved from a different starting point. Nigel Guthrie frequently suggests that the Lawbook should be simplified. Abolition of vulnerability in 2018 would simplify Laws 2, 77 and 87. It would also simplify the game of Duplicate Bridge itself. But lock-in means that such a major simplifying change will not happen. Especially when one considers that many players like complicated assessments of how vulnerability affects their matchpoint and imp decisions in somewhat different ways. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130214/3965a3b7/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Feb 14 05:04:56 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:04:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? In-Reply-To: References: <94E0F079-C325-4558-855B-96928B8E815C@mac.com> Message-ID: <978189F8-7311-486A-83A8-F53AF63B20B2@mac.com> On Feb 8, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Didn't say it was. The problem is this. "Three" is a complete designation > and can't be changed. At least in ACBL-land. But "Three of" is an > incomplete designation and presumably can be changed. You are fond of > this? I would allow the change, but not be fond of that ruling. "Three" is a complete designation if it's a complete thought. "Three, no Jack of Hearts" designates the Jack of Hearts, not the three. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 14 05:31:42 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 04:31:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.041 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBACE@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL APPEAL No : 11.041 Tournament Director: Liz Stevenson Appeals Committee: David Burn (Chairman), Jason Hackett and Simon Cope .....................T872 .....................A87 .....................J65 .....................JT2 QJ.......................................93 63.......................................Q95 A74......................................KT32 AQ7643...................................K985 .....................AK654 .....................KJT42 .....................Q98 .....................--- Board 8 : Dealer West : Love all : Swiss Teams No auction provided. Result at table: 4? making by North, NS +420, lead 5? Director first called: At trick 3. Director?s statement of facts: North stated that he had asked for a top spade on the second trick. Dummy had played a small spade and West won the trick. North called for (another) top spade at the same time West claimed she played a diamond. North claimed she had not. South didn?t know what had happened. East agreed that his partner had led a diamond. Director?s ruling: Table result stands. Details of ruling: I ruled that under L45D both sides had played to the next trick so although dummy had played the wrong card on trick 2, that card could not be withdrawn. Appeal lodged by: North-South Appeals Committee decision: Director?s ruling upheld. Deposit returned. Appeals Committee?s comments: L45D: Both sides had played to trick 3 therefore trick 2 stands as played. Casebook panellist (and blmler) Paul Lamford?s comments: Did both sides play to the next trick? The card played from dummy would have been a revoke out of turn, so I am not sure this was correct. My view is that the only logical way of interpreting this is that both sides must have made a legal play to the next trick, and what would have been a revoke by dummy, ruffing West's diamond is not a ?play to the next trick?. It seems that the AC and TD interpreted the Law as ?any attempt to play to the next trick, even to lead out of turn?. My view is that the misplay by dummy can be corrected. An experienced TD on the Bridge Base Online Laws forum confirms that the normal WBFLC interpretation of ?plays to the next trick? is ?plays to the next trick legally?. WBFLC member Ton Kooijman?s published personal advice: Law 45 The word ?designat-es/ion? in C4 is used to distinguish the play of a card as described in A and B (second sentence) from playing it in another way. A card manually played by declarer from dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced if it is a legal card. Only in the case of a card played in another way, by naming it for example, it is possible to change it. This law states that such designation needs to be unintended and that the player already knew which card he wanted to play, at that moment. Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not have already put a card in the played position. Law 45D states that it is possible that 5 cards may have to be withdrawn if dummy plays a card that declarer did not designate to be played. If declarer leads from dummy and a wrong card is played, the trick may be completed and the lead to the next trick put on the table. If declarer now notices the mistake, he is allowed to play the intended card from dummy. The TD should carefully explain to RHO that if he does not change his card declarer is not allowed to change his card either. LHO is allowed to change it anyway. UNOFFICIAL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130214/89252f5b/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Feb 14 06:05:21 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:05:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.041 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBACE@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBACE@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5066079977CC41FF8CA71E8604DF1B58@erdos> I would agree that a lead out of turn (or an attempt to lead out of turn which follows a lead by the other side) constitutes a play to the next trick; the precedent is that a lead out of turn frequently establishes a revoke. For example, if dummy plays a high card and declarer trumps rather than following suit, declarer's attempt to lead from dummy establishes the revoke. ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard HILLS To: Laws Bridge Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:31 PM Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.041 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL APPEAL No : 11.041 Tournament Director: Liz Stevenson Appeals Committee: David Burn (Chairman), Jason Hackett and Simon Cope .....................T872 .....................A87 .....................J65 .....................JT2 QJ.......................................93 63.......................................Q95 A74......................................KT32 AQ7643...................................K985 .....................AK654 .....................KJT42 .....................Q98 .....................--- Board 8 : Dealer West : Love all : Swiss Teams No auction provided. Result at table: 4? making by North, NS +420, lead 5? Director first called: At trick 3. Director?s statement of facts: North stated that he had asked for a top spade on the second trick. Dummy had played a small spade and West won the trick. North called for (another) top spade at the same time West claimed she played a diamond. North claimed she had not. South didn?t know what had happened. East agreed that his partner had led a diamond. Director?s ruling: Table result stands. Details of ruling: I ruled that under L45D both sides had played to the next trick so although dummy had played the wrong card on trick 2, that card could not be withdrawn. Appeal lodged by: North-South Appeals Committee decision: Director?s ruling upheld. Deposit returned. Appeals Committee?s comments: L45D: Both sides had played to trick 3 therefore trick 2 stands as played. Casebook panellist (and blmler) Paul Lamford?s comments: Did both sides play to the next trick? The card played from dummy would have been a revoke out of turn, so I am not sure this was correct. My view is that the only logical way of interpreting this is that both sides must have made a legal play to the next trick, and what would have been a revoke by dummy, ruffing West's diamond is not a ?play to the next trick?. It seems that the AC and TD interpreted the Law as ?any attempt to play to the next trick, even to lead out of turn?. My view is that the misplay by dummy can be corrected. An experienced TD on the Bridge Base Online Laws forum confirms that the normal WBFLC interpretation of ?plays to the next trick? is ?plays to the next trick legally?. WBFLC member Ton Kooijman?s published personal advice: Law 45 The word ?designat-es/ion? in C4 is used to distinguish the play of a card as described in A and B (second sentence) from playing it in another way. A card manually played by declarer from dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced if it is a legal card. Only in the case of a card played in another way, by naming it for example, it is possible to change it. This law states that such designation needs to be unintended and that the player already knew which card he wanted to play, at that moment. Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not have already put a card in the played position. Law 45D states that it is possible that 5 cards may have to be withdrawn if dummy plays a card that declarer did not designate to be played. If declarer leads from dummy and a wrong card is played, the trick may be completed and the lead to the next trick put on the table. If declarer now notices the mistake, he is allowed to play the intended card from dummy. The TD should carefully explain to RHO that if he does not change his card declarer is not allowed to change his card either. LHO is allowed to change it anyway. UNOFFICIAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20130214/0566cd12/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 14 06:27:36 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:27:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.041 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBB15@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Grabiner, on the one hand: >I would agree that a lead out of turn (or an attempt to lead out of turn >which follows a lead by the other side) constitutes a play to the next >trick; the precedent is that a lead out of turn frequently establishes a >revoke. For example, if dummy plays a high card and declarer trumps >rather than following suit, declarer's attempt to lead from dummy >establishes the revoke. Frances Hinden (casebook panellist), on the other hand: I don't like this. It is a matter of fact (which the TD has to rule on) what spade North actually called for at trick two, but let's suppose that he did ask for a top spade and South mistakenly played a low one. Now it seems that West can prevent that error being rectified by his own actions - all he has to do is say he's led to the next trick when declarer also tries to lead to the next trick, and declarer has no recourse. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130214/de94d1db/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Feb 14 16:38:37 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:38:37 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Flushed with success [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBA74@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBA74@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <99CCF8FD8F5D464CABF7CDEE02640C4E@G3> [Richard Hills] Nigel Guthrie frequently suggests that the Lawbook should be simplified. Abolition of vulnerability in 2018 would simplify Laws 2, 77 and 87. It would also simplify the game of Duplicate Bridge itself. But lock-in means that such a major simplifying change will not happen. Especially when one considers that many players like complicated assessments of how vulnerability affects their matchpoint and imp decisions in somewhat different ways. [Nigel] Richard is aware that I don't advocate changes like this :) Vulnerability affects normal play. Its abolition would simplify the game but would also alter the basic nature of Bridge. The rule-simplifications that I and others suggest are designed to have a minimal impact on normal play. They are concerned with defining and regulating infractions more simply, more clearly, and more consistently. From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 14 16:59:15 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:59:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Flushed with success [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <99CCF8FD8F5D464CABF7CDEE02640C4E@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBA74@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <99CCF8FD8F5D464CABF7CDEE02640C4E@G3> Message-ID: <001401ce0acc$3d916cf0$b8b446d0$@online.no> History tells us that when in November 1925 the concept of vulnerability was introduced by Mr. Harold S. Vanderbilt in the game of bridge it was considered a major improvement of the game. Reversing this feature would seriously degrade the game. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Nigel Guthrie > Sendt: 14. februar 2013 16:39 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Flushed with success [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [Richard Hills] > Nigel Guthrie frequently suggests that the Lawbook should be simplified. > Abolition of vulnerability in 2018 would simplify Laws 2, 77 and 87. It would > also simplify the game of Duplicate Bridge itself. But lock-in means that such a > major simplifying change will not happen. Especially when one considers that > many players like complicated assessments of how vulnerability affects their > matchpoint and imp decisions in somewhat different ways. > > [Nigel] > Richard is aware that I don't advocate changes like this :) Vulnerability affects > normal play. Its abolition would simplify the game but would also alter the > basic nature of Bridge. The rule-simplifications that I and others suggest are > designed to have a minimal impact on normal play. > They are concerned with defining and regulating infractions more simply, > more clearly, and more consistently. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 14 19:54:20 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:54:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? In-Reply-To: <978189F8-7311-486A-83A8-F53AF63B20B2@mac.com> References: <94E0F079-C325-4558-855B-96928B8E815C@mac.com> <978189F8-7311-486A-83A8-F53AF63B20B2@mac.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:04:56 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Feb 8, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Didn't say it was. The problem is this. "Three" is a complete >> designation >> and can't be changed. At least in ACBL-land. But "Three of" is an >> incomplete designation and presumably can be changed. You are fond of >> this? I would allow the change, but not be fond of that ruling. > > "Three" is a complete designation if it's a complete thought. "Three, no > Jack of Hearts" designates the Jack of Hearts, not the three. That is not a practical policy. Do you mean to claim that when someone says three, but does not say the suit, that is an incomplete designation and they can change it? I think you would be out on a limb by yourself, at least in ACBL-land and Belgium. From the ACBLLC: Declarer leads toward the A?Q in dummy, intending to finesse. He calls ?Queen? without looking to see the card that LHO has played, the King. He wants to change to the ace. No matter how fast (without pause for thought) the change is made ? NOT INADVERTENT. When declarer said ?Queen? he meant the Queen. At the table, the intonation (pitch) described to me was of a complete thought ending in three. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 14 23:50:56 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:50:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Flushed with success [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBBBB@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >History tells us that when in November 1925 the concept of >vulnerability was introduced by Mr. Harold S. Vanderbilt in >the game of bridge it was considered a major improvement of >the game. > >Reversing this feature would seriously degrade the game. Richard Hills: Agreed. In 1987 non-vulnerable doubled penalties were increased from 100, 300, 500, 700, 900... to 100, 300, 500, 800, 1100... which was considered a major improvement to the game (for example, skilful bidding by a vulnerable partnership to a cold grand slam could no longer be neutralised by a frivolous non-vul sacrifice). Indeed, even rubber bridge players admired the new non- vulnerable doubled penalties, so they were also inserted into the 1993 Laws of Contract [Rubber] Bridge. Ergo, I join Nigel Guthrie in supporting constructive changes to the forthcoming 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. However, Nigel and I mostly - but not always - differ in opinion on what would be a constructive change and what instead would be a destructive change (mephitic unintended consequences). Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130214/fa9c42d5/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 15 01:33:31 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:33:31 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.041 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBBF2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL APPEAL No : 11.041 Tournament Director: Liz Stevenson Appeals Committee: David Burn (Chairman), Jason Hackett and Simon Cope .....................T872 .....................A87 .....................J65 .....................JT2 QJ.......................................93 63.......................................Q95 A74......................................KT32 AQ7643...................................K985 .....................AK654 .....................KJT42 .....................Q98 .....................--- Board 8 : Dealer West : Love all : Swiss Teams No auction provided. Result at table: 4? making by North, NS +420, lead 5? Director first called: At trick 3. Director?s statement of facts: North stated that he had asked for a top spade on the second trick. Dummy had played a small spade and West won the trick. North called for (another) top spade at the same time West claimed she played a diamond. North claimed she had not. South didn?t know what had happened. East agreed that his partner had led a diamond. ..... Casebook panellist Jeffrey Allerton?s comments: What happened here? Either North called for a top spade (misheard by South) or North actually called for a small spade in error. It is clear that North had intended to call for a top spade, not least because he attempted to lead for the next trick from dummy. I believe that the TD ought to have asked each of East and West what card they heard North call for. If it was known that North had called for a top spade but that South had placed the wrong card in the ?played? position, it seems wrong that West can make the wrongly played card permanent just by what is effectively leading out of turn to the next trick. Richard Hills: No, West alone cannot make the wrongly played card permanent by leading to trick three; if declarer had been less hasty ?leading? from dummy to trick three declarer might have had time to notice the murky strangeness of trick two. Judge Robert Rolf, Winterbottom v Wright (1842): This is one of those unfortunate cases...in which, it is, no doubt, a hardship upon the plaintiff to be without a remedy but by that consideration we ought not to be influenced. Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad law. Richard Hills: So I do not follow ?seems wrong?. If Law 45D applies, then dummy has infracted proper procedure by playing the wrong card to trick two. Neither defender has any obligation to draw attention to dummy?s irregularity (the operative word is ?may? in Law 9A2). Unless and until dummy?s trick two error is corrected then West has won that trick, thus West is entitled to lead to trick three. Casebook panellist Jeffrey Allerton?s comments: Neither West nor South (dummy) was attempting to follow the other one?s lead to the next trick, so have they both played to the ?next? trick as referred to in Law 45D? Another potentially relevant Law is Law 58A (simultaneous plays) which tells us that the legal lead is deemed to have been made first, but which was the legal lead here? Richard Hills: The Director?s statement of facts include ?at the same time?, so Law 58A is indeed relevant. As the declarer was obviously still unaware of dummy?s (presumed) Law 45D error at the start of trick three, then West?s diamond card was the legal lead to trick three and dummy?s top spade was a revoke out of turn (but nevertheless a card played to trick. Ergo, it was unnecessary for the TD or AC to decide whether declarer had mistakenly designated or whether dummy had mistakenly played; in both cases the defenders must be awarded a surprise trick because of the declaring side?s error. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130215/f77bfac8/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Feb 15 02:03:37 2013 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:03:37 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Appeal No : 11.041 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBACE@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBACE@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <511D8969.3020604@iinet.net.au> On 14/02/2013 12:31 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > *APPEAL No : 11.041* > *Tournament Director: *Liz Stevenson > *Appeals Committee: *David Burn (Chairman), Jason Hackett > and Simon Cope > .....................T872 > .....................A87 > .....................J65 > .....................JT2 > QJ.......................................93 > 63.......................................Q95 > A74......................................KT32 > AQ7643...................................K985 > .....................AK654 > .....................KJT42 > .....................Q98 > .....................--- > Board 8 : Dealer West : Love all : Swiss Teams > No auction provided. > *Result at table:* > 4? making by North, NS +420, lead 5? > *Director first called: *At trick 3. > *Director's statement of facts:* > North stated that he had asked for a top spade on > the second trick. Dummy had played a small spade and > West won the trick. North called for (another) top > spade at the same time West claimed she played a > diamond. North claimed she had not. South didn't know > what had happened. East agreed that his partner had > led a diamond. > *Director's ruling: *Table result stands. > *Details of ruling:* > I ruled that under L45D both sides had played to the > next trick so although dummy had played the wrong card > on trick 2, that card could not be withdrawn. > *Appeal lodged by: *North-South > *Appeals Committee decision: *Director's ruling upheld. > Deposit returned. > *Appeals Committee's comments:* > L45D: Both sides had played to trick 3 therefore trick 2 > stands as played. > *Casebook panellist (and blmler) **Paul Lamford's comments:* > Did both sides play to the next trick? The card played > from dummy would have been a revoke out of turn, so I am > not sure this was correct. My view is that the only > logical way of interpreting this is that both sides must > have made a legal play to the next trick, and what would > have been a revoke by dummy, ruffing West's diamond is > not a "play to the next trick". It seems that the AC and > TD interpreted the Law as "any attempt to play to the > next trick, even to lead out of turn". My view is that > the misplay by dummy can be corrected. An experienced TD > on the Bridge Base Online Laws forum confirms that the > normal WBFLC interpretation of "plays to the next trick" > is "plays to the next trick legally". > *WBFLC member **Ton Kooijman's published **personal **advice:* > *Law 45* > The word 'designat-es/ion' in *C4 *is used to distinguish > the play of a card as described in A and B (second > sentence) from playing it in another way. A card > manually played by declarer from dummy or by a defender > cannot be replaced if it is a legal card. Only in the > case of a card played in another way, by naming it for > example, it is possible to change it. This law states > that such designation needs to be /unintended /and that > the player already knew which card he wanted to play, at > that moment. Moreover, partner (in practice we are > talking about dummy) may not have already put a card in > the played position. > *Law 45D *states that it is possible that 5 cards may have > to be withdrawn if dummy plays a card that declarer did > not designate to be played. If declarer leads from dummy > and a wrong card is played, the trick may be completed > and the lead to the next trick put on the table. If > declarer now notices the mistake, he is allowed to play > the intended card from dummy. The TD should carefully > explain to RHO that if he does not change his card > declarer is not allowed to change his card either. LHO > is allowed to change it anyway. On the one hand Was the Diamond on the table? Were East and West questioned separately away from the table as to which diamond west had led? On the other hand from the director evidence it seems quite possible that both north and south could have missed the play of a card by west. Given no new evidence I am not changing the ruling of the director at the table. bill > UNOFFICIAL > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Best wishes Helen and Bill Kemp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130215/15b8a8e2/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 15 04:29:10 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 03:29:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Flushed with success [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBC33@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Introduction, 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. Eric Landau, May 2006: >..... >"Equity" and "fairness" are not the same thing. "Equity" means that an >offender receives a punishment that, in some sense, "fits the crime"; >in our world that means compensating the "victims" for whatever damage >they might have suffered. "Fairness" means that an offender receives >the same punishment as would anyone else who committed the same >offense; whether or not the punishment is also "equitable" isn't relevant. > >The goals of equity and fairness can and do conflict; in some cases it >may be impossible to achieve both. Nigel's argument highlights the >inconsistency with which we choose our goal law by law. For revokes, >for example, we sacrifice equity for fairness; Richard Hills, February 2013: Yes and No. Over decades successive Drafting Committees have tweaked the revoke Laws to be more equitable towards the offending side, getting closer to the Guiding Principle of "primarily designed not as punishment". Eric Landau, May 2006: >for claims, OTOH, where rulings depend on "the class of [the] player" >making the claim, we sacrifice fairness for equity. Nigel would revise the >laws to make them as "fair" as possible; Jeff Rubens has editorialized in >favor of revising the laws to make them as "equitable" as possible. > >Whether we favor one or the other, or prefer to continue to "muddle >down the middle", we should understand the difference. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130215/6b178673/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Feb 17 20:52:24 2013 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:52:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? In-Reply-To: References: <94E0F079-C325-4558-855B-96928B8E815C@mac.com> <978189F8-7311-486A-83A8-F53AF63B20B2@mac.com> Message-ID: <718B6083-51BF-40E3-A95C-EE15CF2773B1@mac.com> On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > That is not a practical policy. Do you mean to claim that when someone > says three, but does not say the suit, that is an incomplete designation > and they can change it? I say that "three" is an incomplete designation (see Law 46A). Whether the player can change the designation depends on what else is going on. > I think you would be out on a limb by yourself, at least in ACBL-land and > Belgium. From the ACBLLC: > > Declarer leads toward the A?Q in dummy, intending to > finesse. He calls ?Queen? without looking to see the card > that LHO has played, the King. He wants to change to the > ace. No matter how fast (without pause for thought) the > change is made ? NOT INADVERTENT. When declarer > said ?Queen? he meant the Queen. This is a completely different situation than the "three" one. > At the table, the intonation (pitch) described to me was of a complete > thought ending in three. Yeah, well, nobody described it that way to *me*. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 17 22:37:47 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:37:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? In-Reply-To: <718B6083-51BF-40E3-A95C-EE15CF2773B1@mac.com> References: <94E0F079-C325-4558-855B-96928B8E815C@mac.com> <978189F8-7311-486A-83A8-F53AF63B20B2@mac.com> <718B6083-51BF-40E3-A95C-EE15CF2773B1@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:52:24 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> That is not a practical policy. Do you mean to claim that when someone >> says three, but does not say the suit, that is an incomplete designation >> and they can change it? > > I say that "three" is an incomplete designation (see Law 46A). Whether > the player can change the designation depends on what else is going on. > >> I think you would be out on a limb by yourself, at least in ACBL-land >> and >> Belgium. From the ACBLLC: >> >> Declarer leads toward the A?Q in dummy, intending to >> finesse. He calls ?Queen? without looking to see the card >> that LHO has played, the King. He wants to change to the >> ace. No matter how fast (without pause for thought) the >> change is made ? NOT INADVERTENT. When declarer >> said ?Queen? he meant the Queen. > > This is a completely different situation than the "three" one. Why? You are agreeing that "queen" is a complete designation and arguing that "three" isn't? Why don't you just say what the difference is between these situations, if there is one? > >> At the table, the intonation (pitch) described to me was of a complete >> thought ending in three. > > Yeah, well, nobody described it that way to *me*. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 17 23:07:28 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:07:28 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBDAF@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ed Reppert: >I say that "three" is an incomplete designation (see Law >46A). Whether the player can change the designation >depends on what else is going on. From the ACBLLC: >>Declarer leads toward the A-Q in dummy, intending to >>finesse. He calls "Queen" without looking to see the card >>that LHO has played, the King. He wants to change to the >>ace. No matter how fast (without pause for thought) the >>change is made - NOT INADVERTENT. When declarer >>said "Queen" he meant the Queen. Richard Hills: Also in ABF-land the above situation is a standard question in Director exams, highlighting the difference between intentionally played cards and unintentionally played cards. Ed Reppert: >This is a completely different situation than the "three" one. Law 46B3: If declarer designates a rank but not a suit (a) In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit. (b) In all other cases declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such cards that can be legally played declarer must designate which is intended. Richard Hills: Yes, in declarer calling for a "three" Law 46A is expanded by Law 46B3 to resolve an ambiguity. But in the completely different situation of the Ace-Queen finesse, the completely different Law 45C4(b) prohibits changing the designation of an intended card. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130217/38556642/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 17 23:45:43 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:45:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBDAF@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDBDAF@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:07:28 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Ed Reppert: > >> I say that "three" is an incomplete designation (see Law >> 46A). Whether the player can change the designation >> depends on what else is going on. > > From the ACBLLC: > >>> Declarer leads toward the A-Q in dummy, intending to >>> finesse. He calls "Queen" without looking to see the card >>> that LHO has played, the King. He wants to change to the >>> ace. No matter how fast (without pause for thought) the >>> change is made - NOT INADVERTENT. When declarer >>> said "Queen" he meant the Queen. > > Richard Hills: > > Also in ABF-land the above situation is a standard question > in Director exams, highlighting the difference between > intentionally played cards and unintentionally played cards. > > Ed Reppert: > >> This is a completely different situation than the "three" one. > > Law 46B3: > > If declarer designates a rank but not a suit > > (a) In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit > in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a > card of the designated rank in that suit. > > (b) In all other cases declarer must play a card from dummy > of the designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are > two or more such cards that can be legally played declarer > must designate which is intended. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, in declarer calling for a "three" Law 46A is expanded by > Law 46B3 to resolve an ambiguity. Well, declarer wanted to change to the jack of hearts. Would you allow this change if there were two three's in the dummy? > > But in the completely different situation of the Ace-Queen > finesse, the completely different Law 45C4(b) prohibits > changing the designation of an intended card. > > Best wishes, > > R.J.B. Hills > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 18 15:22:50 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:22:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? In-Reply-To: References: <94E0F079-C325-4558-855B-96928B8E815C@mac.com> <978189F8-7311-486A-83A8-F53AF63B20B2@mac.com> <718B6083-51BF-40E3-A95C-EE15CF2773B1@mac.com> Message-ID: <336E4061-6506-4BF6-9CF5-378955F0A4E6@starpower.net> On Feb 17, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:52:24 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> That is not a practical policy. Do you mean to claim that when someone >>> says three, but does not say the suit, that is an incomplete designation >>> and they can change it? >> >> I say that "three" is an incomplete designation (see Law 46A). Whether >> the player can change the designation depends on what else is going on. >> >>> I think you would be out on a limb by yourself, at least in ACBL-land >>> and >>> Belgium. From the ACBLLC: >>> >>> Declarer leads toward the A?Q in dummy, intending to >>> finesse. He calls ?Queen? without looking to see the card >>> that LHO has played, the King. He wants to change to the >>> ace. No matter how fast (without pause for thought) the >>> change is made ? NOT INADVERTENT. When declarer >>> said ?Queen? he meant the Queen. >> >> This is a completely different situation than the "three" one. > > Why? You are agreeing that "queen" is a complete designation and arguing > that "three" isn't? > > Why don't you just say what the difference is between these situations, if > there is one? The difference is that in the latter case the missing statement of the denomination is unambiguously resolved by the obligation to follow suit. In the original case... On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Declarer spoke first: "I said "3 of jack of hearts." "3 of referred to the > 3 of clubs in dummy. > > The correct ruling, I am pretty sure, except in Belgium, is that she did > not finish designating her card, so she can change. But I am not fond of > making that ruling. > > The opponents both said declarer said "3 of clubs". So I asked dummy, who > said her partner just said "three". The ruling here in ACBL-land is that > the call of "three" can't be changed. ...had dummy been following to either a club or a heart trick there would be no question as which of the C3 or HJ had been designated. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 19 00:22:12 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:22:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? In-Reply-To: <336E4061-6506-4BF6-9CF5-378955F0A4E6@starpower.net> References: <94E0F079-C325-4558-855B-96928B8E815C@mac.com> <978189F8-7311-486A-83A8-F53AF63B20B2@mac.com> <718B6083-51BF-40E3-A95C-EE15CF2773B1@mac.com> <336E4061-6506-4BF6-9CF5-378955F0A4E6@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:22:50 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 17, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:52:24 -0500, Ed Reppert >> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> That is not a practical policy. Do you mean to claim that when someone >>>> says three, but does not say the suit, that is an incomplete >>>> designation >>>> and they can change it? >>> >>> I say that "three" is an incomplete designation (see Law 46A). Whether >>> the player can change the designation depends on what else is going on. >>> >>>> I think you would be out on a limb by yourself, at least in ACBL-land >>>> and >>>> Belgium. From the ACBLLC: >>>> >>>> Declarer leads toward the A?Q in dummy, intending to >>>> finesse. He calls ?Queen? without looking to see the card >>>> that LHO has played, the King. He wants to change to the >>>> ace. No matter how fast (without pause for thought) the >>>> change is made ? NOT INADVERTENT. When declarer >>>> said ?Queen? he meant the Queen. >>> >>> This is a completely different situation than the "three" one. >> >> Why? You are agreeing that "queen" is a complete designation and arguing >> that "three" isn't? >> >> Why don't you just say what the difference is between these situations, >> if >> there is one? > > The difference is that in the latter case the missing statement of the > denomination is unambiguously resolved by the obligation to follow suit. > > In the original case... > > On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Declarer spoke first: "I said "3 of jack of hearts." "3 of referred to >> the >> 3 of clubs in dummy. >> >> The correct ruling, I am pretty sure, except in Belgium, is that she did >> not finish designating her card, so she can change. But I am not fond of >> making that ruling. >> >> The opponents both said declarer said "3 of clubs". So I asked dummy, >> who >> said her partner just said "three". The ruling here in ACBL-land is that >> the call of "three" can't be changed. > > ...had dummy been following to either a club or a heart trick there > would be no question as which of the C3 or HJ had been designated. There was no question in anyone's mind that she meant the 3 of clubs when she said three. No one thinks she was trying to say "jack" and the work "three" came out. The question was whether she could change her designation. > > > Eric Landau > Silver Spring MD > New York NY > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 19 00:55:09 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:55:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC433@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 45C4(b), first sentence: Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. >There was no question in anyone's mind that she >meant the 3 of clubs when she said three. No one >thinks she was trying to say "jack" and the work >"three" came out. The question was whether she >could change her designation. Richard Hills: The questionless and/or biased minds of declarer's opponents are irrelevant to Law. The defenders may be interrogated as to fact, but their personal opinions are worthless. The questions that the Director has to resolve are: * firstly the state of declarer's mind when she designated "three" (i.e. was a trey originally intended or originally unintended), and * secondly whether the originally intended jack was now designated by declarer without her making a "pause for thought". WBF LC minutes, 18 October 2011, item 6: The committee confirmed once again that if a player's attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call the 'pause for thought' should be assessed from the moment when he first recognizes his error. It was decided to add to the Laws a footnote to Law 25A as follows: "A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error." The question is referred for further examination in the next review of the Laws. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130218/342ee7bf/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 19 02:10:47 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:10:47 +0000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Director exam 2009 question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC4B3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Professor Richard Wiseman: "An eight-month study of creativity in the workplace conducted by Robert Ulrich at Texas A&M University showed that adding flowers and plants to an office resulted in a 15 percent increase in ideas from male employees and more flexible solutions to problems from their female counterparts." Steve Willner: >..... >I thought the intent of [Law] 9B1c was to grant the >same sort of right for all other situations, even if not >explicitly mentioned. That is, a player who knows >all the Laws and reacts quickly shouldn't benefit >over a person who is unfamiliar with the Laws or >reacts slowly. Richard Hills: Not as such. I know all the Laws (as I proofread the drafts of the 2007 Lawbook), so as a defender I do not draw any attention to declarer's unestablished revoke. Only when declarer's revoke is established do I draw attention and consequently summon the Director. And as declarer I may or may not draw attention to a defender's unestablished revoke, depending upon my assessment of whether a Penalty Card is more beneficial to the Ali-Hills partnership than the benefit of a revoke rectification. Furthermore, when Ali-Hills are conducting a game force relay auction we always accept an insufficient bid, gaining several steps in our relay auction (or, alternatively, guaranteeing a penalty double of the undercaller, who might otherwise opt to replace her IB with a Pass). Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130219/bed37318/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 19 02:19:20 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:19:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC433@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC433@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: This is all irrelevant, Richard. It was a given of the original problem that she intended to say three. The idea that she meant to say "jack" and her mouth made a mistake and it came out "three" is farfetched. A simple question is whether the designation "three" can be changed. The ACBL is clear that it cannot. Eric and Ed, both from the ACBL, have suggested it can. I can't see how they are doing anything but ignoring the ACBL directive. Are you intentionally ignoring the harder questions? If the player says "three" and stops, and there are two three's in the dummy that could be played..... can the player change to the jack? Bob > UNOFFICIAL > > Law 45C4(b), first sentence: > > Until his partner has played a card a player may > change an unintended designation if he does so > without pause for thought. > >> There was no question in anyone's mind that she >> meant the 3 of clubs when she said three. No one >> thinks she was trying to say "jack" and the work >> "three" came out. The question was whether she >> could change her designation. > > Richard Hills: > > The questionless and/or biased minds of declarer's > opponents are irrelevant to Law. The defenders > may be interrogated as to fact, but their personal > opinions are worthless. > > The questions that the Director has to resolve are: > > * firstly the state of declarer's mind when she > designated "three" (i.e. was a trey originally > intended or originally unintended), and > > * secondly whether the originally intended > jack was now designated by declarer without > her making a "pause for thought". > > WBF LC minutes, 18 October 2011, item 6: > > The committee confirmed once again that if a > player's attention is diverted as he makes an > unintended call the 'pause for thought' should be > assessed from the moment when he first > recognizes his error. It was decided to add to the > Laws a footnote to Law 25A as follows: > > "A player is allowed to replace an unintended call > if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no > matter how he may become aware of his error." > > The question is referred for further examination in > the next review of the Laws. > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 19 03:59:04 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:59:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC4F8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >This is all irrelevant, Richard. It was a given of the original >problem that she intended to say three. The idea that she >meant to say "jack" and her mouth made a mistake and it >came out "three" is farfetched. >..... Richard Hills, February 2013: No, it was an irrelevant given of the original problem that other players (perhaps falsely) believed that she intended to say "three". Only the Director has the Law 85 power to decide a player's (perhaps farfetched) original intent. Richard Hills, August 2004 (farfetched but true): The ANC (Australian National Championships) have just concluded. The most important happening there was that the ACT Open Team won the Interstate Open Teams for the first time in 20 years. No doubt that gold medal was due solely to the fact that this year I failed to qualify as a member of the ACT Open Team. However, from a blml point of view, the most important ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" from dummy. All other players followed suit with low diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real ace of diamonds. Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was called. How would you rule? Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130219/2b45c443/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 19 05:24:01 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:24:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC4F8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC4F8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:59:04 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > >> This is all irrelevant, Richard. It was a given of the original >> problem that she intended to say three. The idea that she >> meant to say "jack" and her mouth made a mistake and it >> came out "three" is farfetched. You snipped the hard problem. Declarer calls for the three from dummy. Declarer meant one of the threes, but there are two threes so the call is ambiguous. Can declarer now play the jack of hearts? >> ..... > > Richard Hills, February 2013: > > No, it was an irrelevant given No, that given avoids your pointless discussion of uninteresting issues. of the original problem that > other players (perhaps falsely) believed that she intended to > say "three". Only the Director has the Law 85 power to > decide a player's (perhaps farfetched) original intent. > > Richard Hills, August 2004 (farfetched but true): > > The ANC (Australian National Championships) have just > concluded. The most important happening there was that > the ACT Open Team won the Interstate Open Teams for the > first time in 20 years. No doubt that gold medal was due > solely to the fact that this year I failed to qualify as a > member of the ACT Open Team. > > However, from a blml point of view, the most important > ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> > > Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of > hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, declarer > called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" from > dummy. All other players followed suit with low > diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real > ace of diamonds. > > Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the real ace of > diamonds. At that stage, the Director was called. > > How would you rule? > > Best wishes, > > R.J.B. Hills > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 19 05:55:25 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:55:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC8FC@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Isaac Asimov, short story "Foundation", conclusion: ..... the solution to this first crisis was obvious. Obvious as all hell! >You snipped the hard problem. Declarer calls for the three >from dummy. Declarer meant one of the threes, but there >are two threes so the call is ambiguous. Can declarer now >play the jack of hearts? Richard Hills: Obvious as all hell answer to so-called "hard" problem: RTFLB Naguib Mahfouz (1988 Nobel Prize for Literature winner): You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130219/0efd72d8/attachment-0001.html From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Tue Feb 19 11:39:11 2013 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:39:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC4F8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC4F8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <08DBFDEF5DF94618A3DFD3B5B2CBC4CA@MEDIONPC> How about they all follow to this with Hearts? From: Richard HILLS Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:59 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL >This is all irrelevant, Richard. It was a given of the original >problem that she intended to say three. The idea that she >meant to say ?jack? and her mouth made a mistake and it >came out ?three? is farfetched. >..... Richard Hills, February 2013: No, it was an irrelevant given of the original problem that other players (perhaps falsely) believed that she intended to say ?three?. Only the Director has the Law 85 power to decide a player?s (perhaps farfetched) original intent. Richard Hills, August 2004 (farfetched but true): The ANC (Australian National Championships) have just concluded. The most important happening there was that the ACT Open Team won the Interstate Open Teams for the first time in 20 years. No doubt that gold medal was due solely to the fact that this year I failed to qualify as a member of the ACT Open Team. However, from a blml point of view, the most important ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, declarer called for the non-existent ace of ?diamonds? from dummy. All other players followed suit with low diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real ace of diamonds. Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was called. How would you rule? Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6102 - Release Date: 02/13/13 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130219/6fa506fa/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Feb 19 12:19:30 2013 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:19:30 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation becomeincomplete?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC4F8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <08DBFDEF5DF94618A3DFD3B5B2CBC4CA@MEDIONPC> Message-ID: <9A40670FA88647C89868ECC604A5044E@changeme1> I recall this being bantered about many years ago. I think it even made it's way onto the ebu training course. L However, from a blml point of view, the most important ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, declarer called for the non-existent ace of ?diamonds? from dummy. All other players followed suit with low diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real ace of diamonds. Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was called. How would you rule? Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 19 14:53:53 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:53:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete? In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC433@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <04FE0BB2-F98C-4B99-84EF-E4ACFF108503@starpower.net> On Feb 18, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > This is all irrelevant, Richard. It was a given of the original problem > that she intended to say three. The idea that she meant to say "jack" and > her mouth made a mistake and it came out "three" is farfetched. > > A simple question is whether the designation "three" can be changed. The > ACBL is clear that it cannot. Eric and Ed, both from the ACBL, have > suggested it can. I can't see how they are doing anything but ignoring the > ACBL directive. FTR, I have suggested no such thing for the thread case. I merely pointed out the obvious: that declarer (presumably lacking the H3 in dummy) must be allowed to change the C3 to a heart if (hypothetically) dummy were following to a heart trick. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 19 15:41:55 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:41:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <08DBFDEF5DF94618A3DFD3B5B2CBC4CA@MEDIONPC> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC4F8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <08DBFDEF5DF94618A3DFD3B5B2CBC4CA@MEDIONPC> Message-ID: There is a reasonably easy resolution to this. (It uses Sven's thought for how to fix the laws concerning a played card.) When a player says "three", the designation is not yet finished. According the Law 45C4(a), the play of the three probably is not yet compulsory. However, Law 46B3(b) requires the player to play a three. So the player must designate which three he intends to play, and now Law 45C4(a) kicks in and the intended call cannot be changed. So the player calls for a "three" from dummy when there are two threes. He cannot change to the jack of hearts. (Richard, I now see, suggested otherwise. Sorry about repeatedly asking you a question you had answered.) A player says "three of" and stops. The player has said three and must play a three. Of course, if you as director let people change the designation of "three" (or "low" or "spade"), then they can always just change the others. This works like the Belgium regulation, except it allows a player to change his designation when he does not finish the word (e.g., "thr"). It fits the ACBL regulation. It leads to reasonable rulings. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 19 22:38:39 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:38:39 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC4F8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <08DBFDEF5DF94618A3DFD3B5B2CBC4CA@MEDIONPC> Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCA65@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >..... >When a player says "three", the designation is not yet >finished. According the Law 45C4(a), the play of the >three probably is not yet compulsory. Richard Hills: An incorrect interpretation of the 2007 Laws. Whether declarer calls for "jack of hearts" or calls for "three" from dummy, that is a designation. If that designation is made with intent, then it cannot be changed (unless Law 46B4 or Law 62A applies). An intended incomplete designation of "three" is still an intended designation, so the play of a three (if possible and legal) from dummy is indeed compulsory. But a very incomplete saying of "thr" or "Qu" is not a designation according to the criteria of Law 46B. >However, Law 46B3(b) requires the player to play a >three. So the player must designate which three he >intends to play, and now Law 45C4(a) kicks in and >the intended call cannot be changed. Richard Hills: The horse before the cart. No, a Director first assesses whether or not Law 45C4(b) (not C4(a)) kicks in. If the Director rules zero kicking, only then does the Director apply Law 46B3. >So the player calls for a "three" from dummy when >there are two threes. He cannot change to the jack of >hearts. Richard Hills: Yes and No. If declarer called for a "three" from dummy with intent, then she cannot change to the jack of hearts. But if Law 45C4(b) applies, then declarer can play her originally intended card (which may or may not be the jack of hearts). >(Richard, I now see, suggested otherwise. Sorry >about repeatedly asking you a question you had >answered.) >..... Richard Hills: The great detective Sherlock Holmes stated, "You see but you do not observe." This obtuse blmler has "read but not understood" the answers of Eric Landau, Ed Reppert and myself. Best wishes, Doctor Watson UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130219/f854f318/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 19 23:24:48 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:24:48 +0000 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCA86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 64B7: There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: when both sides have revoked on the same board. >However, from a blml point of view, the most important >ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> > >Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of >hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, declarer >called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" from >dummy. All other players followed suit with low >diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real >ace of diamonds. > >Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the real ace >of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was called. > >How would you rule? As TD I would seek further facts. Law 64B7 does not necessarily apply. When declarer led the so-called ace of "diamonds" from dummy, declarer may have been void in hearts, thus declarer "following suit" with a low diamond was in actuality declarer discarding due to being unable to follow suit to the ace of hearts. If so, not any revoke by the declaring side. :) :) Best quibbles, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130219/269df2f5/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Feb 20 03:07:06 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:07:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Can a complete designation becomeincomplete?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9A40670FA88647C89868ECC604A5044E@changeme1> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDC4F8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <08DBFDEF5DF94618A3DFD3B5B2CBC4CA@MEDIONPC> <9A40670FA88647C89868ECC604A5044E@changeme1> Message-ID: <807CB6BA3B534055BECBC0CE836E948D@erdos> "Larry" writes: > However, from a blml point of view, the most > important > ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> > > Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace > of > hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, > declarer > called for the non-existent ace of ?diamonds? > from > dummy. All other players followed suit with low > diamonds, even the defender who actually held > the real > ace of diamonds. > > Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash > the real ace of > diamonds. At that stage, the Director was > called. Since it is too late to correct the miscall, the HA stands as played, as do the other cards played to that trick. The adjustment for that play should be made to restore equity as if the HA had been led and everyone followed. Even if declarer didn't revoke (that is, he was void of hearts), dummy is partly at fault for the defender's revokes, so I won't impose the automatic penalty. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 20 12:57:45 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:57:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCA86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCA86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5124BA39.6080207@skynet.be> Richard HILLS schreef: >>However, from a blml point of view, the most important >>ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> >> >>Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of >>hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, declarer >>called for the non-existent ace of ?diamonds? from >>dummy. All other players followed suit with low >>diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real >>ace of diamonds. >> This has to be considered an incomplete trick (one without a missing first card). The fact that it is a diamond trick is confirmed, in this case, by all three players following to diamonds. Since the ace of diamonds was called, the actual "play" of the piece of cardboard showing an ace of hearts is of no consequence. >>Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the real ace >>of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was called. >> Ace of hearts restored to dummy - incomplete trick has to be conmpleted with any diamond, and a revoke trick against dummy. >>How would you rule? > As TD I would seek further facts. Law 64B7 does not > necessarily apply. > When declarer led the so-called ace of ?diamonds? from > dummy, declarer may have been void in hearts, thus > declarer ?following suit? with a low diamond was in > actuality declarer discarding due to being unable to > follow suit to the ace of hearts. > If so, not any revoke by the declaring side. J J > Best quibbles, > Richard Hills > UNOFFICIAL > You cannot make a heart trick, and three revokes on the same trick, from a trick which started, very clearly, with the ace of diamonds. Herman. From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Feb 20 13:46:14 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:46:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5124BA39.6080207@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCA86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5124BA39.6080207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <047901ce0f68$452dd4d0$cf897e70$@xs4all.nl> Agree with Herman here. I was about to react in a similar way. By the way, this magical three card trick was won by dummy(with his "Ace" of diamond), so it will be a two trick penalty revoke. This has very little connection with the game of bridge anymore.... Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: woensdag 20 februari 2013 12:58 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard HILLS schreef: >>However, from a blml point of view, the most important ANeCdote from >>the ANC was this ruling -> >> >>Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of hearts in the >>diamond suit. At an early stage, declarer called for the non-existent >>ace of "diamonds" from dummy. All other players followed suit with low >>diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real ace of >>diamonds. >> This has to be considered an incomplete trick (one without a missing first card). The fact that it is a diamond trick is confirmed, in this case, by all three players following to diamonds. Since the ace of diamonds was called, the actual "play" of the piece of cardboard showing an ace of hearts is of no consequence. >>Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the real ace of >>diamonds. At that stage, the Director was called. >> Ace of hearts restored to dummy - incomplete trick has to be conmpleted with any diamond, and a revoke trick against dummy. >>How would you rule? > As TD I would seek further facts. Law 64B7 does not necessarily apply. > When declarer led the so-called ace of "diamonds" from dummy, declarer > may have been void in hearts, thus declarer "following suit" with a > low diamond was in actuality declarer discarding due to being unable > to follow suit to the ace of hearts. > If so, not any revoke by the declaring side. J J Best quibbles, > Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL > You cannot make a heart trick, and three revokes on the same trick, from a trick which started, very clearly, with the ace of diamonds. Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 20 13:58:35 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:58:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <047901ce0f68$452dd4d0$cf897e70$@xs4all.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCA86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5124BA39.6080207@skynet.be> <047901ce0f68$452dd4d0$cf897e70$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <5124C87B.1040909@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren schreef: > Agree with Herman here. I was about to react in a similar way. > By the way, this magical three card trick was won by dummy(with his "Ace" of > diamond), so it will be a two trick penalty revoke. No, this trick was won by whichever of the other three diamonds was the highest. And then of course dummy led out of turn to the next trick, accepted by the subsequent play. Herman. > This has very little connection with the game of bridge anymore.... > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: woensdag 20 februari 2013 12:58 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard HILLS schreef: >>> However, from a blml point of view, the most important ANeCdote from >>> the ANC was this ruling -> >>> >>> Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of hearts in the >>> diamond suit. At an early stage, declarer called for the non-existent >>> ace of "diamonds" from dummy. All other players followed suit with low >>> diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real ace of >>> diamonds. >>> > > This has to be considered an incomplete trick (one without a missing first > card). The fact that it is a diamond trick is confirmed, in this case, by > all three players following to diamonds. Since the ace of diamonds was > called, the actual "play" of the piece of cardboard showing an ace of hearts > is of no consequence. > >>> Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the real ace of >>> diamonds. At that stage, the Director was called. >>> > > Ace of hearts restored to dummy - incomplete trick has to be conmpleted with > any diamond, and a revoke trick against dummy. > >>> How would you rule? >> As TD I would seek further facts. Law 64B7 does not necessarily apply. >> When declarer led the so-called ace of "diamonds" from dummy, declarer >> may have been void in hearts, thus declarer "following suit" with a >> low diamond was in actuality declarer discarding due to being unable >> to follow suit to the ace of hearts. >> If so, not any revoke by the declaring side. J J Best quibbles, >> Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL >> > > You cannot make a heart trick, and three revokes on the same trick, from a > trick which started, very clearly, with the ace of diamonds. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6114 - Release Date: 02/18/13 > > From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Feb 20 15:50:03 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:50:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5124C87B.1040909@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCA86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5124BA39.6080207@skynet.be> <047901ce0f68$452dd4d0$cf897e70$@xs4all.nl> <5124C87B.1040909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <048c01ce0f79$90d15360$b273fa20$@xs4all.nl> Ok. Does not really make a difference, because now it is a 1 trick penalty. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: woensdag 20 februari 2013 13:59 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Hans van Staveren schreef: > Agree with Herman here. I was about to react in a similar way. > By the way, this magical three card trick was won by dummy(with his > "Ace" of diamond), so it will be a two trick penalty revoke. No, this trick was won by whichever of the other three diamonds was the highest. And then of course dummy led out of turn to the next trick, accepted by the subsequent play. Herman. > This has very little connection with the game of bridge anymore.... > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Herman De Wael > Sent: woensdag 20 februari 2013 12:58 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard HILLS schreef: >>> However, from a blml point of view, the most important ANeCdote from >>> the ANC was this ruling -> >>> >>> Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of hearts in the >>> diamond suit. At an early stage, declarer called for the >>> non-existent ace of "diamonds" from dummy. All other players >>> followed suit with low diamonds, even the defender who actually held >>> the real ace of diamonds. >>> > > This has to be considered an incomplete trick (one without a missing > first card). The fact that it is a diamond trick is confirmed, in this > case, by all three players following to diamonds. Since the ace of > diamonds was called, the actual "play" of the piece of cardboard > showing an ace of hearts is of no consequence. > >>> Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the real ace of >>> diamonds. At that stage, the Director was called. >>> > > Ace of hearts restored to dummy - incomplete trick has to be > conmpleted with any diamond, and a revoke trick against dummy. > >>> How would you rule? >> As TD I would seek further facts. Law 64B7 does not necessarily apply. >> When declarer led the so-called ace of "diamonds" from dummy, >> declarer may have been void in hearts, thus declarer "following suit" >> with a low diamond was in actuality declarer discarding due to being >> unable to follow suit to the ace of hearts. >> If so, not any revoke by the declaring side. J J Best quibbles, >> Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL >> > > You cannot make a heart trick, and three revokes on the same trick, > from a trick which started, very clearly, with the ace of diamonds. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6114 - Release Date: > 02/18/13 > > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Feb 20 16:40:15 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:40:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <048c01ce0f79$90d15360$b273fa20$@xs4all.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCA86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5124BA39.6080207@skynet.be> <047901ce0f68$452dd4d0$cf897e70$@xs4all.nl> <5124C87B.1040909@skynet.be> <048c01ce0f79$90d15360$b273fa20$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <008a01ce0f80$944a4950$bcdedbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Are we going to apply 64A on dummy now? ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Hans van Staveren Verzonden: woensdag 20 februari 2013 15:50 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Ok. Does not really make a difference, because now it is a 1 trick penalty. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: woensdag 20 februari 2013 13:59 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Hans van Staveren schreef: > Agree with Herman here. I was about to react in a similar way. > By the way, this magical three card trick was won by dummy(with his > "Ace" of diamond), so it will be a two trick penalty revoke. No, this trick was won by whichever of the other three diamonds was the highest. And then of course dummy led out of turn to the next trick, accepted by the subsequent play. Herman. > This has very little connection with the game of bridge anymore.... > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Herman De Wael > Sent: woensdag 20 februari 2013 12:58 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard HILLS schreef: >>> However, from a blml point of view, the most important ANeCdote from >>> the ANC was this ruling -> >>> >>> Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of hearts in the >>> diamond suit. At an early stage, declarer called for the >>> non-existent ace of "diamonds" from dummy. All other players >>> followed suit with low diamonds, even the defender who actually held >>> the real ace of diamonds. >>> > > This has to be considered an incomplete trick (one without a missing > first card). The fact that it is a diamond trick is confirmed, in this > case, by all three players following to diamonds. Since the ace of > diamonds was called, the actual "play" of the piece of cardboard > showing an ace of hearts is of no consequence. > >>> Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the real ace of >>> diamonds. At that stage, the Director was called. >>> > > Ace of hearts restored to dummy - incomplete trick has to be > conmpleted with any diamond, and a revoke trick against dummy. > >>> How would you rule? >> As TD I would seek further facts. Law 64B7 does not necessarily apply. >> When declarer led the so-called ace of "diamonds" from dummy, >> declarer may have been void in hearts, thus declarer "following suit" >> with a low diamond was in actuality declarer discarding due to being >> unable to follow suit to the ace of hearts. >> If so, not any revoke by the declaring side. J J Best quibbles, >> Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL >> > > You cannot make a heart trick, and three revokes on the same trick, > from a trick which started, very clearly, with the ace of diamonds. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6114 - Release Date: > 02/18/13 > > _______________________________________________ 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 sater at xs4all.nl Wed Feb 20 16:43:37 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:43:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008a01ce0f80$944a4950$bcdedbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCA86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5124BA39.6080207@skynet.be> <047901ce0f68$452dd4d0$cf897e70$@xs4all.nl> <5124C87B.1040909@skynet.be> <048c01ce0f79$90d15360$b273fa20$@xs4all.nl> <008a01ce0f80$944a4950$bcdedbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <048d01ce0f81$0cb2df10$26189d30$@xs4all.nl> Ah. Right. Sorry about that. Oops. Must be 64C then. But still I think the answer must be defective trick. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of ton Sent: woensdag 20 februari 2013 16:40 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Are we going to apply 64A on dummy now? ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Hans van Staveren Verzonden: woensdag 20 februari 2013 15:50 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Ok. Does not really make a difference, because now it is a 1 trick penalty. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: woensdag 20 februari 2013 13:59 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Hans van Staveren schreef: > Agree with Herman here. I was about to react in a similar way. > By the way, this magical three card trick was won by dummy(with his > "Ace" of diamond), so it will be a two trick penalty revoke. No, this trick was won by whichever of the other three diamonds was the highest. And then of course dummy led out of turn to the next trick, accepted by the subsequent play. Herman. > This has very little connection with the game of bridge anymore.... > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Herman De Wael > Sent: woensdag 20 februari 2013 12:58 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard HILLS schreef: >>> However, from a blml point of view, the most important ANeCdote from >>> the ANC was this ruling -> >>> >>> Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of hearts in the >>> diamond suit. At an early stage, declarer called for the >>> non-existent ace of "diamonds" from dummy. All other players >>> followed suit with low diamonds, even the defender who actually held >>> the real ace of diamonds. >>> > > This has to be considered an incomplete trick (one without a missing > first card). The fact that it is a diamond trick is confirmed, in this > case, by all three players following to diamonds. Since the ace of > diamonds was called, the actual "play" of the piece of cardboard > showing an ace of hearts is of no consequence. > >>> Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the real ace of >>> diamonds. At that stage, the Director was called. >>> > > Ace of hearts restored to dummy - incomplete trick has to be > conmpleted with any diamond, and a revoke trick against dummy. > >>> How would you rule? >> As TD I would seek further facts. Law 64B7 does not necessarily apply. >> When declarer led the so-called ace of "diamonds" from dummy, >> declarer may have been void in hearts, thus declarer "following suit" >> with a low diamond was in actuality declarer discarding due to being >> unable to follow suit to the ace of hearts. >> If so, not any revoke by the declaring side. J J Best quibbles, >> Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL >> > > You cannot make a heart trick, and three revokes on the same trick, > from a trick which started, very clearly, with the ace of diamonds. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6114 - Release Date: > 02/18/13 > > _______________________________________________ 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 20 22:30:27 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:30:27 +0000 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCEBD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >..... >Since the ace of diamonds was called, the actual "play" of the >piece of cardboard showing an ace of hearts is of no consequence. >..... Richard Hills: But since the error was not discovered until four tricks later, it seems that Law 45D applies, and the ace of hearts has ceased to be merely a piece of cardboard. (The ex-parrot is no longer pushing up the daisies, but has returned to a lively pining for the fjords.) Of course, since dummy definitely infracted Law 41D, doubtful points in the subsequent Law 64C rectification must be resolved in favour of the defending side. Hans van Staveren >..... >This has very little connection with the game of bridge anymore.... > >Hans Richard Hills: I disagree. Unlikely cases are the proving grounds of the Laws. For example, the unlikely case of declarer making the opening lead against her own contract caused the creation of the 2007 Law 54E: "If a player of the declaring side attempts to make an opening lead Law 24 applies." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130220/d1f0489c/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 21 03:21:12 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:21:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? In-Reply-To: <048d01ce0f81$0cb2df10$26189d30$@xs4all.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCA86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5124BA39.6080207@skynet.be> <047901ce0f68$452dd4d0$cf897e70$@xs4all.nl> <5124C87B.1040909@skynet.be> <048c01ce0f79$90d15360$b273fa20$@xs4all.nl> <008a01ce0f80$944a4950$bcdedbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <048d01ce0f81$0cb2df10$26189d30$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <51258498.9000100@nhcc.net> [Declarer calls for D-A, dummy puts H-A into played position, other three players contribute diamonds, and the problem is not noticed until several tricks later.] On 2013-02-20 10:43 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > But still I think the answer must be defective trick. As far as I can tell, the Laws don't give a solution. Ton: could you put this on your list for next time? Or am I missing something? There seem to be at least three answers, none demonstrably wrong: 1. treat it as a defective trick, as Hans wrote. As far as I can tell, this means the H-A goes back to dummy, a card from dummy (diamond if possible) goes into the prior trick, and the prior trick is deemed won by whichever of the three other diamonds (not the card dummy has added) was highest. 2. treat the prior trick as having become a heart trick. This means the H-A has won the trick (unless diamonds were trumps), and there were potentially three revokes to rectify. (Director will need to see whether anyone was out of hearts at the time.) If both sides revoked, there are no rectification tricks per L64B7, but L64C would apply. 3. keep the H-A with the prior trick but consider the trick to have been a diamond trick. Trick is deemed won by highest of three diamonds played; in effect dummy has revoked. There is no rectification for the revoke per L64B3, but if declarer's side gained any tricks, restore equity per L64C. (This last is more likely if the card played in error was a spot card rather than an ace.) It looks to me as though 3 has the virtue of simplicity: it is just the way any established revoke would be handled. But that doesn't make it correct. I'm not even sure my list is complete. [By the way, could people please refrain from emailing in HTML?] From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 21 03:52:09 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:52:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD00B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Steve Willner: >As far as I can tell, the Laws don't give a solution. Richard Hills: Another way of looking at the problem is that the 2007 Lawbook gives diverse paradoxical solutions depending upon which particular Law is consulted. Steve Willner: >Ton: could you put this on your list for next time? >Or am I missing something? > >There seem to be at least three answers, none >demonstrably wrong: > >1. treat it as a defective trick, as Hans wrote. As >far as I can tell, this means the H-A goes back to >dummy, a card from dummy (diamond if >possible) goes into the prior trick, and the prior >trick is deemed won by whichever of the three >other diamonds (not the card dummy has added) >was highest. Richard Hills: It seems to me that the Lawful support for scenario 1 is Law 46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card." with a defective trick being created because declarer failed to later designate any legal card. Steve Willner: >2. treat the prior trick as having become a >heart trick. This means the H-A has won the >trick (unless diamonds were trumps), and >there were potentially three revokes to rectify. >(Director will need to see whether anyone was >out of hearts at the time.) If both sides >revoked, there are no rectification tricks per >L64B7, but L64C would apply. Richard Hills: As I suggested earlier, the Lawful support for scenario 2 is Law 45D (Card Misplayed by Dummy). Steve Willner: >3. keep the H-A with the prior trick but >consider the trick to have been a diamond >trick. Trick is deemed won by highest of >three diamonds played; in effect dummy has >revoked. There is no rectification for the >revoke per L64B3, but if declarer's side >gained any tricks, restore equity per L64C. >(This last is more likely if the card played in >error was a spot card rather than an ace.) > >It looks to me as though 3 has the virtue of >simplicity: it is just the way any established >revoke would be handled. But that doesn't >make it correct. >..... Richard Hills: I cannot see any Lawful support for scenario 3, but I may be incorrect. Plus the virtue of simplicity means that scenario 3 may be a useful update to the 2017 Laws. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130221/26a5b80d/attachment-0001.html From jrhind at therock.bm Thu Feb 21 04:01:31 2013 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:01:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? In-Reply-To: <51258498.9000100@nhcc.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCA86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5124BA39.6080207@skynet.be> <047901ce0f68$452dd4d0$cf897e70$@xs4all.nl> <5124C87B.1040909@skynet.be> <048c01ce0f79$90d15360$b273fa20$@xs4all.nl> <008a01ce0f80$944a4950$bcdedbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <048d01ce0f81$0cb2df10$26189d30$@xs4all.nl> <51258498.9000100@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Provided that the defenders agree that the DA was called I would have them play the DA on the correct trick and put the HA back in dummy. Anyone unhappy with that solution? Jack Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:21 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > [Declarer calls for D-A, dummy puts H-A into played position, other > three players contribute diamonds, and the problem is not noticed until > several tricks later.] > > On 2013-02-20 10:43 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: >> But still I think the answer must be defective trick. > > As far as I can tell, the Laws don't give a solution. Ton: could you > put this on your list for next time? Or am I missing something? > > There seem to be at least three answers, none demonstrably wrong: > 1. treat it as a defective trick, as Hans wrote. As far as I can tell, > this means the H-A goes back to dummy, a card from dummy (diamond if > possible) goes into the prior trick, and the prior trick is deemed won > by whichever of the three other diamonds (not the card dummy has added) > was highest. > > 2. treat the prior trick as having become a heart trick. This means the > H-A has won the trick (unless diamonds were trumps), and there were > potentially three revokes to rectify. (Director will need to see > whether anyone was out of hearts at the time.) If both sides revoked, > there are no rectification tricks per L64B7, but L64C would apply. > > 3. keep the H-A with the prior trick but consider the trick to have been > a diamond trick. Trick is deemed won by highest of three diamonds > played; in effect dummy has revoked. There is no rectification for the > revoke per L64B3, but if declarer's side gained any tricks, restore > equity per L64C. (This last is more likely if the card played in error > was a spot card rather than an ace.) > > It looks to me as though 3 has the virtue of simplicity: it is just the > way any established revoke would be handled. But that doesn't make it > correct. I'm not even sure my list is complete. > > [By the way, could people please refrain from emailing in HTML?] > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 21 07:52:59 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:52:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCA86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5124BA39.6080207@skynet.be> <047901ce0f68$452dd4d0$cf897e70$@xs4all.nl> <5124C87B.1040909@skynet.be> <048c01ce0f79$90d15360$b273fa20$@xs4all.nl> <008a01ce0f80$944a4950$bcdedbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <048d01ce0f81$0cb2df10$26189d30$@xs4all.nl> <51258498.9000100@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <04ae01ce1000$163e5030$42baf090$@xs4all.nl> Would have been easy, but dummy *did not have* the DA Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jack Rhind Sent: donderdag 21 februari 2013 4:02 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? Provided that the defenders agree that the DA was called I would have them play the DA on the correct trick and put the HA back in dummy. Anyone unhappy with that solution? Jack Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:21 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > [Declarer calls for D-A, dummy puts H-A into played position, other > three players contribute diamonds, and the problem is not noticed > until several tricks later.] > > On 2013-02-20 10:43 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: >> But still I think the answer must be defective trick. > > As far as I can tell, the Laws don't give a solution. Ton: could you > put this on your list for next time? Or am I missing something? > > There seem to be at least three answers, none demonstrably wrong: > 1. treat it as a defective trick, as Hans wrote. As far as I can > tell, this means the H-A goes back to dummy, a card from dummy > (diamond if > possible) goes into the prior trick, and the prior trick is deemed won > by whichever of the three other diamonds (not the card dummy has > added) was highest. > > 2. treat the prior trick as having become a heart trick. This means > the H-A has won the trick (unless diamonds were trumps), and there > were potentially three revokes to rectify. (Director will need to see > whether anyone was out of hearts at the time.) If both sides revoked, > there are no rectification tricks per L64B7, but L64C would apply. > > 3. keep the H-A with the prior trick but consider the trick to have > been a diamond trick. Trick is deemed won by highest of three > diamonds played; in effect dummy has revoked. There is no > rectification for the revoke per L64B3, but if declarer's side gained > any tricks, restore equity per L64C. (This last is more likely if the > card played in error was a spot card rather than an ace.) > > It looks to me as though 3 has the virtue of simplicity: it is just > the way any established revoke would be handled. But that doesn't > make it correct. I'm not even sure my list is complete. > > [By the way, could people please refrain from emailing in HTML?] > _______________________________________________ > 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 sater at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 21 08:20:08 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:20:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? In-Reply-To: <51258498.9000100@nhcc.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCA86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5124BA39.6080207@skynet.be> <047901ce0f68$452dd4d0$cf897e70$@xs4all.nl> <5124C87B.1040909@skynet.be> <048c01ce0f79$90d15360$b273fa20$@xs4all.nl> <008a01ce0f80$944a4950$bcdedbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <048d01ce0f81$0cb2df10$26189d30$@xs4all.nl> <51258498.9000100@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <04af01ce1003$e0f1eaa0$a2d5bfe0$@xs4all.nl> [SW] There seem to be at least three answers, none demonstrably wrong: 1. treat it as a defective trick, as Hans wrote. As far as I can tell, this means the H-A goes back to dummy, a card from dummy (diamond if possible) goes into the prior trick, and the prior trick is deemed won by whichever of the three other diamonds (not the card dummy has added) was highest. 2. treat the prior trick as having become a heart trick. This means the H-A has won the trick (unless diamonds were trumps), and there were potentially three revokes to rectify. (Director will need to see whether anyone was out of hearts at the time.) If both sides revoked, there are no rectification tricks per L64B7, but L64C would apply. 3. keep the H-A with the prior trick but consider the trick to have been a diamond trick. Trick is deemed won by highest of three diamonds played; in effect dummy has revoked. There is no rectification for the revoke per L64B3, but if declarer's side gained any tricks, restore equity per L64C. (This last is more likely if the card played in error was a spot card rather than an ace.) It looks to me as though 3 has the virtue of simplicity: it is just the way any established revoke would be handled. But that doesn't make it correct. I'm not even sure my list is complete. [HvS] I would strongly disagree with 2. I makes opponents to have revoked, which seems unfair. Number three seems indeed to be best/easiest. That a diamond trick contains the AH as a first card is a bit strange, but it did not start life as a played card anyhow. This also causes declarer to lose his AH of course, but so be it. It seems funny, a revoke on the first card of a trick, but this was already possible with penalty cards. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 21 09:02:04 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:02:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCEBD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCEBD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5125D47C.7030703@skynet.be> Well, yes indeed, Richard, L45D seems to apply. IF it is remarked, the card must be withdrawn. OK, but it is not remarked, so what do we do? The card remains in the trick? That is the other possible solution. Remark that in your original statement, nothing was said about the card being "put in the played position". But if it was, yes, then the card is now played and this trick is not defective. But this still remains a diamond trick, unless we want to make three revokes. And in that case the first card was a revoke. That card did not win the trick (it was not the highest diamond in the trick), and there is a one trick revoke penalty as well. Herman. Richard HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > Herman De Wael: >>..... >>Since the ace of diamonds was called, the actual ?play? of the >>piece of cardboard showing an ace of hearts is of no consequence. >>..... > Richard Hills: > But since the error was not discovered until four tricks later, it > seems that Law 45D applies, and the ace of hearts has ceased to be > merely a piece of cardboard. (The ex-parrot is no longer pushing up > the daisies, but has returned to a lively pining for the fjords.) > Of course, since dummy definitely infracted Law 41D, doubtful > points in the subsequent Law 64C rectification must be resolved > in favour of the defending side. > Hans van Staveren >>..... >>This has very little connection with the game of bridge anymore.... >> >>Hans > Richard Hills: > I disagree. Unlikely cases are the proving grounds of the Laws. For > example, the unlikely case of declarer making the opening lead > against her own contract caused the creation of the 2007 Law 54E: > ?If a player of the declaring side attempts to make an opening lead > Law 24 applies.? > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6120 - Release Date: 02/20/13 > From jrhind at therock.bm Thu Feb 21 13:49:34 2013 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:49:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? In-Reply-To: <04ae01ce1000$163e5030$42baf090$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: Whoops, I guess I missed that. Sorry. Jack On 2/21/13 2:52 AM, "Hans van Staveren" wrote: >Would have been easy, but dummy *did not have* the DA > >Hans > >-----Original Message----- >From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >Jack Rhind >Sent: donderdag 21 februari 2013 4:02 >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? > >Provided that the defenders agree that the DA was called I would have them >play the DA on the correct trick and put the HA back in dummy. > >Anyone unhappy with that solution? > >Jack > >Sent from my iPhone > >On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:21 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> [Declarer calls for D-A, dummy puts H-A into played position, other >> three players contribute diamonds, and the problem is not noticed >> until several tricks later.] >> >> On 2013-02-20 10:43 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: >>> But still I think the answer must be defective trick. >> >> As far as I can tell, the Laws don't give a solution. Ton: could you >> put this on your list for next time? Or am I missing something? >> >> There seem to be at least three answers, none demonstrably wrong: >> 1. treat it as a defective trick, as Hans wrote. As far as I can >> tell, this means the H-A goes back to dummy, a card from dummy >> (diamond if >> possible) goes into the prior trick, and the prior trick is deemed won >> by whichever of the three other diamonds (not the card dummy has >> added) was highest. >> >> 2. treat the prior trick as having become a heart trick. This means >> the H-A has won the trick (unless diamonds were trumps), and there >> were potentially three revokes to rectify. (Director will need to see >> whether anyone was out of hearts at the time.) If both sides revoked, >> there are no rectification tricks per L64B7, but L64C would apply. >> >> 3. keep the H-A with the prior trick but consider the trick to have >> been a diamond trick. Trick is deemed won by highest of three >> diamonds played; in effect dummy has revoked. There is no >> rectification for the revoke per L64B3, but if declarer's side gained >> any tricks, restore equity per L64C. (This last is more likely if the >> card played in error was a spot card rather than an ace.) >> >> It looks to me as though 3 has the virtue of simplicity: it is just >> the way any established revoke would be handled. But that doesn't >> make it correct. I'm not even sure my list is complete. >> >> [By the way, could people please refrain from emailing in HTML?] >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 torsten.orhoj at tdcadsl.dk Thu Feb 21 14:46:12 2013 From: torsten.orhoj at tdcadsl.dk (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=D8rh=F8j?=) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:46:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? Message-ID: [SW] There seem to be at least three answers, none demonstrably wrong: 1. treat it as a defective trick, as Hans wrote. As far as I can tell, this means the H-A goes back to dummy, a card from dummy (diamond if possible) goes into the prior trick, and the prior trick is deemed won by whichever of the three other diamonds (not the card dummy has added) was highest. 2. treat the prior trick as having become a heart trick. This means the H-A has won the trick (unless diamonds were trumps), and there were potentially three revokes to rectify. (Director will need to see whether anyone was out of hearts at the time.) If both sides revoked, there are no rectification tricks per L64B7, but L64C would apply. 3. keep the H-A with the prior trick but consider the trick to have been a diamond trick. Trick is deemed won by highest of three diamonds played; in effect dummy has revoked. There is no rectification for the revoke per L64B3, but if declarer's side gained any tricks, restore equity per L64C. (This last is more likely if the card played in error was a spot card rather than an ace.) It looks to me as though 3 has the virtue of simplicity: it is just the way any established revoke would be handled. But that doesn't make it correct. I'm not even sure my list is complete. [T?] A similar case has been brought up in the Danish TD discussion group. The only difference being that declarer himself has the ace of diamonds. The consensus here so far is, that if L45D is to have any relevance it should be in use for this case, thus solution 1) above can't be correct. Regarding solution 3) I personally can't see how the trick can become a diamond trick. The trick (#4) is won by dummy with the ace and dummy lead for the next trick (#5). If we follow L45D the play of ace of heart in this case can be corrected until declarer's RHO has played a card for the trick #5. This would also mean, that trick #4 should be replayed if attention is draw before this point (L45D and L47D), with declarer having UI. After declarer's RHO has played a card to trick #5 the play of the ace of hearts must stand and trick #4 is now a heart trick with (possibly) 3 revokes. There is no rectification per L64B7 and I don't think it is possible to use L64C to restore equity either, as no side is non-offending; both defenders and declarer revoked in trick in question. Even though it doesn't seem like a satisfactory solution, if we want to rectify any damage to the defenders I believe it should be done by using L41D and L12A1. Torsten From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 22 03:35:41 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:35:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? In-Reply-To: <5125D47C.7030703@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDCEBD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5125D47C.7030703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5126D97D.5020005@nhcc.net> On 2013-02-21 3:02 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > But this still remains a diamond trick, unless we want to make three > revokes. And in that case the first card was a revoke. That card > did not win the trick (it was not the highest diamond in the trick), > and there is a one trick revoke penalty as well. Herman knows L64B3 when he's awake. On 2013-02-21 8:46 AM, Torsten ?rh?j wrote: > A similar case has been brought up in the Danish TD discussion > group. The only difference being that declarer himself has the ace > of diamonds. I don't think that makes any difference. If dummy had D-A, that might be different. Any comments on that? > The consensus here so far is, that if L45D is to have any relevance > it should be in use for this case, thus solution 1) above [defective trick] > can't be correct. Basically arguing (in the correct sense!) "the exception proves the rule." That is, L45D allows a change of card in specific instances, so in other than those instances, no change is allowed. This is a strong argument, but I'm not convinced it makes 1) demonstrably wrong. > Regarding solution 3) [keep the trick as diamonds with dummy having in effect revoked] > I personally can't see how the trick can become a diamond trick. Not so hard. After all, declarer called for D-A in the first place. But a better path is that D-A was not in dummy, and L46B4 tells us that declarer's (let us say South's) call for it was void. What should have happened is for South to call for a different card, but instead East led a diamond out of turn. This was condoned by South's play, somebody other than North winning the trick. Then declarer led out of turn from dummy, condoned by East's play. So far, so good. The only wrinkle was that North unbidden put the H-A in with the played cards, but I don't see how that matters. Anyway, I think all this is plausible enough that it can't be called demonstrably wrong. I think one further wrinkle is that dummy has violated L42A3 and L43A1c. These laws carry no specific rectification, so if defenders are damaged -- more likely if the card "played" is a spot card rather than an ace -- L12A1 allows an adjusted score. > I don't think it is possible to use L64C to restore equity either, as > no side is non-offending; both defenders and declarer revoked in > trick in question. This looks wrong to me. Why treat the revokes as combined? I think L64C applies separately to each revoke, and there is a NOS for each one. Suppose in an ordinary case, nothing to do with wrong cards from dummy, declarer and a defender revoke on the same trick, one revoke gaining a trick and the other meaningless. Wouldn't you take away the trick gained? (Of course there would be no rectification tricks: L64B7.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 26 00:18:12 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:18:12 +0000 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD741@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Macquarie Dictionary: argumentum ad rem, argument confined strictly to relevant issues. [Latin] Herman De Wael: >Well, yes indeed, Richard, L45D seems to apply. > >IF it is remarked, the card must be withdrawn. > >OK, but it is not remarked, so what do we do? The card remains >in the trick? > >That is the other possible solution. > >Remark that in your original statement, nothing was said about >the card being "put in the played position". But if it was, yes, >then the card is now played and this trick is not defective. > >But this still remains a diamond trick, unless we want to make >three revokes. And in that case the first card was a revoke. That >card did not win the trick (it was not the highest diamond in the >trick), and there is a one trick revoke penalty as well. Richard Hills: Herman is attempting the Euclidean argument of "reductio ad absurdum". IF three revokes on the same trick by the three non- dummy players are "obviously" absurd, THEN the Laws must be ignored and/or twisted to reduce the number of revokes on that trick to a just a single revoke by dummy. Law 61A - Definition of Revoke: "Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply see Law 59.)" Richard Hills: Dummy did not fail to follow suit, since dummy was on lead. And while dummy was requested to play the ace of diamonds by declarer, dummy was not required by Law to play the ace of diamonds because dummy did not hold the ace of diamonds. Ergo, dummy's Law 45D irregularity in leading the ace of hearts was an infraction but not a Law 61A revoke infraction, thus the trick under discussion should be deemed to be a heart trick, not a diamond trick. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130225/a99b59a3/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 26 09:41:14 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:41:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD741@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD741@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <512C752A.3090209@skynet.be> OK Richard, so now take a step back and turn the problem into a more simple one. Declarer calls for the ace of diamonds, which is in fact in dummy. Yet the person sitting in dummy's seat places the ace of hearts in a played position. Do we agree that the ace of diamonds is played, If three players follow suit to the diamond ace, have they revoked? Now, if all continues, the ace of hearts becomes the card played in the trick, and declarer can later call for the ace of diamonds again, and will he score that trick. Do you really want a diamond trick to turn into a heart trick at some later stage? Furthermore, if it is a heart trick (to which three people have revoked, without penalty), then there is nothing we can do about the subsequent trick with the diamond ace. Far better is it to treat the first trick as a diamond trick, to which dummy has revoked by playing the heart ace. And yes, this is a reductio ad absurdem, and I realize that the alternative is not absurd enough to be called impossible, but you must see that this solution is also possible. And yes, this makes the revoke card the first one played to the trick. Note that L61 includes "failure to lead". This case is not covered, so it may not technically be a revoke, but that really does not matter since we can't apply revoke penalties anyway (faced hand). Herman. Richard HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > Macquarie Dictionary: > argumentum ad rem, argument confined strictly to relevant issues. > [Latin] > Herman De Wael: >>Well, yes indeed, Richard, L45D seems to apply. >> >>IF it is remarked, the card must be withdrawn. >> >>OK, but it is not remarked, so what do we do? The card remains >>in the trick? >> >>That is the other possible solution. >> >>Remark that in your original statement, nothing was said about >>the card being ?put in the played position?. But if it was, yes, >>then the card is now played and this trick is not defective. >> >>But this still remains a diamond trick, unless we want to make >>three revokes. And in that case the first card was a revoke. That >>card did not win the trick (it was not the highest diamond in the >>trick), and there is a one trick revoke penalty as well. > Richard Hills: > Herman is attempting the Euclidean argument of ?reductio ad > absurdum?. IF three revokes on the same trick by the three non- > dummy players are ?obviously? absurd, THEN the Laws must be > ignored and/or twisted to reduce the number of revokes on that > trick to a just a single revoke by dummy. > Law 61A - Definition of Revoke: > ?Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to > lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or > specified by an opponent when exercising an option in > rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke. (When > unable to comply see Law 59.)? > Richard Hills: > Dummy did not fail to follow suit, since dummy was on lead. > And while dummy was requested to play the ace of diamonds > by declarer, dummy was not required by Law to play the ace > of diamonds because dummy did not hold the ace of diamonds. > Ergo, dummy?s Law 45D irregularity in leading the ace of > hearts was an infraction but not a Law 61A revoke infraction, > thus the trick under discussion should be deemed to be a heart > trick, not a diamond trick. > Best wishes, > R.J.B. Hills > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13 > From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 26 15:05:29 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:05:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD741@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD741@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:18:12 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Macquarie Dictionary: > > argumentum ad rem, argument confined strictly to relevant issues. > [Latin] > > Herman De Wael: > >> Well, yes indeed, Richard, L45D seems to apply. >> >> IF it is remarked, the card must be withdrawn. >> >> OK, but it is not remarked, so what do we do? The card remains >> in the trick? >> >> That is the other possible solution. >> >> Remark that in your original statement, nothing was said about >> the card being "put in the played position". But if it was, yes, >> then the card is now played and this trick is not defective. >> >> But this still remains a diamond trick, unless we want to make >> three revokes. And in that case the first card was a revoke. That >> card did not win the trick (it was not the highest diamond in the >> trick), and there is a one trick revoke penalty as well. > > Richard Hills: > > Herman is attempting the Euclidean argument of "reductio ad > absurdum". IF three revokes on the same trick by the three non- > dummy players are "obviously" absurd, THEN the Laws must be > ignored and/or twisted to reduce the number of revokes on that > trick to a just a single revoke by dummy. In bizarre situations, it is never right to make a bizarre ruling. Anyway, L41D, the dummy missorted his cards. So dummy/declarer is the original offending side (OOS). They can't gain from their infraction, L12A1 would apply. What would have been the outcome without that infraction? The original problem did not say. > > Law 61A - Definition of Revoke: > > "Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to > lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or > specified by an opponent when exercising an option in > rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke. (When > unable to comply see Law 59.)" > > Richard Hills: > > Dummy did not fail to follow suit, since dummy was on lead. > > And while dummy was requested to play the ace of diamonds > by declarer, dummy was not required by Law to play the ace > of diamonds because dummy did not hold the ace of diamonds. > > Ergo, dummy's Law 45D irregularity in leading the ace of > hearts was an infraction but not a Law 61A revoke infraction, > thus the trick under discussion should be deemed to be a heart > trick, not a diamond trick. > > Best wishes, > > R.J.B. Hills > > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 26 23:13:13 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:13:13 +0000 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD93B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 45D, Card Misplayed by Dummy (first phrase): If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, Herman De Wael: >OK Richard, so now take a step back and turn the problem into >a more simple one. Declarer calls for the ace of diamonds, which >is in fact in dummy. Yet the person sitting in dummy's seat >places the ace of hearts in a played position. Do we agree that >the ace of diamonds is played, Richard Hills: No, the ace of hearts is the card played from dummy, unless and until timely "attention is drawn" to dummy's error. Herman De Wael: >If three players follow suit to the diamond ace, have they >revoked? >.... Richard Hills: Yes, the other three players have indeed committed Law 62 un- established revokes. Unusually those three players have two ways to correct their revokes: (a) change their three diamond cards to three heart cards, or (b) draw attention to dummy's error before each side has played to the next trick. What's the problem? The problem is that sometimes rigidly obeying what the Laws actually say can lead to strange outcomes. So what? For example, below is a constructed deal whereby South declares a cold 7NT, cold because all 26 East-West cards are Penalty Cards. ..................*--- ..................*AKQJT98765432 ..................*--- ..................*--- *KQJT8642..............................*A *---...................................*--- *AKQJ9.................................*864 *---...................................*AKQJT8642 ..................*9753 ..................*--- ..................*T7532 ..................*9753 Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130226/e936c42b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 27 05:01:25 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:01:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDDA8A@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills, February 2013: >..... >What's the problem? The problem is that sometimes rigidly obeying >what the Laws actually say can lead to strange outcomes. So what? >..... Richard Hills, October 2010: The late Geoff Oystragh wrote an amusing short article for Australian Bridge called "A Safety Play in the Fourth Dimension", published (to the best of my memory) in a 1982, 1983 or 1984 issue. The scenario is that you have reached 7D, which you expect to be cold unless there is a first round ruff. Unfortunately the auction has been highly competitive, so a first round ruff is quite likely. RHO perpetrates an opening lead out of turn of a club. If you accept the OLOOT, LHO may ruff. If you request LHO to lead a non-club, LHO may lead a suit that RHO may ruff. And if you request LHO to lead a club, Law 59 may apply, LHO leads another suit, and RHO may ruff. The safety play in the fourth dimension is to elect that the club led out of turn remains a major penalty card, and to let LHO lead any suit. If LHO leads a suit that RHO could ruff, RHO has to play the club major penalty card instead of ruffing. Richard Hills, February 2013: I observe that weird penalty card situations are not confined to fictional hypotheticals. Many times in reality a Director has had to supervise the disposal of 13 penalty cards, caused by a defender momentarily losing the plot and believing that she was the dummy. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130227/9846ec8e/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 27 09:09:10 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:09:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD93B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD93B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <512DBF26.9020309@skynet.be> I humbly suggest that you are wrong here, Richard. Richard HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > Law 45D, Card Misplayed by Dummy (first phrase): > If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not > name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before > each side has played to the next trick, > Herman De Wael: >>OK Richard, so now take a step back and turn the problem into >>a more simple one. Declarer calls for the ace of diamonds, which >>is in fact in dummy. Yet the person sitting in dummy?s seat >>places the ace of hearts in a played position. Do we agree that >>the ace of diamonds is played, > Richard Hills: > No, the ace of hearts is the card played from dummy, unless and > until timely ?attention is drawn? to dummy?s error. no, Richard. read a few laws: L45B : The ace of diamonds has been played. L45D : The ace of diamonds is "a card placed in the played position". It is in my opinion clear that the diamond is played, not the heart. L45D makes clear that the card will not remain "in the played position" if attention is drawn to it. It does become the played card after that. Herman. > Herman De Wael: >>If three players follow suit to the diamond ace, have they >>revoked? >>.... > Richard Hills: > Yes, the other three players have indeed committed Law 62 un- > established revokes. Unusually those three players have two > ways to correct their revokes: > (a) change their three diamond cards to three heart cards, > or > (b) draw attention to dummy?s error before each side has played > to the next trick. > What?s the problem? The problem is that sometimes rigidly obeying > what the Laws actually say can lead to strange outcomes. So what? > For example, below is a constructed deal whereby South declares a > cold 7NT, cold because all 26 East-West cards are Penalty Cards. > ..................?--- > ..................?AKQJT98765432 > ..................?--- > ..................?--- > ?KQJT8642..............................?A > ?---...................................?--- > ?AKQJ9.................................?864 > ?---...................................?AKQJT8642 > ..................?9753 > ..................?--- > ..................?T7532 > ..................?9753 > Best wishes, > R.J.B. Hills > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13 > From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 27 09:19:47 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:19:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <512DBF26.9020309@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD93B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <512DBF26.9020309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <512DC1A3.2090702@skynet.be> Herman De Wael schreef: > I humbly suggest that you are wrong here, Richard. > > Richard HILLS schreef: >> UNOFFICIAL >> Law 45D, Card Misplayed by Dummy (first phrase): >> If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not >> name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before >> each side has played to the next trick, >> Herman De Wael: >>> OK Richard, so now take a step back and turn the problem into >>> a more simple one. Declarer calls for the ace of diamonds, which >>> is in fact in dummy. Yet the person sitting in dummy?s seat >>> places the ace of hearts in a played position. Do we agree that >>> the ace of diamonds is played, >> Richard Hills: >> No, the ace of hearts is the card played from dummy, unless and >> until timely ?attention is drawn? to dummy?s error. > > > no, Richard. > > read a few laws: > L45B : The ace of diamonds has been played. > L45D : The ace of diamonds is "a card placed in the played position". > of course this is the ace of hearts - sorry. > It is in my opinion clear that the diamond is played, not the heart. > > L45D makes clear that the card will not remain "in the played position" > if attention is drawn to it. It does become the played card after that. > > Herman. > >> Herman De Wael: >>> If three players follow suit to the diamond ace, have they >>> revoked? >>> .... >> Richard Hills: >> Yes, the other three players have indeed committed Law 62 un- >> established revokes. Unusually those three players have two >> ways to correct their revokes: >> (a) change their three diamond cards to three heart cards, >> or >> (b) draw attention to dummy?s error before each side has played >> to the next trick. >> What?s the problem? The problem is that sometimes rigidly obeying >> what the Laws actually say can lead to strange outcomes. So what? >> For example, below is a constructed deal whereby South declares a >> cold 7NT, cold because all 26 East-West cards are Penalty Cards. >> ..................?--- >> ..................?AKQJT98765432 >> ..................?--- >> ..................?--- >> ?KQJT8642..............................?A >> ?---...................................?--- >> ?AKQJ9.................................?864 >> ?---...................................?AKQJT8642 >> ..................?9753 >> ..................?--- >> ..................?T7532 >> ..................?9753 >> Best wishes, >> R.J.B. Hills >> UNOFFICIAL >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise >> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, >> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >> privileged >> and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination >> or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >> intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >> obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy >> policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: >> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13 >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13 > > > From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Wed Feb 27 14:50:39 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:50:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <512DC1A3.2090702@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD93B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <512DBF26.9020309@skynet.be> <512DC1A3.2090702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004001ce14f1$6dc05c40$494114c0$@filosofi.uu.se> Suppose that when the dummy places the Ace of hearts in the played position (when declarer called for the Ace of diamonds) again nobody notice the mistake but this time everyone, or maybe only the defenders, follow with a heart. Again the attention to the irregularity is not drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick. So it is too late to correct. But was it a heart trick or the diamond trick? I guess Herman would say that in that case it was a heart trick. But how can the status of a trick depend on which cards are played after the lead? Ryszard Sliwinski From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 27 16:42:30 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:42:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004001ce14f1$6dc05c40$494114c0$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD93B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <512DBF26.9020309@skynet.be> <512DC1A3.2090702@skynet.be> <004001ce14f1$6dc05c40$494114c0$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <000101ce1501$0fb67750$2f2365f0$@online.no> My humble opinion: The card led from dummy is the card called by declarer. (Law 45B) But if dummy places a different card in the played position then that card becomes the card led if nobody calls attention to this irregularity before each side has played to the next trick.(Law 45D) > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Ryszard Sliwinski > Sendt: 27. februar 2013 14:51 > Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Emne: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Suppose that when the dummy places the Ace of hearts in the played > position (when declarer called for the Ace of diamonds) again nobody notice > the mistake but this time everyone, or maybe only the defenders, follow > with a heart. > Again the attention to the irregularity is not drawn to it before each side has > played to the next trick. So it is too late to correct. But was it a heart trick or > the diamond trick? I guess Herman would say that in that case it was a heart > trick. But how can the status of a trick depend on which cards are played > after the lead? > Ryszard Sliwinski > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 27 16:57:37 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:57:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004001ce14f1$6dc05c40$494114c0$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD93B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <512DBF26.9020309@skynet.be> <512DC1A3.2090702@skynet.be> <004001ce14f1$6dc05c40$494114c0$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <512E2CF1.8070609@skynet.be> correct Richard, but there is a difference between the two cases, isn't there? In my case, three people thought they were playing a diamond trick, in yours, three people thought they were playing a heart trick. It's not so strange to have the suit of a trick depend on what three people agree, isn't it? Herman. Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: > Suppose that when the dummy places the Ace of hearts in the played > position (when declarer called for the Ace of diamonds) again nobody notice > the mistake but this time everyone, or maybe only the defenders, follow with > a heart. > Again the attention to the irregularity is not drawn to it before each side > has played to the next trick. So it is too late to correct. But was it a > heart trick or the diamond trick? I guess Herman would say that in that case > it was a heart trick. But how can the status of a trick depend on which > cards are played after the lead? > Ryszard Sliwinski > From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Wed Feb 27 18:03:27 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:03:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <512E2CF1.8070609@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD93B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <512DBF26.9020309@skynet.be> <512DC1A3.2090702@skynet.be> <004001ce14f1$6dc05c40$494114c0$@filosofi.uu.se> <512E2CF1.8070609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301ce150c$5cd050f0$1670f2d0$@filosofi.uu.se> I thought that Law 44 is used to decide the status of a trick not the opinion of the players. -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:58 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] correct Richard, but there is a difference between the two cases, isn't there? In my case, three people thought they were playing a diamond trick, in yours, three people thought they were playing a heart trick. It's not so strange to have the suit of a trick depend on what three people agree, isn't it? Herman. Ryszard Sliwinski schreef: > Suppose that when the dummy places the Ace of hearts in the played > position (when declarer called for the Ace of diamonds) again nobody > notice the mistake but this time everyone, or maybe only the > defenders, follow with a heart. > Again the attention to the irregularity is not drawn to it before > each side has played to the next trick. So it is too late to correct. > But was it a heart trick or the diamond trick? I guess Herman would > say that in that case it was a heart trick. But how can the status of > a trick depend on which cards are played after the lead? > Ryszard Sliwinski > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 27 18:32:24 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:32:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301ce150c$5cd050f0$1670f2d0$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDD93B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <512DBF26.9020309@skynet.be> <512DC1A3.2090702@skynet.be> <004001ce14f1$6dc05c40$494114c0$@filosofi.uu.se> <512E2CF1.8070609@skynet.be> <000301ce150c$5cd050f0$1670f2d0$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <000601ce1510$6823a6b0$386af410$@online.no> > Ryszard Sliwinski > I thought that Law 44 is used to decide the status of a trick not the opinion of > the players. [Sven Pran] Indeed, except that when dummy leads a card different from the one called by declarer then the status of the trick depends on whether each side has played to the next trick before attention is called to the irregularity. (The opinion of the players as such is completely irrelevant and immaterial.) From petereidt at t-online.de Thu Feb 28 15:24:47 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:24:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge Message-ID: <1UB4Pf-1FeOGm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Funny (?) case: Board 32, Dealer W, EW vul., Pairs W N E S 2D p 2H X XX p p p (2D showed 24+ and 2H was a relay) After this auction West shouted at partner: "How can you pass my redouble!?!" and led one of his cards. North "duly" put down his 13 cards and felt as a dummy. Up to this point we might know the answer, but ... ... South ordered a card from "dummy" and East followed suit. The other 12 tricks were played too and the result (South: 2HXX-1) was entered in the bridgemate. Only after the end of the tournament (but within the correction period), West realized at the bar, while talking about this hand with another player, that East should have been the declarer ... Any idea other than Avg-/Avg- ?? From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 28 15:56:36 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:56:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge In-Reply-To: <1UB4Pf-1FeOGm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <1UB4Pf-1FeOGm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <512F7024.5090809@skynet.be> apparently, NS made 7 tricks? 2H-1 well, since the contract was 2HXX by ew, they went two down. score 1000 to NS. Herman. Peter Eidt schreef: > Funny (?) case: > > Board 32, Dealer W, EW vul., Pairs > > W N E S > 2D p 2H X > XX p p p > > (2D showed 24+ and 2H was a relay) > > After this auction West shouted at partner: "How > can you pass my redouble!?!" and led one of > his cards. North "duly" put down his 13 cards > and felt as a dummy. > > Up to this point we might know the answer, but ... > > ... South ordered a card from "dummy" and East > followed suit. The other 12 tricks were played too > and the result (South: 2HXX-1) was entered in the > bridgemate. > > Only after the end of the tournament (but within > the correction period), West realized at the bar, > while talking about this hand with another player, > that East should have been the declarer ... > > Any idea other than Avg-/Avg- ?? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6135 - Release Date: 02/26/13 > > From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 28 16:07:32 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:07:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge In-Reply-To: <512F7024.5090809@skynet.be> References: <1UB4Pf-1FeOGm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <512F7024.5090809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004b01ce15c5$5576c230$00644690$@online.no> Looks correct to me too. > Herman De Wael > apparently, NS made 7 tricks? 2H-1 > well, since the contract was 2HXX by ew, they went two down. > score 1000 to NS. > Herman. > > Peter Eidt schreef: > > Funny (?) case: > > > > Board 32, Dealer W, EW vul., Pairs > > > > W N E S > > 2D p 2H X > > XX p p p > > > > (2D showed 24+ and 2H was a relay) > > > > After this auction West shouted at partner: "How can you pass my > > redouble!?!" and led one of his cards. North "duly" put down his 13 > > cards and felt as a dummy. > > > > Up to this point we might know the answer, but ... > > > > ... South ordered a card from "dummy" and East followed suit. The > > other 12 tricks were played too and the result (South: 2HXX-1) was > > entered in the bridgemate. > > > > Only after the end of the tournament (but within the correction > > period), West realized at the bar, while talking about this hand with > > another player, that East should have been the declarer ... > > > > Any idea other than Avg-/Avg- ?? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6135 - Release Date: > > 02/26/13 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 28 18:06:28 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:06:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge In-Reply-To: <004b01ce15c5$5576c230$00644690$@online.no> References: <1UB4Pf-1FeOGm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <512F7024.5090809@skynet.be> <004b01ce15c5$5576c230$00644690$@online.no> Message-ID: <512F8E94.7050502@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/02/2013 16:07, Sven Pran a ?crit : > Looks correct to me too. Let's see. North has 13 penalty cards. EW don't make use of their right to call them. EW make two tricks too little. One problem is that dummy wans't exposed, and I don't know whether this is covered by the laws. Another problem is that South has no right to call his partner's cards. Whence the deal was IMOBO not played according to the rules of this game, and therefore shan't be scored as played. No more and no less than if they had played with a reversed hierarchical order of cards or with a pinochle deck. >> Herman De Wael >> apparently, NS made 7 tricks? 2H-1 >> well, since the contract was 2HXX by ew, they went two down. >> score 1000 to NS. >> Herman. >> >> Peter Eidt schreef: >>> Funny (?) case: >>> >>> Board 32, Dealer W, EW vul., Pairs >>> >>> W N E S >>> 2D p 2H X >>> XX p p p >>> >>> (2D showed 24+ and 2H was a relay) >>> >>> After this auction West shouted at partner: "How can you pass my >>> redouble!?!" and led one of his cards. North "duly" put down his 13 >>> cards and felt as a dummy. >>> >>> Up to this point we might know the answer, but ... >>> >>> ... South ordered a card from "dummy" and East followed suit. The >>> other 12 tricks were played too and the result (South: 2HXX-1) was >>> entered in the bridgemate. >>> >>> Only after the end of the tournament (but within the correction >>> period), West realized at the bar, while talking about this hand with >>> another player, that East should have been the declarer ... >>> >>> Any idea other than Avg-/Avg- ?? >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6135 - Release Date: >>> 02/26/13 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 28 23:29:18 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:29:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Ridgeb, nit Bridge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3EDDE57@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Peter Eidt >Funny (?) case: > >Board 32, Dealer W, EW vul., Pairs > >WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >2D........Pass......2H........X >XX........Pass......Pass......Pass > >(2D showed 24+ and 2H was a relay) > >After this auction West shouted at >partner: "How can you pass my >redouble!?!" and led one of his >cards. North "duly" put down his 13 >cards and felt as a dummy. > >Up to this point we might know the >answer, but ... > >... South ordered a card from "dummy" >and East followed suit. The other 12 >tricks were played too and the result >(South: 2HXX-1) was entered in the >bridgemate. > >Only after the end of the tournament >(but within the correction period), >West realized at the bar, while >talking about this hand with another >player, that East should have been >the declarer ... > >Any idea other than Avg-/Avg- ?? Richard Hills: Yes and No. Law 54E - Opening Lead by Wrong Side If a player of the declaring side attempts to make an opening lead Law 24 applies. Law 24 prologue: When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player's own error one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction period ends. Richard Hills: Technically, while the auction has ended, the auction period has not ended. So there are 52 exposed cards on the table. Law 24 prologue: If the offender becomes declarer or dummy the cards are picked up and returned to the hand. If the offender becomes a defender every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50), Richard Hills: So now the play of the hand legally commences, with East as declarer and North-South with 26 Penalty Cards. But... This only happens if the Director decides to exercise her discretion to apply Law 82B2, "require ... the play of a board". Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20130228/1ec02ca5/attachment-0001.html