From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 1 01:16:54 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:16:54 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Super-Chart [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F948547@IMMIBELEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL From a private email: >I think the ACBL would probably have collective apoplexy if confronted >with the infamous Ali-Hills relay system. Richard Hills: Indeed. Portions of the Ali-Hills relay system are prohibited even under the ACBL Super-Chart (most obviously our Brown Sticker RCO Two Bids, which are commonly used by many other non-experts at the Canberra Bridge Club). Sydney's Lindfield Bridge Club powers-that-be have a policy aimed at discouraging psyches - which are legal under Law 40A3 - by requiring each and every psycher to fill out by hand a Psyche Form. Result: Even when a psyche is the demonstrably suggested logical alternative, many potential psychers will choose a second-best call to avoid the tedious paperwork. Similarly, those inclined to experiment with funky methods under the ACBL Super-Chart may likewise be deterred by the tedious paperwork. ACBL Super-Chart, introduction: This chart applies to all NABC+ events with no upper masterpoint limit played at an NABC in which contestants play segments (no change of opponents) of 12 or more boards. This chart (or any part) may be used at a sectionally or regionally rated event or tournament at sponsor's option in any event with 12-board or longer segments provided this has been included in tournament advertising. Pre-Alerts are required for all conventional methods not permitted on the ACBL General Convention Chart. Description of, and suggested defenses to, such methods must be made in writing. A defense to a method which requires the above pre-Alert may be referred to during the auction by opponents of the convention user. For NABC+ events in which this chart is permitted, pairs playing Super-Chart methods must furnish the above descriptions of their methods to the Director-in-Charge of the event the day prior to the session in which they choose to play them. **All methods permitted by the ACBL Super-Chart require system notes and defenses** 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/20130430/0da132bc/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 1 04:25:12 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 02:25:12 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9485EA@IMMIBELEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ryszard Sliwinski: >Let me see if I've got it right: >Until partner's explanation I thought we agreed to play system A but after >the explanation: >a) I am still sure that our agreement was to play system A so partner's >explanation is a mistaken explanation in my opinion Richard Hills quibble: But partner's explanation is a correct explanation in partner's opinion. This paradox is partially resolved by the careful wording of the initial phrase of Law 20F5(b), which does not merely say "The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that his partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75)..." but instead has the caveat "The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, ++in his opinion++, his partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75)...". Ryszard Sliwinski: >b) I now remember that we agreed to play system B so my call was a >mistaken call. >c) I am no longer sure about our agreements, I cannot any longer decide >whether we agreed to play A or B. > >Now, what are my responsibilities when explaining the meanings of those >bids my partner makes after his explanation (Herman's point 3): >Cases a and b are easy [a according to system A and b according to system B] Richard Hills quibble: Not so easy. Law does not require a player to give an explanation that that player is "sure" is correct; rather Law requires an explanation that is actually correct. The good news is that being confidently wrong in explaining is merely an unintentional infraction of Law. But an ++intentional++ misexplanation is according to the Introduction "a serious matter indeed", a "must not" infraction of Law 72B1. Ryszard Sliwinski: >but what about case c? > >Herman mentions two alternatives: the majority view: explain according to >system A and the dWB view: explain according to system B Richard Hills quibble: But the required alternative is to explain according to system PEMPU(E/I), pre-existing mutual partnership understanding (explicit or implicit). Ryszard Sliwinski: >but I would like to introduce the third one which I, in all modesty, call the >right view: an honest answer; say you don't know. If opponents want to >know they can call TD, Richard Hills quibble: If I answered "Don't know," as a matter of courtesy I would immediately summon the Director myself. There is a prima facie case that the "opponents want to know", since why else would they ask a question? Ryszard Sliwinski: >you will sent away and partner explains. > >Of course this alternative gives UI to partner but we know how to deal with >it. A huge advantage of this alternative over the other two is that we are not >potentially lying about our agreements. Richard Hills quibble: On rare occasions both partners can simultaneously forget their PEMPU(E/I) because for both partners their methods do not suit their cards. For example, in a competitive auction, I once passed a systemically takeout double of 3S holding a void in spades due to an incorrect belief that it was a penalty double. Not to worry, Hashmat was influenced by his five-card spade holding to believe that the systemic takeout double was a penalty double. Best Rueful Rabbits, 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/20130501/bb0b8a4b/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 1 07:23:15 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 05:23:15 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Rubens and De Wael Schools [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9497A2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >..... >On rare occasions both partners can simultaneously forget their [methods] >because for both partners their methods do not suit their cards. >..... In EBU-land the rare occasion is when South deals and opens 1S, West forgetfully overcalls 3C holding a weak hand with long clubs, and East forgetfully believes that West is promising a weak hand with long clubs - when the actual East-West partnership understanding is that West is promising a weak hand with 5/5 or longer in the red suits. (The Ghestem or Guessed 'em convention, a gadget deservedly unknown in ABF-land.) Of course what usually happens is that the Director is summoned when West forgets, East remembers, and then West uses UI to avoid a ginormous penalty. See: http://www.blakjak.org/brx_brn0.htm 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/20130501/f686a872/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 2 02:01:55 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 00:01:55 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94D8C8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ton Kooijman: >..... >An example: (1D) - 1NT - (Pass) - 2H. 2H is alerted by North and explained as >a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to accept that when 2H is >meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So South does not need an alert to >understand that his partner took his bid as a transfer, the legal action tells him >the same. Richard Hills: Another example: North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2D, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West's inquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits. In response to South's Forcing Stayman, North bids 2NT (denying a major). So South does not need North's explanation to understand that North took her signoff as forcing, the legal auction tells her the same. But wait..... This second example is the Law 75 indicative example. South is instead required to interpret North's very unusual action in accordance with what South initially believed were the North-South methods, so "South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values". Likewise, in Ton's example "South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values". So for Ton's hypothetical North-South perhaps in other circumstances they play Long Suit Trial Bids, which means they have an implicit understanding that after a 2H signoff an unusual 2S rebid is a Fit Non-Jump. Diana Wynne Jones, Archer's Goon: "All power corrupts, but we need electricity." 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/20130502/2620d667/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu May 2 03:48:37 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 21:48:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94D8C8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94D8C8@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: I think the best criterion is whether the bid is impossible, not just unexpected. If you open 1NT with Axxx KQJx AKx xx and partner bids 2H as a sign-off, you would bid 2S (or switch the black suits if your game try would show a doubleton). Similarly, if you have Axx Axx KJxx Axx, you have nine top tricks opposite six diamonds to the ace, so you would bid 2NT over partner's 2D. I believe there is a consensus that 1NT-2NT-3C is proof of the misunderstanding; no 1NT opener ever rebids 3C over a 2NT invitation. Another example of an impossible bid: partner opened 1NT, I chose to bid 4D rather than 2D on a hand like x Kxxxxx AQx Qxx, and partner did not alert and bid 5D. I knew that 5D was not a cue-bid for slam because I held the DA, and partner would not break a Texas transfer to cue-bid the DK with no outside aces; therefore, I had no logical alternative to a 5H signoff. ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard HILLS To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 8:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Ton Kooijman: >..... >An example: (1D) - 1NT - (Pass) - 2H. 2H is alerted by North and explained as >a transfer after which North bids 2S. I am willing to accept that when 2H is >meant as natural a 2S bid is impossible. So South does not need an alert to >understand that his partner took his bid as a transfer, the legal action tells him >the same. Richard Hills: Another example: North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2D, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West's inquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits. In response to South's Forcing Stayman, North bids 2NT (denying a major). So South does not need North's explanation to understand that North took her signoff as forcing, the legal auction tells her the same. But wait..... This second example is the Law 75 indicative example. South is instead required to interpret North's very unusual action in accordance with what South initially believed were the North-South methods, so "South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values". Likewise, in Ton's example "South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values". So for Ton's hypothetical North-South perhaps in other circumstances they play Long Suit Trial Bids, which means they have an implicit understanding that after a 2H signoff an unusual 2S rebid is a Fit Non-Jump. Diana Wynne Jones, Archer's Goon: "All power corrupts, but we need electricity." 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/20130502/d29bd3ca/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 2 04:26:23 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 02:26:23 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94D9B0@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Vizzini the Sicilian: "Inconceivable!" David Grabiner: >I think the best criterion is whether the bid is impossible, not just unexpected. Richard Hills: What about this truth-is-stranger-than-fiction inconceivable auction? West deals and passes, North also passes, East opens 1D and South overcalls 2C. Now West bids an inconceivable 6H, all pass for an inconceivable +1430. Yes, I was West. If Hashmat Ali had been East I would have opened a strong 1C and relayed to the best spot. But I was playing Standard American with minimal gadgets, and East was the late Klavs Kalejs (a wonderful human being but not a bidding aficionado). So rather than describe my 4-7-2-0 hand to Klavs, I thought that I would let my three opponents describe their hands to me. Sure enough, my already powerful hand became even better after hearing Klavs bid diamonds and RHO bid clubs. David Grabiner: >If you open 1NT with Axxx KQJx AKx xx and partner bids 2H as a sign- >off, you would bid 2S (or switch the black suits if your game try would >show a doubleton). Similarly, if you have Axx Axx KJxx Axx, you have >nine top tricks opposite six diamonds to the ace, so you would bid 2NT >over partner's 2D. > >I believe there is a consensus that 1NT-2NT-3C is proof of the mis- >understanding; no 1NT opener ever rebids 3C over a 2NT invitation. >..... Richard Hills: Inconceivable! Many players eschew a 1C opening and instead choose a 1NT opening with a six-card club suit which is missing a few honours. And even at matchpoint pairs +110 in 3C is better than -50 in 2NT. 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/20130502/fcb0bb2b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 2 06:29:12 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 04:29:12 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Methods in their Madness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94DA26@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Blml consensus: >I believe there is a consensus that 1NT-2NT-3C is proof of the mis- >understanding; no 1NT opener ever rebids 3C over a 2NT invitation. Non-consensual extract from the Ali-Hills system notes: 1NT - 2S (range probe, usually inviting game in NT) 2NT = minimum, no 5 card minor 3C = minimum, 5 clubs 3D = minimum, 5 diamonds George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1898): "thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature." 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/20130502/b366a74d/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 4 02:40:18 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 20:40:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. Message-ID: Perhaps this is of interest. The player originally said he did not know the meaning of a bid. Then he offered to explain how he was interpreting it. The opponents turned this offer down. Then they claimed damage. If they had been told the correct meaning of the bid, then they would have found their correct contract. But, had he been (allowed? asked?) to explain how he was interpreting the bid, he would have given the correct partnership explanation. RULING I turned them down, as did a committee. For me, they can't turn down his offer to explain the bid and then claim damage because the bid was not explained correctly. IMO It seems to me that a player should have the right to guess at the partnership agreement (and then suffer the consequences if wrong). It would be odd to forbid him this opportunity and they adjust for damages because the opponents were not given the explanation he was forbidden from giving. The player perhaps should have phrased his offer differently. But the ACBL says that a request for an explanation does not have to be perfectly phrased to be valid. It seems that the same should hold for most communication at the table. And of course they could have called the director (they did) at any point. The director would have had the bidder explain the partnership meaning of her bid. The director was temporarily busy. The committee did not accept this excuse. From hermandw at skynet.be Sat May 4 10:39:25 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 10:39:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5184C93D.9070908@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > Perhaps this is of interest. > > The player originally said he did not know the meaning of a bid. Then he > offered to explain how he was interpreting it. The opponents turned this > offer down. Then they claimed damage. If they had been told the correct > meaning of the bid, then they would have found their correct contract. > But, had he been (allowed? asked?) to explain how he was interpreting the > bid, he would have given the correct partnership explanation. > > RULING > I turned them down, as did a committee. For me, they can't turn down his > offer to explain the bid and then claim damage because the bid was not > explained correctly. > > IMO > It seems to me that a player should have the right to guess at the > partnership agreement (and then suffer the consequences if wrong). Of course a player has this right - why should there be a difference between a player taking a 50% guess and explaining that (with or without informing the opponents that he's guessing) and a player who is 99% certain and explaining that one. No-one is ever 100% certain. And those that say they are have been wrong before. > It > would be odd to forbid him this opportunity and they adjust for damages > because the opponents were not given the explanation he was forbidden from > giving. > > The player perhaps should have phrased his offer differently. But the ACBL > says that a request for an explanation does not have to be perfectly > phrased to be valid. It seems that the same should hold for most > communication at the table. > > And of course they could have called the director (they did) at any point. > The director would have had the bidder explain the partnership meaning of > her bid. The director was temporarily busy. The committee did not accept > this excuse. > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6295 - Release Date: 05/03/13 > > From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Sat May 4 21:34:15 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (rysiek.sliwinski) Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 21:34:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. Message-ID: <6q9nohcog14k2woyp0lhh9k0.1367694684454@email.android.com> Imo,?if a player first says he doesnt know then he shouldnt offer the opps the explanation how he chooses to interpret the call. Why should we let him give even more OI to his partner? But the result stands, the opps didnt exercise their right to call TD who would send the not-knower from the table and let his partner explain his own call. Skickat fr?n min Samsung Mobil -------- Originalmeddelande -------- Fr?n: Herman De Wael Datum: Till: Bridge Laws Mailing List Rubrik: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. Robert Frick schreef: > Perhaps this is of interest. > > The player originally said he did not know the meaning of a bid. Then he > offered to explain how he was interpreting it. The opponents turned this > offer down. Then they claimed damage. If they had been told the correct > meaning of the bid, then they would have found their correct contract. > But, had he been (allowed? asked?) to explain how he was interpreting the > bid, he would have given the correct partnership explanation. > > RULING > I turned them down, as did a committee. For me, they can't turn down his > offer to explain the bid and then claim damage because the bid was not > explained correctly. > > IMO > It seems to me that a player should have the right to guess at the > partnership agreement (and then suffer the consequences if wrong). Of course a player has this right - why should there be a difference between a player taking a 50% guess and explaining that (with or without informing the opponents that he's guessing) and a player who is 99% certain and explaining that one. No-one is ever 100% certain. And those that say they are have been wrong before. > It > would be odd to forbid him this opportunity and they adjust for damages > because the opponents were not given the explanation he was forbidden from > giving. > > The player perhaps should have phrased his offer differently. But the ACBL > says that a request for an explanation does not have to be perfectly > phrased to be valid. It seems that the same should hold for most > communication at the table. > > And of course they could have called the director (they did) at any point. > The director would have had the bidder explain the partnership meaning of > her bid. The director was temporarily busy. The committee? did not accept > this excuse. > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6295 - Release Date: 05/03/13 > > _______________________________________________ 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/20130504/809fc046/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 6 00:38:38 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 22:38:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94DF6E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ryszard Sliwinski: >Imo, if a player first says he doesn't know then he shouldn't offer the opps >the explanation how he chooses to interpret the call. Why should we let him >give even more OI to his partner? ABF Alert regulation, clause 9.2 concluding advice: "you should not offer statements such as 'I take it to mean....' or 'I'm treating it as....'. Such a response is improper as it gives unauthorised information to partner." Ryszard Sliwinski: >But the result stands, the opps didn't exercise their right to call TD who >would send the not-knower from the table and let his partner explain his >own call. ABF Alert regulation, clause 7.7: "If you know that partner's call is alertable but you have forgotten its meaning, you should nevertheless alert. If asked, explain that you have forgotten the meaning. The Director should be called immediately. His normal action would be to send you away from the table and have your partner explain the meaning of the call." 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/20130505/19ec91ba/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 6 01:17:19 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 23:17:19 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94DFA1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Hilda R. Lirsch (1959 - ): "Anyone who prefaces a statement with 'Of course' is NECESSARILY arguing a debatable proposition." >>IMO It seems to me that a player should have the right to guess at the >>partnership agreement Herman De Wael: >Of course a player has this right - why should there be a difference >between a player taking a 50% guess and explaining that (with or >without informing the opponents that he's guessing) and a player who >is 99% certain and explaining that one. > >No-one is ever 100% certain. And those that say they are have been >wrong before. Richard Hills: Law requires an accurate explanation. In my opinion percentages are irrelevant. Rather, I apply the Aristotelian Law of the Excluded Middle to my explanations: (a) If I am confident that my memory is correct, I give the corresponding explanation. If my confidence was misplaced I have given unintentional MI, thus not an infraction of Law 72B1. (b) If I am not confident in my total recall, I summon the Director, so that the Director can send me away from the table and let pard explain. To knowingly guess (but guess inaccurately) is intentional MI - since calling the Director was an alternative - therefore an infraction of Law 72B1. >>(and then suffer the consequences if wrong). Law 72B1, General Principles, Infraction of Law: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, ++even if++ there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." 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/20130505/ec861585/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon May 6 01:58:32 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 18:58:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94DFA1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94DFA1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: [Someone] >>IMO It seems to me that a player should have the right to guess at the >>partnership agreement [Herman De Wael] Of course a player has this right - why should there be a difference between a player taking a 50% guess and explaining that (with or without informing the opponents that he's guessing) and a player who is 99% certain and explaining that one. No-one is ever 100% certain. And those that say they are have been wrong before. [Richard Hills] Law requires an accurate explanation. In my opinion percentages are irrelevant. [Jerry Fusselman] I agree with Herman's summary. Nice job, Herman. What Richard wrote sounds (at best) weird to me. How can percentages be irrelevant? If you are 99.9% the meaning is x, but admit a 0.1% chance that the meaning is y, how can these probabilities be irrelevant? You are in a happy situation. Call the meaning x, and get on with the game. If you reverse the numbers, call the meaning y. I can't imagne why RH thinks such numbers irrelevant. Most of the comments about percentages on BLML sound to me like we are stuck in the dark ages of probability and statistics, where we imagine that probabilities can only be frequencies or objective facts. But there is a Bayesian revolution now underway that is sweeping science and business. Within 10 or 20 years, the classicists, i.e., the frequentists, will be in a clear minority. Yet our bridge laws and our governing bodies seem perpetually frequentist. They will be probably still be stuck using anachronistic frequentist language several decades past the use-by date. We are (finally) coming to realize that all probabilities are subjective in the sense that we have prior information that properly applies when we estimate likelihoods. We never have perfect knowledge. Who of us are certain as to what our partner's actions mean? We cannot be 100% sure of our partnership understanding in the sense that we would allow all of friends and relatives to perish if we happen to be judged wrong by the director. 100% certainty is impossible, so why do all of our bridge laws focus so intently on the 100% case---imagining that anything less than 100% is irrelevant. In the language of science and business and life, probabilities are everything, not "irrelevant." Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 6 02:43:57 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 00:43:57 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Hypocrite (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E00E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >[Richard Hills] > >Law requires an accurate explanation. In my opinion percentages are >irrelevant. > >[Jerry Fusselman] > >I agree with Herman's summary. Nice job, Herman. What Richard wrote >sounds (at best) weird to me. >[snip] Richard Hills: Mr Fusselman is a hypocrite, frequently accusing me of misquoting, but now trying to make me sound weird by deleting my supporting arguments from my previous post without even the courtesy of using a [snip]. >[Jerry Fusselman] > >[snip] >100% certainty is impossible, so why do all of our bridge laws focus >so intently on the 100% case---imagining that anything less than 100% >is irrelevant. > >In the language of science and business and life, probabilities are >everything, not "irrelevant." Richard Hills: Yes and No. Choosing to play according to Restricted Choice may have an "a priori" chance of 76%, but after all the cards are played the Restricted Choice line has been either a 100% success or a 0% failure. Likewise, Law 85 requires the Director to weigh a disputed fact (for example, a contested explanation) upon the balance of probabilities, but Law 85 also requires the Director to eventually rule that that disputed fact is either 100% True or 0% False. What's the problem? 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/20130506/fc855e9d/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon May 6 03:38:55 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 20:38:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hypocrite (was ...explain...) Message-ID: Of course, Richard Hills and ad hominems go together like a horse and carriage. I'll respond this time. Sounds like fun in this one case. [Richard Hills, with my paragraph numbering] [1.] Mr Fusselman is a hypocrite, frequently accusing me of misquoting, but now trying to make me sound weird by deleting my supporting arguments from my previous post without even the courtesy of using a [snip]. [2.] Choosing to play according to Restricted Choice may have an ?a priori? chance of 76%, but after all the cards are played the Restricted Choice line has been either a 100% success or a 0% failure. [3.] Likewise, Law 85 requires the Director to weigh a disputed fact (for example, a contested explanation) upon the balance of probabilities, but Law 85 also requires the Director to eventually rule that that disputed fact is either 100% True or 0% False. [Richard Hills---this is most of what I left out previously, again with my paragraph numbers for a more careful and complete response] [4.] Rather, I apply the Aristotelian Law of the Excluded Middle to my explanations: [5.] (a) If I am confident that my memory is correct, I give the corresponding explanation. If my confidence was misplaced I have given unintentional MI, thus not an infraction of Law 72B1. [6.] (b) If I am not confident in my total recall, I summon the Director, so that the Director can send me away from the table and let pard explain. To knowingly guess (but guess inaccurately) is intentional MI ? since calling the Director was an alternative ? therefore an infraction of Law 72B1. [Jerry Fusselman] Let's see what I missed by focusing on the one key paragraph in RH's post. I'll go by number: 1. Intentional misquoting (Richard's habit) is different from quoting one paragraph of many. I sometimes do the latter. Anyone reading BLML with the benefit of half a brain knows that if one paragraph of RH's writing is quoted there may be hundreds of other paragraphs in the thread that weren't quoted. "[snip]" is sometimes wildly redundant. 2. The relevance of this paragraph may be over my head, though it sounds like the frequent frequentist trivial statement that probabilities are 100% if the statement is true and 0% if the statement is false, thus "cleverly" sidestepping (by defining away) the usual situation of incomplete information. 3. This sounds exactly like the dogmatic cult of frequentism and objectivism that I was referring to earlier. 4. OK, let's see where this paragraph leads. 5. Yes, this is frequentist language, insisting that you must be pretend to be 100% certain in your thinking of what the director will rule your partnership understandings to be. This is the problem I was trying to identify. The premise is "if I am confident," so the paragraph is useless, because a reasonable person is never 100% confident. 6. This is confusing to me. Is Richard saying that if you are not 100% certain, you must call the director? But you're never 100% certain. Both Herman and I explained that 100% is impossible. Would you call the director every time you are merely 99.9% or 99.99% certain? I sure hope not. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 6 04:35:23 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 02:35:23 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Hypocrite (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E0A1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ancient saying by Aussie children: "Mum, he did it first, so I am allowed to." Which presumably is the excuse used by my childish interlocutor to respond to an accurate ad hominem attack with two retaliatory ad hominem attacks, with his alternately accurate and inaccurate. Blml Law 74A2: "A blmler should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another blmler or might interfere with the enjoyment of the posts." For the rest of this post I will "carefully avoid any remark" about my interlocutor's intentions, instead concentrating upon the appropriate application and interpretation of the current Laws and ABF regs. [snip] >>Rather, I apply the Aristotelian Law of the Excluded Middle to >>my explanations: >> >>(a) If I am confident that my memory is correct, I give the >>corresponding explanation. If my confidence was misplaced I >>have given unintentional MI, thus not an infraction of Law >>72B1. [snip] >The premise is "if I am confident," so the paragraph is useless, >because a reasonable person is never 100% confident. Putting words into my mouth, since I said "confident", not "100% confident". But it is interesting that the above attempt at a rebuttal used the word "reasonable". If I do not have any reasonable doubt about my memory, then I am confident. >> (b) If I am not confident in my total recall, I summon the >>Director, so that the Director can send me away from the table >>and let pard explain. To knowingly guess (but guess >>inaccurately) is intentional MI - since calling the Director was >>an alternative - therefore an infraction of Law 72B1. >6. This is confusing to me. Is Richard saying that if you are not >100% certain, you must call the director? [snip] No, in ABF-land if you do indeed have a reasonable doubt about your total recall then you summon the Director; you are forbidden to say "I'm taking it as..." and/or guess an explanation. What's the problem? 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/20130506/3b7594dc/attachment-0001.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon May 6 04:43:57 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 21:43:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hypocrite (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E0A1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E0A1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: > > ?A blmler should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause > annoyance or embarrassment to another blmler or might interfere with > the enjoyment of the posts.? > > For the rest of this post I will ?carefully avoid any remark? about my > interlocutor?s intentions, instead concentrating upon the appropriate > application and interpretation of the current Laws and ABF regs. > Actually, this is excellent. We should focus on positions and statements, not what we imagine to be someone's intentions. I hope I have always done this on BLML. > [snip] >>>Rather, I apply the Aristotelian Law of the Excluded Middle to >>>my explanations: >>> >>>(a) If I am confident that my memory is correct, I give the >>>corresponding explanation. If my confidence was misplaced I >>>have given unintentional MI, thus not an infraction of Law >>>72B1. > > [snip] >>The premise is ?if I am confident,? so the paragraph is useless, >>because a reasonable person is never 100% confident. > > Putting words into my mouth, since I said ?confident?, not > ?100% confident?. But it is interesting that the above attempt at > a rebuttal used the word ?reasonable?. If I do not have any > reasonable doubt about my memory, then I am confident. Perhaps Richard can clarify what difference he imagines between "confident" and "100% confident." Please be complete in your answer. > >>> (b) If I am not confident in my total recall, I summon the >>>Director, so that the Director can send me away from the table >>>and let pard explain. To knowingly guess (but guess >>>inaccurately) is intentional MI ? since calling the Director was >>>an alternative ? therefore an infraction of Law 72B1. > >>6. This is confusing to me. Is Richard saying that if you are not >>100% certain, you must call the director? > [snip] > > No, in ABF-land if you do indeed have a reasonable doubt about > your total recall then you summon the Director; you are forbidden > to say ?I?m taking it as...? and/or guess an explanation. > Please define "reasonable doubt." See if you can use simple terms that even I can understand. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 6 05:17:37 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 03:17:37 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Hypocrite (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E0D9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL [snip] >Please define "reasonable doubt." See if you can use simple terms >that even I can understand. Macquarie Dictionary: reasonable doubt, n. Law sufficient evidence to lead an ordinary person to believe that the defendant may not have committed the offence. Wikipedia: "ordinary Aussie person" = "commuter on the Bourke Street tram" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_Omnibus 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/20130506/d0a53d1d/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon May 6 05:51:00 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 22:51:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hypocrite (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E0D9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E0D9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: I was hoping for a serious response. We're not talking about defendants and guilt in a court of law. On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > [snip] >>Please define ?reasonable doubt.? See if you can use simple terms >>that even I can understand. > > Macquarie Dictionary: > > reasonable doubt, n. Law sufficient evidence to lead an ordinary > person to believe that the defendant may not have committed the > offence. > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 6 06:17:21 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 04:17:21 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Hypocrite (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E11B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 23, Awareness of Potential Damage: "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this ++could well++ damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*. * as, for example, by partner's enforced pass." Argument-by-strong-analogy RH definition: "reasonable doubt, n. [Bridge Law] sufficient evidence to lead an ordinary bridge player to believe that they ++could well++ have forgotten their methods." According to Grattan Endicott, Law 23's "well" intensifies the normal meaning of "could". This is not immediately obvious to those who use English as a second language (for example us Aussies, whose first language is Strine). :) :) 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/20130506/e0575a48/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 6 08:42:28 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 08:42:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94DFA1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94DFA1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <518750D4.7020507@skynet.be> Richard HILLS schreef: > Herman De Wael: > >>Of course a player has this right - why should there be a difference >>between a player taking a 50% guess and explaining that (with or >>without informing the opponents that he's guessing) and a player who >>is 99% certain and explaining that one. >> >>No-one is ever 100% certain. And those that say they are have been >>wrong before. > Richard Hills: > Law requires an /accurate/ explanation. In my opinion percentages are > irrelevant. Of course my mention of percentages was just to prove a point. You know what I mean with 100%, 99% and 50% certain. > Rather, I apply the Aristotelian Law of the Excluded Middle to my > explanations: > (a) If I am /confident/ that my memory is correct, I give the corresponding > explanation. If my confidence was misplaced I have given /unintentional/ > MI, thus not an infraction of Law 72B1. Using the word "confident" in stead of 100% certain (or do you mean 99% certain) is not any different than using "irrelevant" percentages. > (b) If I am /not confident/ in my total recall, I summon the Director, > so that > the Director can send me away from the table and let pard explain. To > knowingly guess (but guess inaccurately) is /intentional/ MI ? since calling > the Director was an alternative ? therefore an infraction of Law 72B1. >>>(and then suffer the consequences if wrong). Bullshit. Why the hell should guessing be disallowed? My opponents are not entitled to know that I am not certain. If I have guessed correctly, there is no-one who shall ever know I have "misled" them into believing I was certain. The option of having the Director send you away from the table is just that, an option. There is nothing in the laws that states that this is what you should do. And suggesting that doing otherwise is illegal is just plain WRONG. > Law 72B1, General Principles, Infraction of Law: > ?A player must not infringe a law intentionally, ++even if++ there is a > prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.? > UNOFFICIAL official Herman's point of view: Richard is wrong. OFFICIAL Herman. From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Mon May 6 08:39:13 2013 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 16:39:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. References: <6q9nohcog14k2woyp0lhh9k0.1367694684454@email.android.com> Message-ID: From: rysiek.sliwinski Imo, if a player first says he doesnt know then he shouldnt offer the opps the explanation how he chooses to interpret the call. Why should we let him give even more OI to his partner? But the result stands, the opps didnt exercise their right to call TD who would send the not-knower from the table and let his partner explain his own call. What right is this? I've noticed this view in several threads .... that the director sends the not-knower from the table in every similar circumstance. WBFLC Minutes Lille 3 1998 "8. If a player knows that his partner?s call is conventional but says he cannot recall what was actually agreed the Director may in his discretion send the player away from the table and allow the partner to tell opponents in his absence what the agreement is. The Director must be called and no action may be taken before he arrives. The partner continues in the action on the basis that the player has understood his call, and does not use the unauthorized information that his partner is uncertain of the meaning. The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is completed. This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does not apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there is no agreement." Jan -------- Originalmeddelande -------- Fr?n: Herman De Wael Datum: Till: Bridge Laws Mailing List Rubrik: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. Robert Frick schreef: > Perhaps this is of interest. > > The player originally said he did not know the meaning of a bid. Then he > offered to explain how he was interpreting it. The opponents turned this > offer down. Then they claimed damage. If they had been told the correct > meaning of the bid, then they would have found their correct contract. > But, had he been (allowed? asked?) to explain how he was interpreting the > bid, he would have given the correct partnership explanation. > > RULING > I turned them down, as did a committee. For me, they can't turn down his > offer to explain the bid and then claim damage because the bid was not > explained correctly. > > IMO > It seems to me that a player should have the right to guess at the > partnership agreement (and then suffer the consequences if wrong). Of course a player has this right - why should there be a difference between a player taking a 50% guess and explaining that (with or without informing the opponents that he's guessing) and a player who is 99% certain and explaining that one. No-one is ever 100% certain. And those that say they are have been wrong before. > It > would be odd to forbid him this opportunity and they adjust for damages > because the opponents were not given the explanation he was forbidden from > giving. > > The player perhaps should have phrased his offer differently. But the ACBL > says that a request for an explanation does not have to be perfectly > phrased to be valid. It seems that the same should hold for most > communication at the table. > > And of course they could have called the director (they did) at any point. > The director would have had the bidder explain the partnership meaning of > her bid. The director was temporarily busy. The committee did not accept > this excuse. > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6295 - Release Date: 05/03/13 > > _______________________________________________ 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 rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Mon May 6 11:36:47 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 11:36:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. In-Reply-To: References: <6q9nohcog14k2woyp0lhh9k0.1367694684454@email.android.com> Message-ID: <000301ce4a3d$3a741670$af5c4350$@filosofi.uu.se> Of course, the TD has first to ask the question if the reason for not knowing is non-existence of an agreement (undiscussed) or forgetfulness. Only in the second case will he send the not-knower from the table. We, or at least I, assumed that that was the case in the OP otherwise the author would surely state that the answer was No agreement. -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jan Peach Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 8:39 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. From: rysiek.sliwinski Imo, if a player first says he doesnt know then he shouldnt offer the opps the explanation how he chooses to interpret the call. Why should we let him give even more OI to his partner? But the result stands, the opps didnt exercise their right to call TD who would send the not-knower from the table and let his partner explain his own call. What right is this? I've noticed this view in several threads .... that the director sends the not-knower from the table in every similar circumstance. WBFLC Minutes Lille 3 1998 "8. If a player knows that his partner?s call is conventional but says he cannot recall what was actually agreed the Director may in his discretion send the player away from the table and allow the partner to tell opponents in his absence what the agreement is. The Director must be called and no action may be taken before he arrives. The partner continues in the action on the basis that the player has understood his call, and does not use the unauthorized information that his partner is uncertain of the meaning. The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is completed. This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does not apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there is no agreement." Jan -------- Originalmeddelande -------- Fr?n: Herman De Wael Datum: Till: Bridge Laws Mailing List Rubrik: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. Robert Frick schreef: > Perhaps this is of interest. > > The player originally said he did not know the meaning of a bid. Then > he offered to explain how he was interpreting it. The opponents turned > this offer down. Then they claimed damage. If they had been told the > correct meaning of the bid, then they would have found their correct contract. > But, had he been (allowed? asked?) to explain how he was interpreting > the bid, he would have given the correct partnership explanation. > > RULING > I turned them down, as did a committee. For me, they can't turn down > his offer to explain the bid and then claim damage because the bid was > not explained correctly. > > IMO > It seems to me that a player should have the right to guess at the > partnership agreement (and then suffer the consequences if wrong). Of course a player has this right - why should there be a difference between a player taking a 50% guess and explaining that (with or without informing the opponents that he's guessing) and a player who is 99% certain and explaining that one. No-one is ever 100% certain. And those that say they are have been wrong before. > It > would be odd to forbid him this opportunity and they adjust for > damages because the opponents were not given the explanation he was > forbidden from giving. > > The player perhaps should have phrased his offer differently. But the > ACBL says that a request for an explanation does not have to be > perfectly phrased to be valid. It seems that the same should hold for > most communication at the table. > > And of course they could have called the director (they did) at any point. > The director would have had the bidder explain the partnership meaning > of her bid. The director was temporarily busy. The committee did not > accept this excuse. > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6295 - Release Date: > 05/03/13 > > _______________________________________________ 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 6 16:18:31 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 10:18:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. In-Reply-To: <000301ce4a3d$3a741670$af5c4350$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <6q9nohcog14k2woyp0lhh9k0.1367694684454@email.android.com> <000301ce4a3d$3a741670$af5c4350$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: On Mon, 06 May 2013 05:36:47 -0400, Ryszard Sliwinski wrote: > Of course, the TD has first to ask the question if the reason for not > knowing is non-existence of an agreement (undiscussed) or forgetfulness. Not really. Ask the player to leave, have the bidder explain his bid. If he also says "undiscussed", then you have to deal with that answer. But for the most part, players make a bid because they think their partner might understand the meaning. Hopefully you don't accept the answer of "undiscussed" when the bidder would have given a different explanation. > Only in the second case will he send the not-knower from the table. > We, or at least I, assumed that that was the case in the OP otherwise > the author would surely state that the answer was No agreement. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Jan Peach > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 8:39 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was > interpreted. > > > From: rysiek.sliwinski > Imo, if a player first says he doesnt know then he shouldnt offer the > opps the explanation how he chooses to interpret the call. Why should we > let him give even more OI to his partner? > But the result stands, the opps didnt exercise their right to call TD > who would send the not-knower from the table and let his partner explain > his own call. > > > > What right is this? I've noticed this view in several threads .... that > the director sends the not-knower from the table in every similar > circumstance. > > WBFLC Minutes Lille 3 1998 > "8. If a player knows that his partner?s call is conventional but says > he cannot recall what was actually agreed the Director may in his > discretion send the player away from the table and allow the partner to > tell opponents in his absence what the agreement is. The Director must > be called and no action may be taken before he arrives. > The partner continues in the action on the basis that the player has > understood his call, and does not use the unauthorized information that > his partner is uncertain of the meaning. > The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is > completed. > This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does > not apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there > is no agreement." > > Jan > > > > > -------- Originalmeddelande -------- > Fr?n: Herman De Wael > Datum: > Till: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Rubrik: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was > interpreted. > > > Robert Frick schreef: >> Perhaps this is of interest. >> >> The player originally said he did not know the meaning of a bid. Then >> he offered to explain how he was interpreting it. The opponents turned >> this offer down. Then they claimed damage. If they had been told the >> correct meaning of the bid, then they would have found their correct >> contract. >> But, had he been (allowed? asked?) to explain how he was interpreting >> the bid, he would have given the correct partnership explanation. >> >> RULING >> I turned them down, as did a committee. For me, they can't turn down >> his offer to explain the bid and then claim damage because the bid was >> not explained correctly. >> >> IMO >> It seems to me that a player should have the right to guess at the >> partnership agreement (and then suffer the consequences if wrong). > > Of course a player has this right - why should there be a difference > between a player taking a 50% guess and explaining that (with or without > informing the opponents that he's guessing) and a player who is 99% > certain and explaining that one. > > No-one is ever 100% certain. And those that say they are have been wrong > before. > >> It >> would be odd to forbid him this opportunity and they adjust for >> damages because the opponents were not given the explanation he was >> forbidden from giving. >> >> The player perhaps should have phrased his offer differently. But the >> ACBL says that a request for an explanation does not have to be >> perfectly phrased to be valid. It seems that the same should hold for >> most communication at the table. >> >> And of course they could have called the director (they did) at any >> point. >> The director would have had the bidder explain the partnership meaning >> of her bid. The director was temporarily busy. The committee did not >> accept this excuse. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6295 - Release Date: >> 05/03/13 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From jimfox00 at cox.net Mon May 6 19:03:37 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 13:03:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94DFA1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94DFA1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Obviously includes prefacing with "obviously", "undoubtedly", and many others. Mmbridge From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard HILLS Sent: 05/05/2013 7:17 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Hilda R. Lirsch (1959 - ): "Anyone who prefaces a statement with 'Of course' is NECESSARILY arguing a debatable proposition." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130506/b199ef8f/attachment.html From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Mon May 6 19:24:41 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (rysiek.sliwinski) Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 19:24:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. Message-ID: <7ub5171rrmvqvivdmw4lu9mr.1367861081892@email.android.com> No. If a player says "undiscussed" then TD cant use the process you described. Se quoted Minutes. Skickat fr?n min Samsung Mobil -------- Originalmeddelande -------- Fr?n: Robert Frick Datum: Till: Bridge Laws Mailing List Rubrik: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. On Mon, 06 May 2013 05:36:47 -0400, Ryszard Sliwinski? wrote: > Of course, the TD has first to ask the question if the reason for not? > knowing is non-existence of an agreement (undiscussed) or forgetfulness. Not really. Ask the player to leave, have the bidder explain his bid. If? he also says "undiscussed", then you have to deal with that answer. But? for the most part, players make a bid because they think their partner? might understand the meaning. Hopefully you don't accept the answer of "undiscussed" when the bidder? would have given a different explanation. > Only in the second case will he send the not-knower from the table. > We, or at least I, assumed that that was the case in the OP otherwise? > the author would surely state that the answer was No agreement. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf? > Of Jan Peach > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 8:39 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was? > interpreted. > > > From: rysiek.sliwinski > Imo, if a player first says he doesnt know then he shouldnt offer the? > opps the explanation how he chooses to interpret the call. Why should we? > let him give even more OI to his partner? > But the result stands, the opps didnt exercise their right to call TD? > who would send the not-knower from the table and let his partner explain? > his own call. > > > > What right is this? I've noticed this view in several threads .... that? > the director sends the not-knower from the table in every similar? > circumstance. > > WBFLC Minutes Lille 3 1998 > "8. If a player knows that his partner?s call is conventional but says? > he cannot recall what was actually agreed the Director may in his? > discretion send the player away from the table and allow the partner to? > tell opponents in his absence what the agreement is. The Director must? > be called and no action may be taken before he arrives. > The partner continues in the action on the basis that the player has? > understood his call, and does not use the unauthorized information that? > his partner is uncertain of the meaning. > The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is? > completed. > This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does? > not apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there? > is no agreement." > > Jan > > > > > -------- Originalmeddelande -------- > Fr?n: Herman De Wael > Datum: > Till: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Rubrik: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was? > interpreted. > > > Robert Frick schreef: >> Perhaps this is of interest. >> >> The player originally said he did not know the meaning of a bid. Then >> he offered to explain how he was interpreting it. The opponents turned >> this offer down. Then they claimed damage. If they had been told the >> correct meaning of the bid, then they would have found their correct? >> contract. >> But, had he been (allowed? asked?) to explain how he was interpreting >> the bid, he would have given the correct partnership explanation. >> >> RULING >> I turned them down, as did a committee. For me, they can't turn down >> his offer to explain the bid and then claim damage because the bid was >> not explained correctly. >> >> IMO >> It seems to me that a player should have the right to guess at the >> partnership agreement (and then suffer the consequences if wrong). > > Of course a player has this right - why should there be a difference? > between a player taking a 50% guess and explaining that (with or without? > informing the opponents that he's guessing) and a player who is 99%? > certain and explaining that one. > > No-one is ever 100% certain. And those that say they are have been wrong? > before. > >> It >> would be odd to forbid him this opportunity and they adjust for >> damages because the opponents were not given the explanation he was >> forbidden from giving. >> >> The player perhaps should have phrased his offer differently. But the >> ACBL says that a request for an explanation does not have to be >> perfectly phrased to be valid. It seems that the same should hold for >> most communication at the table. >> >> And of course they could have called the director (they did) at any? >> point. >> The director would have had the bidder explain the partnership meaning >> of her bid. The director was temporarily busy. The committee? did not >> accept this excuse. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6295 - Release Date: >> 05/03/13 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130506/80f70d01/attachment-0001.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Mon May 6 19:24:25 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 13:24:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OT: RE: Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94DFA1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: One of the many difficult conditions of being human is that one must deal with a universe that seems both analog (continuous) and digital (quantized), deterministic and non-deterministic, simultaneously. Mmbridge -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman Sent: 05/05/2013 7:59 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] [Someone] >>IMO It seems to me that a player should have the right to guess at the >>partnership agreement [Herman De Wael] Of course a player has this right - why should there be a difference between a player taking a 50% guess and explaining that (with or without informing the opponents that he's guessing) and a player who is 99% certain and explaining that one. No-one is ever 100% certain. And those that say they are have been wrong before. [Richard Hills] Law requires an accurate explanation. In my opinion percentages are irrelevant. [Jerry Fusselman] I agree with Herman's summary. Nice job, Herman. What Richard wrote sounds (at best) weird to me. How can percentages be irrelevant? If you are 99.9% the meaning is x, but admit a 0.1% chance that the meaning is y, how can these probabilities be irrelevant? You are in a happy situation. Call the meaning x, and get on with the game. If you reverse the numbers, call the meaning y. I can't imagne why RH thinks such numbers irrelevant. Most of the comments about percentages on BLML sound to me like we are stuck in the dark ages of probability and statistics, where we imagine that probabilities can only be frequencies or objective facts. But there is a Bayesian revolution now underway that is sweeping science and business. Within 10 or 20 years, the classicists, i.e., the frequentists, will be in a clear minority. Yet our bridge laws and our governing bodies seem perpetually frequentist. They will be probably still be stuck using anachronistic frequentist language several decades past the use-by date. We are (finally) coming to realize that all probabilities are subjective in the sense that we have prior information that properly applies when we estimate likelihoods. We never have perfect knowledge. Who of us are certain as to what our partner's actions mean? We cannot be 100% sure of our partnership understanding in the sense that we would allow all of friends and relatives to perish if we happen to be judged wrong by the director. 100% certainty is impossible, so why do all of our bridge laws focus so intently on the 100% case---imagining that anything less than 100% is irrelevant. In the language of science and business and life, probabilities are everything, not "irrelevant." Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 6 19:51:32 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 13:51:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] undiscussed In-Reply-To: <7ub5171rrmvqvivdmw4lu9mr.1367861081892@email.android.com> References: <7ub5171rrmvqvivdmw4lu9mr.1367861081892@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 06 May 2013 13:24:41 -0400, rysiek.sliwinski wrote: > No. If a player says "undiscussed" then TD cant use the process you > described. Se quoted Minutes. I don't think anyone reads those minutes the way you are reading them. I think they are an example of the law, not a restriction. So, the bidder thought his bid had some meaning according to their partnership agreement. They always do. The partner says "undiscussed". Is there any circumstance in which you would rule misbid (instead of mistaken explanation)? This is a longish discussion. My impression is that if you start considering details, everyone loses their enthusiasm for the answers of "undiscussed" and "no agreement". To give one, my partner bids 5S in response to my 4NT. Pretty much everyone at our club plays RKCB, so they will assume my partner has shown two controls and the queen of trump. I happen to know that my partner isn't very good and so her answer probably meant just three aces. And I am right. No one seems to like it if I can say "undiscussed" just because we never discussed it (or anything else for that matter). Bob > > > Skickat fr?n min Samsung Mobil > > -------- Originalmeddelande -------- > Fr?n: Robert Frick > Datum: > Till: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Rubrik: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was > interpreted. > On Mon, 06 May 2013 05:36:47 -0400, Ryszard Sliwinski > wrote: > >> Of course, the TD has first to ask the question if the reason for not >> knowing is non-existence of an agreement (undiscussed) or forgetfulness. > > Not really. Ask the player to leave, have the bidder explain his bid. If > he also says "undiscussed", then you have to deal with that answer. But > for the most part, players make a bid because they think their partner > might understand the meaning. > > Hopefully you don't accept the answer of "undiscussed" when the bidder > would have given a different explanation. > > > > >> Only in the second case will he send the not-knower from the table. >> We, or at least I, assumed that that was the case in the OP otherwise >> the author would surely state that the answer was No agreement. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Jan Peach >> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 8:39 AM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was >> interpreted. >> >> >> From: rysiek.sliwinski >> Imo, if a player first says he doesnt know then he shouldnt offer the >> opps the explanation how he chooses to interpret the call. Why should we >> let him give even more OI to his partner? >> But the result stands, the opps didnt exercise their right to call TD >> who would send the not-knower from the table and let his partner explain >> his own call. >> >> >> >> What right is this? I've noticed this view in several threads .... that >> the director sends the not-knower from the table in every similar >> circumstance. >> >> WBFLC Minutes Lille 3 1998 >> "8. If a player knows that his partner?s call is conventional but says >> he cannot recall what was actually agreed the Director may in his >> discretion send the player away from the table and allow the partner to >> tell opponents in his absence what the agreement is. The Director must >> be called and no action may be taken before he arrives. >> The partner continues in the action on the basis that the player has >> understood his call, and does not use the unauthorized information that >> his partner is uncertain of the meaning. >> The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is >> completed. >> This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does >> not apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there >> is no agreement." >> >> Jan >> >> >> >> >> -------- Originalmeddelande -------- >> Fr?n: Herman De Wael >> Datum: >> Till: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Rubrik: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was >> interpreted. >> >> >> Robert Frick schreef: >>> Perhaps this is of interest. >>> >>> The player originally said he did not know the meaning of a bid. Then >>> he offered to explain how he was interpreting it. The opponents turned >>> this offer down. Then they claimed damage. If they had been told the >>> correct meaning of the bid, then they would have found their correct >>> contract. >>> But, had he been (allowed? asked?) to explain how he was interpreting >>> the bid, he would have given the correct partnership explanation. >>> >>> RULING >>> I turned them down, as did a committee. For me, they can't turn down >>> his offer to explain the bid and then claim damage because the bid was >>> not explained correctly. >>> >>> IMO >>> It seems to me that a player should have the right to guess at the >>> partnership agreement (and then suffer the consequences if wrong). >> >> Of course a player has this right - why should there be a difference >> between a player taking a 50% guess and explaining that (with or without >> informing the opponents that he's guessing) and a player who is 99% >> certain and explaining that one. >> >> No-one is ever 100% certain. And those that say they are have been wrong >> before. >> >>> It >>> would be odd to forbid him this opportunity and they adjust for >>> damages because the opponents were not given the explanation he was >>> forbidden from giving. >>> >>> The player perhaps should have phrased his offer differently. But the >>> ACBL says that a request for an explanation does not have to be >>> perfectly phrased to be valid. It seems that the same should hold for >>> most communication at the table. >>> >>> And of course they could have called the director (they did) at any >>> point. >>> The director would have had the bidder explain the partnership meaning >>> of her bid. The director was temporarily busy. The committee did not >>> accept this excuse. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6295 - Release Date: >>> 05/03/13 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Mon May 6 22:37:18 2013 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 06:37:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. References: <6q9nohcog14k2woyp0lhh9k0.1367694684454@email.android.com><000301ce4a3d$3a741670$af5c4350$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Frick To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. On Mon, 06 May 2013 05:36:47 -0400, Ryszard Sliwinski wrote: > Of course, the TD has first to ask the question if the reason for not > knowing is non-existence of an agreement (undiscussed) or forgetfulness. Not really. Ask the player to leave, have the bidder explain his bid. If he also says "undiscussed", then you have to deal with that answer. But for the most part, players make a bid because they think their partner might understand the meaning. Hopefully you don't accept the answer of "undiscussed" when the bidder would have given a different explanation. "This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does not apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there is no agreement." There's not a lot of wriggle room here. The procedure of sending our player from the table only happens if our director (had he been called and had he not been busy) ascertains that "I don't know" followed by the offer of an interpretation means, "I know we have an agreement (reached by whatever method) but I have forgotten it." While a director may delve deeper into a response of "undiscussed" to make sure the player understands that agreements may be reached in other ways than by discussion, surely he doesn't send the player from the table so that partner may confirm or otherwise either "undiscussed" or an "interpretation" or even a wavering answer. Jan > Only in the second case will he send the not-knower from the table. > We, or at least I, assumed that that was the case in the OP otherwise > the author would surely state that the answer was No agreement. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Jan Peach > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 8:39 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was > interpreted. > > > From: rysiek.sliwinski > Imo, if a player first says he doesnt know then he shouldnt offer the > opps the explanation how he chooses to interpret the call. Why should we > let him give even more OI to his partner? > But the result stands, the opps didnt exercise their right to call TD > who would send the not-knower from the table and let his partner explain > his own call. > > > > What right is this? I've noticed this view in several threads .... that > the director sends the not-knower from the table in every similar > circumstance. > > WBFLC Minutes Lille 3 1998 > "8. If a player knows that his partner?s call is conventional but says > he cannot recall what was actually agreed the Director may in his > discretion send the player away from the table and allow the partner to > tell opponents in his absence what the agreement is. The Director must > be called and no action may be taken before he arrives. > The partner continues in the action on the basis that the player has > understood his call, and does not use the unauthorized information that > his partner is uncertain of the meaning. > The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is > completed. > This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does > not apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there > is no agreement." > > Jan > > > > > -------- Originalmeddelande -------- > Fr?n: Herman De Wael > Datum: > Till: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Rubrik: Re: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was > interpreted. > > > Robert Frick schreef: >> Perhaps this is of interest. >> >> The player originally said he did not know the meaning of a bid. Then >> he offered to explain how he was interpreting it. The opponents turned >> this offer down. Then they claimed damage. If they had been told the >> correct meaning of the bid, then they would have found their correct >> contract. >> But, had he been (allowed? asked?) to explain how he was interpreting >> the bid, he would have given the correct partnership explanation. >> >> RULING >> I turned them down, as did a committee. For me, they can't turn down >> his offer to explain the bid and then claim damage because the bid was >> not explained correctly. >> >> IMO >> It seems to me that a player should have the right to guess at the >> partnership agreement (and then suffer the consequences if wrong). > > Of course a player has this right - why should there be a difference > between a player taking a 50% guess and explaining that (with or without > informing the opponents that he's guessing) and a player who is 99% > certain and explaining that one. > > No-one is ever 100% certain. And those that say they are have been wrong > before. > >> It >> would be odd to forbid him this opportunity and they adjust for >> damages because the opponents were not given the explanation he was >> forbidden from giving. >> >> The player perhaps should have phrased his offer differently. But the >> ACBL says that a request for an explanation does not have to be >> perfectly phrased to be valid. It seems that the same should hold for >> most communication at the table. >> >> And of course they could have called the director (they did) at any >> point. >> The director would have had the bidder explain the partnership meaning >> of her bid. The director was temporarily busy. The committee did not >> accept this excuse. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6295 - Release Date: >> 05/03/13 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon May 6 22:43:11 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 16:43:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. In-Reply-To: References: <6q9nohcog14k2woyp0lhh9k0.1367694684454@email.android.com> <000301ce4a3d$3a741670$af5c4350$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <2C144BC5-FF1B-4FF0-9D54-B306CA172B32@starpower.net> On May 6, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 06 May 2013 05:36:47 -0400, Ryszard Sliwinski > wrote: > >> Of course, the TD has first to ask the question if the reason for not >> knowing is non-existence of an agreement (undiscussed) or forgetfulness. > > Not really. Ask the player to leave, have the bidder explain his bid. If > he also says "undiscussed", then you have to deal with that answer. But > for the most part, players make a bid because they think their partner > might understand the meaning. Well, if you've discussed a bid, you probably think your partner will understand it. But that doesn't imply its converse. Just because you think partner will understand your bid doesn't suggest that you've discussed it. Players make undiscussed bids all the time, and in 100% of those cases (not just "for the most part"!) "they think their partner might understand the meaning". Nobody makes a bid thinking that partner won't have a clue what it means. > Hopefully you don't accept the answer of "undiscussed" when the bidder > would have given a different explanation. As TD, I accept the answer of "undiscussed" when, and only when, my discussion with the players leaves me believing that it was probably in fact undiscussed. When one member of a pair says that it is, and the other offers "a different explanation", I assume the responsibility of deciding which is true, rather than applying some arbitrary rule that decides for me. I've seen numerous cases personally where it was the partner who was confident that they'd agreed to play such-and-such who was the one with the faulty memory, and the one saying "no, we never talked about it" was right. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 7 01:05:51 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 23:05:51 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E357@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills quote of October 2008 WBF Laws Committee minute: " ... compliance with the ***overriding requirement of the laws*** always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with ***correct explanations*** of the partnership understandings ... " Grattan Endicott, 31st December 2009 response: +=+ Reflecting the precedence that duty to opponents has over duty to partner. ~ G ~ +=+ Herman De Wael, 6th May 2013: [snip] Why the hell should guessing be disallowed? My opponents are not entitled to know that I am not certain. If I have guessed correctly, there is no-one who shall ever know I have "misled" them into believing I was certain. The option of having the Director send you away from the table is just that, an option. There is nothing in the laws that states that this is what you should do. And suggesting that doing otherwise is illegal is just plain WRONG. Richard Hills, 7th May 2013: When a player has forgotten her methods, there is a strong likelihood that her guess will be inaccurate, but an even stronger likelihood that her partner will have remembered the methods. Ergo, to be consistent with "the overriding requirement of the laws" to provide "correct explanations" she has a duty to opponents to summon the Director. Herman De Wael, 6th May 2013: official Herman's point of view: Richard is wrong. OFFICIAL Richard Hills, 7th May 2013: Richard is officially right in Australia (see previously quoted clause from the ABF Alert regulation) and also officially right in England. EBU Orange Book, clause 3D2: "If a player knows partner's call is (or may be) alertable, but cannot remember its meaning, he should alert. If asked for its meaning and if it is likely to be on the convention card then he may refer the opponents to the convention card. He must not say how he intends to interpret partner's call. If the opponents misunderstand his intentions when referring them to the convention card, if the meaning of the call is not shown on the convention card, or if they still want more information, the TD should be called to minimise any unauthorised information given to partner. The TD should be told that the player is unsure of the meaning. The TD may require him to leave the table briefly in order to ask the player's partner for an explanation." 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/20130506/cf9b6369/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 7 01:43:13 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 23:43:13 +0000 Subject: [BLML] undiscussed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E37E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Rysiek Sliwinski: >>No. If a player says "undiscussed" then TD can't use the process you >>described [questioning both partners]. See quoted Minutes. >I don't think anyone reads those minutes the way you are reading them. >I think they are an example of the law, not a restriction. >..... A later minute (1st September 1998, item 14) from the WBF Laws Committee specifically addresses this issue. " ... it is to be avoided absolutely that a player should be allowed to verify from player A (who made the bid) whether the explanation of his partner B was correct ... " 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/20130506/1d6df68b/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue May 7 03:09:10 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 02:09:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Turned down request to explain how a bid was interpreted. In-Reply-To: References: <6q9nohcog14k2woyp0lhh9k0.1367694684454@email.android.com> Message-ID: [Jan quoted WBFLC Minutes Lille 3 1998] "8. If a player knows that his partner?s call is conventional but says he cannot recall what was actually agreed the Director may in his discretion send the player away from the table and allow the partner to tell opponents in his absence what the agreement is. The Director must be called and no action may be taken before he arrives. The partner continues in the action on the basis that the player has understood his call, and does not use the unauthorized information that his partner is uncertain of the meaning. The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is completed. This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does not apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there is no agreement." [Nigel] Forcing a player to explain the systemic meaning of own call is the obvious remedy. The problem is that the minute penalises only the player who admits to forgetting his agreement. More common is: Opponents explain "Just Bridge" or "No firm agreement". Then, opponents appear to guess correctly, again. Occasionally, after you've moved on at the end of the round, you return to retrieve your system-card that you left behind and you overhear your previous opponents confirming in detail that they were on exactly the same wave-length. Unfortunately, your opponents are just meticulously complying with the interpretation that they must not speculate, when the aren't sure. And few sensible people are certain about anything. Only from rare masochists like are Herman, are you likely to get anything near the full truth. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 7 03:50:19 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 01:50:19 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL ABF Alert regulation, clause 9.2, second sentence: "When, however, as a result of partnership experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be given to the opponents." Nigel Guthrie >..... >Opponents explain "Just Bridge" or "No firm agreement". Then, opponents >appear to guess correctly, again. Occasionally, after you've moved on at >the end of the round, you return to retrieve your system-card that you left >behind and you overhear your previous opponents confirming in detail that >they were on exactly the same wave-length. Unfortunately, your opponents >are just meticulously complying with the interpretation that they must not >speculate, when they aren't sure. And few sensible people are certain about >anything. >..... Law 40A1(a): "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion ++or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness++ of the players." Law 40B6(a): " ... a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement ++or partnership experience++ ... " Richard Hills: A classic case of "special information" from an implicit partnership understanding which must be disclosed was discussed in a parallel thread. A partnership had not explicitly discussed responses to Blackwood. But nevertheless one partner chose to ask with 4NT. The other partner chose to respond with 5S. The Blackwooder knew that the opponents would expect 5S to promise two keycards and the queen of trumps. But the Blackwooder knew from experience that her partner had an old-fashioned style, which created an implicit understanding that 5S promised three aces. What's the problem? The problem, as Nigel observed, lies with players who either: (a) do not know the rules, or (b) intentionally infract the rules. A solution for (a) lies in education. For example, senior Aussie Director (and blml lurker) Laurie Kelso writes a regular column on the Laws and regulations in the monthly ABF Newsletter. As for (b), eventually such a lying partnership goes once too often to the well, then a Disciplinary Committee awards those cheats a year's holiday from tournament bridge. 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/20130507/09c03d46/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 7 04:36:37 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 02:36:37 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E46F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>Hopefully you don't accept the answer of "undiscussed" when the bidder >>would have given a different explanation. Eric Landau: >As TD, I accept the answer of "undiscussed" when, and only when, my >discussion with the players leaves me believing that it was probably in >fact undiscussed. When one member of a pair says that it is, and the other >offers "a different explanation", I assume the responsibility of deciding >which is true, rather than applying some arbitrary rule that decides for me. Richard Hills: Indeed. A Director who arbitrarily ignores the criteria of Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) in favour of her do-it-yourself inequitable guidelines is, in my opinion, an illegal pseudo-Director. (Similarly, an undisclosed implicit partnership understanding about 1H - (Double) - 1S is not a legal "Baby" Psyche but rather an illegal pseudo-Psyche.) Eric Landau: >I've seen numerous cases personally where it was the partner who was >confident that they'd agreed to play such-and-such who was the one with >the faulty memory, and the one saying "no, we never talked about it" was >right. Richard Hills: Very embarrassingly (it cost the Ali-Hills partnership a place in a Canberra interstate team), I was confident* that we'd agreed to play such-and-such, but Hashmat's "no, we never talked about it" was right. Best wishes, Richard Hills * Note to Herman: Being confident beyond reasonable doubt is not the same as 99% or 100% accuracy. Likewise, lacking confidence in one's memory, so summoning the Director, is not the same as 50% accuracy. It is easy to be confidently but frequently innacurate. For example, in one and only one of my casual partnerships my pard insists on playing Inverted Minors. So I often confidently Pass my pard's raise to 2C. :) :) 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/20130507/b107bb9d/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue May 7 05:37:17 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 04:37:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: [Richard Hills quotes Law 40A1(a)] ?Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion ++or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness++ of the players.? [And Richard quotes Law 40B6(a)] ? ... a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement ++or partnership experience++ ... ? [Richard sentences prevaricators] ... such a lying partnership goes once too often to the well, then a Disciplinary Committee awards those cheats a year?s holiday from tournament bridge. [Nigel] Here we go round the prickly pear again and again and again... Half-remembered discussions, partnership experience, local habits, analogous agreements and so on lead to tentative conclusions. The practical problem is that typically, it would take a long time for a player to explain his inductive logic. The "reasoning" may be buried in his subconscious, hard to access, excessively boring to relate, and nearly impossible for anybody else to understand. But directors seem unhappy when a player avoids misleading waffle and just lists possible explanations with rough subjective probability estimates. Hence, rather than help opponents and annoy the director, players tend to opt for the easy broken record "No agreement". I don't think it's fair for Richard to call them liars or cheats. If Richard gave them a year's holiday from Bridge, there would be few players left, with whom we could play. It would be a wonderful improvement, however, if rule-makers and directors could find some way to reduce prevarication, even by a little. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 7 06:09:33 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 04:09:33 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E4A3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL ABF Alert regulation, clause 9.2, second sentence: "When, however, as a result of partnership experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be given to the opponents." Richard Hills: >>..... >>players who either: >> >>(a) do not know the rules, >> >>or >> >>(b) intentionally infract the rules. >> >>A solution for (a) lies in education. >>..... Nigel Guthrie: >Here we go round the prickly pear again and again and again... > >Half-remembered discussions, partnership experience, local habits, >analogous agreements and so on lead to tentative conclusions. Richard Hills: And an Aussie player, in accordance with clause 9.2, must explain those tentative conclusions about her implicit partnership understandings. Nigel Guthrie: >The practical problem is that typically, it would take a long time for a >player to explain his inductive logic. The "reasoning" may be buried in >his subconscious, hard to access, excessively boring to relate, and >nearly impossible for anybody else to understand. Richard Hills: Clause 9.2 requires an Aussie player to explain an outcome; she does not necessarily have to explain her inductive logic which produced that outcome. Nigel Guthrie: >But directors seem unhappy when a player avoids misleading >waffle and just lists possible explanations with rough subjective >probability estimates. Richard Hills: Indeed, Aussie Directors would be truly unhappy, since the ABF Alert reg requires a TD summoning when a player is truly uncertain about what her methods are. Nigel Guthrie: >Hence, rather than help opponents and annoy the director, Richard Hills: Almost all Aussie Directors are never annoyed when they are summoned for a legitimate reason. (But one expert Aussie Director operates in a permanent state of annoyance.) Nigel Guthrie: >players tend to opt for the easy broken record "No agreement". > >I don't think it's fair for Richard to call them liars or cheats. [snip] Richard Hills: Almost always I do not call such players liars and cheats, as almost all such players fit into category (a), needing education about the rules. Like Eric Landau and David Stevenson I believe that unintentional falsehoods overwhelmingly outnumber intentional perversions of the course of bridge justice. What's the problem? The problem is that I am about to take a holiday, so I will be unsubscribing from blml for a week or so. 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/20130507/de35288b/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue May 7 15:16:43 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 14:16:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E4A3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E4A3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <8D7D767AE27845B0BFCF30D06175AA78@G3> [Richard Hills] What?s the problem? The problem is that I am about to take a holiday, so I will be unsubscribing from blml for a week or so. [BLML] Bon voyage! Bonnes vacances! Bonne chance! From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 7 18:27:48 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 12:27:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Mon, 06 May 2013 21:50:19 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > ABF Alert regulation, clause 9.2, second sentence: > > "When, however, as a result of partnership experience and style, you are > able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, > that > information shall be given to the opponents." > > Nigel Guthrie > >> ..... >> Opponents explain "Just Bridge" or "No firm agreement". Then, opponents >> appear to guess correctly, again. Occasionally, after you've moved on at >> the end of the round, you return to retrieve your system-card that you >> left >> behind and you overhear your previous opponents confirming in detail >> that >> they were on exactly the same wave-length. Unfortunately, your opponents >> are just meticulously complying with the interpretation that they must >> not >> speculate, when they aren't sure. And few sensible people are certain >> about >> anything. >> ..... > > Law 40A1(a): > > "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership > may > be reached explicitly in discussion ++or implicitly through mutual > experience > or awareness++ of the players." > > Law 40B6(a): > > " ... a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him > through > partnership agreement ++or partnership experience++ ... " > > Richard Hills: > > A classic case of "special information" from an implicit partnership > understanding which must be disclosed was discussed in a parallel thread. > > A partnership had not explicitly discussed responses to Blackwood. But > nevertheless one partner chose to ask with 4NT. The other partner chose > to > respond with 5S. The Blackwooder knew that the opponents would expect > 5S to promise two keycards and the queen of trumps. But the Blackwooder > knew from experience Um, you missed a big point here. It wasn't mutual experience. I had played about 1 hand with this person. I don't think I had ever played against her, if that counts as mutual experience. I just knew her ability. So there was no partnership understanding to disclose to the opponents. Just my guess, which was much better than theirs because of knowledge I had. Look, if you are not going to let a player say "undiscussed" in this situation, when are you ever going to allow it? that her partner had an old-fashioned style, which > created an implicit understanding that 5S promised three aces. > > What's the problem? The problem, as Nigel observed, lies with players > who either: > > (a) do not know the rules, > > or > > (b) intentionally infract the rules. > > A solution for (a) lies in education. For example, senior Aussie Director > (and blml lurker) Laurie Kelso writes a regular column on the Laws and > regulations in the monthly ABF Newsletter. > > As for (b), eventually such a lying partnership goes once too often to > the > well, then a Disciplinary Committee awards those cheats a year's holiday > from tournament bridge. > > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 8 10:04:58 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 10:04:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > > Um, you missed a big point here. It wasn't mutual experience. I had played > about 1 hand with this person. I don't think I had ever played against > her, if that counts as mutual experience. I just knew her ability. > > So there was no partnership understanding to disclose to the opponents. > Just my guess, which was much better than theirs because of knowledge I > had. > > Look, if you are not going to let a player say "undiscussed" in this > situation, when are you ever going to allow it? > > Hmm? You know something your opponents don't, and you believe you should be allowed to say "undiscussed"? You knew your partner was old-style, and this means she was showing 3 aces. That is not "undiscussed", that is "prior knowledge". You probably did not discuss that 1NT showed 15-17 (or whatever the normal range is for an old-style player in your environs), but you had certainly "agreed" to play 15-17. There may well be cases where "undiscussed" is OK, but this one is not one of them. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed May 8 15:06:04 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 09:06:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 08 May 2013 04:04:58 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> >> Um, you missed a big point here. It wasn't mutual experience. I had >> played >> about 1 hand with this person. I don't think I had ever played against >> her, if that counts as mutual experience. I just knew her ability. >> >> So there was no partnership understanding to disclose to the opponents. >> Just my guess, which was much better than theirs because of knowledge I >> had. >> >> Look, if you are not going to let a player say "undiscussed" in this >> situation, when are you ever going to allow it? >> >> > > Hmm? > > You know something your opponents don't, and you believe you should be > allowed to say "undiscussed"? > > You knew your partner was old-style, and this means she was showing 3 > aces. That is not "undiscussed", that is "prior knowledge". You probably > did not discuss that 1NT showed 15-17 (or whatever the normal range is > for an old-style player in your environs), but you had certainly > "agreed" to play 15-17. > > There may well be cases where "undiscussed" is OK, but this one is not > one of them. Um, two players did not discuss what they were playing. Absolutely true and easily documented. They have no prior experience playing together. Herman, if you are not going to accept "undiscussed" in this situation, when are you going to accept it? (I wouldn't accept it in this situation, so you are not arguing with me.) Bob From hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 8 16:29:36 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 16:29:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > > Um, two players did not discuss what they were playing. Absolutely true > and easily documented. They have no prior experience playing together. And yet both are certain that 5S shows 3 aces? Impossible if they have NO joint experience. > Herman, if you are not going to accept "undiscussed" in this situation, > when are you going to accept it? (I wouldn't accept it in this situation, > so you are not arguing with me.) > I would accept it when it is possible. Sometimes you hear people ask questions like "do you bid weak two's without any honours?". I accept the answer "undiscussed". But in this case, the bidder is not trying to express this fact, nor is the partner drawing a conclusion. So it was possible to have this undiscussed. But when one partner is trying to show 3 aces and the partner bids slam on the basis of this, the answer "undiscussed", which might even be true, is certainly not the sum total of the partnership agreements. Perhaps that is the real answer: it does not matter whether something is undiscussed or not - it only matters if the opponents know the full agreement, and agreements can exist even without any discussion. Herman. > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6307 - Release Date: 05/07/13 > > From sater at xs4all.nl Wed May 8 17:38:45 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 17:38:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005a01ce4c02$20574980$6105dc80$@xs4all.nl> In my courses I often use this example: Two pretty strong players play a pub-tournament together. First time they play together. Some 5 minutes before the game they discuss, and write down a convention card on the back of a beer-coaster. First hand. Player 1: 1H. pass. Player 2: 4C. Never discussed in these 5 minutes. Is it alertable? What to explain in case of questions? My "official" answer for these courses is: it depends on your opponents. If they are also strong players(unlikely in a pub-tournament) you do not alert, and when questioned shrug your shoulder: your guess is as good as mine. But if they are weak(or unknown) players you alert, and explain that although you did not discuss this, the bid without any doubt shows heart support, enough to go for game, with slam interest. It could show shortage in clubs, but it might also show a control(A, K), or who knows. Anyone disagreeing? Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: woensdag 8 mei 2013 16:30 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Robert Frick schreef: > > Um, two players did not discuss what they were playing. Absolutely > true and easily documented. They have no prior experience playing together. And yet both are certain that 5S shows 3 aces? Impossible if they have NO joint experience. > Herman, if you are not going to accept "undiscussed" in this > situation, when are you going to accept it? (I wouldn't accept it in > this situation, so you are not arguing with me.) > I would accept it when it is possible. Sometimes you hear people ask questions like "do you bid weak two's without any honours?". I accept the answer "undiscussed". But in this case, the bidder is not trying to express this fact, nor is the partner drawing a conclusion. So it was possible to have this undiscussed. But when one partner is trying to show 3 aces and the partner bids slam on the basis of this, the answer "undiscussed", which might even be true, is certainly not the sum total of the partnership agreements. Perhaps that is the real answer: it does not matter whether something is undiscussed or not - it only matters if the opponents know the full agreement, and agreements can exist even without any discussion. Herman. > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6307 - Release Date: > 05/07/13 > > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed May 8 18:48:25 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 18:48:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005a01ce4c02$20574980$6105dc80$@xs4all.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> <005a01ce4c02$20574980$6105dc80$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <001c01ce4c0b$dc146b40$943d41c0$@online.no> > Hans van Staveren > In my courses I often use this example: > > Two pretty strong players play a pub-tournament together. First time they > play together. Some 5 minutes before the game they discuss, and write > down a convention card on the back of a beer-coaster. > > First hand. Player 1: 1H. pass. Player 2: 4C. Never discussed in these 5 > minutes. > > Is it alertable? What to explain in case of questions? > > My "official" answer for these courses is: it depends on your opponents. > If they are also strong players(unlikely in a pub-tournament) you do not alert, > and when questioned shrug your shoulder: your guess is as good as mine. > But if they are weak(or unknown) players you alert, and explain that > although you did not discuss this, the bid without any doubt shows heart > support, enough to go for game, with slam interest. It could show shortage in > clubs, but it might also show a control(A, K), or who knows. > > Anyone disagreeing? > > Hans [Sven Pran] Yes I would expect "strong players" to have an implicit agreement that 4C here must show good heart support and first (or possibly second) control in Clubs (what else?). Consequently I would not accept "undiscussed" or any similar explanation as complying with Law 40. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed May 8 21:27:04 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 15:27:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> Message-ID: Suppose my partner and I have no agreements. There wasn't time. He opens 2D. I don't know whether that is weak or Flannery. Some people here will let me say "undiscussed". Suppose my partner opens 2H and the opponents ask what it means. Without discussion, it is a weak two in hearts. I am 100% sure. Can I say "undiscussed"? I am guessing no one will allow this. My point is this. The problem in the first case is that we did not discuss it AND I don't know what it means. In the second case, we still didn't discuss it, but I know what it means. Hence, "I don't know" would be a more honest answer than "undiscussed". A more realistic example. We agree to play support doubles. The auction is 1C P 1D 1S X Is that a support double? Here in Long Island at least, there is no consensus. I am not sure how many people even think about it. So, if the pair forgot to talk about it, some directors might allow "undiscussed". (Or else I don't know when you would allow it.) Now consider 1C P 1H 1S X We agreed to play support doubles. We never talked about when they are on and off. Can I now say undiscussed? Not really, because I know what my partner's bid means. So, once again, the relevant difference is that I don't know what the first double means. Herman kind of says the same thing. If I know what my partner's bid means, I have to explain it (according to Herman). Even if there is no agreement or discussion or mutual experience. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed May 8 22:02:32 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 21:02:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> Message-ID: Is it hard to say "we agreed to play support doubles but didn't discuss whether they apply when the response is 1D"? Gordon Rainsford On 8 May 2013, at 20:27, "Robert Frick" wrote: > Suppose my partner and I have no agreements. There wasn't time. He opens > 2D. I don't know whether that is weak or Flannery. Some people here will > let me say "undiscussed". > > Suppose my partner opens 2H and the opponents ask what it means. Without > discussion, it is a weak two in hearts. I am 100% sure. Can I say > "undiscussed"? I am guessing no one will allow this. > > > My point is this. The problem in the first case is that we did not discuss > it AND I don't know what it means. In the second case, we still didn't > discuss it, but I know what it means. > > Hence, "I don't know" would be a more honest answer than "undiscussed". > > > A more realistic example. We agree to play support doubles. The auction is > > 1C P 1D 1S > X > > Is that a support double? Here in Long Island at least, there is no > consensus. I am not sure how many people even think about it. So, if the > pair forgot to talk about it, some directors might allow "undiscussed". > (Or else I don't know when you would allow it.) > > > Now consider > > 1C P 1H 1S > X > > We agreed to play support doubles. We never talked about when they are on > and off. Can I now say undiscussed? Not really, because I know what my > partner's bid means. > > So, once again, the relevant difference is that I don't know what the > first double means. > > > Herman kind of says the same thing. If I know what my partner's bid means, > I have to explain it (according to Herman). Even if there is no agreement > or discussion or mutual experience. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Wed May 8 22:42:43 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 21:42:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005a01ce4c02$20574980$6105dc80$@xs4all.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> <005a01ce4c02$20574980$6105dc80$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: [Hans van Staveren] In my courses I often use this example: Two pretty strong players play a pub-tournament together. First time they play together. Some 5 minutes before the game they discuss, and write down a convention card on the back of a beer-coaster. First hand. Player 1: 1H. pass. Player 2: 4C. Never discussed in these 5 minutes. Is it alertable? What to explain in case of questions? My "official" answer for these courses is: it depends on your opponents. If they are also strong players(unlikely in a pub-tournament) you do not alert, and when questioned shrug your shoulder: your guess is as good as mine. But if they are weak(or unknown) players you alert, and explain that although you did not discuss this, the bid without any doubt shows heart support, enough to go for game, with slam interest. It could show shortage in clubs, but it might also show a control(A, K), or who knows. Anyone disagreeing? [Nigel] I'm sure that Hans has given correct legal advice but, as a player, I think it would be much fairer if you were forced to guess, as Herman suggests. With no information other than that supplied by Hans, I think the probabilities are roughly: Splinter 60% Specifically a void 10% Gerber 10% Weak jump 9% Swiss 4% Cue-bid 3% Exclusion 2% Fit jump 1% Others 1% With many partners, even after five minutes discussion, you would be able to reduce the possibilities. After a few boards play, you would be even better placed. If opponents are strangers, even if they're good players, they're likely to be worse placed than you. From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Wed May 8 23:42:58 2013 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:42:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> <005a01ce4c02$20574980$6105dc80$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <518AC6E2.9060902@gmail.com> On 05/08/2013 04:42 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > I'm sure that Hans has given correct legal advice but, as a player, I think > it would be much fairer if you were forced to guess, as Herman suggests. But Herman also seems to suggest that if you are forced to guess (as of course you are, even in the absence of questions, if the bidding is to continue) AND you get it right, then he will take that as evidence of inadequate disclosure. But when one partner is trying to show 3 aces and the partner bids slam on the basis of this, the answer "undiscussed", which might even be true, is certainly not the sum total of the partnership agreements. Which seems, at least to me, to say that if pard bids an undiscussed 5S in response to 4NT, you're in hot water with Herman unless you guess wrong. I am, of course, assuming that Herman would be equally disbelieving if you stopped in six minus an Ace and then found that you had correctly guessed that your partner had intended to show two Aces and the key queen (assume for the moment that the key queen is actually irrelevant for bidding seven, you just need to know that there's no Ace mising). Brian. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 9 03:19:05 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 21:19:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 08 May 2013 16:02:32 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > Is it hard to say "we agreed to play support doubles but didn't discuss > whether they apply when the response is 1D"? Can they say "we agreed to play support doubles but didn't discuss whether they apply when the response is 1H?" (everyone knows they do, of course) Can they say, "we agreed to play Stayman but never discussed whether it applies over an opening no trump?" If you want to allow all three, you are being consistent. If you want to allow the first one but not the next two, then why? I am claiming it is because the player knows the meaning of the bid in the second two. Bob > > Gordon Rainsford > > On 8 May 2013, at 20:27, "Robert Frick" wrote: > >> Suppose my partner and I have no agreements. There wasn't time. He opens >> 2D. I don't know whether that is weak or Flannery. Some people here will >> let me say "undiscussed". >> >> Suppose my partner opens 2H and the opponents ask what it means. Without >> discussion, it is a weak two in hearts. I am 100% sure. Can I say >> "undiscussed"? I am guessing no one will allow this. >> >> >> My point is this. The problem in the first case is that we did not >> discuss >> it AND I don't know what it means. In the second case, we still didn't >> discuss it, but I know what it means. >> >> Hence, "I don't know" would be a more honest answer than "undiscussed". >> >> >> A more realistic example. We agree to play support doubles. The auction >> is >> >> 1C P 1D 1S >> X >> >> Is that a support double? Here in Long Island at least, there is no >> consensus. I am not sure how many people even think about it. So, if the >> pair forgot to talk about it, some directors might allow "undiscussed". >> (Or else I don't know when you would allow it.) >> >> >> Now consider >> >> 1C P 1H 1S >> X >> >> We agreed to play support doubles. We never talked about when they are >> on >> and off. Can I now say undiscussed? Not really, because I know what my >> partner's bid means. >> >> So, once again, the relevant difference is that I don't know what the >> first double means. >> >> >> Herman kind of says the same thing. If I know what my partner's bid >> means, >> I have to explain it (according to Herman). Even if there is no >> agreement >> or discussion or mutual experience. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Thu May 9 04:48:46 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 22:48:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> <005a01ce4c02$20574980$6105dc80$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: Hi Nigel. There is another issue to this. Suppose the opponents open 2NT to show the minors. Your partner makes a bid. You don't know what it means because you never discussed it. Should you be forced to guess? In this case, it is the opponents' fault that you don't know what your partner's bid means. Should they get the advantage that you are not prepared for their opening and then the advantage when you guess wrong. Or if you are removed from the table, do they also get the advantage of knowing what your partner's bid meant when you don't? On Wed, 08 May 2013 16:42:43 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Hans van Staveren] > In my courses I often use this example: Two pretty strong players play a > pub-tournament together. First time they play together. Some 5 minutes > before the game they discuss, and write down a convention card on the > back > of a beer-coaster. > First hand. Player 1: 1H. pass. Player 2: 4C. Never discussed in these 5 > minutes. Is it alertable? What to explain in case of questions? My > "official" answer for these courses is: it depends on your opponents. If > they are also strong players(unlikely in a pub-tournament) you do not > alert, > and when questioned shrug your shoulder: your guess is as good as mine. > But if they are weak(or unknown) players you alert, and explain that > although you did not discuss this, the bid without any doubt shows heart > support, enough to go for game, with slam interest. It could show > shortage > in clubs, but it might also show a control(A, K), or who knows. Anyone > disagreeing? > > [Nigel] > I'm sure that Hans has given correct legal advice but, as a player, I > think > it would be much fairer if you were forced to guess, as Herman suggests. > With no information other than that supplied by Hans, I think the > probabilities are roughly: > > Splinter 60% > Specifically a void 10% > Gerber 10% > Weak jump 9% > Swiss 4% > Cue-bid 3% > Exclusion 2% > Fit jump 1% > Others 1% > > With many partners, even after five minutes discussion, you would be > able to > reduce the possibilities. After a few boards play, you would be even > better > placed. If opponents are strangers, even if they're good players, > they're > likely to be worse placed than you. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu May 9 08:17:28 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 07:17:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Posts Message-ID: I've been on the list for many years though I don't post often. I have responded twice recently however and neither post has appeared. I also seem to miss some other posts and only know of them when they are quoted in replies. Sent from my iPhone so may be more terse than usual From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri May 10 09:22:45 2013 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 09:22:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: Posts In-Reply-To: <518CA01C.5060505@aol.com> References: <518CA01C.5060505@aol.com> Message-ID: <518CA045.6020804@aol.com> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [BLML] Posts Datum: Fri, 10 May 2013 09:22:04 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson An: Bridge Laws Mailing List I think I receive all postings of other blmlers but my own often don't seem to appear on my computer. There are comments on them so they are appearing for others. JE Am 09.05.2013 08:17, schrieb Gordon Rainsford: > I've been on the list for many years though I don't post often. I have responded twice recently however and neither post has appeared. I also seem to miss some other posts and only know of them when they are quoted in replies. > > Sent from my iPhone so may be more terse than usual > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri May 10 09:22:04 2013 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 09:22:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Posts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <518CA01C.5060505@aol.com> I think I receive all postings of other blmlers but my own often don't seem to appear on my computer. There are comments on them so they are appearing for others. JE Am 09.05.2013 08:17, schrieb Gordon Rainsford: > I've been on the list for many years though I don't post often. I have responded twice recently however and neither post has appeared. I also seem to miss some other posts and only know of them when they are quoted in replies. > > Sent from my iPhone so may be more terse than usual > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From sater at xs4all.nl Fri May 10 09:26:11 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 09:26:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001c01ce4c0b$dc146b40$943d41c0$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> <005a01ce4c02$20574980$6105dc80$@xs4all.nl> <001c01ce4c0b$dc146b40$943d41c0$@online.no> Message-ID: <007f01ce4d4f$a698a5e0$f3c9f1a0$@xs4all.nl> [SP] [Sven Pran] Yes I would expect "strong players" to have an implicit agreement that 4C here must show good heart support and first (or possibly second) control in Clubs (what else?). Consequently I would not accept "undiscussed" or any similar explanation as complying with Law 40. [HvS] But this is precisely the point. Against other strong players you do not have to explain, because they know just as much as you do. Weak players might, without an explanation, take the 4C as natural. Suppose you, as a strong player, playing against other strong players, would alert this 4C. They of course ask. You explain it to be some sort of slam-invite for H. But which they ask? Don't know. Do you think they are going to thank you for the alert, or is it more likely that a Homer Simpson type Duhh.. would follow. Hans From hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 10 11:48:21 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 11:48:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007f01ce4d4f$a698a5e0$f3c9f1a0$@xs4all.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> <005a01ce4c02$20574980$6105dc80$@xs4all.nl> <001c01ce4c0b$dc146b40$943d41c0$@online.no> <007f01ce4d4f$a698a5e0$f3c9f1a0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <518CC265.6060207@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren schreef: > [SP] > > [Sven Pran] > > Yes > > I would expect "strong players" to have an implicit agreement that 4C here > must show good heart support and first (or possibly second) control in Clubs > (what else?). Consequently I would not accept "undiscussed" or any similar > explanation as complying with Law 40. > > [HvS] > But this is precisely the point. Against other strong players you do not > have to explain, because they know just as much as you do. Weak players > might, without an explanation, take the 4C as natural. > > Suppose you, as a strong player, playing against other strong players, would > alert this 4C. They of course ask. You explain it to be some sort of > slam-invite for H. But which they ask? Don't know. Do you think they are > going to thank you for the alert, or is it more likely that a Homer Simpson > type Duhh.. would follow. > > Hans > Quite correct Hans, but I know of no single alert system in the world that tells one to alert against one kind of opponent and not against another one. If you good opponents ask, the answer "obviously support, but no further agreement", will probably not receive a "duhh". But Hans' point is quite valid: an explanation: "no further agreements than what you know" is quite sufficient against strong players, while the _what you know- should be explained to weaker ones. Herman. From sater at xs4all.nl Fri May 10 12:21:31 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 12:21:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <518CC265.6060207@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> <005a01ce4c02$20574980$6105dc80$@xs4all.nl> <001c01ce4c0b$dc146b40$943d41c0$@online.no> <007f01ce4d4f$a698a5e0$f3c9f1a0$@xs4all.nl> <518CC265.6060207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008901ce4d68$25613c30$7023b490$@xs4all.nl> [HdW] Quite correct Hans, but I know of no single alert system in the world that tells one to alert against one kind of opponent and not against another one. If you good opponents ask, the answer "obviously support, but no further agreement", will probably not receive a "duhh". But Hans' point is quite valid: an explanation: "no further agreements than what you know" is quite sufficient against strong players, while the _what you know- should be explained to weaker ones. [HvS] The default alert rule is: alert if you think your opponents need it. With this alert rule my example stands. Of course I realize that with all kinds of secretary birds (mierenneukers) around you might get into trouble with this. The example was meant to educate people in what alerting and explaining is actually meant to achieve. Hans From g3 at nige1.com Fri May 10 12:44:46 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 11:44:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007f01ce4d4f$a698a5e0$f3c9f1a0$@xs4all.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> <005a01ce4c02$20574980$6105dc80$@xs4all.nl><001c01ce4c0b$dc146b40$943d41c0$@online.no> <007f01ce4d4f$a698a5e0$f3c9f1a0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <299E92622AA24EADA5018B37B8C0830B@G3> [Sven Pran] I would expect "strong players" to have an implicit agreement that 4C here must show good heart support and first (or possibly second) control in Clubs (what else?). Consequently I would not accept "undiscussed" or any similar explanation as complying with Law 40. [HvS] But this is precisely the point. Against other strong players you do not have to explain, because they know just as much as you do. Weak players might, without an explanation, take the 4C as natural. Suppose you, as a strong player, playing against other strong players, would alert this 4C. They of course ask. You explain it to be some sort of slam-invite for H. But which they ask? Don't know. Do you think they are going to thank you for the alert, or is it more likely that a Homer Simpson type Duhh.. would follow. [Nigel] Perhaps but IMO you should still do your best to disclose, especially if there are some possible explanations that you feel are unlikely, judging from your brief chat with partner. Although your opponents are experts who have played a long time, they may still have different bridge knowledge and experience from you and yours may be more relevant. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Fri May 10 17:29:58 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 17:29:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <518CC265.6060207@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> <005a01ce4c02$20574980$6105dc80$@xs4all.nl> <001c01ce4c0b$dc146b40$943d41c0$@online.no> <007f01ce4d4f$a698a5e0$f3c9f1a0$@xs4all.nl> <518CC265.6060207@skynet.be> Message-ID: > [Herman] > Quite correct Hans, but I know of no single alert system in the world > that tells one to alert against one kind of opponent and not against > another one. WBF Alerting Policy Preamble 4. [...] Players are, however, expected to alert whenever there is doubt. "Doubt" may well depend on who your opponents are ... Regards, Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 11 17:17:04 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 11:17:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008901ce4d68$25613c30$7023b490$@xs4all.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F94E421@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <518A072A.8070308@skynet.be> <518A6150.4060609@skynet.be> <005a01ce4c02$20574980$6105dc80$@xs4all.nl> <001c01ce4c0b$dc146b40$943d41c0$@online.no> <007f01ce4d4f$a698a5e0$f3c9f1a0$@xs4all.nl> <518CC265.6060207@skynet.be> <008901ce4d68$25613c30$7023b490$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: On Fri, 10 May 2013 06:21:31 -0400, Hans van Staveren wrote: > > [HdW] > > Quite correct Hans, but I know of no single alert system in the world > that > tells one to alert against one kind of opponent and not against another > one. > If you good opponents ask, the answer "obviously support, but no further > agreement", will probably not receive a "duhh". > > But Hans' point is quite valid: an explanation: "no further agreements > than > what you know" is quite sufficient against strong players, while the > _what > you know- should be explained to weaker ones. > > [HvS] > > The default alert rule is: alert if you think your opponents need it. > With this alert rule my example stands. > > Of course I realize that with all kinds of secretary birds > (mierenneukers) > around you might get into trouble with this. The example was meant to > educate people in what alerting and explaining is actually meant to > achieve. > So, you don't have to tell opponents information they already know. From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Sat May 11 17:18:59 2013 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 17:18:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Posts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <518E6163.3050005@gmail.com> On 09/05/2013 08:17, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > I've been on the list for many years though I don't post often. I have > responded twice recently however and neither post has appeared. I also seem > to miss some other posts and only know of them when they are quoted in > replies. Did you check the archives at: http://www.rtflb.org/? Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)rtflb.org BLML Moderator http://www.rtflb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon May 13 11:19:49 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:19:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Dear TD's I have some questions for you. I was told that the case happened a long time ago in a match between the Netherlands and England (Great Britain?) Reese was declarer. With two small spades in dummy and on lead from there RHO discarded and Reese claimed one trick with AQ. The result was entered and then Reese asked his LHO: but the king was bare isn't it? LHO agreed and they called the TD. (Reese thought that K and x in spades were still out) 1) what should his decision be if Reese claims both tricks? 2) assume that LHO immediately objects and wants two tricks? 3) assume that playing the next board LHO realises that he might have won both tricks and calls the TD. What to do? The reason to ask you this is that it seems that in this on first sight trivial case we have problems applying (interpreting) the laws. And I would like to solve that. ton From petereidt at t-online.de Mon May 13 11:48:27 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:48:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?claim?= In-Reply-To: <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <1UbpMp-2A18pk0@fwd19.aul.t-online.de> Von: "ton" > Dear TD's > > I have some questions for you. I was told that the case happened a > long time ago in a match between the Netherlands and England (Great > Britain?) Reese was declarer. > > With two small spades in dummy and on lead from there RHO discarded > and Reese claimed one trick with AQ. The result was entered and then > Reese asked his LHO: but the king was bare isn't it? LHO agreed and > they called the TD. > (Reese thought that K and x in spades were still out) Peter: For me - as a player as well as a TD - conceding 1 trick with AQ in the 2 card endposition is equivalent with "I play the ace first and you get the last trick". And - obviously - that was the assumed line by Reese's LHO at the table as well. Playing the queen first is IMHO not "normal". > 1) what should his decision be if Reese claims both tricks? Peter: He will get them (Law 71.2). > 2) assume that LHO immediately objects and wants two tricks? Peter: No, IMHO no "doubtful point" in the claim (Law 70 A). This will even cost LHO the trick, declarer conceded to him (not Law 69 B2 but Law 71.2). > 3) assume that playing the next board LHO realises that he might have > won both tricks and calls the TD. What to do? Peter: no trick to LHO and both tricks to declarer (Law 72.1) > The reason to ask you this is that it seems that in this on first > sight trivial case we have problems applying (interpreting) the laws. > And I would like to solve that. > > ton From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon May 13 13:12:55 2013 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:12:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <5190CAB7.30702@t-online.de> Am 13.05.2013 11:19, schrieb ton: > Dear TD's > > I have some questions for you. I was told that the case happened a long time > ago in a match between the Netherlands and England (Great Britain?) Reese > was declarer. > > With two small spades in dummy and on lead from there RHO discarded and > Reese claimed one trick with AQ. The result was entered and then Reese asked > his LHO: but the king was bare isn't it? LHO agreed and they called the TD. > (Reese thought that K and x in spades were still out) > > > 1) what should his decision be if Reese claims both tricks? Depends on circumstances and what statement was made, but not much. Practically all the time declarer would say something like "dropping the king", or something. If he made no statement we are in L70E1, and now - playing NT - it would be positively insane to play the Q after RHO discards. Even in a spade contract this is not what would happen at the table. Once every decade I meet someone who plays the Q, but those folks never manage to represent their country. No idea why.... There is a microscopic chance that declarer believes to play some contract other than the one he actually contracted for, but this is IMO for club level considerations. > > 2) assume that LHO immediately objects and wants two tricks? See above. It doesn`t happen, it isn`t Bridge, and it isn`t human nature. No one plays the Queen, not even when sure that Kx are out. Those who are sure concede a trick, like here, but they would not play low. > > 3) assume that playing the next board LHO realises that he might have won > both tricks and calls the TD. What to do? L71.2 > > The reason to ask you this is that it seems that in this on first sight > trivial case we have problems applying (interpreting) the laws. And I would > like to solve that. I admit that I have not yet seen the point you are going to make, unless it is the "irrational" in 70E1, but I try to find out before you tell me. Matthias > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 13 13:25:55 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:25:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <5190CDC3.40001@skynet.be> Seems clear to me. If declarer believs there are two spades behind him, he has two normal lines: play the ace or the queen. One of those lines leads to zero tricks, so that is the result of the claim adjudication. Of course if one trick is agreed, we apply the laws regarding the getting a second for either side. The only problem that is left with regards to the laws is how we define "normal lines". The only sensible definition includes a phrase like "given what claimer believes the situation to be". Herman. ton schreef: > Dear TD's > > I have some questions for you. I was told that the case happened a long time > ago in a match between the Netherlands and England (Great Britain?) Reese > was declarer. > > With two small spades in dummy and on lead from there RHO discarded and > Reese claimed one trick with AQ. The result was entered and then Reese asked > his LHO: but the king was bare isn't it? LHO agreed and they called the TD. > (Reese thought that K and x in spades were still out) > > > 1) what should his decision be if Reese claims both tricks? > > 2) assume that LHO immediately objects and wants two tricks? > > 3) assume that playing the next board LHO realises that he might have won > both tricks and calls the TD. What to do? > > The reason to ask you this is that it seems that in this on first sight > trivial case we have problems applying (interpreting) the laws. And I would > like to solve that. > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6319 - Release Date: 05/12/13 > > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 13 13:32:55 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:32:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <5190CDC3.40001@skynet.be> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <5190CDC3.40001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5190CF67.2060603@skynet.be> I have just read Peter's and Mathias' replies. It's not new we don't agree, but it's nice to see me on the worst side of a claim for once. It is clear I don't play at the same level. But I fail to see why a player, even a top one, who believes his opponent has Kx behind AQ, would necessarily play the Ace. Seems to me this is just catering for ones own mistakes. Which top players never make, obviously (in their own eyes). Herman. Herman De Wael schreef: > Seems clear to me. > > If declarer believs there are two spades behind him, he has two normal > lines: play the ace or the queen. > One of those lines leads to zero tricks, so that is the result of the > claim adjudication. > Of course if one trick is agreed, we apply the laws regarding the > getting a second for either side. > > The only problem that is left with regards to the laws is how we define > "normal lines". The only sensible definition includes a phrase like > "given what claimer believes the situation to be". > > Herman. > > ton schreef: >> Dear TD's >> >> I have some questions for you. I was told that the case happened a long time >> ago in a match between the Netherlands and England (Great Britain?) Reese >> was declarer. >> >> With two small spades in dummy and on lead from there RHO discarded and >> Reese claimed one trick with AQ. The result was entered and then Reese asked >> his LHO: but the king was bare isn't it? LHO agreed and they called the TD. >> (Reese thought that K and x in spades were still out) >> >> >> 1) what should his decision be if Reese claims both tricks? >> >> 2) assume that LHO immediately objects and wants two tricks? >> >> 3) assume that playing the next board LHO realises that he might have won >> both tricks and calls the TD. What to do? >> >> The reason to ask you this is that it seems that in this on first sight >> trivial case we have problems applying (interpreting) the laws. And I would >> like to solve that. >> >> ton >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6319 - Release Date: 05/12/13 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6319 - Release Date: 05/12/13 > > From svenpran at online.no Mon May 13 13:35:36 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:35:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <5190CAB7.30702@t-online.de> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <5190CAB7.30702@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001b01ce4fcd$fd30d910$f7928b30$@online.no> > Matthias Berghaus [...] > - it would be positively insane to play the Q after RHO discards [Sven Pran] Insane or not. We had a situation during the annual Bridge Festival many years ago where a player (close friend of mine) had been forced into an unmakeable grand by his partner. His attempts to limit the loss to one down depended among other things of finessing the King of spades so he led towards AQ. LHO discarded, but who changes his plans because of such details? True to his plan he called the Queen - which held! Then LHO discovered he had revoked, and TD was of course called. I shall spare you the rest of the story, but can assure you it caused much amusement around. From g3 at nige1.com Mon May 13 14:03:50 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:03:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <0FC5CFF7A85B470F8C79EA565C721EE9@G3> [ton] With two small spades in dummy and on lead from there RHO discarded and Reese claimed one trick with AQ. The result was entered and then Reese asked his LHO: but the king was bare isn't it? LHO agreed and they called the TD. (Reese thought that K and x in spades were still out) 1) what should his decision be if Reese claims both tricks? 2) assume that LHO immediately objects and wants two tricks? 3) assume that playing the next board LHO realises that he might have won both tricks and calls the TD. What to do? [nigel] IMO Reese's claim is equivalent to "I'm playing spade ace and conceding the last trick". Hence, in all three cases, the director should award him both tricks. An ethical LHO wouldn't accept a trick that he can't win by normal play. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon May 13 14:13:55 2013 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 14:13:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <5190CF67.2060603@skynet.be> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <5190CDC3.40001@skynet.be> <5190CF67.2060603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5190D903.2090402@t-online.de> Am 13.05.2013 13:32, schrieb Herman De Wael: > I have just read Peter's and Mathias' replies. > It's not new we don't agree, but it's nice to see me on the worst side > of a claim for once. > > It is clear I don't play at the same level. > But I fail to see why a player, even a top one, who believes his > opponent has Kx behind AQ, would necessarily play the Ace. > Seems to me this is just catering for ones own mistakes. Well, what else could you cater for, in this situation? Is it "normal" to give defender the first of two tricks, even if taking the first yourself gives you a microscopic chance of getting two? Some NBOs have defined "top-down" for cashing trumps, and maybe other things, because it is what people do. I have seen someone play the 2 from four cards, believing them to be the last cards of the suit and losing to a 4 or something. He will not do so again... The laws should be geared towards what humans do in practice. If you, me, the WBFLC, you name it, has different opinions about that (human behaviour is a wide field...), then there should be a definition. IMO the laws should not cater to cases which come up once per TD lifetime. > Which top > players never make, obviously (in their own eyes). Well, _I_ never make a mistake. Until play starts, that is..... Matthias > > Herman. > From jrhind at therock.bm Mon May 13 14:44:22 2013 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 09:44:22 -0300 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: I would award both tricks to declarer in all three cases. Although it is not stated by declarer, it is implicit that he is playing the Ace, then conceding the Queen. Any other interpretation of the play just does not make any sense. Jack On 5/13/13 6:19 AM, "ton" wrote: >Dear TD's > >I have some questions for you. I was told that the case happened a long >time >ago in a match between the Netherlands and England (Great Britain?) Reese >was declarer. > >With two small spades in dummy and on lead from there RHO discarded and >Reese claimed one trick with AQ. The result was entered and then Reese >asked >his LHO: but the king was bare isn't it? LHO agreed and they called the >TD. >(Reese thought that K and x in spades were still out) > > >1) what should his decision be if Reese claims both tricks? > >2) assume that LHO immediately objects and wants two tricks? > >3) assume that playing the next board LHO realises that he might have won >both tricks and calls the TD. What to do? > >The reason to ask you this is that it seems that in this on first sight >trivial case we have problems applying (interpreting) the laws. And I >would >like to solve that. > >ton > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 13 14:47:40 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 14:47:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <5190D903.2090402@t-online.de> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <5190CDC3.40001@skynet.be> <5190CF67.2060603@skynet.be> <5190D903.2090402@t-online.de> Message-ID: <5190E0EC.7040202@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus schreef: > Am 13.05.2013 13:32, schrieb Herman De Wael: >> I have just read Peter's and Mathias' replies. >> It's not new we don't agree, but it's nice to see me on the worst side >> of a claim for once. >> >> It is clear I don't play at the same level. >> But I fail to see why a player, even a top one, who believes his >> opponent has Kx behind AQ, would necessarily play the Ace. >> Seems to me this is just catering for ones own mistakes. > > Well, what else could you cater for, in this situation? > > Is it "normal" to give defender the first of two tricks, even if taking > the first yourself gives you a microscopic chance of getting two? > I must say I missed the sentence about RHO discarding, which does change it a bit. But I usually see people claiming "one each?" in these circumstances. Having a perfect count tells you that both lines are equal (no microspcopic chance even). So it seems to me that both lines are possible. Why else would one need to claim - he's at the point where simply playing the ace ends the play. > Some NBOs have defined "top-down" for cashing trumps, and maybe other > things, because it is what people do. I have seen someone play the 2 > from four cards, believing them to be the last cards of the suit and > losing to a 4 or something. He will not do so again... > > The laws should be geared towards what humans do in practice. If you, I agree. And this one needs some thinking about - which is what we're doing. > me, the WBFLC, you name it, has different opinions about that (human > behaviour is a wide field...), then there should be a definition. > IMO the laws should not cater to cases which come up once per TD lifetime. > IMO they should give some assistance. >> Which top >> players never make, obviously (in their own eyes). > > Well, _I_ never make a mistake. Until play starts, that is..... > That's better than me - whose first mistake occurs even before play starts :) Herman > Matthias > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon May 13 15:01:30 2013 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:01:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <5190CF67.2060603@skynet.be> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <5190CDC3.40001@skynet.be> <5190CF67.2060603@skynet.be> Message-ID: I'm with Herman on this one. If declarer's belief is that LHO holds Kx, both playing the queen and the ace is perfectly normal (and sane). In both cases, he'll get one trick and lose one. 2013/5/13 Herman De Wael > I have just read Peter's and Mathias' replies. > It's not new we don't agree, but it's nice to see me on the worst side > of a claim for once. > > It is clear I don't play at the same level. > But I fail to see why a player, even a top one, who believes his > opponent has Kx behind AQ, would necessarily play the Ace. > Seems to me this is just catering for ones own mistakes. Which top > players never make, obviously (in their own eyes). > > Herman. > > Herman De Wael schreef: > > Seems clear to me. > > > > If declarer believs there are two spades behind him, he has two normal > > lines: play the ace or the queen. > > One of those lines leads to zero tricks, so that is the result of the > > claim adjudication. > > Of course if one trick is agreed, we apply the laws regarding the > > getting a second for either side. > > > > The only problem that is left with regards to the laws is how we define > > "normal lines". The only sensible definition includes a phrase like > > "given what claimer believes the situation to be". > > > > Herman. > > > > ton schreef: > >> Dear TD's > >> > >> I have some questions for you. I was told that the case happened a long > time > >> ago in a match between the Netherlands and England (Great Britain?) > Reese > >> was declarer. > >> > >> With two small spades in dummy and on lead from there RHO discarded and > >> Reese claimed one trick with AQ. The result was entered and then Reese > asked > >> his LHO: but the king was bare isn't it? LHO agreed and they called > the TD. > >> (Reese thought that K and x in spades were still out) > >> > >> > >> 1) what should his decision be if Reese claims both tricks? > >> > >> 2) assume that LHO immediately objects and wants two tricks? > >> > >> 3) assume that playing the next board LHO realises that he might have > won > >> both tricks and calls the TD. What to do? > >> > >> The reason to ask you this is that it seems that in this on first sight > >> trivial case we have problems applying (interpreting) the laws. And I > would > >> like to solve that. > >> > >> ton > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6319 - Release Date: > 05/12/13 > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6319 - Release Date: 05/12/13 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130513/2fad5af4/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon May 13 15:01:30 2013 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:01:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <5190CF67.2060603@skynet.be> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <5190CDC3.40001@skynet.be> <5190CF67.2060603@skynet.be> Message-ID: I'm with Herman on this one. If declarer's belief is that LHO holds Kx, both playing the queen and the ace is perfectly normal (and sane). In both cases, he'll get one trick and lose one. 2013/5/13 Herman De Wael > I have just read Peter's and Mathias' replies. > It's not new we don't agree, but it's nice to see me on the worst side > of a claim for once. > > It is clear I don't play at the same level. > But I fail to see why a player, even a top one, who believes his > opponent has Kx behind AQ, would necessarily play the Ace. > Seems to me this is just catering for ones own mistakes. Which top > players never make, obviously (in their own eyes). > > Herman. > > Herman De Wael schreef: > > Seems clear to me. > > > > If declarer believs there are two spades behind him, he has two normal > > lines: play the ace or the queen. > > One of those lines leads to zero tricks, so that is the result of the > > claim adjudication. > > Of course if one trick is agreed, we apply the laws regarding the > > getting a second for either side. > > > > The only problem that is left with regards to the laws is how we define > > "normal lines". The only sensible definition includes a phrase like > > "given what claimer believes the situation to be". > > > > Herman. > > > > ton schreef: > >> Dear TD's > >> > >> I have some questions for you. I was told that the case happened a long > time > >> ago in a match between the Netherlands and England (Great Britain?) > Reese > >> was declarer. > >> > >> With two small spades in dummy and on lead from there RHO discarded and > >> Reese claimed one trick with AQ. The result was entered and then Reese > asked > >> his LHO: but the king was bare isn't it? LHO agreed and they called > the TD. > >> (Reese thought that K and x in spades were still out) > >> > >> > >> 1) what should his decision be if Reese claims both tricks? > >> > >> 2) assume that LHO immediately objects and wants two tricks? > >> > >> 3) assume that playing the next board LHO realises that he might have > won > >> both tricks and calls the TD. What to do? > >> > >> The reason to ask you this is that it seems that in this on first sight > >> trivial case we have problems applying (interpreting) the laws. And I > would > >> like to solve that. > >> > >> ton > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6319 - Release Date: > 05/12/13 > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6319 - Release Date: 05/12/13 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130513/2fad5af4/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon May 13 15:52:51 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 14:52:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be><5190CDC3.40001@skynet.be> <5190CF67.2060603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6B0C96575BE34332AC4DF3EA24388552@G3> [Harald Berre Skj?ran] I'm with Herman on this one. If declarer's belief is that LHO holds Kx, both playing the queen and the ace is perfectly normal (and sane). In both cases, he'll get one trick and lose one. [Nige1] Reese thinks LHO has two spades and that his own spades are equivalent to A2. He claims one trick. it's consistent with Reese's misconception to play the deuce and Deep Finesse might do so. But it would be abnormal play for a human being and I've never seen anybody do that. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 13 16:31:08 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:31:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <5190E0EC.7040202@skynet.be> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <5190CDC3.40001@skynet.be> <5190CF67.2060603@skynet.be> <5190D903.2090402@t-online.de> <5190E0EC.7040202@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:47:40 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Matthias Berghaus schreef: >> Am 13.05.2013 13:32, schrieb Herman De Wael: >>> I have just read Peter's and Mathias' replies. >>> It's not new we don't agree, but it's nice to see me on the worst side >>> of a claim for once. >>> >>> It is clear I don't play at the same level. >>> But I fail to see why a player, even a top one, who believes his >>> opponent has Kx behind AQ, would necessarily play the Ace. >>> Seems to me this is just catering for ones own mistakes. >> >> Well, what else could you cater for, in this situation? >> >> Is it "normal" to give defender the first of two tricks, even if taking >> the first yourself gives you a microscopic chance of getting two? >> > > I must say I missed the sentence about RHO discarding, which does change > it a bit. > But I usually see people claiming "one each?" in these circumstances. > Having a perfect count tells you that both lines are equal (no > microspcopic chance even). So it seems to me that both lines are > possible. > Why else would one need to claim - he's at the point where simply > playing the ace ends the play. hi Herman. I think the principle here is that while we can force declarer to be careless, we don't force declarer to be clever. Someone who is making a claim wants to get things over with quickly and go on to the next hand. They don't want to think about the hand and make some clever play leading to the same result; they will select the easiest most obvious line of play. Or they are being careless and lazy, but it's the same story. Another example, clubs are trump. A spade is led, and declarer claims, pitching a losing diamond on the spade. He forgets about the trump that is still out. There is a way to lose another trick, but do we force declarer to take it? AK QJ x x xx x xx x -- A AK2 AK > >> Some NBOs have defined "top-down" for cashing trumps, and maybe other >> things, because it is what people do. I have seen someone play the 2 >> from four cards, believing them to be the last cards of the suit and >> losing to a 4 or something. He will not do so again... >> >> The laws should be geared towards what humans do in practice. If you, > > I agree. > And this one needs some thinking about - which is what we're doing. > >> me, the WBFLC, you name it, has different opinions about that (human >> behaviour is a wide field...), then there should be a definition. >> IMO the laws should not cater to cases which come up once per TD >> lifetime. >> > > IMO they should give some assistance. > >>> Which top >>> players never make, obviously (in their own eyes). >> >> Well, _I_ never make a mistake. Until play starts, that is..... >> > > That's better than me - whose first mistake occurs even before play > starts :) > > Herman > >> Matthias >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Mon May 13 16:41:26 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 16:41:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <004e01ce4fe7$f2a348b0$d7e9da10$@filosofi.uu.se> 1) what should his decision be if Reese claims both tricks? I interpret the situation so that Reese wants to withdraw his concession of a trick. 71.2 tells us that this is possible if a trick could not be lost by any normal play of remaining cards. There are, IMO, two normal plays of the remaining cards for the player who believes that his LHO has Qx in spades. Only one of them is successful so the concession stands. However there is some doubt - Reese's question to his LHO may maybe indicate that he was unsure whether LHO had one or two spades and for a player who is unsure about the number of spades his LHO possesses playing the Queen is not a normal play. But maybe the question was trigged by the LHOs behavior after the claim. This is something TD should investigate. 2) assume that LHO immediately objects and wants two tricks? 70 D1 tells us that TD shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. Again, there are, IMO, two normal plays of the remaining cards for the player who believes that his LHO has Qx in spades. (However, the same qualification as in 1) The one which consists in playing the Queen of spades is less successful so yes, the opponents get two tricks. 3) assume that playing the next board LHO realises that he might have won both tricks and calls the TD. What to do? Now we are in 69.2. LHO's side get the additional trick if they would likely have won it had the play continued. Playing the Queen instead of the Ace is certainly not more likely, so no, they don't get two tricks. The situation is different if the play is conducted under the rules of those NBOs who had specified an order in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim. -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of ton Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:20 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] claim Dear TD's I have some questions for you. I was told that the case happened a long time ago in a match between the Netherlands and England (Great Britain?) Reese was declarer. With two small spades in dummy and on lead from there RHO discarded and Reese claimed one trick with AQ. The result was entered and then Reese asked his LHO: but the king was bare isn't it? LHO agreed and they called the TD. (Reese thought that K and x in spades were still out) 1) what should his decision be if Reese claims both tricks? 3) assume that playing the next board LHO realises that he might have won both tricks and calls the TD. What to do? The reason to ask you this is that it seems that in this on first sight trivial case we have problems applying (interpreting) the laws. And I would like to solve that. ton _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at irvine.com Mon May 13 17:02:43 2013 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 08:02:43 -0700 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 13 May 2013 16:41:26 +0200." <004e01ce4fe7$f2a348b0$d7e9da10$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <20130513150245.2C1EAA8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> Ryszard wrote: > 1) what should his decision be if Reese claims both tricks? > I interpret the situation so that Reese wants to withdraw his concession of > a trick. > 71.2 tells us that this is possible if a trick could not be lost by any > normal play of remaining cards. > There are, IMO, two normal plays of the remaining cards for the player who > believes that his LHO has Qx in spades. > Only one of them is successful so the concession stands. That brings up an interesting question: what is the definition of "remaining" in this case? Suppose Reese had led low from dummy, played the ace, and then, without waiting for LHO to play to this trick, conceded the last trick. In real life, LHO probably would have noticed something at this point, but let's say he was asleep and the score was entered, and then Reese woke up and realized that the king was going to fall. It seems clear to me that there's only one card "remaining", and thus the concession should be cancelled by 71A2. Now in the actual case where Reese said he would win one and concede another. The statement makes it clear, I think, that Reese would have played the ace first (sorry, but I think those who argue that it's just as normal to play the queen first are way out in left field). If it's clear that he would have played the ace first, then I think we have to take that as a given, when considering what "normal plays of the remaining cards" are. To me, Law 71 is written as if someone had conceded the rest of the tricks; if it is indeed supposed to apply in place where a player has claimed some tricks and conceded others, we have to be careful in how we apply it. I think that one of the following has to be true: (a) Since Reese in effect implied he would start by playing the ace, that isn't considered one of the "remaining" cards that could be played in any order for the purposes of 71A2. We have to assume that the ace was played first, and that 71A2 only applies to the cards (in this case, the one card) played after that. (b) Law 71 doesn't apply in this situation at all, since declarer was not conceding all of the remaining tricks. I don't know which one is right. But as long as one of them is right, "concession stands" doesn't make sense. -- Adam From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon May 13 17:07:48 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:07:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: References: <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <005e01ce4feb$a1dc20b0$e5946210$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> I would award both tricks to declarer in all three cases. Although it is not stated by declarer, it is implicit that he is playing the Ace, then conceding the Queen. Any other interpretation of the play just does not make any sense. Jack ton: for those of you who find the play of the queen beyond what is considered to belong to normal play the second and third question are not interesting. For those who consider playing the queen in trick 12 being within the range of normal, question three is quite interesting. The answer Jack is giving above is not very helpful. Why is it implicit that he will play the ace? I don't see that. There is an forever going on battle to make the last trick with the D7, why isn't it considered to be superior to win the last trick instead of the one but last, by at least some players. There are quite some situations in which you need to finesse losing to the king instead of playing the ace a couple of tricks earlier in the play. So is it impossible to play the queen? From svenpran at online.no Mon May 13 17:16:27 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:16:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <20130513150245.2C1EAA8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Mon, 13 May 2013 16:41:26 +0200." <004e01ce4fe7$f2a348b0$d7e9da10$@filosofi.uu.se> <20130513150245.2C1EAA8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002001ce4fec$d6c8e7d0$845ab770$@online.no> > Adam Beneschan > Ryszard wrote: > > > 1) what should his decision be if Reese claims both tricks? > > I interpret the situation so that Reese wants to withdraw his > > concession of a trick. > > 71.2 tells us that this is possible if a trick could not be lost by > > any normal play of remaining cards. > > There are, IMO, two normal plays of the remaining cards for the player > > who believes that his LHO has Qx in spades. > > Only one of them is successful so the concession stands. > > That brings up an interesting question: what is the definition of "remaining" > in this case? Suppose Reese had led low from dummy, played the ace, and > then, without waiting for LHO to play to this trick, conceded the last trick. In > real life, LHO probably would have noticed something at this point, but let's > say he was asleep and the score was entered, and then Reese woke up and > realized that the king was going to fall. It seems clear to me that there's only > one card "remaining", and thus the concession should be cancelled by 71A2. > > Now in the actual case where Reese said he would win one and concede > another. The statement makes it clear, I think, that Reese would have > played the ace first (sorry, but I think those who argue that it's just as normal > to play the queen first are way out in left field). If it's clear that he would > have played the ace first, then I think we have to take that as a given, when > considering what "normal plays of the remaining cards" are. To me, Law 71 is > written as if someone had conceded the rest of the tricks; if it is indeed > supposed to apply in place where a player has claimed some tricks and > conceded others, we have to be careful in how we apply it. I think that one > of the following has to be true: > > (a) Since Reese in effect implied he would start by playing the ace, that isn't > considered one of the "remaining" cards that could be played in any order for > the purposes of 71A2. We have to assume that the ace was played first, and > that 71A2 only applies to the cards (in this case, the one card) played after > that. > > (b) Law 71 doesn't apply in this situation at all, since declarer was not > conceding all of the remaining tricks. > > I don't know which one is right. But as long as one of them is right, > "concession stands" doesn't make sense. > > -- Adam [Sven Pran] As far as I have understood this thread Reese did not play any trick in the situation, he conceded one trick without stating any line of play. The claim/concession was accepted and must stand unless the conditions in Law 71 for cancelling a concession are satisfied. Giving away a certain loser while still maintaining control in the suit is certainly within the ranges of "normal" lines of play. There is no requirement in Law 71 that it shall only apply when a player has conceded all remaining tricks. The concession must IMHO stand. From jrhind at therock.bm Mon May 13 17:47:42 2013 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:47:42 -0300 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <005e01ce4feb$a1dc20b0$e5946210$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: The only scenario where is would make any sense to play the Q from AQ is if that suit is trump. Otherwise declarer puts himself in the position of not winning either of the final 2 tricks. Does anyone really think that declarer is claiming the A while playing the Q to the 12th trick? I agree that if he thinks that LHO has Kx of spades then it really does not matter but why would anyone take that risk? On 5/13/13 12:07 PM, "ton" wrote: >I would award both tricks to declarer in all three cases. >Although it is not stated by declarer, it is implicit that he is playing >the >Ace, then conceding the Queen. >Any other interpretation of the play just does not make any sense. > >Jack > > >ton: > >for those of you who find the play of the queen beyond what is considered >to >belong to normal play the second and third question are not interesting. > >For those who consider playing the queen in trick 12 being within the >range >of normal, question three is quite interesting. > >The answer Jack is giving above is not very helpful. Why is it implicit >that >he will play the ace? I don't see that. > >There is an forever going on battle to make the last trick with the D7, >why >isn't it considered to be superior to win the last trick instead of the >one >but last, by at least some players. There are quite some situations in >which >you need to finesse losing to the king instead of playing the ace a couple >of tricks earlier in the play. So is it impossible to play the queen? > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 13 19:49:35 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:49:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <5190CDC3.40001@skynet.be> <5190CF67.2060603@skynet.be> <5190D903.2090402@t-online.de> <5190E0EC.7040202@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:31:08 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:47:40 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Matthias Berghaus schreef: >>> Am 13.05.2013 13:32, schrieb Herman De Wael: >>>> I have just read Peter's and Mathias' replies. >>>> It's not new we don't agree, but it's nice to see me on the worst side >>>> of a claim for once. >>>> >>>> It is clear I don't play at the same level. >>>> But I fail to see why a player, even a top one, who believes his >>>> opponent has Kx behind AQ, would necessarily play the Ace. >>>> Seems to me this is just catering for ones own mistakes. >>> >>> Well, what else could you cater for, in this situation? >>> >>> Is it "normal" to give defender the first of two tricks, even if taking >>> the first yourself gives you a microscopic chance of getting two? >>> >> >> I must say I missed the sentence about RHO discarding, which does change >> it a bit. >> But I usually see people claiming "one each?" in these circumstances. >> Having a perfect count tells you that both lines are equal (no >> microspcopic chance even). So it seems to me that both lines are >> possible. >> Why else would one need to claim - he's at the point where simply >> playing the ace ends the play. > > hi Herman. I think the principle here is that while we can force declarer > to be careless, we don't force declarer to be clever. > > Someone who is making a claim wants to get things over with quickly and > go > on to the next hand. They don't want to think about the hand and make > some > clever play leading to the same result; they will select the easiest most > obvious line of play. Or they are being careless and lazy, but it's the > same story. > > Another example, clubs are trump. A spade is led, and declarer claims, > pitching a losing diamond on the spade. He forgets about the trump that > is > still out. There is a way to lose another trick, but do we force declarer > to take it? > > AK > QJ > x > x > > xx > x > xx > x > > > -- > A > AK2 > AK Sorry, dummy should have the KQ of hearts. (Or, the QJ are good) > > >> >>> Some NBOs have defined "top-down" for cashing trumps, and maybe other >>> things, because it is what people do. I have seen someone play the 2 >>> from four cards, believing them to be the last cards of the suit and >>> losing to a 4 or something. He will not do so again... >>> >>> The laws should be geared towards what humans do in practice. If you, >> >> I agree. >> And this one needs some thinking about - which is what we're doing. >> >>> me, the WBFLC, you name it, has different opinions about that (human >>> behaviour is a wide field...), then there should be a definition. >>> IMO the laws should not cater to cases which come up once per TD >>> lifetime. >>> >> >> IMO they should give some assistance. >> >>>> Which top >>>> players never make, obviously (in their own eyes). >>> >>> Well, _I_ never make a mistake. Until play starts, that is..... >>> >> >> That's better than me - whose first mistake occurs even before play >> starts :) >> >> Herman >> >>> Matthias >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From adam at irvine.com Mon May 13 20:05:10 2013 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:05:10 -0700 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 13 May 2013 17:16:27 +0200." <002001ce4fec$d6c8e7d0$845ab770$@online.no> Message-ID: <20130513180514.95BFAA8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > [Sven Pran] > As far as I have understood this thread Reese did not play any trick in the > situation, he conceded one trick without stating any line of play. > > The claim/concession was accepted and must stand unless the conditions in > Law 71 for cancelling a concession are satisfied. > > Giving away a certain loser while still maintaining control in the suit is > certainly within the ranges of "normal" lines of play. Reese claimed one trick. He had one sure trick. Any sane bridge player would just take it. What would be gained by "maintaining control"? In 3NT, I often have a hand where I have nine tricks off the top, and if I give up the lead the opponents could possibly run enough tricks to beat me. So in that case, I claim, saying "I'm just going to take my tricks". The only possible reason I would give up the lead before running my tricks would be if I think doing so might gain me an overtrick. But Reese wasn't trying for an extra trick here. That much was clear from his statement. So on what planet would any sane bridge player, in this situation, concede trick 12 because he knows he'll win trick 13--as opposed to just taking his one trick? Not this one. I don't understand why some people are trying to argue that losing trick 12 is a reasonable possibility here. While the general principle that one might concede control by losing the lead, while maintaining control of the hand, is certainly a valid principle that is the correct way to play many hands, it's a general principle that doesn't apply on this specific hand, and I don't think it's a principle that ever applies at trick 12. -- Adam From gampas at aol.com Mon May 13 21:02:50 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:02:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <005e01ce4feb$a1dc20b0$e5946210$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <005e01ce4feb$a1dc20b0$e5946210$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <8D01E239928A5B6-1A40-12FAB@webmail-m226.sysops.aol.com> [ton] for those of you who find the play of the queen beyond what is considered to belong to normal play the second and third question are not interesting. [paul lamford] I personally think that it should be assumed that declarer always plays from the top downwards when it cannot gain to do otherwise. This is normal for 99.9% of players. If declarer had held A2, and claimed one trick, thinking that his LHO held the king and some card of whose rank he was unaware (because it did not exist) then he would again be awarded two tricks. When declarer, with AKQJTx of, say clubs, in dummy plays the top card and then carelessly calls for a club on the next round, all TDs I know would regard it as incontrovertible that he intended a further top club. It is,possible that, if dummy were not present, he would "carelessly" lead the small club, but this would still not be a normal line. And it is a normal line that we require when adjudicating a claim. It is completely irrelevant what might happen in practice, as, in practice, somebody might not play normally. Some of my students are so weak that I recommend they claim all the tricks, silently, at trick one, on all occasions. They then get the least favourable normal line, which is invariable better than the one they would have chosen. In effect, they would play worse than carelessly. From gampas at aol.com Mon May 13 21:07:38 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:07:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <20130513150245.2C1EAA8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20130513150245.2C1EAA8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <8D01E2444C9D190-1A40-13039@webmail-m226.sysops.aol.com> [Adam Beneschan] The statement makes it clear, I think, that Reese would have played the ace first (sorry, but I think those who argue that it's just as normal to play the queen first are way out in left field). [Paul Lamford] That is much to generous to them. I think that being in the car park is closer to the mark, and it worries me that senior TDs could argue thus. From gampas at aol.com Mon May 13 21:19:10 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <5190CF67.2060603@skynet.be> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <5190CDC3.40001@skynet.be> <5190CF67.2060603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8D01E25E1331831-1A40-1316D@webmail-m226.sysops.aol.com> [Herman de Wael] I have just read Peter's and Mathias' replies. It's not new we don't agree, but it's nice to see me on the worst side of a claim for once. [Paul Lamford] I think you mean worse side, as I don't think claims can lead to weighted scores. Indeed, it is surprising to find you on the other side of this claim, as you were prepared to allow a declarer in Pula to notice that what he thought was the king of clubs was actually the jack of clubs, and then to execute a triple squeeze. Fortunately, our teammates successfully appealed and an eminent trio overruled you. So, I would not be taking the other side of claims, if I were you ..... But then you take the other side of DWS despite being told by everyone you are wrong. And you still maintain that the revoke ruling in Poznan was correct. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon May 13 22:27:25 2013 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 22:27:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <8D01E239928A5B6-1A40-12FAB@webmail-m226.sysops.aol.com> References: <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <005e01ce4feb$a1dc20b0$e5946210$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <8D01E239928A5B6-1A40-12FAB@webmail-m226.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <51914CAD.4030203@t-online.de> Am 13.05.2013 21:02, schrieb Paul Lamford: > [paul lamford] I personally think that it should be assumed that > declarer always plays from the top downwards when it cannot gain to do > otherwise. This is normal for 99.9% of players. If declarer had held > A2, and claimed one trick, thinking that his LHO held the king and some > card of whose rank he was unaware (because it did not exist) then he > would again be awarded two tricks. > Good point. The Q is a kind of Red Herring here, IMO. We do not know what picture declarer had on the hand, except that it was (at least temporarily) wrong , but what we need to look at is how people behave when faced with certain occurences. There will always be some clever guy who is going to demonstrate just _how_ clever he is by making some play that no one else on this planet would take (in practice), but this guy is not going to claim, because he has to prove how clever he is. IMO there is no need to protect the opponents from some shenanigans, so we do not have to shoot anything that moves, or claims, in this case. _What would have happened?_ That is the question a TD has to answer. If the table TD determines that the player in question was about to commit an atrocity (and has some evidence to back him up, this is not about gut feeling), more power to him. There are cases where you just have to be at the table, know the players etc. I maintain that only a very small minority of players, well below the 1% mark, would even think about not playing the Ace when RHO shows out, let alone actually play small. Yes, there are cases of brain lock, there are raw beginners, but I see no future in handling in handling such cases on the assumption that declarer is (maybe only temporarily) a moron, when there is not even a hint that he was about to convince you of the opposite. Matthias From du.breuil.laval at gmail.com Tue May 14 01:09:56 2013 From: du.breuil.laval at gmail.com (Laval Du Breuil) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 19:09:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Private message to Jeff Easterson Message-ID: Message to Jeff Easterson I apologize.... Jeff, As requested, I tried to send you a private email concerning my maps of movements. Unfortunately, the address you sent me failed. Laval Du Breuil From swillner at nhcc.net Tue May 14 04:19:40 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 22:19:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <51919F3C.5070307@nhcc.net> On 2013-05-13 5:19 AM, ton wrote: > The reason to ask you this is that it seems that in this on first sight > trivial case we have problems applying (interpreting) the laws. And I would > like to solve that. Thanks for reconsidering the claim Laws text. One thing for sure: whenever a claim thread comes up on BLML, it's one of the longest threads we have. That shouldn't be happening for simple cases with no facts in doubt. The WBFLC members might want to try taking a vote on what they think the effect of the Laws should be -- not what they say now -- in some possibly doubtful cases. I predict not all cases will receive a unanimous vote. Whatever the outcome, trying to capture it in clear language won't be easy, but it's worth the attempt. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue May 14 08:28:12 2013 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:28:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Private message to Jeff Easterson In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5191D97C.9020807@aol.com> Bonjour, You might try again; I don't know why it failed the first time. I tried to send an email to your private address and it came back as well. Anyway I have two private email addresses. They are: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de and JffEstrsn at aol.com Ciao, JE Am 14.05.2013 01:09, schrieb Laval Du Breuil: > Message to Jeff Easterson > I apologize.... > > Jeff, > > As requested, I tried to send you a private email concerning my maps > of movements. > Unfortunately, the address you sent me failed. > > Laval Du Breuil > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue May 14 09:23:04 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:23:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: References: <005e01ce4feb$a1dc20b0$e5946210$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <002001ce5073$dfb1b6b0$9f152410$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Jack: The only scenario where is would make any sense to play the Q from AQ is if that suit is trump. Otherwise declarer puts himself in the position of not winning either of the final 2 tricks. Does anyone really think that declarer is claiming the A while playing the Q to the 12th trick? I agree that if he thinks that LHO has Kx of spades then it really does not matter but why would anyone take that risk? ton: what risk? there is no risk? Do you dare to tell Reese that he can't count? From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 14 15:04:14 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:04:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <20130513180514.95BFAA8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20130513180514.95BFAA8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <44B33FD2-769D-4D87-BAD5-889A6C245E5E@starpower.net> On May 13, 2013, at 2:05 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Sven wrote: > >> [Sven Pran] >> As far as I have understood this thread Reese did not play any trick in the >> situation, he conceded one trick without stating any line of play. >> >> The claim/concession was accepted and must stand unless the conditions in >> Law 71 for cancelling a concession are satisfied. >> >> Giving away a certain loser while still maintaining control in the suit is >> certainly within the ranges of "normal" lines of play. > > Reese claimed one trick. He had one sure trick. Any sane bridge > player would just take it. What would be gained by "maintaining > control"? > > In 3NT, I often have a hand where I have nine tricks off the top, and > if I give up the lead the opponents could possibly run enough tricks > to beat me. So in that case, I claim, saying "I'm just going to take > my tricks". Right! For a player who claims that he will take N tricks and concede the rest, with no statement to the contrary, the only "normal" line is for him to take his N tricks and then concede the rest. > The only possible reason I would give up the lead before running my > tricks would be if I think doing so might gain me an overtrick. In which case you wouldn't claim, or you would make a claim statement that incorporated the possibility of your taking the overtrick. > But Reese wasn't trying for an extra trick here. That much was clear > from his statement. > > So on what planet would any sane bridge player, in this situation, > concede trick 12 because he knows he'll win trick 13--as opposed to > just taking his one trick? Not this one. > > I don't understand why some people are trying to argue that losing > trick 12 is a reasonable possibility here. While the general > principle that one might concede control by losing the lead, while > maintaining control of the hand, is certainly a valid principle that > is the correct way to play many hands, it's a general principle that > doesn't apply on this specific hand, and I don't think it's a > principle that ever applies at trick 12. I also don't see how that possibility can be relevent to a player making a claim without a clarifying statement. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From gampas at aol.com Tue May 14 16:43:47 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 10:43:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <51919F3C.5070307@nhcc.net> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51919F3C.5070307@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <8D01EC8932FC5D5-608-1A809@webmail-va009.sysops.aol.com> [Steve Willner] Thanks for reconsidering the claim Laws text. One thing for sure: whenever a claim thread comes up on BLML, it's one of the longest threads we have. That shouldn't be happening for simple cases with no facts in doubt. [Paul Lamford] Also when a claim thread appears on BBO Laws Forum there are many opinions, often equally divided. The problem is that the Law has two vague words, *normal* and *careless*. They will be interpreted differently. To be normal is the ideal aim of the unsuccessful.? - Carl Gustav Jung From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 14 16:58:20 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 10:58:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 May 2013 05:19:49 -0400, ton wrote: > Dear TD's > > I have some questions for you. I was told that the case happened a long > time > ago in a match between the Netherlands and England (Great Britain?) Reese > was declarer. > > With two small spades in dummy and on lead from there RHO discarded and > Reese claimed one trick with AQ. The result was entered and then Reese > asked > his LHO: but the king was bare isn't it? LHO agreed and they called the > TD. > (Reese thought that K and x in spades were still out) > > > 1) what should his decision be if Reese claims both tricks? If Reese had claimed saying he had the last two, I would probably take that as evidence that he forgot the king was out. Put another way, if Reese knew he was dropping the king, I don't think he claims without saying which card he plays from dummy. (I could be wrong here. Customs are different.) The number of tricks claimed is in practice part of the clarification statement. I tested this on blml once -- if declarer claimed 9 tricks, he was awarded 9 tricks; if he claimed 10 tricks, he was awarded 10 tricks. > > 2) assume that LHO immediately objects and wants two tricks? The ruling that Reese gets one trick > > 3) assume that playing the next board LHO realises that he might have won > both tricks and calls the TD. What to do? > > The reason to ask you this is that it seems that in this on first sight > trivial case we have problems applying (interpreting) the laws. And I > would > like to solve that. > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue May 14 17:18:45 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:18:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <8D01EC8932FC5D5-608-1A809@webmail-va009.sysops.aol.com> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be><003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><51919F3C.5070307@nhcc.net> <8D01EC8932FC5D5-608-1A809@webmail-va009.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: [Steve Willner] Thanks for reconsidering the claim Laws text. One thing for sure: whenever a claim thread comes up on BLML, it's one of the longest threads we have. That shouldn't be happening for simple cases with no facts in doubt. [Paul Lamford] Also when a claim thread appears on BBO Laws Forum there are many opinions, often equally divided. The problem is that the Law has two vague words, *normal* and *careless*. They will be interpreted differently. To be normal is the ideal aim of the unsuccessful.? - Carl Gustav Jung [Nige1] A rule that works well on-line and at rubber-bridge is: declarer claims by placing his hand face-up, specifying a number of tricks, and (optionally) declaring a line of play. Defenders dispute the claim by playing on (until they are satisfied). This claim protocol is much simpler for players and directors to understand. It overcomes language problems, encourages claims. and speeds up the game. Even when defenders want to play on, they can usually play faster, double-dummy. if the claim is correct, defenders will concede after a couple more tricks. In theory, declarer can go on a fishing expedition. In practice, even beginners are wary of this ploy and directors can discourage it. Similarly, a defender can claim by showing his hand to declarer -- but, whatever the rules, defensive claims rarely save time -- and often cause a problem when the other defender wants to have a say. Many rules would benefit from drastic simplification. Others should be removed altogether. Whatever slight drawbacks resulted from these simplifications, the overwhelming benefit would be that directors and players would be able to learn and comply with the rules. A bonus would be that rulings would be more consistent and easier for players to understand. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue May 14 18:50:32 2013 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 18:50:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <51926B58.9080501@t-online.de> Am 14.05.2013 16:58, schrieb Robert Frick: > The ruling that Reese gets one trick > Sorry, no can do. The end position, with declarer holding only spades, and defender holding a non-spade to contribute to the last trick leads either to two tricks or none. If the TD judges that to play the Queen is "normal", then declarer loses the last two. If he doesn`t, the defenders get no tricks, the King dropping under the Ace. There is no legal way how the last two tricks could be divided evenly. Never mind the claim/concession. There is no way to do it. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed May 15 09:57:21 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:57:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <51926B58.9080501@t-online.de> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51926B58.9080501@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000f01ce5141$d4828250$7d8786f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Robert: > The ruling that Reese gets one trick Matthias: Sorry, no can do. The end position, with declarer holding only spades, and defender holding a non-spade to contribute to the last trick leads either to two tricks or none. If the TD judges that to play the Queen is "normal", then declarer loses the last two. If he doesn`t, the defenders get no tricks, the King dropping under the Ace. There is no legal way how the last two tricks could be divided evenly. Never mind the claim/concession. There is no way to do it. ton: well, let us see. This could be a spectacular case. Let us assume that playing the queen in trick 12 is within the range of normal. And that the players agree on one trick each and start playing the next board. Now Rees starts recounting and finds out that the K was bare and asks about it. LHO opponent admits and both sides call for the TD to gain an extra trick. The TD tells them that the claim stands for Reese unless there is no normal play to lose a trick, which isn't the case, no extra trick. And for LHO the claim stands (L69 B2) unless it was likely to win more tricks. Which isn't the case either, playing the ace in trick 12 is more likely than playing the queen. So the remarkable outcome is that the result on the board is based on an impossible number of tricks in the play. But it looks fair to me (still assuming that playing the queen in trick 12 is not crazy) From hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 15 10:07:25 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 10:07:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <000f01ce5141$d4828250$7d8786f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51926B58.9080501@t-online.de> <000f01ce5141$d4828250$7d8786f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <5193423D.2030303@skynet.be> Congratulations, Ton! Great story - and you allowed us to get to it, including someone giving the correct ruling and Matthias correctly telling that that was obviousy wrong. Of course if players agree to a score, that score may well end up being final, despite being impossible. If I agree to give my opponent 13 tricks despite me holding the ace of trumps, and I don't complain before the next day, that too is a final although impossible result. So nothing really new there. But anyway, good story. Herman. ton schreef: > Robert: > >> The ruling that Reese gets one trick > > Matthias: > > Sorry, no can do. The end position, with declarer holding only spades, and > defender holding a non-spade to contribute to the last trick leads either to > two tricks or none. If the TD judges that to play the Queen is "normal", > then declarer loses the last two. If he doesn`t, the defenders get no > tricks, the King dropping under the Ace. There is no legal way how the last > two tricks could be divided evenly. Never mind the claim/concession. There > is no way to do it. > > > ton: > > well, let us see. This could be a spectacular case. > > Let us assume that playing the queen in trick 12 is within the range of > normal. > > And that the players agree on one trick each and start playing the next > board. Now Rees starts recounting and finds out that the K was bare and asks > about it. LHO opponent admits and both sides call for the TD to gain an > extra trick. The TD tells them that the claim stands for Reese unless there > is no normal play to lose a trick, which isn't the case, no extra trick. And > for LHO the claim stands (L69 B2) unless it was likely to win more tricks. > Which isn't the case either, playing the ace in trick 12 is more likely than > playing the queen. > > So the remarkable outcome is that the result on the board is based on an > impossible number of tricks in the play. But it looks fair to me (still > assuming that playing the queen in trick 12 is not crazy) > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6324 - Release Date: 05/14/13 > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed May 15 13:51:37 2013 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 13:51:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <000f01ce5141$d4828250$7d8786f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51926B58.9080501@t-online.de> <000f01ce5141$d4828250$7d8786f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <519376C9.1070406@t-online.de> Am 15.05.2013 09:57, schrieb ton: > ton: > > well, let us see. This could be a spectacular case. > > Let us assume that playing the queen in trick 12 is within the range of > normal. > > And that the players agree on one trick each and start playing the next > board. Now Rees starts recounting and finds out that the K was bare and asks > about it. LHO opponent admits and both sides call for the TD to gain an > extra trick. The TD tells them that the claim stands for Reese unless there > is no normal play to lose a trick, which isn't the case, no extra trick. And > for LHO the claim stands (L69 B2) unless it was likely to win more tricks. > Which isn't the case either, playing the ace in trick 12 is more likely than > playing the queen. > > So the remarkable outcome is that the result on the board is based on an > impossible number of tricks in the play. But it looks fair to me (still > assuming that playing the queen in trick 12 is not crazy) > I see... The director has to apply L69 (as per L79B1). This seems to lead to the result you describe. This happens (IMO) because the "same" standard is applied to one action (here, which spade actually would be played if play had continued) , but from different viewpoints. What I would like to do (and I am going to study the lawbook for some time to find out whether I can) is to tell declarer that he lost the last two tricks after playing the Queen, and defender that he loses the last tricks, too. I guess I will not be able to find a way, but I can try. What meagre sympathies I have are with declarer here. Defender has accepted a trick he "knew" he was not normally going to get, else he would have objected at once, and not only in retaliation when declarer wanted his trick back. Or was he about to tell someone that his small non-spade was a spade for him, so he always expected to win a trick with his king? Fat chance.... Matthias > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 15 15:48:35 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:48:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <519376C9.1070406@t-online.de> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51926B58.9080501@t-online.de> <000f01ce5141$d4828250$7d8786f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <519376C9.1070406@t-online.de> Message-ID: <51939233.4090906@nhcc.net> On 2013-05-15 7:51 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > The director has to apply L69 In particular L69B2. > the "same" standard is applied ... but from different viewpoints. Let me see whether I understand this. For the defense, you rule it is not "likely" Reese would have played the Q, so no change for them. For Reese, you rule it is not likely he would have played the ace, so no change for him either, and the agreed score of one trick to defense stands. That looks legal to me though bad bridge judgment: I think it is likely Reese would have played ace. However, you could probably devise a similar but less clearcut case where the "impossible" but agreed score would be the correct ruling. By the way, trick 12 is special. It is never right in bridge terms to let an opponent win trick 12 if you can avoid it. (Non-bridge considerations such as the beer card may modify this.) From hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 15 15:59:04 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:59:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <51939233.4090906@nhcc.net> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51926B58.9080501@t-online.de> <000f01ce5141$d4828250$7d8786f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <519376C9.1070406@t-online.de> <51939233.4090906@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <519394A8.2020707@skynet.be> Steve Willner schreef: > > By the way, trick 12 is special. It is never right in bridge terms to > let an opponent win trick 12 if you can avoid it. (Non-bridge > considerations such as the beer card may modify this.) This is so new to me - and probably to everyone else - that it can hardly be the basis of settling whether a line that loses trick 12 can be regarded normal. Herman. From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Wed May 15 16:44:10 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 16:44:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <51939233.4090906@nhcc.net> References: <3F02799F53194263B55AA4372EF46029@erdos> <517E1F90.30701@skynet.be> <003c01ce4fbb$04c06780$0e413680$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51926B58.9080501@t-online.de> <000f01ce5141$d4828250$7d8786f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <519376C9.1070406@t-online.de> <51939233.4090906@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000601ce517a$a94192f0$fbc4b8d0$@filosofi.uu.se> I think the talk about the same standard is mistaken. You apply three different laws in Ton's three cases. Case 1. : Reese claims one trick and the opps agree but Reese wants to withdraw his concession of a trick and wants two tricks. Law 71.2: All normal plays must lead to two tricks for Reese in order to give him two tricks. Case 2. Reese claims one trick and opps directly contest the claim and want both tricks Law 70 D1. There must exist a normal play which gives the opps two tricks in order to give them two tricks. Case 3. Reese claims one trick and the opps initially agree but during the play of next hand want to withdraw their agreement and want to get both tricks. Law 69B2: The play of Q must be more likely than the play of A in order to give the opps two tricks. -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steve Willner Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:49 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] claim On 2013-05-15 7:51 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > The director has to apply L69 In particular L69B2. > the "same" standard is applied ... but from different viewpoints. Let me see whether I understand this. For the defense, you rule it is not "likely" Reese would have played the Q, so no change for them. For Reese, you rule it is not likely he would have played the ace, so no change for him either, and the agreed score of one trick to defense stands. That looks legal to me though bad bridge judgment: I think it is likely Reese would have played ace. However, you could probably devise a similar but less clearcut case where the "impossible" but agreed score would be the correct ruling. By the way, trick 12 is special. It is never right in bridge terms to let an opponent win trick 12 if you can avoid it. (Non-bridge considerations such as the beer card may modify this.) _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at irvine.com Wed May 15 17:19:01 2013 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 08:19:01 -0700 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 May 2013 15:59:04 +0200." <519394A8.2020707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> Herman wrote: > Steve Willner schreef: > > > > By the way, trick 12 is special. It is never right in bridge terms to > > let an opponent win trick 12 if you can avoid it. (Non-bridge > > considerations such as the beer card may modify this.) > > This is so new to me - and probably to everyone else - that it can > hardly be the basis of settling whether a line that loses trick 12 can > be regarded normal. I don't get this---math is new? This is simple math. If you win trick 12 you will win at least one of the last two tricks. If you lose trick 12 you will win at *most* one of the last two tricks. Thus there is no scenario in which losing trick 12 can have a better result than winning trick 12. If X <= 1 and Y >= 1 then X <= Y. I'm sure even Euclid knew this. Or did I misunderstand what you were saying? -- Adam From hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 15 17:35:10 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 17:35:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> Adam Beneschan schreef: > > Herman wrote: > >> Steve Willner schreef: >>> >>> By the way, trick 12 is special. It is never right in bridge terms to >>> let an opponent win trick 12 if you can avoid it. (Non-bridge >>> considerations such as the beer card may modify this.) >> >> This is so new to me - and probably to everyone else - that it can >> hardly be the basis of settling whether a line that loses trick 12 can >> be regarded normal. > > I don't get this---math is new? This is simple math. If you win > trick 12 you will win at least one of the last two tricks. If you > lose trick 12 you will win at *most* one of the last two tricks. Thus > there is no scenario in which losing trick 12 can have a better result > than winning trick 12. If X <= 1 and Y >= 1 then X <= Y. I'm sure > even Euclid knew this. > > Or did I misunderstand what you were saying? > Considering your response, yes you did. I can do the same math. But when I'm at the table, I will not do math like that. I will trust my experience. And this rule is not within my experience. I believe that normal lines are judged with what people do, not with what can be deduced after a few minutes of calculation. So while the rule is valid, it is of no help in deciding whether playing the Q is normal. That was my point. Please also note that the "rule" has very limited use. It is helpful in this case, but if RHO had followed suit, a rule that says that "winning" the trick is best, does not help us, since winning it with the queen can be better than with the ace (if LHO has the king). Even in fourth hand, the rule has exceptions. If in order to win the 12th trick, you have to overtake partner's winning card, it may be better NOT to win the 12th trick. OK? Herman. > -- Adam From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 15 17:50:15 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 11:50:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> <5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net> On 2013-05-15 11:35 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > If in order to win the > 12th trick, you have to overtake partner's winning card, it may be > better NOT to win the 12th trick. The rule is not to let an _opponent_ win T12 if you can avoid it. As you say, it can matter whether you or partner wins the trick and which card one uses to win it. Whether this rule is commonly used at the table, I can't say. I've used it from time to time. From g3 at nige1.com Wed May 15 19:00:53 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 18:00:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net> References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com><5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> [Steve Willner] The rule is not to let an _opponent_ win T12 if you can avoid it. As you say, it can matter whether you or partner wins the trick and which card one uses to win it. [Nige1] IMO Ton is winding us up :) The application of Steve's principle may be beyond the comprehension of a few players and directors but for most players it's normal practice. Anyway it would be automatic for a player of Reese's calibre. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 15 22:50:47 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 16:50:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Psyching Ogust In-Reply-To: <20130411145530.724F4A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20130411145530.724F4A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5193F527.1090808@nhcc.net> On 2013-04-11 10:55 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > In theory, it's certainly possible > that a partnership could agree bid X in a certain auction is a request > for certain information, and doesn't really say anything specific > about what the X bidder might hold. We've had the discussion about relay bids before. It's a real challenge to explain bids that only ask for more information, but there are almost always negative inferences that have to be disclosed. These can come from partnership experience as well as from explicit agreement. Stayman is a good example. We all would accept "Asking about major suits" (possibly with some strength limitations or other details) because Stayman is so familiar, but it isn't strictly a correct explanation. In the case of Ogust, a good explanation might be "Artificial, forcing, asks for further information, usually denies a good suit of his own. In principle shows game-invitational or better values, but he might be screwing around with a weak hand and support for (my suit)." Whether to include that last clause or not will differ from partnership to partnership, but failing to include it when it should be included is MI. In real life, the Director may have a difficult time determining whether that last clause should have been included or not. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 15 22:51:03 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 16:51:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <002601ce32de$3ffe9320$bffbb960$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <002901ce31d0$67235350$3569f9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <004501ce31e8$92445ad0$b6cd1070$@online.no> <515EBC84.6000906@ulb.ac.be> <002601ce32de$3ffe9320$bffbb960$@online.no> Message-ID: <5193F537.1010203@nhcc.net> An old thread, but I think there are still a couple of points to be raised. On 2013-04-06 11:48 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > If the player claims inadvertency he has no choice but to change his > bid L25A: "...a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call..." Introduction: "...in regard to ?may? do (failure to do it is not wrong),..." On 2013-04-10 11:38 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > The 1C bid is cancelled (considered never made) and replaced by the > intended 1NT bid. I don't see any Law giving the Director authority to force the player to change his call, even if it was initially unintended. On 2013-04-08 9:27 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Since an inadvertent insufficient bid is by definition meaningless, At first sight I agreed with this, but after reading other contributions I'm not so sure. Even if the exact bid was meaningless, the information that a player was trying to make a bid conveys information. We could try applying L16B, but L27B1 (both branches) tell us not to. I suppose L27D might be the fallback. On 2013-04-11 5:33 AM, ton wrote: > Are you saying that it is better for the 1C bidder not to change his > call into his intended call? After which the TD has to ask his LHO > whether he accepts the 1C? And if not he can make any legal call? > Also including a pass? > > If so you have presented a beautiful case which will go into my > files. Yes, this is the situation. On 2013-04-11 10:05 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > There will be calls made at times that are neither intended nor > retracted, and there must be some way to handle those situations > without imposing some arbitrary "intended meaning" for a call that > lacks one. This summarizes the situation nicely. What it also illustrates to me is the fallacy of determining the "meaning" of an IB for legal purposes according to the unknowable intention of the IBer rather than by some objective criterion. What I'd suggest instead is to use the meaning the IBer's partner will likely give the bid. This requires knowing the relevant bidding system and guessing the likely reason for the IB, but at least it doesn't require mind reading. In other words, the Director is on the same footing as the player's partner, which seems fair. Another way of looking at it: we're concerned with the information transmitted by the IB, not the "meaning." Never gonna happen, though. From svenpran at online.no Wed May 15 23:09:10 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 23:09:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <5193F537.1010203@nhcc.net> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <002901ce31d0$67235350$3569f9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <004501ce31e8$92445ad0$b6cd1070$@online.no> <515EBC84.6000906@ulb.ac.be> <002601ce32de$3ffe9320$bffbb960$@online.no> <5193F537.1010203@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001801ce51b0$72b8a300$5829e900$@online.no> > Steve Willner > An old thread, but I think there are still a couple of points to be raised. > > On 2013-04-06 11:48 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > If the player claims inadvertency he has no choice but to change his > > bid > > L25A: "...a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call..." > > Introduction: "...in regard to ?may? do (failure to do it is not wrong),..." > > On 2013-04-10 11:38 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > The 1C bid is cancelled (considered never made) and replaced by the > > intended 1NT bid. > > I don't see any Law giving the Director authority to force the player to change > his call, even if it was initially unintended. [Sven Pran] The way I understand Law 25A : "...a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call..." is that such substitution is initialized immediately when he declares the inadvertency of his call. Once initialized he may no longer cancel his substitution. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed May 15 23:33:31 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 22:33:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <001801ce51b0$72b8a300$5829e900$@online.no> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <002901ce31d0$67235350$3569f9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <004501ce31e8$92445ad0$b6cd1070$@online.no> <515EBC84.6000906@ulb.ac.be> <002601ce32de$3ffe9320$bffbb960$@online.no> <5193F537.1010203@nhcc.net> <001801ce51b0$72b8a300$5829e900$@online.no> Message-ID: <5193FF2B.8060300@btinternet.com> On 15/05/2013 22:09, Sven Pran wrote: > The way I understand Law 25A : "...a player may substitute his > intended call for an unintended call..." is that such substitution is > initialized immediately when he declares the inadvertency of his call. > Once initialized he may no longer cancel his substitution. I can't see any basis for that elaborate understanding, using concepts not to be found in the law itself. Gordon Rainsford From svenpran at online.no Thu May 16 08:22:45 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 08:22:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <5193FF2B.8060300@btinternet.com> References: <002501ce2cd3$5ae10120$10a30360$@online.no> <001901ce2f01$d9683100$8c389300$@online.no> <001c01ce2f1a$c7ffac40$57ff04c0$@online.no> <003801ce2f2b$23c2a0e0$6b47e2a0$@online.no> <000f01ce2f71$2fd76be0$8f8643a0$@online.no> <002901ce31d0$67235350$3569f9f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <004501ce31e8$92445ad0$b6cd1070$@online.no> <515EBC84.6000906@ulb.ac.be> <002601ce32de$3ffe9320$bffbb960$@online.no> <5193F537.1010203@nhcc.net> <001801ce51b0$72b8a300$5829e900$@online.no> <5193FF2B.8060300@btinternet! .com> Message-ID: <000101ce51fd$c82867b0$58793710$@online.no> > Gordon Rainsford > On 15/05/2013 22:09, Sven Pran wrote: > > The way I understand Law 25A : "...a player may substitute his > > intended call for an unintended call..." is that such substitution is > > initialized immediately when he declares the inadvertency of his call. > > Once initialized he may no longer cancel his substitution. > I can't see any basis for that elaborate understanding, using concepts not to > be found in the law itself. [Sven Pran] IMHO: If the player doesn't complete his substitution the first call loses its state of being unintended. Law 16B and (possibly) Law 25B apply. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 16 14:22:23 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 08:22:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> <5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net> <7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:00:53 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Steve Willner] > The rule is not to let an _opponent_ win T12 if you can avoid it. As > you say, it can matter whether you or partner wins the trick and which > card one uses to win it. > > [Nige1] > IMO Ton is winding us up :) > The application of Steve's principle may be beyond the comprehension of a > few players and directors but for most players it's normal practice. > Anyway > it would be automatic for a player of Reese's calibre. It would be automatic for a player of Reese's callibre to count the spades. When players make a faulty claim, they have made a mistake and been careless. I am very comfortable with rules that have them making a mistake or be careless in the "subsequent play". (I give Reese the last two tricks because I am uncomfortable with following an excessively clever line of play.) From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 16 23:27:48 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 23:27:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> <5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net> <7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> Message-ID: <51954F54.9040308@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:00:53 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Steve Willner] >> The rule is not to let an _opponent_ win T12 if you can avoid it. As >> you say, it can matter whether you or partner wins the trick and which >> card one uses to win it. >> >> [Nige1] >> IMO Ton is winding us up :) >> The application of Steve's principle may be beyond the comprehension of a >> few players and directors but for most players it's normal practice. >> Anyway >> it would be automatic for a player of Reese's calibre. > > It would be automatic for a player of Reese's callibre to count the spades. > > When players make a faulty claim, they have made a mistake and been > careless. I am very comfortable with rules that have them making a mistake > or be careless in the "subsequent play". > > (I give Reese the last two tricks because I am uncomfortable with > following an excessively clever line of play.) There's only one word wrong in this sentence (well, and the conclusion): "excessively" I know you have Kx, I know you know I have AQ - we both know we're going to make one trick each, no matter which one I play first. That's clever, but not excessively so. If I were Reese, and I'd admit to having thought opponent had two to the king, I'd give away the 2 tricks, out of shame of miscounting. But then I'm not TR. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 17 02:41:42 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 20:41:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <51954F54.9040308@skynet.be> References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> <5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net> <7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> <51954F54.9040308@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:27:48 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Robert Frick schreef: >> On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:00:53 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> >>> [Steve Willner] >>> The rule is not to let an _opponent_ win T12 if you can avoid it. As >>> you say, it can matter whether you or partner wins the trick and which >>> card one uses to win it. >>> >>> [Nige1] >>> IMO Ton is winding us up :) >>> The application of Steve's principle may be beyond the comprehension >>> of a >>> few players and directors but for most players it's normal practice. >>> Anyway >>> it would be automatic for a player of Reese's calibre. >> >> It would be automatic for a player of Reese's callibre to count the >> spades. >> >> When players make a faulty claim, they have made a mistake and been >> careless. I am very comfortable with rules that have them making a >> mistake >> or be careless in the "subsequent play". >> >> (I give Reese the last two tricks because I am uncomfortable with >> following an excessively clever line of play.) > > There's only one word wrong in this sentence (well, and the conclusion): > "excessively" > > I know you have Kx, I know you know I have AQ - we both know we're going > to make one trick each, no matter which one I play first. > > That's clever, but not excessively so. Well, you have AQ on the board and want to get one trick. How you do you do it? The play that will occur to everyone is to lead to the ace. Most people will not even think of the alternative of ducking the first trick, though that works when the person with the king has another of the suit. They could work it out -- they just won't. And we know that Reese was trying to get one trick. And that he had no desire to appear clever or win his trick in an elegant way. I think "excessively clever" is the right phrase, though I am happy to hear a better one. Dis we agree on excessively clever for this example? Clubs are trump. A spade is led, and declarer claims, pitching a losing diamond on the spade. He forgets about the trump that is still out. Is it excessively clever to dump the ace of hearts on the other winning spade, then dump the winning diamonds on the good hearts? Or do you give declarer the rest of the tricks. AK KQ x x xx x xx x -- A AK2 AK > > If I were Reese, and I'd admit to having thought opponent had two to the > king, I'd give away the 2 tricks, out of shame of miscounting. > > But then I'm not TR. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 17 09:18:13 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 09:18:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> <5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net> <7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> <51954F54.9040308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5195D9B5.6010108@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > > Dis we agree on excessively clever for this example? Clubs are trump. A > spade is led, and declarer claims, pitching a losing diamond on the spade. > He forgets about the trump that is > still out. Is it excessively clever to dump the ace of hearts on the other > winning spade, then dump the winning diamonds on the good hearts? Or do > you give declarer the rest of the tricks. > > > AK > KQ > x > x > > xx > x > xx > x > > > -- > A > AK2 > AK > > I agree on this line being "excessively clever" and therefore not normal. I stand by my view on the two-card ending. I have seen people do it. Or rather, I see people do it all the time when they have one trump each. "One each" and no-one cares who wins the first or second trick. OK, the AQ case is not entirely the same, but I can see good players doing the same thing there. Herman. From g3 at nige1.com Fri May 17 11:06:27 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:06:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <5195D9B5.6010108@skynet.be> References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com><5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net><7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> <51954F54.9040308@skynet.be> <5195D9B5.6010108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <81B653A5C85C43CFACB43795E96781E1@G3> [Herman] OK, the AQ case is not entirely the same, but I can see good players doing the same thing there. [Nigel] I haven't. But I accept that, under the current law, it's difficult to specify rules of thumb for judging incomplete claims that lead to consistent rulings. For example, opposite xx in dummy, declarer could have AQ, A2, or KJ and claim one trick. In the last case, if declarer has lost the place, he may be missing the A, Q, or both and be mistaken about which. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 17 11:26:11 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 11:26:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <81B653A5C85C43CFACB43795E96781E1@G3> References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com><5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net><7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> <51954F54.9040308@skynet.be> <5195D9B5.6010108@skynet.be> <81B653A5C85C43CFACB43795E96781E1@G3> Message-ID: <5195F7B3.2080702@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie schreef: > [Herman] > OK, the AQ case is not entirely the same, but I can see good players > doing the same thing there. > > [Nigel] > I haven't. But I accept that, under the current law, it's difficult to > specify rules of thumb for judging incomplete claims that lead to consistent > rulings. For example, opposite xx in dummy, declarer could have AQ, A2, or > KJ and claim one trick. In the last case, if declarer has lost the place, he > may be missing the A, Q, or both and be mistaken about which. > Indeed, which is why my first concern in claims is to find out what exactly was going on in claimer's mind. Usually, claimers will readily admit which mistake they made, and I will trust them, as long as that mistake is consistent with the claim. In your example, claimer will either tell us he thought LHO held Ax or Qx. We can deduce which line is the only normal one for him, and, depending on the true lay-out, award the correct number of tricks. Of course, a clever declarer might wait to tell us which of the two he thought it was (obviously the correct one). Since both views are consistent with the claim of one trick, I shall rule against that claimer. > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6330 - Release Date: 05/16/13 > > From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 17 15:36:35 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 09:36:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> <5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net> <7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> Message-ID: If declarer, with the lead in hand, claims one trick in a two-card end position holding AQ opposite a dead dummy, is there any conceivable circumstance in which we would consider it "normal" for him to start with the queen? If the answer is no, why should it be any different when he leads from dummy and RHO shows out? Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From gampas at aol.com Fri May 17 16:11:01 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:11:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir In-Reply-To: References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> <5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net> <7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> Message-ID: <8D0211F7EE9DC71-22C4-29147@webmail-m149.sysops.aol.com> A player thinks he is opening 2NT, but his partner alerts and explains it when asked as "both minors, pretty much any strength". The player consequently sees that he is not dealer and also sees the opening bid of 1H on his right, by the dealer. It is universally accepted that the explanation is UI to the player. Does this mean that he must continue to "not see" the 1H bid for the rest of the auction? If his partner bids 3D, is he obliged to treat this as a transfer to hearts, even though the partnership methods are that 3D shows longer diamonds than clubs, with no interest in game opposite a minimum? From sater at xs4all.nl Fri May 17 16:54:12 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 16:54:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir In-Reply-To: <8D0211F7EE9DC71-22C4-29147@webmail-m149.sysops.aol.com> References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> <5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net> <7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> <8D0211F7EE9DC71-22C4-29147@webmail-m149.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <000301ce530e$651d0010$2f570030$@xs4all.nl> The actual auction is legal information. His actual system is legal information. So, although he has 20-22 balanced(I guess), he now knows he promised the minors. How he is going to wriggle out of it is anyone's guess, but if his partner bids 3D he is not forced to treat it as a transfer. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Paul Lamford Sent: vrijdag 17 mei 2013 16:11 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir A player thinks he is opening 2NT, but his partner alerts and explains it when asked as "both minors, pretty much any strength". The player consequently sees that he is not dealer and also sees the opening bid of 1H on his right, by the dealer. It is universally accepted that the explanation is UI to the player. Does this mean that he must continue to "not see" the 1H bid for the rest of the auction? If his partner bids 3D, is he obliged to treat this as a transfer to hearts, even though the partnership methods are that 3D shows longer diamonds than clubs, with no interest in game opposite a minimum? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 17 17:19:18 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:19:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir In-Reply-To: <000301ce530e$651d0010$2f570030$@xs4all.nl> References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> <5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net> <7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> <8D0211F7EE9DC71-22C4-29147@webmail-m149.sysops.aol.com> <000301ce530e$651d0010$2f570030$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <51964A76.3050805@ulb.ac.be> I have another "duty" problem for you all : You, South, dealer with None vul, hold : x AJxxx Qxx KT9x S W N E 2H (a) p 2NT 'b) p 3C (c) p 3H (d) p (a) weak, freely bid on 5 cards provided one holds fewer than 3 spades (b) strong relay (your side doesn't psyche relays) (c) 4 cards (d) nonforcing With your absolute maximum, it seems right to go on (what to bid is another question - I would probably bid 3NT). Twist n?1 : partner erroneously described your 3C bid as "minimum with exactly 5 hearts' (your former agreement). What are your duties ? Twist n?2 : W doubled your 3C bid after hearing it was artificial. That's bad news. You could consider you aren't max anymore. What are your duties ? (NB : even being told that 3C was natural, W would surely have doubled ; he owns 6 of them) Thank you for your help Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 17 17:25:49 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:25:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> <5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net> <7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> Message-ID: <51964BFD.4070200@skynet.be> Yes, there must be. if declarer in this position claims only one trick (in stead of playing the ace to see if the king drops) then it means he is certain that either defender has Kx. In that case, playing the queen is exactly as useful as playing the ace. Herman. Eric Landau schreef: > If declarer, with the lead in hand, claims one trick in a two-card end position holding AQ opposite a dead dummy, is there any conceivable circumstance in which we would consider it "normal" for him to start with the queen? If the answer is no, why should it be any different when he leads from dummy and RHO shows out? > > > Eric Landau > Silver Spring MD > New York NY > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6330 - Release Date: 05/16/13 > > From hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 17 17:28:29 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:28:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir In-Reply-To: <8D0211F7EE9DC71-22C4-29147@webmail-m149.sysops.aol.com> References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> <5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net> <7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> <8D0211F7EE9DC71-22C4-29147@webmail-m149.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <51964C9D.9080104@skynet.be> Paul Lamford schreef: > A player thinks he is opening 2NT, but his partner alerts and explains > it when asked as "both minors, pretty much any strength". The player > consequently sees that he is not dealer and also sees the opening bid > of 1H on his right, by the dealer. > > It is universally accepted that the explanation is UI to the player. > Does this mean that he must continue to "not see" the 1H bid for the > rest of the auction? If his partner bids 3D, is he obliged to treat > this as a transfer to hearts, even though the partnership methods are > that 3D shows longer diamonds than clubs, with no interest in game > opposite a minimum? No, it is not. The actual auction is a piece of information to which the player is entitled (since he is always allowed to ask it), so I would never rule that the player does not notice, when it is next his turn to bid, the auction so far. Given the situation, there is no reason to assume that the player does not know his own system, and he has, IMO, no UI. So he is free to bid whatever he wants. Herman. From jrhind at therock.bm Fri May 17 22:22:15 2013 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 15:22:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <51964BFD.4070200@skynet.be> Message-ID: I am sorry but no declarer I know would ever play Q from AQ holding. They would play A first if for no other reason that to see if that K might just be singleton now. Jack On 5/17/13 10:25 AM, "Herman De Wael" wrote: >Yes, there must be. >if declarer in this position claims only one trick (in stead of playing >the ace to see if the king drops) then it means he is certain that >either defender has Kx. In that case, playing the queen is exactly as >useful as playing the ace. >Herman. > >Eric Landau schreef: >> If declarer, with the lead in hand, claims one trick in a two-card end >>position holding AQ opposite a dead dummy, is there any conceivable >>circumstance in which we would consider it "normal" for him to start >>with the queen? If the answer is no, why should it be any different >>when he leads from dummy and RHO shows out? >> >> >> Eric Landau >> Silver Spring MD >> New York NY >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6330 - Release Date: >>05/16/13 >> >> >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Fri May 17 23:38:30 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 22:38:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47FE36B724C4473996E3ABCC72879BD9@G3> In simple cases like this, with facts agreed, there is often no consensus over the correct ruling among senior directors and law-makers. However weak he judges his case to be, a player would be well advised to dispute all claims. It would seem to be a worthwhile exercise, even if he won less than half the time. From g3 at nige1.com Sat May 18 11:15:27 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 10:15:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <47FE36B724C4473996E3ABCC72879BD9@G3> References: <47FE36B724C4473996E3ABCC72879BD9@G3> Message-ID: You already have four tricks in your 3N contract. In the six card ending, you lead dummy's singleton spade towards your AKQJT8. When RHO shows out you claim your contract. Unfortunately, you missed an earlier spade discard. Presumably, - About half of BLML directors would rule an overtrick :) - The other half would rule five undertricks, (assuming that LHO had an entry to RHO's winners). Inconsistent rulings are bad. Worse is that those who try to follow the law and speed up the game by claiming may be subjected to draconian penalties for what seem trivial oversights. The simple on-line rule avoids such anomalies. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat May 18 12:25:15 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 12:25:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: References: <47FE36B724C4473996E3ABCC72879BD9@G3> Message-ID: <002201ce53b1$fcdecde0$f69c69a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: No Nigel this is contra productive. Only a nitwit will rule for five undertricks. And nitwits hardly ever become certificated TD's. So all others will rule for an overtrick and at least some of those as we found out in the answers given will rule for one trick in the Reese AQ case. Nigel You already have four tricks in your 3N contract. In the six card ending, you lead dummy's singleton spade towards your AKQJT8. When RHO shows out you claim your contract. Unfortunately, you missed an earlier spade discard. Presumably, - About half of BLML directors would rule an overtrick :) - The other half would rule five undertricks, (assuming that LHO had an entry to RHO's winners). Inconsistent rulings are bad. Worse is that those who try to follow the law and speed up the game by claiming may be subjected to draconian penalties for what seem trivial oversights. The simple on-line rule avoids such anomalies. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2013.0.3336 / Virusdatabase: 3162/6330 - datum van uitgifte: 05/16/13 From g3 at nige1.com Sat May 18 13:03:51 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 12:03:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <002201ce53b1$fcdecde0$f69c69a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <47FE36B724C4473996E3ABCC72879BD9@G3> <002201ce53b1$fcdecde0$f69c69a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <1461BE7C71C24A7B8CE8DF930BCA8059@G3> [ton] No Nigel this is contra productive. Only a nitwit will rule for five undertricks. And nitwits hardly ever become certificated TD's. So all others will rule for an overtrick and at least some of those as we found out in the answers given will rule for one trick in the Reese AQ case. [Nigel] What is the difference, in principle, between a two card ending with S:x opposite S:AQ and a six-card ending with S:x opposite S:AKQJT8 Why does ton apply such different arguments in the two cases? From hermandw at skynet.be Sat May 18 13:48:11 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 13:48:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51976A7B.1000405@skynet.be> I am sorry but no declarer I know would play any of the two cards, when knowing LHO has Kx. He would claim one trick, without specifying which one. After all, isn't that exactly what Reese did? He did not play the A, he claimed. So even your first sentence is already wrong. We have here a declarer who did not do what you said no declarer would ever do. Herman. Jack Rhind schreef: > I am sorry but no declarer I know would ever play Q from AQ holding. > They would play A first if for no other reason that to see if that K might > just be singleton now. > > Jack > > > On 5/17/13 10:25 AM, "Herman De Wael" wrote: > >> Yes, there must be. >> if declarer in this position claims only one trick (in stead of playing >> the ace to see if the king drops) then it means he is certain that >> either defender has Kx. In that case, playing the queen is exactly as >> useful as playing the ace. >> Herman. >> >> Eric Landau schreef: >>> If declarer, with the lead in hand, claims one trick in a two-card end >>> position holding AQ opposite a dead dummy, is there any conceivable >>> circumstance in which we would consider it "normal" for him to start >>> with the queen? If the answer is no, why should it be any different >>> when he leads from dummy and RHO shows out? >>> >>> >>> Eric Landau >>> Silver Spring MD >>> New York NY >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6330 - Release Date: >>> 05/16/13 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6335 - Release Date: 05/18/13 > > From svenpran at online.no Sat May 18 14:01:51 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 14:01:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <1461BE7C71C24A7B8CE8DF930BCA8059@G3> References: <47FE36B724C4473996E3ABCC72879BD9@G3> <002201ce53b1$fcdecde0$f69c69a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1461BE7C71C24A7B8CE8DF930BCA8059@G3> Message-ID: <000b01ce53bf$7c3462f0$749d28d0$@online.no> [Sven Pran] I can't help feeling that this discussion focuses too much on adjudicating a contested claim (Law 70). But the actual situation as far as I can remember is that we have an agreed claim that is subsequently contested (Law 71). There is a significant difference between the application of these two laws and I see little reason to cancel the original agreement of losing just one trick on the ground that this is impossible while we cannot convincingly decide against the possibility of losing either zero or two tricks as the cards lie. From hermandw at skynet.be Sat May 18 17:45:40 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 17:45:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <000b01ce53bf$7c3462f0$749d28d0$@online.no> References: <47FE36B724C4473996E3ABCC72879BD9@G3> <002201ce53b1$fcdecde0$f69c69a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <1461BE7C71C24A7B8CE8DF930BCA8059@G3> <000b01ce53bf$7c3462f0$749d28d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <5197A224.7030701@skynet.be> You're right, Sven, but: the problem about the later contestation is: 1) solved 2) based on what lines are normal. So the discussion we are having is still interesting. Herman. Sven Pran schreef: > [Sven Pran] > I can't help feeling that this discussion focuses too much on adjudicating a > contested claim (Law 70). > > But the actual situation as far as I can remember is that we have an agreed > claim that is subsequently contested (Law 71). > > There is a significant difference between the application of these two laws > and I see little reason to cancel the original agreement of losing just one > trick on the ground that this is impossible while we cannot convincingly > decide against the possibility of losing either zero or two tricks as the > cards lie. > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6335 - Release Date: 05/18/13 > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 18 18:27:18 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 12:27:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim In-Reply-To: <002201ce53b1$fcdecde0$f69c69a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <47FE36B724C4473996E3ABCC72879BD9@G3> <002201ce53b1$fcdecde0$f69c69a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 May 2013 06:25:15 -0400, ton wrote: > ton: > > No Nigel this is contra productive. Only a nitwit will rule for five > undertricks. And nitwits hardly ever become certificated TD's. So all > others will rule for an overtrick and at least some of those as we found > out > in the answers given will rule for one trick in the Reese AQ case. Nigel is being logical and making a really nice point. Note that we have a continuum: (1) leading to AQ, (2) leading to AKJ, (3) leading to AKQ10, etc. In all cases declarer miscounts. In the first, he thinks the player behind the AQ has Kx but the player really has K; in the second, he thinks that the player behind the AKJ has Qxx but the player really has Qx; etc. If you want to rule in the first case that Reese goes not get all of the tricks, but in the last case that he does, I think you need explain why you are making different rulings in two very similar cases. > > > > > > Nigel > > You already have four tricks in your 3N contract. In the six card ending, > you lead dummy's singleton spade towards your AKQJT8. When RHO shows out > you claim your contract. Unfortunately, you missed an earlier spade > discard. > > Presumably, > - About half of BLML directors would rule an overtrick :) > - The other half would rule five undertricks, (assuming that LHO had an > entry to RHO's winners). > > Inconsistent rulings are bad. Worse is that those who try to follow the > law > and speed up the game by claiming may be subjected to draconian penalties > for what seem trivial oversights. The simple on-line rule avoids such > anomalies. > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3336 / Virusdatabase: 3162/6330 - datum van uitgifte: > 05/16/13 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From gampas at aol.com Sat May 18 18:40:59 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 12:40:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir In-Reply-To: <51964C9D.9080104@skynet.be> References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com> <5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net> <7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> <8D0211F7EE9DC71-22C4-29147@webmail-m149.sysops.aol.com> <51964C9D.9080104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8D021FD9CB74A5A-D80-3CFC3@webmail-va002.sysops.aol.com> [Herman de Wael] The actual auction is a piece of information to which the player is entitled (since he is always allowed to ask it), so I would never rule that the player does not notice, when it is next his turn to bid, the auction so far. [Paul Lamford] How do we reconcile that view with the following extract from the Laws: [16A]1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or In this example [the player thinks he has opened 2NT, but has actually overcalled 2NT, to save those looking back at the thread] the opening bid, which the player only saw because of the unauthorised information of his partner's explanation, is not unaffected by UI, and therefore it would seem that he cannot use the opening bid of 1H. Another approach might be that to use the information that the player opened 1H is not "carefully avoiding taking *any* advantage of the UI. Now, I think one *should* always be able to use the auction. But that is not what 16A1 says. -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Fri, 17 May 2013 16:31 Subject: Re: [BLML] Sans Voir Paul Lamford schreef: > A player thinks he is opening 2NT, but his partner alerts and explains > it when asked as "both minors, pretty much any strength". The player > consequently sees that he is not dealer and also sees the opening bid > of 1H on his right, by the dealer. > > It is universally accepted that the explanation is UI to the player. > Does this mean that he must continue to "not see" the 1H bid for the > rest of the auction? If his partner bids 3D, is he obliged to treat > this as a transfer to hearts, even though the partnership methods are > that 3D shows longer diamonds than clubs, with no interest in game > opposite a minimum? No, it is not. The actual auction is a piece of information to which the player is entitled (since he is always allowed to ask it), so I would never rule that the player does not notice, when it is next his turn to bid, the auction so far. Given the situation, there is no reason to assume that the player does not know his own system, and he has, IMO, no UI. So he is free to bid whatever he wants. Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Sat May 18 20:33:56 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 19:33:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir In-Reply-To: <8D021FD9CB74A5A-D80-3CFC3@webmail-va002.sysops.aol.com> References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com><5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net><7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> <8D0211F7EE9DC71-22C4-29147@webmail-m149.sysops.aol.com><51964C9D.9080104@skynet.be> <8D021FD9CB74A5A-D80-3CFC3@webmail-va002.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <9B6910BE4ADA4AB2B5F0D3CEDAF72C75@G3> [Paul Lamford] How do we reconcile that view with the following extract from the Laws: [16A]1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or In this example [the player thinks he has opened 2NT, but has actually overcalled 2NT, to save those looking back at the thread] the opening bid, which the player only saw because of the unauthorised information of his partner's explanation, is not unaffected by UI, and therefore it would seem that he cannot use the opening bid of 1H. Another approach might be that to use the information that the player opened 1H is not "carefully avoiding taking *any* advantage of the UI. Now, I think one *should* always be able to use the auction. But that is not what 16A1 says. {Nige1] I agree with Paul that a simple rule is best. Preferably a rule that we can understand and follow. There was a recent case where a pair of world-class Italians reached a slam after many rounds of bidding. Unfortunately, it was the wrong slam because responder misread his partner's opening bid (in full view throughout the long auction). Although the auction is authorised information, other unauthorised information can sometimes wake you up to what is really happening. Also, as Paul and others have pointed out, the Rubens rule that information from alerts and explanations is authorised to all could simplify rulings -- and save the law-abiding from again being penalised. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 20 00:38:33 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 22:38:33 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F950F9B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Paul Lamford: >..... >In this example [the player thinks he has opened 2NT, but has actually >overcalled 2NT, to save those looking back at the thread] the opening >bid, which the player only saw because of the unauthorised information >of his partner's explanation, is not unaffected by UI, and therefore it >would seem that he cannot use the opening bid of 1H. Another approach >might be that to use the information that the player opened 1H is not >"carefully avoiding taking *any* advantage" of the UI. > >Now, I think one *should* always be able to use the auction. But that >is not what 16A1 says. Richard Hills: For this situation the WBF Drafting Committee has specifically decided *should not*. See Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." In Paul's example the player has miscalculated the course of the auction. C'est la vie, we now progress from Law 40C3(a) to Laws 75A and 73C. 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/20130519/367e7c88/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 20 04:30:39 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 02:30:39 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Insufficient Blackwood [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9511E9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Imps Dlr: East Vul: North-South East-West play old-fashioned Acol (lacking an immediate way to show a strong game-force raise of 1S). The bidding has gone: SOUTH.....WEST......NORTH.....EAST ---.......---.......---.......1S Pass......2C........3H........3D(1) 3H........4NT.......Pass......5D(2) Pass......5S........Pass......? (1) Director summoned. (2) One ace (old-fashioned Blackwood). You, East, hold: KJ854 --- AQJ943 K2 What call do you make? British comedian Tommy Cooper: "I was driving along, and my boss rang up, and he said 'You've been promoted.' And I swerved. And then he rang up a second time and said 'You've been promoted again.' And I swerved again. He rang up a third time and said 'You're managing director.' And I went into a tree. And a policeman came up and said 'What happened to you?' And I said 'I careered off the road.'" 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/20130520/d2f7580b/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 20 08:32:51 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 08:32:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F950F9B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F950F9B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5199C393.80102@skynet.be> Richard HILLS schreef: > For this situation the WBF Drafting Committee has specifically decided > **should not**. See Law 40C3(a): > ?Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not > entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, > calculation or technique.? However, a player is always allowed to ask a repeat of the auction. It is therefore not correct to view the bidding cards as aid to memory, since there is no memory needed. > In Paul?s example the player has miscalculated the course of the auction. > C?est la vie, we now progress from Law 40C3(a) to Laws 75A and 73C. I don't understand your position on this matter, Richard. > Best wishes, > Richard Hills Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 20 08:56:21 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 06:56:21 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F951396@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >..... >I don't understand your position on this matter, Richard. Richard Hills: Not merely my position, but also the position held by very experienced Directors at the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge in January. This real-life case from then was discussed in the March blml thread "PESEL failure". Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South You, North, hold: J62 K3 AT9532 K2 The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH ---.......2D(1) (1) North thought that she was opening a natural and unalertable weak two in diamonds. But when her husband chose a Law 73C "unexpected alert", she then noticed Imps Dlr: West Vul: North-South You, North, hold: J62 K3 AT9532 K2 The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH 1NT.......2D(1) (1) Promising an overcall in an unspecified major (usually six cards in the major) and therefore requiring an alert. At the table North used UI to wriggle to 3D for a good result, but the Directors deemed that North- South should abide by Law 73C for a PESEL failure of -2300 in 3Sx (a 3-3 fit, but from South's point of view a 3-6 fit). What's the problem? 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/20130520/0b82c618/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon May 20 09:44:32 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:44:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F951396@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F951396@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <002901ce552d$deb7cd80$9c276880$@online.no> The problem is quite interesting but not because North misbid, she didn?t! North had an incorrect conception of the situation and was awakened by her partner?s alert. If North was aware of the 1NT opening bid and bid 2D as natural because of a temporary lapse she would not be allowed to remember her system now. But North discovered her mistake about the auction, first from the alert (UI) and then from noticing opponent?s opening bid (AI!). North must now carefully avoid giving South any indication that the 2D bid was intended as an opening bid, but aside from that I cannot see how North shall be prevented from attempting to ?save her bacon? with legal calls (only) from there on. You do not indicate exactly how North ?wriggled? to 3D so it impossible for us to judge whether the ruling was correct or not. I ?hope? that South ?could have understood? from North?s reaction that something was wrong, this might justify a ruling that South should not pass out partner?s ?rescue? in 3D, and the corresponding adjustment to 3SX. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 20. mai 2013 08:56 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >..... >I don?t understand your position on this matter, Richard. Richard Hills: Not merely my position, but also the position held by very experienced Directors at the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge in January. This real-life case from then was discussed in the March blml thread ?PESEL failure?. Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South You, North, hold: J62 K3 AT9532 K2 The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH ---.......2D(1) (1) North thought that she was opening a natural and unalertable weak two in diamonds. But when her husband chose a Law 73C ?unexpected alert?, she then noticed Imps Dlr: West Vul: North-South You, North, hold: J62 K3 AT9532 K2 The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH 1NT.......2D(1) (1) Promising an overcall in an unspecified major (usually six cards in the major) and therefore requiring an alert. At the table North used UI to wriggle to 3D for a good result, but the Directors deemed that North- South should abide by Law 73C for a PESEL failure of -2300 in 3Sx (a 3-3 fit, but from South?s point of view a 3-6 fit). What?s the problem? 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/20130520/796013f5/attachment-0001.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon May 20 10:31:05 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 10:31:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5199C393.80102@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F950F9B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5199C393.80102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002101ce5534$5efc5aa0$1cf50fe0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: this is another issue where the laws don't offer a clear solution. My personal view is that a player should be allowed to find out for himself that he missed a call by an opponent, overriding the UI he received from partner. But it is not clear at all in our laws. > For this situation the WBF Drafting Committee has specifically decided > **should not**. See Law 40C3(a): > "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled > during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, > calculation or technique." However, a player is always allowed to ask a repeat of the auction. It is therefore not correct to view the bidding cards as aid to memory, since there is no memory needed. > In Paul's example the player has miscalculated the course of the auction. > C'est la vie, we now progress from Law 40C3(a) to Laws 75A and 73C. I don't understand your position on this matter, Richard. > Best wishes, > Richard Hills Herman. From gampas at aol.com Mon May 20 10:59:03 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (Paul Lamford) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 04:59:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5199C393.80102@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F950F9B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5199C393.80102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8D0234F69144949-AF8-3582E@webmail-d172.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. [Paul Lamford] This should read (after aids) "other than the cards in his hand or the bids on the table". I hope Richard does not think that, as 7B2 provides for the player to inspect the faces of the cards and there is no provision in the Laws for reinspection, to reinspect them would be an aid to memory. Otherwise, for example, someone who opens 1NT would have to remember whether or not he was dealt a four-card major before responding to Stayman. I think the ruling that Richard quoted was incorrect, because the auction itself must be AI, but yet again the Laws are silent on the matter. From sater at xs4all.nl Mon May 20 11:57:11 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 11:57:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002101ce5534$5efc5aa0$1cf50fe0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F950F9B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <5199C393.80102@skynet.be> <002101ce5534$5efc5aa0$1cf50fe0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <005801ce5540$66365df0$32a319d0$@xs4all.nl> The law committee made this clear in the 25A case, a player is allowed to wake up to an inadvertent call by an alert. I think this is similar. If not a player would never be able to fix his bidding after he missed something. This strikes me as too severe for such an oversight. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of ton Sent: maandag 20 mei 2013 10:31 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ton: this is another issue where the laws don't offer a clear solution. My personal view is that a player should be allowed to find out for himself that he missed a call by an opponent, overriding the UI he received from partner. But it is not clear at all in our laws. > For this situation the WBF Drafting Committee has specifically decided > **should not**. See Law 40C3(a): > "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled > during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, > calculation or technique." However, a player is always allowed to ask a repeat of the auction. It is therefore not correct to view the bidding cards as aid to memory, since there is no memory needed. > In Paul's example the player has miscalculated the course of the auction. > C'est la vie, we now progress from Law 40C3(a) to Laws 75A and 73C. I don't understand your position on this matter, Richard. > Best wishes, > Richard Hills Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From anwalt at bley-strafrecht.de Mon May 20 12:21:19 2013 From: anwalt at bley-strafrecht.de (Dr. Richard Bley) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 12:21:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] definition of a serious error Message-ID: <002501ce5543$c4e2c9d0$4ea85d70$@bley-strafrecht.de> Hi Folks! After /Beecause of an appeals case here in Germany, I?m uncertain (but I guess I?m not the only one ) about the definition of a ?serious error?. Example: A declarer didn?t count the points of an opponent and therefor misplays a hand. Is this question dependant on his playing strength? Is there a EBL/WBF guideline/definition ? Are there are experiences in other NBO?s regarding this question? I?ve found the definition from Australia http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/InRegGuid11.pdf are there other ones? Yours Richard Bley -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130520/53c93bce/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Mon May 20 12:46:58 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 12:46:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] definition of a serious error In-Reply-To: <002501ce5543$c4e2c9d0$4ea85d70$@bley-strafrecht.de> References: <002501ce5543$c4e2c9d0$4ea85d70$@bley-strafrecht.de> Message-ID: <006701ce5547$5a29a240$0e7ce6c0$@xs4all.nl> First read http://www.eurobridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/courses/2010lectureno tes/serious-error.pdf Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Richard Bley Sent: maandag 20 mei 2013 12:21 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] definition of a serious error Hi Folks! After /Beecause of an appeals case here in Germany, I?m uncertain (but I guess I?m not the only one ) about the definition of a ?serious error?. Example: A declarer didn?t count the points of an opponent and therefor misplays a hand. Is this question dependant on his playing strength? Is there a EBL/WBF guideline/definition ? Are there are experiences in other NBO?s regarding this question? I?ve found the definition from Australia http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/InRegGuid11.pdf are there other ones? Yours Richard Bley -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130520/e330eaf8/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 20 13:07:20 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 13:07:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F951396@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F951396@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <519A03E8.2000805@skynet.be> Richard HILLS schreef: > What?s the problem? The problem is that I consider that ruling to be wrong. Since the player can ask, at any time, a review of the bidding, the sight of the bidding cards cannot, IMO, be considered UI. And this is a case that should be put in front of the WBFLC. Herman. From gampas at aol.com Mon May 20 13:55:49 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 12:55:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] definition of a serious error In-Reply-To: <002501ce5543$c4e2c9d0$4ea85d70$@bley-strafrecht.de> References: <002501ce5543$c4e2c9d0$4ea85d70$@bley-strafrecht.de> Message-ID: <519A0F45.1050908@aol.com> From the EBU White Book, for TDs in England, and I think Wales: 12.8.3 "Serious Error? It should be rare to consider an action a ?serious error?. In general only the following types of action would be covered: ? Failure to follow proper legal procedure (eg revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity). ? Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are expected to make beginners? errors and should not be penalised for doing so. ? An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently. For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a ?serious error?: ? Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner?s call. ? Any play that would be deemed ?normal?, albeit careless or inferior, in ruling a contested claim. ? Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously not the percentage line. ? Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand. From anwalt at bley-strafrecht.de Mon May 20 14:04:22 2013 From: anwalt at bley-strafrecht.de (Dr. Richard Bley) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 14:04:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] definition of a serious error In-Reply-To: <006701ce5547$5a29a240$0e7ce6c0$@xs4all.nl> References: <002501ce5543$c4e2c9d0$4ea85d70$@bley-strafrecht.de> <006701ce5547$5a29a240$0e7ce6c0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <001b01ce5552$2a740990$7f5c1cb0$@bley-strafrecht.de> Thank You! I had the idea that there was sth, but I couldn?t find it. Yours Richard Von: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Im Auftrag von Hans van Staveren Gesendet: Montag, 20. Mai 2013 12:47 An: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Betreff: Re: [BLML] definition of a serious error First read http://www.eurobridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/courses/2010lectureno tes/serious-error.pdf Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Richard Bley Sent: maandag 20 mei 2013 12:21 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] definition of a serious error Hi Folks! After /Beecause of an appeals case here in Germany, I?m uncertain (but I guess I?m not the only one ) about the definition of a ?serious error?. Example: A declarer didn?t count the points of an opponent and therefor misplays a hand. Is this question dependant on his playing strength? Is there a EBL/WBF guideline/definition ? Are there are experiences in other NBO?s regarding this question? I?ve found the definition from Australia http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/InRegGuid11.pdf are there other ones? Yours Richard Bley -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130520/b348de4f/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon May 20 14:51:22 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 13:51:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] definition of a serious error In-Reply-To: <519A0F45.1050908@aol.com> References: <002501ce5543$c4e2c9d0$4ea85d70$@bley-strafrecht.de> <519A0F45.1050908@aol.com> Message-ID: <083E79E179344D8CBF22D01EB2B38CCD@G3> [PL quotes EBU White Book] 12.8.3 "Serious Error? It should be rare to consider an action a ?serious error?. In general only the following types of action would be covered: ? Failure to follow proper legal procedure (eg revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity). ? Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are expected to make beginners? errors and should not be penalised for doing so. ? An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently. For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a ?serious error?: ? Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner?s call. ? Any play that would be deemed ?normal?, albeit careless or inferior, in ruling a contested claim. ? Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously not the percentage line. ? Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand. _______________________________________________ [Nige1] IMO ... In discussion groups, many directors judge an action to be a SEWOG that doesn't satisfy guidelines such as the above. Few directors know how to adjust the redress after an (alleged) SEWOG. Players are no better than directors at understanding this rule as demonstrated by recent threads on Bridge-winners. Like many other rules, this rule is too sophisticated and subjective for players to comply with; or for directors to enforce. consistently, fairly, or even legally. Luckily this is one of the rules that add no value whatsoever to the game of Bridge. Such rules are completely unnecessary and should be scrapped. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon May 20 15:30:58 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:30:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <519A03E8.2000805@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F951396@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <519A03E8.2000805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006b01ce555e$438b6a20$caa23e60$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: It is -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Herman De Wael Verzonden: maandag 20 mei 2013 13:07 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard HILLS schreef: > What's the problem? The problem is that I consider that ruling to be wrong. Since the player can ask, at any time, a review of the bidding, the sight of the bidding cards cannot, IMO, be considered UI. And this is a case that should be put in front of the WBFLC. Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2013.0.3336 / Virusdatabase: 3162/6336 - datum van uitgifte: 05/18/13 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 20 15:59:40 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:59:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] definition of a serious error In-Reply-To: <002501ce5543$c4e2c9d0$4ea85d70$@bley-strafrecht.de> References: <002501ce5543$c4e2c9d0$4ea85d70$@bley-strafrecht.de> Message-ID: <287B10A9-FFAB-498E-8965-BD1DB365948B@starpower.net> On May 20, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Dr. Richard Bley wrote: > After /Beecause of an appeals case here in Germany, I?m uncertain (but I guess I?m not the only one?) about the definition of a > > ?serious error?. > > Example: > A declarer didn?t count the points of an opponent and therefor misplays a hand. > Is this question dependant on his playing strength? Failing to draw an inference from the combination of the auction and the high cards played so far, while it might be patently careless for a top-level expert, still would not, IMO, constitute a "serious" error in this context (for anyone). Edgar Kapan, when he originated this idea that eventually found its way into TFLB as L12C1(b), used the words "egregious" or "ridiculous" rather than the ambiguously weaker "serious", but the principle hasn't changed. Perhaps the LC should consider reverting to "egregious" in the next edition. > Is there a EBL/WBF guideline/definition ? > Are there are experiences in other NBO?s regarding this question? > > I?ve found the definition from Australia? > > http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/InRegGuid11.pdf > > are there other ones? Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130520/b67150b6/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 20 17:13:00 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 17:13:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006b01ce555e$438b6a20$caa23e60$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F951396@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <519A03E8.2000805@skynet.be> <006b01ce555e$438b6a20$caa23e60$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <519A3D7C.4040009@skynet.be> ton schreef: > ton: > > It is > For a moment, I thought you meant "it is" wrong, the ruling, meaning you would agree with me. Then I realized "it is" referred only to being put before the WBFLC. > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Herman De > Wael > Verzonden: maandag 20 mei 2013 13:07 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard HILLS schreef: >> What's the problem? > > The problem is that I consider that ruling to be wrong. > > Since the player can ask, at any time, a review of the bidding, the sight of > the bidding cards cannot, IMO, be considered UI. > > And this is a case that should be put in front of the WBFLC. > > Herman. > Herman. From marcin.waslowicz at gmail.com Mon May 20 21:29:58 2013 From: marcin.waslowicz at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Marcin_Was=B3owicz?=) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 21:29:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Director! - I haven't seen the alert! Message-ID: It's my first post here so I'd like to say hello to everyone. :) I was a tournament director of an international teams tournament (a relatively small one, mostly for invited friends) and I was called by a player after the board was played. The player (North) did not see an alert during the bidding therefore he misunderstood his partners' call which ended up as total disaster. Before the first board (this was the 5th) EW: - informed NS about their openings - informed NS about transfers after 1C - asked if they mind "knocking" alerts instead of taking ALERT from a bidding-box NS did agree for the knocking as an alert procedure for the round (they actually knocked themselves). Long after the incident I've found out that S didn't pay attention to the talking before the round and didn't remember a thing from that listed above. On the other hand, N did confirm everything and he was aware of the conventions used by EW. The bidding was: _N__E__S__W pas pas pas 1C* pas 1H* 1S* pas 3S x 4C x pas pas pas There were no screens. 1C - alerted by knocking the table, 11+ HCP, 2+ clubs 1H - alerted by knocking the table, transfer to spades (7+ HCP, 4+ spades) 1S - NOT alerted, take-out (showing other suits) You can find complete board here: http://jaom.pl/wyniki/2013/trophy/forest13b-9.html North had: K 9 8 6 2 8 6 Q 6 4 K J 6 North didn't see the alert for 1H because he was busy reading the print-outs from the previous round ("how could I have such a minus in the butler here?") but without doubt the alert was there and it was clear (South instantly did admit that) but silent. Nobody noticed that North could have missed the alert. North have heard that the alerting one should make sure that the alert has been seen by both the opponents and West did not so. West argues that it's not his fault that North fell asleep - should he next time shake him and scream "DID YOU SEE THE ALERT?!" My first impression was that: - West failed to alert in the proper way (by "proper" I mean "making sure that both the opponents are aware of it") - North violated law 74 and did not paid sufficient attention to the game On the second thought - is there really a rule that you have to make sure that the alert have been seen? Every one knows that (I'm pretty sure I even read it once or twice) but no-one could point it for me. I couldn't find it in Laws of Duplimate Bridge, thus it is possible that this rule does not apply for this tournament. Anyway, I've thought about 4 options: 1. Violation of alerting procedure leads to the damage for the non offending side - ADJUSTED SCORE. 2. Falling asleep (or reading history from previous round) is not a proper behaviour and the damage was done because of this fact - RESULT STANDS 3. Both sides are offending - SPLIT SCORE (bad score for both pairs). What would you do as a tournament director having whole night to decide? Best regards, Marcin Waslowicz (sorry for my English :P ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130520/07e38164/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Mon May 20 22:24:07 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 22:24:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Director! - I haven't seen the alert! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007c01ce5597$fbf42ff0$f3dc8fd0$@online.no> Quote from your post: North didn't see the alert for 1H because he was busy reading the print-outs from the previous round ("how could I have such a minus in the butler here?") but without doubt the alert was there and it was clear (South instantly did admit that) but silent. Nobody noticed that North could have missed the alert. If this is confirmed as a fact I would rule against North on a trivial violation of Law 74B1: As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: 1. paying insufficient attention to the game. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Marcin Waslowicz Sendt: 20. mai 2013 21:30 Til: blml at rtflb.org Emne: [BLML] Director! - I haven't seen the alert! It's my first post here so I'd like to say hello to everyone. :) I was a tournament director of an international teams tournament (a relatively small one, mostly for invited friends) and I was called by a player after the board was played. The player (North) did not see an alert during the bidding therefore he misunderstood his partners' call which ended up as total disaster. Before the first board (this was the 5th) EW: - informed NS about their openings - informed NS about transfers after 1C - asked if they mind "knocking" alerts instead of taking ALERT from a bidding-box NS did agree for the knocking as an alert procedure for the round (they actually knocked themselves). Long after the incident I've found out that S didn't pay attention to the talking before the round and didn't remember a thing from that listed above. On the other hand, N did confirm everything and he was aware of the conventions used by EW. The bidding was: _N__E__S__W pas pas pas 1C* pas 1H* 1S* pas 3S x 4C x pas pas pas There were no screens. 1C - alerted by knocking the table, 11+ HCP, 2+ clubs 1H - alerted by knocking the table, transfer to spades (7+ HCP, 4+ spades) 1S - NOT alerted, take-out (showing other suits) You can find complete board here: http://jaom.pl/wyniki/2013/trophy/forest13b-9.html North had: K 9 8 6 2 8 6 Q 6 4 K J 6 North didn't see the alert for 1H because he was busy reading the print-outs from the previous round ("how could I have such a minus in the butler here?") but without doubt the alert was there and it was clear (South instantly did admit that) but silent. Nobody noticed that North could have missed the alert. North have heard that the alerting one should make sure that the alert has been seen by both the opponents and West did not so. West argues that it's not his fault that North fell asleep - should he next time shake him and scream "DID YOU SEE THE ALERT?!" My first impression was that: - West failed to alert in the proper way (by "proper" I mean "making sure that both the opponents are aware of it") - North violated law 74 and did not paid sufficient attention to the game On the second thought - is there really a rule that you have to make sure that the alert have been seen? Every one knows that (I'm pretty sure I even read it once or twice) but no-one could point it for me. I couldn't find it in Laws of Duplimate Bridge, thus it is possible that this rule does not apply for this tournament. Anyway, I've thought about 4 options: 1. Violation of alerting procedure leads to the damage for the non offending side - ADJUSTED SCORE. 2. Falling asleep (or reading history from previous round) is not a proper behaviour and the damage was done because of this fact - RESULT STANDS 3. Both sides are offending - SPLIT SCORE (bad score for both pairs). What would you do as a tournament director having whole night to decide? Best regards, Marcin Waslowicz (sorry for my English :P ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130520/1985275c/attachment.html From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Mon May 20 23:01:37 2013 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:01:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Declarer withdrows the card dummy played instead of him, opponent discards at same time. Message-ID: <519A8F31.5000001@cs.elte.hu> S/EW ..........................532 ..........................T ..........................86542 ..........................T742 KQ....................................................AJ94 98642....................................................3 AKQT....................................................J3 J6....................................................AK9853 ..........................T876 ..........................AKQJ75 ..........................97 ..........................Q West North East South ..........................1H 1N pass 2S* 3H pass pass 3N DBL 4C pass 5C/// 2 spades: club suit (nothing about spades) 1. HT, 3, J, 2 2. D9, A, 2, 3 3. CJ, 2, 3, Q 4. D7, K, 4, J 5. C6, 4, A, This moment, before the declarer could choose any card, dummy plays the A of Clubs. B, The declarer remarks, he haven't named a card yet C, South discard the 7 of hearts B and C event are at the same moment. West hadn't seen South's discard, when he protested. South hadn't detected the declarer's protest before she discarded. TD was at the table, so there were no argument about the facts. How do you decide as TD? From svenpran at online.no Tue May 21 00:15:52 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:15:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Declarer withdrows the card dummy played instead of him, opponent discards at same time. In-Reply-To: <519A8F31.5000001@cs.elte.hu> References: <519A8F31.5000001@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <009201ce55a7$979a8a30$c6cf9e90$@online.no> > Laszlo Hegedus > Sendt: 20. mai 2013 23:02 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: [BLML] Declarer withdrows the card dummy played instead of him, > opponent discards at same time. > > S/EW > ..........................532 > ..........................T > ..........................86542 > ..........................T742 > KQ....................................................AJ94 > 98642....................................................3 > AKQT....................................................J3 > J6....................................................AK9853 > ..........................T876 > ..........................AKQJ75 > ..........................97 > ..........................Q > > West North East South > ..........................1H > 1N pass 2S* 3H > pass pass 3N DBL > 4C pass 5C/// > > 2 spades: club suit (nothing about spades) > > 1. HT, 3, J, 2 > 2. D9, A, 2, 3 > 3. CJ, 2, 3, Q > 4. D7, K, 4, J > 5. C6, 4, > > A, This moment, before the declarer could choose any card, dummy plays > the A of Clubs. > B, The declarer remarks, he haven't named a card yet C, South discard the 7 > of hearts > > B and C event are at the same moment. West hadn't seen South's discard, > when he protested. South hadn't detected the declarer's protest before she > discarded. TD was at the table, so there were no argument about the facts. > > How do you decide as TD? [Sven Pran] A similar situation was one of the authorization tests for Norwegian TD candidates many years ago (I don't know if we still use it): The applicable laws are 45D and 16D: The Ace of Clubs must be withdrawn etc. However East now has the UI that South has no more clubs, and Law 16D (which is explicitly invoked from Law 45D) forbids West from choosing any logical alternative that could be suggested by this information. Consequently I will allow West to play either the Ace or the King, but not any smaller Club from dummy to this trick. From gampas at aol.com Tue May 21 14:38:55 2013 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:38:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Director! - I haven't seen the alert! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <519B6ADF.90709@aol.com> [Marcin Was?owicz] Anyway, I've thought about 4 options: 1. Violation of alerting procedure leads to the damage for the non offending side - ADJUSTED SCORE. 2. Falling asleep (or reading history from previous round) is not a proper behaviour and the damage was done because of this fact - RESULT STANDS 3. Both sides are offending - SPLIT SCORE (bad score for both pairs). [Paul Lamford] LAW 21: CALL BASED ON MISINFORMATION A. Call Based on Caller?s Misunderstanding No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding. That seems to cover it. Tough luck! From svenpran at online.no Tue May 21 15:17:22 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 15:17:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Director! - I haven't seen the alert! In-Reply-To: <519B6ADF.90709@aol.com> References: <519B6ADF.90709@aol.com> Message-ID: <003101ce5625$8786a510$9693ef30$@online.no> PL > [Marcin Was?owicz] > Anyway, I've thought about 4 options: > 1. Violation of alerting procedure leads to the damage for the non offending > side - ADJUSTED SCORE. > 2. Falling asleep (or reading history from previous round) is not a proper > behaviour and the damage was done because of this fact - RESULT STANDS 3. > Both sides are offending - SPLIT SCORE (bad score for both pairs). > > [Paul Lamford] > LAW 21: CALL BASED ON MISINFORMATION > A. Call Based on Caller?s Misunderstanding No rectification or redress is due > to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding. > > That seems to cover it. Tough luck! [Sven Pran] Not noticing an alert is not a misunderstanding. The caller didn't misunderstand anything, but he didn't pay sufficient attention to the game. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 22 12:45:33 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 12:45:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sans Voir In-Reply-To: <9B6910BE4ADA4AB2B5F0D3CEDAF72C75@G3> References: <20130515151904.16599A8C858@mailhub.irvine.com><5193AB2E.8000707@skynet.be> <5193AEB7.4040101@nhcc.net><7EE03182F97A4595B246C2E04B490452@G3> <8D0211F7EE9DC71-22C4-29147@webmail-m149.sysops.aol.com><51964C9D.9080104@skynet.be> <8D021FD9CB74A5A-D80-3CFC3@webmail-va002.sysops.aol.com> <9B6910BE4ADA4AB2B5F0D3CEDAF72C75@G3> Message-ID: <519CA1CD.5020008@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/05/2013 20:33, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > {Nige1] > I agree with Paul that a simple rule is best. Preferably a rule that we can > understand and follow. There was a recent case where a pair of world-class > Italians reached a slam after many rounds of bidding. Unfortunately, it was > the wrong slam because responder misread his partner's opening bid (in full > view throughout the long auction). Although the auction is authorised > information, other unauthorised information can sometimes wake you up to > what is really happening. Also, as Paul and others have pointed out, the > Rubens rule that information from alerts and explanations is authorised to > all could simplify rulings -- and save the law-abiding from again being > penalised. > > AG : I agree, but on another basis. Any rule which is impossible to enforce is wrong. Here, it would be impossible to distinguish between "partner's explanation has awakened him" (use of what some will call UI) and "he realized in-between and then got information which, even if it's UI, matches AI", in which case one may use it. Both scenarios are plausible. A look at the table would be enough. And it happened to me more than once. Contrast with a player having made the wrong system call from bad memory only, where the second scenario is improbable. Best regards, Alain From marcin.waslowicz at gmail.com Wed May 22 19:50:02 2013 From: marcin.waslowicz at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Marcin_Was=B3owicz?=) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 19:50:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Director! - I haven't seen the alert! In-Reply-To: <003101ce5625$8786a510$9693ef30$@online.no> References: <519B6ADF.90709@aol.com> <003101ce5625$8786a510$9693ef30$@online.no> Message-ID: Once could have argued that: * the players need to look at the print-out in their free time (in case of any errors) * W can't take advantage of violating rules (not making sure opponents have seen the alert) i wonder - which one is the proper way of alerting: a) making sure that both opponents have seen the alert b) making the alert clear enough to be seen by both the players (even if they're not paying attention) The first one is bad because such a case might happen. The second one is because if a players gets coffee served (or anything distracting and not being his fault) or simply drops a pen on a floor - he might miss the alert. Naturally it's a rare case and the approach "director decides" is sufficient but it would be nice to have a consistent ruling. Pozdrawiam, Marcin Was?owicz 2013/5/21 Sven Pran > PL > > [Marcin Was?owicz] > > Anyway, I've thought about 4 options: > > 1. Violation of alerting procedure leads to the damage for the non > offending > > side - ADJUSTED SCORE. > > 2. Falling asleep (or reading history from previous round) is not a > proper > > behaviour and the damage was done because of this fact - RESULT STANDS 3. > > Both sides are offending - SPLIT SCORE (bad score for both pairs). > > > > [Paul Lamford] > > LAW 21: CALL BASED ON MISINFORMATION > > A. Call Based on Caller?s Misunderstanding No rectification or redress > is due > > to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding. > > > > That seems to cover it. Tough luck! > > [Sven Pran] > Not noticing an alert is not a misunderstanding. > The caller didn't misunderstand anything, but he didn't pay sufficient > attention to the game. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20130522/ec852820/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Wed May 22 20:16:28 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 19:16:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Director! - I haven't seen the alert! In-Reply-To: References: <519B6ADF.90709@aol.com> <003101ce5625$8786a510$9693ef30$@online.no> Message-ID: <765E41EAC4C644FB9BF79E8905E3D941@G3> Some players - insist they?ve alerted after failing to alert properly. - claim not to have seen a proper alert. There should be clear bidding-box rules (in the law-book, not buried in local regulations) e.g. - You alert partner?s call by placing the alert card in front of RHO (on top of his bidding cards if any). He returns it to you before he calls. - Similarly before a stop bid, you place the stop card in front of LHO (on top of his bidding cards if any). After making your stop-bid, you wait ten seconds, then remove the card, allowing LHO to call. Such simple rules would mitigate current problems. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130522/a54848ad/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Wed May 22 21:51:28 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 21:51:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Director! - I haven't seen the alert! In-Reply-To: <765E41EAC4C644FB9BF79E8905E3D941@G3> References: <519B6ADF.90709@aol.com> <003101ce5625$8786a510$9693ef30$@online.no> <765E41EAC4C644FB9BF79E8905E3D941@G3> Message-ID: <007801ce5725$c00320c0$40096240$@xs4all.nl> These rules already exist. Players just don?t do it. The world is less simple than you would like. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie Sent: woensdag 22 mei 2013 20:16 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Director! - I haven't seen the alert! Some players - insist they?ve alerted after failing to alert properly. - claim not to have seen a proper alert. There should be clear bidding-box rules (in the law-book, not buried in local regulations) e.g. - You alert partner?s call by placing the alert card in front of RHO (on top of his bidding cards if any). He returns it to you before he calls. - Similarly before a stop bid, you place the stop card in front of LHO (on top of his bidding cards if any). After making your stop-bid, you wait ten seconds, then remove the card, allowing LHO to call. Such simple rules would mitigate current problems. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130522/f7ecb4bb/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu May 23 00:26:36 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 23:26:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Director! - I haven't seen the alert! In-Reply-To: <007801ce5725$c00320c0$40096240$@xs4all.nl> References: <519B6ADF.90709@aol.com> <003101ce5625$8786a510$9693ef30$@online.no> <765E41EAC4C644FB9BF79E8905E3D941@G3> <007801ce5725$c00320c0$40096240$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: [Nige1] There should be clear bidding-box rules (in the law-book, not buried in local regulations) e.g. - You alert partner?s call by placing the alert card in front of RHO (on top of his bidding cards if any). He returns it to you before he calls. - Similarly before a stop bid, you place the stop card in front of LHO (on top of his bidding cards if any). After making your stop-bid, you wait ten seconds, then remove the card, allowing LHO to call. [Hans van Staveren] These rules already exist. [Nige2] Which RA has implemented these rules? I'm surprized and pleased :) Presumably, the offending law-maker is back in room 101, for a refresher course in doublethink :( From du.breuil.laval at gmail.com Thu May 23 04:49:33 2013 From: du.breuil.laval at gmail.com (Laval Du Breuil) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 22:49:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Material on Movements Message-ID: Hi all, Ten of you asked for and already received files (WinWord and PowerPoint or OpenOffice) containing description and maps of pair movements (French or English version). Useful to learn, choose and use movements, these files can be set to your needs and use freely. If I forgot you, just send me a private email. Nobody asked for my other files, set to print table maps for Howell and individual movements. I have only a French version, but you can easily translate to your language. Laval Du Breuil From dianrick at hotmail.com Thu May 23 05:37:23 2013 From: dianrick at hotmail.com (dianrick at hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 13:37:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Material on Movements Message-ID: Hi Laval I would be interested in the Howell tables Many Thanks Rick --- Original Message --- From: "Laval Du Breuil" Sent: 23 May 2013 12:51 PM To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Material on Movements Hi all, Ten of you asked for and already received files (WinWord and PowerPoint or OpenOffice) containing description and maps of pair movements (French or English version). Useful to learn, choose and use movements, these files can be set to your needs and use freely. If I forgot you, just send me a private email. Nobody asked for my other files, set to print table maps for Howell and individual movements. I have only a French version, but you can easily translate to your language. Laval Du Breuil _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 24 02:27:13 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:27:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] explaining one's own bid as a good strategy Message-ID: EW wanted an explanation of South's 3C bid. I decided that (1) it was unlikely a partnership would talk about the meaning of the bid, and (2) it could/should be figured out using bridge knowledge. Since EW was a good pair, I denied their request. However, that all hinged on the meaning of North's double. West figured this out and asked the meaning of that bid. South started to say something like "take out" but was interrupted by North saying "It was penalty". Standard American is penalty, so now EW were receiving the correct partnership explanation. However, what they needed to know was how South interpreted the double. Which of course they are not entitled to. I think they got enough from South's short truncated explanation to figure it out. I am guessing it is not legal for North to explain her own bid until South shows some evidence that he will give the wrong explanation. Otherwise, all of the rules against this will apply. The auction: 1D X XX P P 2C P P X P 3C P 3NT From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 24 03:24:46 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 01:24:46 +0000 Subject: [BLML] explaining one's own bid usually illegal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9529C7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >The auction: > >NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH.....WEST >1D........X.........XX........Pass >Pass......2C........Pass......Pass >X.........Pass......3C........Pass >3NT > >EW wanted an explanation of South's 3C bid. Insufficient information. If the request was during the auction, then applicable is WBF Laws Committee, 1st September 1998, item 14: " ... it is to be avoided absolutely that a player should be allowed to verify from player A (who made the bid) whether the explanation of his partner B was correct ... " If, however, 3NT was passed out, and the requested explanation was made by the defenders before the opening lead, then applicable are two Laws, Law 20F5 and Law 75C (second sentence): "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." >I decided that (1) it was unlikely a partnership would talk about >the meaning of the bid, and (2) it could/should be figured out >using bridge knowledge. Since EW was a good pair, I denied their >request. Law 20F1, second sentence: "He is ++entitled++ to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding." Whether or not East-West are a good pair, their ++entitlement++ to a North-South explanation of their explicit and/or implicit partnership understandings ++must not++ be denied by the Director. >However, that all hinged on the meaning of North's double. West >figured this out and asked the meaning of that bid. South started to >say something like "take out" but was interrupted by North saying "It >was penalty". Standard American is penalty, so now EW were receiving >the correct partnership explanation. Balderdash! North's name was not "Standard", neither was South's name "American". It is entirely possible that both North and also South had failed to read the relevant chapter of Standard American for American Standard Non-Experts, hence the correct partnership explanation for North's double was, "neither an explicit nor an implicit mutual pre- existing partnership understanding". >However, what they needed to know was how South interpreted the >double. Which of course they are not entitled to. Correct. >I am guessing it is not legal for North to explain her own bid until >South shows some evidence that he will give the wrong explanation. Yes and No. During the Law 20F5 correction period both North and South have an ++obligation++ to correct any misexplanation of the agreed pre-existing North-South explicit or implicit methods. But during the auction ++only one++ explanation is permitted. If in this case South was quizzed during the auction about North's double and said "takeout", then North's over-riding answer during the auction of "penalty" was a blatant infraction of Law 20F5. Law 20F1, third sentence: "Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question." Only if South said something like, "I know we have an agreement, but I have temporarily forgotten the details," does the third sentence of Law 20F1 apply. 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/20130524/910c9358/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 24 04:03:45 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 22:03:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] explaining one's own bid usually illegal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9529C7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9529C7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:24:46 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > >> The auction: >> >> NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH.....WEST >> 1D........X.........XX........Pass >> Pass......2C........Pass......Pass >> X.........Pass......3C........Pass >> 3NT >> >> EW wanted an explanation of South's 3C bid. > > Insufficient information. If the request was during the auction, > then applicable is > > WBF Laws Committee, 1st September 1998, item 14: > > " ... it is to be avoided absolutely that a player should be allowed > to verify from player A (who made the bid) whether the explanation > of his partner B was correct ... " > > If, however, 3NT was passed out, and the requested explanation was > made by the defenders before the opening lead, then applicable are > two Laws, Law 20F5 and Law 75C (second sentence): > > "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an > accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no > claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." > >> I decided that (1) it was unlikely a partnership would talk about >> the meaning of the bid, and (2) it could/should be figured out >> using bridge knowledge. Since EW was a good pair, I denied their >> request. > > Law 20F1, second sentence: > > "He is ++entitled++ to know about calls actually made, about > relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about > relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters > of partnership understanding." > > Whether or not East-West are a good pair, their ++entitlement++ to a > North-South explanation of their explicit and/or implicit partnership > understandings ++must not++ be denied by the Director. >> However, that all hinged on the meaning of North's double. West >> figured this out and asked the meaning of that bid. South started to >> say something like "take out" but was interrupted by North saying "It >> was penalty". Standard American is penalty, so now EW were receiving >> the correct partnership explanation. > > Balderdash! North's name was not "Standard", neither was South's name > "American". It is entirely possible that both North and also South had > failed to read the relevant chapter of Standard American for American > Standard Non-Experts, hence the correct partnership explanation for > North's double was, "neither an explicit nor an implicit mutual pre- > existing partnership understanding". That sounds remarkably similar to "I'm not telling you anything." Here in ACBL-land, I think we are not supposed to pay attention to the exact details of how someone says something. So, EW were asking, North wsn't telling, and I don't think the precise language really makes a difference. > >> However, what they needed to know was how South interpreted the >> double. Which of course they are not entitled to. > > Correct. > >> I am guessing it is not legal for North to explain her own bid until >> South shows some evidence that he will give the wrong explanation. > > Yes and No. During the Law 20F5 correction period both North and > South have an ++obligation++ to correct any misexplanation of the > agreed pre-existing North-South explicit or implicit methods. But > during the auction ++only one++ explanation is permitted. > > If in this case South was quizzed during the auction about North's > double and said "takeout", then North's over-riding answer during the > auction of "penalty" was a blatant infraction of Law 20F5. > > Law 20F1, third sentence: > > "Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be > given by the partner of the player who made the call in question." Right, but the obligation to give the opponents the correct explanation has precedence over everything. This occurred after the auction was over. > > Only if South said something like, "I know we have an agreement, but I > have temporarily forgotten the details," does the third sentence of Law > 20F1 apply. > > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 24 06:00:35 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 04:00:35 +0000 Subject: [BLML] explaining one's own bid usually illegal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F952A0C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: >>...... >>Balderdash! North's name was not "Standard", neither was South's name >>"American". It is entirely possible that both North and also South had >>failed to read the relevant chapter of Standard American for American >>Standard Non-Experts, hence the correct partnership explanation for >>North's double was, "neither an explicit nor an implicit mutual pre- >>existing partnership understanding". >That sounds remarkably similar to "I'm not telling you anything." >..... Richard Hills: No, that sounds remarkably similar to "Undiscussed". Two points here: (1) Grattan Endicott has observed that the explanation "Undiscussed", popular in Australia and America, is loose language because it does not directly address the possibility of a notionally undiscussed yet implicit partnership understanding (for example, a notionally undiscussed yet implicit partnership understanding that a 5S response to Blackwood implicitly promises three aces). (2) Standard American is NOT a single monolithic system, but rather a vast variety of vaguely similar systems. The Director's system preferences do not preclude North-South from mutually adopting* different, perhaps illogical, system preferences. The Director should rule according to Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts), not arbitrarily rule according to what she thinks is right and proper in her version of Standard American. * or carelessly failing to neither explicitly discuss nor implicitly know What's the problem? The problem is, as Talleyrand said of the Bourbon dynasty when they returned from exile, "They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing." 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/20130524/65edbdd8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 24 07:41:04 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 05:41:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F952AC5@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >..... >I know of no single alert system in the world that tells one to alert against >one kind of opponent and not against another one. >..... ABF Alert Regulation, Introduction, fifth sentence: "The purpose of an alert is to draw the opponents' attention to any call that has a special meaning, or a meaning the ++opponents may not expect++." Richard Hills: Expert opponents are a little bit more expecting than non-expert opponents. What's the problem? The problem is -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unexpected_hanging 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/20130524/62600ac9/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 27 01:23:57 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 23:23:57 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Insufficient Blackwood [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F952C4C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >Imps >Dlr: East >Vul: North-South > >East-West play old-fashioned Acol >(lacking an immediate way to show a >strong game-force raise of 1S). > >The bidding has gone: > >SOUTH.....WEST......NORTH.....EAST >---.......---.......---.......1S >Pass......2C (1)....3H........3D(2) >3H........4NT(1)....Pass......5D(3) >Pass......5S (1)....Pass......? > >(1) Break in tempo. >(2) Director summoned. >(3) One ace (old-fashioned Blackwood). > >You, East, hold: > >KJ854 >--- >AQJ943 >K2 > >What call do you make? Richard Hills: My thoughts if I was walking in East's shoes: (a) Once my 3D undercall has been accepted by South it is treated as legal. Hence it is AI to me that West might believe that I have a minimum values opening bid with merely five spades and four pathetic diamonds, when I actually hold six strong diamonds, and (b) Also AI that I have an undisclosed void which will often be useful (but my heart void may duplicate pard's ace of hearts), so (c) For me passing 5S is not a logical alternative, furthermore (d) If I am going to force to slam, then I might as well cuebid 6H en route in case that inspires pard to bid a cold 7S. At the table 7S was cold. But at the table a Pass of 5S was a logical alternative, since that was the call that the actual East chose. WBF Laws Committee, 8th October 2010, item 3: "There was a discussion of the definition of a 'logical alternative'. It was agreed that the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1. An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances." 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/20130526/001597cf/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon May 27 04:06:16 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 22:06:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? Message-ID: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> Law 58B2: If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). Is the player allowed to choose his card (if both are legal plays), or must he play the originally intended card? Example: South leads a diamond, and West plays both the DJ and D8, with neither play clearly irrational. Should the TD ask West, "Which card did you intend to play?" or should he allow West to choose either card after explaining the consequences? From sater at xs4all.nl Mon May 27 08:06:00 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 08:06:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> Message-ID: <015301ce5aa0$435d7ab0$ca187010$@xs4all.nl> West is allowed to choose, since nothing in the law forbids him from doing so. Rationality does not come into it. In this case, should West choose the DJ, the D8 becomes a *minor* penalty card. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Grabiner Sent: maandag 27 mei 2013 4:06 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? Law 58B2: If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). Is the player allowed to choose his card (if both are legal plays), or must he play the originally intended card? Example: South leads a diamond, and West plays both the DJ and D8, with neither play clearly irrational. Should the TD ask West, "Which card did you intend to play?" or should he allow West to choose either card after explaining the consequences? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon May 27 08:09:47 2013 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 08:09:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> Message-ID: He can choose whichever card he wants after the TD has explained the consequences. This should be pretty clear after reading the law, and quite logical, IMO. 2013/5/27 David Grabiner > Law 58B2: > > If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: > > If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he > proposes to > play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty > card (see > Law 50). > > Is the player allowed to choose his card (if both are legal plays), or > must he > play the originally intended card? > > Example: South leads a diamond, and West plays both the DJ and D8, with > neither > play clearly irrational. Should the TD ask West, "Which card did you > intend to > play?" or should he allow West to choose either card after explaining the > consequences? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130527/27246949/attachment-0001.html From petereidt at t-online.de Mon May 27 08:12:42 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 08:12:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Two_cards_played=3A_must_player_make_originally_?= =?utf-8?q?intended_choice=3F?= In-Reply-To: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> Message-ID: <1Ugqfi-0blkUi0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> Von: "David Grabiner" > Law 58B2: > > If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: > > If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he > proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed > becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). > > Is the player allowed to choose his card (if both are legal plays), or > must he play the originally intended card? > > Example: South leads a diamond, and West plays both the DJ and D8, > with neither play clearly irrational. Should the TD ask West, "Which > card did you intend to play?" or should he allow West to choose either > card after explaining the consequences? Peter: "proposes to play" ... the grammatical form of the verb is present tense. So, the law does not ask for mind-reading of "honesty". The player choses (any) card of those played and the other(s) become (a) penalty card(s), which might be - in the case of a single small card - a minor penalty card (see Law 50 B). From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 27 16:27:36 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 10:27:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <015301ce5aa0$435d7ab0$ca187010$@xs4all.nl> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <015301ce5aa0$435d7ab0$ca187010$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 May 2013 02:06:00 -0400, Hans van Staveren wrote: > West is allowed to choose, since nothing in the law forbids him from > doing > so. > Rationality does not come into it. > > In this case, should West choose the DJ, the D8 becomes a *minor* penalty > card. I would rule differently. If the player intended to play the D8, and then decides instead to play the DJ, then the D8 is a major penalty card. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > David Grabiner > Sent: maandag 27 mei 2013 4:06 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended > choice? > > Law 58B2: > > If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: > > If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he > proposes > to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty > card (see Law 50). > > Is the player allowed to choose his card (if both are legal plays), or > must > he play the originally intended card? > > Example: South leads a diamond, and West plays both the DJ and D8, with > neither play clearly irrational. Should the TD ask West, "Which card did > you intend to play?" or should he allow West to choose either card after > explaining the consequences? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon May 27 16:51:25 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 16:51:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <015301ce5aa0$435d7ab0$ca187010$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <000101ce5ae9$a9cedf70$fd6c9e50$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Mon, 27 May 2013 02:06:00 -0400, Hans van Staveren > wrote: > > > West is allowed to choose, since nothing in the law forbids him from > > doing so. > > Rationality does not come into it. > > > > In this case, should West choose the DJ, the D8 becomes a *minor* > > penalty card. > > I would rule differently. If the player intended to play the D8, and then > decides instead to play the DJ, then the D8 is a major penalty card. [Sven Pran] Sorry to say, but his comment reveals a severe ignorance of the laws. Law 58B2 says: If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). (Notice that the player's original intention is completely irrelevant.) And Law 50B says: A single card below the rank of an honour exposed unintentionally (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. [...] From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 27 16:55:54 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 10:55:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <000101ce5ae9$a9cedf70$fd6c9e50$@online.no> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <015301ce5aa0$435d7ab0$ca187010$@xs4all.nl> <000101ce5ae9$a9cedf70$fd6c9e50$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:51:25 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 02:06:00 -0400, Hans van Staveren >> wrote: >> >> > West is allowed to choose, since nothing in the law forbids him from >> > doing so. >> > Rationality does not come into it. >> > >> > In this case, should West choose the DJ, the D8 becomes a *minor* >> > penalty card. >> >> I would rule differently. If the player intended to play the D8, and >> then >> decides instead to play the DJ, then the D8 is a major penalty card. > > [Sven Pran] > Sorry to say, but his comment reveals a severe ignorance of the laws. > > Law 58B2 says: > If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he > proposes > to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty > card (see Law 50). > (Notice that the player's original intention is completely irrelevant.) > > And Law 50B says: > A single card below the rank of an honour exposed unintentionally (as in > playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) > becomes a > minor penalty card. [...] Okay. My point is that if the player INTENDED to play the 8 of Diamonds, that we cannot under any circumstances say that this card is EXPOSED UNINTENTIONALLY. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon May 27 17:17:17 2013 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (ziffbridge at t-online.de) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:17:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Two_cards_played=3A_must_player_make_originally_?= =?utf-8?q?intended_choice=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1UgzAj-1AHO2i0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> -----Original-Nachricht----- Von: "Robert Frick" An: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Betreff: Re: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? Datum: Mon, 27 May 2013 16:55:54 +0200 Okay. My point is that if the player INTENDED to play the 8 of Diamonds, that we cannot under any circumstances say that this card is EXPOSED UNINTENTIONALLY. Well, he exposed two cards, one presumably intentional (you never know, I once had a player tell me that he exposed two cards, neither one he intended to play....), one not. Since we cannot read minds anyway, why let him lie to us? He has not played a card yet, so he is free to choose which one to play, the law tell us so. The other one is handled by L50. Again, we do not know which card he intended to play. If he is adamant that he intended the 8 he is probably going to play it anyway. If he chooses card A while announcing to the world that he intended to play B, well, we know how to handle UI. Let him try to wriggle out of his difficulties, just make sure there is no advantage to his side. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 27 17:29:12 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:29:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <1UgzAj-1AHO2i0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <1UgzAj-1AHO2i0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:17:17 -0400, ziffbridge at t-online.de wrote: > > > -----Original-Nachricht----- > Von: "Robert Frick" > An: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Betreff: Re: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally > intended choice? > Datum: Mon, 27 May 2013 16:55:54 +0200 > > > Okay. My point is that if the player INTENDED to play the 8 of Diamonds, > that we cannot under any circumstances say that this card is EXPOSED > UNINTENTIONALLY. > > Well, he exposed two cards, one presumably intentional (you never know, > I once had a player tell me that he exposed two cards, neither one he > intended to play....), one not. Since we cannot read minds anyway, why > let him lie to us? He has not played a card yet, so he is free to choose > which one to play, the law tell us so. The other one is handled by L50. > Again, we do not know which card he intended to play. If he is adamant > that he intended the 8 he is probably going to play it anyway. If he > chooses card A while announcing to the world that he intended to play B, > well, we know how to handle UI. > Let him try to wriggle out of his difficulties, just make sure there is > no advantage to his side. > You are agreeing that if he intended to play the 8D, but chooses to play the JD, that it SHOULD be a major penalty card. Your argument seems to be that we ignore the law because we cannot find out the truth except by asking. Most of the people on this list say that all players tell the truth; I seem to be one of the few who rule as if they don't. But in this case, the player has no motivation not to tell the truth. (If blmler's don't know the law, you can trust me that the players don't either.) But you are welcome to rule differently than me. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon May 27 17:40:09 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:40:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <015301ce5aa0$435d7ab0$ca187010$@xs4all.nl> <000101ce5ae9$a9cedf70$fd6c9e50$@online.no> Message-ID: <000601ce5af0$79317ba0$6b9472e0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:51:25 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> I would rule differently. If the player intended to play the D8, and > >> then decides instead to play the DJ, then the D8 is a major penalty > >> card. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Sorry to say, but this comment reveals a severe ignorance of the laws. > > > > Law 58B2 says: > > If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he > > proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed > > becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). > > (Notice that the player's original intention is completely > > irrelevant.) > > > > And Law 50B says: > > A single card below the rank of an honour exposed unintentionally (as > > in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) > > becomes a minor penalty card. [...] > > Okay. My point is that if the player INTENDED to play the 8 of Diamonds, that > we cannot under any circumstances say that this card is EXPOSED > UNINTENTIONALLY. [Sven Pran] You might also pay some attention to Law 58B1 which says: If only one card is visible, that card is played; all other cards are picked up and there is no further rectification (see Law 47F). The player may yell and swear to God that he wanted to play one of the cards that was not visible. That doesn't help him, the only visible card is played (and his remark is of course UI to his partner). (By definition in Law 50B: When two cards are exposed simultaneously by a defender in an act of playing, both cards are considered exposed unintentionally.) From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon May 27 17:50:06 2013 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (ziffbridge at t-online.de) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:50:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Two_cards_played=3A_must_player_make_originally_?= =?utf-8?q?intended_choice=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1UgzgU-0DMWMC0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> -----Original-Nachricht----- Von: "Robert Frick" An: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Betreff: Re: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? Datum: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:29:12 +0200 You are agreeing that if he intended to play the 8D, but chooses to play the JD, that it SHOULD be a major penalty card. No. I can understand why you want to rule that way, but I do not agree. Your argument seems to be that we ignore the law because we cannot find out the truth except by asking. Again, no. We ignore nothing, we do what the law says. Intention doesn`t count for anything here. Defender chooses which card he plays, and we let the laws handle the rest. Most of the people on this list say that all players tell the truth; I seem to be one of the few who rule as if they don't. But in this case, the player has no motivation not to tell the truth. (If blmler's don't know the law, you can trust me that the players don't either.) But you are welcome to rule differently than me. Thank you, I will. So will any qualified EBL director. I can live with that. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 27 17:58:53 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:58:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <000601ce5af0$79317ba0$6b9472e0$@online.no> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <015301ce5aa0$435d7ab0$ca187010$@xs4all.nl> <000101ce5ae9$a9cedf70$fd6c9e50$@online.no> <000601ce5af0$79317ba0$6b9472e0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:40:09 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:51:25 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> Robert Frick >> >> I would rule differently. If the player intended to play the D8, and >> >> then decides instead to play the DJ, then the D8 is a major penalty >> >> card. >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Sorry to say, but this comment reveals a severe ignorance of the laws. >> > >> > Law 58B2 says: >> > If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he >> > proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed >> > becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). >> > (Notice that the player's original intention is completely >> > irrelevant.) >> > >> > And Law 50B says: >> > A single card below the rank of an honour exposed unintentionally (as >> > in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) >> > becomes a minor penalty card. [...] >> >> Okay. My point is that if the player INTENDED to play the 8 of Diamonds, > that >> we cannot under any circumstances say that this card is EXPOSED >> UNINTENTIONALLY. > > [Sven Pran] > You might also pay some attention to Law 58B1 which says: > > If only one card is visible, irrelevant that card is played; all other cards are > picked > up and there is no further rectification (see Law 47F). > > The player may yell and swear to God that he wanted to play one of the > cards > that was not visible. That doesn't help him, the only visible card is > played > (and his remark is of course UI to his partner). > > (By definition in Law 50B: When two cards are exposed simultaneously by a > defender in an act of playing, both cards are considered exposed > unintentionally.) I did not and would not read L50B that way. I read that phrase as applying only to the card accidentally exposed when two cards are played at once. It would take the laws to a new low if a card intentionally played was to be considered accidentally exposed. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon May 27 20:29:33 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 14:29:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> Message-ID: <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> On 2013-05-26 10:06 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > Law 58B2: > > If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: > > If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to > play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see > Law 50). > > Is the player allowed to choose his card (if both are legal plays), or must he > play the originally intended card? We have discussed this before, maybe more than once, and there were two diametrically opposed views. One has been expressed this time: the player gets to choose which card to play, and the other is a penalty card, major or minor according to its rank. The other view, which as I recall most of the British contributors advocated, was that the intended card had to be played. But now I look at the 2010 EBU White Book, it says: "When two cards are both visible the player designates the card he proposes to play. This does not need to be the card he originally intended. If he is a defender the remaining card is a penalty card but it is only a minor penalty card if it is not the card he originally intended, and if it is not an honour." This seems to agree with Robert Frick's position: the player can choose which card to play, but if the intended card is not the one played, it will become a major penalty card regardless of rank. That's not what I remember being advocated, but my memory is notoriously faulty. Maybe the British (and Robert) are better mind readers than the rest of us, but I prefer the view expressed here by Hans and others. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon May 27 22:13:42 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:13:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> Message-ID: POn 27 May 2013, at 19:29, Steve Willner wrote: >> But now I look at the 2010 EBU White Book, it says: > "When two cards are both visible the player designates the card he > proposes to play. This does not need to be the card he originally > intended. If he is a defender the remaining card is a penalty card but > it is only a minor penalty card if it is not the card he originally > intended, and if it is not an honour." > > This seems to agree with Robert Frick's position: the player can choose > which card to play, but if the intended card is not the one played, it > will become a major penalty card regardless of rank. That's not what I > remember being advocated, but my memory is notoriously faulty. > > Maybe the British (and Robert) are better mind readers than the rest of > us, but I prefer the view expressed here by Hans That certainly is the English position, but it's not a matter of preference - just of following the words of the laws. It's hard to see how anyone could have accidentally played the card they intended to play. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon May 27 22:52:52 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 16:52:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <51A3C7A4.3060109@nhcc.net> On 2013-05-27 4:13 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > That certainly is the English position, but it's not a matter of > preference - just of following the words of the laws. The point -- and the problem -- is that reasonable people can read "the words of the laws" in more than one way. > It's hard to see how anyone could have accidentally played the card they intended to play. The key phrase is "exposed unintentionally," which can be read broadly or narrowly, and there is an example supporting but not demanding the broad reading. From blml at arcor.de Tue May 28 07:34:36 2013 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 07:34:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Insufficient Blackwood [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F952C4C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F952C4C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <1143909361.1780641.1369719276568.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Richard HILLS > UNOFFICIAL > >Imps > >Dlr: East > >Vul: North-South > > > >East-West play old-fashioned Acol > >(lacking an immediate way to show a > >strong game-force raise of 1S). > > > >The bidding has gone: > > > >SOUTH.....WEST......NORTH.....EAST > >---.......---.......---.......1S > >Pass......2C (1)....3H........3D(2) > >3H........4NT(1)....Pass......5D(3) > >Pass......5S (1)....Pass......? > > > >(1) Break in tempo. > >(2) Director summoned. > >(3) One ace (old-fashioned Blackwood). > > > >You, East, hold: > > > >KJ854 > >--- > >AQJ943 > >K2 > > > >What call do you make? > > Richard Hills: > > My thoughts if I was walking in East's shoes: > > (a) Once my 3D undercall has been accepted by > South it is treated as legal. Hence it is AI > to me that West might believe that I have a > minimum values opening bid with merely five > spades and four pathetic diamonds, when I > actually hold six strong diamonds, and I disagree with the analysis of the auction. Most likely, East read the auction as follows: SOUTH.....WEST......NORTH.....EAST ---.......---.......---.......1S Pass......2C (1)....2H........3D I think that to anybody at the table it will appear that E wanted to reverse. As the insufficient bid was accepted, West is not limited by UI considerations, and thus baring any partnership agreements that indicate otherwise, as East I'd assume that W interprets E's 3D bid as showing extra strength. Thomas From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue May 28 09:12:53 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:12:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000801ce5b72$c51dffc0$4f59ff40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> The White book gives an interpretation which is not infringing the laws but it is weird imo. The TD asks a player which card he intended to play and then allows him to choose the card he wants to play, so including the not intended card. That looks strange to me. Especially because it contributes to creating UI if the player chooses the not intended card because he doesn't want a major penalty card. So I prefer not to ask but just to explain the consequences of the choice to make. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Steve Willner Verzonden: maandag 27 mei 2013 20:30 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? On 2013-05-26 10:06 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > Law 58B2: > > If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: > > If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he > proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed > becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). > > Is the player allowed to choose his card (if both are legal plays), or > must he play the originally intended card? We have discussed this before, maybe more than once, and there were two diametrically opposed views. One has been expressed this time: the player gets to choose which card to play, and the other is a penalty card, major or minor according to its rank. The other view, which as I recall most of the British contributors advocated, was that the intended card had to be played. But now I look at the 2010 EBU White Book, it says: "When two cards are both visible the player designates the card he proposes to play. This does not need to be the card he originally intended. If he is a defender the remaining card is a penalty card but it is only a minor penalty card if it is not the card he originally intended, and if it is not an honour." This seems to agree with Robert Frick's position: the player can choose which card to play, but if the intended card is not the one played, it will become a major penalty card regardless of rank. That's not what I remember being advocated, but my memory is notoriously faulty. Maybe the British (and Robert) are better mind readers than the rest of us, but I prefer the view expressed here by Hans and others. _______________________________________________ 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: 2013.0.3343 / Virusdatabase: 3184/6359 - datum van uitgifte: 05/26/13 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 28 14:46:02 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:46:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: References: <1UgzAj-1AHO2i0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <101F4C9A-A8AF-4605-9033-855FA1474B8E@starpower.net> On May 27, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:17:17 -0400, ziffbridge at t-online.de > wrote: > >> -----Original-Nachricht----- >> Von: "Robert Frick" >> >> Okay. My point is that if the player INTENDED to play the 8 of Diamonds, >> that we cannot under any circumstances say that this card is EXPOSED >> UNINTENTIONALLY. >> >> Well, he exposed two cards, one presumably intentional (you never know, >> I once had a player tell me that he exposed two cards, neither one he >> intended to play....), one not. Since we cannot read minds anyway, why >> let him lie to us? He has not played a card yet, so he is free to choose >> which one to play, the law tell us so. The other one is handled by L50. >> Again, we do not know which card he intended to play. If he is adamant >> that he intended the 8 he is probably going to play it anyway. If he >> chooses card A while announcing to the world that he intended to play B, >> well, we know how to handle UI. >> Let him try to wriggle out of his difficulties, just make sure there is >> no advantage to his side. > > You are agreeing that if he intended to play the 8D, but chooses to play > the JD, that it SHOULD be a major penalty card. > > Your argument seems to be that we ignore the law because we cannot find > out the truth except by asking. Most of the people on this list say that > all players tell the truth; I seem to be one of the few who rule as if > they don't. But in this case, the player has no motivation not to tell the > truth. (If blmler's don't know the law, you can trust me that the players > don't either.) L58C says that "the player designates the card he proposes to play". That is in the present tense. If the authors of the law intended so, they could have just as easily written, "the player designates the card he originally intended to play," but they didn't. Indeed, L58 makes no mention of intent; it is written so as to apply to any two cards played simultaneously, whether or not one of them was "originally intended". Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue May 28 22:07:27 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 21:07:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <000801ce5b72$c51dffc0$4f59ff40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> <000801ce5b72$c51dffc0$4f59ff40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <51A50E7F.3040208@btinternet.com> On 28/05/2013 08:12, ton wrote: > The White book gives an interpretation which is not infringing the laws but > it is weird imo. > > The TD asks a player which card he intended to play and then allows him to > choose the card he wants to play, so including the not intended card. That > looks strange to me. Especially because it contributes to creating UI if the > player chooses the not intended card because he doesn't want a major penalty > card. How could that be, when choosing the unintended card would always create a major penalty card? In practice the player will very often have already indicated which was the intended card by the time the director arrives at the table, but if not it's always possible to take the player away and find out before offering the choice. I think it would be rare for a player to choose to play the accidentally dropped card, though I suppose someone whose ace fell on the table when they were trying to underlead it, might do so. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue May 28 22:14:15 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 21:14:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <51A3C7A4.3060109@nhcc.net> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> <51A3C7A4.3060109@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <51A51017.7010809@btinternet.com> On 27/05/2013 21:52, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2013-05-27 4:13 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> That certainly is the English position, but it's not a matter of >> preference - just of following the words of the laws. > The point -- and the problem -- is that reasonable people can read "the > words of the laws" in more than one way. > >> It's hard to see how anyone could have accidentally played the card they intended to play. > The key phrase is "exposed unintentionally," which can be read broadly > or narrowly, and there is an example supporting but not demanding the > broad reading. Another key word in L50b is "deliberate", as in "Any card of honour rank, or any card exposed through deliberate play (for example in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card;" I find it hard to see how one could deem that the play of the card that was intended to be played could not be deliberate. The revoke example seems relevant, since in both cases a card has been led deliberately and then replaced (for different reasons) with another. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed May 29 02:41:49 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:41:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <000801ce5b72$c51dffc0$4f59ff40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> <000801ce5b72$c51dffc0$4f59ff40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 May 2013 03:12:53 -0400, ton wrote: > The White book gives an interpretation which is not infringing the laws > but > it is weird imo. > > The TD asks a player which card he intended to play and then allows him > to > choose the card he wants to play, so including the not intended card. > That > looks strange to me. Especially because it contributes to creating UI if > the > player chooses the not intended card because he doesn't want a major > penalty > card. > > So I prefer not to ask but just to explain the consequences of the > choice to > make. good point, but..... Assuming you agree that an unchosen intended card is a major penalty card.... 1. If you explain the options, the player now has the information needed to tell an intelligent lie when they want to play the unintended card. 2. Often, the players will usually be able to figure it out anyway. The player decides to play his ace of spades. You deem the 8 of diamonds a major penalty card. We can figure out that the player intended to play the 8 of diamonds. If he plays the 8 of diamonds, we can figure out that was the intended card. > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Steve > Willner > Verzonden: maandag 27 mei 2013 20:30 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally > intended > choice? > > On 2013-05-26 10:06 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >> Law 58B2: >> >> If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: >> >> If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he >> proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed >> becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). >> >> Is the player allowed to choose his card (if both are legal plays), or >> must he play the originally intended card? > > We have discussed this before, maybe more than once, and there were two > diametrically opposed views. One has been expressed this time: the > player > gets to choose which card to play, and the other is a penalty card, > major or > minor according to its rank. The other view, which as I recall most of > the > British contributors advocated, was that the intended card had to be > played. > But now I look at the 2010 EBU White Book, it says: > "When two cards are both visible the player designates the card he > proposes > to play. This does not need to be the card he originally intended. If > he is > a defender the remaining card is a penalty card but it is only a minor > penalty card if it is not the card he originally intended, and if it is > not > an honour." > > This seems to agree with Robert Frick's position: the player can choose > which card to play, but if the intended card is not the one played, it > will > become a major penalty card regardless of rank. That's not what I > remember > being advocated, but my memory is notoriously faulty. > > Maybe the British (and Robert) are better mind readers than the rest of > us, > but I prefer the view expressed here by Hans and others. > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2013.0.3343 / Virusdatabase: 3184/6359 - datum van uitgifte: > 05/26/13 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed May 29 02:54:02 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:54:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [2017]agreement Message-ID: Today, declarer said "making 4", East (defender) said "making 3, we won the last trick", and Declarer agreed. Then declarer, dummy, and that defender all put away their cards. Was that legal? Relevance: The other defender now said "I have making 2." "A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won..." Is agreement with one defender enough? The law is ambiguous. There are advantages to the ambiguity. There are other factors going on here. If East had said "Fine by me", I am not sure if I would count that as agreement. In my example, the defender actively participated in making the agreement. Why it was relevant: Of course, at an expert level you just go over the hand. I judged it unlikely that declarer or dummy would remember the hand and I was not confident in the defender. When the defender started verbally abusing declarer, it seemed like a bad idea to go through the hand. (I once tried to go through the hand with a defender who did not remember it and an overly intense declarer. The defender interrupted our tortuous replay to quit bridge.) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed May 29 03:24:38 2013 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 02:24:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <51A50E7F.3040208@btinternet.com> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> <000801ce5b72$c51dffc0$4f59ff40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51A50E7F.3040208@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <1369790678.66649.YahooMailNeo@web87703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Gordon wrote: >________________________________ > >In practice the player will very often have already indicated which was >the intended card by the time the director arrives at the table, but if >not it's always possible to take the player away and find out before >offering the choice. I think it would be rare for a player to choose to >play the accidentally dropped card, though I suppose someone whose ace >fell on the table when they were trying to underlead it, might do so. > >Law58B2 states that the player designates the card he "proposes to play", not the card he "proposed to play"? when he first reached for a card. So it seems to me that the legality of choosing either card is quite deliberate. Cheers Stefanie Rohan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130529/eb900049/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed May 29 09:56:51 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 08:56:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <1369790678.66649.YahooMailNeo@web87703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> <000801ce5b72$c51dffc0$4f59ff40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51A50E7F.3040208@btinternet.com> <1369790678.66649.YahooMailNeo@web87703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <51A5B4C3.7010802@btinternet.com> We're not concerned with whether the choice of card he proposes to play is deliberate. We're concerned, for the purposes of determining whether the not chosen card is a major or minor penalty card, whether the card was originally played deliberately. Gordon Rainsford On 29/05/2013 02:24, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > Gordon wrote: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > In practice the player will very often have already indicated > which was > the intended card by the time the director arrives at the table, > but if > not it's always possible to take the player away and find out before > offering the choice. I think it would be rare for a player to > choose to > play the accidentally dropped card, though I suppose someone whose > ace > fell on the table when they were trying to underlead it, might do so. > > Law58B2 states that the player designates the card he "proposes to > play", not the card he "proposed to play" when he first reached for a > card. So it seems to me that the legality of choosing either card is > quite deliberate. > > Cheers > > Stefanie Rohan > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20130529/ec750ff5/attachment.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed May 29 10:27:02 2013 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:27:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <51A5B4C3.7010802@btinternet.com> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> <000801ce5b72$c51dffc0$4f59ff40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51A50E7F.3040208@btinternet.com> <1369790678.66649.YahooMailNeo@web87703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51A5B4C3.7010802@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <1369816022.98118.YahooMailNeo@web87705.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Well, I am coming late to the discussion, so this has probably been said before (though if it has I can't imagine any further discussion...) ? Since the Law is clear on the matter of the player's choosing after the cards have both hit the table, the status of the penalty card depends only on its rank.? The choice he had made before pulling out two cards is irrelevant. ? Stefanie Rohan ? ? >________________________________ >From: Gordon Rainsford >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 8:56 >Subject: Re: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? > > > >We're not concerned with whether the choice of card he proposes to play is deliberate. We're concerned, for the purposes of determining whether the not chosen card is a major or minor penalty card, whether the card was originally played deliberately. > >Gordon Rainsford > > >On 29/05/2013 02:24, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > >>Gordon wrote: >> >> >> >>>________________________________ >>> >>>In practice the player will very often have already indicated which was >>>the intended card by the time the director arrives at the table, but if >>>not it's always possible to take the player away and find out before >>>offering the choice. I think it would be rare for a player to choose to >>>play the accidentally dropped card, though I suppose someone whose ace >>>fell on the table when they were trying to underlead it, might do so. >>> >>>Law58B2 states that the player designates the card he "proposes to play", not the card he "proposed to play"? when he first reached for a card. So it seems to me that the legality of choosing either card is quite deliberate. >> >> >>Cheers >> >> >>Stefanie Rohan >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130529/ff554e32/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed May 29 10:39:14 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:39:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <1369816022.98118.YahooMailNeo@web87705.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> <000801ce5b72$c51dffc0$4f59ff40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <51A50E7F.3040208@btinternet.com> <1369790678.66649.YahooMailNeo@web87703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51A5B4C3.7010802@btinternet.com> <1369816022.98118.YahooMailNeo@web87705.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <51A5BEB2.7060608@btinternet.com> May I suggest you go back and read the earlier posts in this thread, and perhaps look in the White Book? Gordon Rainsford On 29/05/2013 09:27, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Well, I am coming late to the discussion, so this has probably been > said before (though if it has I can't imagine any further discussion...) > Since the Law is clear on the matter of the player's choosing after > the cards have both hit the table, the status of the penalty card > depends only on its rank. The choice he had made before pulling out > two cards is irrelevant. > Stefanie Rohan > > *From:* Gordon Rainsford > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Sent:* Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 8:56 > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make > originally intended choice? > > We're not concerned with whether the choice of card he proposes to > play is deliberate. We're concerned, for the purposes of > determining whether the not chosen card is a major or minor > penalty card, whether the card was originally played deliberately. > > Gordon Rainsford > > On 29/05/2013 02:24, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >> Gordon wrote: >> >> >> In practice the player will very often have already indicated >> which was >> the intended card by the time the director arrives at the >> table, but if >> not it's always possible to take the player away and find out >> before >> offering the choice. I think it would be rare for a player to >> choose to >> play the accidentally dropped card, though I suppose someone >> whose ace >> fell on the table when they were trying to underlead it, >> might do so. >> >> Law58B2 states that the player designates the card he "proposes >> to play", not the card he "proposed to play" when he first >> reached for a card. So it seems to me that the legality of >> choosing either card is quite deliberate. >> >> Cheers >> >> Stefanie Rohan >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130529/6665de58/attachment.html From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Wed May 29 11:40:45 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 11:40:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? Message-ID: <006101ce5c50$9843c3c0$c8cb4b40$@filosofi.uu.se> My reading is as follows: If we have to find out which card the defender intended to play then the law 58B2 should simply be If more than one card is visible, the player plays the intended card; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). Now the law makers have chosen another approach which makes it unnecessary to find out which card was the intended one: If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). Or so they thought until the clever British pointed out that in order to decide the sort of penalty card (major or minor) we still seem to have to find out which card was the intended one. Now, do we really? A card may be deemed to be a penalty card for different reasons, for example: 1. A defender?s prematurely exposed card during the auction period (law 24) 2. A defender?s prematurely exposed card during the play period (law 50) 3. A defender?s withdrawn revoke card, when the revoke is corrected (law 62 B1) 4. A defender?s withdrawn card by the LHO of a non-offender who withdraws card played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (law 62 C2) Now, suppose two cards are played by a defender, say the jack and the 8 of diamonds. The TD is called and after offering the alternatives, the player chooses to play the jack. Further, suppose that he originally intended the play the 8. Now, surely the 8 was a deliberately exposed card, but it was not a prematurely exposed card, so it is a penalty card but not in craft of 50 but in craft of 58B2. Does it make a difference? Maybe. See for example case 4. Suppose the defender?s withdrawn card is not an honor card, say it is a 5 of diamonds. Is it a major or a minor penalty card? Well, the card was deliberately played so maybe it should be deemed a major, but then why the law makers have written a penalty card instead of a major penalty card (as they have done in case 3 ? a revoke card which is deemed to be a major penalty card independent of the rank)? I think the intention was clear ? look at the rank. The same applies to our case. IMO, the WBF Law Committee should clarify the position in one of their minutes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130529/3d2e26d6/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed May 29 12:00:41 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 11:00:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <006101ce5c50$9843c3c0$c8cb4b40$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <006101ce5c50$9843c3c0$c8cb4b40$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <51A5D1C9.3070305@btinternet.com> Interesting argument, but we are directed specifically to Law 50. I agree that a WBF minute would be helpful. Gordon Rainsford On 29/05/2013 10:40, Ryszard Sliwinski wrote: > RE: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? > > My reading is as follows: > > If we have to find out which card the defenderintended to play then > the law 58B2shouldsimplybe > > If more than one card is visible, the playerplays the intended card; > when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes apenalty card > (see Law 50). > > Now the law makershavechosenanother approach which makes it > unnecessary to find out which card was the intended one: > > If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card > heproposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed > becomes apenalty card (see Law 50). > > Or so theythoughtuntil the cleverBritishpointed out that in orderto > decide the sort of penalty card(major or minor)we still seem to have > to find out which card was the intended one. > > Now,do we really? > > A card may be deemedto be a penalty cardfordifferent reasons, for example: > > 1. Adefender'sprematurely exposed cardduring the auctionperiod(law24) > > 2. Adefender'sprematurely exposed cardduring theplay period(law 50) > > 3. Adefender'swithdrawnrevoke card, when the revoke is corrected > (law62 B1) > > 4. Adefender'swithdrawn card by the LHO of a non-offender who > withdrawscard playedafter the revoke but before attention was drawn to > it (law 62C2) > > Now, suppose two cards are played byadefender, saythe jack andthe8 of > diamonds.The TD is called and after offeringthe alternatives, the > player chooses to play the jack.Further, suppose that he originally > intended the playthe 8. > > Now, surelythe 8 was a deliberatelyexposed card, but it was not a > prematurely exposed card, soitisa penalty cardbutnot in craft of 50 > but in craft of 58B2.Does it make a difference? Maybe.See for example > case 4.Suppose thedefender?s withdrawn card is not an honor card, > sayit is a 5 of diamonds.Is it a major or a minor penalty card? Well, > the card was deliberately playedso maybe it should be deemeda major, > but then why the law makers havewrittena penalty card instead of a > major penalty card(as they have done incase 3 -- a revoke card which > is deemed to be a major penalty card independent of the rank)?I think > the intention was clear -- look at the rank.The same applies to our case. > > IMO,the WBF Law Committeeshould clarify the position in one of their > minutes. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20130529/9916b1a6/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed May 29 12:25:08 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 12:25:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <51A5D1C9.3070305@btinternet.com> References: <006101ce5c50$9843c3c0$c8cb4b40$@filosofi.uu.se> <51A5D1C9.3070305@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <005801ce5c56$cbe3cd50$63ab67f0$@online.no> I believe it is important that WBFLC has written ?designates the card he proposes to play? and not ?designates the card he intended to play?. The word ?proposes? leaves IMHO no doubt that the player is free to designate as played any one of the simultaneously exposed cards at his own decision regardless of what was his original intention, and taking into account also the question of whether the remaining card will become a major or a minor penalty card. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Gordon Rainsford Sendt: 29. mai 2013 12:01 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? Interesting argument, but we are directed specifically to Law 50. I agree that a WBF minute would be helpful. Gordon Rainsford On 29/05/2013 10:40, Ryszard Sliwinski wrote: My reading is as follows: If we have to find out which card the defender intended to play then the law 58B2 should simply be If more than one card is visible, the player plays the intended card; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). Now the law makers have chosen another approach which makes it unnecessary to find out which card was the intended one: If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). Or so they thought until the clever British pointed out that in order to decide the sort of penalty card (major or minor) we still seem to have to find out which card was the intended one. Now, do we really? A card may be deemed to be a penalty card for different reasons, for example: 1. A defender?s prematurely exposed card during the auction period (law 24) 2. A defender?s prematurely exposed card during the play period (law 50) 3. A defender?s withdrawn revoke card, when the revoke is corrected (law 62 B1) 4. A defender?s withdrawn card by the LHO of a non-offender who withdraws card played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (law 62 C2) Now, suppose two cards are played by a defender, say the jack and the 8 of diamonds. The TD is called and after offering the alternatives, the player chooses to play the jack. Further, suppose that he originally intended the play the 8. Now, surely the 8 was a deliberately exposed card, but it was not a prematurely exposed card, so it is a penalty card but not in craft of 50 but in craft of 58B2. Does it make a difference? Maybe. See for example case 4. Suppose the defender?s withdrawn card is not an honor card, say it is a 5 of diamonds. Is it a major or a minor penalty card? Well, the card was deliberately played so maybe it should be deemed a major, but then why the law makers have written a penalty card instead of a major penalty card (as they have done in case 3 ? a revoke card which is deemed to be a major penalty card independent of the rank)? I think the intention was clear ? look at the rank. The same applies to our case. IMO, the WBF Law Committee should clarify the position in one of their minutes. _______________________________________________ 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/20130529/87f6b79b/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed May 29 13:08:43 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 12:08:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <005801ce5c56$cbe3cd50$63ab67f0$@online.no> References: <006101ce5c50$9843c3c0$c8cb4b40$@filosofi.uu.se> <51A5D1C9.3070305@btinternet.com> <005801ce5c56$cbe3cd50$63ab67f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <51A5E1BB.3030606@btinternet.com> On 29/05/2013 11:25, Sven Pran wrote: > RE: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? > > I believe it is important that WBFLC has written > > "designates the card he*proposes*to play" > > and not > > "designates the card he*intended*to play". > > The word "proposes" leaves IMHO no doubt that the player is free to > designate as played any one of the simultaneously exposed cards at his > own decision regardless of what was his original intention, > I don't think anyone has disputed this. The discussion concerns the status of the other card if he decides to designate a card he did not originally intend to play, and that other card is small. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130529/17ff86bd/attachment.html From rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se Wed May 29 14:12:28 2013 From: rysiek.sliwinski at filosofi.uu.se (Ryszard Sliwinski) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:12:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <51A5D1C9.3070305@btinternet.com> References: <006101ce5c50$9843c3c0$c8cb4b40$@filosofi.uu.se> <51A5D1C9.3070305@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <000601ce5c65$c9cfe3a0$5d6faae0$@filosofi.uu.se> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:01 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? Interesting argument, but we are directed specifically to Law 50. Well, Law 50 is also referred in say Law 62 B, when the revoke card is deemed to be a major penalty card, but it being a major penalty card is in craft of 62 and not of 50 and the reference to law 50 is in that case only for description how we should handle a major penalty card - law 50 is after all called Disposition of penalty card.. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130529/19d11b50/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Wed May 29 15:38:14 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:38:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intendedchoice? In-Reply-To: <006101ce5c50$9843c3c0$c8cb4b40$@filosofi.uu.se> References: <006101ce5c50$9843c3c0$c8cb4b40$@filosofi.uu.se> Message-ID: <8B997A55EEDC427496033BC740788153@G3> RE: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice?[Ryszard Sliwinski] IMO, the WBF Law Committee should clarify the position in one of their minutes. [Nigel] On behalf of players, I plead: Please. No more belated minutes, trickling out, every year or two! They seem obscure and verbose Anyway, few people read or understand them so few players comply with them and few directors enforce them. It would be better if the WBFLC immediately clarified ambiguities and corrected anomalies *in place* in a web-based TFLB -- with a separate list of corrigenda. A series of interim mini-editions of TFLB, month by month, with feedback from players, would rectify most of the mistakes, within a few years. Although, unfortunately, it might delay more radical simplifications. From svenpran at online.no Wed May 29 16:11:06 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:11:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <51A5E1BB.3030606@btinternet.com> References: <006101ce5c50$9843c3c0$c8cb4b40$@filosofi.uu.se> <51A5D1C9.3070305@btinternet.com> <005801ce5c56$cbe3cd50$63ab67f0$@online.no> <51A5E1BB.3030606@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <001601ce5c76$5cb93120$162b9360$@online.no> Well, When the law is worded the way it is then first of all no play has yet taken place (notice ?proposes?), and then there is no question of which (if any) of the exposed cards the player intended to play, not in Law 58B and therefore neither in Law 50B (which implicitly defines the cards as having been ?exposed unintentionally (as in playing two cards to a trick [...])?. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Gordon Rainsford Sendt: 29. mai 2013 13:09 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? On 29/05/2013 11:25, Sven Pran wrote: I believe it is important that WBFLC has written ?designates the card he proposes to play? and not ?designates the card he intended to play?. The word ?proposes? leaves IMHO no doubt that the player is free to designate as played any one of the simultaneously exposed cards at his own decision regardless of what was his original intention, I don't think anyone has disputed this. The discussion concerns the status of the other card if he decides to designate a card he did not originally intend to play, and that other card is small. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130529/94dd5ea1/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 30 20:09:27 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 14:09:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <001601ce5c76$5cb93120$162b9360$@online.no> References: <006101ce5c50$9843c3c0$c8cb4b40$@filosofi.uu.se> <51A5D1C9.3070305@btinternet.com> <005801ce5c56$cbe3cd50$63ab67f0$@online.no> <51A5E1BB.3030606@btinternet.com> <001601ce5c76$5cb93120$162b9360$@online.no> Message-ID: <51A795D7.103@starpower.net> L58B makes no reference whatsoever to deliberation or intent. It sensibly presumes that a player who "plays two or more cards simultaneously" has acted unintentionally regardless of what his actual intention was. The only distinction L58B makes is between "the card [the player] proposes to play" [present tense] and "each other card so exposed." Then it tells us to "see L50". The explicit parenthetical reference in the first sentence of L50B, "as in playing two cards to a trick," strongly implies that it intends that sentence to apply whenever the reader arrives at L50 via the reference in L58B. Note the contrasting examples in the second sentence, which contain nothing relevant to L58. If the authors intended their example to refer to "unintentionally playing a second card to a trick" they could readily have said so, or included a contrasting example in the second sentence, or just left out the reference entirely. Introducing the concept of original intention to the interpretation of L58B adds unnecessary complexity and creates unwanted ambiguity. If intent matters... You are following suit to a club, and the two and six of clubs hit the table simultaneously, both visible. You elect to play the two. The TD asks you which card you originally intended to play, and you tell him, truthfully, that you were reaching toward the adjacent cards blindly so as to randomize your spot-card play. Would that make the six an intentionally or unintentionally played card? If we accept the "Occam's razor" interpretation of L58B, we create no such difficulties. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk Thu May 30 22:09:17 2013 From: clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk (Alan Hill) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 21:09:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <51A795D7.103@starpower.net> References: <006101ce5c50$9843c3c0$c8cb4b40$@filosofi.uu.se> <51A5D1C9.3070305@btinternet.com> <005801ce5c56$cbe3cd50$63ab67f0$@online.no> <51A5E1BB.3030606@btinternet.com> <001601ce5c76$5cb93120$162b9360$@online.no> <51A795D7.103@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1369944557.24141.YahooMailNeo@web172403.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> It seems to me some responders follow the law as written. Others appear to look for some deeper meaning. This thread seems so obvious I'm surprised there was so much discussion. Alan H >________________________________ > From: Eric Landau >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2013, 19:09 >Subject: Re: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? > > >L58B makes no reference whatsoever to deliberation or intent.? It >sensibly presumes that a player who "plays two or more cards >simultaneously" has acted unintentionally regardless of what his actual >intention was.? The only distinction L58B makes is between "the card >[the player] proposes to play" [present tense] and "each other card so >exposed."? Then it tells us to "see L50". > >The explicit parenthetical reference in the first sentence of L50B, "as >in playing two cards to a trick," strongly implies that it intends that >sentence to apply whenever the reader arrives at L50 via the reference >in L58B.? Note the contrasting examples in the second sentence, which >contain nothing relevant to L58.? If the authors intended their example >to refer to "unintentionally playing a second card to a trick" they >could readily have said so, or included a contrasting example in the >second sentence, or just left out the reference entirely. > >Introducing the concept of original intention to the interpretation of >L58B adds unnecessary complexity and creates unwanted ambiguity.? If >intent matters... > >You are following suit to a club, and the two and six of clubs hit the >table simultaneously, both visible.? You elect to play the two.? The TD >asks you which card you originally intended to play, and you tell him, >truthfully, that you were reaching toward the adjacent cards blindly so >as to randomize your spot-card play.? Would that make the six an >intentionally or unintentionally played card? > >If we accept the "Occam's razor" interpretation of L58B, we create no >such difficulties. > > >-- >Eric Landau >1107 Dale Drive >Silver Spring MD 20910 >_______________________________________________ >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/20130530/543288b8/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 30 22:30:52 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:30:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Two cards played: must player make originally intended choice? In-Reply-To: <51A51017.7010809@btinternet.com> References: <009F6423B3244932B4D5481AB2388F4A@erdos> <51A3A60D.1000602@nhcc.net> <51A3C7A4.3060109@nhcc.net> <51A51017.7010809@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <51A7B6FC.3070402@nhcc.net> So far, I think it is unanimous that the player gets to choose which card to play to the current trick. The question is what kind of penalty card is the remaining card if it was the one intended but not an honor. We know the answer in the EBU. In the ACBL, I don't know of an official interpretation, but I think the answer in most places would be the opposite of the EBU one. On 2013-05-28 4:14 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > Another key word in L50b is "deliberate", as in > > "Any card of honour rank, or any card exposed through > deliberate play (for example in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then > correcting), becomes a major penalty card;" > > I find it hard to see how one could deem that the play of the card that > was intended to be played could not be deliberate. The question is whether exposing two cards was "deliberate play." Again, does one adopt a broad or narrow reading? Anyone who thinks the answer is obvious needs to look again. I know which answer I prefer, but I hope this will be cleared up in 2017. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 30 22:40:27 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:40:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 61B3 "Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke" Message-ID: <51A7B93B.8040803@nhcc.net> As of 2007, it's up to the RA whether to permit defenders to ask each other or not. The ACBL allows it (always has), and I gather the EBU does too. (Right?) What's the current status in other jurisdictions, including EBL and WBF? From clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk Thu May 30 22:50:02 2013 From: clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk (Alan Hill) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 21:50:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Law 61B3 "Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke" In-Reply-To: <51A7B93B.8040803@nhcc.net> References: <51A7B93B.8040803@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <1369947002.61815.YahooMailNeo@web172403.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Irish Bridge Union does (NIBU & CBAI). Alan H >________________________________ > From: Steve Willner >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2013, 21:40 >Subject: [BLML] Law 61B3 "Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke" > > >As of 2007, it's up to the RA whether to permit defenders to ask each >other or not.? The ACBL allows it (always has), and I gather the EBU >does too. (Right?) > >What's the current status in other jurisdictions, including EBL and WBF? >_______________________________________________ >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/20130530/6e87fe8b/attachment-0001.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu May 30 23:05:12 2013 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 23:05:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 61B3 "Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke" In-Reply-To: <51A7B93B.8040803@nhcc.net> References: <51A7B93B.8040803@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <51A7BF08.9000709@t-online.de> Am 30.05.2013 22:40, schrieb Steve Willner: > As of 2007, it's up to the RA whether to permit defenders to ask each > other or not. The ACBL allows it (always has), and I gather the EBU > does too. (Right?) Germany does not (and has not, since 1987), and some others in Europe don`t either, or think about not allowing. The majority still does, if I remember the Discussion at the last international EBL TD course correctly. > > What's the current status in other jurisdictions, including EBL and WBF? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From t-nakatani at kxb.biglobe.ne.jp Thu May 30 23:14:29 2013 From: t-nakatani at kxb.biglobe.ne.jp (Nakatani Tadayoshi) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 06:14:29 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Law 61B3 "Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke" In-Reply-To: <51A7B93B.8040803@nhcc.net> References: <51A7B93B.8040803@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <51A7C135.9050900@kxb.biglobe.ne.jp> (2013/05/31 5:40), Steve Willner wrote: > As of 2007, it's up to the RA whether to permit defenders to ask each > other or not. The ACBL allows it (always has), and I gather the EBU > does too. (Right?) > > What's the current status in other jurisdictions, including EBL and WBF? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Japan Contract Bridge League allows it Nakatani Tadayoshi From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu May 30 23:30:40 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 22:30:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 61B3 "Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke" In-Reply-To: <51A7C135.9050900@kxb.biglobe.ne.jp> References: <51A7B93B.8040803@nhcc.net> <51A7C135.9050900@kxb.biglobe.ne.jp> Message-ID: <51A7C500.2090304@btinternet.com> My understanding is that Japan didn't originally, but then changed. Is that correct? The only country I know that doesn't is Germany. Gordon Rainsford On 30/05/2013 22:14, Nakatani Tadayoshi wrote: > (2013/05/31 5:40), Steve Willner wrote: >> As of 2007, it's up to the RA whether to permit defenders to ask each >> other or not. The ACBL allows it (always has), and I gather the EBU >> does too. (Right?) >> >> What's the current status in other jurisdictions, including EBL and WBF? >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > Japan Contract Bridge League allows it > > Nakatani Tadayoshi > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t-nakatani at kxb.biglobe.ne.jp Fri May 31 00:30:05 2013 From: t-nakatani at kxb.biglobe.ne.jp (Nakatani Tadayoshi) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 07:30:05 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Law 61B3 "Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke" In-Reply-To: <51A7C500.2090304@btinternet.com> References: <51A7B93B.8040803@nhcc.net> <51A7C135.9050900@kxb.biglobe.ne.jp> <51A7C500.2090304@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <51A7D2ED.5030507@kxb.biglobe.ne.jp> Correct We did discuss to keep the policy of not allowing revoke inquiry among defenders at the time of 2007 Law revision, but abandoned the policy when we found out that it is not practical to access penalties for violation (basically it is 'legal' under the 2007 Laws). Nakatani Tadayoshi (2013/05/31 6:30), Gordon Rainsford wrote: > My understanding is that Japan didn't originally, but then changed. Is > that correct? > > The only country I know that doesn't is Germany. > > Gordon Rainsford > > > On 30/05/2013 22:14, Nakatani Tadayoshi wrote: >> (2013/05/31 5:40), Steve Willner wrote: >>> As of 2007, it's up to the RA whether to permit defenders to ask each >>> other or not. The ACBL allows it (always has), and I gather the EBU >>> does too. (Right?) >>> >>> What's the current status in other jurisdictions, including EBL and WBF? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> Japan Contract Bridge League allows it >> >> Nakatani Tadayoshi >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From g3 at nige1.com Fri May 31 00:35:10 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 23:35:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 61B3 "Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke" In-Reply-To: <51A7C500.2090304@btinternet.com> References: <51A7B93B.8040803@nhcc.net> <51A7C135.9050900@kxb.biglobe.ne.jp> <51A7C500.2090304@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <510D892BAAD94E1FB6835D9321437875@G3> [Gordon Rainsford] My understanding is that Japan didn't originally, but then changed. Is that correct? The only country I know that doesn't is Germany. [Nigel] Germany is bucking the WBFLC trend. Most countries are changing to attitude signals but are count signals still popular in Germany? From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri May 31 09:31:27 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 08:31:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 61B3 "Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke" In-Reply-To: <510D892BAAD94E1FB6835D9321437875@G3> References: <51A7B93B.8040803@nhcc.net> <51A7C135.9050900@kxb.biglobe.ne.jp> <51A7C500.2090304@btinternet.com> <510D892BAAD94E1FB6835D9321437875@G3> Message-ID: <51A851CF.2010206@btinternet.com> It's hard to see a connection between these two things, even if both true. Gordon Rainsford On 30/05/2013 23:35, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Gordon Rainsford] > My understanding is that Japan didn't originally, but then changed. Is > that correct? The only country I know that doesn't is Germany. > > [Nigel] > Germany is bucking the WBFLC trend. Most countries are changing to attitude > signals but are count signals still popular in Germany? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri May 31 09:33:57 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 08:33:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 61B3 "Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke" In-Reply-To: <51A7D2ED.5030507@kxb.biglobe.ne.jp> References: <51A7B93B.8040803@nhcc.net> <51A7C135.9050900@kxb.biglobe.ne.jp> <51A7C500.2090304@btinternet.com> <51A7D2ED.5030507@kxb.biglobe.ne.jp> Message-ID: <51A85265.6050401@btinternet.com> Yes, this was the reason the EBU decided to allow the enquiry - there was no procedure provided in the new laws for infringement if it were not permitted. I think I've been told that Germany just use the procedure from the 1997 laws. Gordon Rainsford On 30/05/2013 23:30, Nakatani Tadayoshi wrote: > Correct > We did discuss to keep the policy of not allowing revoke inquiry among > defenders at the time of 2007 Law revision, but abandoned the policy > when we found out that it is not practical to access penalties for > violation (basically it is 'legal' under the 2007 Laws). > > Nakatani Tadayoshi > > (2013/05/31 6:30), Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> My understanding is that Japan didn't originally, but then changed. Is >> that correct? >> >> The only country I know that doesn't is Germany. >> >> Gordon Rainsford >> >> >> On 30/05/2013 22:14, Nakatani Tadayoshi wrote: >>> (2013/05/31 5:40), Steve Willner wrote: >>>> As of 2007, it's up to the RA whether to permit defenders to ask each >>>> other or not. The ACBL allows it (always has), and I gather the EBU >>>> does too. (Right?) >>>> >>>> What's the current status in other jurisdictions, including EBL and WBF? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> Japan Contract Bridge League allows it >>> >>> Nakatani Tadayoshi >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 petereidt at t-online.de Fri May 31 09:52:02 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:52:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_61B3_=22Right_to_Inquire_about_a_Possible_Re?= =?utf-8?q?voke=22?= In-Reply-To: <51A85265.6050401@btinternet.com> References: <51A85265.6050401@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <1UiK82-1wuZJQ0@fwd50.aul.t-online.de> Von: Gordon Rainsford > Yes, this was the reason the EBU decided to allow the enquiry - there > was no procedure provided in the new laws for infringement if it were > not permitted. I think I've been told that Germany just use the > procedure from the 1997 laws. Peter: Yes, that's correct. Both - that you have been told and that we use the 1997 procedure. > On 30/05/2013 23:30, Nakatani Tadayoshi wrote: > > Correct > > We did discuss to keep the policy of not allowing revoke inquiry > > among defenders at the time of 2007 Law revision, but abandoned the > > policy when we found out that it is not practical to access > > penalties for violation (basically it is 'legal' under the 2007 > > Laws). > > > > > > Nakatani Tadayoshi > > > > (2013/05/31 6:30), Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> My understanding is that Japan didn't originally, but then changed. > Is >> that correct? > >> > >> The only country I know that doesn't is Germany. > >> > >> Gordon Rainsford > >> > >> > >> On 30/05/2013 22:14, Nakatani Tadayoshi wrote: > >>> (2013/05/31 5:40), Steve Willner wrote: > >>>> As of 2007, it's up to the RA whether to permit defenders to ask > each >>>> other or not. The ACBL allows it (always has), and I gather > the EBU >>>> does too. (Right?) > >>>> > >>>> What's the current status in other jurisdictions, including EBL > and WBF? >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Blml mailing list > >>>> Blml at rtflb.org > >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >>>> > >>> Japan Contract Bridge League allows it > >>> > >>> Nakatani Tadayoshi