From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Aug 5 19:02:11 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 13:02:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] both players forget Message-ID: N E S W 1D P 3C alerted and (eventually) described as criss-cross. The player had forgotten and had a weak jump shift in clubs. But both players agree that 3C is criss-cross and it's on their card. No rectification, right? N E S W 1D P 3C P P Today, both players forgot they were playing criss-cross. When asked, North was woken up and answered "criss-cross". Did the opponents receive an accurate description of the Nourth-South agreement? (All the other elements are present for rectification). From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Wed Aug 6 02:16:59 2014 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 01:16:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79B Message-ID: <000a01cfb10b$c73ddab0$55b99010$@btinternet.com> B. Disagreement on Tricks Won If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, applies Law 69. 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to increase a side's score. I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training Course and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to me to be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be interested to hear other opinions before offering it) Any thoughts? Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140806/e95313e4/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Aug 6 06:32:00 2014 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:32:00 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 79B In-Reply-To: <000a01cfb10b$c73ddab0$55b99010$@btinternet.com> References: <000a01cfb10b$c73ddab0$55b99010$@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Hi all This was not in any previous set of laws (back to 1975) and and apparently not in the original 2007 Laws but was an amendment. ? 19 October 2007: The following typographical errors are corrected: snip Law 79B2 - "C or D below, as applicable," changed to "C below or Law 87, as applicable," Perhaps one of those who were there at the time could comment, Ton, Grattan? Best wishes bill kemp From: Mike Amos Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 8:16 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] Law 79B B. Disagreement on Tricks Won If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, applies Law 69. 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to increase a side?s score. I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training Course and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to me to be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be interested to hear other opinions before offering it) Any thoughts? Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7989 - Release Date: 08/05/14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140806/c1683660/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 06:57:10 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:57:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 79B In-Reply-To: References: <000a01cfb10b$c73ddab0$55b99010$@btinternet.com> Message-ID: I was there at the time (as a semi-official proofreader). Law 79B deals with scoring errors. Law 87 deals with rectification of scoring errors caused by fouled board(s). What's the problem? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:32 PM, bill kemp wrote: > Hi all > This was not in any previous set of laws (back to 1975) and and apparently > not in the original 2007 Laws but was an amendment. > > ? 19 October 2007: > > The following typographical errors are corrected: > > *snip* > > *Law 79B2 *- "C or D below, as applicable," changed to > > "C below or Law 87, as applicable," > > > Perhaps one of those who were there at the time could comment, Ton, > Grattan? > > Best wishes > > bill kemp > > > > *From:* Mike Amos > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 06, 2014 8:16 AM > *To:* 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > *Subject:* [BLML] Law 79B > > > *B. Disagreement on Tricks Won* > > > > > > *If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then:1. > The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, > if so, applies Law 69.2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score > is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he > rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall > be no obligation to increase a side?s score.* > > I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training Course > and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. > > I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to me > to be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be interested > to hear other opinions before offering it) > > Any thoughts? > > Mike > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > 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: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7989 - Release Date: 08/05/14 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140806/c857c93d/attachment-0001.html From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Wed Aug 6 07:49:40 2014 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 06:49:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79B In-Reply-To: References: <000a01cfb10b$c73ddab0$55b99010$@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <002401cfb13a$3bd136a0$b373a3e0$@btinternet.com> Because I don?t see why Law 79B which is about disagreement on the number of tricks won, requires a reference to the Law about fouled boards. It seems that a reference to Law 85 makes more sense in this context Mike From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hills Sent: 06 August 2014 05:57 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 79B I was there at the time (as a semi-official proofreader). Law 79B deals with scoring errors. Law 87 deals with rectification of scoring errors caused by fouled board(s). What's the problem? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:32 PM, bill kemp > wrote: Hi all This was not in any previous set of laws (back to 1975) and and apparently not in the original 2007 Laws but was an amendment. ? 19 October 2007: The following typographical errors are corrected: snip Law 79B2 - "C or D below, as applicable," changed to "C below or Law 87, as applicable," Perhaps one of those who were there at the time could comment, Ton, Grattan? Best wishes bill kemp From: Mike Amos Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 8:16 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] Law 79B B. Disagreement on Tricks Won If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, applies Law 69. 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to increase a side?s score. I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training Course and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to me to be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be interested to hear other opinions before offering it) Any thoughts? Mike _____ _______________________________________________ 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: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7989 - Release Date: 08/05/14 _______________________________________________ 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/20140806/c51da032/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Aug 6 09:01:08 2014 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 15:01:08 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 79B In-Reply-To: <002401cfb13a$3bd136a0$b373a3e0$@btinternet.com> References: <000a01cfb10b$c73ddab0$55b99010$@btinternet.com> <002401cfb13a$3bd136a0$b373a3e0$@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <7D1C0ADFFDE245CDAD0F251CF4C0C9BF@toshiba> At the risk of appearing picky, If the reference to 87 is required I would prefer to see it in 79C Best wishes bill kemp From: Mike Amos Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 1:49 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 79B Because I don?t see why Law 79B which is about disagreement on the number of tricks won, requires a reference to the Law about fouled boards. It seems that a reference to Law 85 makes more sense in this context Mike From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hills Sent: 06 August 2014 05:57 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 79B I was there at the time (as a semi-official proofreader). Law 79B deals with scoring errors. Law 87 deals with rectification of scoring errors caused by fouled board(s). What's the problem? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:32 PM, bill kemp wrote: Hi all This was not in any previous set of laws (back to 1975) and and apparently not in the original 2007 Laws but was an amendment. ? 19 October 2007: The following typographical errors are corrected: snip Law 79B2 - "C or D below, as applicable," changed to "C below or Law 87, as applicable," Perhaps one of those who were there at the time could comment, Ton, Grattan? Best wishes bill kemp From: Mike Amos Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 8:16 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] Law 79B B. Disagreement on Tricks Won If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, applies Law 69. 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to increase a side?s score. I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training Course and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to me to be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be interested to hear other opinions before offering it) Any thoughts? Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7989 - Release Date: 08/05/14 _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7989 - Release Date: 08/05/14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140806/312b1f53/attachment-0001.html From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Aug 6 09:06:03 2014 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 09:06:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_79B?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1XEvIR-2d0yae0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140806/908c50b0/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Law 79.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 18493 bytes Desc: Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140806/908c50b0/attachment-0001.pdf From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Wed Aug 6 10:07:27 2014 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 09:07:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 79B In-Reply-To: <1XEvIR-2d0yae0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> References: <1XEvIR-2d0yae0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001301cfb14d$7b1f4a00$715dde00$@btinternet.com> Thanks Peter ? but it still seems that this reference to 87 is just a mistake here ? fouled boards have no connection to disagreements about score except that at some stage in the drafting of 2007 Laws Fouled Boards was temporarily moved to Law 79D Mike From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Peter Eidt Sent: 06 August 2014 08:06 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 79B Hi all, ... hopefully the attachment is ok ... It shows the draft from Oktober 2007 and the situation where Law 87 (fouled board) was integrated in Law 79(D) beforehand and crossed out (desintegrated) again. The reference in Law 79B2 ("in accordance with C or D below") survived this desintegration though ... Nothing to do with Law 85, Mike. Von: "bill kemp" > Hi all This was not in any previous set of laws (back to 1975) and and apparently not in the original 2007 Laws but was an amendment. ? 19 October 2007: The following typographical errors are corrected: snip Law 79B2 - "C or D below, as applicable," changed to "C below or Law 87, as applicable," Perhaps one of those who were there at the time could comment, Ton, Grattan? Best wishes bill kemp From: Mike Amos Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 8:16 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] Law 79B B. Disagreement on Tricks Won If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, applies Law 69. 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to increase a side?s score. I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training Course and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to me to be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be interested to hear other opinions before offering it) Any thoughts? Mike _____ _______________________________________________ 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: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7989 - Release Date: 08/05/14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140806/93cb1864/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 6 11:22:30 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 11:22:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 79B In-Reply-To: <001301cfb14d$7b1f4a00$715dde00$@btinternet.com> References: <1XEvIR-2d0yae0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <001301cfb14d$7b1f4a00$715dde00$@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <002e01cfb157$f331c4f0$d9954ed0$@online.no> Well, I think the reference to Law 87, although relevant, is unnecessary because if it is discovered during the application of Law 79B that the board in question was indeed fouled then a switch to Law 87 should be automatic. It seems to me that its inclusion is an accidental result of the repeated changes in Law 79 during drafting of the 2007 laws as documented in the paper submitted by Peter. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Mike Amos Sendt: 6. august 2014 10:07 Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 79B Thanks Peter ? but it still seems that this reference to 87 is just a mistake here ? fouled boards have no connection to disagreements about score except that at some stage in the drafting of 2007 Laws Fouled Boards was temporarily moved to Law 79D Mike From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Peter Eidt Sent: 06 August 2014 08:06 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 79B Hi all, ... hopefully the attachment is ok ... It shows the draft from Oktober 2007 and the situation where Law 87 (fouled board) was integrated in Law 79(D) beforehand and crossed out (desintegrated) again. The reference in Law 79B2 ("in accordance with C or D below") survived this desintegration though ... Nothing to do with Law 85, Mike. Von: "bill kemp" Hi all This was not in any previous set of laws (back to 1975) and and apparently not in the original 2007 Laws but was an amendment. ? 19 October 2007: The following typographical errors are corrected: snip Law 79B2 - "C or D below, as applicable," changed to "C below or Law 87, as applicable," Perhaps one of those who were there at the time could comment, Ton, Grattan? Best wishes bill kemp From: Mike Amos Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 8:16 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] Law 79B B. Disagreement on Tricks Won If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, applies Law 69. 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to increase a side?s score. I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training Course and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to me to be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be interested to hear other opinions before offering it) Any thoughts? Mike _____ _______________________________________________ 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: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7989 - Release Date: 08/05/14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140806/23736ba7/attachment-0001.html From member at linkedin.com Wed Aug 6 20:10:24 2014 From: member at linkedin.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ray_Gur_=C3=BCber_LinkedIn?=) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 18:10:24 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Richard_Bley=2C_bitte_f=C3=BCgen_Sie_mich_zu_Ihr?= =?utf-8?q?em_beruflichen_Netzwerk_auf_LinkedIn_hinzu=2E?= Message-ID: <392022659.56312573.1407348624259.JavaMail.app@ela4-app8082.prod> LinkedIn ------------ Ray Gur m?chte Sie als Kontakt auf LinkedIn hinzuf?gen: ------------------------------------------ Ich m?chte Sie gerne zu meinem beruflichen Netzwerk auf LinkedIn hinzuf?gen. Einladung von Ray Gur annehmen http://www.linkedin.com/e/bkaw8p-hyiz18cc-5g/JZe3nK4u6mHYjzY5503qsnRi/blk/I175498264_101/3wOtCVFbmdxnSVFbm8JrnpKqlZJrmZzbmNJpjRQnOpBtn9QfmhBt71BoSd1p65Lr6lOfP4MclYQdz8UejgRdP59bSlkgDxJcT1PbPwMcz0NdjoRcjgOejsQe38MejkLrCBxbOYWrSlI/eml-comm_invm-b-in_ac-inv28/?hs=false&tok=1yEL5TzQJ2W6k1 Profil von Ray Gur anzeigen http://www.linkedin.com/e/bkaw8p-hyiz18cc-5g/rso/4538691/UhGA/name/306000427_I175498264_101/?hs=false&tok=3O8Vglcet2W6k1 ------------------------------------------ Sie erhalten Einladungs-E-Mails. Diese E-Mail war an Richard Bley gerichtet. Erfahren Sie, warum wir dies hinzuf?gen: http://www.linkedin.com/e/bkaw8p-hyiz18cc-5g/plh/http%3A%2F%2Fhelp%2Elinkedin%2Ecom%2Fapp%2Fanswers%2Fdetail%2Fa_id%2F4788/-GXI/?hs=false&tok=3TTWZFASR2W6k1 (c) 2012, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct., Mountain View, CA 94043, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140806/4a74effc/attachment.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Tue Aug 12 17:54:47 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 17:54:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 79B In-Reply-To: <000a01cfb10b$c73ddab0$55b99010$@btinternet.com> References: <000a01cfb10b$c73ddab0$55b99010$@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Am 06.08.2014, 02:16 Uhr, schrieb Mike Amos : > B. Disagreement on Tricks Won > > If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: > > 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession > and, > if so, applies Law 69. > > 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. > If > the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance > with > C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to > increase a side's score. > > I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training Course > and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. > > I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to me > to > be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be interested > to > hear other opinions before offering it) I have recently come upon another problem with the new wording: A player came to me at the start of the dinner break in a teams event and gave me the following facts: - The hand was played through. - Both sides agreed to a contract of 3NT+1. - The result of the match was duly signed and handed in. - When they discussed the hands afterwards, they remembered they had actually taken the first FOUR tricks. - Opponents do not deny this, but insist the signed result must stand. Now: - There is no claim or concession so B1 does not apply. - The round has ended, because the session has ended. - Looking at "C below": there is no error in computing or tabulating the agreed score, so C1 does not apply. - And the board was not fouled. Therefore: The TD has no legal basis for changing the result. Am I missing something? Note that until 2007, 79B read "No increase in score need be granted unless the Director is called before the round ends as specified in Law 8" which gave the TD the power to change the score (IIRC, "may" was changed to "need" in 1997). Was the change of Law in 2007 deliberate? best wishes Petrus From petereidt at t-online.de Tue Aug 12 18:44:59 2014 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:44:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 79B In-Reply-To: References: <000a01cfb10b$c73ddab0$55b99010$@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <00ff01cfb64c$c1defd60$459cf820$@t-online.de> what about Law 79 A2? "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or [...]" von Petrus Schuster OSB > Am 06.08.2014, 02:16 Uhr, schrieb Mike Amos > : > > > B. Disagreement on Tricks Won > > > > If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: > > > > 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or > > concession and, if so, applies Law 69. > > > > 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. > > If > > the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in > > accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be > > no obligation to increase a side's score. > > > > I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training > > Course and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. > > > > I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to > > me to be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be > > interested to hear other opinions before offering it) > > I have recently come upon another problem with the new wording: > > A player came to me at the start of the dinner break in a teams event and > gave me the following facts: > > - The hand was played through. > - Both sides agreed to a contract of 3NT+1. > - The result of the match was duly signed and handed in. > - When they discussed the hands afterwards, they remembered they had > actually taken the first FOUR tricks. > - Opponents do not deny this, but insist the signed result must stand. > > Now: > > - There is no claim or concession so B1 does not apply. > - The round has ended, because the session has ended. > - Looking at "C below": there is no error in computing or tabulating the > agreed score, so C1 does not apply. > - And the board was not fouled. > > Therefore: The TD has no legal basis for changing the result. > Am I missing something? > > Note that until 2007, 79B read "No increase in score need be granted unless > the Director is called before the round ends as specified in Law 8" > which gave the TD the power to change the score (IIRC, "may" was changed > to "need" in 1997). > Was the change of Law in 2007 deliberate? > > best wishes > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Tue Aug 12 20:52:55 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:52:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 79B In-Reply-To: <00ff01cfb64c$c1defd60$459cf820$@t-online.de> References: <000a01cfb10b$c73ddab0$55b99010$@btinternet.com> <00ff01cfb64c$c1defd60$459cf820$@t-online.de> Message-ID: Am 12.08.2014, 18:44 Uhr, schrieb Peter Eidt : > what about Law 79 A2? > "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his > side did not win or [...]" > Yes - but so what? When they agreed on a score, both sides were convinced 10 tricks had been scored. Even if it still applies after the results have been signed and handed in, this does not change the result but would only be the basis for disciplinary action. > > von Petrus Schuster OSB >> Am 06.08.2014, 02:16 Uhr, schrieb Mike Amos >> : >> >> > B. Disagreement on Tricks Won >> > >> > If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, >> then: >> > >> > 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or >> > concession and, if so, applies Law 69. >> > >> > 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be >> recorded. >> > If >> > the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in >> > accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be >> > no obligation to increase a side's score. >> > >> > I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training >> > Course and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. >> > >> > I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to >> > me to be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be >> > interested to hear other opinions before offering it) >> >> I have recently come upon another problem with the new wording: >> >> A player came to me at the start of the dinner break in a teams event >> and >> gave me the following facts: >> >> - The hand was played through. >> - Both sides agreed to a contract of 3NT+1. >> - The result of the match was duly signed and handed in. >> - When they discussed the hands afterwards, they remembered they had >> actually taken the first FOUR tricks. >> - Opponents do not deny this, but insist the signed result must stand. >> >> Now: >> >> - There is no claim or concession so B1 does not apply. >> - The round has ended, because the session has ended. >> - Looking at "C below": there is no error in computing or tabulating the >> agreed score, so C1 does not apply. >> - And the board was not fouled. >> >> Therefore: The TD has no legal basis for changing the result. >> Am I missing something? >> >> Note that until 2007, 79B read "No increase in score need be granted > unless >> the Director is called before the round ends as specified in Law 8" >> which gave the TD the power to change the score (IIRC, "may" was changed >> to "need" in 1997). >> Was the change of Law in 2007 deliberate? >> >> best wishes >> Petrus >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Aug 12 23:03:44 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 23:03:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 79B In-Reply-To: References: <000a01cfb10b$c73ddab0$55b99010$@btinternet.com> <00ff01cfb64c$c1defd60$459cf820$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000901cfb670$e74a43b0$b5decb10$@online.no> If they agree afterwards (within the time limit specified in Law 79C) that the result was incorrectly recorded then apply Law 79C and correct the result. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Petrus Schuster OSB > Sendt: 12. august 2014 20:53 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 79B > > Am 12.08.2014, 18:44 Uhr, schrieb Peter Eidt : > > > what about Law 79 A2? > > "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that > > his side did not win or [...]" > > > > Yes - but so what? When they agreed on a score, both sides were convinced > 10 tricks had been scored. > Even if it still applies after the results have been signed and handed in, this does > not change the result but would only be the basis for disciplinary action. > > > > > von Petrus Schuster OSB > >> Am 06.08.2014, 02:16 Uhr, schrieb Mike Amos > >> : > >> > >> > B. Disagreement on Tricks Won > >> > > >> > If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, > >> then: > >> > > >> > 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or > >> > concession and, if so, applies Law 69. > >> > > >> > 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be > >> recorded. > >> > If > >> > the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in > >> > accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall > >> > be no obligation to increase a side's score. > >> > > >> > I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training > >> > Course and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. > >> > > >> > I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears > >> > to me to be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would > >> > be interested to hear other opinions before offering it) > >> > >> I have recently come upon another problem with the new wording: > >> > >> A player came to me at the start of the dinner break in a teams event > >> and gave me the following facts: > >> > >> - The hand was played through. > >> - Both sides agreed to a contract of 3NT+1. > >> - The result of the match was duly signed and handed in. > >> - When they discussed the hands afterwards, they remembered they had > >> actually taken the first FOUR tricks. > >> - Opponents do not deny this, but insist the signed result must stand. > >> > >> Now: > >> > >> - There is no claim or concession so B1 does not apply. > >> - The round has ended, because the session has ended. > >> - Looking at "C below": there is no error in computing or tabulating > >> the agreed score, so C1 does not apply. > >> - And the board was not fouled. > >> > >> Therefore: The TD has no legal basis for changing the result. > >> Am I missing something? > >> > >> Note that until 2007, 79B read "No increase in score need be granted > > unless > >> the Director is called before the round ends as specified in Law 8" > >> which gave the TD the power to change the score (IIRC, "may" was > >> changed to "need" in 1997). > >> Was the change of Law in 2007 deliberate? > >> > >> best wishes > >> Petrus > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Aug 13 01:06:02 2014 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:06:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] both players forget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43D99F99-357E-4D3E-A74E-DB98B3CE3FCC@mac.com> On Aug 5, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > N E S W > 1D P 3C > > alerted and (eventually) described as criss-cross. The player had > forgotten and had a weak jump shift in clubs. But both players agree that > 3C is criss-cross and it's on their card. No rectification, right? > > N E S W > 1D P 3C P > P > > Today, both players forgot they were playing criss-cross. When asked, > North was woken up and answered "criss-cross". Did the opponents receive > an accurate description of the Nourth-South agreement? (All the other > elements are present for rectification) Once is coincidence, twice is happenstance, three times is enemy action." Unless these guys have had this problem before, we're still at coincidence. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 13 02:08:38 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:08:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 79B In-Reply-To: References: <000a01cfb10b$c73ddab0$55b99010$@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Off topic a little, but sometimes opponents "agree" that a board was mis-scored when they don't even remember the board. I suspect they also do it because they don't want to argue. I developed the standard that they had to actually think on their own that the board was mis-scored. On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:54:47 -0400, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Am 06.08.2014, 02:16 Uhr, schrieb Mike Amos : > >> B. Disagreement on Tricks Won >> >> If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: >> >> 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession >> and, >> if so, applies Law 69. >> >> 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. >> If >> the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance >> with >> C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to >> increase a side's score. >> >> I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training >> Course >> and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. >> >> I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to me >> to >> be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be interested >> to >> hear other opinions before offering it) > > I have recently come upon another problem with the new wording: > > A player came to me at the start of the dinner break in a teams event and > gave me the following facts: > > - The hand was played through. > - Both sides agreed to a contract of 3NT+1. > - The result of the match was duly signed and handed in. > - When they discussed the hands afterwards, they remembered they had > actually taken the first FOUR tricks. > - Opponents do not deny this, but insist the signed result must stand. > > Now: > > - There is no claim or concession so B1 does not apply. > - The round has ended, because the session has ended. > - Looking at "C below": there is no error in computing or tabulating the > agreed score, so C1 does not apply. > - And the board was not fouled. > > Therefore: The TD has no legal basis for changing the result. > Am I missing something? > > Note that until 2007, 79B read "No increase in score need be granted > unless the Director is called before the round ends as specified in Law > 8" > which gave the TD the power to change the score (IIRC, "may" was changed > to "need" in 1997). > Was the change of Law in 2007 deliberate? > > best wishes > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 13 09:02:49 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:02:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] both players forget In-Reply-To: <43D99F99-357E-4D3E-A74E-DB98B3CE3FCC@mac.com> References: <43D99F99-357E-4D3E-A74E-DB98B3CE3FCC@mac.com> Message-ID: <000001cfb6c4$98a773f0$c9f65bd0$@online.no> To Ed Reppert: [...] [Sven Pran] He said, "Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." Ian Fleming: Goldfinger From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 14 03:15:31 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:15:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] both players forget In-Reply-To: <43D99F99-357E-4D3E-A74E-DB98B3CE3FCC@mac.com> References: <43D99F99-357E-4D3E-A74E-DB98B3CE3FCC@mac.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:06:02 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> N E S W >> 1D P 3C >> >> alerted and (eventually) described as criss-cross. The player had >> forgotten and had a weak jump shift in clubs. But both players agree >> that >> 3C is criss-cross and it's on their card. No rectification, right? >> >> N E S W >> 1D P 3C P >> P >> >> Today, both players forgot they were playing criss-cross. When asked, >> North was woken up and answered "criss-cross". Did the opponents receive >> an accurate description of the Nourth-South agreement? (All the other >> elements are present for rectification) > > Once is coincidence, twice is happenstance, three times is enemy > action." Unless these guys have had this problem before, we're still at > coincidence. My partner and I once agreed to play Puppet Stayman, then the next time it came up, we both forgot. I wouldn't rate that a coincidence. I don't think that is what is happening in my example, but aren't there conventions like Ghestam that people typically forget? It seems there is something more than coincidence if two people forget an easily-forgotten convention. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Aug 14 15:18:26 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:18:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 79B In-Reply-To: References: <000a01cfb10b$c73ddab0$55b99010$@btinternet.com> <00ff01cfb64c$c1defd60$459cf820$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <53ECB722.8020302@nhcc.net> The wording of L79C1 is not ideal, but I see no problem making a correction. The players made "An error in computing ... the agreed-upon score" by failing to get nine tricks when they subtracted four from thirteen. This seems to me exactly the sort of thing the Correction Period is for. One other loose end: > Am 12.08.2014, 18:44 Uhr, schrieb Peter Eidt : >> what about Law 79 A2? On 2014-08-12 2:52 PM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Yes - but so what? ... > this does not change the result but would only be the basis for > disciplinary action. Not true. L12A1 allows an adjusted score whenever there is an infraction with no other remedy. Time for this expires at the end of the L92B Appeals Period, not the 79C Correction Period. (These are sometimes the same but need not be.) From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Thu Aug 14 20:24:12 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 20:24:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 79B In-Reply-To: <53ECB722.8020302@nhcc.net> References: <000a01cfb10b$c73ddab0$55b99010$@btinternet.com> <00ff01cfb64c$c1defd60$459cf820$@t-online.de> <53ECB722.8020302@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Am 14.08.2014, 15:18 Uhr, schrieb Steve Willner : [...] >> Yes - but so what? > ... >> this does not change the result but would only be the basis for >> disciplinary action. > > Not true. L12A1 allows an adjusted score whenever there is an > infraction with no other remedy. Time for this expires at the end of > the L92B Appeals Period, not the 79C Correction Period. (These are > sometimes the same but need not be.) You are right - I had not thought of that. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Aug 29 03:56:30 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:56:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget Message-ID: Sven Pran quoting Ian Fleming's "Goldfinger": >He said, "Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: >Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence. The >third time it's enemy action." Richard Hills: And indeed the Goldfinger principle is imbedded in Law 40C1. For example a partnership may explicitly have a pre-existing mutual understanding that after an opponent opens the bidding with 1S, a 3C jump overcall shows a weak hand with 5/5 in the red suits. But 50% of the time an alternating partner forgets, jumping to 3C with a weak hand and seven clubs. Law 40C1 mandates that the partnership's intial explicit understanding has now been replaced by a new multi-meaning understanding; the 3C jump overcall is now EITHER seven clubs OR 5/5 in the red suits. This may or may not be an illegal convention (depending upon local regulations). BUT... Even if the multi-meaning convention is legal under local rules (for example, such a multi- meaning overcall is permitted by ABF rules), full disclosure is required. Disclosing merely the original 5/5 red suits understanding is a misinformation infraction. "Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach a person to use the internet and they won't bother you for weeks, months, maybe years." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140829/5df34af9/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 29 09:04:34 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:04:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> I agree sith part of this message, but not the whole: Richard Hills schreef: > Sven Pran quoting Ian Fleming's "Goldfinger": > >He said, "Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: > >Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence. The > >third time it's enemy action." > Richard Hills: > And indeed the Goldfinger principle is imbedded > in Law 40C1. > For example a partnership may explicitly have a > pre-existing mutual understanding that after an opponent opens the > bidding with 1S, a 3C jump overcall shows a weak hand with 5/5 in the > red suits. But 50% of the time an alternating partner forgets, jumping > to 3C with a weak hand and seven clubs. > Law 40C1 mandates that the partnership's intial > explicit understanding has now been replaced by a new multi-meaning > understanding; the 3C jump overcall is now EITHER seven clubs OR 5/5 in > the red suits. I agree this far, but not: > This may or may not be an illegal convention (depending > upon local regulations). The fact that partner sometimes forgets (in which case he holds what would be needed for a natural 3Cl-bid) is part of what the opponents are entitled to know, but the convention remains "5/5 red". After all, the opener will respond to this convention. IMO, the frequency with which one partner or the other "forgets" the system (and the direction in which one does so) is disclosable to opponents, but it does not become part of the system. After all, we don't oblige both partners to forget with equal frequency, do we? > BUT... > Even if the multi-meaning convention is legal > under local rules (for example, such a multi- > meaning overcall is permitted by ABF rules), full > disclosure is required. Disclosing merely the > original 5/5 red suits understanding is a > misinformation infraction. That part is true again. Herman. > "Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach a person to > use the internet and they won't bother you for weeks, months, maybe > years." > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 29 09:37:54 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:37:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > I agree sith part of this message, but not the whole: [Sven Pran] I don't understand what part of Richard's post you disagree with? The fact is that a partnership has an agreement where 3C jump overcall shows 5/5 in the red suits. But it is also a fact that one of the players with a certain probability forgets this agreement and instead use this 3C bid as natural. So long as this mistake is not just accidental, and although random occurs with a certain probability, opponents are entitled to the actual agreement, the full nature of the mistake and the (approximate) probability with which it occurs (individually for each player). (Law 40C1) Isn't this what you both have stated? Sven > > Richard Hills schreef: > > Sven Pran quoting Ian Fleming's "Goldfinger": > > >He said, "Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: > > >Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence. The >third time it's > > enemy action." > > Richard Hills: > > And indeed the Goldfinger principle is imbedded in Law 40C1. > > For example a partnership may explicitly have a pre-existing mutual > > understanding that after an opponent opens the bidding with 1S, a 3C > > jump overcall shows a weak hand with 5/5 in the red suits. But 50% of > > the time an alternating partner forgets, jumping to 3C with a weak > > hand and seven clubs. > > Law 40C1 mandates that the partnership's intial explicit understanding > > has now been replaced by a new multi-meaning understanding; the 3C > > jump overcall is now EITHER seven clubs OR 5/5 in the red suits. > > I agree this far, but not: > > > This may or may not be an illegal convention (depending upon local > > regulations). > > The fact that partner sometimes forgets (in which case he holds what would be > needed for a natural 3Cl-bid) is part of what the opponents are entitled to > know, but the convention remains "5/5 red". After all, the opener will respond > to this convention. > > IMO, the frequency with which one partner or the other "forgets" the system > (and the direction in which one does so) is disclosable to opponents, but it does > not become part of the system. > After all, we don't oblige both partners to forget with equal frequency, do we? > > > BUT... > > Even if the multi-meaning convention is legal under local rules (for > > example, such a multi- meaning overcall is permitted by ABF rules), > > full disclosure is required. Disclosing merely the original 5/5 red > > suits understanding is a misinformation infraction. > > That part is true again. > > Herman. > > > "Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach a person to > > use the internet and they won't bother you for weeks, months, maybe > > years." > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 29 10:18:26 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:18:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> Message-ID: <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> Sven Pran schreef: >> Herman De Wael >> I agree sith part of this message, but not the whole: > [Sven Pran] > I don't understand what part of Richard's post you disagree with? > > The fact is that a partnership has an agreement where 3C jump overcall shows > 5/5 in the red suits. > But it is also a fact that one of the players with a certain probability > forgets this agreement and instead use this 3C bid as natural. > > So long as this mistake is not just accidental, and although random occurs > with a certain probability, opponents are entitled to the actual agreement, > the full nature of the mistake and the (approximate) probability with which > it occurs (individually for each player). (Law 40C1) > > Isn't this what you both have stated? It is, but Richard goes even further. Richard believes that, if a player forgets an agreement with a certain frequency, then this creates not just a disclosable fact, but a new agreement, to which the system regulations become applicable. And that is going too far, IMO. What is your view on that one, Sven? Herman > Sven >> From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 29 10:33:27 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:33:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran schreef: > >> Herman De Wael > >> I agree sith part of this message, but not the whole: > > [Sven Pran] > > I don't understand what part of Richard's post you disagree with? > > > > The fact is that a partnership has an agreement where 3C jump overcall > > shows > > 5/5 in the red suits. > > But it is also a fact that one of the players with a certain > > probability forgets this agreement and instead use this 3C bid as natural. > > > > So long as this mistake is not just accidental, and although random > > occurs with a certain probability, opponents are entitled to the > > actual agreement, the full nature of the mistake and the (approximate) > > probability with which it occurs (individually for each player). (Law > > 40C1) > > > > Isn't this what you both have stated? > > It is, but Richard goes even further. > Richard believes that, if a player forgets an agreement with a certain > frequency, then this creates not just a disclosable fact, but a new agreement, > to which the system regulations become applicable. > And that is going too far, IMO. > What is your view on that one, Sven? > > Herman [Sven Pran] I agree with Richard. Note from Law 40C1: Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. This IMHO cannot be understood other than that the implicit understandings (as well as other understandings) are subject also to regulations on legality. We have had some similar cases: A partnership deviating their weak 1NT opening range from 10HCP (which is legal) down to "good" 9HCP (which is illegal) was told to stop it under threat of being disqualified from the event for using HUM. From lskelso at ihug.com.au Fri Aug 29 10:41:38 2014 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:41:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54003CC2.7020001@ihug.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140829/ca0c6591/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 29 11:32:28 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:32:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> Message-ID: <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> I disagree with the last paragraph: Sven Pran schreef: > > [Sven Pran] > I agree with Richard. Note from Law 40C1: > > Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of > the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the > regulations governing disclosure of system. > Note the word "deviations". I consider that to mean slight changes, not complete forgettings like the 3C discussed in this thread. > This IMHO cannot be understood other than that the implicit understandings > (as well as other understandings) are subject also to regulations on > legality. > Indeed it should. But this is with a use of deviations as above. > We have had some similar cases: A partnership deviating their weak 1NT > opening range from 10HCP (which is legal) down to "good" 9HCP (which is > illegal) was told to stop it under threat of being disqualified from the > event for using HUM. > Allow me to illustrate why I believe there is a very important difference between the two cases: - when a pair describe their agreement as 10-12, and they open it with 9 points, they could be guilty of misrepresentation. The system is actually 9-12 and should be described as this. The responses to a systemic 9-12 would be the same as a 10-12. - when a pair describe their agreement as showing diamonds and hearts, and they then do it with clubs (weak), there can be no misrepresentation. It would be ludicrous to play a system in which 3Cl shows either clubs or diamonds and hearts, and the answers to such a system (if it could be played) would be totally different than the answers to a simple 5/5 red. So the first is a deviation, and the second is a misbid. The deviation is actual system and is subject to system regulation and misexplanation. The misbid can only be subject to misexplanation as to the frequency of the occurence. Do you see the difference? Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 29 11:35:05 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:35:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <54003CC2.7020001@ihug.com.au> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <54003CC2.7020001@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: <54004949.3090604@skynet.be> Laurie Kelso schreef: > Herman - I think Richard would quote Law 40C1: > > "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form > part of the partnership?s methods and must be disclosed in accordance > with the regulations governing disclosure of system." > > Laurie > You are correct, Laurie. Well, it was actually Sven who gave the quote. See my answer to Sven's post for my reply. The important thing is what partner can do with the knowledge. if he knows partner sometimes has only 9 when the system says 10-12, he need not do anything. But coping with a partner who might have clubs when showing red suits is impossible. The 10-12 system can "cope" with 9; the "reds" system cannot cope with clubs. Herman. > > On 29/08/2014 6:18 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Sven Pran schreef: >>>> Herman De Wael >>>> I agree sith part of this message, but not the whole: >>> [Sven Pran] >>> I don't understand what part of Richard's post you disagree with? >>> >>> The fact is that a partnership has an agreement where 3C jump overcall shows >>> 5/5 in the red suits. >>> But it is also a fact that one of the players with a certain probability >>> forgets this agreement and instead use this 3C bid as natural. >>> >>> So long as this mistake is not just accidental, and although random occurs >>> with a certain probability, opponents are entitled to the actual agreement, >>> the full nature of the mistake and the (approximate) probability with which >>> it occurs (individually for each player). (Law 40C1) >>> >>> Isn't this what you both have stated? >> It is, but Richard goes even further. >> Richard believes that, if a player forgets an agreement with a certain >> frequency, then this creates not just a disclosable fact, but a new >> agreement, to which the system regulations become applicable. >> And that is going too far, IMO. >> What is your view on that one, Sven? >> >> Herman >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 29 12:29:15 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:29:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003401cfc374$151df060$3f59d120$@online.no> Sorry Herman, but this doesn't make sense: When a misbid or deviation becomes so frequent (Law 45C1) that it actually becomes an implicit partnership understanding it must be disclosed as such. And the regulations on which partnership understandings are legal and which are not does not distinguish between explicit and implicit understandings. The consequence is that if an implicit partnership understanding (caused by frequent misbids or deviations) violates any regulation on legal understandings, the fact that it is the result of misbids or deviations rather than being an explicit understanding is irrelevant. The only important factor is that it has indeed become a partnership understanding. Sven > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 29. august 2014 11:32 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Both players forget > > I disagree with the last paragraph: > > Sven Pran schreef: > > > > [Sven Pran] > > I agree with Richard. Note from Law 40C1: > > > > Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form > > part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance > > with the regulations governing disclosure of system. > > > > Note the word "deviations". I consider that to mean slight changes, not > complete forgettings like the 3C discussed in this thread. > > > This IMHO cannot be understood other than that the implicit > > understandings (as well as other understandings) are subject also to > > regulations on legality. > > > > Indeed it should. But this is with a use of deviations as above. > > > We have had some similar cases: A partnership deviating their weak 1NT > > opening range from 10HCP (which is legal) down to "good" 9HCP (which > > is > > illegal) was told to stop it under threat of being disqualified from > > the event for using HUM. > > > > Allow me to illustrate why I believe there is a very important difference > between the two cases: > > - when a pair describe their agreement as 10-12, and they open it with 9 points, > they could be guilty of misrepresentation. The system is actually 9-12 and > should be described as this. The responses to a systemic 9-12 would be the > same as a 10-12. > - when a pair describe their agreement as showing diamonds and hearts, and > they then do it with clubs (weak), there can be no misrepresentation. It would > be ludicrous to play a system in which 3Cl shows either clubs or diamonds and > hearts, and the answers to such a system (if it could be played) would be totally > different than the answers to a simple 5/5 red. > > So the first is a deviation, and the second is a misbid. > The deviation is actual system and is subject to system regulation and > misexplanation. > The misbid can only be subject to misexplanation as to the frequency of the > occurence. > > Do you see the difference? > > Herman. > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Aug 29 13:13:46 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:13:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> Am 29.08.2014 11:32, schrieb Herman De Wael: > I disagree with the last paragraph: > > Sven Pran schreef: >> [Sven Pran] >> I agree with Richard. Note from Law 40C1: >> >> Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of >> the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the >> regulations governing disclosure of system. >> > Note the word "deviations". I consider that to mean slight changes, not > complete forgettings like the 3C discussed in this thread. I consider that to be any deviation from the announced system, whether slight or not. > Allow me to illustrate why I believe there is a very important > difference between the two cases: > > - when a pair describe their agreement as 10-12, and they open it with 9 > points, they could be guilty of misrepresentation. The system is > actually 9-12 and should be described as this. The responses to a > systemic 9-12 would be the same as a 10-12. If you say so... but let us assume, for the sake of argument, that this is the case. Seems to me that invitations may be a point stronger, but I have not observed what people do with 9-12. > - when a pair describe their agreement as showing diamonds and hearts, > and they then do it with clubs (weak), there can be no > misrepresentation. It would be ludicrous to play a system in which 3Cl > shows either clubs or diamonds and hearts, Interesting. I never knew my system is ludicrous, when it is so successful. I have played that way (and announced it as such) for years. Of course there are drawbacks, every agreement has its drawbacks, but over the years it has earned its keep, believe me. > and the answers to such a > system (if it could be played) would be totally different than the > answers to a simple 5/5 red. True. But what has that got to do with our discussion? > > So the first is a deviation, and the second is a misbid. Only the first time it happens with a certain partner, or if partner plays the 3C bidder for 55+ reds, whatever happens. Now you hold Axxx, Kxxxx, QJx,x. LHO 1S, MHO 3C (5-5 reds, but he has a history of forgetting), RHO pass, and you? Don`t you think it is more likely that you pass this when partner has forgotten before, than if he never forgets? Now what is your system in the first case? 5-5, unless he forgets, isn`t it? > The deviation is actual system and is subject to system regulation and > misexplanation. > The misbid can only be subject to misexplanation as to the frequency of > the occurence. That is the question. It has become not so unusual to assign an artificial score if you use a two-suited convention and something happens. The Dutch have done it (don`t know whether they still do), the Austrians have don it (same..), maybe others have, I don`t know. IMO 40C1 is in the rules to let them do it. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 29 13:34:00 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:34:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> Message-ID: <54006528.9080104@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus schreef: > Am 29.08.2014 11:32, schrieb Herman De Wael: > >> - when a pair describe their agreement as showing diamonds and hearts, >> and they then do it with clubs (weak), there can be no >> misrepresentation. It would be ludicrous to play a system in which 3Cl >> shows either clubs or diamonds and hearts, > > Interesting. I never knew my system is ludicrous, when it is so > successful. I have played that way (and announced it as such) for years. > Of course there are drawbacks, every agreement has its drawbacks, but > over the years it has earned its keep, believe me. > I am certain that your 3Cl bid does not mean: weak with cubs or weak with hearts and diamonds. And if it does - how do you respond? The people in the example have the agreement that it shows hearts and diamonds, and they presumably bid 3D/3H in their longest suit. They also have the understanding (or not, but that does not matter) that the 3Cl bidder has a (10%/20%/50%/90%) frequency of forgetting, but they do not have agreements over what to do when he has. In particular, they don't have an agreement that 4Cl after 3D/3H is "I have forgotten" and they won't pass such a 4Cl - unless numerous UI infractions occur. And even if 4Cl gets passed, they surely don't have an agreement only to bid 3Cl when willing to play 4Cl - such an agreement would truly be "ludicrous". What I'm trying to get across is that there is a difference between a systemic bid (which has pre-described answers) and a non-systemic one. Herman. >> and the answers to such a >> system (if it could be played) would be totally different than the >> answers to a simple 5/5 red. > > True. But what has that got to do with our discussion? > >> >> So the first is a deviation, and the second is a misbid. > > Only the first time it happens with a certain partner, or if partner > plays the 3C bidder for 55+ reds, whatever happens. Now you hold Axxx, > Kxxxx, QJx,x. LHO 1S, MHO 3C (5-5 reds, but he has a history of > forgetting), RHO pass, and you? Don`t you think it is more likely that > you pass this when partner has forgotten before, than if he never > forgets? Now what is your system in the first case? 5-5, unless he > forgets, isn`t it? > >> The deviation is actual system and is subject to system regulation and >> misexplanation. >> The misbid can only be subject to misexplanation as to the frequency of >> the occurence. > > That is the question. It has become not so unusual to assign an > artificial score if you use a two-suited convention and something > happens. The Dutch have done it (don`t know whether they still do), the > Austrians have don it (same..), maybe others have, I don`t know. IMO > 40C1 is in the rules to let them do it. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 29 13:37:50 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:37:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> Message-ID: <5400660E.3090107@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus schreef: > Am 29.08.2014 11:32, schrieb Herman De Wael: > >> and the answers to such a >> system (if it could be played) would be totally different than the >> answers to a simple 5/5 red. > > True. But what has that got to do with our discussion? > That it shows that the 3Cl bidder with clubs does not have a system that includes those clubs. >> >> So the first is a deviation, and the second is a misbid. > > Only the first time it happens with a certain partner, or if partner > plays the 3C bidder for 55+ reds, whatever happens. Now you hold Axxx, > Kxxxx, QJx,x. LHO 1S, MHO 3C (5-5 reds, but he has a history of > forgetting), RHO pass, and you? Don`t you think it is more likely that > you pass this when partner has forgotten before, than if he never > forgets? Now what is your system in the first case? 5-5, unless he > forgets, isn`t it? > Well, I won't play with a partner who caters for me forgetting my system, even if I have done so before. Because the next he will cater for something when I actually do have my bid. And if partners does cater for the forgetting, then you are right, the forgetting is then part of the system. But if partner does not cater for it, why should it be called a system? Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 29 13:44:20 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:44:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> Message-ID: <54006794.4090109@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus schreef: > >> The deviation is actual system and is subject to system regulation and >> misexplanation. >> The misbid can only be subject to misexplanation as to the frequency of >> the occurence. > > That is the question. It has become not so unusual to assign an > artificial score if you use a two-suited convention and something > happens. The Dutch have done it (don`t know whether they still do), the > Austrians have don it (same..), maybe others have, I don`t know. IMO > 40C1 is in the rules to let them do it. I believe that rule to be against the laws of the game, but I accept it in some limited cases, like the Dutch example. I believe that a player is allowed to forget his system, and the laws guarantee that this does not get punished. What the Dutch have done is to get round this by saying that in specially described situations, forgetting a convention is "paying insufficient attention to the game". What you are doing is saying, without any prior arrangement, that it is forbidden to forget your system twice. Or three times. Or however many you believe is enough to put L40C into action. The problem with that is that you fail to say how many times are enough. And the only way you can get to know the frequency is when they tell you. So you are punishing honest players and leaving potential cheats scot-free. And that cannot be good for the game. Far better is it to ask for a true answer as to frequency, and to ask if the opponents would have done better if they had known that the players had X% chance of getting it wrong. Herman. From lskelso at ihug.com.au Fri Aug 29 14:00:34 2014 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:00:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <54004949.3090604@skynet.be> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <54003CC2.7020001@ihug.com.au> <54004949.3090604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54006B62.9040801@ihug.com.au> This law considers the partnership's level of potential awareness and then speaks of 'deviations' only in respect to frequency (i.e. those that are repeated). I see no other words that qualify or limit it's application. There is certainly no reference to the type or magnitude of such 'deviations'. In my view the definition remains broad and I would thus include repeated mis-bids as a sub-set. Laurie On 29/08/2014 7:35 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Laurie Kelso schreef: >> Herman - I think Richard would quote Law 40C1: >> >> "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form >> part of the partnership?s methods and must be disclosed in accordance >> with the regulations governing disclosure of system." >> >> Laurie >> > You are correct, Laurie. Well, it was actually Sven who gave the quote. > See my answer to Sven's post for my reply. > > The important thing is what partner can do with the knowledge. if he > knows partner sometimes has only 9 when the system says 10-12, he need > not do anything. But coping with a partner who might have clubs when > showing red suits is impossible. > The 10-12 system can "cope" with 9; the "reds" system cannot cope with > clubs. > > Herman. > >> On 29/08/2014 6:18 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> Sven Pran schreef: >>>>> Herman De Wael >>>>> I agree sith part of this message, but not the whole: >>>> [Sven Pran] >>>> I don't understand what part of Richard's post you disagree with? >>>> >>>> The fact is that a partnership has an agreement where 3C jump overcall shows >>>> 5/5 in the red suits. >>>> But it is also a fact that one of the players with a certain probability >>>> forgets this agreement and instead use this 3C bid as natural. >>>> >>>> So long as this mistake is not just accidental, and although random occurs >>>> with a certain probability, opponents are entitled to the actual agreement, >>>> the full nature of the mistake and the (approximate) probability with which >>>> it occurs (individually for each player). (Law 40C1) >>>> >>>> Isn't this what you both have stated? >>> It is, but Richard goes even further. >>> Richard believes that, if a player forgets an agreement with a certain >>> frequency, then this creates not just a disclosable fact, but a new >>> agreement, to which the system regulations become applicable. >>> And that is going too far, IMO. >>> What is your view on that one, Sven? >>> >>> Herman >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Aug 29 14:14:39 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:14:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <54006528.9080104@skynet.be> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> <54006528.9080104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54006EAF.2070505@t-online.de> Am 29.08.2014 13:34, schrieb Herman De Wael: > I am certain that your 3Cl bid does not mean: weak with cubs or weak > with hearts and diamonds. Well, I _am_ certain. > And if it does - how do you respond? Easy, that is what Multi 2D taught us. With !C tolerance you bid your best red suit, without you don`t. > The people in the example have the agreement that it shows hearts and > diamonds, and they presumably bid 3D/3H in their longest suit. They also > have the understanding (or not, but that does not matter) that the 3Cl > bidder has a (10%/20%/50%/90%) frequency of forgetting, but they do not > have agreements over what to do when he has. Sure they have, they pass. Oh, they have not talked about it, but they did it several times, so the 3C bidder knows that pd has good hldings in the reds and doesn`t believe he got the, even when he promised them. More or les. Probably less. > In particular, they don't > have an agreement that 4Cl after 3D/3H is "I have forgotten" and they > won't pass such a 4Cl - unless numerous UI infractions occur. Every Bridge player knows that 4C means "I have forgotten", else why all the Ghestem discussions? They don`t need to agree on this, life has taught them. > And even if 4Cl gets passed, they surely don't have an agreement only to > bid 3Cl when willing to play 4Cl - such an agreement would truly be > "ludicrous". Sure. Such an understanding may eventually evolve, though. Doesn`t have to happen, yet it might. > What I'm trying to get across is that there is a difference between a > systemic bid (which has pre-described answers) and a non-systemic one. That was not (IMO) what the discussion was about. In my eyes the discussion is about non-systemic bids (AKA misbids, forgets etc.) becoming systemic ones. > > Herman. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Aug 29 14:23:03 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:23:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <54006794.4090109@skynet.be> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> <54006794.4090109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <540070A7.4080905@t-online.de> Am 29.08.2014 13:44, schrieb Herman De Wael: > > Matthias Berghaus schreef: > >> That is the question. It has become not so unusual to assign an >> artificial score if you use a two-suited convention and something >> happens. The Dutch have done it (don`t know whether they still do), the >> Austrians have don it (same..), maybe others have, I don`t know. IMO >> 40C1 is in the rules to let them do it. > I believe that rule to be against the laws of the game, but I accept it > in some limited cases, like the Dutch example. I believe that rule to have been against the laws before 2007, and I don`t like it now. It makes certain things easier for the TD now, but I never had any problem with it. > I believe that a player is allowed to forget his system, and the laws > guarantee that this does not get punished. So do I. > What the Dutch have done is > to get round this by saying that in specially described situations, > forgetting a convention is "paying insufficient attention to the game". > > What you are doing is saying, without any prior arrangement, that it is > forbidden to forget your system twice. Or three times. Not me. Forgetting your system again and again creates a partnership experince, at least. Cashing in on that (without proper disclosure) is what is forbidden. > Or however many > you believe is enough to put L40C into action. The problem with that is > that you fail to say how many times are enough. And the only way you can > get to know the frequency is when they tell you. So you are punishing > honest players and leaving potential cheats scot-free. I know my customers, and exchange data with fellow TDs. They don`t need to tell me. It is more difficult in areas where I don`t know the playrs, that is true. But most of the time the players tell me by their actions, so I don`t have to ask. > And that cannot be good for the game. It would not be good, agreed. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Aug 29 14:53:56 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:53:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <540077E4.1030402@aol.com> There is nothing in the word "deviation" to imply that they are slight. Could be slight, could be major changes. And see below: Am 29.08.2014 11:32, schrieb Herman De Wael: > I disagree with the last paragraph: > > Sven Pran schreef: >> [Sven Pran] >> I agree with Richard. Note from Law 40C1: >> >> Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of >> the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the >> regulations governing disclosure of system. >> > Note the word "deviations". I consider that to mean slight changes, not > complete forgettings like the 3C discussed in this thread. > >> This IMHO cannot be understood other than that the implicit understandings >> (as well as other understandings) are subject also to regulations on >> legality. >> > Indeed it should. But this is with a use of deviations as above. > >> We have had some similar cases: A partnership deviating their weak 1NT >> opening range from 10HCP (which is legal) down to "good" 9HCP (which is >> illegal) was told to stop it under threat of being disqualified from the >> event for using HUM. >> > Allow me to illustrate why I believe there is a very important > difference between the two cases: > > - when a pair describe their agreement as 10-12, and they open it with 9 > points, they could be guilty of misrepresentation. The system is > actually 9-12 and should be described as this. The responses to a > systemic 9-12 would be the same as a 10-12. > - when a pair describe their agreement as showing diamonds and hearts, > and they then do it with clubs (weak), there can be no > misrepresentation. It would be ludicrous to play a system in which 3Cl > shows either clubs or diamonds and hearts, and the answers to such a > system (if it could be played) would be totally different than the > answers to a simple 5/5 red. But isn't this what Timbuktoo (or suction) shows? > > So the first is a deviation, and the second is a misbid. > The deviation is actual system and is subject to system regulation and > misexplanation. > The misbid can only be subject to misexplanation as to the frequency of > the occurence. > > Do you see the difference? > > Herman. > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > --- Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv. http://www.avast.com From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 29 15:17:08 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:17:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <54006EAF.2070505@t-online.de> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> <54006528.9080104@skynet.be> <54006EAF.2070505@t-online.de> Message-ID: <54007D54.4050006@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus schreef: > Am 29.08.2014 13:34, schrieb Herman De Wael: >> I am certain that your 3Cl bid does not mean: weak with cubs or weak >> with hearts and diamonds. > > Well, I _am_ certain. > >> And if it does - how do you respond? > > Easy, that is what Multi 2D taught us. With !C tolerance you bid your > best red suit, without you don`t. > I'm quite certain that the people in the example would not have passed with club tolerance. See below. >> The people in the example have the agreement that it shows hearts and >> diamonds, and they presumably bid 3D/3H in their longest suit. They also >> have the understanding (or not, but that does not matter) that the 3Cl >> bidder has a (10%/20%/50%/90%) frequency of forgetting, but they do not >> have agreements over what to do when he has. > > Sure they have, they pass. Oh, they have not talked about it, but they > did it several times, so the 3C bidder knows that pd has good hldings in > the reds and doesn`t believe he got the, even when he promised them. > More or les. Probably less. > Well, if they do pass it, not only will I not accept that it was a misbid and that the frequency was misexplained (not explained as being more than background noise); I will rule misexplanation on the bid itself. We are talking here about people who make a misbid, and whether the frequency of the misbid makes the misbid systemic (it does make it disclosable, we agree about that, but does it become illegal in a system regulation sense). I am certain that we can all distinguish between a pair who play 3Cl as clubs or diamonds and hearts, and who maliciously forget to name the clubs; and a pair who misbid with clubs and give a correct (apparently) explanation of red suits. The first are cheats, and we generally don't occupy us with those on blml. Remember the original post from Richard: apparently, he agreed that there was a misbid and a correct explanation (apart from the frequency of misbidding issue), but was it a forbidden system. At least that was the part I disagreed with him about. So we are not talking about your system bu about genuine misbidders, OK? Herman. >> In particular, they don't >> have an agreement that 4Cl after 3D/3H is "I have forgotten" and they >> won't pass such a 4Cl - unless numerous UI infractions occur. > > Every Bridge player knows that 4C means "I have forgotten", else why all > the Ghestem discussions? They don`t need to agree on this, life has > taught them. > >> And even if 4Cl gets passed, they surely don't have an agreement only to >> bid 3Cl when willing to play 4Cl - such an agreement would truly be >> "ludicrous". > > Sure. Such an understanding may eventually evolve, though. Doesn`t have > to happen, yet it might. > >> What I'm trying to get across is that there is a difference between a >> systemic bid (which has pre-described answers) and a non-systemic one. > > That was not (IMO) what the discussion was about. In my eyes the > discussion is about non-systemic bids (AKA misbids, forgets etc.) > becoming systemic ones. > >> >> Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 29 15:20:28 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:20:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <540077E4.1030402@aol.com> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <540077E4.1030402@aol.com> Message-ID: <54007E1C.8070802@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson schreef: >> - when a pair describe their agreement as showing diamonds and hearts, >> and they then do it with clubs (weak), there can be no >> misrepresentation. It would be ludicrous to play a system in which 3Cl >> shows either clubs or diamonds and hearts, and the answers to such a >> system (if it could be played) would be totally different than the >> answers to a simple 5/5 red. > But isn't this what Timbuktoo (or suction) shows? OK, I stand corrected - it is possible to play such a system. My second sentence stands, however: the answers would be totally different, as pass will be a viable option rather than showing a freak hand with 7 clubs. (and even 3D/H would have a different meaning, showing clubs) From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Aug 29 16:42:55 2014 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:42:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <540077E4.1030402@aol.com> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <540077E4.1030402@aol.com> Message-ID: <1594223323.5358082.1409323375793.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Jeff Easterson" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Vendredi 29 Ao?t 2014 14:53:56 > Objet: Re: [BLML] Both players forget > > There is nothing in the word "deviation" to imply that they are slight. > Could be slight, could be major changes. would not a slight deviation be a pleonasm? jpr > > And see below: > > Am 29.08.2014 11:32, schrieb Herman De Wael: > > I disagree with the last paragraph: > > > > Sven Pran schreef: > >> [Sven Pran] > >> I agree with Richard. Note from Law 40C1: > >> > >> Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part > >> of > >> the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the > >> regulations governing disclosure of system. > >> > > Note the word "deviations". I consider that to mean slight changes, not > > complete forgettings like the 3C discussed in this thread. > > > >> This IMHO cannot be understood other than that the implicit understandings > >> (as well as other understandings) are subject also to regulations on > >> legality. > >> > > Indeed it should. But this is with a use of deviations as above. > > > >> We have had some similar cases: A partnership deviating their weak 1NT > >> opening range from 10HCP (which is legal) down to "good" 9HCP (which is > >> illegal) was told to stop it under threat of being disqualified from the > >> event for using HUM. > >> > > Allow me to illustrate why I believe there is a very important > > difference between the two cases: > > > > - when a pair describe their agreement as 10-12, and they open it with 9 > > points, they could be guilty of misrepresentation. The system is > > actually 9-12 and should be described as this. The responses to a > > systemic 9-12 would be the same as a 10-12. > > - when a pair describe their agreement as showing diamonds and hearts, > > and they then do it with clubs (weak), there can be no > > misrepresentation. It would be ludicrous to play a system in which 3Cl > > shows either clubs or diamonds and hearts, and the answers to such a > > system (if it could be played) would be totally different than the > > answers to a simple 5/5 red. > But isn't this what Timbuktoo (or suction) shows? > > > > So the first is a deviation, and the second is a misbid. > > The deviation is actual system and is subject to system regulation and > > misexplanation. > > The misbid can only be subject to misexplanation as to the frequency of > > the occurence. > > > > Do you see the difference? > > > > Herman. > > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > --- > Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz > ist aktiv. > http://www.avast.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Aug 29 18:09:13 2014 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:09:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <54007E1C.8070802@skynet.be> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <540077E4.1030402@aol.com> <54007E1C.8070802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5400A5A9.8080601@gmail.com> On 08/29/2014 09:20 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Jeff Easterson schreef: > >>> - when a pair describe their agreement as showing diamonds and hearts, >>> and they then do it with clubs (weak), there can be no >>> misrepresentation. It would be ludicrous to play a system in which 3Cl >>> shows either clubs or diamonds and hearts, and the answers to such a >>> system (if it could be played) would be totally different than the >>> answers to a simple 5/5 red. >> But isn't this what Timbuktoo (or suction) shows? > > OK, I stand corrected - it is possible to play such a system. > My second sentence stands, however: the answers would be totally > different, as pass will be a viable option rather than showing a freak > hand with 7 clubs. (and even 3D/H would have a different meaning, > showing clubs) Suction isn't the same as the auction under discussion - if you wanted to show clubs or (diamonds and hearts) using suction, you would bid spades, not clubs. There may be variants (I remember someone's website describing "inverted psycho-suction") but at least in what I believe to be the standard version, you never show the suit that you actually bid. Totally different animal to 3C showing clubs or the reds, IMO. Brian. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 30 02:18:45 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:18:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <540070A7.4080905@t-online.de> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> <54006794.4090109@skynet.be> <540070A7.4080905@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:23:03 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 29.08.2014 13:44, schrieb Herman De Wael: >> >> Matthias Berghaus schreef: >> >>> That is the question. It has become not so unusual to assign an >>> artificial score if you use a two-suited convention and something >>> happens. The Dutch have done it (don`t know whether they still do), the >>> Austrians have don it (same..), maybe others have, I don`t know. IMO >>> 40C1 is in the rules to let them do it. >> I believe that rule to be against the laws of the game, but I accept it >> in some limited cases, like the Dutch example. > > I believe that rule to have been against the laws before 2007, and I > don`t like it now. It makes certain things easier for the TD now, but I > never had any problem with it. > >> I believe that a player is allowed to forget his system, and the laws >> guarantee that this does not get punished. > > So do I. > >> What the Dutch have done is >> to get round this by saying that in specially described situations, >> forgetting a convention is "paying insufficient attention to the game". >> >> What you are doing is saying, without any prior arrangement, that it is >> forbidden to forget your system twice. Or three times. > > Not me. Forgetting your system again and again creates a partnership > experince, at least. Cashing in on that (without proper disclosure) is > what is forbidden. So it is okay if the players change their system before the game, both forget, yet they remember in time to give the "correct" explanation, which misleads the opponents? > >> Or however many >> you believe is enough to put L40C into action. The problem with that is >> that you fail to say how many times are enough. And the only way you can >> get to know the frequency is when they tell you. So you are punishing >> honest players and leaving potential cheats scot-free. > > I know my customers, and exchange data with fellow TDs. They don`t need > to tell me. It is more difficult in areas where I don`t know the playrs, > that is true. But most of the time the players tell me by their actions, > so I don`t have to ask. > >> And that cannot be good for the game. > > It would not be good, agreed. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Aug 30 05:58:48 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:58:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering Message-ID: Fortunately, the Lawbook is nuanced. In addition to Law 40C1 (which describes *frequent* deviations - caused either by forgetfulness or by intent - as creating an implicit partnership understanding), there is also Law 75C (which describes *infrequent* deviations - caused either by forgetfulness or by intent - as not requiring any disclosure). Law 75C emphasises that it is the partnership understanding, *not* a partner's cards, which much be disclosed. This brings up one of my hobby-horses; the numbering of the Laws. Law 40 is located nowhere near Law 75 in the Lawbook, making it easier for a novice Director to rule incorrectly. Another classic example of poor numbering is Law 23. It is surrounded by Laws which deal exclusively with irregularities in the auction, yet Law 23 is applicable both to the auction and also to the play. Christopher Smart (1722-1771), final stanza of his poem Jubilate Agno celebrating his cat: For God has blessed him in the variety of his movements. For, tho he cannot fly, he is an excellent clamberer. For his motions upon the face of the earth are more than any other quadruped. For he can tread to all the measures upon the music. For he can swim for life. For he can creep. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140830/2ea437a9/attachment.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Aug 30 08:14:05 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:14:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> <54006794.4090109@skynet.be> <540070A7.4080905@t-online.de> Message-ID: <54016BAD.7080405@t-online.de> Am 30.08.2014 02:18, schrieb Robert Frick: > > So it is okay if the players change their system before the game, both > forget, yet they remember in time to give the "correct" explanation, which > misleads the opponents? > It is for the TD to decide whether a system change which both players forget constitutes an agreement, and whether the explanation is really correct. OTOH, if both forget, how can one of them explain "correctly"? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 30 15:29:23 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:29:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:58:48 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > Fortunately, the Lawbook is nuanced. In addition to Law 40C1 >(which > describes *frequent* deviations - caused either by >forgetfulness or by > intent - as creating an implicit partnership >understanding), there is > also Law 75C (which describes >*infrequent* deviations - caused either > by forgetfulness or by >intent - as not requiring any disclosure). Law > 75C emphasises >that it is the partnership understanding, *not* a > partner's >cards, which much be disclosed. If I correctly remember your position on this, Richard, if both players forget they are playing a convention, their "understanding" at that moment is that they are not playing the convention. > > This brings up one of my hobby-horses; the numbering of the Laws. >Law > 40 is located nowhere near Law 75 in the Lawbook, making it >easier for > a novice Director to rule incorrectly. Another classic >example of poor > numbering is Law 23. It is surrounded by Laws >which deal exclusively > with irregularities in the auction, yet >Law 23 is applicable both to > the auction and also to the play. > > >> Christopher Smart (1722-1771), final stanza of his poem Jubilate >Agno >> celebrating his cat: > >> > >> For God has blessed him in the variety of his movements. > >> For, tho he cannot fly, he is an excellent clamberer. > >> For his motions upon the face of the earth are more than any >other >> quadruped. > >> For he can tread to all the measures upon the music. > >> For he can swim for life. > >> For he can creep. > -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140830/cf5789de/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 30 15:32:35 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:32:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <54016BAD.7080405@t-online.de> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> <54006794.4090109@skynet.be> <540070A7.4080905@t-online.de> <54016BAD.7080405@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 02:14:05 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 30.08.2014 02:18, schrieb Robert Frick: >> >> So it is okay if the players change their system before the game, both >> forget, yet they remember in time to give the "correct" explanation, >> which >> misleads the opponents? >> > > It is for the TD to decide whether a system change which both players > forget constitutes an agreement, and whether the explanation is really > correct. > OTOH, if both forget, how can one of them explain "correctly"? He wakes up between making his call and explaining his partner's bid. Freedom to decide is nice. That would be an interpretation of the laws or a judgment? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Aug 30 22:56:04 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 22:56:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <54006794.4090109@skynet.be> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> <54006794.4090109@skynet.be> Message-ID: Am 29.08.2014, 13:44 Uhr, schrieb Herman De Wael : > > > Matthias Berghaus schreef: >> >>> The deviation is actual system and is subject to system regulation and >>> misexplanation. >>> The misbid can only be subject to misexplanation as to the frequency of >>> the occurence. >> >> That is the question. It has become not so unusual to assign an >> artificial score if you use a two-suited convention and something >> happens. The Dutch have done it (don`t know whether they still do), the >> Austrians have don it (same..), maybe others have, I don`t know. IMO >> 40C1 is in the rules to let them do it. > > I believe that rule to be against the laws of the game, but I accept it > in some limited cases, like the Dutch example. > I believe that a player is allowed to forget his system, and the laws > guarantee that this does not get punished. What the Dutch have done is > to get round this by saying that in specially described situations, > forgetting a convention is "paying insufficient attention to the game". JFTR, Austrian Regulations use 40B2 "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding." Certain special partnership understandings are allowed subject to the condition that they are used correctly. Whenever you forget (or psyche, or whatever), you are using a SPU which is not allowed in this tournament and will at best score Av-. (Note: We discussed this regulation in Honnef and it was considered legal.) Petrus >