From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 1 08:30:26 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 08:30:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104261F8@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104261F8@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <000d01ced6d4$3c4d6900$b4e83b00$@online.no> Norway seems to having selected a (slightly) different approach: (My translation): [ ] Different environments have different expectations to the meaning of calls. Thus basing alerts on ?common/unusual? has therefore proven unsatisfactory. Regulations are now mainly based on ?conventional/natural?. The main rule is that all conventional calls shall be alerted [a few examples]: - ?natural? calls containing essential understanding beyond what follows from the call being ?natural?. - ?natural? calls with reasonable doubt about the demand level. - PASS when conventional [e.g. expecting a subsequent call other than PASS from partner] - DOUBLE and REDOUBLE when conventional [i.e. not solely for penalty] So for instance both a transfer bid and the response to this shall be alerted as neither promises at least some required minimum length in the denomination named in the call. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 31. oktober 2013 22:53 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL >>..... >>ABF Alert regulation requires some ?purely natural? calls to be Alerted. >>..... >So do Belgian regulations (no jokes, please). >For example: transfers to majors over 1NT need not be alerted, which >means that 1NT - (pass) - 2He must be alerted if natural. >Seems far more logical to me than alerting the transfer, a meaning which >is even taught to beginners in the Belgian standard beginner system(s). >I consider that a good alerting regulation should be one in which >beginners who have learnt the standard national system, need never alert >and would not be surprised at the meaning of a non-alerted call. > >Herman. Definitions: Alert ? A notification, whose form may be specified by the Regulating Authority, to the effect that ++opponents may be in need of an explanation++. Aussie Regulating Authority: 3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz. (a) The call is natural, but you have an agreement by which your call is forcing or non-forcing in a way that ++your opponents are unlikely to expect++. ..... [e.g. 1 banana ? X ? XX ? Pass = unexpected strength, not expected balanced weakness] (b) The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which ++your opponents are unlikely to expect++. ..... 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. DIBP 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/20131101/cadf9c75/attachment-0001.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 09:18:56 2013 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:18:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002501ced661$f63df370$e2b9da50$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> <1343835558.711362.1383240136844.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> <002501ced661$f63df370$e2b9da50$@online.no> Message-ID: I disagree with Sven here. A pass over (1x) X (XX) that is a penalty pass of 1x is unusual in the extreme. If not alerted, the meaning would be very surprising to the opponents. I don't think this one is really defined in our alert regulations. But I, for one, would always alert such a pass (if I ever played it). 2013/10/31 Sven Pran > > ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre > > > De: "Sven Pran" > > > Because I am astonished by a requirement to alert a PASS that means > > > nothing other than willingness to play in the contract specified by > > > the last bid (if > > > any) and reluctance to make any call other than pass. (I believe this > > > has always been the fundamental definition for "PASS" as a natural > > > call?) > > > > even with such a pass, an alert may be necessary: 1K x xx pass if pass > is an > > agreement by this pair to show willingness to play 1D redoubled > (something like > > KQ1094), and not a mere neutral call, it needs to be alerted. i am not > fond of > > detailed lists of calls to be alerted, there are too many exceptions and > > unforeseen situations. i prefer a simple: alert every time you think > opponents > > should better know an agreement they might otherwise misread. > > jpr > > [Sven Pran] I fully agree with the principle that an alert shall be a > signal to opponents: "You might probably want to ask for an explanation!". > But isn't the meaning "I am prepared for an ALL PASS to end this auction" > the most natural meaning of PASS that exists? > > I suppose there is a typo in your example and that you meant "willingness > to play 1K redoubled? If that is exactly what the PASS means then I see no > reason for alert. If however the partnership agreements is that PASS here > suggests takeout to 1D then of course the pass must be alerted. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20131101/24dace69/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 1 13:03:21 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:03:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> <1343835558.711362.1383240136844.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> <002501ced661$f63df370$e2b9da50$@online.no> Message-ID: <000501ced6fa$5c6abc30$15403490$@online.no> Not to argue with Harald, but I would (of course) bid my normal answer to the takeout double if I have a decent bid that can help partner. Pass by me would mean that I have no good answer and that the doubler (partner) is probably best served by selecting his own bid himself. Consequently I don?t see any reason for alerting the pass in this situation? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Harald Berre Skj?ran Sendt: 1. november 2013 09:19 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] I disagree with Sven here. A pass over (1x) X (XX) that is a penalty pass of 1x is unusual in the extreme. If not alerted, the meaning would be very surprising to the opponents. I don't think this one is really defined in our alert regulations. But I, for one, would always alert such a pass (if I ever played it). 2013/10/31 Sven Pran > ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre > > De: "Sven Pran" > > Because I am astonished by a requirement to alert a PASS that means > > nothing other than willingness to play in the contract specified by > > the last bid (if > > any) and reluctance to make any call other than pass. (I believe this > > has always been the fundamental definition for "PASS" as a natural > > call?) > > even with such a pass, an alert may be necessary: 1K x xx pass if pass is an > agreement by this pair to show willingness to play 1D redoubled (something like > KQ1094), and not a mere neutral call, it needs to be alerted. i am not fond of > detailed lists of calls to be alerted, there are too many exceptions and > unforeseen situations. i prefer a simple: alert every time you think opponents > should better know an agreement they might otherwise misread. > jpr [Sven Pran] I fully agree with the principle that an alert shall be a signal to opponents: "You might probably want to ask for an explanation!". But isn't the meaning "I am prepared for an ALL PASS to end this auction" the most natural meaning of PASS that exists? I suppose there is a typo in your example and that you meant "willingness to play 1K redoubled? If that is exactly what the PASS means then I see no reason for alert. If however the partnership agreements is that PASS here suggests takeout to 1D then of course the pass must be alerted. _______________________________________________ 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/20131101/9d2830b5/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Nov 3 02:52:08 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 21:52:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] detaching a card (or not) Message-ID: I happened to be watching a table and saw a defender detach a card from her hand while declarer was deciding what to play from the dummy. She says it was below the table and no one could see. It didn't look that way to me when it was first detached. But anyway. According to the laws, the issue is courtesy. Declarer didn't seem to mind. If the defender wanted to hurry declarer, she should have held the detached card about the table. Does anyone care about the card combination? Her partner led the jack of clubs, and dummy had Axxx. The detacher can't have the king without the queen, right? Or, suppose she regularly detaches cards. If she doesn't detach, that suggests the king in this card combination? Right? I am thinking that the failure to detach is not an irregularity and declarer cannot call the director to complain. Still, I can imagine her partner getting a table feel that his partner has the king. As you might guess, I dislike detaching and think it should be banned as giving UI. Are there any good articles on the information in a detachment? From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 3 10:41:48 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:41:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] detaching a card (or not) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001201ced878$eada1900$c08e4b00$@online.no> > Robert Frick > I happened to be watching a table and saw a defender detach a card from her > hand while declarer was deciding what to play from the dummy. She says it was > below the table and no one could see. It didn't look that way to me when it was > first detached. But anyway. > > > According to the laws, the issue is courtesy. Declarer didn't seem to mind. If > the defender wanted to hurry declarer, she should have held the detached card > about the table. > > > Does anyone care about the card combination? Her partner led the jack of > clubs, and dummy had Axxx. The detacher can't have the king without the > queen, right? > > Or, suppose she regularly detaches cards. If she doesn't detach, that suggests > the king in this card combination? Right? I am thinking that the failure to > detach is not an irregularity and declarer cannot call the director to complain. > Still, I can imagine her partner getting a table feel that his partner has the king. > > As you might guess, I dislike detaching and think it should be banned as giving > UI. > > Are there any good articles on the information in a detachment? [Sven Pran] You are correct that this is a matter of courtesy - Law 74B3 However: As spectator you are bound by Law 76 and in particular: L76B2 - A spectator must not show any reaction to the bidding or play when a deal is in progress. L76B3 - During a round a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or remarks of any kind and must have no conversation with a player. L76B5 - A spectator at the table shall not draw attention to any aspect of the game. L76C1 - A spectator may speak as to fact or law within the playing area* only when requested to do so by the Director. So I believe this incident is none of your business (no insult intended!). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 3 22:13:11 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 21:13:11 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104269A6@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >Norway seems to having selected a (slightly) different approach: >(My translation): [...] Different environments have different expectations >to the meaning of calls. Thus basing alerts on "common/unusual" has >therefore proven unsatisfactory. Regulations are now mainly based on >"conventional/natural". > >The main rule is that all conventional calls shall be alerted >..... Richard Hills: If the Ali-Hills partnership visited Norway, we would often gain an un- fair advantage on this auction: Hashmat deals and opens with 1H or 1S, Hashmat's LHO passes, and now I pass (alertable in Australia, non-alertable in Norway). Expecting my pass to show very few values Hashmat's RHO then over- balances into the auction. -800 when I turn up with 10 hcp and shortage in Hashmat's major. Aussie Regulating Authority: 3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz. ..... (b) The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which ++your opponents are unlikely to expect++. ..... Richard Hills: Our unexpected other agreement is 1major opening - 1NT response = artificial game force relay. So we pass when Standard American or Acol partnerships would respond with 1NT. An unintended consequence of the Norwegian alert legislation. For another unintended consequence of legislation, see: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/legislative-hard-men-flex-to-impress-each-other-20131019-2vt3h.html 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. DIBP 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/20131103/7b742a02/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Nov 3 22:28:40 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 16:28:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] detaching a card (or not) In-Reply-To: <001201ced878$eada1900$c08e4b00$@online.no> References: <001201ced878$eada1900$c08e4b00$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 04:41:48 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> I happened to be watching a table and saw a defender detach a card from > her >> hand while declarer was deciding what to play from the dummy. She says >> it > was >> below the table and no one could see. It didn't look that way to me when > it was >> first detached. But anyway. >> >> >> According to the laws, the issue is courtesy. Declarer didn't seem to > mind. If >> the defender wanted to hurry declarer, she should have held the detached > card >> about the table. >> >> >> Does anyone care about the card combination? Her partner led the jack of >> clubs, and dummy had Axxx. The detacher can't have the king without the >> queen, right? >> >> Or, suppose she regularly detaches cards. If she doesn't detach, that > suggests >> the king in this card combination? Right? I am thinking that the failure > to >> detach is not an irregularity and declarer cannot call the director to > complain. >> Still, I can imagine her partner getting a table feel that his partner >> has > the king. >> >> As you might guess, I dislike detaching and think it should be banned as > giving >> UI. >> >> Are there any good articles on the information in a detachment? > > [Sven Pran] > You are correct that this is a matter of courtesy - Law 74B3 > > However: As spectator you are bound by Law 76 and in particular: > L76B2 - A spectator must not show any reaction to the bidding or play > when a > deal is in progress. > L76B3 - During a round a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or > remarks > of any kind and must have no conversation with a player. > L76B5 - A spectator at the table shall not draw attention to any aspect > of > the game. > L76C1 - A spectator may speak as to fact or law within the playing area* > only when requested to do so by the Director. > > So I believe this incident is none of your business (no insult > intended!). I was the director > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 3 22:36:46 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:36:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104269A6@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104269A6@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <001a01ced8dc$cc2f9c00$648ed400$@online.no> To appreciate this I shall need to know the upper strength (limit) for your pass to your partner?s opening bid. In a natural system where opener can have as much as about 19HCP partner?s pass will show less than 6 HCP while for instance in precision where opener is limited to 15 HCP partner?s pass can be some 9 HCP. PASS that can be stronger than according to these limits must of course be alerted also in Norway. An example is pass by opener?s partner in a situation where a negative double is available. This pass must be alerted because it might show interest for a penalty double by opener (at opener?s discretion). Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 3. november 2013 22:13 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >Norway seems to having selected a (slightly) different approach: >(My translation): [ ] Different environments have different expectations >to the meaning of calls. Thus basing alerts on ?common/unusual? has >therefore proven unsatisfactory. Regulations are now mainly based on >?conventional/natural?. > >The main rule is that all conventional calls shall be alerted >..... Richard Hills: If the Ali-Hills partnership visited Norway, we would often gain an un- fair advantage on this auction: Hashmat deals and opens with 1H or 1S, Hashmat?s LHO passes, and now I pass (alertable in Australia, non-alertable in Norway). Expecting my pass to show very few values Hashmat?s RHO then over- balances into the auction. -800 when I turn up with 10 hcp and shortage in Hashmat?s major. Aussie Regulating Authority: 3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz. ..... (b) The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which ++your opponents are unlikely to expect++. ..... Richard Hills: Our unexpected other agreement is 1major opening ? 1NT response = artificial game force relay. So we pass when Standard American or Acol partnerships would respond with 1NT. An unintended consequence of the Norwegian alert legislation. For another unintended consequence of legislation, see: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/legislative-hard-men-flex-to-impress-each-othe r-20131019-2vt3h.html 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. DIBP 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/20131103/1b362d8f/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 3 22:41:40 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:41:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] detaching a card (or not) In-Reply-To: References: <001201ced878$eada1900$c08e4b00$@online.no> Message-ID: <002501ced8dd$7b3fe4c0$71bfae40$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > I was the director [Sven Pran] Had you been summoned to the table or were you (accidentally) watching as just another spectator? In the first case you must of course explain the laws, in the latter you should IMHO keep quiet. (You might find an occasion to instruct the offender at a later time away from the table.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Nov 3 22:50:57 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 16:50:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] detaching a card (or not) In-Reply-To: <002501ced8dd$7b3fe4c0$71bfae40$@online.no> References: <001201ced878$eada1900$c08e4b00$@online.no> <002501ced8dd$7b3fe4c0$71bfae40$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 16:41:40 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> I was the director > > [Sven Pran] > Had you been summoned to the table or were you (accidentally) watching as > just another spectator? > > In the first case you must of course explain the laws, in the latter you > should IMHO keep quiet. > (You might find an occasion to instruct the offender at a later time away > from the table.) My memory is that director may correct any irregularity he becomes aware of, no matter how it occurs. Of course, one might be more cautious if one was kibitzing. In this case, I was called for two simultaneous leads and I was staying because there was a penalty card. I can't see what that has to do with me cautioning the player about detaching cards an hour later. And I can't see what that has to do with the issue. To put this a different way, if declarer detaches a card and gives the defense information, it is just a matter of courtesy. If the defender detaches (or does not detach!) a card and gives information to partner, there is also a UI problem that the laws too carefully ignore. From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 3 23:37:44 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 23:37:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] detaching a card (or not) In-Reply-To: References: <001201ced878$eada1900$c08e4b00$@online.no> <002501ced8dd$7b3fe4c0$71bfae40$@online.no> Message-ID: <002a01ced8e5$50e37f40$f2aa7dc0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > > [...] > >> I was the director > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Had you been summoned to the table or were you (accidentally) watching > > as just another spectator? > > > > In the first case you must of course explain the laws, in the latter > > you should IMHO keep quiet. > > (You might find an occasion to instruct the offender at a later time > > away from the table.) > > > My memory is that director may correct any irregularity he becomes aware of, > no matter how it occurs. Of course, one might be more cautious if one was > kibitzing. In this case, I was called for two simultaneous leads and I was staying > because there was a penalty card. > > I can't see what that has to do with me cautioning the player about detaching > cards an hour later. > > And I can't see what that has to do with the issue. To put this a different way, if > declarer detaches a card and gives the defense information, it is just a matter > of courtesy. If the defender detaches (or does not detach!) a card and gives > information to partner, there is also a UI problem that the laws too carefully > ignore. [Sven Pran] Law 74B3 applies to declarer as well as to defenders! There is no reason to handle violations of this law differently depending on who is the offender. I am fully aware of Law 81C3 but I am also very careful to not mixing my presence at a table in my capacity as director with my presence as just another kibitzer. There are some situations where there is an apparent conflict between Law 81C3 and other laws, see for instance Laws 64B4 and 64B5 where a premature action by TD will directly deprive a side of some of their rights. So in my opinion the director should not in any way interfere because of irregularities he becomes aware of unless he is already present at the table in his capacity as director or his immediate action is required in order to avoid some irregularity for which there is no rectification possible. I do not normally consider violations of Law 74B or 74C to be of a nature requiring such immediate action by the director. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Nov 4 00:04:19 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 23:04:19 -0000 Subject: [BLML] detaching a card (or not) In-Reply-To: <002a01ced8e5$50e37f40$f2aa7dc0$@online.no> References: <001201ced878$eada1900$c08e4b00$@online.no> <002501ced8dd$7b3fe4c0$71bfae40$@online.no> <002a01ced8e5$50e37f40$f2aa7dc0$@online.no> Message-ID: <0F03C90BA1B9444D9903C92A127CF965@G3> IMO a director can't just transmogrify into a spectator to avoid his duties. It is not within the director's prerogative to decide which irregularities to allow. Whether the director witnesses a blatant infraction by a known cheat or an accidental irregularity by a good friend -- he *must* rectify it, sooner or later. A bizarre argument is that somehow it's unfair to pick on a particular rule-breaker when others are profiting from infractions at unsupervised tables; but victims deserve as much consideration as rule-breakers; and rule-enforcement deters would-be rule-breakers. From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 4 08:51:29 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 08:51:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] detaching a card (or not) In-Reply-To: <0F03C90BA1B9444D9903C92A127CF965@G3> References: <001201ced878$eada1900$c08e4b00$@online.no> <002501ced8dd$7b3fe4c0$71bfae40$@online.no> <002a01ced8e5$50e37f40$f2aa7dc0$@online.no> <0F03C90BA1B9444D9903C92A127CF965@G3> Message-ID: <000401ced932$aeda5720$0c8f0560$@online.no> Nigel Guthrie > IMO a director can't just transmogrify into a spectator to avoid his duties. [Sven Pran] That is one of the director's problems. I know there are directors who never "cruise" the room in order to avoid it. A director should never interfere with the normal progress at a table where none of the players draws attention to an irregularity unless his interference is necessary in order to avoid more serious problems. > It is not within the director's prerogative to decide which irregularities to allow. [Sven Pran] If you happen to notice a player revoking, do you intervene: - Immediately before the revoke becomes established? - Once it is established? - At end of play? Or do you wait until a player on the non-offending side has made a call on the next board or the round has ended, whichever occurs first? > Whether the director witnesses a blatant infraction by a known cheat or an > accidental irregularity by a good friend -- he *must* rectify it, sooner or later. A > bizarre argument is that somehow it's unfair to pick on a particular rule-breaker > when others are profiting from infractions at unsupervised tables; but victims > deserve as much consideration as rule-breakers; and rule-enforcement deters > would-be rule-breakers. [Sven Pran] Please don't confuse the discussion with serious offences that require disciplinary reactions. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 4 13:22:57 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:22:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1343835558.711362.1383240136844.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> <1343835558.711362.1383240136844.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <527791A1.6030507@ulb.ac.be> Le 31/10/2013 18:22, ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre a ?crit : > > ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Sven Pran" >> ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Envoy?: Jeudi 31 Octobre 2013 17:46:08 >> Objet: Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Because I am astonished by a requirement to alert a PASS that means nothing >> other than willingness to play in the contract specified by the last bid (if >> any) and reluctance to make any call other than pass. (I believe this has >> always been the fundamental definition for "PASS" as a natural call?) > even with such a pass, an alert may be necessary: 1K x xx pass > if pass is an agreement by this pair to show willingness to play 1D redoubled (something like KQ1094), and not a mere neutral call, it needs to be alerted. i am not fond of detailed lists of calls to be alerted, there are too many exceptions and unforeseen situations. i prefer a simple: alert every time you think opponents should better know an agreement they might otherwise misread. Absolutely right ; but in the case I mention there is nothing to know and they tell me it's still alertable on the strange pretext that 2D was artificial. This logic, if there is any, I can't understand. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 4 13:29:52 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:29:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <595157220.713527.1383244934587.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> <1343835558.711362.1383240136844.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> <002501ced661$f63df370$e2b9da50$@online.no> <595157220.713527.1383244934587.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <52779340.4030105@ulb.ac.be> Le 31/10/2013 19:42, ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre a ?crit : > > ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Sven Pran" >> ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Envoy?: Jeudi 31 Octobre 2013 18:52:25 >> Objet: Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >>> ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre >>>> De: "Sven Pran" >>>> Because I am astonished by a requirement to alert a PASS that means >>>> nothing other than willingness to play in the contract specified by >>>> the last bid (if >>>> any) and reluctance to make any call other than pass. (I believe this >>>> has always been the fundamental definition for "PASS" as a natural >>>> call?) >>> even with such a pass, an alert may be necessary: 1D x xx pass if pass is >>> an >>> agreement by this pair to show willingness to play 1D redoubled (something >>> like >>> KQ1094), and not a mere neutral call, it needs to be alerted. i am not fond >>> of >>> detailed lists of calls to be alerted, there are too many exceptions and >>> unforeseen situations. i prefer a simple: alert every time you think >>> opponents >>> should better know an agreement they might otherwise misread. >>> jpr >> [Sven Pran] I fully agree with the principle that an alert shall be a signal >> to opponents: "You might probably want to ask for an explanation!". But >> isn't the meaning "I am prepared for an ALL PASS to end this auction" the >> most natural meaning of PASS that exists? >> >> I suppose there is a typo in your example and that you meant "willingness to >> play 1K redoubled? > no, 1K was the typo which has to be corrected to 1D! > > If that is exactly what the PASS means then I see no >> reason for alert. If however the partnership agreements is that PASS here >> suggests takeout to 1D then of course the pass must be alerted. > il think most players would not expect this pass to be a penalty pass but would expect a neutral pass 'expect' is a bit strong ; after 1D p p X XX, I think an expert panel would be about 50%/50% on the issue on neutral vs enthusiastic. As a matter of fact, this 'expect' thing isn't exactly what is used in practice ; e.g. one expects p p 1H p 3C to be some kind of raise, or p p p 1H 1NT to show minors, yet it is alertable if it does. And while it would be rather unexpected to play 1C p 2S as long spades and 13+ (I do), it isn't alertable. (as it doesn't change the forcing character of the bid). I think the true criterion is "there is something important to be known now". Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 4 13:35:17 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:35:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01ced6d4$3c4d6900$b4e83b00$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104261F8@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000d01ced6d4$3c4d6900$b4e83b00$@online.no> Message-ID: <52779485.7030202@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/11/2013 8:30, Sven Pran a ?crit : > > Norway seems to having selected a (slightly) different approach: > > (My translation): [...] Different environments have different > expectations to the meaning of calls. Thus basing alerts on > "common/unusual" has therefore proven unsatisfactory. Regulations are > now mainly based on "conventional/natural". > > The main rule is that all conventional calls shall be alerted [a few > examples]: > > - "natural" calls containing essential understanding beyond what > follows from the call being "natural". > > - "natural" calls with reasonable doubt about the demand level. > > - PASS when conventional [e.g. expecting a subsequent call other than > PASS from partner] > So, in Norway, 2D (Multi) - X - P will be alertable if partner is expected to bid his long major, and non-alertable only if showing long diamonds ? > - DOUBLE and REDOUBLE when conventional [i.e. not solely for penalty] > So, one should alert 2H - X as a takeout double ? Not perfect ether. .Say that you play doubles of weak 2s as suggesting a penalty (Weiss). You don't alert, and the opponents never realize what happened. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131104/434f4bba/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 4 13:46:58 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:46:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001a01ced8dc$cc2f9c00$648ed400$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104269A6@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001a01ced8dc$cc2f9c00$648ed400$@online.no> Message-ID: <52779742.6010808@ulb.ac.be> Le 3/11/2013 22:36, Sven Pran a ?crit : > > To appreciate this I shall need to know the upper strength (limit) for > your pass to your partner's opening bid. > > In a natural system where opener can have as much as about 19HCP > partner's pass will show less than 6 HCP while for instance in > precision where opener is limited to 15 HCP partner's pass can be some > 9 HCP. PASS that can be stronger than according to these limits must > of course be alerted also in Norway. > AG : fundamentally,, the risk in balancing when opponents may have 15+9 is lower than when they can have 22+4, as is the case in Standard American. Whence I don't see how your system can affect balancing tactics. However, there could be an impact on declarer's line of play. But I wouldn't call passing 1H with a 3244 9-count "highly unexpected" in a strong club system. Nor would I bidding 4H with a 3532, scattered 14-count. If you pre-alerted that 1D/H/S was limited, I would deem the heavy pass non-alertable because it's "knowledge of bridge, not of partnership understandings". Best regards Alain > An example is pass by opener's partner in a situation where a negative > double is available. This pass must be alerted because it might show > interest for a penalty double by opener (at opener's discretion). > > *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? > ve**gne av*Richard HILLS > *Sendt:* 3. november 2013 22:13 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > UNOFFICIAL > > Sven Pran: > > >Norway seems to having selected a (slightly) different approach: > > >(My translation): [...] Different environments have different expectations > > >to the meaning of calls. Thus basing alerts on "common/unusual" has > > >therefore proven unsatisfactory. Regulations are now mainly based on > > >"conventional/natural". > > > > > >The main rule is that all conventional calls shall be alerted > > >..... > > Richard Hills: > > If the Ali-Hills partnership visited Norway, we would often gain an un- > > fair advantage on this auction: > > Hashmat deals and opens with 1H or 1S, Hashmat's LHO passes, and now > > I pass (alertable in Australia, non-alertable in Norway). > > Expecting my pass to show very few values Hashmat's RHO then over- > > balances into the auction. -800 when I turn up with 10 hcp and shortage > > in Hashmat's major. > > Aussie Regulating Authority: > > *3.2.2 *Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are > > self-alerting), /viz./ > > ..... > > (b) The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other > > agreements, which ++your opponents are unlikely to expect++. > > ..... > > Richard Hills: > > Our unexpected other agreement is 1major opening -- 1NT response = > > artificial game force relay. So we pass when Standard American or Acol > > partnerships would respond with 1NT. > > An unintended consequence of the Norwegian alert legislation. For > > another unintended consequence of legislation, see: > > http://www.smh.com.au/comment/legislative-hard-men-flex-to-impress-each-other-20131019-2vt3h.html > > 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. DIBP 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/20131104/8032f83e/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Nov 4 14:51:25 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:51:25 -0000 Subject: [BLML] detaching a card (or not) In-Reply-To: <000401ced932$aeda5720$0c8f0560$@online.no> References: <001201ced878$eada1900$c08e4b00$@online.no> <002501ced8dd$7b3fe4c0$71bfae40$@online.no> <002a01ced8e5$50e37f40$f2aa7dc0$@online.no><0F03C90BA1B9444D9903C92A127CF965@G3> <000401ced932$aeda5720$0c8f0560$@online.no> Message-ID: [Sven Pran] Please don't confuse the discussion with serious offences that require disciplinary reactions. [Nige1] IMO it's Sven who is confusing the issue. The director must rectify an irregularity that comes to his attention. The director's estimate of seriousness is irrelevant. Unusually, Bridge-law, common sense and natural justice all come to the same conclusion. From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 4 15:20:50 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:20:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52779340.4030105@ulb.ac.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042469E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000701ced60b$6a0bb6e0$3e2324a0$@online.no> <52723E4D.7020403@skynet.be> <002301ced658$b2ef81f0$18ce85d0$@online.no> <1343835558.711362.1383240136844.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> <002501ced661$f63df370$e2b9da50$@online.no> <595157220.713527.1383244934587.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> <52779340.4030105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000c01ced969$11a48070$34ed8150$@online.no> Alain Gottcheiner > >> De: "Sven Pran" > >> ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >> Envoy?: Jeudi 31 Octobre 2013 18:52:25 > >> Objet: Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> > >>> ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre > >>>> De: "Sven Pran" Because I am astonished by a > >>>> requirement to alert a PASS that means nothing other than > >>>> willingness to play in the contract specified by the last bid (if > >>>> any) and reluctance to make any call other than pass. (I believe > >>>> this has always been the fundamental definition for "PASS" as a > >>>> natural > >>>> call?) > >>> even with such a pass, an alert may be necessary: 1D x xx pass if > >>> pass is an agreement by this pair to show willingness to play 1D > >>> redoubled (something like KQ1094), and not a mere neutral call, it > >>> needs to be alerted. i am not fond of detailed lists of calls to be > >>> alerted, there are too many exceptions and unforeseen situations. i > >>> prefer a simple: alert every time you think opponents should better > >>> know an agreement they might otherwise misread. > >>> jpr > >> [Sven Pran] I fully agree with the principle that an alert shall be a > >> signal to opponents: "You might probably want to ask for an > >> explanation!". But isn't the meaning "I am prepared for an ALL PASS > >> to end this auction" the most natural meaning of PASS that exists? > >> > >> I suppose there is a typo in your example and that you meant > >> "willingness to play 1K redoubled? > > no, 1K was the typo which has to be corrected to 1D! > > > > If that is exactly what the PASS means then I see no > >> reason for alert. If however the partnership agreements is that PASS > >> here suggests takeout to 1D then of course the pass must be alerted. > > il think most players would not expect this pass to be a penalty pass > > but would expect a neutral pass > > 'expect' is a bit strong ; after 1D p p X XX, I think an expert panel would be > about 50%/50% on the issue on neutral vs enthusiastic. > > As a matter of fact, this 'expect' thing isn't exactly what is used in practice ; > e.g. one expects p p 1H p 3C to be some kind of raise, or p p p 1H 1NT to show > minors, yet it is alertable if it does. And while it would be rather unexpected to > play 1C p 2S as long spades and 13+ (I do), it isn't alertable. (as it doesn't > change the forcing character of the bid). > > I think the true criterion is "there is something important to be known now". [Sven Pran] And the criterion in Norway is precisely that: If it is not alerted you should assume that the bid shows the named suit and nothing else so if 1H p 3C shows some kind of raise in hearts instead of just showing clubs then of course it must be alerted. And if 1H 1NT shows minors instead of showing a no-trump hand then that one must also be alerted. WTP? From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 4 15:43:07 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:43:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] detaching a card (or not) In-Reply-To: References: <001201ced878$eada1900$c08e4b00$@online.no> <002501ced8dd$7b3fe4c0$71bfae40$@online.no> <002a01ced8e5$50e37f40$f2aa7dc0$@online.no><0F03C90BA1B9444D9903C92A127CF965@G3> <000401ced932$aeda5720$0c8f0560$@online.no> Message-ID: <001701ced96c$2d5edc90$881c95b0$@online.no> Nige Guthrie > Sendt: 4. november 2013 14:51 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] detaching a card (or not) > > [Sven Pran] > Please don't confuse the discussion with serious offences that require > disciplinary reactions. > > [Nige1] > IMO it's Sven who is confusing the issue. The director must rectify an > irregularity that comes to his attention. The director's estimate of seriousness > is irrelevant. Unusually, Bridge-law, common sense and natural justice all come > to the same conclusion. [Sven Pran] So if you happen to notice a player about to commit a revoke you intervene immediately to prevent this irregularity? From g3 at nige1.com Mon Nov 4 16:06:46 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:06:46 -0000 Subject: [BLML] detaching a card (or not) In-Reply-To: <001701ced96c$2d5edc90$881c95b0$@online.no> References: <001201ced878$eada1900$c08e4b00$@online.no> <002501ced8dd$7b3fe4c0$71bfae40$@online.no> <002a01ced8e5$50e37f40$f2aa7dc0$@online.no><0F03C90BA1B9444D9903C92A127CF965@G3> <000401ced932$aeda5720$0c8f0560$@online.no> <001701ced96c$2d5edc90$881c95b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <2E8DFAC14F2D4E118FFEAD7CB197CF0F@G3> [Sven Pran] So if you happen to notice a player about to commit a revoke you intervene immediately to prevent this irregularity? [Nige1] IMO, the director should comply with his duty to rectify an irregularity when it comes to his attention. It seems that the law gives the director some slack as to *when* he does this but as I interpret the law, the director must rectify, *sooner or later* This is all in my previous replies. As I'm repeating myself, I'll try to refrain from further comment until I think of something new. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 4 22:40:22 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 21:40:22 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Inn any manor [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310427020@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie ("detaching card" thread): >IMO a director can't just transmogrify into a spectator to avoid his duties. Law 81C3: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware ++in any manner++, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Nigel Guthrie: >It is not within the director's prerogative to decide which irregularities to >allow. Whether the director witnesses a blatant infraction by a known >cheat or an accidental irregularity by a good friend -- he *must* rectify it, >sooner or later. Richard Hills: The key word is "rectify", and the key protocol is "sooner or later". If a non- offending side does not observe the other side's revoke, but the Director does, then equity demands that the Director waits until such a ++later++ time that only the equity provisions of Law 64C apply. Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002: >> >>But note also the word "rectify". This covers returning the position to >>normality, restoration of equity, but it does not necessarily require that >>any penalty provision of a law be imposed. A Director often has room for >>manoeuvre in this respect: time limits intervene, there are such provisions >>as those in Law 11B, and so on. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Nigel Guthrie: >A bizarre argument is that somehow it's unfair to pick on a particular rule- >breaker when others are profiting from infractions at unsupervised tables; >but victims deserve as much consideration as rule-breakers; and rule- >enforcement deters would-be rule-breakers. Richard Hills: "Fairness" in Duplicate Bridge is defined by the Laws and Lawful regulations of Duplicate Bridge. So the argument is worse than "bizarre", it is an illegal breach of a Director's "in any manner" duties. And, in my opinion, IF a Director refuses to "walk the floor" SOLELY because of a fear that she might have to apply Law 81C3 (instead of the Director having a legitimate reason for being absent from the floor, e.g. setting up the scoring on the computer), THEN that Director is in breach of Law 82A, Rectification of Errors of Procedure, Director's Duty: "It is the ++responsibility++ of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game ++in a manner++ that is not contrary to these Laws." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP 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/20131104/d2513712/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 4 23:15:30 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 22:15:30 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310427062@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Alain Gottcheiner: >>..... >>And while it would be rather unexpected to play 1C p 2S as long spades >>and 13+ (I do), it isn't alertable. (as it doesn't change the forcing character >>of the bid). Richard Hills: >Maybe in Belgium the autochthonous meaning of the 2S response is almost >universally forcing, but in many other parts of the world the autochthonous >meaning of 2S is extremely non-forcing, as in those parts of the wold the 2S >response promises 6 spades and almost non-existent values. Alain Gottcheiner: >>I think the true criterion is "there is something important to be known now". Gordon Bower, April 2006: "Autochthonous". Indeed a real word, though not one you hear very often. Its antonym, "allochthonous", on the other hand, you will hear very frequently -- if you are a geologist in Alaska, and we have at least one of those on this mailing list. (It was news to me to discover, after the spelling bee, that the words also have currency in other fields.) Let's see: maybe we can use this to simplify the next edition of the alert rules: "Autochthonous conventions are part of one's general bridge knowledge and experience, but all allochthons are allocated alerts." And anyone who takes that suggestion seriously ought be allochtrocuted. GRB 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. DIBP 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/20131104/8eb5c9c8/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 5 02:40:16 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 20:40:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Inn any manor [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310427020@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310427020@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Ah, we've been down this road. This is either a power or a responsibility; that's as far as the laws go. I prefer to interpret it as a power. On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 16:40:22 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Nigel Guthrie (?detaching card? thread): > >> IMO a director can?t just transmogrify into a spectator to avoid his >> duties. >Law 81C3: >?The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying > irregularities and redressing damage. The Director?s duties and powers > normally include also the following: > to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware ++in any > manner++, within the correction period established in accordance with > Law 79C.? >Nigel Guthrie: > >> It is not within the director?s prerogative to decide which >> irregularities to >> allow. Whether the director witnesses a blatant infraction by a known >> cheat or an accidental irregularity by a good friend -- he *must* >> rectify it, >> sooner or later. >Richard Hills: >The key word is ?rectify?, and the key protocol is ?sooner or later?. If > a non- > offending side does not observe the other side?s revoke, but the Director > does, then equity demands that the Director waits until such a ++later++ > time > that only the equity provisions of Law 64C apply. >Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002: > >>> But note also the word ?rectify?. This covers returning the >>> position to >>> normality, restoration of equity, but it does not necessarily require >>> that >>> any penalty provision of a law be imposed. A Director often has room >>> for >>> manoeuvre in this respect: time limits intervene, there are such >>> provisions >>> as those in Law 11B, and so on. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >Nigel Guthrie: > >> A bizarre argument is that somehow it?s unfair to pick on a particular >> rule- >> breaker when others are profiting from infractions at unsupervised >> tables; >> but victims deserve as much consideration as rule-breakers; and rule- >> enforcement deters would-be rule-breakers. >Richard Hills: >?Fairness? in Duplicate Bridge is defined by the Laws and Lawful > regulations > of Duplicate Bridge. So the argument is worse than ?bizarre?, it is an > illegal > breach of a Director?s ?in any manner? duties. >And, in my opinion, IF a Director refuses to ?walk the floor? SOLELY > because of a fear that she might have to apply Law 81C3 (instead of the > Director having a legitimate reason for being absent from the floor, > e.g. setting > up the scoring on the computer), THEN that Director is in breach of Law > 82A, > Rectification of Errors of Procedure, Director?s Duty: >?It is the ++responsibility++ of the Director to rectify errors of > procedure and > to maintain the progress of the game ++in a manner++ that is not > contrary to > these Laws.? > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131105/8ca1af1e/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 5 03:35:02 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 02:35:02 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Inn any manor [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042715E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 81C3: "The Director (not the players) has the ++responsibility++ for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Law 82A, Rectification of Errors of Procedure, Director's Duty: "It is the ++responsibility++ of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws." >Ah, we've been down this road. This is either a power or a responsibility; >that's as far as the laws go. I prefer to interpret it as a power. Doctor Who, "The Face of Evil" (1977): "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views." 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. DIBP 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/20131105/d6afdb47/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 5 06:25:18 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 05:25:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104287D3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL ABF pre-Alert regulation, clause 3.1.2: This is the stage where you should draw the opponents' attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. Examples: transfer pre-empts, unusual two level openings, canap? style bidding, ++very unusual doubles++, unusual methods over the opponents' 1NT or strong club openings, unusual cue bids of the opponents' suit, etc. Pay ++particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls++. These should appear on your system card, but should also be verbally pre- alerted. Richard Hills: Each and every Double is self-Alerting during the auction in ABF- land. However, in the Ali-Hills partnership we pre-Alert our doubling methods, since we use non-penalty doubles after an overcall only if our opening bid is 1C or 1D. For example, we have the "very unusual" agreement that 1H - (1S) - X = penalty, not negative. But because such a double of 1S is a natural call, not a conventional call, on the information provided so far by Sven it seems that 1Sx would be neither pre-Alerted nor Alerted in Norway, giving the Ali- Hills partnership unexpected and unfair +800s when we visit Oslo. David Burn, 20th December 2008: "The trouble with this kind of discussion is that the Laws of bridge and the accompanying regulations are for all bridge players, not some tiny minority who play 25 different kinds of double, none of them penalty and (if the above contribution is anything to go by) most of them stupid. It is obviously in the interests of people who play obscure doubles that they should not be alerted. It is not in the interests of anyone else." 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. DIBP 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/20131105/180706d5/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 5 09:40:00 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:40:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104287D3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104287D3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <001401ceda02$9e9b9830$dbd2c890$@online.no> This situation can probably best be described by a discussion among Norwegian directors some 30 years ago. We ended up with the (ridiculous) conclusion that all doubles of low level bids should be alerted whether they were for penalty or for takeout because the understanding would always be unexpected for some players! That conclusion of course never reached the regulation. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 5. november 2013 06:25 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL ABF pre-Alert regulation, clause 3.1.2: This is the stage where you should draw the opponents? attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. Examples: transfer pre-empts, unusual two level openings, canap? style bidding, ++very unusual doubles++, unusual methods over the opponents? 1NT or strong club openings, unusual cue bids of the opponents? suit, etc. Pay ++particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls++. These should appear on your system card, but should also be verbally pre- alerted. Richard Hills: Each and every Double is self-Alerting during the auction in ABF- land. However, in the Ali-Hills partnership we pre-Alert our doubling methods, since we use non-penalty doubles after an overcall only if our opening bid is 1C or 1D. For example, we have the ?very unusual? agreement that 1H ? (1S) ? X = penalty, not negative. But because such a double of 1S is a natural call, not a conventional call, on the information provided so far by Sven it seems that 1Sx would be neither pre-Alerted nor Alerted in Norway, giving the Ali- Hills partnership unexpected and unfair +800s when we visit Oslo. David Burn, 20th December 2008: ?The trouble with this kind of discussion is that the Laws of bridge and the accompanying regulations are for all bridge players, not some tiny minority who play 25 different kinds of double, none of them penalty and (if the above contribution is anything to go by) most of them stupid. It is obviously in the interests of people who play obscure doubles that they should not be alerted. It is not in the interests of anyone else.? 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. DIBP 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/20131105/4dacd1f7/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Nov 5 19:39:14 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:39:14 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104287D3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104287D3@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <204E0D4B3441418894D2AD44FF56014A@G3> [Richard Hills quotes David Burn, 20th December 2008] ?The trouble with this kind of discussion is that the Laws of bridge and the accompanying regulations are for all bridge players, not some tiny minority who play 25 different kinds of double, none of them penalty and (if the above contribution is anything to go by) most of them stupid. It is obviously in the interests of people who play obscure doubles that they should not be alerted. It is not in the interests of anyone else.? [Nige1] IMO, as usual, David Burn gets to the nub of the issue. Defining doubles as self-alerting is inconsistent -- you might as well define all calls as self-alerting. A simple compromise (suggested years ago): - Announce partner?s ?Penalty? and ?Take-out? doubles. - Alert all other doubles. (In theory, it isn't be necessary to alert all other doubles -- because the absence of an announcement is equivalent to an alert -- but the alert would save time as opponents wouldn't need to wait for a possible announcement). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 6 03:29:24 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 02:29:24 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310429FEB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >This situation can probably best be described by a discussion among Norwegian >directors some 30 years ago. We ended up with the (ridiculous) conclusion that all >doubles of low level bids should be alerted whether they were for penalty or for >takeout because the understanding would always be unexpected for some players! > >That conclusion of course never reached the regulation. Richard Hills: No, that attempt at "reductio ad absurdum" by the Norwegian Directors was flawed. The ABF Pre-Alert regulation follows the guiding principle laid down by Herman De Wael (what would beginners using their national methods think was normal and usual?), with the ABF Pre-Alert regulation repeatedly using the key word "unusual". The vast majority of players in ABF-land are aware of two ++usual++ forms of the Stayman convention ("Simple" and "Extended"). So under the ABF Pre-Alert regulation it is not an infraction if a recent arrival to Australia from Norway is not pre-alerted about the unexpected (unexpected for this Norwegian only, not un- expected for her Aussie partner) use of Extended Stayman by her opponents. Best wishes, Richard 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. DIBP 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/20131106/e7f45687/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Nov 6 05:50:51 2013 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:50:51 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310429FEB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310429FEB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <006201cedaab$c61d6100$52582300$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard HILLS Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2013 1:29 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >This situation can probably best be described by a discussion among Norwegian >directors some 30 years ago. We ended up with the (ridiculous) conclusion that all >doubles of low level bids should be alerted whether they were for penalty or for >takeout because the understanding would always be unexpected for some players! > >That conclusion of course never reached the regulation. Richard Hills: No, that attempt at "reductio ad absurdum" by the Norwegian Directors was flawed. The ABF Pre-Alert regulation follows the guiding principle laid down by Herman De Wael (what would beginners using their national methods think was normal and usual?), with the ABF Pre-Alert regulation repeatedly using the key word "unusual". The vast majority of players in ABF-land are aware of two ++usual++ forms of the Stayman convention ("Simple" and "Extended"). So under the ABF Pre-Alert regulation it is not an infraction if a recent arrival to Australia from Norway is not pre-alerted about the unexpected (unexpected for this Norwegian only, not un- expected for her Aussie partner) use of Extended Stayman by her opponents. Best wishes, Richard UNOFFICIAL [tony] My sketchy understanding of the ABF regs is that 2C over 1NT is "self alerting", so the Norseman would need to have been pre-alerted. In any case, all the responses to "Extended Stayman" have to be alerted so he would quickly get back on track. On the other hand 3C over 2NT does have to be alerted for some reason. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. DIBP 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/20131106/f67e849b/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Nov 7 03:19:18 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 21:19:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim Message-ID: Declarer claims, saying dummy is good (diamonds and clubs). After the hands a put back in the board, but before starting the next hand, the defense contests the claim, noting that clubs are blocked and declarer will end up in his hand. So what happens? It depends now on what declarer has in his hand. The question is, in case of doubt, which is certainly the case tonight, who gets the benefit of the doubt? The rules seem clear that it is defending side. Even though they kind of created the problem. So, it can be do the defenders advantage, if they want to dispute a claim, to wait until the hands are shuffled and put back in the board? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 7 04:07:36 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 03:07:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042E8EA@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >Declarer claims, saying dummy is good (diamonds and clubs). After the >hands are put back in the board, but before starting the next hand, the >defence contests the claim, noting that clubs are blocked and declarer >will end up in his hand. > >So what happens? > >It depends now on what declarer has in his hand. The question is, in >case of doubt, which is certainly the case tonight, who gets the benefit of >the doubt? > >The rules seem clear that it is defending side. Even though they kind of >created the problem. Richard Hills: (1) The non-claimers did NOT create any irregularity whatsoever. A non- claiming side has a RIGHT to delay acceptance of a claim under Law 69A. (2) Law 70A's prescription on "Doubt" merely states that "...any doubtful point ++as to a claim++ shall be resolved against the claimer...". If there is doubt as to the cards played to tricks BEFORE the claim, then the relevant Laws are Law 65D and Law 85. (3) A competent Aussie Director would carefully take the time to re- construct the doubtful tricks before the claim. >So, it can be do the defenders' advantage, if they want to dispute a claim, >to wait until the hands are shuffled and put back in the board? Richard Hills: (4) Giving an unthinking immediate ruling in favour of the non-claimers on the doubtful facts of the pre-claim played tricks is a Director's Error. Lord Melbourne (British Prime Minister 1834, 1835 - 1841): "When in doubt what should be done, do nothing." 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. DIBP 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/20131107/686c0ef2/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Nov 7 07:16:05 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 01:16:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042E8EA@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042E8EA@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:07:36 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL > >> Declarer claims, saying dummy is good (diamonds and clubs). After the >> hands are put back in the board, but before starting the next hand, the >> defence contests the claim, noting that clubs are blocked and declarer >> will end up in his hand. >> >> So what happens? >> >> It depends now on what declarer has in his hand. The question is, in >> case of doubt, which is certainly the case tonight, who gets the >> benefit of >> the doubt? >> >> The rules seem clear that it is defending side. Even though they kind of >> created the problem. >Richard Hills: >(1) The non-claimers did NOT create any irregularity whatsoever. A non- > claiming side has a RIGHT to delay acceptance of a claim under Law 69A. >(2) Law 70A?s prescription on ?Doubt? merely states that ?...any doubtful > point ++as to a claim++ shall be resolved against the claimer...?. If > there is > doubt as to the cards played to tricks BEFORE the claim, then the > relevant > Laws are Law 65D and Law 85. I don't see how L65D is relevant. Can you explain? To recap, the players have put their cards back in the board and the defenders are now challenging the claim. >> > (3) A competent Aussie Director would carefully take the time to re- > construct the doubtful tricks before the claim. > >> So, it can be do the defenders? advantage, if they want to dispute a >> claim, >> to wait until the hands are shuffled and put back in the board? >Richard Hills: >(4) Giving an unthinking immediate ruling in favour of the non-claimers > on the doubtful facts of the pre-claim played tricks is a Director?s > Error. >Lord Melbourne (British Prime Minister 1834, 1835 ? 1841): >?When in doubt what should be done, do nothing.? > 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. DIBP 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131107/375c57a8/attachment-0001.html From vip at centrum.is Thu Nov 7 09:26:21 2013 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:26:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <955321287.16067012.1383812780996.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> ?g skal taka spilin ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Robert Frick" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Fimmtudagur, 7. N?vember, 2013 06:16:05 Efni: Re: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:07:36 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: UNOFFICIAL ? >Declarer claims, saying dummy is good (diamonds and clubs). After the >hands are put back in the board, but before starting the next hand, the >defence contests the claim, noting that clubs are blocked and declarer >will end up in his hand. > >So what happens? > >It depends now on what declarer has in his hand. The question is, in >case of doubt, which is certainly the case tonight, who gets the benefit of >the doubt? > >The rules seem clear that it is defending side. Even though they kind of >created the problem. ? Richard Hills: ? (1) The non-claimers did NOT create any irregularity whatsoever. A non- claiming side has a RIGHT to delay acceptance of a claim under Law 69A. ? (2) Law 70A?s prescription on ?Doubt? merely states that ?...any doubtful point ++as to a claim++ shall be resolved against the claimer...?. If there is doubt as to the cards played to tricks BEFORE the claim, then the relevant Laws are Law 65D and Law 85. I don't see how L65D is relevant. Can you explain? To recap, the players have put their cards back in the board and the defenders are now challenging the claim. ? (3) A competent Aussie Director would carefully take the time to re- construct the doubtful tricks before the claim. ? >So, it can be do the defenders? advantage, if they want to dispute a claim, >to wait until the hands are shuffled and put back in the board? ? Richard Hills: ? (4) Giving an unthinking immediate ruling in favour of the non-claimers on the doubtful facts of the pre-claim played tricks is a Director?s Error. ? Lord Melbourne (British Prime Minister 1834, 1835 ? 1841): ? ?When in doubt what should be done, do nothing.? 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. DIBP 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 7 22:20:13 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 21:20:13 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042EF25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Inscription upon the gravestone of Spike Milligan: Duirt me leat go raibh me breoite. [I told you I was ill.] Richard Hills: >>(1) The non-claimers did NOT create any irregularity whatsoever. A non- >>claiming side has a RIGHT to delay acceptance of a claim under Law 69A. >> >>(2) Law 70A's prescription on "Doubt" merely states that "...any doubtful >>point ++as to a claim++ shall be resolved against the claimer...". If there is >>doubt as to the cards played to tricks BEFORE the claim, then the relevant >>Laws are Law 65D and Law 85. >>..... >I don't see how L65D is relevant. Can you explain? To recap, the players >have put their cards back in the board and the defenders are now challenging >the claim. Law 65D, Agreement on Results of Play: "A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won. A player who fails to comply with the provisions of this Law jeopardises his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke." Richard Hills: All four players have disturbed the order of their played cards by shuffling them (Law 7C) and putting them back in the board. Therefore neither side gains the benefit of the doubt as to the sequence and composition of the pre- claim tricks. Ergo, to determine the nature of the pre-claim tricks the Director ++must++ apply --> Law 85A1, Rulings on Disputed Facts, Director's Assessment: "When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." 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. DIBP 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/20131107/48bfcb33/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 7 22:38:55 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 22:38:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042EF25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042EF25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <003d01cedc01$c2f7c9a0$48e75ce0$@online.no> Not so fast please. The non-claimers have accepted (conceded) the claim by restoring their cards to the board. The may, however, challenge the claim at a later time in which case Law 71 applies: A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession: 1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or 2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. What this essentially says is that If later, but within the correction period the non-claimers discover that (in their opinion) the claim was false they may withdraw their acceptance, but in that case any doubts shall be resolved in favour of the clainers. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 7. november 2013 22:20 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Inscription upon the gravestone of Spike Milligan: Duirt me leat go raibh me breoite. [I told you I was ill.] Richard Hills: >>(1) The non-claimers did NOT create any irregularity whatsoever. A non- >>claiming side has a RIGHT to delay acceptance of a claim under Law 69A. >> >>(2) Law 70A?s prescription on ?Doubt? merely states that ?...any doubtful >>point ++as to a claim++ shall be resolved against the claimer...?. If there is >>doubt as to the cards played to tricks BEFORE the claim, then the relevant >>Laws are Law 65D and Law 85. >>..... >I don't see how L65D is relevant. Can you explain? To recap, the players >have put their cards back in the board and the defenders are now challenging >the claim. Law 65D, Agreement on Results of Play: ?A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won. A player who fails to comply with the provisions of this Law jeopardises his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke.? Richard Hills: All four players have disturbed the order of their played cards by shuffling them (Law 7C) and putting them back in the board. Therefore neither side gains the benefit of the doubt as to the sequence and composition of the pre- claim tricks. Ergo, to determine the nature of the pre-claim tricks the Director ++must++ apply ? Law 85A1, Rulings on Disputed Facts, Director?s Assessment: ?When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.? 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. DIBP 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/20131107/0d391b48/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 7 23:12:02 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 22:12:02 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042EFDC@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 69A, first sentence: "Agreement is established when a contestant assents to an opponent's claim or concession, ++and++ raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first." Sven Pran: >Not so fast please. > >The non-claimers have accepted (conceded) the claim by restoring their >cards to the board. The may, however, challenge the claim at a later time >in which case Law 71 applies. Richard Hills: Not so fast please. The non-claimers have "assented" to the claim, but have not yet "agreed (conceded)" to the claim, because they have "raised an objection" within the Law 69A time limits. Sven's interpretation would be correct if "++and++"was instead replaced with the hypothetical 2017 phrase "++or alternatively that contestant++". Best wishes, Richard 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. DIBP 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/20131107/f81536cf/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 8 00:43:02 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 23:43:02 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042F247@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >...accepted (conceded) the claim... Richard Hills: Since at least the 1997 Lawbook a concession initiated by your side is no longer synonymous with an agreement to a claim initiated by the other side. (The 1997 terminology for the two was "concede" versus "acquiesce".) The definition of "concession" is specified in Law 68B, but the definition of the former "acquiescence" (now "agreement") is specified in Law 69A. http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/104676/rules-that-should-be-in-every-game UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP 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/20131107/d3f8a294/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Nov 8 03:27:05 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 21:27:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <955321287.16067012.1383812780996.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> References: <955321287.16067012.1383812780996.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> Message-ID: On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 03:26:21 -0500, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > ?g skal taka spilin Right. The hands might reveal something. Here, the hand were ambiguous. If I, director, can figure out what the player had in his hand at the time of the claim, no problem. But if I can't... Do the nonclaimers get the benefit of the doubt? ?...any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer...? Richard is saying this does not apply here. I don't find this reading of the laws to be very straightforward > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > Fr?: "Robert Frick" > Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Fimmtudagur, 7. N?vember, 2013 06:16:05 > Efni: Re: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:07:36 -0500, Richard HILLS > wrote: > > > > > UNOFFICIAL > >> Declarer claims, saying dummy is good (diamonds and clubs). After the >> hands are put back in the board, but before starting the next hand, the >> defence contests the claim, noting that clubs are blocked and declarer >> will end up in his hand. >> >> So what happens? >> >> It depends now on what declarer has in his hand. The question is, in >> case of doubt, which is certainly the case tonight, who gets the >> benefit of >> the doubt? >> >> The rules seem clear that it is defending side. Even though they kind of >> created the problem. > Richard Hills: > (1) The non-claimers did NOT create any irregularity whatsoever. A non- > claiming side has a RIGHT to delay acceptance of a claim under Law 69A. > (2) Law 70A?s prescription on ?Doubt? merely states that ?...any > doubtful > point ++as to a claim++ shall be resolved against the claimer...?. If > there is > doubt as to the cards played to tricks BEFORE the claim, then the > relevant > Laws are Law 65D and Law 85. > > > I don't see how L65D is relevant. Can you explain? To recap, the players > have put their cards back in the board and the defenders are now > challenging the claim. > > > > > > > > > (3) A competent Aussie Director would carefully take the time to re- > construct the doubtful tricks before the claim. > >> So, it can be do the defenders? advantage, if they want to dispute a >> claim, >> to wait until the hands are shuffled and put back in the board? > Richard Hills: > (4) Giving an unthinking immediate ruling in favour of the non-claimers > on the doubtful facts of the pre-claim played tricks is a Director?s > Error. > Lord Melbourne (British Prime Minister 1834, 1835 ? 1841): > ?When in doubt what should be done, do nothing.? > 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. DIBP 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 8 04:22:28 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:22:28 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Well [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310430B4B@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills, 8th November 2013, parsing the revoke and claim Laws: >The tricks accrued before a revoke are not subtracted by a rectification >for that revoke. >The tricks accrued before a claim are not subtracted by that claim's >normal lines of play and/or doubtful points. The well-informed Eric Landau, 21st July 2009, parsing Law 23: No. "Well damage" is a meaningless phrase unless your water source is broken. The phrase "could well damage" should be read as "could well cause damage", not as "could cause well damage". Not "could", which is equivalent to "might", but "could well", which is closer in meaning to "is likely to". Jane Austen, Northanger Abbey (1818): "To come with a well-informed mind, is to come with an inability of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person would always wish to avoid. A woman especially, if she have the misfortune of knowing anything, should conceal it as well as she can." 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. DIBP 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/20131108/45b766c3/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 10 23:11:02 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:11:02 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Well [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310431673@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>The tricks accrued before a revoke are not subtracted by a rectification for >>that revoke. >>..... ABF National Authority minutes, 20th November 2003, item 4: Revoke law consultation The World Bridge Federation had requested comment on the proposed revision of the revoke laws. While noting that other Committees should also be asked for comment, the National Authority considered the communication from Grattan Endicott set out here: Enquiry to be put to NBOs in consequence of discussions of the Laws Review Subcommittee in Monaco, November 2003. The WBF Laws Review Subcommittee decided in Monaco that its proposed revision of the Code of Laws, planned to come into effect on 1st January 2006, will make a change in the revoke laws so that only one trick is transferable following a revoke unless equity demands that a greater number be transferred. However there were a variety of opinions as to the way in which this principle might be applied. The Subcommittee decided to seek opinions from NBOs and Zones as to which of the following is preferred when a revoke occurs: 1. That a trick is to be transferred regardless of whether the offending side has won a trick or not. 2. That a trick should be transferred if the offending side has won a trick regardless of whether that trick is won before or after the revoke. 3. As in 2 but not to involve a trick won with a card that could not fail to win a trick by any legal play (or perhaps limited solely to the case of a trick won by the highest trump card that had not been played when the revoke occurred). 4. That a trick should be transferred only when the offending side has won the revoke trick or a later trick. 5. As in 4 but limited as in 3. Please email replies to gesta at tiscali.co.uk and copy also to grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk and use the subject line as in this email. ~ Grattan Endicott ~ Co-ordinator, WBF Laws Drafting Sub-committee. 18th November 2003. Without commenting on the merits of the proposed revision the National Authority was firmly of the view that the fourth alternative should be preferred. The basis for this view is that ease of application is essential and that any alternative which contemplated one side winning 14 tricks, or which changed the result of play before the revoke occurred was unacceptable. 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. DIBP 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/20131110/7a6b85e0/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Nov 10 23:22:48 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:22:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Well [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310431673@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310431673@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Thanks for this, Richard. A few weeks ago a player didn't get his ace of trumps because of a revoke. I explained that they tried to change the laws on this, but it was too hard. He seemed to accept that. They could have made it "impossible-to-lose" trump tricks. Then order of play isn't relevant. But then I think what to do about KQ10 and I can see it could get complicated. On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:11:02 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL > >>> The tricks accrued before a revoke are not subtracted by a >>> rectification for >>> that revoke. >>> ..... >ABF National Authority minutes, 20th November 2003, item 4: >Revoke law consultation >The World Bridge Federation had requested comment on the proposed > revision > of the revoke laws. While noting that other Committees should also be > asked for > comment, the National Authority considered the communication from Grattan > Endicott set out here: >Enquiry to be put to NBOs in consequence of discussions of the Laws > Review > Subcommittee in Monaco, November 2003. >The WBF Laws Review Subcommittee decided in Monaco that its proposed > revision of the Code of Laws, planned to come into effect on 1st January > 2006, > will make a change in the revoke laws so that only one trick is > transferable > following a revoke unless equity demands that a greater number be > transferred. > However there were a variety of opinions as to the way in which this > principle > might be applied. The Subcommittee decided to seek opinions from NBOs and > Zones as to which of the following is preferred when a revoke occurs: >1. That a trick is to be transferred regardless of whether the offending > side > has won a trick or not. >2. That a trick should be transferred if the offending side has won a > trick > regardless of whether that trick is won before or after the revoke. >3. As in 2 but not to involve a trick won with a card that could not > fail to win > a trick by any legal play (or perhaps limited solely to the case of a > trick > won by the highest trump card that had not been played when the revoke > occurred). >4. That a trick should be transferred only when the offending side has > won > the revoke trick or a later trick. >5. As in 4 but limited as in 3. >Please email replies to > gesta at tiscali.co.uk and copy also to grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk and use > the > subject line as in this email. > ~ Grattan Endicott ~ > Co-ordinator, WBF Laws Drafting Sub-committee. > 18th November 2003. >Without commenting on the merits of the proposed revision the National > Authority was firmly of the view that the fourth alternative should be > preferred. > The basis for this view is that ease of application is essential and > that any > alternative which contemplated one side winning 14 tricks, or which > changed > the result of play before the revoke occurred was unacceptable. > UNOFFICIAL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131110/58c6fef3/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 11 18:46:45 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:46:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042EF25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31042EF25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:20:13 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > > > UNOFFICIAL > > > Inscription upon the gravestone of Spike Milligan: > > > Duirt me leat go raibh me breoite. > > [I told you I was ill.] > > > Richard Hills: > > >>> (1) The non-claimers did NOT create any irregularity whatsoever. A non- > >>> claiming side has a RIGHT to delay acceptance of a claim under Law 69A. > >>> > >>> (2) Law 70A?s prescription on ?Doubt? merely states that ?...any >>> doubtful > >>> point ++as to a claim++ shall be resolved against the claimer...?. If >>> there >is > >>> doubt as to the cards played to tricks BEFORE the claim, then the >>> relevant > >>> Laws are Law 65D and Law 85. > >>> ..... > > >> I don't see how L65D is relevant. Can you explain? To recap, the players > >> have put their cards back in the board and the defenders are now >> >challenging > >> the claim. > > > Law 65D, Agreement on Results of Play: > > > ?A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until > agreement > > has been reached on the number of tricks won. A player who fails to > comply > > with the provisions of this Law jeopardises his right to claim ownership > of > > doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke.? > > > Richard Hills: > > > All four players have disturbed the order of their played cards by > shuffling > > them (Law 7C) and putting them back in the board. Therefore neither side > > gains the benefit of the doubt as to the sequence and composition of the > >pre- > > claim tricks. Hi Richard. I was looking at this and I think I found an error. Both sides did in fact agree on the number of tricks won before shuffling their cards and putting them back in the board. Now the nonclaiming side is disagreeing. The point is, there is no infraction of L65D by the claiming side. Hence, the claiming side would get the benefit of doubt. Or at least his rights to claim ownership of a doubtrul trick is jeopardized. True? Bob >> Ergo, to determine the nature of the pre-claim tricks the Director > > ++must++ apply ? > > > Law 85A1, Rulings on Disputed Facts, Director?s Assessment: > > > ?When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or > regulation in > > which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: > > In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance > of > > probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the > evidence > > he is able to collect.? > > 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. DIBP 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 11 21:33:43 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:33:43 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310432CA4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 69, Agreed Claim or Concession A. When Agreement is Established Agreement is established when a contestant assents to an opponent's claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first. The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play. B. Director's Decision Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C: 1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or 2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. >Hi Richard. I was looking at this and I think I found an error. Both sides >did in fact agree on the number of tricks won before shuffling their cards >and putting them back in the board. Now the non-claiming side is >disagreeing. The point is, there is no infraction of L65D by the claiming >side. > >Hence, the claiming side would get the benefit of doubt. Or at least [the >non-claiming side's] rights to claim ownership of a doubtful trick are >jeopardized. > >True? > >Bob False. The non-claiming side did NOT agree to the claim and then withdraw that agreement (in which case Law 69B would apply). Rather agreement with the claim was never consummated in the first place (Law 69A applies). Richard 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. DIBP 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/20131111/5f4644c4/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 11 22:59:59 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 22:59:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310432CA4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310432CA4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <000d01cedf29$5e475770$1ad60650$@online.no> >Hi Richard. I was looking at this and I think I found an error. Both sides >did in fact agree on the number of tricks won before shuffling their cards >and putting them back in the board. Now the non-claiming side is >disagreeing. The point is, there is no infraction of L65D by the claiming >side. > >Hence, the claiming side would get the benefit of doubt. Or at least [the >non-claiming side?s] rights to claim ownership of a doubtful trick are >jeopardized. > >True? > >Bob ? False. ? The non-claiming side did NOT agree to the claim and then withdraw that agreement (in which case Law 69B would apply). Rather agreement with the claim was never consummated in the first place (Law 69A applies). ? Richard Have you by any chance completely overlooked (or forgotten) Law 79A1 which says: The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have been returned to the board. Where does this law put your argument? I consider Bob to be correct. If you maintain your position here I shall feel very comfortable imposing a PP on you for returning hands to the board before the number of tricks won has been agreed upon. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 11 23:33:18 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 22:33:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310433697@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >Richard > >Have you by any chance completely overlooked (or forgotten) Law 79A1 >which says: > >The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have >been returned to the board. > >Where does this law put your argument? I consider Bob to be correct. >..... Richard Hills: Sven Have you by any chance completely overlooked (or forgotten) the WBF minutes of 8th September 2009, item 3, which says: " ..... Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a general law, ..... " An agreement defined by Law 69A, which specifically applies to an agreement (or non-agreement) to a claim, overrides the general Law 79A1. Where does this minute put your argument? I consider Sven to be incorrect. The key issue is that the word "agreement" as defined by Law 69A is very incongruous with the word "agreement" as defined in a standard dictionary. Richard Hills, 1st November 2011: >>My belief, which every sane blmler would call wrong, is that the >>Lawbook's non-dictionary technical terms should be written in Klingon. >>Translations from Klingon to English would be found in the Definitions. >>That way grass-roots Directors would be forced to eschew their current >>habit of ignoring the Definitions. >> >>Or alternatively the Drafting Committee could write as much as possible >>of the Lawbook in plain English, using technical terms as little as >>possible, thus assisting grass-roots Directors. >> >>What's the problem? paghmo' tIn mIS (which translated from Klingon is >>Much Ado About Nothing). >> >>Kind regards, >> >>Richard 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. DIBP 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/20131111/26e2d978/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 12 01:40:15 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 01:40:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310433697@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310433697@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <001701cedf3f$c212aaa0$4637ffe0$@online.no> Law 69A says: Agreement is established when a contestant assents to an opponent?s claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first. The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play. Note the comma preceding the words ?and raises no objection? To the extent that Law 69A defines the term agreement this comma delimits the definition from the following sentence which specifies the time during which the claim can be legally objected to (not to be confused with the time during which a concession may be cancelled or an agreement be withdrawn). Law 69A is not a more specific law than Law 79 in the way that it redefines the term agreement when used for claims and concessions rather than for the number of tricks won as a whole. If it were to do that a precise definition on exactly how an agreement must be made would have been required in order to establish whether or not an agreement had been reached in a particular case. Such definition could for instance be that no agreement has been reached unless the words ?I agree to the claim? (or words to similar effect) has been spoken. As we all know Law 69 contains no such specification. Law 79A1 clearly takes for granted that agreement on the number of tricks won has been reached at the time when players restore their hands to the board, and Law 79B prescribes the exact procedure to be followed when a subsequent disagreement arises. Law 79B1 then instructs the Director to apply Law 69 if he finds that there has been a claim or a concession in cases of such disagreement. And Law 69 resolves doubtful points about the claim or concession in favour of the claiming side, obviously based on the principle that the claim had originally been agreed to. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 11. november 2013 23:33 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >Richard > >Have you by any chance completely overlooked (or forgotten) Law 79A1 >which says: > >The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have >been returned to the board. > >Where does this law put your argument? I consider Bob to be correct. >..... Richard Hills: Sven Have you by any chance completely overlooked (or forgotten) the WBF minutes of 8th September 2009, item 3, which says: ? ..... Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a general law, ..... ? An agreement defined by Law 69A, which specifically applies to an agreement (or non-agreement) to a claim, overrides the general Law 79A1. Where does this minute put your argument? I consider Sven to be incorrect. The key issue is that the word ?agreement? as defined by Law 69A is very incongruous with the word ?agreement? as defined in a standard dictionary. Richard Hills, 1st November 2011: >>My belief, which every sane blmler would call wrong, is that the >>Lawbook?s non-dictionary technical terms should be written in Klingon. >>Translations from Klingon to English would be found in the Definitions. >>That way grass-roots Directors would be forced to eschew their current >>habit of ignoring the Definitions. >> >>Or alternatively the Drafting Committee could write as much as possible >>of the Lawbook in plain English, using technical terms as little as >>possible, thus assisting grass-roots Directors. >> >>What's the problem? paghmo? tIn mIS (which translated from Klingon is >>Much Ado About Nothing). >> >>Kind regards, >> >>Richard 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. DIBP 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/20131112/c25f875b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 12 02:14:28 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 01:14:28 +0000 Subject: [BLML] And I expect you'll all agree (was Delayed...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104337B7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL W.S. Gilbert, The Mikado (1885) Our great Mikado, virtuous man, When he to rule our land began, Resolved to try A plan whereby Young men might best be steadied. So he decreed, in words succinct, That all who flirted, leered or winked (Unless connubially linked), Should forthwith be beheaded. And I expect you'll all agree That he was right to so decree. And I am right, And you are right, And all is right as right can be! Sven Pran: >Law 69A says: >Agreement is established when a contestant assents to an >opponent's claim or concession, and raises no objection to it >before his side makes a call on a subsequent board or before the >round ends, whichever occurs first. The board is scored as though >the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play. > >Note the comma preceding the words "and raises no objection" >..... http://www.emwa.org/PastTWS/FatalcommaClark.pdf Richard Clark: Sir Roger Casement was said to have been 'hanged on a comma.' In 1914 he sailed to Germany and enlisted German support to help Ireland gain its independence from Great Britain. This included his unsuccessful attempts to recruit Irish prisoners to form an 'Irish brigade' to fight against Britain and drafting an unofficial treaty with Germany to support an independent Ireland. On his return to Ireland in 1916 he was arrested and charged under the Treason Act of 1351. His barrister argued that because the mediaeval act did not contain any punctuation and was written in Norman French, that it seemed to apply only to activities carried out within the realm (i.e. on British soil). In translation the act read: "If a man be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm giving them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere..." Casement's allegedly treasonable activities were all carried out in Germany, so this argument could have saved him. Nevertheless it is fair to say that this defence was very weak! In any case, the judges claimed to find a faint virgule (a sort of prototype comma, signifying a short pause) after the second 'realm' in the original act, and so he was condemned to death by hanging. If you want to be pedantic you could say he was 'hanged on a virgule', but 99% of people wouldn't know what was meant-so hanged on a comma it remains. 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. DIBP 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/20131112/fa8b650a/attachment-0001.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 08:06:17 2013 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:06:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701cedf3f$c212aaa0$4637ffe0$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310433697@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001701cedf3f$c212aaa0$4637ffe0$@online.no> Message-ID: It's pretty clear, IMO, that agreement to a claim is established only if the opponents raises no objection to their assent to the claim before their side meke a call on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first. The word "it" in "and raises no objection to it..." refers to the word assents in the first sentence, NOT to agreement. The whole period starting with "Agreement is established.." and ending with ".. whichever occurs first" defines when agreement to a claim or concession is established. You might easily have agreed upon a number of tricks on the board before and entered this on the score slip/bridgemate/bridgepad and returned your hand to the board. But if there's been a claim/concession, agreement on this is not established before the assenting side makes a call on the next board, unless they just played the last board of the round. And if they object to their assent, agreement to the claim/concession is not established yet. 2013/11/12 Sven Pran > Law 69A says: > > Agreement is established when a contestant assents to an opponent?s claim > or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call > on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first. The > board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or > lost in play. > > > > Note the comma preceding the words ?and raises no objection? > > > > To the extent that Law 69A *defines *the term *agreement* this comma > delimits the definition from the following sentence which specifies the > time during which the claim can be legally objected to (not to be confused > with the time during which a concession may be cancelled or an agreement be > withdrawn). > > > > Law 69A is not a more specific law than Law 79 in the way that it > *redefines* the term *agreement* when used for claims and concessions > rather than for the number of tricks won as a whole. If it were to do that > a precise definition on exactly how an agreement must be made would have > been required in order to establish whether or not an agreement had been > reached in a particular case. Such definition could for instance be that no > agreement has been reached unless the words ?I agree to the claim? (or > words to similar effect) has been spoken. As we all know Law 69 contains no > such specification. > > > > Law 79A1 clearly takes for granted that agreement on the number of tricks > won has been reached at the time when players restore their hands to the > board, and Law 79B prescribes the exact procedure to be followed when a > subsequent disagreement arises. Law 79B1 then instructs the Director to > apply Law 69 if he finds that there has been a claim or a concession in > cases of such disagreement. And Law 69 resolves doubtful points about the > claim or concession in favour of the claiming side, obviously based on the > principle that the claim had originally been agreed to. > > > > *Fra:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > av* Richard HILLS > *Sendt:* 11. november 2013 23:33 > > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* Re: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > Sven Pran: > > > > >Richard > > > > > >Have you by any chance completely overlooked (or forgotten) Law 79A1 > > >which says: > > > > > >The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have > > >been returned to the board. > > > > > >Where does this law put your argument? I consider Bob to be correct. > > >..... > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Sven > > > > Have you by any chance completely overlooked (or forgotten) the WBF > > minutes of 8th September 2009, item 3, which says: > > > > ? ..... Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a > general > > law, ..... ? > > > > An agreement defined by Law 69A, which specifically applies to an > > agreement (or non-agreement) to a claim, overrides the general Law 79A1. > > > > Where does this minute put your argument? I consider Sven to be incorrect. > > > > The key issue is that the word ?agreement? as defined by Law 69A is very > > incongruous with the word ?agreement? as defined in a standard dictionary. > > > > Richard Hills, 1st November 2011: > > > > >>My belief, which every sane blmler would call wrong, is that the > > >>Lawbook?s non-dictionary technical terms should be written in Klingon. > > >>Translations from Klingon to English would be found in the Definitions. > > >>That way grass-roots Directors would be forced to eschew their current > > >>habit of ignoring the Definitions. > > >> > > >>Or alternatively the Drafting Committee could write as much as possible > > >>of the Lawbook in plain English, using technical terms as little as > > >>possible, thus assisting grass-roots Directors. > > >> > > >>What's the problem? paghmo? tIn mIS (which translated from Klingon is > > >>Much Ado About Nothing). > > >> > > >>Kind regards, > > >> > > >>Richard > > 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131112/bdaea132/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Nov 12 10:05:34 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:05:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01cedf29$5e475770$1ad60650$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310432CA4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <000d01cedf29$5e475770$1ad60650$@online.no> Message-ID: <5281EF5E.3020803@skynet.be> Sven Pran schreef: > > False. > > The non-claiming side did NOT agree to the claim and then withdraw that > agreement (in which case Law 69B would apply). Rather agreement with > the claim was never consummated in the first place (Law 69A applies). > > Richard > > Have you by any chance completely overlooked (or forgotten) Law 79A1 which > says: > > The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have > been returned to the board. > Yes, but this cannot happen. According to the claim law, the number of tricks is agreed upon when the next board is begun. How can you begin a next board without returning the hands to the previous board? So I fear that the claim law supersedes this one, because otherwise it would be dead letter. The problem, as originally stated, is correct. There should be an additional rule which states that when cards are returned to the board, the side doing so loses the benefit of the doubt with regards to the order in which they were played. Of course that would mean that both sides would wait for the other, and shuffling the cards should be discouraged, while at the same time compulsary. This one is a problem, not solved at all by the current law. OTOH, I've never known this one to be a problem. Herman. > Where does this law put your argument? I consider Bob to be correct. > > If you maintain your position here I shall feel very comfortable imposing a > PP on you for returning hands to the board before the number of tricks won > has been agreed upon. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 12 10:21:45 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:21:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310433697@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001701cedf3f$c212aaa0$4637ffe0$@online.no> Message-ID: <002701cedf88$9bfb5850$d3f208f0$@online.no> The important question to be clarified in this discussion is which law the Director must apply in the following case: Play ends with a claim. The result is recorded and all four hands are shuffled and returned to the board. The players take their hands from the next board and even looks at their cards, but before the non-claiming side on the previous board makes any call they object to the claim. The Director is called to the table. Shall the Director now apply Law 69B (Withdrawn agreement) resolving any doubtful points in favour of the claiming side or Law70 (Contested claim) resolving any doubtful points in favour of the conceding side? Note that as all cards have been shuffled it is no longer possible to establish with certainty the progress of the play in question or the exact state at the time of the claim. I understand my distinguished opponents that they want to apply Law 70 while I still find such procedure untenable. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Harald Berre Skj?ran Sendt: 12. november 2013 08:06 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] It's pretty clear, IMO, that agreement to a claim is established only if the opponents raises no objection to their assent to the claim before their side meke a call on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first. The word "it" in "and raises no objection to it..." refers to the word assents in the first sentence, NOT to agreement. The whole period starting with "Agreement is established.." and ending with ".. whichever occurs first" defines when agreement to a claim or concession is established. You might easily have agreed upon a number of tricks on the board before and entered this on the score slip/bridgemate/bridgepad and returned your hand to the board. But if there's been a claim/concession, agreement on this is not established before the assenting side makes a call on the next board, unless they just played the last board of the round. And if they object to their assent, agreement to the claim/concession is not established yet. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131112/70a701e5/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Nov 12 12:57:54 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:57:54 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002701cedf88$9bfb5850$d3f208f0$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310433697@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001701cedf3f$c212aaa0$4637ffe0$@online.no> <002701cedf88$9bfb5850$d3f208f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <58CF7359A3BD4CC0B265CDB4365B0A70@G3> The intentions of the law may be crystal-clear to law-makers. The actual English meaning of the law may seem glaringly obvious to senior directors. The unfortunate fact remains that the law is so sophisticated, that the meaning is ambiguous to many ordinary directors and opaque to most players. Hence directors will give different rulings on the same facts and such inconsistency is perceived as unfair by players. Judging by controversies, here and elsewhere, Claims-law is just the tip of the ice-berg. Unfortunately it appears that only a tiny minority of rule-makers and directors believe that rules should be made simple enough for most players and directors to understand them. From RCraigH at aol.com Tue Nov 12 17:45:21 2013 From: RCraigH at aol.com (RCraigH at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:45:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] Claim with partner on lead -- Swiss ruling rectification Message-ID: <34aa5.1ca065c5.3fb3b520@aol.com> Here is a two part director problem from a recent Florida regional In a 2S doubled contract, the five card end position with declarer's RHO on lead, LHO claimed the balance of tricks, holding AKQxx in trumps Dummy had Jxx of trumps and two diamonds. Declare summoned the director and requested the lead of a heart, East known to have hearts. The result would be an uppercut, gaining a trick and fulfilling the contract for plus 470. The director ruled that declarer could bar one suit, not demand a lead, so RHO could lead a diamond or a trump, either defeating the contract (LHO had no more diamonds). Result, minus 100 and a seven IMP loss for declarer's team on a 30 scale. Before the next round started the director announced to the players that he had made a mistake and allowed the contract to make on the play of a heart as requested by declarer. The least effective defense rule applied against the offending side. Question one -- is the second ruling correct? Question two -- the director ruled that because of "director error" he was giving a split score, both teams benefitting from the situation. that is, the defense was permitted to set the contract and win the match by seven IMPs,while the declarer's team was awarded plus 470 and they also won the match by seven IMPs! In the final analysis the defending team finished behind declarer's in the overall rankings, but the defenders did achieve a result higher than some other teams (Meckwell among them). What is appropriate? Craig Hemphill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131112/556125a9/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Tue Nov 12 18:40:04 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:40:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Claim_with_partner_on_lead_--_Swiss_ruling_recti?= =?utf-8?q?fication?= In-Reply-To: <34aa5.1ca065c5.3fb3b520@aol.com> References: <34aa5.1ca065c5.3fb3b520@aol.com> Message-ID: <1VgHwa-41zNfE0@fwd12.aul.t-online.de> Von: RCraigH at aol.com > Here is a two part director problem from a recent Florida regional > In a 2S doubled contract, the five card end position with declarer's > RHO on lead, LHO claimed the balance of tricks, holding AKQxx in > trumps Dummy had Jxx of trumps and two diamonds. Declare summoned > the director and requested the lead of a heart, East known to have > hearts. The result would be an uppercut, gaining a trick and > fulfilling the contract for plus 470. The director ruled that > declarer could bar one suit, not demand a lead, so RHO could lead a > diamond or a trump, either defeating the contract (LHO had no more > diamonds). Result, minus 100 and a seven IMP loss for declarer's > team on a 30 scale. Before the next round started the director > announced to the players that he had made a mistake and allowed the > contract to make on the play of a heart as requested by declarer. The > least effective defense rule applied against the offending side. > Question one -- is the second ruling correct? Peter: it depends ... among other things on the exact layout of the last 5 tricks and on the play of the first 8 tricks. There is no such law that allows the opponent(s) of a claimer to "demand" or "forbid" a suit or suits. It is simply the TD's task to apply Law 70 A: "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. [...]" and (here) Law 70 D2: "The Director does not accept any part of a defender?s claim that depends on his partner?s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays." So, the TD has to find out, whether there was a LA for East to play a diamond - i.a.w. if it was normal to play anything else. If so, dummy will get a trick; if not the contract will be defeated. > Question two -- the > director ruled that because of "director error" he was giving a split > score, both teams benefitting from the situation. that is, the > defense was permitted to set the contract and win the match by seven > IMPs,while the declarer's team was awarded plus 470 and they also won > the match by seven IMPs! In the final analysis the defending team > finished behind declarer's in the overall rankings, but the defenders > did achieve a result higher than some other teams (Meckwell among > them). What is appropriate? Peter: Law 82 C: "If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as nonoffending for that purpose." does _not_ say the TD has to give advantageous scores to both sides (if he has made an error) in any case. Only in those cases, where "no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally". Here the play has ended, the cards and the earlier play are facts and the TD can easily change his first - erroneous - ruling to a better one without flooding (surplus) VPs over this match. > Craig Hemphill From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 12 23:02:42 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 22:02:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] And I expect you'll all agree (was Delayed...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104337B7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104337B7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310435269@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL W.S. Gilbert, The Mikado (1885): To sit in solemn silence in a dull, dark dock, In a pestilential prison, with a life-long lock, Awaiting the sensation of a short, sharp shock, From a cheap and chippy chopper on a big black block! Nigel Guthrie: >The intentions of the law may be crystal-clear to law-makers. The actual >English meaning of the law may seem glaringly obvious to senior directors. >The unfortunate fact remains that the law is so sophisticated, that the >meaning is ambiguous to many ordinary directors Richard Hills: The very senior and extraordinary Director Sean Mullamphy, Chief Director of Australia, believes that Law 69A is written in poor English - Sean dislikes lengthy sentences with many subordinate clauses and commas, preferring a series of short, sharp shocks with succinct sentences. Note that my preceding paragraph was a lengthy sentence, with many subordinate clauses and commas. :) :) Nigel Guthrie: >..... >Unfortunately it appears that only a tiny minority of rule-makers and >directors believe that rules should be made simple enough for most players >and directors to understand them. Richard Hills: Fortunately that tiny minority includes the WBF Laws Committee, and the WBF LC is an ++authoritative++ tiny minority. http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/Documents/laws_appeals/invitation.asp The 2017 Laws of Bridge - An Open Invitation Grattan Endicott, on behalf of the WBF Laws Committee >>..... >>I intend to divide suggestions received into two categories: >> >>a) those which propose a change in the effect of the law; and >> >>b) those which retain the current effect of the law but target an >>improvement in the wording and/or layout of a Law. >> >>The broad inclination of the committee as it commences the task is to >>institute very few category (a) changes but to concentrate mainly on >>proposals in category (b). Richard Hills: The Revoke Laws draw a distinction between a non-established revoke and a later established revoke. My modest proposal for the 2017 Claim Laws is that they should draw a distinction between a non-established agreement of tricks (Law 79A1) and a later established agreement of tricks (Law 69A). Kind regards, Richard "category (c)" 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. DIBP 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/20131112/31e41a54/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 12 23:45:23 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:45:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] And I expect you'll all agree (was Delayed...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310435269@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3104337B7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310435269@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <000d01cedff8$e01689e0$a0439da0$@online.no> Why not simply revert to the meaning of "agreement" in plain English language and use the ruling principles I was told back in 1980 (and have used ever since): For Law 70 to be applicable the claim must be contested before any score has been "agreed upon" by being recorded and the hands thereafter have been returned to the board. Later objections to the claim shall be handled under Law 69B (withdrawn agreement). Richard HILLS [.] My modest proposal for the 2017 Claim Laws is that they should draw a distinction between a non-established agreement of tricks (Law 79A1) and a later established agreement of tricks (Law 69A). Kind regards, Richard "category (c)" Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131112/83d28f12/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 13 00:18:48 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:18:48 +0000 Subject: [BLML] And I expect you'll all agree (was Delayed...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310435314@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL First verse of a traditional song: Tell me why the stars do shine, Tell me why the ivy twines, Tell me what makes skies so blue, And I'll tell you why I love you. Sven Pran: >Why not simply revert to the meaning of "agreement" in plain English language >and use the ruling principles I was told back in 1980 (and have used ever since): > >For Law 70 to be applicable the claim must be contested before any score has >been "agreed upon" by being recorded and the hands thereafter have been >returned to the board. Later objections to the claim shall be handled under Law >69B (withdrawn agreement). Isaac Asimov's Treasury of Humor: Nuclear fusion makes stars to shine, Tropisms make the ivy twine, Raleigh scattering make skies so blue, Testicular hormones are why I love you. Richard Hills: To quote Mayor Salvor Hardin of The Foundation, the answer to Sven's "why not" question is "obvious. Obvious as all hell!" Kind regards, Richard 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. DIBP 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/20131112/c4a7b2f7/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 13 01:38:32 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 00:38:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] And I expect you'll all agree (was Delayed...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310435416@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Mayor Salvor Hardin of The Foundation: ".....obvious. Obvious as all hell!" John (MadDog) Probst, obvious answer to reverting to 1980s Lawbook, October 2008: "[Probst cheat.] A concept freely floated here by me. Never very satisfactorily refuted by the blmlers either. A player with microscopic knowledge of the Law and regulation who is prepared to lie through his teeth if necessary in order to gain an advantage under Law, whilst all the time appearing to be innocent. Whenever an innocent player (innocent of the Law that is) is about to get a worse result than the probst cheat, and there are many examples just google them, then the cheat has prospered. A lot of my jurisprudence is based on not allowing him to prosper and so whenever someone does something that a cheat WOULD do I rule as if he HAS cheated without ever thinking he is one." 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. DIBP 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/20131113/bc9fddf5/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 13 04:10:31 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 03:10:31 +0000 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310436DA8@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Jeff Easterson: >Did Russell really write "complemented" and not "complimented"? Ciao, JE Richard Hills: Excellent backup proof-reading by Jeff. And I would again like to thank Eitan Levy for his excellent backup proof-reading to my Index of the 2007 Lawbook. Unfortunately I lacked a backup proof-reader for the revised Law 75. So Law 75 inconsistently uses the 1997 term "partnership agreement" instead of Law 75 consistently using the 2007 term "partnership understanding". (No doubt some blmler will therefore attempt to prove that that difference in wording means a difference in interpretation.) Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary ubiquity, n. The gift or power of being in all places at one time, but not in all places at all times, which is omnipresence, an attribute of God and the luminiferous ether only. This important distinction between ubiquity and omnipresence was not clear to the mediaeval Church and there was much bloodshed about it. Certain Lutherans, who affirmed the presence everywhere of Christ's body, were known as Ubiquitarians. For this error they were doubtless damned, for Christ's body is present only in the Eucharist, though that sacrament may be performed in more than one place simultaneously. In recent times ubiquity has not always been understood - not even by Sir Boyle Roche, for example, who held that a man cannot be in two places at once unless he is a bird. 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. DIBP 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/20131113/27393a64/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Nov 13 15:51:04 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:51:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002701cedf88$9bfb5850$d3f208f0$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310433697@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001701cedf3f$c212aaa0$4637ffe0$@online.no> <002701cedf88$9bfb5850$d3f208f0$@online.no> Message-ID: Law 65D is interesting. It starts, "A player should not disturb the order of his played cared until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won." Point 1. It should refer to "outcome" or tricks made, not tricks won. Point 2. It is better than L79A1, which could be eliminated from the lawbook. It continues, "A player who fails to comply with the provisions of this law jeopardizes his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke." Point 3. In general terms, this is saying that if (1) you mix your cards, or agree on an outcome thereby allowing the opponents to mix their cards), (2) you then want to challenge the outcome, then (3) your rights are jeopardized for *issues concerning order of play*. Point 4. Of course, it only says this for ownership of tricks and issues of a revoke. But it is not much of a stretch to apply it to a claim. When you agree to a claim, you have agreed to an outcome. When you then withdraw your agreement before the next hand starts, couldn't this be claiming ownership of doubtful tricks. Point 1 explained. It is not clear than any of the tricks following a claim are actually won. Because play has stopped. The law: "The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play." (L69A) Similarly, it seems to be natural language to say "We won 8 tricks, plus 1 trick for the revoke, makes 9 tricks." L44 specifies a method of winning tricks that does not include claims or revokes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131113/4e91f91f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 13 23:59:47 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:59:47 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Claim with partner on lead -- Swiss ruling rectification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310437589@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Peter Eidt: >..... >There is no such law that allows the opponent(s) of a claimer to >"demand" or "forbid" a suit or suits. It is simply the TD's task to >apply Law 70 A >..... Richard Hills: Yes. It seems that the claimer's opponent incorrectly remembered Law 26, but the Director correctly remembered Law 26. What both failed to realise is that Law 26 cannot apply to a claim, because after a claim "play ceases". According to the publicly released XA Draft, the 2007 Drafting Committee considered abolishing the unnecessary Law 26. Perhaps the 2017 Drafting Committee should revisit this idea. Kind regards, Richard 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. DIBP 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/20131113/5a55d3aa/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 21 02:00:28 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 01:00:28 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Nike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310443DCD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nonnus, Dionysiaca 2. 205 ff (trans. Rouse) (Greek epic C5th A.D.) : "[When the monster Typhoeus laid siege to Olympos, all the gods except for Zeus fled:] Zeus was alone, when Nike (Victory) came to comfort him, scoring the high paths of the air with her shoe." Because of a mixed reception to the new WBF decimalised Victory Point scale, the WBF is conducting a survey of international players (I am not even close to international standard, but an internationalist friend kindly emailed me the link). The three possible Victory Point scales surveyed by the WBF are: (1) revert to the old 25-0 Victory Point scale, or (2) maintain the current decimalised Victory Point scale, or (3) adopt a +50 / -50 Victory Point scale, where 1 imp = 1 VP up to a ceiling of plus or minus 50 imps. For psychological / euphemistic reasons negative VPs will be avoided, thus a 100-0 Victory Point scale, so a match ending in an exact tie will give each team 50 VPs. Kind regards, Richard 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. DIBP 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/20131121/e7de7ea5/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 21 10:10:56 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:10:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting problem Message-ID: <528DCE20.6010200@skynet.be> Someone told me the following case yesterday: Declarer plays a diamond. Before LHO can play to the trick, declarer says "ruff". LHO plays a low diamond. Dummy says "you have to follow suit", which is true. LHO has a higher diamond than all the ones in dummy. Can LHO change his played card? Herman. From petereidt at t-online.de Thu Nov 21 10:32:12 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:32:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?interesting_problem?= In-Reply-To: <528DCE20.6010200@skynet.be> References: <528DCE20.6010200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1VjQcO-0GLaGu0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Von: Herman De Wael > Someone told me the following case yesterday: > > Declarer plays a diamond. > Before LHO can play to the trick, declarer says "ruff". > LHO plays a low diamond. > Dummy says "you have to follow suit", which is true. > LHO has a higher diamond than all the ones in dummy. > > Can LHO change his played card? > > Herman. Peter: Yes, LHO may change his played card. Law 57 C2 tells us that the diamond ruff is a played card. This played card constitutes a (not-yet-established) revoke, which is not brought to the attention of anybody yet. LHO plays after both hands of declarer have played to the trick. Now the revoke is noticed and declarer has to change his play from dummy. Finally Law 47 D kicks in telling that "After an opponent?s change of play a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification and another card may be substituted." LHO's first diamond being UI for declarer (only). From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 21 11:14:49 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:14:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting problem In-Reply-To: <1VjQcO-0GLaGu0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> References: <528DCE20.6010200@skynet.be> <1VjQcO-0GLaGu0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <528DDD19.1030506@skynet.be> Peter, I never doubted you would get this correct. You spared a lot of people some wrong guesses though. One interesting twist: what if dummy has no trumps? Herman. Peter Eidt schreef: > Von: Herman De Wael >> Someone told me the following case yesterday: >> >> Declarer plays a diamond. >> Before LHO can play to the trick, declarer says "ruff". >> LHO plays a low diamond. >> Dummy says "you have to follow suit", which is true. >> LHO has a higher diamond than all the ones in dummy. >> >> Can LHO change his played card? >> >> Herman. > > Peter: > Yes, LHO may change his played card. > > Law 57 C2 tells us that the diamond ruff is a played card. > This played card constitutes a (not-yet-established) revoke, which > is not brought to the attention of anybody yet. > LHO plays after both hands of declarer have played to the trick. > Now the revoke is noticed and declarer has to change his play from dummy. > Finally Law 47 D kicks in telling that "After an opponent?s change of play > a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further > rectification and another card may be substituted." LHO's first diamond > being UI for declarer (only). > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From petereidt at t-online.de Thu Nov 21 11:27:44 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:27:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?interesting_problem?= In-Reply-To: <528DDD19.1030506@skynet.be> References: <528DDD19.1030506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1VjRU8-0ZMhzE0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Von: Herman De Wael > Peter, > I never doubted you would get this correct. > You spared a lot of people some wrong guesses though. > One interesting twist: what if dummy has no trumps? Peter: ok, i'll leave this to those people mentioned above ;-) > Herman. > > Peter Eidt schreef: > > Von: Herman De Wael > >> Someone told me the following case yesterday: > >> > >> Declarer plays a diamond. > >> Before LHO can play to the trick, declarer says "ruff". > >> LHO plays a low diamond. > >> Dummy says "you have to follow suit", which is true. > >> LHO has a higher diamond than all the ones in dummy. > >> > >> Can LHO change his played card? > >> > >> Herman. > > > > Peter: > > Yes, LHO may change his played card. > > > > Law 57 C2 tells us that the diamond ruff is a played card. > > This played card constitutes a (not-yet-established) revoke, which > > is not brought to the attention of anybody yet. > > LHO plays after both hands of declarer have played to the trick. > > Now the revoke is noticed and declarer has to change his play from > > dummy. > > Finally Law 47 D kicks in telling that "After an opponent?s change > > of play a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand > > without further rectification and another card may be substituted." > > LHO's first diamond being UI for declarer (only). From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 21 11:48:00 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:48:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting problem In-Reply-To: <1VjRU8-0ZMhzE0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> References: <528DDD19.1030506@skynet.be> <1VjRU8-0ZMhzE0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001501cee6a7$26a49410$73edbc30$@online.no> Peter Eidt > Von: Herman De Wael > > Peter, > > I never doubted you would get this correct. > > You spared a lot of people some wrong guesses though. > > One interesting twist: what if dummy has no trumps? > > Peter: > ok, i'll leave this to those people mentioned above ;-) > > > Herman. [Sven Pran] In that case we have Law 46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card." So no card has been played from dummy, and LHO may NOT change his play. (May I add that I really appreciated Peter's very sound logic when answering the original question, I was myself initially in a bit of doubt) From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Nov 21 12:58:24 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:58:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting problem In-Reply-To: <001501cee6a7$26a49410$73edbc30$@online.no> References: <528DDD19.1030506@skynet.be> <1VjRU8-0ZMhzE0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <001501cee6a7$26a49410$73edbc30$@online.no> Message-ID: <002401cee6b0$fbb0e5b0$f312b110$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> You seem to agree all of you, which is nice in itself. I am not that sure yet. Isn't it true that if we consider the ruff statement as equal to having played a card from dummy two things can happen, either RHO plays a card or tells that he doesn't accept the played card form dummy OOT or LHO plays a card demanding his turn to play, after which declarer may withdraw the card played in dummy (53C). The other possibility is that LHO played out of turn where his partner has to play. Then we arrive in 57A. This seems a situation where the TD should be called. Try to explain me where I go wrong. I store it as a live exercise whatever the outcome is. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2013 11:48 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] interesting problem Peter Eidt > Von: Herman De Wael > > Peter, > > I never doubted you would get this correct. > > You spared a lot of people some wrong guesses though. > > One interesting twist: what if dummy has no trumps? > > Peter: > ok, i'll leave this to those people mentioned above ;-) > > > Herman. [Sven Pran] In that case we have Law 46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card." So no card has been played from dummy, and LHO may NOT change his play. (May I add that I really appreciated Peter's very sound logic when answering the original question, I was myself initially in a bit of doubt) _______________________________________________ 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: 2014.0.4158 / Virusdatabase: 3629/6852 - datum van uitgifte: 11/20/13 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Nov 21 13:13:33 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:13:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting problem In-Reply-To: <001501cee6a7$26a49410$73edbc30$@online.no> References: <528DDD19.1030506@skynet.be> <1VjRU8-0ZMhzE0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <001501cee6a7$26a49410$73edbc30$@online.no> Message-ID: <002b01cee6b3$18ff1db0$4afd5910$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> I was just a little bit to fast without reading the laws properly and knowing 28B by heart. There it says call so I asummed that 53C talks about play, but it doesn't, it says lead. So the joke doesn't work. I would have liked you to solve a play from declarer's hand and from dummy after which RHO accepts it and plays the third card in the trick. But that is not going to happen. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2013 11:48 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] interesting problem Peter Eidt > Von: Herman De Wael > > Peter, > > I never doubted you would get this correct. > > You spared a lot of people some wrong guesses though. > > One interesting twist: what if dummy has no trumps? > > Peter: > ok, i'll leave this to those people mentioned above ;-) > > > Herman. [Sven Pran] In that case we have Law 46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card." So no card has been played from dummy, and LHO may NOT change his play. (May I add that I really appreciated Peter's very sound logic when answering the original question, I was myself initially in a bit of doubt) _______________________________________________ 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: 2014.0.4158 / Virusdatabase: 3629/6852 - datum van uitgifte: 11/20/13 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Nov 21 14:14:06 2013 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:14:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting problem In-Reply-To: <001501cee6a7$26a49410$73edbc30$@online.no> References: <528DDD19.1030506@skynet.be> <1VjRU8-0ZMhzE0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <001501cee6a7$26a49410$73edbc30$@online.no> Message-ID: <003401cee6bb$8e74b890$ab5e29b0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> I just received the following, believe it or not, in which LHO invites declarer to play from dummy before he himself plays. Hearts trump, declarer has H J,10 and two small clubs and in dummy H 9,7 with two small diamonds. Declarer to lead claims announcing a cross ruff. LHO asks him to continue and he puts a small club on the table and says 'ruff'. Now LHO asks which one and he says '7' after which LHO puts down his 8, which declarer had forgotten. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2013 11:48 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] interesting problem Peter Eidt > Von: Herman De Wael > > Peter, > > I never doubted you would get this correct. > > You spared a lot of people some wrong guesses though. > > One interesting twist: what if dummy has no trumps? > > Peter: > ok, i'll leave this to those people mentioned above ;-) > > > Herman. [Sven Pran] In that case we have Law 46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card." So no card has been played from dummy, and LHO may NOT change his play. (May I add that I really appreciated Peter's very sound logic when answering the original question, I was myself initially in a bit of doubt) _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2014.0.4158 / Virusdatabase: 3629/6852 - datum van uitgifte: 11/20/13 From petereidt at t-online.de Thu Nov 21 14:17:27 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:17:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?interesting_problem?= In-Reply-To: <002401cee6b0$fbb0e5b0$f312b110$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <002401cee6b0$fbb0e5b0$f312b110$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <1VjU8N-2CfJ200@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Von: "ton" > You seem to agree all of you, which is nice in itself. > > I am not that sure yet. Isn't it true that if we consider the ruff > statement as equal to having played a card from dummy two things can > happen, either RHO plays a card or tells that he doesn't accept the > played card form dummy OOT or LHO plays a card demanding his turn to > play, after which declarer may withdraw the card played in dummy > (53C). The other possibility is that LHO played out of turn where his > partner has to play. Then we arrive in 57A. > This seems a situation where the TD should be called. Try to explain > me where I go wrong. Peter: Law 53 C cannot apply here because it was not LHO's turn to _lead_ to the trick; it was declarer's turn to lead - what he did. When we arrive in Law 57 - what we should - it can only be part C, where it says in C1 that RHO _may_ play before his partner without risking any rectification for that. When he doesn't, no urgent need to call the TD. > I store it as a live exercise whatever the outcome is. > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens > Sven Pran Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2013 11:48 > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] interesting problem > > Peter Eidt > > > Von: Herman De Wael > > > Peter, > > > I never doubted you would get this correct. > > > You spared a lot of people some wrong guesses though. > > > One interesting twist: what if dummy has no trumps? > > > > Peter: > > ok, i'll leave this to those people mentioned above ;-) > > > > > Herman. > > [Sven Pran] > In that case we have Law 46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not > in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card." > So no card has been played from dummy, and LHO may NOT change his > play. > > (May I add that I really appreciated Peter's very sound logic when > answering the original question, I was myself initially in a bit of > doubt) From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 21 14:57:36 2013 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:57:36 -0600 Subject: [BLML] interesting problem In-Reply-To: <528DCE20.6010200@skynet.be> <1VjQcO-0GLaGu0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> References: <528DCE20.6010200@skynet.be> <1VjQcO-0GLaGu0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter Eidt" Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 03:32 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting problem > Von: Herman De Wael >> Someone told me the following case yesterday: >> >> Declarer plays a diamond. >> Before LHO can play to the trick, declarer says "ruff". >> LHO plays a low diamond. >> Dummy says "you have to follow suit", which is true. >> LHO has a higher diamond than all the ones in dummy. >> >> Can LHO change his played card? >> >> Herman. > > Peter: > Yes, LHO may change his played card. > > Law 57 C2 tells us that the diamond ruff is a played card. > This played card constitutes a (not-yet-established) revoke, which > is not brought to the attention of anybody yet. > LHO plays after both hands of declarer have played to the trick. > Now the revoke is noticed and declarer has to change his play from dummy. hmmm. L57C2 has deep consequences: A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and may not be withdrawn. Because such card may not be withdrawn L62B is rendered mute. regards roger pewick > Finally Law 47 D kicks in telling that "After an opponent?s change of play > a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further > rectification and another card may be substituted." LHO's first diamond > being UI for declarer (only). From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 21 16:05:00 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:05:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting problem In-Reply-To: <002401cee6b0$fbb0e5b0$f312b110$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <528DDD19.1030506@skynet.be> <1VjRU8-0ZMhzE0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <001501cee6a7$26a49410$73edbc30$@online.no> <002401cee6b0$fbb0e5b0$f312b110$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <528E211C.9080500@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/11/2013 12:58, ton a ?crit : > You seem to agree all of you, which is nice in itself. > > I am not that sure yet. Isn't it true that if we consider the ruff statement > as equal to having played a card from dummy two things can happen But you can't accept a card played as a revoke. > , either > RHO plays a card or tells that he doesn't accept the played card form dummy > OOT or LHO plays a card demanding his turn to play, after which declarer may > withdraw the card played in dummy (53C). The other possibility is that LHO > played out of turn where his partner has to play. Then we arrive in 57A. > This seems a situation where the TD should be called. Try to explain me > where I go wrong. > I store it as a live exercise whatever the outcome is. > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran > Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2013 11:48 > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] interesting problem > > Peter Eidt >> Von: Herman De Wael >>> Peter, >>> I never doubted you would get this correct. >>> You spared a lot of people some wrong guesses though. >>> One interesting twist: what if dummy has no trumps? >> Peter: >> ok, i'll leave this to those people mentioned above ;-) >> >>> Herman. > [Sven Pran] > In that case we have Law 46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in > dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card." > > So no card has been played from dummy, and LHO may NOT change his play. > > (May I add that I really appreciated Peter's very sound logic when answering > the original question, I was myself initially in a bit of doubt) > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2014.0.4158 / Virusdatabase: 3629/6852 - datum van uitgifte: > 11/20/13 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jimfox00 at cox.net Thu Nov 21 17:54:28 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:54:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Victory Point Scales (was RE: Nike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Option 3 seems inconceivable considering how much it could change basic tactics and strategies. Choice of Options 1 and 2 - Who really cares much? Mmbridge From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard HILLS Sent: 11/20/2013 8:00 PM To: Laws Bridge Subject: [BLML] Nike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Nonnus, Dionysiaca 2. 205 ff (trans. Rouse) (Greek epic C5th A.D.) : "[When the monster Typhoeus laid siege to Olympos, all the gods except for Zeus fled:] Zeus was alone, when Nike (Victory) came to comfort him, scoring the high paths of the air with her shoe." Because of a mixed reception to the new WBF decimalised Victory Point scale, the WBF is conducting a survey of international players (I am not even close to international standard, but an internationalist friend kindly emailed me the link). The three possible Victory Point scales surveyed by the WBF are: (1) revert to the old 25-0 Victory Point scale, or (2) maintain the current decimalised Victory Point scale, or (3) adopt a +50 / -50 Victory Point scale, where 1 imp = 1 VP up to a ceiling of plus or minus 50 imps. For psychological / euphemistic reasons negative VPs will be avoided, thus a 100-0 Victory Point scale, so a match ending in an exact tie will give each team 50 VPs. Kind regards, Richard 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. DIBP 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/20131121/a598e17a/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 21 17:59:50 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:59:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting problem In-Reply-To: References: <528DCE20.6010200@skynet.be> <1VjQcO-0GLaGu0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001901cee6db$189fdf80$49df9e80$@online.no> > Roger Pewick > From: "Peter Eidt" > > Von: Herman De Wael > >> Someone told me the following case yesterday: > >> > >> Declarer plays a diamond. > >> Before LHO can play to the trick, declarer says "ruff". > >> LHO plays a low diamond. > >> Dummy says "you have to follow suit", which is true. > >> LHO has a higher diamond than all the ones in dummy. > >> > >> Can LHO change his played card? > >> > >> Herman. > > > > Peter: > > Yes, LHO may change his played card. > > > > Law 57 C2 tells us that the diamond ruff is a played card. > > This played card constitutes a (not-yet-established) revoke, which is > > not brought to the attention of anybody yet. > > LHO plays after both hands of declarer have played to the trick. > > > Now the revoke is noticed and declarer has to change his play from dummy. > > hmmm. L57C2 has deep consequences: > > A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and > may not be withdrawn. > > Because such card may not be withdrawn L62B is rendered mute. > > regards > roger pewick [Sven Pran] Please do not forget Law 44C (and in particular the last clause): "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." "Following suit" is possible until it is too late to correct a revoke. From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 21 18:43:04 2013 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:43:04 -0600 Subject: [BLML] interesting problem In-Reply-To: <528DCE20.6010200@skynet.be> <1VjQcO-0GLaGu0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <001901cee6db$189fdf80$49df9e80$@online.no> References: <528DCE20.6010200@skynet.be> <1VjQcO-0GLaGu0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <001901cee6db$189fdf80$49df9e80$@online.no> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Sven Pran" Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:59 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting problem >> Roger Pewick >> From: "Peter Eidt" >> > Von: Herman De Wael >> >> Someone told me the following case yesterday: >> >> >> >> Declarer plays a diamond. >> >> Before LHO can play to the trick, declarer says "ruff". >> >> LHO plays a low diamond. >> >> Dummy says "you have to follow suit", which is true. >> >> LHO has a higher diamond than all the ones in dummy. >> >> >> >> Can LHO change his played card? >> >> >> >> Herman. >> > >> > Peter: >> > Yes, LHO may change his played card. >> > >> > Law 57 C2 tells us that the diamond ruff is a played card. >> > This played card constitutes a (not-yet-established) revoke, which is >> > not brought to the attention of anybody yet. >> > LHO plays after both hands of declarer have played to the trick. >> >> > Now the revoke is noticed and declarer has to change his play from >> > dummy. >> >> hmmm. L57C2 has deep consequences: >> >> A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played >> card and >> may not be withdrawn. >> >> Because such card may not be withdrawn L62B is rendered mute. >> >> regards >> roger pewick > > [Sven Pran] > Please do not forget Law 44C (and in particular the last clause): > "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This > obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." > > "Following suit" is possible until it is too late to correct a revoke. I'll take this opportunity to correct my error: Because such card may not be withdrawn in the circumstance L62B is muted in the circumstance . L57C2 merely creates an additional circumstance beyond which "Following suit" is no longer "possible". Which begs the question, 'What ought to happen to the player in that circumstance who does withdraw such card?' - assess a reduction in score regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 21 23:10:20 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:10:20 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Nike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310445C98@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >..... >(2) maintain the current decimalised Victory Point scale, or > >(3) adopt a +50 / -50 Victory Point scale, where 1 imp = 1 VP up to a >ceiling of plus or minus 50 imps. For psychological / euphemistic reasons >negative VPs will be avoided, thus a 100-0 Victory Point scale, so a match >ending in an exact tie will give each team 50 VPs. The problem with traditional VP scales (for example, the former WBF 25-0 VP scale) is the issue of "breakage". That is, accruing a particular extra imp is usually worth zero extra VPs, but accruing a different extra imp is worth one significant extra VP. An extreme example of one imp being very privileged over other imps is a VP scale formerly used in ACBL-land for some Swiss Teams events: maximum VPs for winning a Swiss match by one imp (or by fifty imps); minimum VPs for losing a Swiss match by one imp (or by fifty imps). "Breakage" is not an issue in both options (2) and (3) above, as every imp is sacred until their very high maximum VP ceilings are reached. Monty Python (slightly modified): Every imp is sacred Every imp is great If an imp is wasted God gets quite irate. 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. DIBP 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/20131121/2de43fd5/attachment-0001.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Thu Nov 21 23:42:49 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:42:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, I think it was at least 20 if not 30 years ago that the ACBL scored Swiss that way. On the other hand, that was also about when Swiss events were initially contested in ACBL, so maybe a little bit of time should be given them to get it right. Win by 1 imp or more was worth 1 point; tie 1/2 and loss zero. After a fairly small number of years as I recall, wins of 1 or 2 imps (or maybe 3) were scored as 3/4 - 1/4. There were still many tied positions most of the time. Mmbridge From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard HILLS Sent: 11/21/2013 5:10 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Nike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL >..... >(2) maintain the current decimalised Victory Point scale, or > >(3) adopt a +50 / -50 Victory Point scale, where 1 imp = 1 VP up to a >ceiling of plus or minus 50 imps. For psychological / euphemistic reasons >negative VPs will be avoided, thus a 100-0 Victory Point scale, so a match >ending in an exact tie will give each team 50 VPs. The problem with traditional VP scales (for example, the former WBF 25-0 VP scale) is the issue of "breakage". That is, accruing a particular extra imp is usually worth zero extra VPs, but accruing a different extra imp is worth one significant extra VP. An extreme example of one imp being very privileged over other imps is a VP scale formerly used in ACBL-land for some Swiss Teams events: maximum VPs for winning a Swiss match by one imp (or by fifty imps); minimum VPs for losing a Swiss match by one imp (or by fifty imps). "Breakage" is not an issue in both options (2) and (3) above, as every imp is sacred until their very high maximum VP ceilings are reached. Monty Python (slightly modified): Every imp is sacred Every imp is great If an imp is wasted God gets quite irate. 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. DIBP 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/20131121/1a3a913c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 22 00:38:41 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 23:38:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310445D43@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >>Someone told me the following case yesterday: >> >>Declarer plays a diamond. >>Before LHO can play to the trick, declarer says "ruff". >>LHO plays a low diamond. >>Dummy says "you have to follow suit", which is true. >>LHO has a higher diamond than all the ones in dummy. >> >>Can LHO change his played card? >> >>Herman. Peter Eidt: >Yes, LHO may change his played card. > >Law 57 C2 tells us that the diamond ruff is a played card. >This played card constitutes a (not-yet-established) revoke, which >is not brought to the attention of anybody yet. >LHO plays after both hands of declarer have played to the trick. >Now the revoke is noticed and declarer has to change his play from dummy. >Finally Law 47 D kicks in telling that "After an opponent's change of play >a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further >rectification and another card may be substituted." LHO's first diamond >being UI for declarer (only). Rueful Rabbit: What would Peter's ruling be if the contract was 3NT??? In that case I would be inclined to believe that declarer encouraging LHO's false inference as to the nature of the contract infracts Law 73F: "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has ++no demonstrable bridge reason for the action++, and who ++could have known++, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)." In my opinion a "Probst cheat" could earn many matchpoints baffling bewildered bunnies by trumping in No Trump. Kind regards, Richard 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. DIBP 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/20131121/c800fd5f/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 22 04:04:55 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 03:04:55 +0000 Subject: [BLML] WBF Laws Committee [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310447009@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://www.worldbridge.org/committee-minutes.aspx Interpretation issued by WBFLC - 19th September 2013 Law 21B2 - When a player elects not to change a call because of misinformation, Law 16D will still apply. The situation is analogous to the withdrawal of an original call followed by the subsequent replacement of the same call. Information arising from inferences that only become available because of the correction of mis- information is authorized to the non-offending side, but unauthorized to the offending side. 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. DIBP 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/20131122/cd19fc31/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Nov 22 05:35:24 2013 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:35:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01f101cee73c$43b67c90$cb2375b0$@optusnet.com.au> In Oz, you need to win a match by 0.02 IMP/board to win 100% of the master points available. Otherwise the masterpoints are shared. I have heard of teams who play for narrow wins to minimise the risk of playing good teams but to maximise their haul of "points". (Except on the last round). Someone who allocates these points via computer is going to have to make some programming changes to accommodate a new continuous VP scale. Not me, so I don't care. I don't like the non linear IMP scale nor the calculation of a so called datum (in so called "Butler Pairs") to the nearest multiple of 10. Much more unfair. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jim Fox Sent: Friday, 22 November 2013 9:43 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Nike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Yes, I think it was at least 20 if not 30 years ago that the ACBL scored Swiss that way. On the other hand, that was also about when Swiss events were initially contested in ACBL, so maybe a little bit of time should be given them to get it right. Win by 1 imp or more was worth 1 point; tie 1/2 and loss zero. After a fairly small number of years as I recall, wins of 1 or 2 imps (or maybe 3) were scored as 3/4 - 1/4. There were still many tied positions most of the time. Mmbridge From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard HILLS Sent: 11/21/2013 5:10 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Nike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL >..... >(2) maintain the current decimalised Victory Point scale, or > >(3) adopt a +50 / -50 Victory Point scale, where 1 imp = 1 VP up to a >ceiling of plus or minus 50 imps. For psychological / euphemistic reasons >negative VPs will be avoided, thus a 100-0 Victory Point scale, so a match >ending in an exact tie will give each team 50 VPs. The problem with traditional VP scales (for example, the former WBF 25-0 VP scale) is the issue of "breakage". That is, accruing a particular extra imp is usually worth zero extra VPs, but accruing a different extra imp is worth one significant extra VP. An extreme example of one imp being very privileged over other imps is a VP scale formerly used in ACBL-land for some Swiss Teams events: maximum VPs for winning a Swiss match by one imp (or by fifty imps); minimum VPs for losing a Swiss match by one imp (or by fifty imps). "Breakage" is not an issue in both options (2) and (3) above, as every imp is sacred until their very high maximum VP ceilings are reached. Monty Python (slightly modified): Every imp is sacred Every imp is great If an imp is wasted God gets quite irate. 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. DIBP 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/20131122/a8bbe45f/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Nov 22 09:49:01 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:49:01 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Victory Point Scales (was RE: Nike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <528F1A7D.8060605@btinternet.com> The new scale came about because the old one was so bad, which means that a return to that scale would not be a good idea. Better would be to have a fourth option - use the new discrete scale just introduced. Gordon Rainsford On 21/11/2013 16:54, Jim Fox wrote: > > Option 3 seems inconceivable considering how much it could change > basic tactics and strategies. > > Choice of Options 1 and 2 -- Who really cares much? > > Mmbridge > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On > Behalf Of *Richard HILLS > *Sent:* 11/20/2013 8:00 PM > *To:* Laws Bridge > *Subject:* [BLML] Nike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > UNOFFICIAL > > /Nonnus, Dionysiaca 2. 205 ff (trans. Rouse) (Greek epic C5th A.D.) :/ > > "[When the monster Typhoeus laid siege to Olympos, all the gods except > > for Zeus fled:] Zeus was alone, when Nike (Victory) came to comfort him, > > scoring the high paths of the air with her shoe." > > Because of a mixed reception to the new WBF decimalised Victory Point > > scale, the WBF is conducting a survey of international players (I am not > > even close to international standard, but an internationalist friend > kindly > > emailed me the link). > > The three possible Victory Point scales surveyed by the WBF are: > > (1) revert to the old 25-0 Victory Point scale, or > > (2) maintain the current decimalised Victory Point scale, or > > (3) adopt a +50 / -50 Victory Point scale, where 1 imp = 1 VP up to a > > ceiling of plus or minus 50 imps. For psychological / euphemistic reasons > > negative VPs will be avoided, thus a 100-0 Victory Point scale, so a match > > ending in an exact tie will give each team 50 VPs. > > Kind regards, > > Richard > > 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. DIBP 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/20131122/feddfd32/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 22 10:22:39 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:22:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310443DCD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310443DCD@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <528F225F.4050500@skynet.be> As one who has recently fallen victim to the old scales, I healthily welcome the "every IMP counts" principle. In my second club, we play a very peculiar tournament. At the start of the year, all pairs are classed according to their perceived strength, but upside down. So, the best four pairs play in the bottom division (of four) and the worst play in first division. Every month, the four pairs play a three-round competitions, with the other three as temporary team-mates. At the end, the top pair moves up a division, and the bottom pair moves down, for next month. All divisions play the same boards, so a Butler ranking is also made. This week, we won one match 16-14 and lost another 14-16. Of course, one pair won both and another lost both. And we were teammates to the other pair on 30 for the third match. We lost that one 13-17, so e were equally last on 43VP. The rules state that the Butler ranking then decides. We were at -4, they at -1, and so we descend to the lower division next month. Why is that being a victim of the old scale? Because we won the one match by 5 IMPs and lost the other by 4 IMPs. If every IMP had counted, we'd have been third in the group. Which is why the "every IMP counts" has my vote. I'm not certain that some IMPs should count more than others though. All IMPs are equal, but some are more equal than others ... Richard HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > /Nonnus, Dionysiaca 2. 205 ff (trans. Rouse) (Greek epic C5th A.D.) :/ > ?[When the monster Typhoeus laid siege to Olympos, all the gods except > for Zeus fled:] Zeus was alone, when Nike (Victory) came to comfort him, > scoring the high paths of the air with her shoe.? > Because of a mixed reception to the new WBF decimalised Victory Point > scale, the WBF is conducting a survey of international players (I am not > even close to international standard, but an internationalist friend kindly > emailed me the link). > The three possible Victory Point scales surveyed by the WBF are: > (1) revert to the old 25-0 Victory Point scale, or > (2) maintain the current decimalised Victory Point scale, or > (3) adopt a +50 / -50 Victory Point scale, where 1 imp = 1 VP up to a > ceiling of plus or minus 50 imps. For psychological / euphemistic reasons > negative VPs will be avoided, thus a 100-0 Victory Point scale, so a match > ending in an exact tie will give each team 50 VPs. > Kind regards, > Richard > 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. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 22 14:52:56 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:52:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310445D43@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310445D43@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <528F61B8.40709@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/11/2013 0:38, Richard HILLS a ?crit : > UNOFFICIAL > Herman De Wael: > >>Someone told me the following case yesterday: > >> > >>Declarer plays a diamond. > >>Before LHO can play to the trick, declarer says "ruff". > >>LHO plays a low diamond. > >>Dummy says "you have to follow suit", which is true. > >>LHO has a higher diamond than all the ones in dummy. > >> > >>Can LHO change his played card? > >> > >>Herman. > Peter Eidt: > >Yes, LHO may change his played card. > > > >Law 57 C2 tells us that the diamond ruff is a played card. > >This played card constitutes a (not-yet-established) revoke, which > >is not brought to the attention of anybody yet. > >LHO plays after both hands of declarer have played to the trick. > >Now the revoke is noticed and declarer has to change his play from dummy. > >Finally Law 47 D kicks in telling that "After an opponent's change of > play > >a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further > >rectification and another card may be substituted." LHO's first diamond > >being UI for declarer (only). > Rueful Rabbit: > What would Peter's ruling be if the contract was 3NT??? > In that case I would be inclined to believe that declarer encouraging > LHO's > false inference as to the nature of the contract infracts Law 73F: AG : I wouldn't. Barring very good reasons to the contrary, the simplest explanation is that declarer believes, in all good faith, that he is playing a trump contract. I've seen this case at least twice. In both cases, at least one defender exclaimed "do WHAT ?", solving the problem in a non-academic way before it's too late. Now there is a debate whether declarer has named an inexistent card (no penalty) or whether he's called for the suit on dummy's right (either card stands as played or unestablished revoke). A majority oin blml said it's the former. Furthermore, in this case, dummy will probably be bamboozled by the instruction, and play nothing, hence no problem. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131122/9556fa28/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 23 02:45:15 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 20:45:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310445D43@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310445D43@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:38:41 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Herman De Wael: > >>> Someone told me the following case yesterday: >>> >>> Declarer plays a diamond. >>> Before LHO can play to the trick, declarer says ?ruff?. >>> LHO plays a low diamond. >>> Dummy says ?you have to follow suit?, which is true. >>> LHO has a higher diamond than all the ones in dummy. >>> >>> Can LHO change his played card? >>> >>> Herman. >Peter Eidt: > >> Yes, LHO may change his played card. >> >> Law 57 C2 tells us that the diamond ruff is a played card. >> This played card constitutes a (not-yet-established) revoke, which >> is not brought to the attention of anybody yet. >> LHO plays after both hands of declarer have played to the trick. >> Now the revoke is noticed and declarer has to change his play from >> dummy. >> Finally Law 47 D kicks in telling that ?After an opponent?s change of >> playa played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without >> furtherrectification and another card may be substituted.? LHO?s first >> diamond >> being UI for declarer (only). >Rueful Rabbit: >What would Peter?s ruling be if the contract was 3NT??? >In that case I would be inclined to believe that declarer encouraging > LHO?s > false inference as to the nature of the contract infracts Law 73F: >?When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law There is, unfortunately, no irregularity I can find for calling for a nonexistent card from dummy. >> results in damage > to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent > player > has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, > of an > opponent who has ++no demonstrable bridge reason for the action++, and > who ++could have known++, at the time of the action, that the action > could > work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law > 12C).? >In my opinion a ?Probst cheat? could earn many matchpoints baffling > bewildered bunnies by trumping in No Trump. >Kind regards, >Richard > 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. DIBP 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131123/161ab5e6/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 24 22:27:01 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 21:27:01 +0000 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310449D87@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: >>What would Peter's ruling be if the contract was 3NT??? >> >>In that case I would be inclined to believe that declarer encouraging LHO's >>false inference as to the nature of the contract infracts Law 73F: >>..... Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : I wouldn't. Barring very good reasons to the contrary, the simplest >explanation is that declarer believes, in all good faith, that he is playing a >trump contract. Richard Hills "Simplest explanation" and "good faith" are criteria The Doctor should NOT apply when determining if there has been an infraction of Law 73F. Instead the criteria that The Doctor should apply are "could have known" and "no bridge reason". Alain Gottcheiner: >I've seen this case at least twice. In both cases, at least one defender >exclaimed "do WHAT ?", solving the problem in a non-academic way >before it's too late. >Now there is a debate whether declarer has named an inexistent card (no >penalty) or whether he's called for the suit on dummy's right (either card >stands as played or unestablished revoke). A majority on blml said it's the >former. Richard Hills: Geronimo! Naming a non-existent card may not have a specific rectification, but it is still an irregularity. If that irregularity causes damage to the non- offending side, then Law 12A1 states: "The Doctor may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." Alain Gottcheiner: >Furthermore, in this case, dummy will probably be bamboozled by the >instruction, and play nothing, hence no problem. Richard Hills: Yes, there is a problem; Alain has misread the scenario. Davros did not merely call for a non-existent card from dummy, Davros called for that non- existent card out of turn. Hence Davros' LHO was encouraged to play a losing diamond card instead of a winning diamond card. Kind regards, Richard 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. DIBP 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/20131124/260cba13/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 25 01:58:54 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:58:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310449D87@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310449D87@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 16:27:01 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Richard Hills: > >>> What would Peter?s ruling be if the contract was 3NT??? >>> >>> In that case I would be inclined to believe that declarer encouraging >>> LHO?s >>> false inference as to the nature of the contract infracts Law 73F: >>> ..... >Alain Gottcheiner: > >> AG : I wouldn?t. Barring very good reasons to the contrary, the simplest >> explanation is that declarer believes, in all good faith, that he is >> playing a >> trump contract. >Richard Hills >?Simplest explanation? and ?good faith? are criteria The Doctor should > NOT > apply when determining if there has been an infraction of Law 73F. > Instead > the criteria that The Doctor should apply are ?could have known? and ?no > bridge reason?. >Alain Gottcheiner: > >> I?ve seen this case at least twice. In both cases, at least one defender >> exclaimed ?do WHAT ??, solving the problem in a non-academic way >> before it?s too late. >> Now there is a debate whether declarer has named an inexistent card (no >> penalty) or whether he?s called for the suit on dummy?s right (either >> card >> stands as played or unestablished revoke). A majority on blml said it?s >> the >> former. >Richard Hills: >Geronimo! Naming a non-existent card may not have a specific > rectification, > but it is still an irregularity. If that irregularity causes damage to > the non- > offending side, then Law 12A1 states: >?The Doctor may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do > not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular > type of > violation committed by an opponent.? >Alain Gottcheiner: > >> Furthermore, in this case, dummy will probably be bamboozled by the >> instruction, and play nothing, hence no problem. >Richard Hills: >Yes, there is a problem; Alain has misread the scenario. Davros did not > merely call for a non-existent card from dummy, Davros called for that > non- > existent card out of turn. Hence Davros? LHO was encouraged to play a > losing > diamond card instead of a winning diamond card. Declarer called for the two of spades from dummy. Defender played a spade. While the dummy did contain small spades, there was no 2 of spades. The answer from the ACBL was that defender's card was a penalty card. No irregularity, right? Hence no L23 application. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131125/f6f91449/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 25 02:47:33 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 01:47:33 +0000 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31044A1F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card." New scenario: >Declarer called for the two of spades from dummy. Defender played a spade. >While the dummy did contain small spades, there was no 2 of spades. The >answer from the ACBL was that defender's card was a penalty card. > >No irregularity, right? Hence no L23 application. > >Bob Newer scenario: The contract is 7NT. In the two-card ending dummy is on lead, holding the ace of diamonds and the three of spades. Davros knows that RHO holds the ace of spades, and Davros also knows that RHO is now void in diamonds. So Davros calls, "two of spades". RHO innocently plays the ace of spades. Now Davros summons an ACBL Director: (1) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of spades is a penalty card. (2) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of diamonds may now be called from dummy. (3) That ACBL Director incorrectly rules "No irregularity from Davros, so the 7NT contract makes." If instead Director Who had been summoned, his Key to Time is: Law 46A, Proper Form for Designating Dummy's Card: "When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer ++should++ clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." Introduction: " ..... "should" do (failure to do it is an ++infraction++ jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized) ..... " 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. DIBP 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/20131125/834b690d/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 25 02:52:25 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:52:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31044A1F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31044A1F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:47:33 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Law 46B4: >?If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and > declarer may > designate any legal card.? >New scenario: > >> Declarer called for the two of spades from dummy. Defender played a >> spade. >> While the dummy did contain small spades, there was no 2 of spades. The >> answer from the ACBL was that defender?s card was a penalty card. >> >> No irregularity, right? Hence no L23 application. >> >> Bob >Newer scenario: >The contract is 7NT. In the two-card ending dummy is on lead, holding > the ace > of diamonds and the three of spades. Davros knows that RHO holds the ace > of > spades, and Davros also knows that RHO is now void in diamonds. >So Davros calls, ?two of spades?. RHO innocently plays the ace of > spades. Now > Davros summons an ACBL Director: >(1) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of spades is a > penalty card. > (2) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of diamonds may now > be > called from dummy. > (3) That ACBL Director incorrectly rules ?No irregularity from Davros, > so the > 7NT contract makes.? >If instead Director Who had been summoned, his Key to Time is: >Law 46A, Proper Form for Designating Dummy?s Card: >?When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer ++should++ clearly > state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.? Arguably, declarer was not calling a card from dummy. If he was, he named suit and rank. Put another way -- this is a law about proper form, and declarer used proper form. >> > Introduction: >? ..... ?should? do (failure to do it is an ++infraction++ jeopardizing > the > infractor?s rights but not often penalized) ..... ? > 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. DIBP 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131125/dfc53a42/attachment-0001.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 25 05:27:01 2013 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 22:27:01 -0600 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31044A1F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31044A1F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Frick" Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 19:52 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:47:33 -0500, Richard HILLS > wrote: > >>> UNOFFICIAL >>Law 46B4: >>?If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and >> declarer may >> designate any legal card.? >>New scenario: >> >>> Declarer called for the two of spades from dummy. Defender played a >>> spade. >>> While the dummy did contain small spades, there was no 2 of spades. The >>> answer from the ACBL was that defender?s card was a penalty card. >>> >>> No irregularity, right? Hence no L23 application. >>> >>> Bob >>Newer scenario: >>The contract is 7NT. In the two-card ending dummy is on lead, holding >> the ace >> of diamonds and the three of spades. Davros knows that RHO holds the ace >> of >> spades, and Davros also knows that RHO is now void in diamonds. >>So Davros calls, ?two of spades?. RHO innocently plays the ace of >> spades. Now >> Davros summons an ACBL Director: >>(1) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of spades is a >> penalty card. >> (2) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of diamonds may now >> be >> called from dummy. >> (3) That ACBL Director incorrectly rules ?No irregularity from Davros, >> so the >> 7NT contract makes.? >>If instead Director Who had been summoned, his Key to Time is: >>Law 46A, Proper Form for Designating Dummy?s Card: >>?When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer ++should++ clearly >> state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.? > > Arguably, declarer was not calling a card from dummy. If he was, he named > suit and rank. > > Put another way -- this is a law about proper form, and declarer used > proper form. > > >>> >> Introduction: >>? ..... ?should? do (failure to do it is an ++infraction++ jeopardizing >> the >> infractor?s rights but not often penalized) ..... ? >> 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. DIBP 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 >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -- > ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com > On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:47:33 -0500, Richard HILLS > wrote: > > > UNOFFICIAL > > Law 46B4: > > ???If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and > declarer may > designate any legal card.??? > > New scenario: > > >Declarer called for the two of spades from dummy. Defender played a > spade. > >While the dummy did contain small spades, there was no 2 of spades. The > >answer from the ACBL was that defender???s card was a penalty card. > > > >No irregularity, right? Hence no L23 application. > > > >Bob > > Newer scenario: > > The contract is 7NT. In the two-card ending dummy is on lead, holding the > ace > of diamonds and the three of spades. Davros knows that RHO holds the ace > of > spades, and Davros also knows that RHO is now void in diamonds. > > So Davros calls, ???two of spades???. RHO innocently plays the ace of > spades. Now > Davros summons an ACBL Director: > > (1) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of spades is a > penalty card. > (2) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of diamonds may now > be > called from dummy. > (3) That ACBL Director incorrectly rules ???No irregularity from Davros, > so the > 7NT contract makes.??? > > If instead Director Who had been summoned, his Key to Time is: > Law 46A, Proper Form for Designating Dummy???s Card: > > ???When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer ++should++ > clearly > state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.??? > Arguably, declarer was not calling a card from dummy. If he was, he named > suit and rank. Robert, Are you reading the law or the heading? > Put another way -- this is a law about proper form, and declarer used > proper form. Well yes- the law is about calling the desired card**. As such it is what declarer desires that is relevant. If he calls the D2 and had desired the D2 then he indeed has done nothing wrong; including the instance when dummy does not have the D2. further, in the latter case when instead declarer having called the D2, but did not desire the D2, who is to be the wiser when he asserts he did desire the D2? ** distinct from naming a card that dummy has regards, roger pewick > Introduction: > > ??? ..... ???should??? do (failure to do it is an ++infraction++ > jeopardizing the > infractor???s rights but not often penalized) ..... ??? > UNOFFICIAL From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 25 06:52:10 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 05:52:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31044B77E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 46B4 (misquoted by RH): "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card." Law 46B4, Incomplete or Erroneous Call (correctly quoting its prologue): "In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card." Laws 46A and 46B are two sides of the same coin. Law 46A defines correct "should" procedure in calling for a card. Law 46B defines incorrect "incomplete / erroneous" procedure in calling for a card, and consequent rectifications for such irregularities. The Doctor: "Davros... if you had created a virus in your laboratory, something contagious and infectious that killed on contact, a virus that would destroy all other forms of life, would you allow its use?" Davros: "It is an interesting conjecture..." The Doctor: "Would you do it?" Davros: "The only living thing... A microscopic organism reigning supreme... A fascinating idea!..." The Doctor: "But would you do it?" Davros: "Yes... Yes... To hold in my hand, a capsule that contains such power... To know that life and death on such a scale was my choice... To know that the tiny pressure of my thumb - enough to break the glass - would end everything... Yes! I would do it! That power would set me up above the gods!" 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. DIBP 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/20131125/664b51f1/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Nov 25 15:06:43 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:06:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310449D87@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC310449D87@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <06762B25AFE04B0FA9EF478F6768E3E2@G3> [Richard Hills] ?Simplest explanation? and ?good faith? are criteria The Doctor should NOT apply when determining if there has been an infraction of Law 73F. Instead the criteria that The Doctor should apply are ?could have known? and ?no bridge reason?. [Nige1] Until directors start to rule as Richard implies they should, law-breakers will continue to be rewarded and encouraged. An unrelated but common example: when a player pulls a wrong card from the bidding-box, he can easily convince himself that it was a slip of the mind rather than a slip of the hand. Unless directors lean heavily towards the latter interpretation, however, they overly penalize the dwindling rump of honest players. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 25 18:37:18 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:37:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31044A1F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:27:01 -0500, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Robert Frick" > Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 19:52 > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:47:33 -0500, Richard HILLS >> wrote: >> >>>> UNOFFICIAL >>> Law 46B4: >>> ?If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and >>> declarer may >>> designate any legal card.? >>> New scenario: >>> >>>> Declarer called for the two of spades from dummy. Defender played a >>>> spade. >>>> While the dummy did contain small spades, there was no 2 of spades. >>>> The >>>> answer from the ACBL was that defender?s card was a penalty card. >>>> >>>> No irregularity, right? Hence no L23 application. >>>> >>>> Bob >>> Newer scenario: >>> The contract is 7NT. In the two-card ending dummy is on lead, holding >>> the ace >>> of diamonds and the three of spades. Davros knows that RHO holds the >>> ace >>> of >>> spades, and Davros also knows that RHO is now void in diamonds. >>> So Davros calls, ?two of spades?. RHO innocently plays the ace of >>> spades. Now >>> Davros summons an ACBL Director: >>> (1) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of spades is a >>> penalty card. >>> (2) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of diamonds may now >>> be >>> called from dummy. >>> (3) That ACBL Director incorrectly rules ?No irregularity from Davros, >>> so the >>> 7NT contract makes.? >>> If instead Director Who had been summoned, his Key to Time is: >>> Law 46A, Proper Form for Designating Dummy?s Card: >>> ?When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer ++should++ >>> clearly >>> state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.? >> >> Arguably, declarer was not calling a card from dummy. If he was, he >> named >> suit and rank. >> >> Put another way -- this is a law about proper form, and declarer used >> proper form. >> >> >>>> >>> Introduction: >>> ? ..... ?should? do (failure to do it is an ++infraction++ jeopardizing >>> the >>> infractor?s rights but not often penalized) ..... ? >>> 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. DIBP 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 >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> -- >> ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com > > > >> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:47:33 -0500, Richard HILLS >> wrote: >> >> >> UNOFFICIAL >> >> Law 46B4: >> >> ???If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and >> declarer may >> designate any legal card.??? >> >> New scenario: >> >> >Declarer called for the two of spades from dummy. Defender played a >> spade. >> >While the dummy did contain small spades, there was no 2 of spades. >> The >> >answer from the ACBL was that defender???s card was a penalty card. >> > >> >No irregularity, right? Hence no L23 application. >> > >> >Bob >> >> Newer scenario: >> >> The contract is 7NT. In the two-card ending dummy is on lead, holding >> the >> ace >> of diamonds and the three of spades. Davros knows that RHO holds the >> ace >> of >> spades, and Davros also knows that RHO is now void in diamonds. >> >> So Davros calls, ???two of spades???. RHO innocently plays the ace of >> spades. Now >> Davros summons an ACBL Director: >> >> (1) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of spades is a >> penalty card. >> (2) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of diamonds may now >> be >> called from dummy. >> (3) That ACBL Director incorrectly rules ???No irregularity from >> Davros, >> so the >> 7NT contract makes.??? >> >> If instead Director Who had been summoned, his Key to Time is: > > >> Law 46A, Proper Form for Designating Dummy???s Card: >> >> ???When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer ++should++ >> clearly >> state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.??? > >> Arguably, declarer was not calling a card from dummy. If he was, he >> named >> suit and rank. > > Robert, > > Are you reading the law or the heading? > >> Put another way -- this is a law about proper form, and declarer used >> proper form. > > Well yes- the law is about calling the desired card**. As such it is > what > declarer desires that is relevant. If he calls the D2 and had desired > the > D2 then he indeed has done nothing wrong; including the instance when > dummy > does not have the D2. further, in the latter case when instead declarer > having called the D2, but did not desire the D2, who is to be the wiser > when > he asserts he did desire the D2? > > ** distinct from naming a card that dummy has > > regards, > roger pewick Hi Roger. First, I do not like the ruling for that card being a penalty card. I wish your argument was more persuasive. What is there is no desired card? Declarer is allowed to make extraneous comments, such as "I'm hungry" or "two of spades". RIght? To give another real-life example, declarer said "singleton-king", refering to the fact that the club king was singleton. Should this be interpreted as calling for play of the singleton king of diamonds in dummy? And if not, is defender's play of the ace of diamonds a penalty card? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 25 22:54:18 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:54:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31044C12B@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL John (MadDog) Probst, October 2008: >>>..... >>>A player with microscopic knowledge of the Law and regulation who is >>>prepared to lie through his teeth if necessary in order to gain an advantage >>>under Law, whilst all the time appearing to be innocent. >>>..... Richard Hills: >>"Simplest explanation" and "good faith" are criteria The Doctor should >>NOT apply when determining if there has been an infraction of Law 73F. >>Instead the criteria that The Doctor should apply are "could have known" >>and "no bridge reason". Nige1 Guthrie: >Until directors start to rule as Richard implies they should, law-breakers >will continue to be rewarded and encouraged. >..... Richard Hills: In its 2015 revision of the Lawbook, the Drafting Committee may wish to consider deleting Law 23 and merging its substance into Law 73F. This would have two advantages: (1) The current location of Law 23 adjacent to auction-only Laws causes some to erroneously think that Law 23 does not apply to the play period. (2) Law 73F's slightly ambiguous "could have known" in 2015 would be replaced by Law 23's less ambiguous "could have been aware" and "could well damage". Richard Hills, many moons ago: "[Apologies for writing] "Honi soit qui mal y pense" in response to one of Nigel's earlier postings." Nigel Guthrie, many moons ago: "Thank you Richard! But nobody could possibly take offence from your chiding good humour. I'm afraid that 90+% of BLML TDs think that your quotation is entirely appropriate to all my TFLB suggestions - even I could not help laughing!" 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. DIBP 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/20131125/6c3f7e62/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 26 06:20:34 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:20:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] interesting pass of splinter bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC31044E3EE@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie: >..... >An unrelated but common example: when a player pulls a wrong card from >the bidding-box, he can easily convince himself that it was a slip of the [hand] >rather than a slip of the [mind]. Unless directors lean heavily towards the latter >interpretation, however, they overly penalize the dwindling rump of honest >players. Ton Kooijman: ..... It is not easy to determine whether a call is unintended or not. The TD should decide it is unintended only if he is convinced that the player never, not even for a split second, wanted to make that call. An example of a call that certainly is a big mistake but nevertheless was intended is the following: North opens 1H, Pass by East and South bids 4C, a splinter showing slam interest in hearts. West passes and North thinks for a while, eventually deciding that he is not going to encourage partner to bid a slam. But he forgets that they are not yet even in game and passes; he discovers his mistake immediately and calls the TD. North will tell the TD that he never intended to Pass, but the TD should not accept this statement. For a split second North thought that Pass was closing the auction in 4H. He never intended to play in 4C, that is a for sure, but it is also irrelevant. Another argument to support this decision is that the Pass did carry information; the player told his partner that he was not interested in slam. ..... 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. DIBP 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/20131126/b81fd550/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 28 23:12:49 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:12:49 +0000 Subject: [BLML] WBF Laws Committee [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325154E56@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit: "I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths led. And through the air. I am he that walks unseen. I am the clue-finder, the web-cutter, the stinging fly. I was chosen for the lucky number. I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them alive again from the water. I came from the end of bag, but no bag went over me. I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am Ring-winner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider." This of course is the way to talk to dragons, if you don't want to reveal your proper name (which is wise), and don't want to infuriate them with a flat refusal (which is also very wise). No dragon can resist the fascination of riddling talk and of wasting time trying to understand it. WBF LC minutes, 26th September 2013, item 1: 1. The Chairman raised the issue of the WBFLC's corporate memory and discussed what steps might be appropriate in order to provide for its preservation. Mr Wignall offered to liaise with Mr Endicott and arrange for material of a historical significance to be copied and lodged for safekeeping with the new Secretary. Richard Hills: Laurie Kelso (the new Secretary of the WBF LC) may be interested to know that like Smaug the dragon I am a compulsive hoarder. In 2006-2007 I was Grattan's semi-official "gremlin on the shoulder". One of my semi-official tasks was version control for the drafting and redrafting of constantly changing proposed Laws for the 2007 Lawbook. I have hoarded all of these zillions of documents, which may well enhance Laurie's corporate memory. WBF LC minutes, 26th September 2013, conclusion: The Secretary commented that the committee had now considered most of the submitted material proposing a change in the effect of the Law. The items addressed however represented only about 8% of the total number of submissions received, the balance being material that targeted improvements in wording and/or layout while still retaining the current meaning. Richard Hills: Indeed, 92% of recent debates on blml have been about untangling ambiguities about what an obscure Law means. My personal hobby- horse is whether the Law 93B3 phrase "exercise all powers" is or is not limited by the Law 92A phrase "review of any ruling made ++at his table by the Director++". That is, must an initial ruling be made by the Director (and possibly later be reviewed by an Appeals Committee)??? Or may an initial ruling be made by Appeals Committee Number One (and possibly later be reviewed by Appeals Committee Number Two)??? Kind regards, Richard 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. DIBP 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/20131128/80f46307/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 29 02:15:51 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 01:15:51 +0000 Subject: [BLML] WBF Laws Committee [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC325157E98@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: >>>>..... >>>>That is, must an initial ruling be made by the Director (and >>>>possibly later be reviewed by an Appeals Committee)??? Or may an >>>>initial ruling be made by Appeals Committee Number One (and >>>>possibly later be reviewed by Appeals Committee Number Two)??? Master of Lake-town, October 2008: >>>I am sorry, Richard, but I have no idea what you are talking about. David Burn, October 2008: >>Don't worry - neither does anyone else. Disraeli called Gladstone a >>"sophisticated rhetorician intoxicated with the exuberance of his own >>verbosity". This was a bit unfair on Gladstone, but Richard wasn't >>alive at the time, so Disraeli chose the only target he could. Anton Witzen: >Does the word appeal not mean that there is in first instance a decision >(by a CTD)? That can be appealed? My personal opinion is that an >appeals committee can't rule without CTD ruling > >I am not native English speaker, so if I am wrong sorry about it. > >Regards > >anton Richard Hills: Zero (nix, naught, nothing) Appeals Committees may ++convene++ unless and until the Director in charge provides an initial ruling. See below a minute from the WBF Laws Committee, 8th September 2009, item 4: "The committee considered a situation where there had been a request for a ruling only just within the time limit (Law 92B). This had created a difficulty for the Director. The committee was of the view that the Director should provide a ruling before bringing it to the appeals committee. Laws 84 and 85 are specific and take priority over any attempt to take the matter directly to the appeals committee." Richard Hills: But..... Once an Appeals Committee ++has convened++ in accordance with Law, what is that AC permitted to do if it discovers a brand new irregularity while upon its search for truthiness about the putative irregularity that the AC was mandated to investigate??? Ro?c: "If you will listen to my counsel, you will not trust the Master of the Lake-men." 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. DIBP 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/20131129/c5f3b1dc/attachment.html From tsvecfob at iol.ie Fri Nov 29 18:07:02 2013 From: tsvecfob at iol.ie (tsvecfob at iol.ie) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:07:02 GMT Subject: [BLML] Fouled Board in Teams Message-ID: <5298c9b6.1941.0@iol.ie> Hi Fouled Board Regulation in Teams I am aware that different countries handle the scoring of fouled boards in team matches in different ways. In an effort to devise a good regulation for my own country (Ireland), I would appreciate if you would take the time to tell me how the following scenario would be handled in your jurisdiction. During the scoring up period, at the end of a 6 board team of four match, both teams come to the Director to say that one board has been misboarded. Neither team was responsible for the misboarding. Both teams are non-offending for the purposes of Law 12 and Law 86. How does the TD handle the scoring of this fouled board? A. +3 imps to both teams B. 0 imps to both teams and use the VP scale for 6 boards C. 0 imps to both teams and use the VP scale for 5 boards D. Factor the imps won or lost on the other 5 boards and award this factor to both teams. E. Some other solution - Please explain Kind Regards, Fearghal. http://www.iol.ie From petereidt at t-online.de Fri Nov 29 18:15:30 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:15:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Fouled_Board_in_Teams?= In-Reply-To: <5298c9b6.1941.0@iol.ie> References: <5298c9b6.1941.0@iol.ie> Message-ID: <1VmRf8-13Tq4G0@fwd21.aul.t-online.de> In Germany we score it like A - unless we have to apply Law 86D. Peter Von: Fearghal > Fouled Board Regulation in Teams > I am aware that different countries handle the scoring of fouled > boards in team matches in different ways. In an effort to devise a > good regulation for my own country (Ireland), I would appreciate if > you would take the time to tell me how the following scenario would be > handled in your > jurisdiction. > > During the scoring up period, at the end of a 6 board team of four > match, both teams come to the Director to say that one board has been > misboarded. > Neither team was responsible for the misboarding. Both teams are > non-offending for the purposes of Law 12 and Law 86. > > How does the TD handle the scoring of this fouled board? > > A. +3 imps to both teams > > B. 0 imps to both teams and use the VP scale for 6 boards > > C. 0 imps to both teams and use the VP scale for 5 boards > > D. Factor the imps won or lost on the other 5 boards and award this > factor to both teams. > > E. Some other solution - Please explain From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Fri Nov 29 18:50:29 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:50:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fouled Board in Teams In-Reply-To: <5298c9b6.1941.0@iol.ie> References: <5298c9b6.1941.0@iol.ie> Message-ID: Am 29.11.2013, 18:07 Uhr, schrieb : > Hi > > Fouled Board Regulation in Teams > I am aware that different countries handle the scoring of fouled boards > in > team matches in different ways. In an effort to devise a good regulation > for my own country (Ireland), I would appreciate if you would take the > time > to tell me how the following scenario would be handled in your > jurisdiction. > > During the scoring up period, at the end of a 6 board team of four match, > both teams come to the Director to say that one board has been > misboarded. > Neither team was responsible for the misboarding. Both teams are > non-offending for the purposes of Law 12 and Law 86. > > How does the TD handle the scoring of this fouled board? > > A. +3 imps to both teams > > B. 0 imps to both teams and use the VP scale for 6 boards > > C. 0 imps to both teams and use the VP scale for 5 boards > > D. Factor the imps won or lost on the other 5 boards and award this > factor > to both teams. > > E. Some other solution - Please explain > Austria: A. But when more than 2 boards are fouled, the third and each following one are cancelled, and the VP-scale for the remainder is used. Regards, Petrus