From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 04:32:09 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:32:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] All gone quiet In-Reply-To: <54783BCB.8050207@skynet.be> References: <5477BE59.5090300@comcast.net> <001801d00ae0$88365ac0$98a31040$@online.no> <54783BCB.8050207@skynet.be> Message-ID: Sven Pran: I see no reason to change the laws on this matter. It is clear to me that the Director has the power to ?rule otherwise? if he finds cause, but such cause must be real. As such cause most necessarily must bed of an extraordinary nature the laws do not specify possible criteria but leave it for the Director to judge. He certainly may not use his powers arbitrarily. Richard Hills: A real-life paradigm case occurred (to the best of my recollection) in the 2001 Kansas City Nationals. A sweet old lady as defender exposed 13 cards. Declarer summoned the Director. A generous declarer would have requested the Director to waive the 13 penalty cards. But this declarer valued his competive score more than niceness to sweet old ladies. (And, indeed, niceness has to stop somewhere. If a sweet old lady bids 7H with the ace of trumps offside, I do not accept her Law 25B attempt to convert the contract to 6H.) So the declarer refused to request a waiver of the 13 penalty cards. The Director over-rode declarer's wishes, not only ruling that the 13 exposed cards were not penalty cards, but also ruling that the 13 exposed cards were not unauthorised information. The Director's so-called "cause of an extraordinary nature" was that the sweet old lady had accidentally knocked over her card-holder. This does not seem "extraordinary" to me, given that there are several Laws defining correct procedure for a Director after an accidental placement of a card on the table. Of interest were the views of the appeal casebook panellists. Almost all of the panellists did not discuss the merits of the appeal, instead vehemently (and irrelevantly) denouncing the declarer as unsporting. But Grattan Endicott, in my opinion correctly, had a firmer opinion than Sven Pran's "extraordinary cause". Grattan's opinion was that ANY cause - in this case the sweet old lady's tremor - was a sufficient cause to cancel 13 penalty cards. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I second this view. > All the cases we've seen in this manner are extraordinary - so putting > them in the laws would require forsight larger than life. > And it need not be said that the director should use his powers with > care. Nothing in the laws stops him from seeing to it that the (male of > female) object of his/her desire, despite being a beginner, wins the > national championship. Nothing in the laws, but possibly something in > his pay-packet in the future. > Herman. > > Sven Pran schreef: > > I see no reason to change the laws on this matter. > > > > It is clear to me that the Director has the power to ?rule otherwise? if > > he finds cause, but such cause must be real. > > > > As such cause most necessarily must bed of an extraordinary nature the > > laws do not specify possible criteria but leave it for the Director to > > judge. He certainly may not use his powers arbitrarily. > > > > *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > > av* Richard Hills > > *Sendt:* 28. november 2014 01:55 > > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > > *Emne:* Re: [BLML] All gone quiet > > > > Sorry, until recently I was one of blml's most prolific creators of new > > threads. Let us try this new topic. The Director is empowered by Law to > > rule that a defender's exposed card is not a Penalty Card. Is this > > exercise of this directorial power: > > > > (a) unconditional? or > > > > (b) constrained by meeting a specific criterion and/or criteria in the > > Lawbook? > > > > If (a) is currently true, should (b) become true in the 2017 Lawbook, > > so as to prevent the Director arbitrarily deciding the result of a > > tournament? > > > > Alternatively, should the Penalty Card Laws be deleted from the 2017 > > Lawbook, with instead Law 16D applying to a defender's exposed card(s)? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Robert Park > > wrote: > > > > On 11/27/14, 1:53 PM, bmeadows666 at gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Apologies for the test message, but I've seen no messages on this list > > > for more than a month. > > > > > > Brian. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Blml mailing list > > > Blml at rtflb.org > > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > I'm glad you posted this. My experience has been the same. > > --bp > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20141201/eff194d7/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 1 08:13:22 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 08:13:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] All gone quiet In-Reply-To: References: <5477BE59.5090300@comcast.net> <001801d00ae0$88365ac0$98a31040$@online.no> <54783BCB.8050207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101d00d36$4b32cd40$e19867c0$@online.no> I fail to see any discrepancy between my view and the various view you are referring to below? Apparently the directors involved have all used their judgement skills, which is exactly as it should be. (And tremor may well, but not necessarily, qualify as extraordinary cause.) Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 1. desember 2014 04:32 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] All gone quiet Sven Pran: I see no reason to change the laws on this matter. It is clear to me that the Director has the power to ?rule otherwise? if he finds cause, but such cause must be real. As such cause most necessarily must bed of an extraordinary nature the laws do not specify possible criteria but leave it for the Director to judge. He certainly may not use his powers arbitrarily. Richard Hills: A real-life paradigm case occurred (to the best of my recollection) in the 2001 Kansas City Nationals. A sweet old lady as defender exposed 13 cards. Declarer summoned the Director. A generous declarer would have requested the Director to waive the 13 penalty cards. But this declarer valued his competive score more than niceness to sweet old ladies. (And, indeed, niceness has to stop somewhere. If a sweet old lady bids 7H with the ace of trumps offside, I do not accept her Law 25B attempt to convert the contract to 6H.) So the declarer refused to request a waiver of the 13 penalty cards. The Director over-rode declarer's wishes, not only ruling that the 13 exposed cards were not penalty cards, but also ruling that the 13 exposed cards were not unauthorised information. The Director's so-called "cause of an extraordinary nature" was that the sweet old lady had accidentally knocked over her card-holder. This does not seem "extraordinary" to me, given that there are several Laws defining correct procedure for a Director after an accidental placement of a card on the table. Of interest were the views of the appeal casebook panellists. Almost all of the panellists did not discuss the merits of the appeal, instead vehemently (and irrelevantly) denouncing the declarer as unsporting. But Grattan Endicott, in my opinion correctly, had a firmer opinion than Sven Pran's "extraordinary cause". Grattan's opinion was that ANY cause - in this case the sweet old lady's tremor - was a sufficient cause to cancel 13 penalty cards. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: I second this view. All the cases we've seen in this manner are extraordinary - so putting them in the laws would require forsight larger than life. And it need not be said that the director should use his powers with care. Nothing in the laws stops him from seeing to it that the (male of female) object of his/her desire, despite being a beginner, wins the national championship. Nothing in the laws, but possibly something in his pay-packet in the future. Herman. Sven Pran schreef: > I see no reason to change the laws on this matter. > > It is clear to me that the Director has the power to ?rule otherwise? if > he finds cause, but such cause must be real. > > As such cause most necessarily must bed of an extraordinary nature the > laws do not specify possible criteria but leave it for the Director to > judge. He certainly may not use his powers arbitrarily. > > *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > av* Richard Hills > *Sendt:* 28. november 2014 01:55 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* Re: [BLML] All gone quiet > > Sorry, until recently I was one of blml's most prolific creators of new > threads. Let us try this new topic. The Director is empowered by Law to > rule that a defender's exposed card is not a Penalty Card. Is this > exercise of this directorial power: > > (a) unconditional? or > > (b) constrained by meeting a specific criterion and/or criteria in the > Lawbook? > > If (a) is currently true, should (b) become true in the 2017 Lawbook, > so as to prevent the Director arbitrarily deciding the result of a > tournament? > > Alternatively, should the Penalty Card Laws be deleted from the 2017 > Lawbook, with instead Law 16D applying to a defender's exposed card(s)? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Robert Park > wrote: > > On 11/27/14, 1:53 PM, bmeadows666 at gmail.com > wrote: > > Apologies for the test message, but I've seen no messages on this list > > for more than a month. > > > > Brian. > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > I'm glad you posted this. My experience has been the same. > --bp > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20141201/ba9158e5/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 1 14:08:51 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:08:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] All gone quiet In-Reply-To: References: <5477BE59.5090300@comcast.net> <001801d00ae0$88365ac0$98a31040$@online.no> <54783BCB.8050207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <060617558bb3ebefaf982fa883e9eb0c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 01.12.2014 04:32, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > ? > > Sven Pran: > > ? > > I see no reason to change the laws on this matter. > > It is clear to me that the Director has the power to ?rule > otherwise? if he finds cause, but such cause must be real. > > As such cause most necessarily must bed of an extraordinary nature the > laws do not specify possible criteria but leave it for the Director to > judge. He certainly may not use his powers arbitrarily. > > ? > > Richard Hills: > > ? > > A real-life paradigm case occurred (to the best of my recollection) in > the 2001 Kansas City Nationals. A sweet old lady as defender exposed > 13 cards. Declarer summoned the Director. A generous declarer would > have requested the Director to waive the 13 penalty cards. But this > declarer valued his competive score more than niceness to sweet old > ladies. (And, indeed, niceness has to stop somewhere. If a sweet old > lady bids 7H with the ace of trumps offside, I do not accept her Law > 25B attempt to convert the contract to 6H.) So the declarer refused to > request a waiver of the 13 penalty cards. > > ? > > The Director over-rode declarer's wishes, not only ruling that the 13 > exposed cards were not penalty cards, but also ruling that the 13 > exposed cards were not unauthorised information. > > ? > > The Director's so-called "cause of an extraordinary nature" was that > the sweet old lady had accidentally knocked over her card-holder. This > does not seem "extraordinary" to me, given that there are several Laws > defining correct procedure for a Director after an accidental > placement of a card on the table. Alas, they don't settle the case of accidental placement of many cards on the table. There must be some situations when such event will not lead to penalty cards - say that one *opponent* has knocked over the card-holder. But it is equally unfair to allow the LOL's pa&rtner to benefit from the sight of the cards, meaning their opponents might suffer a bad result for no reason. Is it impossible, in such an extreme case, to declare the board unplayable ? Which will probably be the case if the person in charge of transmitting the board at the table had inadvertently spilt some cards, so this is not absent from the laws. "Saving the board" is a noble objective ; but FUBARs happen. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 1 14:25:14 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:25:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] All gone quiet In-Reply-To: <001101d00d36$4b32cd40$e19867c0$@online.no> References: "\" <5477BE59.5090300@comcast.net> " <001801d00ae0$88365ac0$98a31040$@online.no>" <54783BCB.8050207@skynet.be> <001101d00d36$4b32cd40$e19867c0$@online.no> Message-ID: <74fe8026562624e0942452b95d4609ae@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 01.12.2014 08:13, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > I fail to see any discrepancy between my view and the various view you > are referring to below? > > Apparently the directors involved have all used their judgement > skills, which is exactly as it should be. AG : I second Sven. This is an uncommon case, precisely one in which the TD and AC are asked to do something else that read TFLB. However, I don't support Grattan's opinion. which in turn makes decisions mechanic rather than judged. Best regards Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Dec 22 02:45:08 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:45:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche Message-ID: Imps Dlr: West Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1H(1) Pass 3H(2) ? (1) 5-card major (2) limit raise, 4-card support You, South, hold: AKJ7 AKT932 A A6 What call do you make? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20141222/0633ff53/attachment.html From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Mon Dec 22 09:16:12 2014 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (Anton Witzen) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:16:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000401d01dbf$8c7e9790$a57bc6b0$@upcmail.nl> DJ It looks like someone psyched, but is it LHO or RHO. Alternative is to bid 6H perhaps Regards anton A.Witzen (a.k.a. ????? ) Boniplein 86 1094 sg Amsterdam Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Richard Hills Verzonden: maandag 22 december 2014 2:45 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche Imps Dlr: West Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1H(1) Pass 3H(2) ? (1) 5-card major (2) limit raise, 4-card support You, South, hold: AKJ7 AKT932 A A6 What call do you make? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20141222/07d765a8/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Dec 22 09:30:34 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:30:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1F19BB59-35E1-46A8-8D61-4291455DC616@btinternet.com> Pass > On 22 Dec 2014, at 01:45, Richard Hills wrote: > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1H(1) Pass 3H(2) ? > > (1) 5-card major > (2) limit raise, 4-card support > > You, South, hold: > > AKJ7 > AKT932 > A > A6 > > What call do you make? > _______________________________________________ > 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/20141222/358e10b6/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 22 10:47:49 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 10:47:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5497E8C5.1000001@skynet.be> My Carine says : 3NT, and 4H if partner speaks again. Richard Hills schreef: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: Nil > The bidding has gone: > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1H(1) Pass 3H(2) ? > (1) 5-card major > (2) limit raise, 4-card support > You, South, hold: > AKJ7 > AKT932 > A > A6 > What call do you make? > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From g3 at nige1.com Mon Dec 22 12:44:13 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:44:13 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] Imps Dlr: West Vul: Nil WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1H(1) Pass 3H(2) ? (1) 5-card major (2) limit raise, 4-card support You, South, hold: AKJ7 AKT932 A A6 What call do you make? [Nige1] IMO Pass = 10, 3N = 8, Double = 6. When fixed ... From g3 at nige1.com Mon Dec 22 12:52:46 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:52:46 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2B07CAF405F04B7E8B4E3022171BD97A@G3> While thinking, place your hand face-down on table, to check backs of cards. From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Dec 22 13:11:51 2014 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:11:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54980A87.4090109@comcast.net> Count me among the passers. I once scored a top with a +350. On 12/21/14 8:45 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: Nil > The bidding has gone: > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1H(1) Pass 3H(2) ? > (1) 5-card major > (2) limit raise, 4-card support > You, South, hold: > AKJ7 > AKT932 > A > A6 > What call do you make? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20141222/a280ae14/attachment.html From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Mon Dec 22 14:01:47 2014 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (Olivix) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:01:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <012601d01de7$71e9c120$55bd4360$@beauvillain@wanadoo.fr> ? What is that ? You think you can make 9 tricks in hearts against me ? I don?t, i do double firmly this contract ? Not possible ??? bad luck J Pass, waiting for a reopening double, once in a while Olivix De : blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de Richard Hills Envoy? : lundi 22 d?cembre 2014 02:45 ? : Bridge Laws Mailing List Objet : [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche Imps Dlr: West Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1H(1) Pass 3H(2) ? (1) 5-card major (2) limit raise, 4-card support You, South, hold: AKJ7 AKT932 A A6 What call do you make? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20141222/d82114ba/attachment.html From bridge at vwalther.de Mon Dec 22 15:07:12 2014 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:07:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54982590.8060507@vwalther.de> Pass. Good action, opps. Volker Am 22.12.2014 um 02:45 schrieb Richard Hills: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1H(1) Pass 3H(2) ? > > (1) 5-card major > (2) limit raise, 4-card support > > You, South, hold: > > AKJ7 > AKT932 > A > A6 > > What call do you make? > > > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1H(1) Pass 3H(2) ? > > (1) 5-card major > (2) limit raise, 4-card support > > You, South, hold: > > AKJ7 > AKT932 > A > A6 > > What call do you make? > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From vip at centrum.is Mon Dec 22 16:12:35 2014 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:12:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: <2B07CAF405F04B7E8B4E3022171BD97A@G3> References: <2B07CAF405F04B7E8B4E3022171BD97A@G3> Message-ID: <1855066691.8688181.1419261155419.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Yes - That is a good idea... Do I hold the cards from next board ? And if the backs seem to be correct, I pass and wait for my destiny. Vigfus ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Nigel Guthrie" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: M?nudagur, 22. Desember, 2014 11:52:46 Efni: Re: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche While thinking, place your hand face-down on table, to check backs of cards. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Dec 23 01:58:12 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:58:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: <1855066691.8688181.1419261155419.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <2B07CAF405F04B7E8B4E3022171BD97A@G3> <1855066691.8688181.1419261155419.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: Imps Dlr: West Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1H(1) Pass 3H(2) All pass (1) 5-card major (2) limit raise, 4-card support You, South, hold: AKJ7 AKT932 A A6 North's opening lead is the ten of clubs (denying the jack) and dummy tracks with: 986 J874 KQ6 KQ8 Declarer calls for the king of clubs, and you win the ace. Now you elect to play three rounds of spades, but declarer ruffs the third round with the five of trumps. Declarer attempts to cash two club winners, but you ruff the second one. Now you elect to lead a low trump in case partner holds the queen. But declarer wins the six of hearts as partner shows out. Declarer asks partner, "No hearts?" Is declarer's question an unethical attempt to deceive partner into thinking that a normal 5-4 heart fit has run into a 4-0 break? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > Yes - That is a good idea... > Do I hold the cards from next board ? > > And if the backs seem to be correct, I pass and wait for my destiny. > > Vigfus > > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > Fr?: "Nigel Guthrie" > Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: M?nudagur, 22. Desember, 2014 11:52:46 > Efni: Re: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche > > While thinking, place your hand face-down on table, to check backs of > cards. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20141223/678d1d32/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Dec 23 05:41:33 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 23:41:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: <2B07CAF405F04B7E8B4E3022171BD97A@G3> <1855066691.8688181.1419261155419.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: Richard Hills writes: [dummy has four hearts; declarer opened 1H on a three-card suit and ran into a 6-0 break] > Declarer asks partner, "No hearts?" Is declarer's question an unethical > attempt > to deceive partner into thinking that a normal 5-4 heart fit has run into a > 4-0 break? You must ask consistently. If declarer normally asks defenders whether they show out, the question is proper. (I have never seen a declarer do that.) Otherwise, it could be an attempt to mislead. However, I don't see the misleading effect here. Declarer was obviously surprised at the bad break, and would be more surprised that it is 6-0 than that is is 4-0 or 3-0. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 23 09:39:23 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 09:39:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: <2B07CAF405F04B7E8B4E3022171BD97A@G3> <1855066691.8688181.1419261155419.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <54992A3B.2060804@skynet.be> Richard Hills schreef: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: Nil > The bidding has gone: > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1H(1) Pass 3H(2) All pass > (1) 5-card major > (2) limit raise, 4-card support > You, South, hold: > AKJ7 > AKT932 > A > A6 > North's opening lead is the ten of clubs (denying the jack) and dummy > tracks with: > 986 > J874 > KQ6 > KQ8 > Declarer calls for the king of clubs, and you win the ace. Now you elect > to play three rounds of spades, but declarer ruffs the third round with > the five of trumps. Declarer attempts to cash two club winners, but you > ruff the second one. Now you elect to lead a low trump in case partner > holds the queen. But declarer wins the six of hearts as partner shows out. > Declarer asks partner, "No hearts?" Is declarer's question an unethical > attempt to deceive partner into thinking that a normal 5-4 heart fit has > run into a 4-0 break? I would not think so. Even when playing in a 3-4 fit, you don't expect trumps to be 6-0. So the surprise might be genuine. $And he has bid his 5-card suit. No need to fake surprise to strengthen the notion that is was indeed a 5-card suit. Herman. > Best wishes, > Richard Hills > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 25 15:06:09 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:06:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89bc6d83c8cd86ea9bd9a95de8996c41@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 22.12.2014 02:45, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: Nil > ? > The bidding has gone: > ? > WEST????? NORTH??? EAST??? SOUTH > 1H(1)???? Pass???? 3H(2)?? ? > ? > (1) 5-card major > (2) limit raise, 4-card support > ? > You, South, hold: > ? > AKJ7 > AKT932 > A > A6 > ? > What call do you make? Pass. Now they've told me that hearts are breaking badly, I expect a good score. Of course it could be 400 against 980 in 6S, but that's against the odds. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 25 23:56:27 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 23:56:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: <2B07CAF405F04B7E8B4E3022171BD97A@G3> <1855066691.8688181.1419261155419.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: Le 23.12.2014 01:58, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1H(1) Pass 3H(2)?? All pass > > (1) 5-card major > (2) limit raise, 4-card support > > You, South, hold: > > AKJ7 > AKT932 > A > A6 > ? > North's opening lead is the ten of clubs (denying the jack) and dummy > tracks with: > ? > 986 > J874 > KQ6 > KQ8 > ? > Declarer calls for the king of clubs, and you win the ace. Now you > elect to play three rounds of spades, but declarer ruffs the third > round with the five of trumps. Declarer attempts to cash two club > winners, but you ruff the second one. Now you elect to lead a low > trump in case partner holds the queen. But declarer wins the six of > hearts as partner shows out. > ? > Declarer asks partner, "No hearts?" Is declarer's question an > unethical attempt to deceive partner into thinking that a normal 5-4 > heart fit has run into a 4-0 break? AG : quite the contrary. Declarer wouldn't be very surprised if he ran into a 4-0 break. But a 6-0 break is a rare bird indeed, and seeing the 6 make the trick is wilder still. This is probably an exclamation of surprise rather than a standard question. (the inflectio can't be reproduced on the appeal form, something which I occasionally regret) From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Dec 27 05:31:43 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 15:31:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: <2B07CAF405F04B7E8B4E3022171BD97A@G3> <1855066691.8688181.1419261155419.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: Yes, I was declarer and I was indeed surprised by the 6-0 break. Follow-up problem: In order for a question to be deemed deceptive under Law 73F, it must lack a demonstrable bridge reason. Is preventing an ++opponent++ converting a non-established revoke into an established revoke a bridge reason? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 9:56 AM, agot wrote: > Le 23.12.2014 01:58, Richard Hills a ?crit : > > Imps > > Dlr: West > > Vul: Nil > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 1H(1) Pass 3H(2) All pass > > > > (1) 5-card major > > (2) limit raise, 4-card support > > > > You, South, hold: > > > > AKJ7 > > AKT932 > > A > > A6 > > > > North's opening lead is the ten of clubs (denying the jack) and dummy > > tracks with: > > > > 986 > > J874 > > KQ6 > > KQ8 > > > > Declarer calls for the king of clubs, and you win the ace. Now you > > elect to play three rounds of spades, but declarer ruffs the third > > round with the five of trumps. Declarer attempts to cash two club > > winners, but you ruff the second one. Now you elect to lead a low > > trump in case partner holds the queen. But declarer wins the six of > > hearts as partner shows out. > > > > Declarer asks partner, "No hearts?" Is declarer's question an > > unethical attempt to deceive partner into thinking that a normal 5-4 > > heart fit has run into a 4-0 break? > > > AG : quite the contrary. Declarer wouldn't be very surprised if he ran > into a 4-0 break. But a 6-0 break is a rare bird indeed, and seeing the > 6 make the trick is wilder still. This is probably an exclamation of > surprise rather than a standard question. (the inflectio can't be > reproduced on the appeal form, something which I occasionally regret) > _______________________________________________ > 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/20141227/5e36f788/attachment.html