From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 2 01:40:56 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 23:40:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9D5BB2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Steve Willner: >..... >In well-tuned partnerships, where each knows the other's tendencies >perfectly, they can transmit UI to each other with no chance of detection. Edgar Kaplan and Alfred Sheinwold were a well-tuned partnership (until Betty Sheinwold became Betty Kaplan). In the original Kaplan-Sheinwold system so-called "controlled psyches" were permitted. But because Alfred transmitted tiny twitches when psyching an opening bid, Edgar always knew whether or not Alfred held genuine opening values. So therefore Edgar ethically insisted upon revising the Kaplan-Sheinwold system to remove "controlled psyches". What's the problem? The problem was identified by Herman De Wael in a recent thread. Grey ethics beat white ethics, so should grey ethics be whitened and legalised? For example, because the Ali-Hills partnership carefully obeys Law 73C, even when there is no chance that our infraction will be detected, we are at a competitive disadvantage vis-?-vis less careful well-tuned partnerships. Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130901/7770b453/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 2 02:16:52 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 20:16:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] once again, UI from allowed source [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9D5BB2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9D5BB2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 19:40:56 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Steve Willner: > >> ..... >> In well-tuned partnerships, where each knows the other's tendencies >> perfectly, they can transmit UI to each other with no chance of >> detection. > > Edgar Kaplan and Alfred Sheinwold were a well-tuned partnership (until > Betty Sheinwold became Betty Kaplan). In the original Kaplan-Sheinwold > system so-called "controlled psyches" were permitted. But because Alfred > transmitted tiny twitches when psyching an opening bid, Edgar always > knew whether or not Alfred held genuine opening values. So therefore > Edgar ethically insisted upon revising the Kaplan-Sheinwold system to > remove "controlled psyches". > > What's the problem? > > The problem was identified by Herman De Wael in a recent thread. Grey > ethics beat white ethics, so should grey ethics be whitened and > legalised? Where would you draw the line? The normal argument is that we should not have a law that benefit cheaters *and* it is no problem to change that law. For example, there is no especial reason why players should be forced to admit their own unestablished revokes, when it presumably works fine that they do not have to admit their own established revokes or their partner's unestablished revokes. Or conceding as defender and not showing one's cards, which I believe neither you nor I like. > > For example, because the Ali-Hills partnership carefully obeys Law 73C, > even when there is no chance that our infraction will be detected, we > are at > a competitive disadvantage vis-?-vis less careful well-tuned > partnerships. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From geller at nifty.com Mon Sep 2 03:00:38 2013 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 10:00:38 +0900 Subject: [BLML] When is a face down opening lead irrevocable? Message-ID: <5223E336.4080304@nifty.com> The opening lead is made by detaching a card from the defender's (opening leader's) hand and placing it facedown on the table. (1) Presumably everyone would agree that once the card has been placed face down on the table and the defender's hand has been withdrawn the card can't be changed, but is there any statement in the Laws that supports this? (2) If the card is is detached from the defender's hand (his/her set of cards, that is) but still physically is in his/her hand in its arc toward being placed face down on the table can it be changed? Does the answer to this question depend on what point in its arc the card is? I couldn't find anything in the laws about this, either. Please let me hear what you think about this and if there are relevant laws I missed. The laws that appear to apply are excerpted below. ****************************************************************** L41A says "...the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead face down*." L45A says Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing* it on the table immediately before him. * The opening lead is first made face down unless the Regulating Authority directs otherwise. L45C1 says A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick. If the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 2 05:58:59 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 03:58:59 +0000 Subject: [BLML] When is a face down opening lead irrevocable? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9D5D4B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Robert Geller: >The opening lead is made by detaching a card from the defender's >(opening leader's) hand and placing it face down on the table. > >(1) >Presumably everyone would agree that once the card has been placed face >down on the table and the defender's hand has been withdrawn the card >can't be changed, Richard Hills: No, I do not agree. Robert Geller: >but is there any statement in the Laws that supports this? Richard Hills: There are statements in the Laws that contradict this. Robert Geller: >..... >Please let me hear what you think about this and if there are relevant >laws I missed. The laws that appear to apply are excerpted below. > >***************************************************************** > >L41A says >"...the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead face >down*." >..... Richard Hills: The key word is "presumed", which leads to two other relevant Laws, Law 20F5(b)(ii) and Law 21B1. So it is possible that the face down "opening lead" might have to be retracted because the "opening leader" has transmogrified into the declarer after the Director has restarted the auction. Only when the opening lead is faced has the play period irrevocably started, Law 41C. Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130902/bd79e21b/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 2 09:46:12 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 09:46:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When is a face down opening lead irrevocable? In-Reply-To: <5223E336.4080304@nifty.com> References: <5223E336.4080304@nifty.com> Message-ID: <002101cea7b0$7f5d0b90$7e1722b0$@online.no> The face down opening lead is made when according to local regulations a similar regular lead would have been made, for instance the card is placed on or held steadily in a position indicating that it has been played. (Local regulations may differ in their conditions.) It can be withdrawn in any of the following cases: (Law 41A) An irregularity results in presumed declarer accepting an opening lead out of turn by the other defender (Law 54). Misinformation from presumed declaring side being revealed during the clarification period. (Law 47E2) > Robert Geller > The opening lead is made by detaching a card from the defender's (opening > leader's) hand and placing it facedown on the table. > > (1) > Presumably everyone would agree that once the card has been placed face > down on the table and the defender's hand has been withdrawn the card can't > be changed, but is there any statement in the Laws that supports this? > > (2) > If the card is is detached from the defender's hand (his/her set of cards, that is) > but still physically is in his/her hand in its arc toward being placed face down on > the table can it be changed? Does the answer to this question depend on what > point in its arc the card is? I couldn't find anything in the laws about this, either. > > Please let me hear what you think about this and if there are relevant laws I > missed. The laws that appear to apply are excerpted below. > > **************************************************************** > ** > > > L41A says > "...the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead face > down*." > > L45A says > Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and > facing* it on the table immediately before him. > * The opening lead is first made face down unless the Regulating Authority > directs otherwise. > > L45C1 says > A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must > be played to the current trick. If the defender has already made a legal play to > the current trick, see Law 45E. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 2 16:40:18 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 10:40:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims Message-ID: The laws provide guidelines for how to judge claims. So does the ACBL. Is there any reason why there shouldn't be more? Does any regulating authority answer these questions? 1. A player claims, saying "drawing trumps" How many rounds of trumps get drawn? A. All of them? B. Until the trumps are gone (which forces the director to count trumps; note that declarer might have lost track)? C. I like Eric's answer -- until both opponents show out. 2. A player claims with a blocked suit. A. A player shouldn't do it. Just unblock the damn suit before claiming. B. The director sees if there is a successful way to play the hand. 3. A player claims with a strandable winner. A. A player shouldn't do it. State the order of play, or play the winner before claiming. B. The director sees if there is a successful way to play the hand. GENERAL ANSWERS 4. The director judges on level of ability. (I doubt this is practical.) 5. The director asks the player how he will play the hand, to see evidence of awareness of the problem. (one blmler said this wasn't appropriate and no one disagreed, but they don't seem to mind this question over on rec.games.bridge) From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 2 16:50:48 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 10:50:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Problem from the ACBL Bulletin Message-ID: A player claimed in no trump with this position: Kx Ax -- -- Ax x A -- Frankly, I would probably not claim in this position. There is a strandable diamond winner. I would cash the ace of diamonds and then claim. Or, if I did claim, I would give the order of play. Or, I would state awareness of the problem -- "I have the last 4 tricks, I am going to cash my ace of diamonds as soon as I can." (One of my standard claims is, "I have tricks to burn, would you like me to state an order of play?") I get that that standards of claiming differ depending on level of ability and region. But at least here, that claim (just stating the winners) shows unawareness of the problem that the ace of diamonds is strandable. And if the player is not aware that the ace of diamonds could be stranded -- why are we sure he will play it right? Put another way, declarer obviously has 4 winners. When I have 4 winners, I try to see if I can cash them. I don't just claim. From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 2 17:03:59 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 17:03:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001b01cea7ed$a7e280d0$f7a78270$@online.no> > Robert Frick > The laws provide guidelines for how to judge claims. So does the ACBL. > > Is there any reason why there shouldn't be more? [Sven Pran] Yes, A reasonable confidence in Directors' ability to make proper judgments. [...] > 4. The director judges on level of ability. (I doubt this is practical.) [Sven Pran] Why? (His own ability or the claimer's ability?) If a player disagrees with the Director's ruling he can always appeal the Director's judgment. That is why we have the appeal institute. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 2 17:38:12 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:38:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <001b01cea7ed$a7e280d0$f7a78270$@online.no> References: <001b01cea7ed$a7e280d0$f7a78270$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:03:59 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: Hi Sven. Your answers sound reasonable. But I will argue they are not. >> Robert Frick >> The laws provide guidelines for how to judge claims. So does the ACBL. >> >> Is there any reason why there shouldn't be more? > > [Sven Pran] > Yes, A reasonable confidence in Directors' ability to make proper > judgments. The point of every law is to reduce the need for judgment. Director usually love guidance. We love making objective decisions that follow the laws. And you ignore the point, which Nigel makes often but we should all be supporting -- it is nice if different directors make the same rulings. And if the ruling is ambiguous, no amount of ability helps. > > [...] >> 4. The director judges on level of ability. (I doubt this is practical.) > > [Sven Pran] > Why? (His own ability or the claimer's ability?) > > If a player disagrees with the Director's ruling he can always appeal the > Director's judgment. > That is why we have the appeal institute. You are saying that we should use the appeal's committee to handle ambiguities in the laws. Shouldn't we correct the ambiguities? I think everyone would like to reduce the need for committees. And we are not talking about a situation where bridge judgment is necessarily relevant. So there is no reason to expect the committee to do a better job than the director. We have guidance for what to do when a trump is out. Do you object to that guidance? From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 2 17:48:54 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:48:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <001b01cea7ed$a7e280d0$f7a78270$@online.no> References: <001b01cea7ed$a7e280d0$f7a78270$@online.no> Message-ID: Oops, I forgot an answer. Declarer claims with just trump in his hand. He does not know a trump is out. Given that, it is rational to play any trump from his hand. The ACBL has said that players play a suit from the top down. That does not merely provide clear guidance. It also lets me explain the ruling to the opponents in a way that they accept and cannot possibly disagree with. That's another reason to want to make objective decisions over subjective decisions. On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:03:59 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> The laws provide guidelines for how to judge claims. So does the ACBL. >> >> Is there any reason why there shouldn't be more? > > [Sven Pran] > Yes, A reasonable confidence in Directors' ability to make proper > judgments. > > [...] >> 4. The director judges on level of ability. (I doubt this is practical.) > > [Sven Pran] > Why? (His own ability or the claimer's ability?) > > If a player disagrees with the Director's ruling he can always appeal the > Director's judgment. > That is why we have the appeal institute. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Sep 2 20:12:50 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 19:12:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <001b01cea7ed$a7e280d0$f7a78270$@online.no> Message-ID: I agree with Robert that claim laws should be simpler, clearer, and less subjective. Experts don't often make incomplete or faulty claims but when they do, it's usually because they completely lose the place; at that moment, they're functional beginners. Compared with a real beginner, they're likely to be quicker to realize their mistake and be more adept at recovering --with a more plausible line. IMO, however, that doesn't justify favourable treatment by the director. Hence, I don't think the director should take the player's normal ability into account. As usual, considering ability is usually unfair, often insulting, and fosters rulings that seem inconsistent to players. Even with players of the same ability, the current claim law spawns inconsistency, as you may verify by perusing law discussions for the hundreds of simple cases, with agreed facts, but no agreement about the correct ruling. Over the decades, suggestions for simplifying "improvements" seem to have been ignored by law-makers. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 2 21:18:41 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 15:18:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <81EF5EE8-BEE7-45D0-BCE3-DF0AAA07F0F1@starpower.net> On Sep 2, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > The laws provide guidelines for how to judge claims. So does the ACBL. > > Is there any reason why there shouldn't be more? Does any regulating > authority answer these questions? > > 1. A player claims, saying "drawing trumps" How many rounds of trumps get > drawn? > > A. All of them? > > B. Until the trumps are gone (which forces the director to count trumps; > note that declarer might have lost track)? > > C. I like Eric's answer -- until both opponents show out. C isn't really my answer. I take "drawing trumps" as asserting the belief that trumps can be successfully drawn regardless of the break, so the number of rounds that must get drawn should equal the number of trumps outstanding. That means that (only) if the trumps were something-zero does he get to stop before both opponents show out. I then, however, read L70E1 as "allowing" the claimer to stop short of that number (only) if both opponents show out. Thus, with nine trumps, claimer will pull four rounds if they break 3-1 or 4-0, but "may" stop after three if they're 2-2. > 2. A player claims with a blocked suit. > > A. A player shouldn't do it. Just unblock the damn suit before claiming. > > B. The director sees if there is a successful way to play the hand. I handle blocked suits by analogy to outstanding trumps, using the logic of L70C2, which means that the claimer won't be "allowed" to unblock the suit on a timely basis if "it is at all likely that [he] at the time of his claim was unaware" of the blockage. That means that if he mentions the blockage in his claim statement at all, he gets to unblock successfully even if he fails to specify the exact order of play. > 3. A player claims with a strandable winner. > > A. A player shouldn't do it. State the order of play, or play the winner > before claiming. > > B. The director sees if there is a successful way to play the hand. As with blocked suits. > GENERAL ANSWERS > > 4. The director judges on level of ability. (I doubt this is practical.) Absolutely not. Neither practical nor (if one reads the footnote to L70-71 as meaning what it plainly says) legal. > 5. The director asks the player how he will play the hand, to see evidence > of awareness of the problem. (one blmler said this wasn't appropriate and > no one disagreed, but they don't seem to mind this question over on > rec.games.bridge) Again no. I suppose he can waste his time by asking if he wants (he is the director, after all!), but L70D1 explicitly forbids him from taking any account of the answer. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 2 21:27:25 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 15:27:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Problem from the ACBL Bulletin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D77F8B8-5349-4BF3-B619-4411C5D0179F@starpower.net> On Sep 2, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > A player claimed in no trump with this position: > > Kx > Ax > -- > -- > > Ax > x > A > -- > > Frankly, I would probably not claim in this position. There is a > strandable diamond winner. I would cash the ace of diamonds and then > claim. Or, if I did claim, I would give the order of play. Or, I would > state awareness of the problem -- "I have the last 4 tricks, I am going to > cash my ace of diamonds as soon as I can." (One of my standard claims is, > "I have tricks to burn, would you like me to state an order of play?") Any of the above. Personally I'd say something like, depending on which hand I was in, either, "Spade ace, diamond ace, claim," or, "Spade king, heart ace, claim." > I get that that standards of claiming differ depending on level of ability > and region. But at least here, that claim (just stating the winners) shows > unawareness of the problem that the ace of diamonds is strandable. And if > the player is not aware that the ace of diamonds could be stranded -- why > are we sure he will play it right? No reason at all. Even if would be obviously "careless or inferior for the class of player involved". > Put another way, declarer obviously has 4 winners. When I have 4 winners, > I try to see if I can cash them. I don't just claim. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 2 23:21:28 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 23:21:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <001b01cea7ed$a7e280d0$f7a78270$@online.no> Message-ID: <001901cea822$63342800$299c7800$@online.no> > Robert Frick [Sven Pran] I shall limit my comment to just this point: > The point of every law is to reduce the need for judgment. [Sven Pran] Let me just quote from PREFACE TO THE 2007 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE: "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them." Do you consider your assertion: "The point of every law is to reduce the need for judgment." consistent with this quotation? > Director usually love guidance. We love making objective decisions that follow the laws. [Sven Pran] Sure, but the laws should set principles that aid directors in their judgments, not attempting to set detailed rules for every possible aspect of irregularities. [...] > > If a player disagrees with the Director's ruling he can always appeal > > the Director's judgment. > > That is why we have the appeal institute. > > You are saying that we should use the appeal's committee to handle > ambiguities in the laws. Shouldn't we correct the ambiguities? I think everyone > would like to reduce the need for committees. [Sven Pran] Ambiguities? What I say is that ACs exist to enable a second judgment in cases and as such serve a very important purpose (which is obvious in any court of law). Their purpose is never to resolve alleged ambiguities. That is for WBFLC to do. And the only ambiguities I know about in the laws are those found by nit-picking students that love dissecting details in the laws instead of concentrating on the principles. We have a saying for that in Norwegian, it translates to something like: "how the devil reads the Holy Bible". From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 3 00:39:39 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:39:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <001901cea822$63342800$299c7800$@online.no> References: <001b01cea7ed$a7e280d0$f7a78270$@online.no> <001901cea822$63342800$299c7800$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 17:21:28 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [Sven Pran] > I shall limit my comment to just this point: >> The point of every law is to reduce the need for judgment. > [Sven Pran] > Let me just quote from PREFACE TO THE 2007 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE: > "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and > experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the > increased responsibilities given to them." > > Do you consider your assertion: "The point of every law is to reduce the > need for judgment." consistent with this quotation? Well, responsibility and judgment are two different things. So I don't even see the problem. Think about it. If we take L70C out of the book, directors have to use their judgment how to rule when a trump is out. Are you arguing that L70C should be removed from the 2017 lawbook? I am guessing not. Doesn't everyone like the guidance in L70C? Or, the ACBL asks me to distinguish bad claims from poorly stated claims. That doesn't eliminate the need for judgment. But it tells me there is such a thing as a poorly stated claim and how to rule when I believe the claim is merely poorly stated. Guidance. And I can tell the players this when I accept a poorly claim. > >> Director usually love guidance. We love making objective decisions that > follow the laws. > [Sven Pran] > Sure, but the laws should set principles that aid directors in their > judgments, not attempting to set detailed rules for every possible > aspect of > irregularities. I heartily support the idea of stating the principles behind laws. Can I cite you as support for that? Oddly enough, the lawbook addresses some obscure situations. I am always impressed when the answer to some obscure problem is in the laws. And grateful. I agree, there is a limit to this. But the problem in the other thread doesn't seem obscure. (Claiming when there needs to be some order to cashing the remaining winners.) Knowledgable directors give different answers. Unless one of them backs down, that is, by definition, ambiguity. Finally, when something comes up often enough, it deserves a standard answer. > [...] >> > If a player disagrees with the Director's ruling he can always appeal >> > the Director's judgment. >> > That is why we have the appeal institute. >> >> You are saying that we should use the appeal's committee to handle >> ambiguities in the laws. Shouldn't we correct the ambiguities? I think > everyone >> would like to reduce the need for committees. > [Sven Pran] > Ambiguities? > > What I say is that ACs exist to enable a second judgment in cases and as > such serve a very important purpose (which is obvious in any court of > law). > Their purpose is never to resolve alleged ambiguities. That is for WBFLC > to > do. > And the only ambiguities I know about in the laws are those found by > nit-picking students that love dissecting details in the laws instead of > concentrating on the principles. > > We have a saying for that in Norwegian, it translates to something like: > "how the devil reads the Holy Bible". It is also called "how to write a computer program". Or how to edit an essay. Or how to make the laws better for 2017. Thanks for discussing this, Sven. It is useful to think about why we have bridge laws and what they are supposed to accomplish. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 3 01:38:59 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 19:38:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <81EF5EE8-BEE7-45D0-BCE3-DF0AAA07F0F1@starpower.net> References: <81EF5EE8-BEE7-45D0-BCE3-DF0AAA07F0F1@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 15:18:41 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 2, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> The laws provide guidelines for how to judge claims. So does the ACBL. >> >> Is there any reason why there shouldn't be more? Does any regulating >> authority answer these questions? >> >> 1. A player claims, saying "drawing trumps" How many rounds of trumps >> get >> drawn? >> >> A. All of them? >> >> B. Until the trumps are gone (which forces the director to count trumps; >> note that declarer might have lost track)? >> >> C. I like Eric's answer -- until both opponents show out. > > C isn't really my answer. I take "drawing trumps" as asserting the > belief that trumps can be successfully drawn regardless of the break, so > the number of rounds that must get drawn should equal the number of > trumps outstanding. That means that (only) if the trumps were > something-zero does he get to stop before both opponents show out. I > then, however, read L70E1 as "allowing" the claimer to stop short of > that number (only) if both opponents show out. Thus, with nine trumps, > claimer will pull four rounds if they break 3-1 or 4-0, but "may" stop > after three if they're 2-2. How does this work in the middle of the hand? The director looks to see how many trumps are remaining? > >> 2. A player claims with a blocked suit. >> >> A. A player shouldn't do it. Just unblock the damn suit before claiming. >> >> B. The director sees if there is a successful way to play the hand. > > I handle blocked suits by analogy to outstanding trumps, using the logic > of L70C2, which means that the claimer won't be "allowed" to unblock the > suit on a timely basis if "it is at all likely that [he] at the time of > his claim was unaware" of the blockage. That means that if he mentions > the blockage in his claim statement at all, he gets to unblock > successfully even if he fails to specify the exact order of play. > >> 3. A player claims with a strandable winner. >> >> A. A player shouldn't do it. State the order of play, or play the winner >> before claiming. >> >> B. The director sees if there is a successful way to play the hand. > > As with blocked suits. > >> GENERAL ANSWERS >> >> 4. The director judges on level of ability. (I doubt this is practical.) > > Absolutely not. Neither practical nor (if one reads the footnote to > L70-71 as meaning what it plainly says) legal. > >> 5. The director asks the player how he will play the hand, to see >> evidence >> of awareness of the problem. (one blmler said this wasn't appropriate >> and >> no one disagreed, but they don't seem to mind this question over on >> rec.games.bridge) > > Again no. I suppose he can waste his time by asking if he wants (he is > the director, after all!), but L70D1 explicitly forbids him from taking > any account of the answer. It is somewhat strange the the opponents can ask claimer to play out the hand, and director can use this information (in a negative way), but director cannot use the same information if director is the one to ask. The scenario I am imagining is this. Without further evidence, I will grant the claim. I ask the declarer how he plans to play the hand. If he states a line of play that doesn't work, I don't grant the claim. (There are more complicated possibilities.) > > > Eric Landau > Silver Spring MD > New York NY > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 3 02:35:13 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 00:35:13 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9D7D19@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 68D: "After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director's arrival." >It is somewhat strange that the opponents can ask claimer to play out the >hand, and director can use this information (in a negative way), but >director cannot use the same information if director is the one to ask. Richard Hills: The opponents CANNOT ask claimer to play out the hand. That request is an infraction. The claimer CANNOT obey the illegal request to play out the hand. That continuing of play is a second infraction. It is NOT strange that the Director can use information derived from prior mutual infractions via Law 70D3. It would be a VERY strange Director (see below) who believed that she could INSIST that the claimer infract Law 68D. >The scenario I am imagining is this. Without further evidence, I will >grant the claim. I ask the declarer how he plans to play the hand. If he >states a line of play that doesn't work, I don't grant the claim. (There >are more complicated possibilities.) UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130903/241cfb56/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Sep 3 02:45:25 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 20:45:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Problem from the ACBL Bulletin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 10:50 AM Subject: [BLML] Problem from the ACBL Bulletin >A player claimed in no trump with this position: > > Kx > Ax > -- > -- > > Ax > x > A > -- > > > Frankly, I would probably not claim in this position. There is a > strandable diamond winner. I would cash the ace of diamonds and then > claim. Or, if I did claim, I would give the order of play. Or, I would > state awareness of the problem -- "I have the last 4 tricks, I am going to > cash my ace of diamonds as soon as I can." (One of my standard claims is, > "I have tricks to burn, would you like me to state an order of play?") > > > I get that that standards of claiming differ depending on level of ability > and region. But at least here, that claim (just stating the winners) shows > unawareness of the problem that the ace of diamonds is strandable. And if > the player is not aware that the ace of diamonds could be stranded -- why > are we sure he will play it right? When stranding is easy to avoid and would be irrational (as in this example), you should rule in favor of the claimer; otherwise, you will discourage claims. If you rule against a player in this situation, he will never claim again. And one of the most frustrating situations for a good player is a situation in which declarer appears to have all the tricks and could claim but refuses to do so; you have to waste a lot of time trying to figure out a possible holding on which your play makes a difference. I just got back from a club game in which I claimed with an opponent on lead, in a position like this (all honors are high): K - xx KJ xxx J K - RHO had just won the HQ and was thinking about what to return. To save time, I would like to be able to say, "I have the DK and HJ in hand, and the SK and two good clubs in dummy." If I have to avoid any statement which might strand a winner, then I have to say, :"If you return a red suit, I take the DK and HJ pitching a diamond from dummy, then lead a spade and dummy is good. If you return a black suit, I take the SK and the KJ of clubs pitching spades, then lead a diamond to the king and take my HJ," and then wait for my (weak) RHO to understand this complex but technically correct claim; is this what you want to encourage? From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 3 09:58:42 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 09:58:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> I believe it is of the utmost importance that the Director gets into the mindset of the claimer. If the TD believes the claimer has seen a particular problem (but did not mention it), then it is up to the TD to judge whether: a1) the player realized that the solution was so easy that he could assume everyone would assume he could handle it, or a2) the player did not see the solution and the TD should rule against him If, OTOH, the TD believes the claimer did not see a particular problem (which is why he did not mention it), then the TD needs to judge whether: b1) the claimer was looking carefully, but did not recognize the problem anyway; or b2) the claimer claimed prematurely, and he did not notice the problem for that reason; in the second case, the TD needs to judge, whether: b21) the claimer would undoubtadly notice the problem when playing it out, in which case the TD might rule that the claimer would also solve it (if the problem isn't too difficult for him), or: b22) the claimer might fail to notice the problem, in which case there is no reason for him to look for the solution. All these decisions are possibly difficult to make, but it would be wrong not to try and make those decisions. Herman. Robert Frick schreef: > The laws provide guidelines for how to judge claims. So does the ACBL. > > Is there any reason why there shouldn't be more? Does any regulating > authority answer these questions? > > > 1. A player claims, saying "drawing trumps" How many rounds of trumps get > drawn? > > A. All of them? > > B. Until the trumps are gone (which forces the director to count trumps; > note that declarer might have lost track)? > > C. I like Eric's answer -- until both opponents show out. > > > > > 2. A player claims with a blocked suit. > > A. A player shouldn't do it. Just unblock the damn suit before claiming. > > B. The director sees if there is a successful way to play the hand. > > > > 3. A player claims with a strandable winner. > > A. A player shouldn't do it. State the order of play, or play the winner > before claiming. > > B. The director sees if there is a successful way to play the hand. > > > > GENERAL ANSWERS > > 4. The director judges on level of ability. (I doubt this is practical.) > > 5. The director asks the player how he will play the hand, to see evidence > of awareness of the problem. (one blmler said this wasn't appropriate and > no one disagreed, but they don't seem to mind this question over on > rec.games.bridge) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6629 - Release Date: 09/01/13 > > From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 3 10:03:49 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:03:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <001b01cea7ed$a7e280d0$f7a78270$@online.no> <001901cea822$63342800$299c7800$@online.no> Message-ID: <001501cea87c$1ffa1fe0$5fee5fa0$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > >> The point of every law is to reduce the need for judgment. > > [Sven Pran] > > Let me just quote from PREFACE TO THE 2007 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE: > > "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and > > experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by > > the increased responsibilities given to them." > > > > Do you consider your assertion: "The point of every law is to reduce > > the need for judgment." consistent with this quotation? > > Well, responsibility and judgment are two different things. So I don't even see > the problem. [Sven Pran] What WBFLC expressed is trust that Directors can be given more responsibilities to execute judgment without every detail having been specified in the laws. > > Think about it. If we take L70C out of the book, directors have to use their > judgment how to rule when a trump is out. Are you arguing that L70C should be > removed from the 2017 lawbook? I am guessing not. Doesn't everyone like the > guidance in L70C? [Sven Pran] Law 70C is there mainly for historic reasons. Personally I find this law unfortunate because it may tend to draw attention away from other equally important situations with poor claims. Law 70C is actually a duplicate of Law 70A on a specific situation, and a relevant question is the effect of Law 70A on all other specific situations that are not mentioned in the laws. > > Or, the ACBL asks me to distinguish bad claims from poorly stated claims. > That doesn't eliminate the need for judgment. But it tells me there is such a > thing as a poorly stated claim and how to rule when I believe the claim is merely > poorly stated. Guidance. And I can tell the players this when I accept a poorly > claim. [Sven Pran] IMHO there is no real difference between a bad claim and a poorly stated claim. If a player is unable to state his claim in such a way that his opponents do not immediately agree then he is only wasting time by claiming and had better not claimed at all. Any claim not agreed to by opponents must be adjudicated by the Director using his judgment. > [...] > Thanks for discussing this, Sven. It is useful to think about why we have bridge > laws and what they are supposed to accomplish. > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Sep 3 10:21:24 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 09:21:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <001501cea87c$1ffa1fe0$5fee5fa0$@online.no> References: <001b01cea7ed$a7e280d0$f7a78270$@online.no> <001901cea822$63342800$299c7800$@online.no> <001501cea87c$1ffa1fe0$5fee5fa0$@online.no> Message-ID: <52259C04.5000809@btinternet.com> On 03/09/2013 09:03, Sven Pran wrote: > [Sven Pran] What WBFLC expressed is trust that Directors can be given > more responsibilities to execute judgment without every detail having > been specified in the laws. It's interesting to note that the ACBL, which is where Robert is, removed that bit from the Law Book when they published their verison of it. Gordon Rainsford From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 3 15:15:44 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:15:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <81EF5EE8-BEE7-45D0-BCE3-DF0AAA07F0F1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <36DF8119-2D8C-449C-9598-93F5106284F7@starpower.net> On Sep 2, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 15:18:41 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Sep 2, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> The laws provide guidelines for how to judge claims. So does the ACBL. >>> >>> Is there any reason why there shouldn't be more? Does any regulating >>> authority answer these questions? >>> >>> 1. A player claims, saying "drawing trumps" How many rounds of trumps >>> get >>> drawn? >>> >>> A. All of them? >>> >>> B. Until the trumps are gone (which forces the director to count trumps; >>> note that declarer might have lost track)? >>> >>> C. I like Eric's answer -- until both opponents show out. >> >> C isn't really my answer. I take "drawing trumps" as asserting the >> belief that trumps can be successfully drawn regardless of the break, so >> the number of rounds that must get drawn should equal the number of >> trumps outstanding. That means that (only) if the trumps were >> something-zero does he get to stop before both opponents show out. I >> then, however, read L70E1 as "allowing" the claimer to stop short of >> that number (only) if both opponents show out. Thus, with nine trumps, >> claimer will pull four rounds if they break 3-1 or 4-0, but "may" stop >> after three if they're 2-2. > > How does this work in the middle of the hand? The director looks to see > how many trumps are remaining? What "middle of the hand"? Declarer has claimed, play has ceased, and the TD is evaluating potential lines consistent with a defective or incomplete claim statement. He must ascertain what has happened up to the point of the claim, including how many trumps were outstanding originally, and how many rounds have been taken prior to the claim. The number of trumps already drawn is presumed to be known by the claimer. Consider a declarer who can take the rest on a 2-2 or 3-1 trump break, but not against a 4-0 (imagine AKQJx opposite xxxx, where he needs to keep one trump in dummy to ruff his last loser). If he claims without drawing trump, we will "make" him draw four rounds of trump when they started 3-1 (it is irrational to keep pulling them after both sides show out). But if, as is common, he tests trump, both opponents follow to one round, and he then claims, we can presume that he noticed and will not "require" him to play the fourth round regardless of the remaining break. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 3 15:33:16 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:33:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Problem from the ACBL Bulletin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F829760-3AC2-4835-B2D0-A0F984C02730@starpower.net> On Sep 2, 2013, at 8:45 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > >> A player claimed in no trump with this position: >> >> Kx >> Ax >> -- >> -- >> >> Ax >> x >> A >> -- >> >> >> Frankly, I would probably not claim in this position. There is a >> strandable diamond winner. I would cash the ace of diamonds and then >> claim. Or, if I did claim, I would give the order of play. Or, I would >> state awareness of the problem -- "I have the last 4 tricks, I am going to >> cash my ace of diamonds as soon as I can." (One of my standard claims is, >> "I have tricks to burn, would you like me to state an order of play?") >> >> >> I get that that standards of claiming differ depending on level of ability >> and region. But at least here, that claim (just stating the winners) shows >> unawareness of the problem that the ace of diamonds is strandable. And if >> the player is not aware that the ace of diamonds could be stranded -- why >> are we sure he will play it right? > > When stranding is easy to avoid and would be irrational (as in this example), > you should rule in favor of the claimer; otherwise, you will discourage claims. > If you rule against a player in this situation, he will never claim again. And > one of the most frustrating situations for a good player is a situation in which > declarer appears to have all the tricks and could claim but refuses to do so; > you have to waste a lot of time trying to figure out a possible holding on which > your play makes a difference. > > I just got back from a club game in which I claimed with an opponent on lead, in > a position like this (all honors are high): > > K > - > xx > KJ > > xxx > J > K > - > > RHO had just won the HQ and was thinking about what to return. To save time, I > would like to be able to say, "I have the DK and HJ in hand, and the SK and two > good clubs in dummy." If I have to avoid any statement which might strand a > winner, then I have to say, :"If you return a red suit, I take the DK and HJ > pitching a diamond from dummy, then lead a spade and dummy is good. If you > return a black suit, I take the SK and the KJ of clubs pitching spades, then > lead a diamond to the king and take my HJ," and then wait for my (weak) RHO to > understand this complex but technically correct claim; is this what you want to > encourage? I'd put my hand on the table and say something like, "The spade king is an entry for the clubs," or "I'll take the clubs when I'm in dummy." There's no need to specify order of play card by card. The TD rules against you in situations like this only if "it is at all likely" that you were unaware that you had a problem with your cashing order; he presumes that if you are aware of it you know how to deal with it. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 3 16:47:24 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 16:47:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <36DF8119-2D8C-449C-9598-93F5106284F7@starpower.net> References: <81EF5EE8-BEE7-45D0-BCE3-DF0AAA07F0F1@starpower.net> <36DF8119-2D8C-449C-9598-93F5106284F7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5225F67C.4050303@skynet.be> Eric Landau schreef: > > What "middle of the hand"? Declarer has claimed, play has ceased, > and the TD is evaluating potential lines consistent with a defective > or incomplete claim statement. He must ascertain what has happened > up to the point of the claim, including how many trumps were > outstanding originally, and how many rounds have been taken prior to > the claim. The number of trumps already drawn is presumed to be > known by the claimer. > > Consider a declarer who can take the rest on a 2-2 or 3-1 trump > break, but not against a 4-0 (imagine AKQJx opposite xxxx, where he > needs to keep one trump in dummy to ruff his last loser). If he > claims without drawing trump, we will "make" him draw four rounds of > trump when they started 3-1 (it is irrational to keep pulling them > after both sides show out). The second bit, below, is all right, bu why should we presume a declarer cannot count trumps when he claims withuot drawing even one. It seems quite OK to me to allow a declarer who says nothing to be able to count just as well as one who tells me he 'draws trump'. > But if, as is common, he tests trump, > both opponents follow to one round, and he then claims, we can > presume that he noticed and will not "require" him to play the fourth > round regardless of the remaining break. > > > Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY > > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6632 - Release Date: > 09/02/13 > > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 3 17:11:44 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 11:11:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <5225F67C.4050303@skynet.be> References: <81EF5EE8-BEE7-45D0-BCE3-DF0AAA07F0F1@starpower.net> <36DF8119-2D8C-449C-9598-93F5106284F7@starpower.net> <5225F67C.4050303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <81E25B02-60B0-4F64-93D1-EA3AAA46D3B6@starpower.net> On Sep 3, 2013, at 10:47 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau schreef: > >> What "middle of the hand"? Declarer has claimed, play has ceased, >> and the TD is evaluating potential lines consistent with a defective >> or incomplete claim statement. He must ascertain what has happened >> up to the point of the claim, including how many trumps were >> outstanding originally, and how many rounds have been taken prior to >> the claim. The number of trumps already drawn is presumed to be >> known by the claimer. >> >> Consider a declarer who can take the rest on a 2-2 or 3-1 trump >> break, but not against a 4-0 (imagine AKQJx opposite xxxx, where he >> needs to keep one trump in dummy to ruff his last loser). If he >> claims without drawing trump, we will "make" him draw four rounds of >> trump when they started 3-1 (it is irrational to keep pulling them >> after both sides show out). > > The second bit, below, is all right, bu why should we presume a declarer > cannot count trumps when he claims withuot drawing even one. It seems > quite OK to me to allow a declarer who says nothing to be able to count > just as well as one who tells me he 'draws trump'. Because, "When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if claimer made no statement about that trump, and..." [L70C]. The director must, by explcit law, base his presumptions about prospective lines of play on whether declarer "tells me he 'draws trump'" or "says nothing". To presume that he "can count trump just as well" in either case patently violates the clear meaning and purpose of L70C -- even if you're sure it is so. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Sep 3 18:07:14 2013 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 18:07:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: What am I missing? In-Reply-To: <5224ACBB.5060203@gmx.de> References: <5224ACBB.5060203@gmx.de> Message-ID: <52260932.9060807@aol.com> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: What am I missing? Datum: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 17:20:27 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson An: Bridge Laws Mailing List At a recent tournament I was called to a table after a hand had been played. The problem was a revoke in the trump suit. It involved very weak players (as will be seen) and I'd like to know how you'd rule. Trump distribution: AQJ109x xx xxx Kx Both defenders followed suit to the first trump trick, but RHO did not to the second trump suit. So Declarer could believe that trumps were 4-1. But, of course, this was irrelevant, he could still safely draw trumps. For some reason he didn't, he switched to another suit. A few tricks later RHO trumped (showing that he had revoked) and play continued. Apparently no one noticed the revoke. At least no one called the TD. A few tricks later RHO trumped again, thus winning two tricks with the trumps with which he had revoked. At the end of the hand this was finally noticed and the TD was called. The line of play of the declarer was definitely inferior but playing badly is not a violation of bridge law. How do you rule and why? If possible please quote relevant laws. Ciao, JE From g3 at nige1.com Tue Sep 3 18:48:22 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 17:48:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> Message-ID: [Herman De Wael] I believe it is of the utmost importance that the Director gets into the mindset of the claimer. If the TD believes the claimer has seen a particular problem (but did not mention it), then it is up to the TD to judge whether: a1) the player realized that the solution was so easy that he could assume everyone would assume he could handle it, or a2) the player did not see the solution and the TD should rule against him If, OTOH, the TD believes the claimer did not see a particular problem (which is why he did not mention it), then the TD needs to judge whether: b1) the claimer was looking carefully, but did not recognize the problem anyway; or b2) the claimer claimed prematurely, and he did not notice the problem for that reason; in the second case, the TD needs to judge, whether: b21) the claimer would undoubtadly notice the problem when playing it out, in which case the TD might rule that the claimer would also solve it (if the problem isn't too difficult for him), or: b22) the claimer might fail to notice the problem, in which case there is no reason for him to look for the solution. All these decisions are possibly difficult to make, but it would be wrong not to try and make those decisions. [Nigel] I think Herman correctly interprets the intentions of the law-makers and hence encapsulates a flaw in current Bridge-law. Illustrative example: - A friendly expert calls you his table and plausibly explains his slip of the tongue. Naturally, you rule in his favour because you are sure that a1 applies (the player realized that the solution was so easy that he could assume everyone would assume he could handle it) - A stranger of foreigner calls you to his table and has difficulty speaking your language. You know nothing about him (but you've have heard rumours on the grapevine that he's incompetent -- and of doubtful ethics). Now, how do you rule? - How do other players judge the consistency and fairness of such rulings? From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 3 23:26:32 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 23:26:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: What am I missing? In-Reply-To: <52260932.9060807@aol.com> References: <5224ACBB.5060203@gmx.de> <52260932.9060807@aol.com> Message-ID: <000a01cea8ec$441ad340$cc5079c0$@online.no> Jeff Easterson > At a recent tournament I was called to a table after a hand had been played. > The problem was a revoke in the trump suit. It involved very weak players (as > will be seen) and I'd like to know how you'd rule. > > Trump distribution: AQJ109x > > xx xxx > > Kx > > Both defenders followed suit to the first trump trick, but RHO did not to the > second trump suit. So Declarer could believe that trumps were 4-1. But, of > course, this was irrelevant, he could still safely draw trumps. For some reason > he didn't, he switched to another suit. A few tricks later RHO trumped > (showing that he had revoked) and play continued. Apparently no one noticed > the revoke. At least no one called the TD. A few tricks later RHO trumped > again, thus winning two tricks with the trumps with which he had revoked. > At the end of the hand this was finally noticed and the TD was called. > The line of play of the declarer was definitely inferior but playing badly is not a > violation of bridge law. > > How do you rule and why? If possible please quote relevant laws. [Sven Pran] 1: The revoke was established (Law 63) 2: The offender did not win the revoke trick but the offending side won at least either the revoke trick (and/)or a subsequent trick so the "automatic" rectification is one trick transferred from the offending side to the non-offending side. (Law 64A2) 3: The Director must judge if the non-offending side is damaged by the revoke even after the "automatic" rectification. If he finds that this is the case he shall award an adjusted score (Law 64C). In this case the non-offending side was allegedly "damaged" by RHO trumping twice with trumps he should not have had. However, I would tend to rule that this damage was not caused by the revoke but rather by inferior play. The non-offending side is supposed to continue playing bridge after an irregularity and it is difficult here to see any bridge reason for not pulling all trumps even with a 4:1 break. My ruling: One trick (only) transferred from offending side to non-offending side (Law 64A2) From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 4 03:42:26 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 21:42:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> Message-ID: There is, no coincidence, a parallel discussion on rec.games.bridge. Steve W. expresses the same opinion there as here: Judgment of a claim should not be based on ability. He cites here "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." Barry Margolin takes the position that level of expertise should be taken into account. In support of his position, he says "that's what 'for the class of player' means in the footnote." Herman presumably supports the idea of taking into account ability -- we are supposed to somehow crawl inside the head of the claimer. I myself do NOT like the idea that an expert gets the claim accepted and a lesser player with exactly the same claim gets it denied. Anyway, this evidence shows that there is ambiguity in the laws. It really should be addressed. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 4 03:42:50 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 21:42:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Problem from the ACBL Bulletin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 20:45:25 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 10:50 AM > Subject: [BLML] Problem from the ACBL Bulletin > > >> A player claimed in no trump with this position: >> >> Kx >> Ax >> -- >> -- >> >> Ax >> x >> A >> -- >> >> >> Frankly, I would probably not claim in this position. There is a >> strandable diamond winner. I would cash the ace of diamonds and then >> claim. Or, if I did claim, I would give the order of play. Or, I would >> state awareness of the problem -- "I have the last 4 tricks, I am going >> to >> cash my ace of diamonds as soon as I can." (One of my standard claims >> is, >> "I have tricks to burn, would you like me to state an order of play?") >> >> >> I get that that standards of claiming differ depending on level of >> ability >> and region. But at least here, that claim (just stating the winners) >> shows >> unawareness of the problem that the ace of diamonds is strandable. And >> if >> the player is not aware that the ace of diamonds could be stranded -- >> why >> are we sure he will play it right? > > When stranding is easy to avoid and would be irrational (as in this > example), > you should rule in favor of the claimer; otherwise, you will discourage > claims. > If you rule against a player in this situation, he will never claim > again. And > one of the most frustrating situations for a good player is a situation > in which > declarer appears to have all the tricks and could claim but refuses to > do so; > you have to waste a lot of time trying to figure out a possible holding > on which > your play makes a difference. > > I just got back from a club game in which I claimed with an opponent on > lead, in > a position like this (all honors are high): > > K > - > xx > KJ > > xxx > J > K > - > > RHO had just won the HQ and was thinking about what to return. To save > time, I > would like to be able to say, "I have the DK and HJ in hand, and the SK > and two > good clubs in dummy." If I have to avoid any statement which might > strand a > winner, then I have to say, :"If you return a red suit, I take the DK > and HJ > pitching a diamond from dummy, then lead a spade and dummy is good. If > you > return a black suit, I take the SK and the KJ of clubs pitching spades, > then > lead a diamond to the king and take my HJ," and then wait for my (weak) > RHO to > understand this complex but technically correct claim; is this what you > want to > encourage? I want to encourage objective guidelines from responsible authorities. Let me reask the question. Declarer claims in the above situation. If you want, he lists his tricks. But the does not say, like you might, which hand they are in. That's a complicated situation. Let's just do the simple one? Do you think, when (1) declarer claims, (2) the order of cashing tricks is relevant, and (3) the claimer says nothing about order of tricks (an infraction), the director should always accept the claim? Would that be a good policy? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 4 04:14:05 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 02:14:05 +0000 Subject: [BLML] FW: Fwd: What am I missing? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9D97B2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Jeff Easterson: >..... >A few tricks later RHO trumped (showing that he had revoked) and play >continued. Apparently no one noticed the revoke. At least no one called >the TD. A few tricks later RHO trumped again, thus winning two tricks >with the trumps with which he had revoked. > >At the end of the hand this was finally noticed and the TD was called. >The line of play of the declarer was definitely inferior but playing >badly is not a violation of bridge law. > >How do you rule and why? If possible please quote relevant laws. Richard Hills: The relevant phrase of the relevant Law 12C1(b) is: "...a serious error (unrelated to the infraction)..." It was a serious error for a novice declarer not to notice the first revoke, but of course that serious error was related to the infraction. Therefore I disagree with Sven's mere one trick adjustment and support Anton's preference for a Law 64C adjustment. On the other hand, if an expert declarer had perpetrated this debacle, then Sven's harsh ruling would be correct, as the relevant phrase of the relevant Law 12C1(b) would be: "...or by wild or gambling action..." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130904/be272bdc/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 4 08:33:25 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 08:33:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <81E25B02-60B0-4F64-93D1-EA3AAA46D3B6@starpower.net> References: <81EF5EE8-BEE7-45D0-BCE3-DF0AAA07F0F1@starpower.net> <36DF8119-2D8C-449C-9598-93F5106284F7@starpower.net> <5225F67C.4050303@skynet.be> <81E25B02-60B0-4F64-93D1-EA3AAA46D3B6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5226D435.8000304@skynet.be> Eric Landau schreef: > On Sep 3, 2013, at 10:47 AM, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Eric Landau schreef: >> > > Because, "When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the > Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if claimer > made no statement about that trump, and..." [L70C]. The director > must, by explcit law, base his presumptions about prospective lines > of play on whether declarer "tells me he 'draws trump'" or "says > nothing". To presume that he "can count trump just as well" in > either case patently violates the clear meaning and purpose of L70C > -- even if you're sure it is so. > > You make a logical error, Eric. The phrase you cite is one of three conditions. The consequence is only valid if all three conditions are met. Yes, this claimer did not mention it, but we cannot claim it is probable he forgot about the outstanding trump. Therefor, the consequence is not valid and we need not treat the second claimer any worse than the first one. Do you understand my point? I realize that in the ACBL, the TD's are very strict on saying "drawing trumps". But if you are going to assume that a player has forgotten about trumps altogether if he does not mention them, then you should rule that he doesn't draw any of them, not one too many. After all "drawing trumps" does not specify how many - so you could just as easily rule that the first claimer draws 4 rounds of trumps as the second one (in the case of nine trumps with the remainder 3-1). Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 4 08:40:30 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 08:40:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5226D5DE.90404@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie schreef: > > [Nigel] > I think Herman correctly interprets the intentions of the law-makers and > hence encapsulates a flaw in current Bridge-law. Illustrative example: > - A friendly expert calls you his table and plausibly explains his slip of > the tongue. Naturally, you rule in his favour because you are sure that a1 > applies (the player realized that the solution was so easy that he could > assume everyone would assume he could handle it) > - A stranger of foreigner calls you to his table and has difficulty speaking > your language. You know nothing about him (but you've have heard rumours on > the grapevine that he's incompetent -- and of doubtful ethics). Now, how do > you rule? > - How do other players judge the consistency and fairness of such rulings? > Nigel, you are posing a totally different question. How do TDs judge what is in the mindset of players? It's difficult, but we do it nevertheless. What would you prefer? A law that forced the TD to say "I know you have won three Bermuda Bowls, but the law tells me I have to assume you are an absolute beginner", or a law that allows the TD to find out whether the unknown Turkish lady is indeed one of the European champions? I have no problem with rulling against an unknown player if I believe he's a beginner, and I'm certain I can tell that he's not simply by asking him, even in his foreign language. But then again, I have already directed in 7 different languages, including one I don't know at all. (A player once explained his claim in Polish to me and his opponents apparently understood him. His explanation was clear enough that I realized he knew what he was talking about. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6632 - Release Date: 09/02/13 > > From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 4 08:44:31 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 08:44:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > > > I myself do NOT like the idea that an expert gets the claim accepted and a > lesser player with exactly the same claim gets it denied. > > This is just an idea you have. An expert and a lesser player will NEVER give you exactly the same claim. And if they do, you will probably rule that both know what they were doing, and you will rule exactly the same for the lesser player than for the expert. What you all seem to forget is that, if you don't take the class of player into account, you need some other standard to judge all players by. Which standard is that? That of an absolute beginner? Or that of a World Champion? Both are obviously ludicrous. So then what? Herman. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Wed Sep 4 09:11:40 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:11:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> Message-ID: Am 04.09.2013, 08:44 Uhr, schrieb Herman De Wael : > Robert Frick schreef: >> >> >> I myself do NOT like the idea that an expert gets the claim accepted >> and a >> lesser player with exactly the same claim gets it denied. >> >> > > This is just an idea you have. > An expert and a lesser player will NEVER give you exactly the same claim. > And if they do, you will probably rule that both know what they were > doing, and you will rule exactly the same for the lesser player than for > the expert. > > What you all seem to forget is that, if you don't take the class of > player into account, you need some other standard to judge all players > by. Which standard is that? That of an absolute beginner? Or that of a > World Champion? Both are obviously ludicrous. So then what? > as I have suggested before: the level of the TOURNAMENT. This is easily established, and at a given event, everyone will be treated the same. Petrus From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 4 09:34:18 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:34:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> Petrus Schuster OSB schreef: > Am 04.09.2013, 08:44 Uhr, schrieb Herman De Wael : > >> What you all seem to forget is that, if you don't take the class of >> player into account, you need some other standard to judge all players >> by. Which standard is that? That of an absolute beginner? Or that of a >> World Champion? Both are obviously ludicrous. So then what? >> > > as I have suggested before: the level of the TOURNAMENT. > This is easily established, and at a given event, everyone will be treated > the same. > And what level is that - that of its best player - or its worst? Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 4 15:17:25 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:17:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <5226D435.8000304@skynet.be> References: <81EF5EE8-BEE7-45D0-BCE3-DF0AAA07F0F1@starpower.net> <36DF8119-2D8C-449C-9598-93F5106284F7@starpower.net> <5225F67C.4050303@skynet.be> <81E25B02-60B0-4F64-93D1-EA3AAA46D3B6@starpower.net> <5226D435.8000304@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sep 4, 2013, at 2:33 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau schreef: > >> On Sep 3, 2013, at 10:47 AM, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >> Eric Landau schreef: >> >>> Because, "When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the >>> Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if claimer >>> made no statement about that trump, and..." [L70C]. The director >>> must, by explcit law, base his presumptions about prospective lines >>> of play on whether declarer "tells me he 'draws trump'" or "says >>> nothing". To presume that he "can count trump just as well" in >>> either case patently violates the clear meaning and purpose of L70C >>> -- even if you're sure it is so. > > You make a logical error, Eric. > The phrase you cite is one of three conditions. > The consequence is only valid if all three conditions are met. > Yes, this claimer did not mention it, but we cannot claim it is probable > he forgot about the outstanding trump. Either you are making a personal determination that for "this claimer... we cannot claim it is probable he forgot about the outstanding trump" despite his having failed to account for it in his claim", but would not rule the same way for some other claimer in the same circumstances, or you are simply removing L70C1 from the book and adjudicating claims in which there is an outstanding trump using only L70C2-3. > Therefor, the consequence is not valid and we need not treat the second > claimer any worse than the first one. > > Do you understand my point? > > I realize that in the ACBL, the TD's are very strict on saying "drawing > trumps". But if you are going to assume that a player has forgotten > about trumps altogether if he does not mention them, then you should > rule that he doesn't draw any of them, not one too many. And I would. Herman is confusing two posts. The earlier one, with the reference to "one too many", was in the context of a claimer who does specify that he is drawing trumps. > After all "drawing trumps" does not specify how many - so you could just > as easily rule that the first claimer draws 4 rounds of trumps as the > second one (in the case of nine trumps with the remainder 3-1). Of course "drawing trumps" specifies how many -- however many are out. When the claimer, at the point of his claim, "draws trumps" with as yet no indication as to how the outstanding trumps will break, he is specifying a line of play that will draw enough rounds to handle any break. If he cannot do that and still take the number of tricks he claimed, he will be ruled against, unless he can succeed by stopping (only) after both opponents show out, for which case L70E1 provides an explicit exception. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 4 15:43:17 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:43:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5FD3800A-0D4E-446E-9720-2F35A1B04B1E@starpower.net> On Sep 3, 2013, at 9:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > There is, no coincidence, a parallel discussion on rec.games.bridge. Steve > W. expresses the same opinion there as here: Judgment of a claim should > not be based on ability. He cites here "For the purposes of Laws 70 and > 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or inferior for the > class of player involved." > > Barry Margolin takes the position that level of expertise should be taken > into account. In support of his position, he says "that's what 'for the > class of player' means in the footnote." He is misreading plain English. The complement to "play that would be would be careless or inferior for the [stronger] class of player involved" is play that would be normal (neither careless or inferior) for the [weaker] class of player involved. The footnote says that both levels of play are to be treated in the same way, which it calls "'normal'", using explicit quotes to indicate that it is deliberately using the term in other than its usual sense where footnoted. > Herman presumably supports the idea of taking into account ability -- we > are supposed to somehow crawl inside the head of the claimer. > > I myself do NOT like the idea that an expert gets the claim accepted and a > lesser player with exactly the same claim gets it denied. > > Anyway, this evidence shows that there is ambiguity in the laws. It really > should be addressed. While there may be some ambiguity in the footnote as to what counts as "normal", it is unambiguously clear that whatever it is, it is the same for players for whom it would be "careless or inferior" as it is for players for whom it would be always be considered "normal" in the usual (unfootnoted) sense. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 5 02:36:48 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:36:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims Message-ID: Does anyone really take ability into account in making an actual ruling. If so... prove it. For example: Ax -- Ax -- Kx Ax -- -- The player claims. It is obvious to everyone what the winners are, or he says that. So that's not the issue. The player has not stated the order of play (or displayed any awarness of the entry problems.) Do you give this claim to the expert and rule 1 trick to the defense for the poorer player? And what about the advanced player and the intermediate player? Um, this is a challenge. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 5 02:45:30 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:45:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <81EF5EE8-BEE7-45D0-BCE3-DF0AAA07F0F1@starpower.net> <36DF8119-2D8C-449C-9598-93F5106284F7@starpower.net> <5225F67C.4050303@skynet.be> <81E25B02-60B0-4F64-93D1-EA3AAA46D3B6@starpower.net> <5226D435.8000304@skynet.be> Message-ID: A challenge to Herman. But I will include Sven. Ax -- Ax -- Kx Ax -- -- For example. The player claims without saying anything, but it is well agreed by everyone that the winners are 2 spades, the ace of diamonds, and the ace of hearts. You say you try to crawl into his mind. What are you looking for? 1. If he had any awareness of the potential entry problems when he made the claim? or 2. The probability that he would have played the hand correctly had he not claimed? Yes, there is nothing in the claiming statement to help you. I think the laws should be able to handle this situation, given that it is widespread. Do you look at anything more than ability? I assume you look at ability. If you don't want to wait, the next question is your criterion. 80%? 90%? It is never 100%, so don't say that. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Sep 5 04:31:38 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:31:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <81EF5EE8-BEE7-45D0-BCE3-DF0AAA07F0F1@starpower.net> <36DF8119-2D8C-449C-9598-93F5106284F7@starpower.net> <5225F67C.4050303@skynet.be> <81E25B02-60B0-4F64-93D1-EA3AAA46D3B6@starpower.net> <5226D435.8000304@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > You say you try to crawl into his mind. What are you looking for? > > 1. If he had any awareness of the potential entry problems when he made > the claim? > > or > > 2. The probability that he would have played the hand correctly had he not > claimed? > Can I offer a third option? 3. You now see that Eric is correct: The laws do not require estimating the strength of the particular claimer. Instead you should rule based purely on the content of the claim (and perhaps the level of the event) rather than your estimate of the skill of the player. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 5 05:40:05 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 03:40:05 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DC204@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >>Nigel, you are posing a totally different question. How do TDs judge >>what is in the mindset of players? It?s difficult, but we do it >>nevertheless. Ton Kooijman, semi-official Commentary on the 2007 Laws: >When judging the validity of a claim it is important to follow and >understand the reasons for the claim at that specific moment. > >? 10 9 6 > >? A K J 8 7 > >The only problem on this board for declarer is to find ?Q. He plays ?10 >from dummy, RHO follows suit, ?7 from hand and LHO discards. >Reaching for ?9 and claiming four more tricks without further >explanation might not be what the laws prefer but should not be >penalized by awarding a trick to the defenders. If declarer does not play >?9 and does not have an entry to dummy, claiming now is sloppy. Richard Hills: I agree with Herman and Ton, and disagree with those blmlers who are Ivory Tower nit-pickers. One must be mindful of the purpose of claims and concessions - to save time (I once kibitzed the Grand Final of the Aussie National Open Teams - the play of each and every of the 64 boards was truncated with a claim or concession). What?s the problem? The problem is players gaining tricks through dodgy claims that they might not gain had play continued. Hence the two Law 70A criteria: ?...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...? UNOFFICIAL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130905/ca6fb5bb/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Thu Sep 5 07:43:11 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:43:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> Message-ID: Am 04.09.2013, 09:34 Uhr, schrieb Herman De Wael : > Petrus Schuster OSB schreef: >> Am 04.09.2013, 08:44 Uhr, schrieb Herman De Wael : >> >>> What you all seem to forget is that, if you don't take the class of >>> player into account, you need some other standard to judge all players >>> by. Which standard is that? That of an absolute beginner? Or that of a >>> World Champion? Both are obviously ludicrous. So then what? >>> >> >> as I have suggested before: the level of the TOURNAMENT. >> This is easily established, and at a given event, everyone will be >> treated >> the same. >> > And what level is that - that of its best player - or its worst? > no. International championships - national championships - regional championships ... From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 5 10:24:37 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 10:24:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> Petrus Schuster OSB schreef: > Am 04.09.2013, 09:34 Uhr, schrieb Herman De Wael : > >> Petrus Schuster OSB schreef: >>> Am 04.09.2013, 08:44 Uhr, schrieb Herman De Wael : >>> >>>> What you all seem to forget is that, if you don't take the class of >>>> player into account, you need some other standard to judge all players >>>> by. Which standard is that? That of an absolute beginner? Or that of a >>>> World Champion? Both are obviously ludicrous. So then what? >>>> >>> >>> as I have suggested before: the level of the TOURNAMENT. >>> This is easily established, and at a given event, everyone will be >>> treated >>> the same. >>> >> And what level is that - that of its best player - or its worst? >> > > no. > International championships - national championships - regional > championships ... Yes, but International championships attract international players - so who's to say whether we are judging by the players' level or by the tournament's. Besides, it seems to me as if some people on this list are saying that the same ruling should be given for the same claim, regardless of the tournament. So the just stated case (three aces and a king) would either be ruled as 4 tricks for a beginner or as 3 in the final of the Bermuda Bowl. Which is patently ridiculous. My point is that if Garozzo plays in a beginners' tournament, he should get this claim. While the beginner at the next table might not. Does anyone doubt that Garozzo will make 4 tricks? Then why not give him 4. Does everyone believe that the beginner will certainly manage 4 tricks? Then why not give him 3? And whereas it's sensible to assume that a player at a world championship is a world class player, I did play in two world championships (and finished last in both), so the assumption may not necessarily hold. But ruling 3 tricks to Garozzo is equally silly. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6638 - Release Date: 09/04/13 > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 5 22:56:52 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 16:56:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 04:24:37 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Petrus Schuster OSB schreef: >> Am 04.09.2013, 09:34 Uhr, schrieb Herman De Wael : >> >>> Petrus Schuster OSB schreef: >>>> Am 04.09.2013, 08:44 Uhr, schrieb Herman De Wael : >>>> >>>>> What you all seem to forget is that, if you don't take the class of >>>>> player into account, you need some other standard to judge all >>>>> players >>>>> by. Which standard is that? That of an absolute beginner? Or that of >>>>> a >>>>> World Champion? Both are obviously ludicrous. So then what? >>>>> >>>> >>>> as I have suggested before: the level of the TOURNAMENT. >>>> This is easily established, and at a given event, everyone will be >>>> treated >>>> the same. >>>> >>> And what level is that - that of its best player - or its worst? >>> >> >> no. >> International championships - national championships - regional >> championships ... > > Yes, but International championships attract international players - so > who's to say whether we are judging by the players' level or by the > tournament's. > > Besides, it seems to me as if some people on this list are saying that > the same ruling should be given for the same claim, regardless of the > tournament. So the just stated case (three aces and a king) would either > be ruled as 4 tricks for a beginner or as 3 in the final of the Bermuda > Bowl. Which is patently ridiculous. > > My point is that if Garozzo plays in a beginners' tournament, he should > get this claim. While the beginner at the next table might not. Does > anyone doubt that Garozzo will make 4 tricks? Then why not give him 4. Garazzo claims holding the AK of trump and A in a side suit. He makes no statement indicating awareness that a trump is out. If he first plays the A in the side suit, it gets trumped. Do you give him the claim? I estimate it close to 100% that Garazzo would have won all of the tricks had he played it out. > Does everyone believe that the beginner will certainly manage 4 tricks? > Then why not give him 3? And, as warned: How do you rule for the intermediate player and the advanced but not expert player? > > And whereas it's sensible to assume that a player at a world > championship is a world class player, I did play in two world > championships (and finished last in both), so the assumption may not > necessarily hold. > > But ruling 3 tricks to Garozzo is equally silly. > > Herman. > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6638 - Release Date: >> 09/04/13 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From g3 at nige1.com Fri Sep 6 02:18:04 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 01:18:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8EFDEFBF3AF54253A7945CA81BF98523@G3> [Robert Frick] Garozzo claims holding the AK of trump and A in a side suit. He makes no statement indicating awareness that a trump is out. If he first plays the A in the side suit, it gets trumped. Do you give him the claim? I estimate it close to 100% that Garazzo would have won all of the tricks had he played it out. [Nigel] What does law 60C, say. Like other laws it's ambiguuos but It's clearer than many laws. IMO it implies that Garozzo loses a trump trick. [TFLB L60C] When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: claimer made no statement about that trump, and it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand, and a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal22 play. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 6 03:02:56 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 01:02:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DC88C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie: >What does Law 70C say? Like other laws it's ambiguous Richard Hills: Yes and No. Some other Laws are ambiguous, but Law 70C unambiguously permits the Director to exercise judgement in assessing the Law 70C2 criterion "at all likely" and the Law 70C3 criterion "normal". Nigel Guthrie: >but it's clearer than many laws. IMO it implies that Garozzo >loses a trump trick. Richard Hills: Yes and Yes. Even a World Champion can have a senior moment and lose the plot. I am not even close to Garozzo's standard, but I usually: (a) against beginners, draw trumps and then claim, or (b) against experts, include in my claim statement "drawing trumps" so if (c) my claim statement does not mention an outstanding trump I am then playing like a funky gibbon. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130906/915fa33c/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Sep 6 04:10:01 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 21:10:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Yes, but International championships attract international players - so > who's to say whether we are judging by the players' level or by the > tournament's. TFLB, that's who. The director is not allowed to be more lenient on claims due to class of player, but he is allowed to do it based on the tournament. > > Besides, it seems to me as if some people on this list are saying that > the same ruling should be given for the same claim, regardless of the > tournament. Really? Who? > So the just stated case (three aces and a king) would either > be ruled as 4 tricks for a beginner or as 3 in the final of the Bermuda > Bowl. Which is patently ridiculous. Why do you say that? It's illegal for a directory to base this decision on what he believes to be the player's class, but it is legal to base it on the event. > > My point is that if Garozzo plays in a beginners' tournament, he should > get this claim. Why? If a pro plays in an beginners' event, let him demonstrate to the beginners how to claim in that event. I think a pro should be able to figure it rather quickly. Under the laws, there is no value for the director to appraise what would have happened based on his estimate of the player's skill, so why even bring up the issue? There are so many things for a director to do, so why waste time on irrelevancies? > While the beginner at the next table might not. Does > anyone doubt that Garozzo will make 4 tricks? Why do you bring up class of player when you are explicitly told by the rules that you may not base your decision on class of player? A director should focus on what matters under the law, and ignore other issues. > Then why not give him 4. You're not allowed to rule claims based on the class of the claimer, so this desire is illegal directing. > Does everyone believe that the beginner will certainly manage 4 tricks? > Then why not give him 3? The question is moot, because you are not allowed to base your decision on the player's class---even if you are sure your appraisal of class is correct. > > And whereas it's sensible to assume that a player at a world > championship is a world class player, I did play in two world > championships (and finished last in both), so the assumption may not > necessarily hold. > > But ruling 3 tricks to Garozzo is equally silly. > The law says, whether it is Garozzo or me making the claim in the event, you are to award the same way if we make the same statement at the same point in the same hand. You're not allowed to give Garozzo the benefit of the doubt that you would withhold from other players in the event. Let all players, whether pro or not, learn how to make a proper claim. And let players see that the directors' rulings are not stacked in favor of certain players. Do you really want weaker players to see you allowing bad claims from pros, learn that style, and then be punished for imitating it purely because of directors not following the laws? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 6 05:24:50 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 03:24:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DC90F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Grattan Endicott, 27th December 2002: +=+ Aside from this particular example, looking generally at the treatment of imperfection in making claims, I could easily envisage that it has happened that, in resolving a doubtful point against the claimer, a ruling giving a trick has made the difference for claimer's opponents of placing them first rather than second in the final ranking. It could happen in a World Championship. Or it could have this effect for one of the contestants not involved in the ruling, as Eric observes. This leaves me feeling that legislators have not considered deeply enough the treatment of contested claims. I doubt there is a perfect solution, but I think that the better part of the argument lies against the hawkish opinions. It is unlikely to be for the good of the game if we treat inadequacy in expressing a claim as an offence deserving of penalty; nor should we wish to lean in the direction of the 'lawyer with his briefcase'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130906/82eae144/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 6 06:19:31 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 04:19:31 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DDAF4@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL The Godfather (1972 movie): "A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than one hundred men with guns." >..... >It is unlikely to be for the good of the game if we >treat inadequacy in expressing a claim as an >offence deserving of penalty; nor should we wish >to lean in the direction of the "lawyer with his >briefcase". >~ Grattan ~ +=+ If an expert's faulty claim is caused by a brain snap, not verbal inadequacy, that expert's claim should not be allowed even if the rest-of-the-field is the Grand Final of the Bermuda Bowl. If a non-expert's faulty claim is caused by verbal inadequacy, not a brain snap, that non-expert's claim should be allowed even if the rest-of-the-field is the Wagga Wagga walk-in pairs. For example: On a particular deal an expert partnership would reach 7NT with 15 top tricks. But a non-expert partnership instead gives their opponents a sporting chance by declaring 7S in a 4-4 fit; with no cross-ruff available a 5-0 trump break will sink the grand. The non-expert declarer wins the opening lead, then plays trumps at trick two. When both defenders follow, the non-expert declarer infracts Law 68C by claiming without a claim statement. In this case the "at all likely" criterion of Law 70C2 is not fulfilled, so the claim should be allowed. Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130906/b92fead9/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Sep 6 08:48:35 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 08:48:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52297AC3.7050404@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: >> >> My point is that if Garozzo plays in a beginners' tournament, he should >> get this claim. While the beginner at the next table might not. Does >> anyone doubt that Garozzo will make 4 tricks? Then why not give him 4. > > > Garazzo claims holding the AK of trump and A in a side suit. He makes no > statement indicating awareness that a trump is out. If he first plays the > A in the side suit, it gets trumped. > > Do you give him the claim? I estimate it close to 100% that Garazzo would > have won all of the tricks had he played it out. > Well, you apply L71C2 - it is not at all likely that Garozzo was unaware of the outstanding trump, so you rule three tricks. WTP? Personally, in such a case, I would not believe that he did know of the outstanding trump, so I would rule 2 tricks. You are confusing "the line of play" and the "awareness of the player". A world class player will sometimes forget a trump is out - but he will never block the four card ending described earlier this week. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Sep 6 08:56:28 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 08:56:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52297C9C.3000404@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman schreef: > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> Yes, but International championships attract international players - so >> who's to say whether we are judging by the players' level or by the >> tournament's. > > TFLB, that's who. The director is not allowed to be more lenient on > claims due to class of player, but he is allowed to do it based on the > tournament. > And you find this in the laws where? >> >> Besides, it seems to me as if some people on this list are saying that >> the same ruling should be given for the same claim, regardless of the >> tournament. > > Really? Who? > Those that are advocating for clear rules on how to rule certain cases. They would apparently like to be able to rule based on just the cards. Which is impossible, IMO. >> So the just stated case (three aces and a king) would either >> be ruled as 4 tricks for a beginner or as 3 in the final of the Bermuda >> Bowl. Which is patently ridiculous. > > Why do you say that? It's illegal for a directory to base this > decision on what he believes to be the player's class, but it is legal > to base it on the event. > See my question above. If you believe that a player cannot play that four card ending, then you rule him 3 tricks. If you believe that he can play it, you must rule him four tricks. That's what L70D says, including the footnote - which does include the class of player, not the class of tournament. >> >> My point is that if Garozzo plays in a beginners' tournament, he should >> get this claim. > > Why? If a pro plays in an beginners' event, let him demonstrate to > the beginners how to claim in that event. I think a pro should be > able to figure it rather quickly. Under the laws, there is no value > for the director to appraise what would have happened based on his > estimate of the player's skill, so why even bring up the issue? There > are so many things for a director to do, so why waste time on > irrelevancies? > >> While the beginner at the next table might not. Does >> anyone doubt that Garozzo will make 4 tricks? > > Why do you bring up class of player when you are explicitly told by > the rules that you may not base your decision on class of player? A > director should focus on what matters under the law, and ignore other > issues. > Are we reading the same footnote? Mine explicitly mentions the class of player involved. >> Then why not give him 4. > > You're not allowed to rule claims based on the class of the claimer, > so this desire is illegal directing. > So while we're discussing a problem, your argument is that your right, is that it? Fruitless discussion, it seems to me. >> Does everyone believe that the beginner will certainly manage 4 tricks? >> Then why not give him 3? > > The question is moot, because you are not allowed to base your > decision on the player's class---even if you are sure your appraisal > of class is correct. > >> >> And whereas it's sensible to assume that a player at a world >> championship is a world class player, I did play in two world >> championships (and finished last in both), so the assumption may not >> necessarily hold. >> >> But ruling 3 tricks to Garozzo is equally silly. >> > > The law says, whether it is Garozzo or me making the claim in the > event, you are to award the same way if we make the same statement at > the same point in the same hand. You're not allowed to give Garozzo > the benefit of the doubt that you would withhold from other players in > the event. > Well, the footnote says otherwise. > Let all players, whether pro or not, learn how to make a proper claim. > And let players see that the directors' rulings are not stacked in > favor of certain players. > > Do you really want weaker players to see you allowing bad claims from > pros, learn that style, and then be punished for imitating it purely > because of directors not following the laws? > No, I don't. But neither will I rule against Garozzo when he claims the way all world class players claim. > Jerry Fusselman Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 7 14:59:32 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 08:59:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <52297AC3.7050404@skynet.be> References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> <52297AC3.7050404@skynet.be> Message-ID: Hi Herman. Where is your line? Garazzo claims the rest of the tricks, without explanation, in this ending. AKQ xxxxx --- --- J10987 --- AKQ --- No trump. He is in his hand, the hearts are not good. If you ask him how he is going to play it.... ah, people at blml don't do that. The opponents claim he doesn't have the rest. The hearts aren't good. At what point to we expect players do demonstrate skill before claiming, instead of giving credit to them after? Garazzo claims in 7 Spades with the trump suit of KQ104 A9532 The opponents object. (Spades are 4-0) From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 7 15:11:04 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 15:11:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> <52297AC3.7050404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801ceabcb$b6049ef0$220ddcd0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Hi Herman. Where is your line? > > Garazzo claims the rest of the tricks, without explanation, in this ending. > > AKQ > xxxxx > --- > --- > > J10987 > --- > AKQ > --- > > No trump. He is in his hand, the hearts are not good. If you ask him how he is > going to play it.... ah, people at blml don't do that. The opponents claim he > doesn't have the rest. The hearts aren't good. [Sven Pran] Once he claims I believe he sees immediately that the only reasonable line is to discard dummy's spades on the three diamond tricks. There is (less than) a 50-50 chance that I shall accept this line unless he shows some indication that this is what he has in mind. > > > > At what point to we expect players do demonstrate skill before claiming, > instead of giving credit to them after? Garazzo claims in 7 Spades with the > trump suit of > > KQ104 > > > A9532 > > > The opponents object. (Spades are 4-0) [Sven Pran] Don't we all learn in the beginner's course to play the first honour from the hand with two so that we can pick up all trumps even with a 4-0 break. Unfortunately we all forget this sometimes, so here again I shall require some indication that the claimer is indeed aware of this suit handling. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 7 17:11:50 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 11:11:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DDAF4@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DDAF4@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:19:31 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > The Godfather (1972 movie): > > "A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than > one hundred men with guns." > >> ..... >> It is unlikely to be for the good of the game if we >> treat inadequacy in expressing a claim as an >> offence deserving of penalty; nor should we wish >> to lean in the direction of the "lawyer with his >> briefcase". >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > If an expert's faulty claim is caused by a brain snap, > not verbal inadequacy, that expert's claim should > not be allowed even if the rest-of-the-field is the > Grand Final of the Bermuda Bowl. > > If a non-expert's faulty claim is caused by verbal > inadequacy, not a brain snap, that non-expert's > claim should be allowed even if the rest-of-the-field > is the Wagga Wagga walk-in pairs. > > For example: On a particular deal an expert > partnership would reach 7NT with 15 top tricks. > But a non-expert partnership instead gives their > opponents a sporting chance by declaring 7S in a > 4-4 fit; with no cross-ruff available a 5-0 trump > break will sink the grand. The non-expert declarer > wins the opening lead, then plays trumps at trick > two. When both defenders follow, the non-expert > declarer infracts Law 68C by claiming without a > claim statement. > > In this case the "at all likely" criterion of Law 70C2 > is not fulfilled, so the claim should be allowed. I agree. Ironically perhaps, this exact situation occurred at a recent learning game. I would have happily granted a claim. One player forgot she was in spades and went down 1; the other didn't untangle the blocked heart suit and went down 2. Only one of 5 declarers won all 13 tricks in the beginner game. 13 of 14 won all of the tricks in the open game, the exception being the only player in the open game who usually plays in the beginner games. I don't know what to do about this. I guess just ignore it. As I think Herman said, real beginners don't claim in this situation. Although perhaps that would be good advice to them. Bob AJT5 KQT74 A8 A9 KQ72 A KQ53 KQ82 From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Sep 7 17:49:05 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 11:49:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> <52297AC3.7050404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <522B4AF1.9030108@starpower.net> On 9/7/2013 8:59 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Garazzo claims the rest of the tricks, without explanation, in this ending. > > AKQ > xxxxx > --- > --- > > J10987 > --- > AKQ > --- > > No trump. He is in his hand, the hearts are not good. If you ask him how > he is going to play it.... ah, people at blml don't do that. The opponents > claim he doesn't have the rest. The hearts aren't good. > > At what point to we expect players do demonstrate skill before claiming, > instead of giving credit to them after? Garazzo claims in 7 Spades with > the trump suit of > > KQ104 > > A9532 > > The opponents object. (Spades are 4-0) There is no doubt that Mr. Garozzo knows how to play these combinations, and will get them right 99.9+% of the time. But there is also no doubt that Mr. Garozzo knows how to claim properly, and will get that right 99.9+% of time as well. But he will, on very rare occasions, have a slip of the brain and get it wrong. If he gets it wrong playing it out, we wouldn't consider adjusting the score to what he would have gotten if he hadn't screwed up just because he's Benito Garozzo. So why would we do that if he gets it wrong claiming? Especially when all he has to do to get it right is to notice the key point and mention it up front ("unblocking the spades", or "king of trumps first"), whilst playing it out would carry the risk of a screw-up caused by a subsequent distraction or brain-melt. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Sep 8 00:08:00 2013 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 18:08:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> <52297AC3.7050404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2019AF162A254E35A89775E5DC5D362E@erdos> > At what point to we expect players do demonstrate skill before claiming, > instead of giving credit to them after? Garazzo claims in 7 Spades with > the trump suit of > > KQ104 > > > A9532 > > > The opponents object. (Spades are 4-0) I believe we have discussed this example before. If the claimer doesn't say, "Taking the safety play," and East has Jxxx, he loses a trick, as it would be careless but not irrational to play the SA first. But whether he says he is taking the safety play or not, if West has Jxxx, he gets all the tricks, as it would be irrational to play the SQ after playing the SK. >AKQ >xxxxx >--- >--- >J10987 >--- >AKQ >--- >No trump. He is in his hand, the hearts are not good. If you ask him how >he is going to play it.... ah, people at blml don't do that. The opponents >claim he doesn't have the rest. The hearts aren't good. I would allow this one because the unblock is obvious. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 8 11:12:53 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:12:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> <52297AC3.7050404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <522C3F95.8040106@skynet.be> Hello Robert, Robert Frick schreef: > Hi Herman. Where is your line? > > Garazzo claims the rest of the tricks, without explanation, in this ending. > > AKQ > xxxxx > --- > --- > > J10987 > --- > AKQ > --- > > No trump. He is in his hand, the hearts are not good. If you ask him how > he is going to play it.... ah, people at blml don't do that. The opponents > claim he doesn't have the rest. The hearts aren't good. > Well, first of all, I need to know what he was thinking. Only he can tell me, and I shall believe him or not. But I cannot rule if I don't know which of the many possible mistakes he is making, and the name of the player does not help me, or influence me. Obviously something is wrong in the claim, and I need to know what. Possible things that could be wrong: he could be under the impression that he's playing a spade contract, in which case the claim is obviously correct. Or he could be thinking the SJ is on the table and the SQ is in hand. Again, that makes the claim understandable. Or he could be thinking the hearts are in fact good. Again the claim is understandable. There may be other reasons why the claim was made, but I need the player to tell me that. Only then shall I decide what the possible normal lines are. Let's assume is the third possibility. With hearts good, there are two possibilities: cash the diamonds and cross to the table, for 2 heart tricks, or cross immediately and cash five heart tricks. Both lines are normal, as are the two intermediate ones (cash one diamond or two). Depending on the number of diamonds and clubs in opponents's hands, these four lines will lead to a number of tricks. I will give the lowest. OK? Please note that the name Garozzo does not feature in this response, as I don't use the class of player in determining what was in his mind (except perhaps in believing what he tells me - options one and two above would be very strange for a player like Garozzo, so I might not believe him if he claims that is the case). And I don't believe one needs to be world class to figure out the normal lines in these cases. > > > > At what point to we expect players do demonstrate skill before claiming, > instead of giving credit to them after? Garazzo claims in 7 Spades with > the trump suit of > > KQ104 > > > A9532 > > > The opponents object. (Spades are 4-0) > I would expect a player of my calibre to get this one right, although perhaps not someone of slightly less ability. I would expect to get this claim if I was not on play, and would not be surprised not to get it if I was on play (playing the king is such a small effort). I would certainly grant this claim to a player of much higher class than me. I might berate a good player if he says nothing when playing against beginners. I would expect top players not to contest the claim, and would berate them if they do. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 8 11:17:50 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:17:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <522B4AF1.9030108@starpower.net> References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> <52297AC3.7050404@skynet.be> <522B4AF1.9030108@starpower.net> Message-ID: <522C40BE.9000500@skynet.be> This is precisely the reason why some people get it wrong with claim rulings: Eric Landau schreef: >> instead of giving credit to them after? Garazzo claims in 7 Spades with >> the trump suit of >> >> KQ104 >> >> A9532 >> >> The opponents object. (Spades are 4-0) > > There is no doubt that Mr. Garozzo knows how to play these combinations, > and will get them right 99.9+% of the time. > > But there is also no doubt that Mr. Garozzo knows how to claim properly, > and will get that right 99.9+% of time as well. > > But he will, on very rare occasions, have a slip of the brain and get it > wrong. If he gets it wrong playing it out, we wouldn't consider > adjusting the score to what he would have gotten if he hadn't screwed up > just because he's Benito Garozzo. So why would we do that if he gets it > wrong claiming? > No-one will ever play every hand 100% of the time correctly - ergo, all claims should be ruled against. One of the reasons for claiming is that one cannot play foolishly thereafter. 99.9% claims must be ruled in favour. > Especially when all he has to do to get it right is to notice the key > point and mention it up front ("unblocking the spades", or "king of > trumps first"), whilst playing it out would carry the risk of a screw-up > caused by a subsequent distraction or brain-melt. > That is something else. In how far is the fact of not mentioning something an indication of not having noticed it? That is the difficult decision for directors. I suppose local customs play a great deal of influence. Herman. > From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Sun Sep 8 14:20:39 2013 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (=?utf-8?Q?mikeamostd@btinternet.com?=) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 12:20:39 +0000 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Standard_problems_in_adjudicating_claims?= Message-ID: <157849.72267.bm@smtp146.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> I have no authority to speak for the English Bridge Union, but I do help train quite a few of our Club and Panel directors and I think our position generally is that a player who makes a ?careless? claim statement is highly likely to make a careless play - someone who knows the ?simple? ?obvious? or ?standard? safety play knows that the claim statement should indicate this - ?I claim the rest cashing a top honour in dummy first?. Anyone who makes a ?careless? claim statement will have a hard job persuading me that their play will be less ?careless?. Mike Sent from Windows Mail From: Herman De Wael Sent: ?08? ?September? ?2013 ?10?:?17 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims This is precisely the reason why some people get it wrong with claim rulings: Eric Landau schreef: >> instead of giving credit to them after? Garazzo claims in 7 Spades with >> the trump suit of >> >> KQ104 >> >> A9532 >> >> The opponents object. (Spades are 4-0) > > There is no doubt that Mr. Garozzo knows how to play these combinations, > and will get them right 99.9+% of the time. > > But there is also no doubt that Mr. Garozzo knows how to claim properly, > and will get that right 99.9+% of time as well. > > But he will, on very rare occasions, have a slip of the brain and get it > wrong. If he gets it wrong playing it out, we wouldn't consider > adjusting the score to what he would have gotten if he hadn't screwed up > just because he's Benito Garozzo. So why would we do that if he gets it > wrong claiming? > No-one will ever play every hand 100% of the time correctly - ergo, all claims should be ruled against. One of the reasons for claiming is that one cannot play foolishly thereafter. 99.9% claims must be ruled in favour. > Especially when all he has to do to get it right is to notice the key > point and mention it up front ("unblocking the spades", or "king of > trumps first"), whilst playing it out would carry the risk of a screw-up > caused by a subsequent distraction or brain-melt. > That is something else. In how far is the fact of not mentioning something an indication of not having noticed it? That is the difficult decision for directors. I suppose local customs play a great deal of influence. Herman. > _______________________________________________ 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/20130908/f6eb8669/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Sep 8 21:46:35 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 15:46:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <522CD41B.2030906@nhcc.net> On 2013-09-05 10:10 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > The law says, whether it is Garozzo or me making the claim in the > event, you are to award the same way if we make the same statement at > the same point in the same hand. This is exactly my view. >On 2013-09-06 2:56 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Are we reading the same footnote? Mine explicitly mentions the class of > player involved. TFLB mentions "class of player" to tell us explicitly not to use it as a criterion in ruling on claims. > At what point to we expect players do demonstrate skill before claiming, > instead of giving credit to them after? At the borderline between "normal" and "irrational." That's fuzzy, but it doesn't vary based on "class of player." We are neither required nor forbidden to let the boundary vary with locale. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 9 01:39:29 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 23:39:29 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE304@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 74B4: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from prolonging play unnecessarily (as in ++playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his++) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent." Mike Amos: >>I have no authority to speak for the English Bridge Union, but I do >>help train quite a few of our Club and Panel directors and I think >>our position generally is that a player who makes a "careless" claim >>statement is highly likely to make a careless play - someone who >>knows the "simple" "obvious" or "standard" safety play knows that >>the claim statement should indicate this - "I claim the rest cashing a >>top honour in dummy first". Anyone who makes a "careless" claim >>statement will have a hard job persuading me that their play will be >>less "careless". >> >>Mike Richard Hills: >Any declarer who makes a "careless" non-statement with Ax opposite >Kx will have a hard time convincing me that they will avoid "carelessly" >playing low from both hands at trick twelve to therefore create a >defensive winner. :) :) Extract from Eric Landau posting, 3rd February 2009: Bridge is not a game of attritional psychology; ethical players do not try to win by deliberately exhausting an opponent's mental stamina and then taking advantage of having done so. It is unfair, unethical and improper to deliberately put your opponents "through the wringer" when you know that their play doesn't matter. As it happens, it's also explicitly illegal (L74B4). We claim not so much to save time as to be fair to the others at the table. Our lawmakers believe, as do I, that the consequent level of fairness achieved is worth dealing with the hassles resulting from the occasional contested claim, especially as contested claims represent only a relatively tiny fraction of all claims. Infamous cases are infamous precisely because they represent unusually rare or exceptional situations. The law must be designed to deal primarily with the common and ordinary, not optimized for the rare or exceptional. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130908/0447f2f9/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 9 01:54:57 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 19:54:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE304@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE304@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 19:39:29 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Law 74B4: > > "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from prolonging play > unnecessarily (as in ++playing on although he knows that all the tricks > are surely his++) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent." > > Mike Amos: > >>> I have no authority to speak for the English Bridge Union, but I do >>> help train quite a few of our Club and Panel directors and I think >>> our position generally is that a player who makes a "careless" claim >>> statement is highly likely to make a careless play - someone who >>> knows the "simple" "obvious" or "standard" safety play knows that >>> the claim statement should indicate this - "I claim the rest cashing a >>> top honour in dummy first". Anyone who makes a "careless" claim >>> statement will have a hard job persuading me that their play will be >>> less "careless". >>> >>> Mike > > Richard Hills: > >> Any declarer who makes a "careless" non-statement with Ax opposite >> Kx will have a hard time convincing me that they will avoid "carelessly" >> playing low from both hands at trick twelve to therefore create a >> defensive winner. :) :) Ah. A player who claims two tricks with Ax opposite Kx with no explanation is not being careless. The standard is to accept this claim without any problem. A player who claims the rest and is a trick short is careless. > > Extract from Eric Landau posting, 3rd February 2009: > > Bridge is not a game of attritional psychology; ethical players do > not try to win by deliberately exhausting an opponent's mental > stamina and then taking advantage of having done so. It is unfair, > unethical and improper to deliberately put your opponents "through > the wringer" when you know that their play doesn't matter. As it > happens, it's also explicitly illegal (L74B4). We claim not so much > to save time as to be fair to the others at the table. Our lawmakers > believe, as do I, that the consequent level of fairness achieved is > worth dealing with the hassles resulting from the occasional > contested claim, especially as contested claims represent only a > relatively tiny fraction of all claims. > > Infamous cases are infamous precisely because they represent > unusually rare or exceptional situations. The law must be designed > to deal primarily with the common and ordinary, not optimized for the > rare or exceptional. > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 9 02:28:38 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 00:28:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE35E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills I am declaring 7NT with a two-card ending of Ace and deuce of clubs in my hand and King and trey of clubs in dummy. Because I "know" that all of the enemy clubs are gone I show off by flashily leading my deuce to dummy's trey. RHO is most surprised to win trick 12 with the Devil's Bedposts and then trick 13 with the Curse of Scotland. Herman De Wael: >..... >One of the reasons for claiming is that one cannot play foolishly >thereafter. >..... UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130909/51e77fdb/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 9 02:41:28 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 20:41:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE35E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE35E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 20:28:38 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Richard Hills > > I am declaring 7NT with a two-card ending of Ace and deuce of clubs in > my hand and King and trey of clubs in dummy. Because I "know" that > all of the enemy clubs are gone I show off by flashily leading my deuce > to > dummy's trey. I have written on this. Blml had a hand where declarer made a faulty claim. There was some completely obscure and flashy line of play involving jettisoning winners in hand to run a suit in dummy. That was the only line of play that lost a trick. Declarer ended up with the rest on all of the mundane lines of play. The flashy line of play was rational. Do you grant the claim? I argued yes. If someone wants to make some flashy clever play, like the 2 to the 3 in your example, they don't claim. Claimers don't want to think about the hand any more. So, you can make the claimer play carelessly. But not excessively flashy and creative. This is an example where we can and should get into the mind of the claimer. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 9 03:29:07 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 01:29:07 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE3C3@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >..... >One of the reasons for claiming is that one cannot play foolishly >thereafter. >..... Richard Hills: When I was a beginner I declared 6NT with 13 top tricks. As this was the first time that I had ever bid a makeable slam, I decided to savour the moment by playing out the contract card by card. Alas, I revoked, so a two trick penalty and one off. But..... The Director must ++never++ adjudicate a claim on the basis of the claimer perpetrating a future revoke, notwithstanding the possibility that such a future revoke may have been explicitly included in her claim statement. WBF Laws Committee, 1st November 2001, item 3: "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (as for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130909/f4d000ef/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 9 10:05:37 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:05:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <157849.72267.bm@smtp146.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <157849.72267.bm@smtp146.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <522D8151.6070307@skynet.be> mikeamostd at btinternet.com schreef: > I have no authority to speak for the English Bridge Union, but I do help > train quite a few of our Club and Panel directors and I think our > position generally is that a player who makes a ?careless? claim > statement is highly likely to make a careless play - someone who knows > the ?simple? ?obvious? or ?standard? safety play knows that the claim > statement should indicate this - ?I claim the rest cashing a top honour > in dummy first?. Anyone who makes a ?careless? claim statement will > have a hard job persuading me that their play will be less ?careless?. > Mike I do agree with this sentiment, but there is no basis in law for this. It is clear to everyone that someone who claims at trick one without drawing trumps at all, and without mentioning that he will do so, will not be ruled against. Ergo, a careless claim does NOT equate to a careless play, and we should not say things like the one above. It is very difficult to draw a line, and every attempt to do so will fail at a special hurdle: what would be careless for one player would be irrational for another. Which is why in principle I don't agree with statement such as the one above, not even with the very broad one by Mike. A careless claim does not guarantee careless play. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 9 10:09:46 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:09:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <522CD41B.2030906@nhcc.net> References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> <522CD41B.2030906@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <522D824A.3080600@skynet.be> Steve Willner schreef: >> On 2013-09-06 2:56 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Are we reading the same footnote? Mine explicitly mentions the class of >> player involved. > > TFLB mentions "class of player" to tell us explicitly not to use it as a > criterion in ruling on claims. > ehmm... >> At what point to we expect players do demonstrate skill before claiming, >> instead of giving credit to them after? > > At the borderline between "normal" and "irrational." That's fuzzy, but > it doesn't vary based on "class of player." We are neither required nor > forbidden to let the boundary vary with locale. > Do we not agree that some lines may be normal for mediocre players while non-normal for better ones? How do you get there by the lawbook except by saying that the footnote implies that some lines may be irrational for the better player while merely careless for the lesser one? My footnote says "normal includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved". I don't know about yours, but if the ACBL does not wish to conform to world laws, our discussion is futile. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 9 10:13:39 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:13:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE35E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE35E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <522D8333.6000108@skynet.be> Richard HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > Richard Hills > I am declaring 7NT with a two-card ending of Ace and deuce of clubs in > my hand and King and trey of clubs in dummy. Because I ?know? that > all of the enemy clubs are gone I show off by flashily leading my deuce to > dummy?s trey. > RHO is most surprised to win trick 12 with the Devil?s Bedposts and > then trick 13 with the Curse of Scotland. > Herman De Wael: >>..... >>One of the reasons for claiming is that one cannot play foolishly >>thereafter. >>..... Indeed. Do you really suggest, Richard, that not saying anything from A2 = K3 would make you lose two tricks? Then you are even more crazy than we already knew. Of course such a claim will be accepted. And we all know that, playing it out, some people will botch it up. That is no reason to rule against others, or even those people. Some people refuse to believe the obvious, and they paint themselves in corners trying to recover from untenable positions. Herman. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Sep 9 14:50:30 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:50:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <522D8333.6000108@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE35E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <522D8333.6000108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5763D3A5624448C98FEAC277FC2E32F0@G3> BLML has discussed hundreds of claim cases. There is rarely agreement on rulings even in simple cases with facts agreed. Admittedly, current claim law might be clarified by making it even more complex with lots of defaults and examples (For instance, unless stated otherwise, suits are run from the top down). Doubtful cases would still remain however. Claim statements can be hard to formulate clearly, especially in a foreign language. When a claim is disputed, it often causes acrimony, and always wastes time. Better, would be to adopt rubber-bridge claim-law. After specifying a number of tricks, declarer faces his hand and continues playing until opponents are satisfied. Advantages: - No language difficulties. - Bridge-players continue to play Bridge. - Saves time because, playing double-dummy, opponents will usually concede immediately or quite soon. - Short simple law that players and directors can understand. - Consistent rulings that players can understand Players seem to like this suggestion. But Law-makers and directors hate it. Perhaps, because rulings would rarely be needed. Directors usually cite the theoretical danger of fishing-expeditions (e.g. claim with a 2-way finesse, waiting to see which opponent objects). The new law could specifically warn against this. The ploy is pretty obvious, however, and would attract opprobrium so wouldn't be a practical problem. On-line claim law is like this and most hands end quickly, in an early claim, without hassle. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 9 14:59:52 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 08:59:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <522D8151.6070307@skynet.be> References: <157849.72267.bm@smtp146.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <522D8151.6070307@skynet.be> Message-ID: There is an interaction between directors and players. Consider KQ10xx A9xx If players just look at this and realize they can get all of the tricks against any distribution, and if directors routinely accept this claim (even if RHO has Jxxx), then the claim is not careless. The ACBL has stated that this claim should not be accepted with Jxxx offside. So, presumably, players will not claim without stating awareness of how the suit should be played. If they do, they have been careless. To go the other way, if players routinely claim with this combination not saying anything, expecting the opponents and director to understand that the suit will be played correctly, the director is ill-placed to rule against the claim. If the regulations state that the player should not claim without explanation in this situation, the director is well-placed to rule against the claim. On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 04:05:37 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > mikeamostd at btinternet.com schreef: >> I have no authority to speak for the English Bridge Union, but I do help >> train quite a few of our Club and Panel directors and I think our >> position generally is that a player who makes a ?careless? claim >> statement is highly likely to make a careless play - someone who knows >> the ?simple? ?obvious? or ?standard? safety play knows that the claim >> statement should indicate this - ?I claim the rest cashing a top honour >> in dummy first?. Anyone who makes a ?careless? claim statement will >> have a hard job persuading me that their play will be less ?careless?. >> Mike > > I do agree with this sentiment, but there is no basis in law for this. > It is clear to everyone that someone who claims at trick one without > drawing trumps at all, and without mentioning that he will do so, will > not be ruled against. > Ergo, a careless claim does NOT equate to a careless play, and we should > not say things like the one above. > > It is very difficult to draw a line, and every attempt to do so will > fail at a special hurdle: what would be careless for one player would be > irrational for another. > > Which is why in principle I don't agree with statement such as the one > above, not even with the very broad one by Mike. > > A careless claim does not guarantee careless play. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 9 15:14:40 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 09:14:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <522D8333.6000108@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE35E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <522D8333.6000108@skynet.be> Message-ID: -- -- AKQ42 -- x -- 9873 -- I assume: Every declarer who sees the potential blockage in the diamond suit will mention the blockage in claiming. If there is no mention of blockage, I assume no director will allow the claim. Now consider this, some claim not mentioning blockage: -- -- AKQ72 -- x -- 9643 -- In the first example, steps to resolve the blockage had to be taken at the first play of the suit, when declarer presumably was not. Here, declarer can play two rounds of the suit before he needs to realize the problem, and the problem will be easier to see. Do you grant this claim? Eric I think will say no. I prefer his position. There was no awareness of the blockage when the claim was made; protesting the claim made declarer aware of the blockage; and we want to protect the opposing side from this information being possibly used, even if declarer was say 80% likely to notice the blockage. Herman I am guessing wants to allow this claim. Perhaps his declarers routinely claim in this situation without mentioning the blockage even when they see it. But I think he is also trying to predict what declarer will do. And he seems to think that experts do not play carelessly, so he will give this claim to an expert. I am guessing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 9 15:22:52 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 09:22:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5763D3A5624448C98FEAC277FC2E32F0@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE35E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <522D8333.6000108@skynet.be> <5763D3A5624448C98FEAC277FC2E32F0@G3> Message-ID: On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 08:50:30 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > BLML has discussed hundreds of claim cases. There is rarely agreement on > rulings even in simple cases with facts agreed. Admittedly, current claim > law might be clarified by making it even more complex with lots of > defaults > and examples (For instance, unless stated otherwise, suits are run from > the > top down). Doubtful cases would still remain however. Claim statements > can > be hard to formulate clearly, especially in a foreign language. When a > claim is disputed, it often causes acrimony, and always wastes time. > > Better, would be to adopt rubber-bridge claim-law. After specifying a > number > of tricks, declarer faces his hand and continues playing until opponents > are > satisfied. Advantages: > - No language difficulties. > - Bridge-players continue to play Bridge. > - Saves time because, playing double-dummy, opponents will usually > concede > immediately or quite soon. > - Short simple law that players and directors can understand. > - Consistent rulings that players can understand > > Players seem to like this suggestion. But Law-makers and directors hate > it. > Perhaps, because rulings would rarely be needed. Directors usually cite > the > theoretical danger of fishing-expeditions (e.g. claim with a 2-way > finesse, > waiting to see which opponent objects). The new law could specifically > warn > against this. The ploy is pretty obvious, however, and would attract > opprobrium so wouldn't be a practical problem. On-line claim law is like > this and most hands end quickly, in an early claim, without hassle. Nigel, if I claim and someone objects, I will always think about why they might be objecting. And use that information, if nothing else to play the hand more carefully. Do you see this as a problem? Because the lawmakers do. Of course, a player can avoid giving away information by challenging every claim. Then the claimer will get no information from the challenge. But that would defeat the whole purpose of claiming. Are you unworried about this possibility? From g3 at nige1.com Mon Sep 9 16:08:23 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:08:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE35E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><522D8333.6000108@skynet.be> <5763D3A5624448C98FEAC277FC2E32F0@G3> Message-ID: <5C5C11C41A8B49E48BD7E808DD067A91@G3> {nige1] Directors usually cite the theoretical danger of fishing-expeditions (e.g. claim with a 2-way finesse, waiting to see which opponent objects). The new law could specifically warn against this. The ploy is pretty obvious, however, and would attract opprobrium so wouldn't be a practical problem. On-line claim law is like this and most hands end quickly, in an early claim, without hassle. [Robert Frick] Nigel, if I claim and someone objects, I will always think about why they might be objecting. And use that information, if nothing else to play the hand more carefully. Do you see this as a problem? Because the lawmakers do. Of course, a player can avoid giving away information by challenging every claim. Then the claimer will get no information from the challenge. But that would defeat the whole purpose of claiming. Are you unworried about this possibility? [Nigel] I agree that Robert has hit on a possible drawback and there may be others. In practice, on-line and at Rubber-Bridge, they seem to cause no problem. You can't expect a new Bridge-rule to be perfect. IMO, you should consider adopting a new rule, if you judge it to be simpler, easier to understand, more consistent, and more effective than the current rule. (Some BLMLers say the the current TFLB law *deters* them from claiming. Whereas, the new rule encourages claims and speeds up the game). BTW, I see no harm in opponents playing on, double-dummy, for a trick or two until the claim is clear to them. On-line, opponents often do this and it still saves lots of time and hassle. From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 9 16:38:48 2013 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:38:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <157849.72267.bm@smtp146.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <522D8151.6070307@skynet.be> References: <157849.72267.bm@smtp146.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <522D8151.6070307@skynet.be> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 03:05 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims > mikeamostd at btinternet.com schreef: >> I have no authority to speak for the English Bridge Union, but I do help >> train quite a few of our Club and Panel directors and I think our >> position generally is that a player who makes a ?careless? claim >> statement is highly likely to make a careless play - someone who knows >> the ?simple? ?obvious? or ?standard? safety play knows that the claim >> statement should indicate this - ?I claim the rest cashing a top honour >> in dummy first?. Anyone who makes a ?careless? claim statement will >> have a hard job persuading me that their play will be less ?careless?. >> Mike > > I do agree with this sentiment, but there is no basis in law for this. > It is clear to everyone that someone who claims at trick one without > drawing trumps at all, and without mentioning that he will do so, will > not be ruled against. > Ergo, a careless claim does NOT equate to a careless play, and we should > not say things like the one above. > > It is very difficult to draw a line, and every attempt to do so will > fail at a special hurdle: what would be careless for one player would be > irrational for another. > > Which is why in principle I don't agree with statement such as the one > above, not even with the very broad one by Mike. > > A careless claim does not guarantee careless play. It was my impression that a careless claim guarantees no further play. regards roger pewick > Herman. From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Sep 9 16:44:51 2013 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:44:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <522D824A.3080600@skynet.be> References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> <522CD41B.2030906@nhcc.net> <522D824A.3080600@skynet.be> Message-ID: I am beginning to think I understand Herman's thinking on this issue. On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Steve Willner schreef: >>> On 2013-09-06 2:56 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> Are we reading the same footnote? Mine explicitly mentions the class of >>> player involved. >> >> TFLB mentions "class of player" to tell us explicitly not to use it as a >> criterion in ruling on claims. >> > > ehmm... > >>> At what point to we expect players do demonstrate skill before claiming, >>> instead of giving credit to them after? >> >> At the borderline between "normal" and "irrational." That's fuzzy, but >> it doesn't vary based on "class of player." We are neither required nor >> forbidden to let the boundary vary with locale. >> > > Do we not agree that some lines may be normal for mediocre players while > non-normal for better ones? How do you get there by the lawbook except > by saying that the footnote implies that some lines may be irrational > for the better player while merely careless for the lesser one? > > My footnote says "normal includes play that would be careless or > inferior for the class of player involved". I don't know about yours, > but if the ACBL does not wish to conform to world laws, our discussion > is futile. > > Herman. > The ACBL's footnote has the same wording: "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." My questions for Herman (and anyone else who thinks you need to know the "class" of a player to rule on his claim) are simply these: Do you see the footnote as defining "normal"? Would the footnote have the same meaning in your eyes had the single word "all" been inserted as follows: "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes *all* play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved."? By the way, Eric's, Steve's, and my position is "no" to both questions. The word "includes" in the footnote does not mean "includes all". I think for us, the word "includes" means "may include some." Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 9 17:30:50 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 17:30:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> <522CD41B.2030906@nhcc.net> <522D824A.3080600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003301cead71$90c4f660$b24ee320$@online.no> Jerry Fusselman [...] > The ACBL's footnote has the same wording: "For the purposes of Laws > 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the > class of player involved." > > My questions for Herman (and anyone else who thinks you need to know the > "class" of a player to rule on his claim) are simply these: > > Do you see the footnote as defining "normal"? > > Would the footnote have the same meaning in your eyes had the single word > "all" been inserted as follows: "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" > includes *all* play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player > involved."? > > By the way, Eric's, Steve's, and my position is "no" to both questions. The word > "includes" in the footnote does not mean "includes all". I think for us, the word > "includes" means "may include some." [Sven Pran] Honestly I have always understood this footnote to be read: "includes any play that would be ..." And I still understand it that way (with emphasis on "ANY") From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 10 00:51:22 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 22:51:22 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DFCDA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie: >..... >Better, would be to adopt rubber-bridge claim-law. >..... Richard Hills: Yes and No. Rubber Bridge has two alternative claim Laws. One option is used when an independent Arbiter (aka Director) is not available. The other option is used when an independent Arbiter is available (for example if the claim is made at the famous Double Bay Bridge Club in Sydney). The Rubber Bridge claim Law with an Arbiter is almost identical to the Duplicate Bridge claim Law with a Director. Laws of Contract (Rubber) Bridge, Club Law 69 When declarer has made a claim or a concession, play ceases (all play subsequent to a claim or a concession must be voided by the Arbiter). Declarer must place and leave his hand face up on the table and forthwith make a comprehensive statement as to his proposed plan of play, including the order in which he will play his remaining cards. Declarer's claim or concession is allowed and the deal is scored accordingly, if both defenders agree to it. The claim or concession must be allowed if either defender has permitted any of his remaining cards to be mixed with another player's cards; otherwise, if either defender disputes declarer's claim or concession, the Arbiter must be called to adjudicate the result of the deal. The Arbiter should adjudicate the result of the deal as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point should be resolved in favour of the defenders. He should proceed as follows: (a) He should require the declarer to repeat the statement he made at the time of his claim. The Arbiter should then require all players to put their cards face up on the table and should hear the defenders' objections to the claim. (b) When a trump is outstanding, he should award a trick to the defenders if (i) in making his claim declarer made no statement about that trump, and (ii) it is at all likely that declarer was unaware, at the time of his claim, that a trump remained in a defender's hand, and (iii) a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play (an inferior or careless play can be normal, but not an irrational play). (c) He should not accept from declarer any proposed line of play inconsistent with his statement. If declarer did not make an appropriate announcement at the time of his original claim, the Arbiter should not accept from declarer any unusual line of play or any proposed play that requires a finesse* in a suit, unless an opponent failed to follow in that suit before the claim or concession or would subsequently fail to follow in that suit on any conceivable line of play. *For these purposes, a finesse is a play the success of which depends on finding one defender rather than the other with or without a particular card. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130909/c7a09858/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 10 05:48:16 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 23:48:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5C5C11C41A8B49E48BD7E808DD067A91@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE35E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <522D8333.6000108@skynet.be> <5763D3A5624448C98FEAC277FC2E32F0@G3> <5C5C11C41A8B49E48BD7E808DD067A91@G3> Message-ID: On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:08:23 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > {nige1] Directors usually cite the theoretical danger of > fishing-expeditions > (e.g. claim with a 2-way finesse, waiting to see which opponent objects). > The new law could specifically warn against this. The ploy is pretty > obvious, however, and would attract opprobrium so wouldn't be a > practical > problem. On-line claim law is like this and most hands end quickly, in > an > early claim, without hassle. > > [Robert Frick] > Nigel, if I claim and someone objects, I will always think about why they > might be objecting. And use that information, if nothing else to play the > hand more carefully. > > Do you see this as a problem? Because the lawmakers do. > > Of course, a player can avoid giving away information by challenging > every > claim. Then the claimer will get no information from the challenge. But > that would defeat the whole purpose of claiming. Are you unworried about > this possibility? > > [Nigel] > I agree that Robert has hit on a possible drawback and there may be > others. > In practice, on-line and at Rubber-Bridge, they seem to cause no problem. > You can't expect a new Bridge-rule to be perfect. IMO, you should > consider > adopting a new rule, if you judge it to be simpler, easier to understand, > more consistent, and more effective than the current rule. (Some BLMLers > say > the the current TFLB law *deters* them from claiming. Whereas, the new > rule > encourages claims and speeds up the game). > > BTW, I see no harm in opponents playing on, double-dummy, for a trick or > two > until the claim is clear to them. On-line, opponents often do this and it > still saves lots of time and hassle. Online, someone claimed when he was a winner short. When we objected, he could see the problem. There were threats galore, so the failed claim helped him know he had to run a squeeze. That is what the current laws try to prevent. Part of his "punishment" was that my partner and I could see each other's hands. That's not feasible in regular club play. I am not sure what you plan to do about that. At one point, my partner had to save clubs to defend against the club threat on the board. When that threat was discarded, later on I had to save clubs to defend against the club threat in his hand. So it was one of the most interesting hands I have ever played. But it was not normal bridge. From g3 at nige1.com Tue Sep 10 06:41:04 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:41:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DE35E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL><522D8333.6000108@skynet.be> <5763D3A5624448C98FEAC277FC2E32F0@G3> <5C5C11C41A8B49E48BD7E808DD067A91@G3> Message-ID: [Robert Frick] Online, someone claimed when he was a winner short. When we objected, he could see the problem. There were threats galore, so the failed claim helped him know he had to run a squeeze. That is what the current laws try to prevent. Part of his "punishment" was that my partner and I could see each other's hands. That's not feasible in regular club play. I am not sure what you plan to do about that. At one point, my partner had to save clubs to defend against the club threat on the board. When that threat was discarded, later on I had to save clubs to defend against the club threat in his hand. So it was one of the most interesting hands I have ever played. But it was not normal bridge. [Nige1] This sort of thing does happen with on-line claims. Just as in normal play, when you suddenly realize that your original plan was faulty. This conflicts with the philosophy of current claim-law. But with a new mind-set, It seems an improvement to me. After all, opponents of the "claimer" get to play double-dummy -- an advantage I'd always be delighted to accept. From g3 at nige1.com Tue Sep 10 06:46:40 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:46:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DFCDA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DFCDA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: [Richard Hills] Yes and No. Rubber Bridge has two alternative claim Laws. One option is used when an independent Arbiter (aka Director) is not available. The other option is used when an independent Arbiter is available (for example if the claim is made at the famous Double Bay Bridge Club in Sydney). The Rubber Bridge claim Law with an Arbiter is almost identical to the Duplicate Bridge claim Law with a Director. Laws of Contract (Rubber) Bridge, Club Law 69 When declarer has made a claim or a concession, play ceases (all play subsequent to a claim or a concession must be voided by the Arbiter). Declarer must place and leave his hand face up on the table and forthwith make a comprehensive statement as to his proposed plan of play, including the order in which he will play his remaining cards. Declarer?s claim or concession is allowed and the deal is scored accordingly, if both defenders agree to it. The claim or concession must be allowed if either defender has permitted any of his remaining cards to be mixed with another player?s cards; otherwise, if either defender disputes declarer?s claim or concession, the Arbiter must be called to adjudicate the result of the deal. The Arbiter should adjudicate the result of the deal as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point should be resolved in favour of the defenders. He should proceed as follows: (a) He should require the declarer to repeat the statement he made at the time of his claim. The Arbiter should then require all players to put their cards face up on the table and should hear the defenders? objections to the claim. (b) When a trump is outstanding, he should award a trick to the defenders if (i) in making his claim declarer made no statement about that trump, and (ii) it is at all likely that declarer was unaware, at the time of his claim, that a trump remained in a defender?s hand, and (iii) a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play (an inferior or careless play can be normal, but not an irrational play). (c) He should not accept from declarer any proposed line of play inconsistent with his statement. If declarer did not make an appropriate announcement at the time of his original claim, the Arbiter should not accept from declarer any unusual line of play or any proposed play that requires a finesse* in a suit, unless an opponent failed to follow in that suit before the claim or concession or would subsequently fail to follow in that suit on any conceivable line of play. *For these purposes, a finesse is a play the success of which depends on finding one defender rather than the other with or without a particular card. {Nigel] I hadn't consulted rubber-bridge laws for a long time and didn't remember the Arbiter option. Thank you Richard for that interesting information. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 10 07:09:47 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:09:47 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9E10AF@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie: >I hadn't consulted rubber-bridge laws for a long time and didn't remember >the Arbiter option. Thank you Richard for that interesting information. Richard Hills: Which claim rules should the 2017 Drafting Committee use for its rewriting of the Online and Duplicate Laws? Choose according to Director-present or Director-absent, horses for courses. That reminds me of another clich? from Dorothy Parker: "You can lead a horticulture, but you cannot make her think." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130910/0ec9390e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 10 08:49:15 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 06:49:15 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9E10F9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Burn, December 2002: [big snip] >Declarer has lost his marbles, and should in no circumstance be allowed >to regain them. If he has made a ridiculous claim, then he has made a >ridiculous claim, and the number of tricks he makes should not be a >function of whether second hand or fourth hand has the trump declarer >has forgotten. > >There is some "principle" to the effect that declarer will notice, when >someone ruffs one of the winners he is leading from dummy, that RHO >has ruffed - it will now be "irrational" not to over-ruff. This "principle" >is espoused only by directors, who enjoy the challenge of taking over >from declarer at that point and playing the rest of his cards for him >along "rational" lines. But this is absurd - why should a declarer who >has got no idea that the trump suit has thirteen cards have any more >idea about any other rudimentary aspect of the game? > >David Burn >London, England Richard Hills, September 2013: Alas for David, the principle which was an absurd whim of Directors in 2002 is now the officially revised 2007 Law 70E (Unstated Line of Play): 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational. 2. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. "from the top down") in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law). * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130910/b5c8545f/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 10 10:31:53 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:31:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <522DEB75.4070208@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> <522CD41B.2030906@nhcc.net> <522D824A.3080600@skynet.be> <522DEB75.4070208@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <522ED8F9.7090100@skynet.be> Steven Willner wrote to me alone, but allowed me to answer to the list: > Hi, Herman. I'm replying just to you at the moment because I may be > away for a week before I can post to the list. Feel free to quote to > the list if you wish. > > On 9/9/13 4:09 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Do we not agree that some lines may be normal for mediocre players while >> non-normal for better ones? > > In the usual English sense of 'normal', yes. In the Laws sense, no. > That's what the footnote is telling us. > >> How do you get there by the lawbook except >> by saying that the footnote implies that some lines may be irrational >> for the better player while merely careless for the lesser one? > > Your English is superb. I can't believe you are parsing the footnote as > you do. Please look at it again. > > Consider a bad line of play. In the usual English sense, this line will > be "normal" for a poor player, "careless or inferior" for a good player. > The footnote tells us that even for the good player, the line is to be > considered "normal" when judging a claim. > > Irrational plays are not "normal" (in the Laws sense) for anyone, even > though real players (good or bad) may make one on occasion. > >> My footnote says "normal includes play that would be careless or >> inferior for the class of player involved". > > Yes, that's the text. "Careless or inferior for the class of player > involved" is to be included within "normal" as opposed to "irrational." > > Let's parse the text again: normal includes careless or inferior for the class of player involved. There is a first problem: does the "for ..." apply only to "inferior" or to "careless or inferior". I don't believe this matters, though, and I shall only use the word inferior below. If we think logically, the modifier implies that there are plays that are inferior for some players, but not for others, true? otherwise, why do we need the modifier? Now this modifier can work in two ways: - a line could be inferior for a good player, but perfectly habitual (I was going to say normal but that would cause problems) for a lesser one. - a line could be inferior for an average player, but totally unthinkable for a better one. The first makes no sense. A line that is habitual is certainly normal, so it is included in "normal" without the need for the footnote. After all, the footnote only mentions some of the lines that are to be considered normal, there are also others, such as the perfectly sane ones. So the footnote can only be needed to signify the second possibility above. There exist lines which are considered inferior for average players, but which are not inferior for better players. These lines are normal for the average player, but non-normal for better ones. Any other interpretation would mean that the footnote, in the way it is written, has no use whatsoever. It might as well not exist, or it should be written without the qualifier. The mention of the qualifier "for the class of player involved" must by logic mean that some lines are normal for some players but not normal for better ones. OK? Herman. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Sep 10 15:19:04 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:19:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <522ED8F9.7090100@skynet.be> References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> <522CD41B.2030906@nhcc.net> <522D824A.3080600@skynet.be> <522DEB75.4070208@cfa.harvard.edu> <522ED8F9.7090100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <522F1C48.3050401@nhcc.net> On 2013-09-10 4:31 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Let's parse the text again: > normal includes careless or inferior for the class of player involved. > > There is a first problem: does the "for ..." apply only to "inferior" or > to "careless or inferior". I don't believe this matters, I agree; it doesn't matter. > If we think logically, the modifier implies that there are plays that > are inferior for some players, but not for others, true? Indeed. The popular example is KQTx opposite A9xxx. Getting that wrong would be normal for a beginner, inferior for everyone else. > Now this modifier can work in two ways: > - a line could be inferior for a good player, but perfectly habitual (I > was going to say normal but that would cause problems) for a lesser one. Yes; see example above. > - a line could be inferior for an average player, but totally > unthinkable for a better one. For a "better player" who has made a dubious claim, nothing except the irrational is "totally unthinkable." > The first makes no sense. ??? It makes perfect sense to me. > A line that is habitual is certainly normal, > so it is included in "normal" without the need for the footnote. Yes. > So the footnote can only be needed to signify the second possibility above. No. Without the footnote, a player could argue "I'm too good to get the position wrong." The footnote tells us not to consider that argument. Would you like it better if the wording were "Lines that are inferior for the class of player involved are to be considered normal." > There exist lines which are considered inferior for average players, but > which are not inferior for better players. These lines are normal for > the average player, in all senses of normal > but non-normal for better ones. in the usual English sense of "normal," yes. The footnote tells us to treat these as normal when judging claims. > Any other interpretation would mean that the footnote, in the way it is > written, has no use whatsoever. It might as well not exist, or it should > be written without the qualifier. Until now, I'd have thought it was clearer with the qualifier, but I agree that removing "for the class of player involved" would not change the fundamental meaning. > The mention of the qualifier "for the class of player involved" must by > logic mean that some lines are normal for some players but not normal > for better ones. Only in the usual sense of "normal," not for claims "normal." [I'll be away from email for about a week; please don't expect any replies soon.] From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 10 16:29:50 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:29:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> <522CD41B.2030906@nhcc.net> <522D824A.3080600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <522F2CDE.7040806@starpower.net> On 9/9/2013 10:44 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > I am beginning to think I understand Herman's thinking on this issue. > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Do we not agree that some lines may be normal for mediocre players while >> non-normal for better ones? We might well if we were to rely on the definition of "normal" taken from the dictionary. But TFLB supplies its own constraints on how we define "normal" which preclude using the "dictionary" definition. It explicitly tells us that this is not true for our purposes. >> How do you get there by the lawbook except >> by saying that the footnote implies that some lines may be irrational >> for the better player while merely careless for the lesser one? Right! The only way to get there is by deliberately misreading the plain language of the footnote. > The ACBL's footnote has the same wording: "For the purposes of Laws > 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or inferior > for the class of player involved." > > My questions for Herman (and anyone else who thinks you need to know > the "class" of a player to rule on his claim) are simply these: > > Do you see the footnote as defining "normal"? I am not in Herman's "camp", obviously, but while the footnote doesn't supply a rigorously complete definition of "normal", it does constrain how we use the term. It states explicitly that we must treat "play that would be careless or inferior for the [stronger] class of player involved" the same as we treat "play that would be [neither] careless [nor] inferior for the [weaker] class of player involved". > Would the footnote have the same meaning in your eyes had the single > word "all" been inserted as follows: "For the purposes of Laws 70 and > 71, ?normal? includes *all* play that would be careless or inferior > for the class of player involved."? It would had the WBF not removed the words "but not irrational" from the footnote; doing that muddied the waters. Nevertheless, we can only read the footnote as though those words were still there, (a) legally, because the WBF has said that the rewording of the footnote was intended to clarify but not change the law (bad job, WBF!), and (b) practically, because it is virtually impossible to make a claim statement that precludes any potential irrationality in less time than it takes to play the deal out. > By the way, Eric's, Steve's, and my position is "no" to both > questions. The word "includes" in the footnote does not mean > "includes all". I think for us, the word "includes" means "may > include some." I hope my position is clear. It may be a bit too nuanced to provide Jerry with a clear "yes" or "no" to his questions. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 11 00:18:50 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 22:18:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9E1753@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Eric Landau: >We might well if we were to rely on the definition of "normal" taken >from the dictionary. But TFLB supplies its own constraints on how we >define "normal" which preclude using the "dictionary" definition. It >explicitly tells us that this is not true for our purposes. Richard Hills: Yes and No. In my opinion the famous footnote's use of the word "inferior" - each and every random line is inferior to the best line - is subordinate to the "equitably as possible to ++both++ sides" criterion of Law 70A. Henry James (1843 - 1916): The note I wanted; that of the strange and sinister embroidered on the very type of the normal and easy. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130910/65e31601/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 11 10:12:31 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:12:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <522F1C48.3050401@nhcc.net> References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> <522CD41B.2030906@nhcc.net> <522D824A.3080600@skynet.be> <522DEB75.4070208@cfa.harvard.edu> <522ED8F9.7090100@skynet.be> <522F1C48.3050401@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <523025EF.8030206@skynet.be> Steve Willner schreef: (nothing much of intrest - Steve does not agree with my (IMO impeccable) logic. Just one quibble: > On 2013-09-10 4:31 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> - a line could be inferior for an average player, but totally >> unthinkable for a better one. > > For a "better player" who has made a dubious claim, nothing except the > irrational is "totally unthinkable." > And this is where you go wrong. You are always talking about dubious claims. I agree that when a top player makes a dubious claim, there must be something wrong in his analysis of the hand. But the fact that a player makes a claim, and the opponents call the director, does not equate to a "dubious claim". If a player makes a claim without stating a line of play, that does not necessarily imply that the player has something wrong in his mind. A player claiming at trick one did not miscount his trumps. And saying that he would miscount them simply because he does not mention them is wrong. So stop talking about a dubious claim and agree with me that some lines would be unthinkable for better players. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 11 10:15:41 2013 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:15:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <522F2CDE.7040806@starpower.net> References: <522596B2.7050503@skynet.be> <5226D6CF.4090401@skynet.be> <5226E27A.3020905@skynet.be> <52283FC5.4030202@skynet.be> <522CD41B.2030906@nhcc.net> <522D824A.3080600@skynet.be> <522F2CDE.7040806@starpower.net> Message-ID: <523026AD.7070309@skynet.be> Eric Landau schreef: > On 9/9/2013 10:44 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> I am beginning to think I understand Herman's thinking on this issue. >> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Do we not agree that some lines may be normal for mediocre players while >>> non-normal for better ones? > > We might well if we were to rely on the definition of "normal" taken > from the dictionary. But TFLB supplies its own constraints on how we > define "normal" which preclude using the "dictionary" definition. It > explicitly tells us that this is not true for our purposes. > Well, there is no definition, just a mention on what is to be included, so there is nothing which explicitely tells us what is true and not. My logic was impeccable and I shall not repeat it. Some lines must be judged normal for lesser players and non-normal for better ones. I have no doubt about that and shall shut up about it. It is ludicrous to think otherwise after I've just explained why the footnote simply must imply this. There is no reason to write "for the class of player involved" if the above were not true. Herman. From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 11 18:29:33 2013 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:29:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9E1753@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9E1753@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard HILLS" Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 17:18 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > UNOFFICIAL > > Eric Landau: > >>We might well if we were to rely on the definition of "normal" taken >>from the dictionary. But TFLB supplies its own constraints on how we >>define "normal" which preclude using the "dictionary" definition. It >>explicitly tells us that this is not true for our purposes. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and No. > > In my opinion the famous footnote's use of the word "inferior" - each > and every random line is inferior to the best line - is subordinate to the > "equitably as possible to ++both++ sides" criterion of Law 70A. Well....No. By the text of L70A it is known that that the subject phrase is subordinate to [among other things] the footnote. This is so because the last sentence** of L70A says that L70BCDE defines*** the subject phrase. ** The Director proceeds as follows. *** The subject phrase, as such, does not 'follow' due to the fact that it precedes the last sentence. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 12 00:54:20 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 22:54:20 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9E306F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL President Richard Nixon: "Let me make one thing perfectly clear." >In my opinion the famous footnote's use of the word "inferior" - each >and every random line is inferior to the best line - is subordinate to the >"equitably as possible to ++both++ sides" criterion of Law 70A. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. If the word "inferior" has its unlimited dictionary definition applicable in the claim Laws, then it is legal and also "inferior" to duck at trick twelve with Ax opposite Kx. It is obviously not the intent of the Drafting Committee that such a David ("Death Star") Burn claim rule should be in effect. Perhaps the 2017 footnote should have a modified criterion, "careless or inferior (but not ludicrous)" to put Ivory Tower pedants back into their box. Spaceballs (1987 movie): Colonel Sandurz: "Prepare ship for light speed." Dark Helmet: "No, no, no, light speed is too slow." Colonel Sandurz: "Light speed, too slow?" Dark Helmet: "Yes, we're gonna have to go right to ludicrous speed." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130911/8bc44318/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 12 16:50:26 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:50:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9E306F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9E306F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5231D4B2.5030607@starpower.net> On 9/11/2013 6:54 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: > Let me make one thing perfectly clear. If the word ?inferior? has its > unlimited dictionary definition applicable in the claim Laws, then it is > legal and also ?inferior? to duck at trick twelve with Ax opposite Kx. > > It is obviously not the intent of the Drafting Committee that such a > David (?Death Star?) Burn claim rule should be in effect. > > Perhaps the 2017 footnote should have a modified criterion, ?careless > or inferior (but not ludicrous)? to put Ivory Tower pedants back into > their box. What was wrong with "but not irrational"? -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 13 03:01:06 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:01:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DFCDA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9DFCDA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:51:22 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Nigel Guthrie: > >> ..... >> Better, would be to adopt rubber-bridge claim-law. >> ..... > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and No. > > Rubber Bridge has two alternative claim Laws. One option is > used when an independent Arbiter (aka Director) is not > available. The other option is used when an independent > Arbiter is available (for example if the claim is made at the > famous Double Bay Bridge Club in Sydney). The Rubber > Bridge claim Law with an Arbiter is almost identical to the > Duplicate Bridge claim Law with a Director. > > Laws of Contract (Rubber) Bridge, Club Law 69 > > When declarer has made a claim or a concession, play ceases > (all play subsequent to a claim or a concession must be voided > by the Arbiter). Declarer must place and leave his hand face up This would be a good law for Duplicate too -- declarer should show his hand when claiming. > on the table and forthwith make a comprehensive statement > as to his proposed plan of play, including the order in which > he will play his remaining cards. > > Declarer's claim or concession is allowed and the deal is > scored accordingly, if both defenders agree to it. The claim or > concession must be allowed if either defender has permitted > any of his remaining cards to be mixed with another player's > cards; otherwise, if either defender disputes declarer's claim > or concession, the Arbiter must be called to adjudicate the > result of the deal. > > The Arbiter should adjudicate the result of the deal as > equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point > should be resolved in favour of the defenders. He should > proceed as follows: > > (a) He should require the declarer to repeat the > statement he made at the time of his claim. The > Arbiter should then require all players to put > their cards face up on the table I like how the defenders have a right to see each other's hands. I would prefer that defenders should be able to do this before disputing the claim. > and should hear > the defenders' objections to the claim. > > (b) When a trump is outstanding, he should award a > trick to the defenders if > (i) in making his claim declarer made no > statement about that trump, and > (ii) it is at all likely that declarer was unaware, > at the time of his claim, that a trump > remained in a defender's hand, and > (iii) a trick could be lost to that trump by any > normal play (an inferior or careless play can > be normal, but not an irrational play). > > (c) He should not accept from declarer any proposed > line of play inconsistent with his statement. This doesn't list the exceptions. So it is hard to take literally. For example, declarer claims with KQJ9x Ax Saying "I am playing the ace, king, queen, jack, and then nine. If declarer had played it out, RHO shows out on the A. Obviously, on a plain reading, playing the nine at trick two is inconsisten with the statement that the king will be played. > > If declarer did not make an appropriate > announcement at the time of his original claim, > the Arbiter should not accept from declarer any > unusual line of play or any proposed play that > requires a finesse* in a suit, unless an opponent > failed to follow in that suit before the claim or > concession or would subsequently fail to follow > in that suit on any conceivable line of play. > > *For these purposes, a finesse is a play the success of which > depends on finding one defender rather than the other with or > without a particular card. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 13 03:39:27 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 01:39:27 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9EE85B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>The Rubber Bridge claim Law with an Arbiter is almost identical >>to the Duplicate Bridge claim Law with a Director. >> >>Laws of Contract (Rubber) Bridge, Club Law 69 >> >>When declarer has made a claim or a concession, play ceases (all >>play subsequent to a claim or a concession must be voided by the >>Arbiter). Declarer must place and leave his hand face up >>..... >This would be a good law for Duplicate too -- declarer should show >his hand when claiming. Already encompassed by Duplicate Bridge Law 68C: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a ++clear statement++ as to the ++order in which cards will be played++, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." >>Laws of Contract (Rubber) Bridge, Club Law 69 >> >>The Arbiter should then require all players to put their cards face >>up on the table >>..... >I like how the defenders have a right to see each other's hands. Already encompassed by Duplicate Bridge Law 70B3: "The Director may require players to put their ++remaining cards face up++ on the table." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130913/932f0649/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 13 04:05:05 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 22:05:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9EE85B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9EE85B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:39:27 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > >>> The Rubber Bridge claim Law with an Arbiter is almost identical >>> to the Duplicate Bridge claim Law with a Director. >>> >>> Laws of Contract (Rubber) Bridge, Club Law 69 >>> >>> When declarer has made a claim or a concession, play ceases (all >>> play subsequent to a claim or a concession must be voided by the >>> Arbiter). Declarer must place and leave his hand face up >>> ..... > >> This would be a good law for Duplicate too -- declarer should show >> his hand when claiming. > > Already encompassed by Duplicate Bridge Law 68C: > > "A claim should be accompanied at once by a ++clear statement++ as > to the ++order in which cards will be played++, of the line of play or > defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." This says nothing about declarer showing his hand when he claims. (Not to mention that the whole point of this thread is tolerance of players who do not make a clear statement.) > >>> Laws of Contract (Rubber) Bridge, Club Law 69 >>> >>> The Arbiter should then require all players to put their cards face >>> up on the table >>> ..... > >> I like how the defenders have a right to see each other's hands. > > Already encompassed by Duplicate Bridge Law 70B3: > > "The Director may require players to put their ++remaining cards face > up++ on the table." This is not a right. It clearly says that they may be allowed to put their remaining cards on the table. Not the mention that you snipped< "I would prefer that defenders should be able to do this before disputing the claim. My memory is that players have to dispute the claim to call the director. Obviously, no one takes these part of the laws seriously, I am just saying to change it for 2017 to match what people do (which is good). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 13 05:56:01 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 03:56:01 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Standard problems in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F19AA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL American Dialect Society, 2005 Word off the Year: In its 16th annual words of the year vote, the American Dialect Society voted truthiness as the word of the year. Recently popularized on the Colbert Report, a satirical mock news show on the Comedy Central television channel, truthiness refers to the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true. Blml posting of truthiness: >..... >Obviously, no one takes these part of the laws seriously, I am just >saying to change it for 2017 to match what people do (which is good). Stephen Colbert: "I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130913/a44f8d45/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 14 17:11:12 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 11:11:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9EE85B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Declarer claims, saying drawing trump. The board has KQx of trump left as the last three cards. The 10 is out. STRUGGLING I grant the claim and explain that she draws trumps from the top, ACBL regulations. Now they point out that she is in hand. No trump in hand. I now look at all the hands. If she leads a heart, the defender has to follow suit, but if she leads a spade and trumps low, the defender can overruff. Misunderstanding the ACBL's advice, I assume this is still an easy ruling. I give the defense one trick. Declarer now says she would have led a heart. Then she says that if the defense had asked how she was going to play the hand, she would have said she was leading a heart and that that was the logical suit to lead. Defender argues that she did ask declarer to play the hand, which seems dubious. I explain that she has to say it in her claim. FINALLY GETTING TO THE PROBLEM Now she claims that the defense interrupted her and she was going to add that she was leading a heart. I have decided that it is proper procedure to wait a few seconds after declarer has claimed, given declarer time to say whatever he wants. Of course, that is nowhere AFAIK, I just made that up. Defender repeats how declarer made her claim. By the pitch, declarer had finished her statement. But that did not impress me as reliable. I asked dummy if it sounded like declarer had finished making her claim statement (versus being interrupted). He didn't answer. That suggests that she sounded like she had finished her claiming statement and did now want to argue against her. But declarer interrupted him before he could really answer, so that she could say something irrelevant and repetitive. Plus she was kitchen-sinking -- finding every argument she could. Unfortunately, she hit on a relatively good one. So I ruled against her and gave the defense one trick. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Sep 14 18:20:55 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:20:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9EE85B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52348CE7.7030806@nhcc.net> On 2013-09-14 11:11 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Declarer claims, saying drawing trump. The board has KQx of trump left as > the last three cards. The 10 is out. > ... she is in hand. No trump in hand. Declarer knew there was a trump out, so the only thing to decide is whether "a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play." On the surface, it looks to me as though the only normal play is to lead something from hand and ruff it high, then draw the last trump. Why doesn't that work? If dummy's trumps had been Kxx, unless there is something special is happening, it would be normal for declarer to lead any suit from hand and ruff low, potentially being overruffed if RHO has the missing trump. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 14 18:40:44 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:40:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <52348CE7.7030806@nhcc.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9EE85B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52348CE7.7030806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:20:55 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2013-09-14 11:11 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Declarer claims, saying drawing trump. The board has KQx of trump left >> as >> the last three cards. The 10 is out. >> ... she is in hand. No trump in hand. > > Declarer knew there was a trump out, so the only thing to decide is > whether "a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play." On > the surface, it looks to me as though the only normal You lost the asterisk, which I think signals that the word is not to be understood in the normal way. Did you mean to do that? > play is to lead > something from hand and ruff it high, then draw the last trump. Why > doesn't that work? I agree that it would be careless to ruff low if you know that one trump is out and you might be overruffed. Of course, if there are two trump out and you know the player behind dummy has to follow suit, it would be careless to ruff high. If there are 3 trump out, ruffing high would be wrong in any situation. MORE GENERALLY Whether to ruff high or low can be a complicated decision. The default should be to ruff low. Anything else is thoughtful, not careless. If declarer wants to ruff high -- say so. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Sep 14 19:08:09 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:08:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9EE85B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52348CE7.7030806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <523497F9.5080202@nhcc.net> On 2013-09-14 12:40 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > You lost the asterisk, which I think signals that the word is not to be > understood in the normal way. Did you mean to do that? I expect BLML readers know what the asterisk signifies. > I agree that it would be careless to ruff low if you know that one trump > is out and you might be overruffed. The question is whether it would be "careless" or "irrational." Probably not everyone will agree, which I guess is your point. > MORE GENERALLY > Whether to ruff high or low can be a complicated decision. The default > should be to ruff low. Anything else is thoughtful, not careless. If > declarer wants to ruff high -- say so. I expect Sven will agree with you. That's one way to rule, though not the only one. If your point is that it would be nice to have official guidelines, I agree with that. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 15 01:48:41 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 19:48:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] careless, irrational, knowledge base Message-ID: CARELESS = THOUGHTLESS Choosing a card without thought is careless. Any conscious thought/calculation implies care. IRRATIONAL = MISTAKE IN THINKING Irrational implies some mistake in thinking. If declarer decides that her best lead is a heart, then leads a spade, that is irrational; knowing that 2 trump are out and deciding they might be breaking 3-0. BIG CONCLUSION The question of whether a play is careless versus irrational depends on what knowledge you presume. You cannot make this decision without assuming a knowledge base. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 15 01:56:19 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 19:56:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <523497F9.5080202@nhcc.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9EE85B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52348CE7.7030806@nhcc.net> <523497F9.5080202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:08:09 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2013-09-14 12:40 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> You lost the asterisk, which I think signals that the word is not to be >> understood in the normal way. Did you mean to do that? > > I expect BLML readers know what the asterisk signifies. Then you were claiming that the only careless play was to ruff high? > >> I agree that it would be careless to ruff low if you know that one trump >> is out and you might be overruffed. > > The question is whether it would be "careless" or "irrational." > Probably not everyone will agree, which I guess is your point. Probably to repeat myself, but... if you decide that a heart is the best card to lead, it is irrational to lead a spade. If you don't think about what to lead, you are being careless but not irrational. > >> MORE GENERALLY >> Whether to ruff high or low can be a complicated decision. The default >> should be to ruff low. Anything else is thoughtful, not careless. If >> declarer wants to ruff high -- say so. > > I expect Sven will agree with you. That's one way to rule, though not > the only one. Agree. Another way to rule is to try to figure out what declarer would have done had she had thought about what card to lead. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 15 04:40:27 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 22:40:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suggested order for deeming a suit played Message-ID: 2. the regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g., ?from the top down?) in which the director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this law) PLAYING HIGH The ACBL has regulated (I am pretty sure) that when a player plays a suit intending to win, the player plays the top card. Does anyone not like this regulation? (Sven has argued against any regulation, but I think he meant only new regulations.) PLAYING LOW The ACBL should regulate that when a player plays a suit not intending to win (as in discarding or following to a higher card), the smallest card is played. Directors already assume this, presumably. For example, spades are trump and declarer claims in hand with AKQJ of clubs. Dummy has Qxxx of hearts. Had claimer played it out, it is reasonable he would have said "anything" as his play from dummy. Certainly it is rational to play any card, as declarer is never planning on playing hearts. But suppose a defender ruffs the third round of clubs and has a heart as the last card, and the queen of hearts would have won. It provides a clear answer to the situation where declarer claims, saying "running the diamonds", with AKQ65 7432 TRUMPING LOW Declarer claims. There is one more trumps out, and it matters which card declarer trumps with. Sometimes the correct play is to trump high. Sometimes the correct play is to trump low. Sometimes it is tough decision based on determing the location of high cards and distribution. Anyway, it solves all problems if the ACBL regulates that theclaimer trumps low. If players want to trump high, they shouldn't claim. Playing low is always the thoughtless (careless) play. The ACBL provide an example of this -- the player has AKQJx and thinks trump are out. So the player might rationally trump low. Note that if there is one trump out (or even 2 or 3), it is careless to do anything but ruff high. (And if there are four trump out, it is implausible that declaer was not aware that a trump was out). This is AFAIK the only reasonable regulation for this situation. From g3 at nige1.com Sun Sep 15 04:51:11 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 03:51:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: <52348CE7.7030806@nhcc.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9EE85B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52348CE7.7030806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <067A34CBA18C42FC91CDD8AA80033D7A@G3> [Robert Frick] Declarer claims, saying drawing trump. The board has KQx of trump left as the last three cards. The 10 is out. ... she is in hand. No trump in hand. [Steve Willner] Declarer knew there was a trump out, so the only thing to decide is whether "a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play." On the surface, it looks to me as though the only normal play is to lead something from hand and ruff it high, then draw the last trump. Why doesn't that work? [Nige1] If RHO has one trump then careless play would be to ruff low. If RHO has two trump (or declarer thinks RHO has 2 trumps) then irrational play would be to ruff high. As In most claim cases, we can't expect consistent rulings from directors, under current law. It must be better to make declarer play on, with defenders playing double-dummy. Admittedly, declarer would be likely to be more careful; but the result would depend on the play ability of the players, not on declarer's ability to express himself intelligibly, and not on the director's play skills or lack thereof. Claims would be easy and common. Play would be fast and resolution much faster than any current disputed claim. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Sep 15 23:30:08 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 17:30:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] careless, irrational, knowledge base In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <523626E0.7000804@nhcc.net> On 2013-09-14 7:48 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > The question of whether a play is careless versus irrational depends on > what knowledge you presume. You cannot make this decision without assuming > a knowledge base. Generally we presume very little knowledge of past play. Forgetting one trump (or card in any key suit) is generally deemed careless, not irrational. Forgetting multiple trumps is generally irrational, especially if the play to the point of claim suggests the claimer knows about them (e.g., cashing one round and seeing both opponents follow, which means all trumps can be drawn). In contrast, playing A2 opposite K3 for two tricks doesn't need any knowledge of past play. On 2013-09-14 7:56 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Then you were claiming that the only careless play was to ruff high? I was claiming that ruffing low when there were high trumps available was the play to be judged. I don't believe I gave an opinion whether doing so was irrational or merely careless. Focusing on the suit declarer led strikes me as misguided unless the play prior to claim suggests leading some suit rather than another would be irrational. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 16 00:51:17 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 22:51:17 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Phoenix claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F33A1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Tim West-Meads, December 2002: It is, I think, a cultural thing. Take the case of an American playing in Europe. He *says* "I draw the last trump, unblock the clubs and my hand is high". The European *hears* "You are obviously incompetent so I will explain this obvious play as I would to a child of 3". The European, playing in the US makes the same claim, saying nothing to avoid being patronising, and the American *hears* "I am too lazy to explain my claim and have no respect for you". The American (with full cultural justification) contests the claim and the European *hears* "I consider you a complete prat who can't count to five". Once one becomes aware of little cultural distinctions it is easy to adapt and there is no problem. If it helps consider the look you would get if you told an Englishman you had a sore fanny. Being European I prefer our approach. I have no real objection to the US one but I do believe that trying to impose a change on either community is far more bother than it's worth. Tim UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130915/ffdf9b11/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 16 03:11:16 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 21:11:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] careless, irrational, knowledge base In-Reply-To: <523626E0.7000804@nhcc.net> References: <523626E0.7000804@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 17:30:08 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2013-09-14 7:48 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> The question of whether a play is careless versus irrational depends on >> what knowledge you presume. You cannot make this decision without >> assuming >> a knowledge base. > > Generally we presume very little knowledge of past play. Forgetting one > trump (or card in any key suit) is generally deemed careless, not > irrational. Forgetting multiple trumps is generally irrational, I don't think that forgetting is irrational. It's just something that happens. > especially if the play to the point of claim suggests the claimer knows > about them (e.g., cashing one round and seeing both opponents follow, > which means all trumps can be drawn). > > In contrast, playing A2 opposite K3 for two tricks doesn't need any > knowledge of past play. Right. But sometimes the claimer claims without saying what his winners are, and I have no idea what is good, but everyone at the table does. So that's based on memory of the play. > > On 2013-09-14 7:56 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Then you were claiming that the only careless play was to ruff high? > > I was claiming that ruffing low when there were high trumps available > was the play to be judged. I don't believe I gave an opinion whether > doing so was irrational or merely careless. Focusing on the suit > declarer led strikes me as misguided unless the play prior to claim > suggests leading some suit rather than another would be irrational. But that's just my point. It's the not the play before, it's what the player consciously thought about the play. If the play suggested the lead of a heart, AND the player worked that out prior to claiming, then it is irrational to lead a spade. If the player didn't do any calculations or thought about what to lead before making a play, then the lead of a spade is just careless. Put another way, we can assume careless play. That means not thinking about what to lead. Hence any lead becomes rational. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Sep 16 19:20:34 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:20:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9EE85B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52348CE7.7030806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6E8FE489-3FD2-4942-87C1-3BA51FC83A23@btinternet.com> On 14 Sep 2013, at 17:40, "Robert Frick" wrote: > I agree that it would be careless to ruff low if you know that one trump > is out and you might be overruffed. > > Of course, if there are two trump out and you know the player behind dummy > has to follow suit, it would be careless to ruff high. This example suffers from the American habit of not pluralising the word "trump". In Britain one would say "the trump" or "the trumps", and the claim would be clearer. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 17 02:03:31 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:03:31 +0000 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Gordon Rainsford: >This example suffers from the American habit of not pluralising the word "trump". >In Britain one would say "the trump" or "the trumps", and the claim would be clearer. Richard Hills: For English players "Swiss pairs" implies matchpoints scoring. For Aussie players "Swiss pairs" implies imps scoring. For American players "Swiss pairs" implies a bridge holiday in Geneva. Bertrand Russell, Englishman and philosopher (1872 - 1970): "It is a misfortune for Anglo-American friendship that the two countries are supposed to have a common language. A Frenchman in America is not expected to talk like an American, but an Englishman speaking his mother tongue is thought to be affected and giving himself airs. Or else he is taken for a German or a Dutchman, and is complemented on his grammatical mastery of the language of another nation." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130917/c5844c0a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 17 06:39:16 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 04:39:16 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Interesting but abnormal (was Standard.....) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F632E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >Online, someone claimed when he was a winner short. When we objected, he >could see the problem. There were threats galore, so the failed claim >helped him know he had to run a squeeze. That is what the current laws try >to prevent. > >Part of his ?punishment? was that my partner and I could see each other?s >hands. >..... > >At one point, my partner had to save clubs to defend against the club >threat on the board. When that threat was discarded, later on I had to >save clubs to defend against the club threat in his hand. So it was one of >the most interesting hands I have ever played. But it was not normal >bridge. Richard Hills, January 2005: Each round of Neville Moses? Novelty Pairs had special rules which modified the normal rules of bridge. On board 15, the novelty modification to the Laws of Bridge was a rule that the partner of the player who won the last trick would be required to lead to the next trick. Dlr: South Richard Hills Vul: North-South ?AQ743 ?Q7 ?J ?T8653 West East ?T9 ?865 ?J843 ?KT95 ?T9862 ?AQ7543 ?76 ?--- Andrew Struik ?KJ2 ?A62 ?K ?AKQJ92 As North, I declared 4?, and East led a trump. As the Novelty Pairs was scored by matchpoints (not the imps of the previous week) it was vital to win 13 tricks, rather than merely 12. I drew trumps in three rounds, and then I played on clubs, carefully blocking the fifth round of clubs with the ten of clubs. This criss-crossed the lead to dummy, which allowed me to cash the sixth round of clubs to discard the jack of diamonds. Back in my hand now, I carefully cashed a fourth round of trumps before playing a Vienna Coup ace of hearts. The play of dummy?s ace of hearts criss-crossed me back to my North hand, thus allowing me to lead the ?7 squeeze card in this two-card ending: Richard Hills ?7 ?Q ?--- ?--- West East ?--- irrelevant ?K ?A ?--- Andrew Struik ?--- ?6 ?K ?--- East could not discard the ?K, as that would give me a heart winner. So East discarded the ?A. I now discarded dummy's ?6, and the lead was now criss-crossed to dummy, which allowed dummy's ?entryless? ?K to score the thirteenth trick. Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130917/29667e33/attachment-0001.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Sep 17 11:11:39 2013 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:11:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: But in truth, "Swiss pairs" is a tournament format; a pairs tournament with Swiss movement, and say nothing about how it is scored. However, without anything else mentioned, I believe everyone (except Aussies) would expect MP scoring. 2013/9/17 Richard HILLS > UNOFFICIAL > > Gordon Rainsford: > > >This example suffers from the American habit of not pluralising the word > ?trump?. > >In Britain one would say ?the trump? or ?the trumps?, and the claim would > be clearer. > > Richard Hills: > > For English players ?Swiss pairs? implies matchpoints scoring. > For Aussie players ?Swiss pairs? implies imps scoring. > For American players ?Swiss pairs? implies a bridge holiday in Geneva. > > Bertrand Russell, Englishman and philosopher (1872 ? 1970): > > ?It is a misfortune for Anglo-American friendship that the two countries > are supposed > to have a common language. A Frenchman in America is not expected to talk > like an > American, but an Englishman speaking his mother tongue is thought to be > affected and > giving himself airs. Or else he is taken for a German or a Dutchman, and is > complemented on his grammatical mastery of the language of another nation.? > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130917/e05e896d/attachment.html From geller at nifty.com Tue Sep 17 11:18:46 2013 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 18:18:46 +0900 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52381E76.7060800@nifty.com> In Japan we have Swiss pairs events with matchpoint scoring, and others with IMP scoring. In both cases the score for one round (usually 7 boards) is converted to a VP scale. (2013/09/17 18:11), Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > But in truth, "Swiss pairs" is a tournament format; a pairs tournament > with Swiss movement, and say nothing about how it is scored. > However, without anything else mentioned, I believe everyone (except > Aussies) would expect MP scoring. > > > 2013/9/17 Richard HILLS > > > UNOFFICIAL > Gordon Rainsford: > >This example suffers from the American habit of not pluralising the word ?trump?. > >In Britain one would say ?the trump? or ?the trumps?, and the claim would be clearer. > Richard Hills: > For English players ?Swiss pairs? implies matchpoints scoring. > For Aussie players ?Swiss pairs? implies imps scoring. > For American players ?Swiss pairs? implies a bridge holiday in Geneva. > Bertrand Russell, Englishman and philosopher (1872 ? 1970): > ?It is a misfortune for Anglo-American friendship that the two > countries are supposed > to have a common language. A Frenchman in America is not expected to > talk like an > American, but an Englishman speaking his mother tongue is thought to > be affected and > giving himself airs. Or else he is taken for a German or a Dutchman, > and is > complemented on his grammatical mastery of the language of another > nation.? > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au > . See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Berre Skj?ran > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Sep 17 12:46:13 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:46:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <523832F5.8070802@btinternet.com> On 17/09/2013 10:11, Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > But in truth, "Swiss pairs" is a tournament format; a pairs tournament > with Swiss movement, and say nothing about how it is scored. > However, without anything else mentioned, I believe everyone (except > Aussies) would expect MP scoring. In England, those matchpoints would be converted to Victory Points. From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 17 13:01:23 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:01:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <523832F5.8070802@btinternet.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <523832F5.8070802@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <004101ceb395$3fdd2680$bf977380$@online.no> > Gordon Rainsford > On 17/09/2013 10:11, Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > > But in truth, "Swiss pairs" is a tournament format; a pairs tournament > > with Swiss movement, and say nothing about how it is scored. > > However, without anything else mentioned, I believe everyone (except > > Aussies) would expect MP scoring. > In England, those matchpoints would be converted to Victory Points. [Sven Pran] Just for my curiosity: How do you convert matchpoints to Victory Points? (Formula or sample conversion table please) From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Sep 17 13:33:25 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:33:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004101ceb395$3fdd2680$bf977380$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <523832F5.8070802@btinternet.com> <004101ceb395$3fdd2680$bf977380$@online.no> Message-ID: <52383E05.5020600@btinternet.com> The scales are on page 49 of the new White Book http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/white-book/white-book-2013.pdf On 17/09/2013 12:01, Sven Pran wrote: >> Gordon Rainsford >> On 17/09/2013 10:11, Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: >>> But in truth, "Swiss pairs" is a tournament format; a pairs tournament >>> with Swiss movement, and say nothing about how it is scored. >>> However, without anything else mentioned, I believe everyone (except >>> Aussies) would expect MP scoring. >> In England, those matchpoints would be converted to Victory Points. > [Sven Pran] > Just for my curiosity: How do you convert matchpoints to Victory Points? > (Formula or sample conversion table please) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 17 14:51:45 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:51:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52383E05.5020600@btinternet.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <523832F5.8070802@btinternet.com> <004101ceb395$3fdd2680$bf977380$@online.no> <52383E05.5020600@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <001301ceb3a4$aa8144d0$ff83ce70$@online.no> > Gordon Rainsford > The scales are on page 49 of the new White Book > http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/white-book/white-book-2013.pd f > > > On 17/09/2013 12:01, Sven Pran wrote: > > Just for my curiosity: How do you convert matchpoints to Victory Points? > > (Formula or sample conversion table please) [Sven Pran] Thanks for the reference, I looked it up and honestly I cannot see any advantage of scoring the event in VP over directly using the Matchpoint percentage (which is standard here). I would expect that the main effect is much higher chance for ties because of the round-off effect when converting to VP. It was interesting learning that converting to VP is discouraged in matches with less than 5 boards, particularly since most Swiss Pairs events in Norway are played out with 3 or 4 boards per round. From geller at nifty.com Tue Sep 17 14:57:29 2013 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 21:57:29 +0900 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001301ceb3a4$aa8144d0$ff83ce70$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <523832F5.8070802@btinternet.com> <004101ceb395$3fdd2680$bf977380$@online.no> <52383E05.5020600@btinternet.com> <001301ceb3a4$aa8144d0$ff83ce70$@online.no> Message-ID: <523851B9.7060006@nifty.com> Like any VP scale the effect is to de-emphasize big wins and increase the effect of small wins. Whether or not this is a good idea is of course a matter of opinion. (2013/09/17 21:51), Sven Pran wrote: >> Gordon Rainsford >> The scales are on page 49 of the new White Book >> > http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/white-book/white-book-2013.pd > f >> >> >> On 17/09/2013 12:01, Sven Pran wrote: >>> Just for my curiosity: How do you convert matchpoints to Victory Points? >>> (Formula or sample conversion table please) > > [Sven Pran] > Thanks for the reference, I looked it up and honestly I cannot see any > advantage of scoring the event in VP over directly using the Matchpoint > percentage (which is standard here). I would expect that the main effect is > much higher chance for ties because of the round-off effect when converting > to VP. > > It was interesting learning that converting to VP is discouraged in matches > with less than 5 boards, particularly since most Swiss Pairs events in > Norway are played out with 3 or 4 boards per round. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 17 15:43:02 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:43:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <523851B9.7060006@nifty.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <523832F5.8070802@btinternet.com> <004101ceb395$3fdd2680$bf977380$@online.no> <52383E05.5020600@btinternet.com> <001301ceb3a4$aa8144d0$ff83ce70$@online.no> <523851B9.7060006@nifty.com> Message-ID: <001b01ceb3ab$d4ba6d10$7e2f4730$@online.no> > Robert Geller > Like any VP scale the effect is to de-emphasize big wins and increase the effect > of small wins. Whether or not this is a good idea is of course a matter of > opinion. In an event for pairs the Match Point scores are linearly distributed from 0% to 100% based on ranking the results. The ranking difference (and resulting MP scores) is only dependent on the count of results in each group of equal results whether the difference between the results involved is 10, 100, 1000 or 10000. (The greatest possible difference is of course 15200.) This is the fundamental feature of MP scoring and I see absolutely no reason to try de-emphasizing big wins and increase the effect of small wins with MP scoring. (Where this is desired one should consider Cross-IMPS rather than MP.) From geller at nifty.com Tue Sep 17 16:41:52 2013 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:41:52 +0900 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001b01ceb3ab$d4ba6d10$7e2f4730$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <523832F5.8070802@btinternet.com> <004101ceb395$3fdd2680$bf977380$@online.no> <52383E05.5020600@btinternet.com> <001301ceb3a4$aa8144d0$ff83ce70$@online.no> <523851B9.7060006@nifty.com> <001b01ceb3ab$d4ba6d10$7e2f4730$@online.no> Message-ID: <52386A30.8070505@nifty.com> I'm surprised you can't see the problem. In a regular matchpoint event the field is seeded so that theoretically every pair faces opponents of the same average strength. But in a Swiss Pairs this is impossible. So especially in early rounds a strong pair can face a very weak pair and be practically certain to get a good result. This should be downweighted. Of course if the event was a complete roundrobin that wouldn't be a problem, but say you have 50 or 100 pairs and only 8 rounds per day in a one or two day event. Then the use of VPs seems warranted, at least to me. If you disagree that's fine. (2013/09/17 22:43), Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Geller >> Like any VP scale the effect is to de-emphasize big wins and increase the > effect >> of small wins. Whether or not this is a good idea is of course a matter of >> opinion. > > In an event for pairs the Match Point scores are linearly distributed from > 0% to 100% based on ranking the results. > > The ranking difference (and resulting MP scores) is only dependent on the > count of results in each group of equal results whether the difference > between the results involved is 10, 100, 1000 or 10000. (The greatest > possible difference is of course 15200.) > > This is the fundamental feature of MP scoring and I see absolutely no reason > to try de-emphasizing big wins and increase the effect of small wins with MP > scoring. (Where this is desired one should consider Cross-IMPS rather than > MP.) > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Sep 17 16:48:11 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:48:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001b01ceb3ab$d4ba6d10$7e2f4730$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <523832F5.8070802@btinternet.com> <004101ceb395$3fdd2680$bf977380$@online.no> <52383E05.5020600@btinternet.com> <001301ceb3a4$aa8144d0$ff83ce70$@online.no> <523851B9.7060006@nifty.com> <001b01ceb3ab$d4ba6d10$7e2f4730$@online.no> Message-ID: <52386BAB.2040306@btinternet.com> I once played in a Swiss Pairs where on the first round we were drawn against a pair at their first ever tournament. We scored 94%, which would have given us a huge advantage had it not been converted to Victory Points. However, with your short matches I agree there would be no advantage. On 17/09/2013 14:43, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Geller >> Like any VP scale the effect is to de-emphasize big wins and increase the > effect >> of small wins. Whether or not this is a good idea is of course a matter of >> opinion. > In an event for pairs the Match Point scores are linearly distributed from > 0% to 100% based on ranking the results. > > The ranking difference (and resulting MP scores) is only dependent on the > count of results in each group of equal results whether the difference > between the results involved is 10, 100, 1000 or 10000. (The greatest > possible difference is of course 15200.) > > This is the fundamental feature of MP scoring and I see absolutely no reason > to try de-emphasizing big wins and increase the effect of small wins with MP > scoring. (Where this is desired one should consider Cross-IMPS rather than > MP.) > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 17 17:19:34 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:19:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52386A30.8070505@nifty.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <523832F5.8070802@btinternet.com> <004101ceb395$3fdd2680$bf977380$@online.no> <52383E05.5020600@btinternet.com> <001301ceb3a4$aa8144d0$ff83ce70$@online.no> <523851B9.7060006@nifty.com> <001b01ceb3ab$d4ba6d10$7e2f4730$@online.no> <52386A30.8070505@nifty.com> Message-ID: <002501ceb3b9$51419fe0$f3c4dfa0$@online.no> On the contrary in Swiss pairs the drawings for each round (after the first or second) will tend to match contestants of approximately the same strength as opponents, so with a proper number of rounds (less than 40% of the number of contestants) the "spread" in results should be less than during a full Round Robin. A favourable result in the first rounds tend to even out because of "stronger" resistance in the following rouonds. The typical event for pairs of the magnitude you indicate will have between 50 and 100 pairs and play up to some 30 rounds with 3 or 4 boards in each round with Swiss movements. I know of no event that is split into separate groups if a single result list is desired. When we have several groups, whether or not seeded, each group has its own result list completely independent of all the other groups. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Geller > Sendt: 17. september 2013 16:42 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: Re: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I'm surprised you can't see the problem. > > In a regular matchpoint event the field is seeded so that theoretically every pair > faces opponents of the same average strength. But in a Swiss Pairs this is > impossible. So especially in early rounds a strong pair can face a very weak pair > and be practically certain to get a good result. This should be downweighted. > > Of course if the event was a complete roundrobin that wouldn't be a problem, > but say you have 50 or 100 pairs and only 8 rounds per day in a one or two day > event. Then the use of VPs seems warranted, at least to me. If you disagree > that's fine. > > (2013/09/17 22:43), Sven Pran wrote: > >> Robert Geller > >> Like any VP scale the effect is to de-emphasize big wins and increase > >> the > > effect > >> of small wins. Whether or not this is a good idea is of course a > >> matter of opinion. > > > > In an event for pairs the Match Point scores are linearly distributed > > from 0% to 100% based on ranking the results. > > > > The ranking difference (and resulting MP scores) is only dependent on > > the count of results in each group of equal results whether the > > difference between the results involved is 10, 100, 1000 or 10000. > > (The greatest possible difference is of course 15200.) > > > > This is the fundamental feature of MP scoring and I see absolutely no > > reason to try de-emphasizing big wins and increase the effect of small > > wins with MP scoring. (Where this is desired one should consider > > Cross-IMPS rather than > > MP.) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 17 17:22:42 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:22:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52386BAB.2040306@btinternet.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <523832F5.8070802@btinternet.com> <004101ceb395$3fdd2680$bf977380$@online.no> <52383E05.5020600@btinternet.com> <001301ceb3a4$aa8144d0$ff83ce70$@online.no> <523851B9.7060006@nifty.com> <001b01ceb3ab$d4ba6d10$7e2f4730$@online.no> <52386BAB.2040306@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <002601ceb3b9$c1225f20$43671d60$@online.no> What was your standing after the next five or ten rounds? Certainly not 90% any more, I would guess that your opponents brought you "down" to your normal position? > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Gordon Rainsford > Sendt: 17. september 2013 16:48 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I once played in a Swiss Pairs where on the first round we were drawn against > a pair at their first ever tournament. We scored 94%, which would have given > us a huge advantage had it not been converted to Victory Points. However, > with your short matches I agree there would be no advantage. > > > On 17/09/2013 14:43, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Robert Geller > >> Like any VP scale the effect is to de-emphasize big wins and increase > >> the > > effect > >> of small wins. Whether or not this is a good idea is of course a > >> matter of opinion. > > In an event for pairs the Match Point scores are linearly distributed > > from 0% to 100% based on ranking the results. > > > > The ranking difference (and resulting MP scores) is only dependent on > > the count of results in each group of equal results whether the > > difference between the results involved is 10, 100, 1000 or 10000. > > (The greatest possible difference is of course 15200.) > > > > This is the fundamental feature of MP scoring and I see absolutely no > > reason to try de-emphasizing big wins and increase the effect of small > > wins with MP scoring. (Where this is desired one should consider > > Cross-IMPS rather than > > MP.) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From zecurado at gmail.com Wed Sep 18 13:51:10 2013 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_J=FAlio_Curado?=) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:51:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Is 2 Clubs Stayman alertable? Message-ID: Hi! This is (hopefully) a very simple question: Should 2 Clubs Stayman be alerted in your jurisdiction? If there are any differences (according to the variant used, or 1NT range, for example) or conditions (provided it shows/denies some values or minimum no. of cards in some suit(s), please state them. Since this is still a field where NBO have a lot of freedom and there are a lot of cultural differences, I expect that there may be a couple of different approaches and I am very curious about what they might be,so thank you very much in advance for your answers. Best regards, Jose Curado -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130918/7a398ea5/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 18 14:07:15 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:07:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is 2 Clubs Stayman alertable? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001f01ceb467$9e8e4c40$dbaae4c0$@online.no> In Norway the answer is yes. We do not care whether the call is ?common? or ?uncommon? (which may differ from club to club or even within a single club). The criterion is strictly whether the call is ?conventional? (including non-conventional calls that have significant ?side implications?). I know that other jurisdictions have different regulations. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jos? J?lio Curado Sendt: 18. september 2013 13:51 Til: BLML Emne: [BLML] Is 2 Clubs Stayman alertable? Hi! This is (hopefully) a very simple question: Should 2 Clubs Stayman be alerted in your jurisdiction? If there are any differences (according to the variant used, or 1NT range, for example) or conditions (provided it shows/denies some values or minimum no. of cards in some suit(s), please state them. Since this is still a field where NBO have a lot of freedom and there are a lot of cultural differences, I expect that there may be a couple of different approaches and I am very curious about what they might be,so thank you very much in advance for your answers. Best regards, Jose Curado -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130918/dab49aaf/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Sep 18 14:16:56 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:16:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Is 2 Clubs Stayman alertable? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <523999B8.6070204@btinternet.com> Hi Jos? :) In England Stayman used to be alertable, because it was not natural. However, we introduced a system of announcements some years ago, whereby in certain common situations (transfers, opening two bids, Stayman) the partner of the bidder simply says what the bid is. We announce Stayman in response to an opening 1NT or 2NT as long as it is an enquiry for four-card major suits, and the only possible rebids are 2D, 2H, 2S (3D, 3H, 3S in the case of a 2NT opening). We do not distinguish whether or not it promises a four-card major. Other variations, like any form of five-card Stayman, or any version where opener might rebid 2NT or higher, are still alertable, and so is it if it is in reponse to a 1NT/2NT overcall. On 18/09/2013 12:51, Jos? J?lio Curado wrote: > Hi! > > This is (hopefully) a very simple question: > > Should 2 Clubs Stayman be alerted in your jurisdiction? > > If there are any differences (according to the variant used, or 1NT > range, for example) or conditions (provided it shows/denies some > values or minimum no. of cards in some suit(s), please state them. > > Since this is still a field where NBO have a lot of freedom and there > are a lot of cultural differences, I expect that there may be a couple > of different approaches and I am very curious about what they might > be,so thank you very much in advance for your answers. > > Best regards, > Jose Curado > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20130918/9551fd80/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Sep 18 14:39:58 2013 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:39:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Is_2_Clubs_Stayman_alertable=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1VMH30-09Ww6K0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> In Germany the simple answer is ... maybe ;-) It (only) depends on whether is shows a(ny) 4card major suit or not. It is independent of other criteria such as (minimum) point range, answers to it etc. Von: Jos? J?lio Curado > This is (hopefully) a very simple question: > Should 2 Clubs Stayman?be?alerted?in your jurisdiction?? > If there are any differences (according to the variant used, or 1NT > range, for example) or conditions (provided it shows/denies some > values or minimum no. of cards in some suit(s), please state them. > > Since this is still a field where NBO have a lot of freedom and there > are a lot of cultural differences, I expect that there may be a couple > of different approaches and I am very curious about what they might > be,so thank you very much in advance for your answers. From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Wed Sep 18 14:47:07 2013 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (Anton Witzen) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:47:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is 2 Clubs Stayman alertable? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001ceb46d$2fd360a0$8f7a21e0$@upcmail.nl> In holland it is alertable again, it has been non-alertable in the past for about 5-8 years, now we have to alert it under any condition. Regards anton A.Witzen (a.k.a. ????? ) Boniplein 86 1094 sg Amsterdam Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Jos? J?lio Curado Verzonden: woensdag 18 september 2013 13:51 Aan: BLML Onderwerp: [BLML] Is 2 Clubs Stayman alertable? Hi! This is (hopefully) a very simple question: Should 2 Clubs Stayman be alerted in your jurisdiction? If there are any differences (according to the variant used, or 1NT range, for example) or conditions (provided it shows/denies some values or minimum no. of cards in some suit(s), please state them. Since this is still a field where NBO have a lot of freedom and there are a lot of cultural differences, I expect that there may be a couple of different approaches and I am very curious about what they might be,so thank you very much in advance for your answers. Best regards, Jose Curado -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130918/35fb3570/attachment-0001.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Wed Sep 18 15:30:33 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:30:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is 2 Clubs Stayman alertable? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 18.09.2013, 13:51 Uhr, schrieb Jos? J?lio Curado : > Hi! > > This is (hopefully) a very simple question: > > Should 2 Clubs Stayman be alerted in your jurisdiction? > > If there are any differences (according to the variant used, or 1NT > range, > for example) or conditions (provided it shows/denies some values or > minimum > no. of cards in some suit(s), please state them. > > Since this is still a field where NBO have a lot of freedom and there > are a > lot of cultural differences, I expect that there may be a couple of > different approaches and I am very curious about what they might be,so > thank you very much in advance for your answers. > In Austria, it is not alertable iff - there is no other major-suit enquiry AND - it promises at least one four-card major Regards, Petrus From jfchevalier at ffbridge.net Wed Sep 18 15:45:45 2013 From: jfchevalier at ffbridge.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Chevalier?=) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:45:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is 2 Clubs Stayman alertable? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5239AE89.1090603@ffbridge.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130918/be4bc7fe/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Jean-Fran?ois_chevalier.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17446 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130918/be4bc7fe/attachment-0001.jpg From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 18 23:56:17 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:56:17 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Is 2 Clubs Stayman alertable? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9FF6E4@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL In Australia the current ABF rule is: IF there is an ++uncontested++ auction of 1NT opening bid and 2C response THEN the 2C bid is not alerted ++whether or not++ it is Stayman. But if the 2C bid is unusual (e.g. the Keri convention), then it should have been pre-alerted at the start of the round or match. Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130918/2996c0ed/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Sep 19 15:53:20 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:53:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is 2 Clubs Stayman alertable? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <523B01D0.2080009@nhcc.net> On 2013-09-18 7:51 AM, Jos? J?lio Curado wrote: > Should 2 Clubs Stayman be alerted in your jurisdiction? I'm surprised no one else has answered for the ACBL. Here we do not alert 2C Stayman in response to natural opening NT bid, delayed natural NT bid by opener after strong forcing opening (e.g., 1C!-1D!-1NT-), or natural NT overcall. We do alert Stayman _by opener_ when responder has bid a natural 1NT. In general, the ACBL alert rules are complex, but the essence is that anything part of old-fashioned Standard American is not alerted. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 19 16:40:48 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:40:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is 2 Clubs Stayman alertable? In-Reply-To: <523B01D0.2080009@nhcc.net> References: <523B01D0.2080009@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <523B0CF0.8070600@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/09/2013 15:53, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 2013-09-18 7:51 AM, Jos? J?lio Curado wrote: >> Should 2 Clubs Stayman be alerted in your jurisdiction? > I'm surprised no one else has answered for the ACBL. Here we do not > alert 2C Stayman in response to natural opening NT bid, delayed natural > NT bid by opener after strong forcing opening (e.g., 1C!-1D!-1NT-) This is mildly dangerous from its complexity. After 1C! 1D! 1NT, where 1C is 16+ and 1D is negative or waiting, 2C artificial shan't be alerted. After 1C! 1D! 1NT, where 1C is Dutch doubleton and 1D is Walsh style, 2C artificial (say, checkback) shall be alerted. And what about 1C being forcing but not necessarily strong (e.g. Polish) and 1NT being a strong rebid ? And what about 3rd-round rebids after strong openings ? (like Kokish 2C 2D 2H 2S 2NT) ? > , or > natural NT overcall. We do alert Stayman _by opener_ when responder has > bid a natural 1NT. > > In general, the ACBL alert rules are complex, but the essence is that > anything part of old-fashioned Standard American is not alerted. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Sep 19 17:48:17 2013 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:48:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] in defence of Ghestem Message-ID: <523B1CC1.8050506@aol.com> At a recent large bridge congress we had many cases of misuse of two-suit bids. At least 20, more likely 30 or more. And none of them were Ghestem. In fact I don't know if anyone there played Ghestem; there were various other two-suiter conventions that were misused. By the end of the congress I had developed a certain sympathy for the Austrian ruling that misuse of a two-suiter resulted automatically in a penalty/adjusted score. In an superfluous note: Teams, 108 tables, at table 7 (thus surely strong and experienced players) there was an undisturbed bidding sequence after which a contract of 4 spades was reached. The opponents had always passed. The opponents won the first 2 tricks with the aces of both minor suits and the declarer led a second diamond trick which was won by declarer. Both defenders followed suit to all of these tricks. The declarer had AQxxxxx in trumps in his hand and K10 on the board and decided to draw trumps. He played small to the 10. LHO had Jxxx in trumps. No further comment. Ciao, JE From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Sep 19 17:52:51 2013 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:52:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] different problem in adjudicating claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9F50DD@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <523B1DD3.1000006@aol.com> Did Russell really write "complemented" and not "complimented"? Ciao, JE Am 17.09.2013 02:03, schrieb Richard HILLS: > UNOFFICIAL > Gordon Rainsford: > >This example suffers from the American habit of not pluralising the word ?trump?. > >In Britain one would say ?the trump? or ?the trumps?, and the claim would be clearer. > Richard Hills: > For English players ?Swiss pairs? implies matchpoints scoring. > For Aussie players ?Swiss pairs? implies imps scoring. > For American players ?Swiss pairs? implies a bridge holiday in Geneva. > Bertrand Russell, Englishman and philosopher (1872 ? 1970): > ?It is a misfortune for Anglo-American friendship that the two > countries are supposed > to have a common language. A Frenchman in America is not expected to > talk like an > American, but an Englishman speaking his mother tongue is thought to > be affected and > giving himself airs. Or else he is taken for a German or a Dutchman, > and is > complemented on his grammatical mastery of the language of another > nation.? > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Sep 19 19:34:07 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:34:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is 2 Clubs Stayman alertable? In-Reply-To: <523B0CF0.8070600@ulb.ac.be> References: <523B01D0.2080009@nhcc.net> <523B0CF0.8070600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <523B358F.5030901@nhcc.net> On 2013-09-19 10:40 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > After 1C! 1D! 1NT, where 1C is 16+ and 1D is negative or waiting, 2C > artificial shan't be alerted. Not exactly. If 2C is normal Stayman, asking for a 4cM, it shan't be alerted. Likewise if it's puppet Stayman, initially asking for a 5cM. If it's something else (including natural), an alert is required. > After 1C! 1D! 1NT, where 1C is Dutch doubleton and 1D is Walsh style, 2C > artificial (say, checkback) shall be alerted. For us, 1C would be announced ("could be short"), not alerted, and 1D would be neither announced nor alerted. If 2C is anything other than natural and non-forcing, it should be alerted. > And what about 1C being forcing but not necessarily strong (e.g. Polish) > and 1NT being a strong rebid ? You mean 1C!-1D!-1NT!- ? As indicated, all three bids would be alerted (1NT because it is strong). Subsequent 2C Stayman should not be alerted; other meanings of 2C should be. > And what about 3rd-round rebids after strong openings ? (like Kokish 2C > 2D 2H 2S 2NT) ? Again Stayman is not alertable; other meanings alertable. In almost all cases, the ACBL alert rules assume opponents are aware of the meaning of preceding bids. If at any point in the auction a NT bid shows a natural notrump opening bid with nothing else shown except point range, a 2C response in the Stayman family is not alerted. The "Dutch doubleton" situation is different because opener is assumed to have a natural club suit, and in old-fashioned Standard American, returning to that suit would be natural and non-forcing. If you say the ACBL alert rules are complex, I'll agree with you. Their advantage is that the many beginners (including "permanent beginners") who play old-fashioned Standard American have little or nothing to alert. The one place I think we do have a serious problem is after a notrump overcall. After, say, 1S-(1NT)-P-, I think 2C is not alertable if it is _either_ Stayman _or_ natural and non-forcing. We have to ask. From g3 at nige1.com Thu Sep 19 20:41:14 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:41:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] in defence of Ghestem In-Reply-To: <523B1CC1.8050506@aol.com> References: <523B1CC1.8050506@aol.com> Message-ID: <8491B73AB33F464F834D393F928A35CB@G3> [JE] In an superfluous note: Teams, 108 tables, at table 7 (thus surely strong and experienced players) there was an undisturbed bidding sequence after which a contract of 4 spades was reached. The opponents had always passed. The opponents won the first 2 tricks with the aces of both minor suits and the declarer led a second diamond trick which was won by declarer. Both defenders followed suit to all of these tricks. The declarer had AQxxxxx in trumps in his hand and K10 on the board and decided to draw trumps. He played small to the 10. LHO had Jxxx in trumps. No further comment. [nigel] I've long argued that directors should be able to rule an infraction, on the balance of probability, for a once-off occurrence like this. After all, to establish any pattern, you are likely to have to wait a long time. Nevertheless, in this case, the director should listen carefully to declarer's explanation of his apparently anti-percentage play. For example, LHO's haste to cash aces may be the harbinger of bad breaks. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 20 00:06:36 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 22:06:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] in defence of Ghestem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA02B01@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Jeff Easterson: >>..... >>The declarer had AQxxxxx in trumps in his hand and K10 on the >>board and decided to draw trumps. He played small to the 10. LHO >>had Jxxx in trumps. No further comment. Nigel Guthrie: >I've long argued that directors should be able to rule an infraction, on >the balance of probability, for a once-off occurrence like this. >...... Richard Hills: If I had been the LHO, the balance of probability would overwhelmingly favour a non-infraction by declarer. Law 74C5, bracketed caveat: (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent's card*). UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130919/c2a87852/attachment-0001.html From du.breuil.laval at gmail.com Fri Sep 20 02:25:43 2013 From: du.breuil.laval at gmail.com (Laval Du Breuil) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:25:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead Message-ID: Hi all, The auction has ended, according to Law 22, but dummy spreads his hand before the opening lead was faced. Law 41 D reads "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand...." If dummy then realised his mistake (before the lead was made). Is he allowed to hide his cards or to turn them face down ? Laval Du Breuil Adstock, Quebec From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 20 02:43:25 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:43:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA02BA1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Hi all, The auction has ended, according to Law 22, but dummy spreads his hand before the opening lead was faced. Law 41 D reads "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand...." If dummy then realised his mistake (before the lead was made). Is he allowed to hide his cards or to turn them face down ? Laval Du Breuil Adstock, Quebec Three decades ago when I was a junior Director in Hobart an identical irregularity occurred in a walk-in pairs. I ruled that dummy's prematurely exposed hand was a crime with its own punishment, giving the opening leader more information before selecting their card. This ad hoc ruling has now been confirmed by the distinction in the revised 2007 Lawbook between "end of auction" and "end of auction period". Hence dummy is NOT permitted to turn her prematurely exposed cards face down, as the Director must apply the 2007 Law 24 (Card Exposed or Led Prior to Play Period). Best wishes, Richard Hills Belconnen, Canberra UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130920/9edf4203/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 20 08:01:43 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 06:01:43 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Is 2 Clubs Stayman alertable? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA034E1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Burn, October 2002: There are some regulations that tell you how to alert when screens are in use. You put the alert card on the bidding tray in the segment where your screen-mate places his bids. To acknowledge the alert, he picks it up and gives it back to you. This makes a noise that can be heard for miles, and defeats one of the main purposes of screens, which is that partner should not be aware that you have alerted. So no one bothers with it. The actual alerting regulations are these: If a conventional call occurs such that your screen-mate knows what it means, you wave your hand a bit. If a conventional call occurs such that your screen-mate does not know what it means, you wave your hand a lot. Stayman hardly merits a gesture sufficient to dislodge a fly from the hand with which you make it. David Burn London, England UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130920/290c180d/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 20 13:10:18 2013 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:10:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] in defence of Ghestem In-Reply-To: <523B1CC1.8050506@aol.com> References: <523B1CC1.8050506@aol.com> Message-ID: <523C2D1A.8030006@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/09/2013 17:48, Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > At a recent large bridge congress we had many cases of misuse of > two-suit bids. At least 20, more likely 30 or more. And none of them > were Ghestem. In fact I don't know if anyone there played Ghestem; > there were various other two-suiter conventions that were misused. By > the end of the congress I had developed a certain sympathy for the > Austrian ruling that misuse of a two-suiter resulted automatically in a > penalty/adjusted score. AG : this is unpractical : recently I overcalled 3C over 1S with x - ATxxx - x - QJTxxx. Misuse of a two-suited convention, thought 3C was C/H like in my former partnership ? There might be several other explanations : a - didn't see the opening bid and opened a 2-suited 3C b - didn't see the 5th heart c - decided it was time for an offbeat preempt In case you find a) and b) incredible, let me say that a) was the right explanation. To call a bid "misuse of a convention" needs once more to read the player's mind. We should strive for less such occurrences, not more. > > In an superfluous note: Teams, 108 tables, at table 7 (thus surely > strong and experienced players) there was an undisturbed bidding > sequence after which a contract of 4 spades was reached. The opponents > had always passed. The opponents won the first 2 tricks with the aces > of both minor suits and the declarer led a second diamond trick which > was won by declarer. Both defenders followed suit to all of these > tricks. The declarer had AQxxxxx in trumps in his hand and K10 on the > board and decided to draw trumps. He played small to the 10. LHO had > Jxxx in trumps. No further comment. And ... do you pretend he looked at the cards ? That's a big position (remember that you're allowed to see the cards if you didn't look at them). Perhaps LHO hesitated, intending to double, and this was perceived ? Best regards Alain From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Sat Sep 21 11:02:56 2013 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Michael Amos) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:02:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> No he is not allowed to take them back ?Law 24 (is this a trap)? Mike ________________________________ From: Laval Du Breuil To: BLML Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 1:25 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead Hi all, The auction has ended, according to Law 22, but dummy spreads his hand before the opening lead was faced. Law 41 D reads "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand...." If dummy then realised his mistake (before the lead was made). Is he allowed to hide his cards or to turn them face down ? Laval Du Breuil Adstock, Quebec _______________________________________________ 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/20130921/1aa0863b/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 21 14:45:06 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 08:45:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA02BA1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA02BA1@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:43:25 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Hi all, >The auction has ended, according to Law 22, but dummy spreads his hand > before > the opening lead was faced. >Law 41 D reads "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his > hand...." >If dummy then realised his mistake (before the lead was made). > Is he allowed to hide his cards or to turn them face down ? >Laval Du Breuil > Adstock, Quebec >Three decades ago when I was a junior Director in Hobart an identical > irregularity > occurred in a walk-in pairs. I ruled that dummy?s prematurely exposed > hand was > a crime with its own punishment, giving the opening leader more > information > before selecting their card. >This ad hoc ruling has now been confirmed by the distinction in the > revised 2007 > Lawbook between ?end of auction? and ?end of auction period?. Hence > dummy is > NOT permitted to turn her prematurely exposed cards face down, as the > Director > must apply the 2007 Law 24 (Card Exposed or Led Prior to Play Period). Doesn't everyone agree that the 1997 laws were better? Law 24 applied only to cards exposed during the auction. Is there any point to forcing dummy to leave his cards down? The opponents will be damaged if he picks them up? Forcing them to stay down can hardly be called a rectification. (Agree that cards exposed during the auction should stay down until the end of the auction period.) >> > Best wishes, >Richard Hills > Belconnen, Canberra > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130921/e5f7e57f/attachment.html From aj1502 at sky.com Sat Sep 21 19:27:52 2013 From: aj1502 at sky.com (aj1502) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 18:27:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead Message-ID: Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Michael Amos Date: To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead No he is not allowed to take them back ?Law 24 (is this a trap)? Mike From: Laval Du Breuil To: BLML Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 1:25 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead Hi all, The auction has ended, according to Law 22, but dummy spreads his hand before the opening lead was faced. Law 41 D reads "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand...." If dummy then realised his mistake (before the lead was made). Is he allowed to hide his cards or to turn them face down ? Laval Du Breuil Adstock, Quebec _______________________________________________ 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/20130921/29cb950b/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 21 20:11:56 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 20:11:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead In-Reply-To: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> Most people discussing the with dummy facing his cards prematurely overlooks the full consequences of Law 24. Until the auction period ends there is no declarer or dummy, instead we have a presumed declarer and his partner. And each of presumed declarer's opponents are entitled to ask clarifying questions about the auction and relevant agreements. It may happen that as a result of such clarifying questions the last opponent to pass is allowed to retract his pass and replace this with a different call, after which the auction continues. During this continued auction the full effect of the cards exposed during the auction period will apply, and it may even become the final result of the auction that the presumed declaring side shifts to the other side. So there are very good reasons for why cards exposed during the auction period, regardless of by which player, remains faced until the end of the auction period. The auction has ended, according to Law 22, but dummy spreads his hand before the opening lead was faced. Law 41 D reads "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand...." If dummy then realised his mistake (before the lead was made). Is he allowed to hide his cards or to turn them face down ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130921/f73fed27/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 21 22:02:37 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:02:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead In-Reply-To: <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 14:11:56 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > Most people discussing the ?problem? with dummy facing his cards > prematurely overlooks the full consequences of Law 24. > > > Until the auction period ends there is no declarer or dummy, There are probably 20 places in the laws where the players become declarer and dummy after the auction ends. To give just one: The player must call the director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. This, of course, requires that there be a declarer or dummy after the final pass of the auction. > > instead we have a presumed declarer and his partner. And each of > presumed declarer?s opponents are entitled to ask clarifying >questions > about the auction and relevant agreements. > > > It may happen that as a result of such clarifying questions the last > opponent to pass is allowed to retract his pass and replace this >with a > different call, after which the auction continues. During this continued > auction the full effect of the cards exposed during >the auction period > will apply, and it may even become the final result of the auction that > the presumed declaring side shifts to >the other side. > > > So there are very good reasons for why cards exposed during the auction > period, regardless of by which player, remains faced >until the end of > the auction period > > . Thear > > >> > > The auction has ended, according to Law 22, but dummy spreads his hand > before > the opening lead was faced. > > Law 41 D reads "After the.opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his > hand...." > > If dummy then realised his mistake (before the lead was made). > Is he allowed to hide his cards or to turn them face down ? > -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130921/24accb86/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 21 22:14:05 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 22:14:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead In-Reply-To: References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> Message-ID: <000e01ceb707$1fe49050$5fadb0f0$@online.no> Just take a look at definitions: Declarer ? the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid. He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A when the opening lead is made out of turn). Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 21. september 2013 22:03 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 14:11:56 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: Most people discussing the ?problem? with dummy facing his cards prematurely overlooks the full consequences of Law 24. Until the auction period ends there is no declarer or dummy, There are probably 20 places in the laws where the players become declarer and dummy after the auction ends. To give just one: The player must call the director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. This, of course, requires that there be a declarer or dummy after the final pass of the auction. instead we have a presumed declarer and his partner. And each of presumed declarer?s opponents are entitled to ask clarifying questions about the auction and relevant agreements. It may happen that as a result of such clarifying questions the last opponent to pass is allowed to retract his pass and replace this with a different call, after which the auction continues. During this continued auction the full effect of the cards exposed during the auction period will apply, and it may even become the final result of the auction that the presumed declaring side shifts to the other side. So there are very good reasons for why cards exposed during the auction period, regardless of by which player, remains faced until the end of the auction period . Thear The auction has ended, according to Law 22, but dummy spreads his hand before the opening lead was faced. Law 41 D reads "After the.opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand...." If dummy then realised his mistake (before the lead was made). Is he allowed to hide his cards or to turn them face down ? -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130921/2403d551/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 22 02:19:41 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 20:19:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead In-Reply-To: <000e01ceb707$1fe49050$5fadb0f0$@online.no> References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> <000e01ceb707$1fe49050$5fadb0f0$@online.no> Message-ID: You are right. Prior to an opening lead being faced, there is no declarer or dummy. How Alice-in-Wonderlandish. Try "When a defender faces the opening lead out of turn declarer may accept the irregular lead as provided in Law 53." This means, upon a faced opening lead out of turn, the presumed declarer becomes the declarer. The declarer might then become dummy. So what is the function of "presumed"? Of course, the auction might be reopened, and the presumed declarer might become a defender. But if that might happen -- why aren't they presumed defenders? And we still have to deal with this: "The player must call the director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction." Of course, after the presumed final pass of the auction, there is no declarer or dummy. Maybe, in an effort to make the laws more precise and less readable, they can be called the nondefenders. On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:14:05 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > Just take a look at definitions: > > > Declarer ? the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first > bid the >denomination named in the final bid. He becomes declarer when > the opening lead is faced >(but see Law 54A when the opening lead is > made out of turn). > > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 21. september 2013 22:03 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead > > > > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 14:11:56 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >> Most people discussing the ?problem? with dummy facing his cards >> prematurely overlooks the full consequences >>of Law 24. >> >> >> Until the auction period ends there is no declarer or dummy, > > > There are probably 20 places in the laws where the players become > declarer and dummy after the auction ends. To give just >one: > > > The player must call the director and inform his opponents that, in his > opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous (see >Law 75) but only > at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end > of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, >after the final pass of the > auction. > > > This, of course, requires that there be a declarer or dummy after the > final pass of the auction. > > > > >> >> instead we have a presumed declarer and his partner. And each of >> presumed declarer?s opponents are entitled to >>ask clarifying >> questions about the auction and relevant agreements. >> >> >> It may happen that as a result of such clarifying questions the last >> opponent to pass is allowed to retract his pass >>and replace this with >> a different call, after which the auction continues. During this >> continued auction the full >>effect of the cards exposed during the >> auction period will apply, and it may even become the final result of >> the >>auction that the presumed declaring side shifts to the other side. >> >> >> So there are very good reasons for why cards exposed during the auction >> period, regardless of by which player, >>remains faced until the end of >> the auction period > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> . > > > > Thear > > > >> >> >> The auction has ended, according to Law 22, but dummy spreads his hand >> before >> the opening lead was faced. >> >> Law 41 D reads "After the.opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his >> hand...." >> >> If dummy then realised his mistake (before the lead was made). >> Is he allowed to hide his cards or to turn them face down ? > > > > >> -- > > Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130922/498cde38/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 22 03:14:01 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 21:14:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead In-Reply-To: <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 14:11:56 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > Most people discussing the ?problem? with dummy facing his cards > prematurely overlooks the full consequences of >Law 24. > > > Until the auction period ends there is no declarer or dummy, instead we > have a presumed declarer and his partner. >And each of presumed > declarer?s opponents are entitled to ask clarifying questions about the > auction and relevant >agreements. > > > It may happen that as a result of such clarifying questions the last > opponent to pass is allowed to retract his pass and >replace this with a > different call, after which the auction continues. During this continued > auction the full effect of >the cards exposed during the auction period > will apply, and it may even become the final result of the auction that > >the presumed declaring side shifts to the other side. > > > So there are very good reasons for why cards exposed during the auction > period, regardless of by which player, >remains faced until the end of > the auction period. So, if we changed L24 to the way it was, referring only to during the auction, the player most likely to become dummy (PML2BDu) could pick up any cards displayed after the final pass. As you point out, the auction might then be reopened. I get that there is about 1/10,000 chance of this happening. Probably less. The player would have to display the cards if the auction was reopened. The sole problem would be that we might not know what cards should be displayed. A simple solution is to leave the cards face down on the table. Also, dummy will usually display cards in an easily reproduced manner, such as showing one suit. For this minor problem, we as directors insist that the cards be displayed for inspection the other 9,999 times. This is not a "very good reason" to have changed the law. A player asks if the contract is 4S by E. The PML2BDe agrees. There is an opening lead out of turn (it was 4S by W), and declarer puts down his hand as dummy. The error is now discovered. If the lead is withdrawn, I guess the player who became declarer goes back to being PML2BDe until the correct lead is made. And has to leave his hand down for inspection. > > >> > > The auction has ended, according to Law 22, but dummy spreads his hand > before > the opening lead was faced. > > Law 41 D reads "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his > hand...." > > If dummy then realised his mistake (before the lead was made). > Is he allowed to hide his cards or to turn them face down ? > -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130922/b0618ce9/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 22 08:40:27 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 08:40:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead In-Reply-To: References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> <000e01ceb707$1fe49050$5fadb0f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <001a01ceb75e$a10066d0$e3013470$@online.no> I am surprised that it should be so difficult to understand and apply laws referring to ?declarer? rather than to ?(presumed) declarer? in contexts where the situation is obvious. Exposure of cards before the opening lead by a player on the (presumed) declaring side has occurred many times and no doubt will occur also in the future. Questions to presumed declaring side during the clarification period is an important privilege for (presumed) defenders, as is the right to replace their last pass with a different call (and have the auction continued) if misinformation from presumed declaring side is discovered from such questions. This also has happened and will no doubt happen in the future. As a consequence of such continued auctions the originally presumed declaring side has become defenders and vice versa. This too has happened and will undoubtedly happen again in the future. The present laws blocks any idea a player on the presumed declaring side might have of preventing such questions by making an opening lead after the closing pass. That possibility has never existed, but it required the Director before 2007 to carry out some elaborate analysis of the laws to rule correctly. Try to rule under the laws of 1997: Dummy leads to the first trick. May next player accept this opening lead? (Law 53A) What other laws are applicable? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 22. september 2013 02:20 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead You are right. Prior to an opening lead being faced, there is no declarer or dummy. How Alice-in-Wonderlandish. Try "When a defender faces the opening lead out of turn declarer may accept the irregular lead as provided in Law 53." This means, upon a faced opening lead out of turn, the presumed declarer becomes the declarer. The declarer might then become dummy. So what is the function of "presumed"? Of course, the auction might be reopened, and the presumed declarer might become a defender. But if that might happen -- why aren't they presumed defenders? And we still have to deal with this: "The player must call the director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction." Of course, after the presumed final pass of the auction, there is no declarer or dummy. Maybe, in an effort to make the laws more precise and less readable, they can be called the nondefenders. On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:14:05 -0400, Sven Pran < svenpran at online.no> wrote: Just take a look at definitions: Declarer ? the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid. He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A when the opening lead is made out of turn). Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 21. september 2013 22:03 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 14:11:56 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: Most people discussing the ?problem? with dummy facing his cards prematurely overlooks the full consequences of Law 24. Until the auction period ends there is no declarer or dummy, There are probably 20 places in the laws where the players become declarer and dummy after the auction ends. To give just one: The player must call the director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. This, of course, requires that there be a declarer or dummy after the final pass of the auction. instead we have a presumed declarer and his partner. And each of presumed declarer?s opponents are entitled to ask clarifying questions about the auction and relevant agreements. It may happen that as a result of such clarifying questions the last opponent to pass is allowed to retract his pass and replace this with a different call, after which the auction continues. During this continued auction the full effect of the cards exposed during the auction period will apply, and it may even become the final result of the auction that the presumed declaring side shifts to the other side. So there are very good reasons for why cards exposed during the auction period, regardless of by which player, remains faced until the end of the auction period . Thear The auction has ended, according to Law 22, but dummy spreads his hand before the opening lead was faced. Law 41 D reads "After the.opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand...." If dummy then realised his mistake (before the lead was made). Is he allowed to hide his cards or to turn them face down ? -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130922/2eed0c29/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 22 22:31:21 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:31:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period In-Reply-To: <001a01ceb75e$a10066d0$e3013470$@online.no> References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> <000e01ceb707$1fe49050$5fadb0f0$@online.no> <001a01ceb75e$a10066d0$e3013470$@online.no> Message-ID: Prior to opening lead, the two players who are not dummy exchange hands and look at each other's cards. The legal-eagle calls you to the table and asks you to apply Law 24. Do you? (L24 requires the players to put their cards on the table for open inspection.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130922/ec91fb12/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 22 22:46:02 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 22:46:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period In-Reply-To: References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> <000e01ceb707$1fe49050$5fadb0f0$@online.no> <001a01ceb75e$a10066d0$e3013470$@online.no> Message-ID: <001d01ceb7d4$c02eb7c0$408c2740$@online.no> Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? And at the time for the opening lead to be made each defender has 13 major penalty cards. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 22. september 2013 22:31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Prior to opening lead, the two players who are not dummy exchange hands and look at each other's cards. The legal-eagle calls you to the table and asks you to apply Law 24. Do you? (L24 requires the players to put their cards on the table for open inspection.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130922/dc4a6dbc/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 22 22:47:54 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:47:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead In-Reply-To: <001a01ceb75e$a10066d0$e3013470$@online.no> References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> <000e01ceb707$1fe49050$5fadb0f0$@online.no> <001a01ceb75e$a10066d0$e3013470$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 02:40:27 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > I am surprised that it should be so difficult to understand and apply > laws referring to ?declarer? rather than to >?(presumed) declarer? in > contexts where the situation is obvious. What this translates to is that you know what a law should be, then you interpret the law to mean what you know it should be, even if it says something different. In L205Bii, the law says declarer, yet you interpret as applying to someone who you claim is not the declarer. I don't count this as following laws. The laws are following you. I agree we should do this. But where do we stop? And how can you criticize someone else for doing it? > > > Exposure of cards before the opening lead by a player on the (presumed) > declaring side has occurred many times and >no doubt will occur also in > the future. > > > Questions to presumed declaring side during the clarification period is > an important privilege for (presumed) >defenders, as is the right to > replace their last pass with a different call (and have the auction > continued) if >misinformation from presumed declaring side is discovered > from such questions. This also has happened and will no >doubt happen in > the future. > > > As a consequence of such continued auctions the originally presumed > declaring side has become defenders and vice >versa. This too has > happened and will undoubtedly happen again in the future. > > > The present laws blocks any idea a player on the presumed declaring side > might have of preventing such questions >by making an opening lead after > the closing pass. That possibility has never existed, but it required > the Director >before 2007 to carry out some elaborate analysis of the > laws to rule correctly. > > > Try to rule under the laws of 1997: > > Dummy leads to the first trick. > May next player accept this opening lead? (Law 53A) > What other laws are applicable? > > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 22. september 2013 02:20 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead > > > You are right. Prior to an opening lead being faced, there is no > declarer or dummy. > > > How Alice-in-Wonderlandish. Try "When a defender faces the opening lead > out of turn declarer may accept the >irregular lead as provided in Law > 53." > > > This means, upon a faced opening lead out of turn, the presumed declarer > becomes the declarer. The declarer might >then become dummy. So what is > the function of "presumed"? > > > Of course, the auction might be reopened, and the presumed declarer > might become a defender. But if that might >happen -- why aren't they > presumed defenders? > > > And we still have to deal with this: > > > "The player must call the director and inform his opponents that, in his > opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous (see >Law 75) but only > at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end > of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, >after the final pass of the > auction." > > Of course, after the presumed final pass of the auction, there is no > declarer or dummy. Maybe, in an effort to make the laws >more precise > and less readable, they can be called the nondefenders. > > > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:14:05 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >> Just take a look at definitions: >> >> >> Declarer ? the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, >> first bid the >>denomination named in the final bid. He becomes >> declarer when the opening lead is faced >>(but see Law 54A when the >> opening lead is made out of turn). >> >> >> >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 21. september 2013 22:03 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 14:11:56 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Most people discussing the ?problem? with dummy facing his cards >>> prematurely overlooks the full >>>consequences of Law 24. >>> >>> >>> Until the auction period ends there is no declarer or dummy, >> >> >> There are probably 20 places in the laws where the players become >> declarer and dummy after the auction ends. To give >>just one: >> >> >> The player must call the director and inform his opponents that, in his >> opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous >>(see Law 75) but >> only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at >> the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or >>dummy, after the final pass >> of the auction. >> >> >> This, of course, requires that there be a declarer or dummy after the >> final pass of the auction. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> instead we have a presumed declarer and his partner. And each of >>> presumed declarer?s opponents are entitled >>>to ask clarifying >>> questions about the auction and relevant agreements. >>> >>> >>> It may happen that as a result of such clarifying questions the last >>> opponent to pass is allowed to retract his pass >>>and replace this >>> with a different call, after which the auction continues. During this >>> continued auction the full >>>effect of the cards exposed during the >>> auction period will apply, and it may even become the final result of >>> the >>>auction that the presumed declaring side shifts to the other >>> side. >>> >>> >>> So there are very good reasons for why cards exposed during the >>> auction period, regardless of by which player, >>>remains faced until >>> the end of the auction period >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> . >> >> >> >> Thear >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> The auction has ended, according to Law 22, but dummy spreads his hand >>> before >>> the opening lead was faced. >>> >>> Law 41 D reads "After the.opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his >>> hand...." >>> >>> If dummy then realised his mistake (before the lead was made). >>> Is he allowed to hide his cards or to turn them face down ? >> >> >> -- >> Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > > > >> -- > > Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130922/c0c2fda1/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 22 22:56:47 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 22:56:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead In-Reply-To: References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> <000e01ceb707$1fe49050$5fadb0f0$@online.no> <001a01ceb75e$a10066d0$e3013470$@online.no> Message-ID: <003601ceb7d6$416dc3c0$c4494b40$@online.no> No, I apply the laws as they are written, and if you claim the ability to misunderstand Law 20F5b2 because of a technicality I admire your nerve. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 22. september 2013 22:48 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 02:40:27 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: I am surprised that it should be so difficult to understand and apply laws referring to ?declarer? rather than to ?(presumed) declarer? in contexts where the situation is obvious. What this translates to is that you know what a law should be, then you interpret the law to mean what you know it should be, even if it says something different. In L205Bii, the law says declarer, yet you interpret as applying to someone who you claim is not the declarer. I don't count this as following laws. The laws are following you. I agree we should do this. But where do we stop? And how can you criticize someone else for doing it? Exposure of cards before the opening lead by a player on the (presumed) declaring side has occurred many times and no doubt will occur also in the future. Questions to presumed declaring side during the clarification period is an important privilege for (presumed) defenders, as is the right to replace their last pass with a different call (and have the auction continued) if misinformation from presumed declaring side is discovered from such questions. This also has happened and will no doubt happen in the future. As a consequence of such continued auctions the originally presumed declaring side has become defenders and vice versa. This too has happened and will undoubtedly happen again in the future. The present laws blocks any idea a player on the presumed declaring side might have of preventing such questions by making an opening lead after the closing pass. That possibility has never existed, but it required the Director before 2007 to carry out some elaborate analysis of the laws to rule correctly. Try to rule under the laws of 1997: Dummy leads to the first trick. May next player accept this opening lead? (Law 53A) What other laws are applicable? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 22. september 2013 02:20 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead You are right. Prior to an opening lead being faced, there is no declarer or dummy. How Alice-in-Wonderlandish. Try "When a defender faces the opening lead out of turn declarer may accept the irregular lead as provided in Law 53." This means, upon a faced opening lead out of turn, the presumed declarer becomes the declarer. The declarer might then become dummy. So what is the function of "presumed"? Of course, the auction might be reopened, and the presumed declarer might become a defender. But if that might happen -- why aren't they presumed defenders? And we still have to deal with this: "The player must call the director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction." Of course, after the presumed final pass of the auction, there is no declarer or dummy. Maybe, in an effort to make the laws more precise and less readable, they can be called the nondefenders. On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:14:05 -0400, Sven Pran < svenpran at online.no> wrote: Just take a look at definitions: Declarer ? the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid. He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A when the opening lead is made out of turn). Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 21. september 2013 22:03 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 14:11:56 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: Most people discussing the ?problem? with dummy facing his cards prematurely overlooks the full consequences of Law 24. Until the auction period ends there is no declarer or dummy, There are probably 20 places in the laws where the players become declarer and dummy after the auction ends. To give just one: The player must call the director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. This, of course, requires that there be a declarer or dummy after the final pass of the auction. instead we have a presumed declarer and his partner. And each of presumed declarer?s opponents are entitled to ask clarifying questions about the auction and relevant agreements. It may happen that as a result of such clarifying questions the last opponent to pass is allowed to retract his pass and replace this with a different call, after which the auction continues. During this continued auction the full effect of the cards exposed during the auction period will apply, and it may even become the final result of the auction that the presumed declaring side shifts to the other side. So there are very good reasons for why cards exposed during the auction period, regardless of by which player, remains faced until the end of the auction period . Thear The auction has ended, according to Law 22, but dummy spreads his hand before the opening lead was faced. Law 41 D reads "After the.opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand...." If dummy then realised his mistake (before the lead was made). Is he allowed to hide his cards or to turn them face down ? -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130922/b0ecb65f/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Sep 23 00:19:25 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 23:19:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead In-Reply-To: <003601ceb7d6$416dc3c0$c4494b40$@online.no> References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> <000e01ceb707$1fe49050$5fadb0f0$@online.no> <001a01ceb75e$a10066d0$e3013470$@online.no> <003601ceb7d6$416dc3c0$c4494b40$@online.no> Message-ID: <28F9AE81211B4317A068C8ED548FDBC8@G3> [Sven Pran] I am surprised that it should be so difficult to understand and apply laws referring to ?declarer? rather than to ?(presumed) declarer? in contexts where the situation is obvious. [Robert Frick] What this translates to is that you know what a law should be, then you interpret the law to mean what you know it should be, even if it says something different. In L205Bii, the law says declarer, yet you interpret as applying to someone who you claim is not the declarer. I don't count this as following laws. The laws are following you. I agree we should do this. But where do we stop? And how can you criticize someone else for doing it? [Nige1] IMO Bridge needs simpler rules. Robert is right that current laws are often unclear. Admittedly, this fits in well with one of the law-makers' main aims: to devolve responsibility to local legislators and individual directors. The effect is that Directors have to impose their own interpretations as in a Rorschach test and they often disagree. The game and its players suffer. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 23 00:23:32 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 22:23:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA03FC9@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Isaac Asimov (1920-1992): "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if you pick the proper postulates." >Doesn't everyone agree that the 1997 laws were better? No. >[1997] Law 24 applied only to cards exposed during the auction. Yes and No. The 1997 Law 17E defined "auction period", but the 1997 Law 24 used only "auction": hence the two 1997 Laws were inconsistent. The 2007 Drafting Committee fixed that inconsistency. >Is there any point to forcing dummy to leave his cards down [face >up]? The opponents will be damaged if he picks them up? Yes and Yes. Throughout the 1997 or 2007 Lawbooks there is a golden thread permitting the non-offending side to gain a natural benefit from the offending side's irregularity.(1) The natural benefit for the opening leader is extra information from dummy's premature exposure of her cards. Best wishes, Richard Hills (1) The classic example of a natural benefit is the non-offending side's right under Law 27A to gain extra bidding space by accepting the offending side's insufficient bid. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130922/996318c2/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 23 04:55:37 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 22:55:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period In-Reply-To: <001d01ceb7d4$c02eb7c0$408c2740$@online.no> References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> <000e01ceb707$1fe49050$5fadb0f0$@online.no> <001a01ceb75e$a10066d0$e3013470$@online.no> <001d01ceb7d4$c02eb7c0$408c2740$@online.no> Message-ID: Sorry, I said it wrong. I meant the nondefenders (those people who almost everyone calls the declarer and dummy) exchange hands before the opening lead and look at each other's hands. Again, a legal-eagle calls you and asks you to apply L24. Do you? On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:46:02 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) > the very first sentence in Law 24: > ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of > a player?s own error one or more cards of that >player?s hand were in > position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? > > > And at the time for the opening lead to be made each defender has 13 > major penalty cards. > > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 22. september 2013 22:31 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period > > > Prior to opening lead, the two players who are not dummy exchange hands > and look at each other's cards. The >legal-eagle calls you to the table > and asks you to apply Law 24. Do you? > > > (L24 requires the players to put their cards on the table for open > inspection.) -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130923/0f558d4d/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 23 05:11:05 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 23:11:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead In-Reply-To: <28F9AE81211B4317A068C8ED548FDBC8@G3> References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> <000e01ceb707$1fe49050$5fadb0f0$@online.no> <001a01ceb75e$a10066d0$e3013470$@online.no> <003601ceb7d6$416dc3c0$c4494b40$@online.no> <28F9AE81211B4317A068C8ED548FDBC8@G3> Message-ID: Nigel, my complaint is unnecessary or counterproductive complexity. Like here. In natural English, we can talk about a person being married. Everyone knows that this refers to current status and might change. This is standard operating procedure. The same thing happens in the bridge laws. We refer to the final pass, the contract, and the defenders even when they might change. This causes no confusion. So, to say that they are not called the declarer and dummy, because that might change, is basically ridiculous. It defies natural language and introduces pointless complexities. Call them declarer or dummy, and there is no confusion. On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 18:19:25 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Sven Pran] I am surprised that it should be so difficult to understand > and > apply laws referring to ?declarer? rather than to ?(presumed) declarer? > in > contexts where the situation is obvious. > > [Robert Frick] What this translates to is that you know what a law should > be, then you interpret the law to mean what you know it should be, even > if > it says something different. In L205Bii, the law says declarer, yet you > interpret as applying to someone who you claim is not the declarer. > I don't count this as following laws. The laws are following you. > I agree we should do this. But where do we stop? And how can you > criticize > someone else for doing it? > > [Nige1] IMO Bridge needs simpler rules. Robert is right that current laws > are often unclear. Admittedly, this fits in well with one of the > law-makers' > main aims: to devolve responsibility to local legislators and individual > directors. The effect is that Directors have to impose their own > interpretations as in a Rorschach test and they often disagree. The game > and its players suffer. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 23 05:26:44 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:26:44 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA042B7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >Sorry, I said it wrong. I meant the non-defenders (those people who almost >everyone calls the declarer and dummy) exchange hands before the opening >lead and look at each other's hands. Again, a legal-eagle calls you and asks >you to apply L24. Do you? Secretary Bird (legal-eagle) Hills: 1. A pseudo-Director may award Average-plus to the offending side, but a real Director interprets the words of the Lawbook in accordance with the intent of its Drafting Committee. There are no doubts about the Drafting Committee's intentions for the 2007 Law 24. 2. Even if the presumed dummy becomes the actual dummy, exchanging hands is an intentional infraction. Laws 43A2(a), 43B, 72B1 and 90 apply. Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130923/17344a6b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 23 05:48:50 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:48:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Cards exposed by dummy before opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA042FE@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Definitions: Defender - an opponent of ++(presumed)++ declarer. Law 41A, first sentence: After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on ++presumed++ declarer's left makes the opening lead face down*. Law 41B, first sentence: Before the opening lead is faced, the leader's partner and the ++presumed++ declarer (but not the ++presumed++ dummy) each may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent's call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3). >So, to say that they are not called the declarer and dummy, >because that might change, is basically ridiculous. It defies natural >language and introduces pointless complexities. Call them declarer >or dummy, and there is no confusion. Richard Hills: No, the above comment is basically ridiculous. Before the adjective "presumed" was inserted into the 2007 Lawbook, many grass-roots Directors were unaware of their Law 21 power to restart an auction after a misexplanation. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882): "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130923/c6c070fb/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 23 09:15:51 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 09:15:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period In-Reply-To: References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> <000e01ceb707$1fe49050$5fadb0f0$@online.no> <001a01ceb75e$a10066d0$e3013470$@online.no> <001d01ceb7d4$c02eb7c0$408c2740$@online.no> Message-ID: <003b01ceb82c$bdb1a1d0$3914e570$@online.no> Again: Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? But the last part of my answer is now changed to: Their opponents retain their right to ask about agreements, they may be allowed to continue the auction (during which in case the offenders must pass whenever it becomes their turn to call), and if the offenders become defenders they each has 13 major penalty cards. If the offenders remain the declaring side all 26 cards must remain faced until the opening lead is to be made, at which time declarer may restore his cards to his hand. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 23. september 2013 04:56 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Sorry, I said it wrong. I meant the nondefenders (those people who almost everyone calls the declarer and dummy) exchange hands before the opening lead and look at each other's hands. Again, a legal-eagle calls you and asks you to apply L24. Do you? On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:46:02 -0400, Sven Pran < svenpran at online.no> wrote: Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? And at the time for the opening lead to be made each defender has 13 major penalty cards. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 22. september 2013 22:31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Prior to opening lead, the two players who are not dummy exchange hands and look at each other's cards. The legal-eagle calls you to the table and asks you to apply Law 24. Do you? (L24 requires the players to put their cards on the table for open inspection.) -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130923/531fcc77/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 23 16:51:07 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:51:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA042B7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA042B7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 23:26:44 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL > >> Sorry, I said it wrong. I meant the non-defenders (those people who >> almost >> everyone calls the declarer and dummy) exchange hands before the opening >> lead and look at each other?s hands. Again, a legal-eagle calls you and >> asks >> you to apply L24. Do you? >Secretary Bird (legal-eagle) Hills: >1. A pseudo-Director may award Average-plus to the offending side, but a > real Director interprets the words of the Lawbook in accordance with the > intent of its Drafting Committee. There are no doubts about the Drafting > Committee?s intentions for the 2007 Law 24. Great. We aren't trying to read L24, we need to guess the intentions? For 2017, can they have an appendix to the law book where they explain what the laws really mean? Anyway, what are the intentions? I mean, the question is if you apply L24. Yes or no. >> > 2. Even if the presumed dummy becomes the actual dummy, exchanging > hands is an intentional infraction. Laws 43A2(a), Well, that's a question. L43A2 is a restriction on dummy and declarer. Does that restriction start after the auction ends, or after the auction period ends. The laws, of course, say auction period. They went through a lot of work to have a tricky definition of declarer and dummy. I agree with you, we should ignore it and do what we think they meant, not what they really said. >> 43B, 72B1 and 90 apply. >Best wishes, >Richard HillsUNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130923/564d9e44/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 23 17:13:01 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:13:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period In-Reply-To: <003b01ceb82c$bdb1a1d0$3914e570$@online.no> References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> <000e01ceb707$1fe49050$5fadb0f0$@online.no> <001a01ceb75e$a10066d0$e3013470$@online.no> <001d01ceb7d4$c02eb7c0$408c2740$@online.no> <003b01ceb82c$bdb1a1d0$3914e570$@online.no> Message-ID: Okay. Prior to opening lead, the nondefenders exchange hands and look at each hand. If they do that after the opening lead, presumably you give some procedural penalty befitting the offense. But this is before the opening lead. Sven requires them to put all of the cards on the table for the defenders to examine. Richard probably makes the same ruling. Is there anyone else in the world who would make this ruling? On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:15:51 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > Again: Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you > understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: > ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of > a player?s own error one or more cards of that >player?s hand were in > position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? > > > But the last part of my answer is now changed to: > > Their opponents retain their right to ask about agreements, they may be > allowed to continue the auction (during >which in case the offenders > must pass whenever it becomes their turn to call), and if the offenders > become >defenders they each has 13 major penalty cards. > > > If the offenders remain the declaring side all 26 cards must remain > faced until the opening lead is to be made, at >which time declarer may > restore his cards to his hand. > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 23. september 2013 04:56 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period > > > Sorry, I said it wrong. I meant the nondefenders (those people who > almost everyone calls the declarer and dummy) >exchange hands before the > opening lead and look at each other's hands. Again, a legal-eagle calls > you and asks you >to apply L24. Do you? > > > On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:46:02 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >> Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you >> understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: >> ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of >> a player?s own error one or more cards of >>that player?s hand were in >> position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? >> >> >> And at the time for the opening lead to be made each defender has 13 >> major penalty cards. >> >> >> >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 22. september 2013 22:31 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period >> >> >> Prior to opening lead, the two players who are not dummy exchange hands >> and look at each other's cards. The >>legal-eagle calls you to the >> table and asks you to apply Law 24. Do you? >> >> >> (L24 requires the players to put their cards on the table for open >> inspection.) > > > > >> -- > > Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130923/2126231a/attachment-0001.html From vip at centrum.is Mon Sep 23 17:34:44 2013 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:34:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1576994000.80286054.1379950484858.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> Yes L24 says there are 26 penalty cards. I give myself that there have been 3 passes, and the declaring side is just waiting for the opening lead. But I will give different ruling, depends on who are involved... 1. Inexperieced players. I will inform them that this is not allowed. Please never do this again, because I will then use L24 against you. 2. Experienced players. I will do the same, but give 10% PP, and be aware if the defence is damaged because of this action. 3. Experts. Law 24. 26 Penalty cards. And the auction period is not over. Law 21B can still be applied. Well I know many will not agree with me here... That is my problem :) Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Robert Frick" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: M?nudagur, 23. September, 2013 15:13:01 Efni: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Okay. Prior to opening lead, the nondefenders exchange hands and look at each hand. If they do that after the opening lead, presumably you give some procedural penalty befitting the offense. But this is before the opening lead. Sven requires them to put all of the cards on the table for the defenders to examine. Richard probably makes the same ruling. Is there anyone else in the world who would make this ruling? ? On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:15:51 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: Again: Sure. What is the problem ? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? ? But the last part of my answer is now changed to: Their opponents retain their right to ask about agreements, they may be allowed to continue the auction (during which in case the offenders must pass whenever it becomes their turn to call), and if the offenders become defenders they each has 13 major penalty cards. ? If the offenders remain the declaring side all 26 cards must remain faced until the opening lead is to be made, at which time declarer may restore his cards to his hand. ? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 23. september 2013 04:56 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period ? Sorry, I said it wrong. I meant the nondefenders (those people who almost everyone calls the declarer and dummy) exchange hands before the opening lead and look at each other's hands. ?Again, a legal-eagle calls you and asks you to apply L24. Do you? ? On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:46:02 -0400, Sven Pran < svenpran at online.no > wrote: ? Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? ? And at the time for the opening lead to be made each defender has 13 major penalty cards. ? ? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [ mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 22. september 2013 22:31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period ? Prior to opening lead, the two players who are not dummy exchange hands and look at each other's cards. The legal-eagle calls you to the table and asks you to apply Law 24. Do you? ? (L24 requires the players to put their cards on the table for open inspection.) -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Mon Sep 23 17:44:39 2013 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (Anton Witzen) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 17:44:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period In-Reply-To: <1576994000.80286054.1379950484858.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> References: <1576994000.80286054.1379950484858.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> Message-ID: <000c01ceb873$d1576ac0$74064040$@upcmail.nl> With 1 i certainly agree, you always give them more leeway and I think with 2 i can have sympathy too, 3 is obvious. I don?t think this article is known by lots of players, good or bad ones. It looks very draconian in the eye of the players I think. Perhaps more education will get rid of the problem of exchanging hands Regards anton A.Witzen (a.k.a. ????? ) Boniplein 86 1094 sg Amsterdam -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Vigf?s P?lsson Verzonden: maandag 23 september 2013 17:35 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Yes L24 says there are 26 penalty cards. I give myself that there have been 3 passes, and the declaring side is just waiting for the opening lead. But I will give different ruling, depends on who are involved... 1. Inexperieced players. I will inform them that this is not allowed. Please never do this again, because I will then use L24 against you. 2. Experienced players. I will do the same, but give 10% PP, and be aware if the defence is damaged because of this action. 3. Experts. Law 24. 26 Penalty cards. And the auction period is not over. Law 21B can still be applied. Well I know many will not agree with me here... That is my problem :) Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Robert Frick" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: M?nudagur, 23. September, 2013 15:13:01 Efni: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Okay. Prior to opening lead, the nondefenders exchange hands and look at each hand. If they do that after the opening lead, presumably you give some procedural penalty befitting the offense. But this is before the opening lead. Sven requires them to put all of the cards on the table for the defenders to examine. Richard probably makes the same ruling. Is there anyone else in the world who would make this ruling? On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:15:51 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: Again: Sure. What is the problem ? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? But the last part of my answer is now changed to: Their opponents retain their right to ask about agreements, they may be allowed to continue the auction (during which in case the offenders must pass whenever it becomes their turn to call), and if the offenders become defenders they each has 13 major penalty cards. If the offenders remain the declaring side all 26 cards must remain faced until the opening lead is to be made, at which time declarer may restore his cards to his hand. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 23. september 2013 04:56 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Sorry, I said it wrong. I meant the nondefenders (those people who almost everyone calls the declarer and dummy) exchange hands before the opening lead and look at each other's hands. Again, a legal-eagle calls you and asks you to apply L24. Do you? On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:46:02 -0400, Sven Pran < svenpran at online.no > wrote: Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? And at the time for the opening lead to be made each defender has 13 major penalty cards. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [ mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 22. september 2013 22:31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Prior to opening lead, the two players who are not dummy exchange hands and look at each other's cards. The legal-eagle calls you to the table and asks you to apply Law 24. Do you? (L24 requires the players to put their cards on the table for open inspection.) -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Sep 23 17:47:11 2013 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 17:47:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period In-Reply-To: References: <1379754176.96933.YahooMailNeo@web87901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <004001ceb6f6$0f14bb30$2d3e3190$@online.no> <000e01ceb707$1fe49050$5fadb0f0$@online.no> <001a01ceb75e$a10066d0$e3013470$@online.no> <001d01ceb7d4$c02eb7c0$408c2740$@online.no> <003b01ceb82c$bdb1a1d0$3914e570$@online.no> Message-ID: <010601ceb874$2cf1e310$86d5a930$@xs4all.nl> Yes, I would. We just had an old problem at the intermediate TD course exam. Now presumed declarer/dummy exchange their hands just while the last defender ponders his last bid. He is probably going to pass, but now the ruling is 26 penalty cards, he can save, cannot be doubled anymore, and might make any ridiculous contract. That is the law as it is, and I have very little sympathy for players who do this. It is actually very easy to avoid suffering from this law. Just play bridge. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: maandag 23 september 2013 17:13 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Okay. Prior to opening lead, the nondefenders exchange hands and look at each hand. If they do that after the opening lead, presumably you give some procedural penalty befitting the offense. But this is before the opening lead. Sven requires them to put all of the cards on the table for the defenders to examine. Richard probably makes the same ruling. Is there anyone else in the world who would make this ruling? On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:15:51 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: Again: Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? But the last part of my answer is now changed to: Their opponents retain their right to ask about agreements, they may be allowed to continue the auction (during which in case the offenders must pass whenever it becomes their turn to call), and if the offenders become defenders they each has 13 major penalty cards. If the offenders remain the declaring side all 26 cards must remain faced until the opening lead is to be made, at which time declarer may restore his cards to his hand. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 23. september 2013 04:56 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Sorry, I said it wrong. I meant the nondefenders (those people who almost everyone calls the declarer and dummy) exchange hands before the opening lead and look at each other's hands. Again, a legal-eagle calls you and asks you to apply L24. Do you? On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:46:02 -0400, Sven Pran < svenpran at online.no> wrote: Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? And at the time for the opening lead to be made each defender has 13 major penalty cards. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 22. september 2013 22:31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Prior to opening lead, the two players who are not dummy exchange hands and look at each other's cards. The legal-eagle calls you to the table and asks you to apply Law 24. Do you? (L24 requires the players to put their cards on the table for open inspection.) -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130923/4d0bf02a/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 24 00:08:28 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 22:08:28 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA05F8E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills, 23rd September 2013 (and past similar pseudo-comments): >>1. A pseudo-Director may award Average-plus to the offending side, >>but a real Director interprets the words of the Lawbook in accordance >>with the intent of its Drafting Committee. There are no doubts about >>the Drafting Committee's intentions for the 2007 Law 24. >>..... >Great. We aren't trying to read L24, we need to guess the intentions? >For 2017, can they have an appendix to the law book where they >explain what the laws really mean? > >Anyway, what are the intentions? >..... Sven Pran, 3rd September 2013 (and past similar devilish comments): ..... And the only ambiguities I know about in the laws are those found by nit-picking students that love dissecting details in the laws instead of concentrating on the principles. We have a saying for that in Norwegian, it translates to something like: "how the devil reads the Holy Bible". UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130923/c31f7dee/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 24 01:03:19 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:03:19 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA05FBE@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>..... >>Is there anyone else in the world who would make this ruling? Hans van Staveren: >Yes, I would. We just had an old problem at the intermediate TD course exam. >Now presume declarer/dummy exchange their hands just while the last defender >ponders his last bid. He is probably going to pass, but now the ruling is 26 >penalty cards, he can save, cannot be doubled anymore, and might make any >ridiculous contract. > >That is the law as it is, and I have very little sympathy for players who do this. >It is actually very easy to avoid suffering from this law. Just play bridge. > >Hans Richard Hills: Yes and No. Possible exception to 26 penalty cards ruling, Law 81C5: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to waive rectification ++for cause++, in ++his discretion++, upon ++the request of the non-offending side++." I presume that Vigfus Palsson and Anton Witzen gain the consent of the non- offending side before they waive rectification caused by an irregularity from a novice offending side. (If I was the Director, I would believe that the "for cause" criterion was satisfied by the "cause" of beginner infractors.) Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130923/4e9ccf29/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 24 06:20:03 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 00:20:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period In-Reply-To: <1576994000.80286054.1379950484858.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> References: <1576994000.80286054.1379950484858.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> Message-ID: Hi Vigfus. Can I ask about this scenario? Declarer places his hand on the table, say to write down the contract, and realizes to his horror he has placed it face up. He quickly picks it up. If this is after the opening lead, we of course allow this -- no harm, no foul. But what if it is before the opening lead? Do you require him to place his hand face up on the table so that the defenders can inspect it before the opening lead? (Sven, Richard, we already know your answer.) On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:34:44 -0400, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > Yes L24 says there are 26 penalty cards. > I give myself that there have been 3 passes, and the declaring side is > just waiting for the opening lead. > > But I will give different ruling, depends on who are involved... > > 1. Inexperieced players. I will inform them that this is not allowed. > Please never do this again, because I will then use L24 against you. > 2. Experienced players. I will do the same, but give 10% PP, and be > aware if the defence is damaged because of this action. > 3. Experts. Law 24. 26 Penalty cards. And the auction period is > not over. Law 21B can still be applied. > > Well I know many will not agree with me here... That is my problem :) > > Greetings from Iceland > > Vigfus Palsson > > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > Fr?: "Robert Frick" > Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: M?nudagur, 23. September, 2013 15:13:01 > Efni: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period > > > > Okay. Prior to opening lead, the nondefenders exchange hands and look at > each hand. If they do that after the opening lead, presumably you give > some procedural penalty befitting the offense. But this is before the > opening lead. > > > Sven requires them to put all of the cards on the table for the > defenders to examine. Richard probably makes the same ruling. > > > > > Is there anyone else in the world who would make this ruling? > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:15:51 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > Again: Sure. What is the problem ? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you > understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: > > ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of > a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in > position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? > > > But the last part of my answer is now changed to: > > Their opponents retain their right to ask about agreements, they may be > allowed to continue the auction (during which in case the offenders must > pass whenever it becomes their turn to call), and if the offenders > become defenders they each has 13 major penalty cards. > > > If the offenders remain the declaring side all 26 cards must remain > faced until the opening lead is to be made, at which time declarer may > restore his cards to his hand. > > > > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 23. september 2013 04:56 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period > > > > Sorry, I said it wrong. I meant the nondefenders (those people who > almost everyone calls the declarer and dummy) exchange hands before the > opening lead and look at each other's hands. Again, a legal-eagle calls > you and asks you to apply L24. Do you? > > > > > On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:46:02 -0400, Sven Pran < svenpran at online.no > > wrote: > > > > > Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) > the very first sentence in Law 24: > > ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of > a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in > position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? > > > And at the time for the opening lead to be made each defender has 13 > major penalty cards. > > > > > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [ mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] P? vegne > av Robert Frick > Sendt: 22. september 2013 22:31 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period > > > > Prior to opening lead, the two players who are not dummy exchange hands > and look at each other's cards. The legal-eagle calls you to the table > and asks you to apply Law 24. Do you? > > > > > (L24 requires the players to put their cards on the table for open > inspection.) > > > > > > > -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 24 06:45:21 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 04:45:21 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA072F4@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Hilda R. Lirsch (1959 - ): "Rhetoric including 'of course' is of course often incomplete." >..... >? Declarer places his hand on the table, say to write down the >contract, and realizes to his horror he has placed it face up. He >quickly picks it up. If this is after the opening lead, we of >course allow this -- no harm, no foul. Law 54A (Declarer Spreads His Hand): "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes declarer." >But what if it is before the opening lead? Do you require him >to place his hand face up on the table so that the defenders can >inspect it before the opening lead? Law 54E (Opening Lead by Wrong Side): "If a player of the declaring side attempts to make an opening lead Law 24 applies." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130924/619c348c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 24 07:07:03 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:07:03 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Classic comments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA0731D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Todd Zimnoch, May 2003: >The same scenario happened in a club game last night. 3DX >declared by the doubling side for -1100. The director wasn't >called until after the hand had been played when the usurping >declarer declared, "This is the strangest thing. I doubled their >3D and...." It was a team game. The director found all four >players at fault and had them throw out the board. Adam Beneschan, May 2003: Seems backwards to me . . . shouldn't the director have kept the board and thrown out the players??? UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130924/12336fd8/attachment.html From vip at centrum.is Tue Sep 24 17:15:40 2013 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:15:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <35169113.81038441.1380035740380.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> Hello Robert. In this case we are still in the auction period. Again I assume there have been 3 passes, so there is no argument who is the declarer. So this case is still in L24. I really doubt this will be L21B case. Here we have a case where the offending side has damaged itself without any damage to the non-offending side. So I, as TD will not force declarer to make himself more damage than he has already done. L81C5 here as already have been pointed out. And it does not matter wether declarer is a beginner or a world-champion. Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Robert Frick" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: ?ri?judagur, 24. September, 2013 04:20:03 Efni: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Hi Vigfus. Can I ask about this scenario? Declarer places his hand on the table, say to write down the contract, and realizes to his horror he has placed it face up. He quickly picks it up. If this is after the opening lead, we of course allow this -- no harm, no foul. But what if it is before the opening lead? Do you require him to place his hand face up on the table so that the defenders can inspect it before the opening lead? (Sven, Richard, we already know your answer.) On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:34:44 -0400, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > Yes L24 says there are 26 penalty cards. > I give myself that there have been 3 passes, and the declaring side is > just waiting for the opening lead. > > But I will give different ruling, depends on who are involved... > > 1. Inexperieced players. I will inform them that this is not allowed. > Please never do this again, because I will then use L24 against you. > 2. Experienced players. I will do the same, but give 10% PP, and be > aware if the defence is damaged because of this action. > 3. Experts. Law 24. 26 Penalty cards. And the auction period is > not over. Law 21B can still be applied. > > Well I know many will not agree with me here... That is my problem :) > > Greetings from Iceland > > Vigfus Palsson > > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > Fr?: "Robert Frick" > Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: M?nudagur, 23. September, 2013 15:13:01 > Efni: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period > > > > Okay. Prior to opening lead, the nondefenders exchange hands and look at > each hand. If they do that after the opening lead, presumably you give > some procedural penalty befitting the offense. But this is before the > opening lead. > > > Sven requires them to put all of the cards on the table for the > defenders to examine. Richard probably makes the same ruling. > > > > > Is there anyone else in the world who would make this ruling? > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:15:51 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > Again: Sure. What is the problem ? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you > understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: > > ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of > a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in > position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? > > > But the last part of my answer is now changed to: > > Their opponents retain their right to ask about agreements, they may be > allowed to continue the auction (during which in case the offenders must > pass whenever it becomes their turn to call), and if the offenders > become defenders they each has 13 major penalty cards. > > > If the offenders remain the declaring side all 26 cards must remain > faced until the opening lead is to be made, at which time declarer may > restore his cards to his hand. > > > > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 23. september 2013 04:56 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period > > > > Sorry, I said it wrong. I meant the nondefenders (those people who > almost everyone calls the declarer and dummy) exchange hands before the > opening lead and look at each other's hands. Again, a legal-eagle calls > you and asks you to apply L24. Do you? > > > > > On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:46:02 -0400, Sven Pran < svenpran at online.no > > wrote: > > > > > Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) > the very first sentence in Law 24: > > ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of > a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in > position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? > > > And at the time for the opening lead to be made each defender has 13 > major penalty cards. > > > > > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [ mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] P? vegne > av Robert Frick > Sendt: 22. september 2013 22:31 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period > > > > Prior to opening lead, the two players who are not dummy exchange hands > and look at each other's cards. The legal-eagle calls you to the table > and asks you to apply Law 24. Do you? > > > > > (L24 requires the players to put their cards on the table for open > inspection.) > > > > > > > -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 25 02:38:33 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:38:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period In-Reply-To: <35169113.81038441.1380035740380.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> References: <35169113.81038441.1380035740380.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> Message-ID: If (1) you have a sense of compassion and justice, and (2) you make some ridiculous unfair ruling just because you think it follows the laws, it is not good for your mental health. You will feel some guilt. You will probably change beliefs to reduce guilt. So you will say "It is the job of the director to enforce the rules no matter what they are" or "players who make mistakes should expect to be punished." You want to be thinking, "We are all working together to make bridge a fun game." And, "The job of the director is to resolve disputes in a good way." Or things like that. You are also holding the laws up for disrespect. Can anyone really respect a law that makes declarer put his cards back down on the table? Of course, you are hoping the defender's don't read the lawbook. And if they know the laws, they might appeal and win. But Sven et al. have the same problem there. We directors should not accept this situation. Bob On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:15:40 -0400, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > Hello Robert. > In this case we are still in the auction period. Again I assume there > have been > 3 passes, so there is no argument who is the declarer. > > So this case is still in L24. I really doubt this will be L21B case. > Here we have a case where the offending side has damaged itself without > any damage to the non-offending side. > So I, as TD will not force declarer to make himself more damage than he > has already done. > L81C5 here as already have been pointed out. And it does not matter > wether declarer is a beginner or a world-champion. > > Greetings from Iceland > Vigfus Palsson > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > Fr?: "Robert Frick" > Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: ?ri?judagur, 24. September, 2013 04:20:03 > Efni: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period > > Hi Vigfus. Can I ask about this scenario? Declarer places his hand on the > table, say to write down the contract, and realizes to his horror he has > placed it face up. He quickly picks it up. If this is after the opening > lead, we of course allow this -- no harm, no foul. But what if it is > before the opening lead? Do you require him to place his hand face up on > the table so that the defenders can inspect it before the opening lead? > > (Sven, Richard, we already know your answer.) > > > On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:34:44 -0400, Vigf?s P?lsson > wrote: > >> Yes L24 says there are 26 penalty cards. >> I give myself that there have been 3 passes, and the declaring side is >> just waiting for the opening lead. >> >> But I will give different ruling, depends on who are involved... >> >> 1. Inexperieced players. I will inform them that this is not allowed. >> Please never do this again, because I will then use L24 against you. >> 2. Experienced players. I will do the same, but give 10% PP, and be >> aware if the defence is damaged because of this action. >> 3. Experts. Law 24. 26 Penalty cards. And the auction period is >> not over. Law 21B can still be applied. >> >> Well I know many will not agree with me here... That is my problem :) >> >> Greetings from Iceland >> >> Vigfus Palsson >> >> >> ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- >> Fr?: "Robert Frick" >> Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: M?nudagur, 23. September, 2013 15:13:01 >> Efni: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period >> >> >> >> Okay. Prior to opening lead, the nondefenders exchange hands and look at >> each hand. If they do that after the opening lead, presumably you give >> some procedural penalty befitting the offense. But this is before the >> opening lead. >> >> >> Sven requires them to put all of the cards on the table for the >> defenders to examine. Richard probably makes the same ruling. >> >> >> >> >> Is there anyone else in the world who would make this ruling? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:15:51 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Again: Sure. What is the problem ? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you >> understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: >> >> ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of >> a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in >> position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? >> >> >> But the last part of my answer is now changed to: >> >> Their opponents retain their right to ask about agreements, they may be >> allowed to continue the auction (during which in case the offenders must >> pass whenever it becomes their turn to call), and if the offenders >> become defenders they each has 13 major penalty cards. >> >> >> If the offenders remain the declaring side all 26 cards must remain >> faced until the opening lead is to be made, at which time declarer may >> restore his cards to his hand. >> >> >> >> >> >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 23. september 2013 04:56 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period >> >> >> >> Sorry, I said it wrong. I meant the nondefenders (those people who >> almost everyone calls the declarer and dummy) exchange hands before the >> opening lead and look at each other's hands. Again, a legal-eagle calls >> you and asks you to apply L24. Do you? >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:46:02 -0400, Sven Pran < svenpran at online.no > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) >> the very first sentence in Law 24: >> >> ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of >> a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in >> position for the face to be seen by his partner [?]?? >> >> >> And at the time for the opening lead to be made each defender has 13 >> major penalty cards. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [ mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] P? vegne >> av Robert Frick >> Sendt: 22. september 2013 22:31 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period >> >> >> >> Prior to opening lead, the two players who are not dummy exchange hands >> and look at each other's cards. The legal-eagle calls you to the table >> and asks you to apply Law 24. Do you? >> >> >> >> >> (L24 requires the players to put their cards on the table for open >> inspection.) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 25 04:21:56 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 02:21:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA07C1D@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >If (1) you have a sense of compassion and justice, and >(2) you make some ridiculous unfair ruling just because >you think it follows the laws, it is not good for your >mental health. You will feel some guilt. >..... Richard Hills: If (1) you have a sense of compassion and justice, and (2) you make some ridiculous unLawful ruling just because your greedy club owner will profit by keeping a customer, it is not good for your mental health. A regular at the bridge club infracts, so should receive Average-minus. But to keep her regular table money, rather than have her squander that money on Bingo!, the club owner orders a "feelgood" Average-plus. But..... All non-offending sides sitting the same way at other tables therefore have matchpoints stolen from them. In one case that is crucial; a non-offender misses out on a masterpoint which would give her a coveted Life Master title. And before she gets another chance she dies of lung cancer. You ++should++ feel some guilt. Law 72A (General Principles, Observance of Laws): "Duplicate bridge tournaments ++should++ be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130925/c0408def/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 25 07:36:33 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 05:36:33 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Law and the profits (was L24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Calvin: "Other kids' games are all such a bore! They've gotta have rules and they gotta keep score! Calvinball is better by far! It's never the same! It's always bizarre! You don't need a team or a referee! You know that it's great, 'cause it's named after me!" Law 72A (General Principles, Observance of Laws): "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in ++strict++ accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Calvin: "The score is still Q to 12!" Richard Hills: My sister is the genius in my family. She shares my liking for strategy board games. But when I visit her with a new game, but reveal a crucial rule halfway through, she correctly casts nasturtiums at me, accusing me of playing "Calvinball". Likewise if a Director decides to eschew umpiring Duplicate Bridge, but instead umpires Calvinball Bridge (by intentionally breaking rules that this particular Director does not like), the Director should not do so half- way through the session - full and free disclosure of the Calvinistic Director's tastes should be provided to ALL of the contestants in ADVANCE, during prior events. Unofficial Official Rules of Calvinball http://www.bartel.org/calvinball/ UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130925/7df7d2f2/attachment.html From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Wed Sep 25 14:27:20 2013 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier beauvillain) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:27:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] RE : L24 auction versus auction period In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <14D06F7C8DC44E42954FFABA958B8A81@utilisateurPC> Hello, Presumed declarer & dummy exchanged cards before opening lead ? No penalty card for declarer No dummy exposed before openong lead ... But according to L43A2a, dummy lost his rights, so is no longer allowed to prevent a declarer revoke or so Olivier Beauvillain -----Message d'origine----- De : blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de Robert Frick Envoy? : lundi 23 septembre 2013 17:13 ? : Bridge Laws Mailing List Objet : Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Okay. Prior to opening lead, the nondefenders exchange hands and look at each hand. If they do that after the opening lead, presumably you give some procedural penalty befitting the offense. But this is before the opening lead. Sven requires them to put all of the cards on the table for the defenders to examine. Richard probably makes the same ruling. Is there anyone else in the world who would make this ruling? On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:15:51 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: Again: Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner [ ]?? But the last part of my answer is now changed to: Their opponents retain their right to ask about agreements, they may be allowed to continue the auction (during which in case the offenders must pass whenever it becomes their turn to call), and if the offenders become defenders they each has 13 major penalty cards. If the offenders remain the declaring side all 26 cards must remain faced until the opening lead is to be made, at which time declarer may restore his cards to his hand. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 23. september 2013 04:56 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Sorry, I said it wrong. I meant the nondefenders (those people who almost everyone calls the declarer and dummy) exchange hands before the opening lead and look at each other's hands. Again, a legal-eagle calls you and asks you to apply L24. Do you? On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:46:02 -0400, Sven Pran < svenpran at online.no> wrote: Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner [ ]?? And at the time for the opening lead to be made each defender has 13 major penalty cards. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 22. september 2013 22:31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Prior to opening lead, the two players who are not dummy exchange hands and look at each other's cards. The legal-eagle calls you to the table and asks you to apply Law 24. Do you? (L24 requires the players to put their cards on the table for open inspection.) -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130925/0054eb37/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 25 15:33:11 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:33:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] RE : L24 auction versus auction period In-Reply-To: <14D06F7C8DC44E42954FFABA958B8A81@utilisateurPC> References: <14D06F7C8DC44E42954FFABA958B8A81@utilisateurPC> Message-ID: <001901ceb9f3$c8062340$581269c0$@online.no> If presumed declarer & dummy exchange cards before the opening lead is faced then all their 26 cards must be placed face up on the table and remain faced until the opening lead is faced! (Law 24) If misinformation from presumed declaring side (during the auction so far) is revealed during the clarification period (which doesn?t expire until the opening lead is faced) and as a result the auction is reopened under Law 21B1a, then each player on the presumed declaring side must pass when next it is his turn to call during the continued auction. (Law 24C) If as a result of the continued auction the originally presumed defending side becomes the declaring side then all such exposed cards become major penalty cards and declarer may instruct each defender to play his cards according to declarer?s selection (however insane such plays will be). (Law 51A) (If presumed declarer becomes declarer he may pick up his cards when the opening lead is faced.) These are not my requirements, they are the laws! Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av olivier beauvillain Sendt: 25. september 2013 14:27 Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Emne: [BLML] RE : L24 auction versus auction period Hello, Presumed declarer & dummy exchanged cards before opening lead ? No penalty card for declarer No dummy exposed before openong lead ... But according to L43A2a, dummy lost his rights, so is no longer allowed to prevent a declarer revoke or so Olivier Beauvillain -----Message d'origine----- De : blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de Robert Frick Envoy? : lundi 23 septembre 2013 17:13 ? : Bridge Laws Mailing List Objet : Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Okay. Prior to opening lead, the nondefenders exchange hands and look at each hand. If they do that after the opening lead, presumably you give some procedural penalty befitting the offense. But this is before the opening lead. Sven requires them to put all of the cards on the table for the defenders to examine. Richard probably makes the same ruling. Is there anyone else in the world who would make this ruling? On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:15:51 -0400, Sven Pran < svenpran at online.no> wrote: Again: Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner [ ]?? But the last part of my answer is now changed to: Their opponents retain their right to ask about agreements, they may be allowed to continue the auction (during which in case the offenders must pass whenever it becomes their turn to call), and if the offenders become defenders they each has 13 major penalty cards. If the offenders remain the declaring side all 26 cards must remain faced until the opening lead is to be made, at which time declarer may restore his cards to his hand. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 23. september 2013 04:56 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Sorry, I said it wrong. I meant the nondefenders (those people who almost everyone calls the declarer and dummy) exchange hands before the opening lead and look at each other's hands. Again, a legal-eagle calls you and asks you to apply L24. Do you? On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:46:02 -0400, Sven Pran < svenpran at online.no> wrote: Sure. What is the problem? Haven?t you noticed (or don?t you understand) the very first sentence in Law 24: ?When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s own error one or more cards of that player?s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner [ ]?? And at the time for the opening lead to be made each defender has 13 major penalty cards. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 22. september 2013 22:31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] L24 auction versus auction period Prior to opening lead, the two players who are not dummy exchange hands and look at each other's cards. The legal-eagle calls you to the table and asks you to apply Law 24. Do you? (L24 requires the players to put their cards on the table for open inspection.) -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130925/ce37ec23/attachment.html From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Wed Sep 25 16:36:48 2013 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:36:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] HdW on youtube In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130925143651.7DA6AE78C4D@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> http://youtu.be/x1mFJaXZP-U around 6:30 From vip at centrum.is Sat Sep 28 23:06:28 2013 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 21:06:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Revoke VS Revoke In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30FA09242@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <195890373.84116651.1380402388235.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> Q23 KJ109 Q23 652 A654 KJ10 Q23 76 J2 7654 10987 KQJ3 978 A854 AK109 A4 Contract. 3NT South First case. Opening lead sp4. Defence gets the firts 4 tricks, and when West leads the fourth spade, North and South pitch a club, and East discards the king of clubs. trick 5. club 10 and south takes the trick with the Ace. Small heart to the 9, Back to the Ace, 2 more hearts, and E/W discard club. DA takes the next trick. D9 to the Q, and West revokes by discarding more club. At trick 12, small di and finessing the 10, West revokes again and 9 tricks to declarer. E/W did not get the revoke trick, and no trick after the revoke, so no adjustment to the score. Second case. Opening lead C10, taken with the ace. Small heart to the 9, Back to the Ace, 2 more hearts, and E/W discard spades & clubs. DA takes the next trick. D9 to the Q, and West revokes by discarding more club. small di and finessing the 10, West revokes again. 9 tricks. Spade to the Queen and the defence takes the last 4 tricks, and the revoke is discovered. E/W did get tricks after the revoke. Therefore 1 trick is transfered to N/S. Score is adjusted to 10 tricks N/S Those are the laws. The laws are clear here. The TD rules here according to the laws, no matter if the players are beginners or world-champions. But now we have a problem. Most bridge players realize that the revoke had no effect about the result of the board. Most of them know the laws, but many of them do not call TD. They ignore the laws here. The laws are not fair in their opinion. My point here is, when bridge players do not want to follow the laws because they feel the laws unfair, Then we have to do something about the laws. This senario is made up by myself. But I have often seen players ignore the laws in cases like these. Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 29 02:38:49 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 20:38:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Revoke VS Revoke In-Reply-To: <195890373.84116651.1380402388235.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> References: <195890373.84116651.1380402388235.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> Message-ID: I am not sure what the solution would be, at least for the laws. If you make the rectification to be just for equity, the director has to analyze almost every revoke hand. I would not have had time for that yesterday -- I was 100% busy until the middle of the 7th round (of 8), and I had I think at least 3 revokes. I apologized for the two-trick penalties and moved on. On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:06:28 -0400, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > Q23 > KJ109 > Q23 > 652 > > A654 KJ10 > Q23 76 > J2 7654 > 10987 KQJ3 > 978 > A854 > AK109 > A4 > > Contract. 3NT South > > First case. > Opening lead sp4. Defence gets the firts 4 tricks, and when West > leads the fourth spade, > North and South pitch a club, and East discards the king of clubs. > trick 5. club 10 and south takes the trick with the Ace. > Small heart to the 9, Back to the Ace, 2 more hearts, and E/W discard > club. > DA takes the next trick. D9 to the Q, and West revokes by discarding > more club. > At trick 12, small di and finessing the 10, West revokes again and 9 > tricks to declarer. > E/W did not get the revoke trick, and no trick after the revoke, so no > adjustment to the score. > > Second case. > Opening lead C10, taken with the ace. > Small heart to the 9, Back to the Ace, 2 more hearts, and E/W discard > spades & clubs. > DA takes the next trick. D9 to the Q, and West revokes by discarding > more club. > small di and finessing the 10, West revokes again. 9 tricks. > Spade to the Queen and the defence takes the last 4 tricks, and the > revoke is discovered. > E/W did get tricks after the revoke. Therefore 1 trick is transfered to > N/S. > Score is adjusted to 10 tricks N/S > > Those are the laws. The laws are clear here. > The TD rules here according to the laws, no matter if the players are > beginners or world-champions. > > But now we have a problem. Most bridge players realize that the revoke > had no effect about the result of the board. > Most of them know the laws, but many of them do not call TD. They ignore > the laws here. The laws are not fair in their opinion. > > My point here is, when bridge players do not want to follow the laws > because they feel the laws unfair, > Then we have to do something about the laws. > > This senario is made up by myself. But I have often seen players ignore > the laws in cases like these. > > Greetings from Iceland > > Vigfus Palsson > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/