From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 2 22:49:35 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 21:49:35 +0000 Subject: [BLML] can't agree on contract [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0B9F7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Eric Landau: >>Kaplan?s notion was to review the auction call by (relevant) call, asking >>the player who made each call what he was thinking at the time. >That would seem to work well for everything but the debated last call. >Then half the people see the auction one way and half see it the other. Richard Hills: Eric?s recollection of Kaplan?s notion may very well be correct, but my recollection differs slightly. That is: ?Kaplan?s notion was to review the auction call by (relevant) call, asking ++every++ player what she was thinking at the time.? In some cases there would be hypothetical additional calls. For example, 1H ? Pass ? 3H (limit raise) ? Pass ? Pass ? Pass versus 1H ? Pass ? 3H (limit raise) ? Pass ? 4H ? Pass ? Pass ?Pass If the declaring side insisted the final contract was 4H, but the defending side insisted the final contract was 3H, then ?may the odds be ever in your favour? for the declaring side. It is easier to zone out when passing throughout than it is to zone out when bidding. And if the Director inspected the declaring side?s cards and discovered that the declaring partnership held a combined 30 hcp, then that would be further evidence in favour of the declaring side?s version of facts. Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): Omegan women were conservatives. They simply weren?t interested in the never-ending refinements of the poisoner?s art. Means didn?t interest them; only ends, as quickly and as cheaply as possible. Omegan women were noted for their common sense. Although the eager theoreticians at the Poison Institute tried to sell dubious mixtures of Contact Poison or Three Day Mold, and worked hard to put across complex, haywire schemes involving wasps, concealed needles, and double glasses, they found few takers among women. Simple arsenic and fast-acting strychnine continued to be the mainstays of the poison trade. This quite naturally simplified Barrent?s work. His remedies--immediate regurgitation, lavage, neutralizing agent--were easy enough to master. He encountered some difficulty with men who refused to believe they had been poisoned by anything so commonplace as arsenic or strychnine. For those cases, Barrent prescribed a variety of roots, herbs, twigs, leaves, and a minute homeopathic dose of poison. But he invariably preceded these with regurgitation, lavage, and neutralizing agent. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140202/4f0e2007/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 3 00:12:46 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 18:12:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: <001301cf1baa$0766c680$16345380$@online.no> References: <001001cf1a20$2ce8e590$86bab0b0$@online.no> <52E47E81.80206@iinet.net.au> <52E4ABFE.2070001@iinet.net.au> <000c01cf1aee$70e52dc0$52af8940$@online.no> <001d01cf1af5$d5707360$80515a20$@online.no> <001301cf1baa$0766c680$16345380$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:52:09 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > > I am not going to waste much more time on this so here is how to rule: > > > If the agreement is 12-14 but the disclosure is 15-17 then we have > misinformation. It doesn?t matter whether the >hand is actually 15-17 > (in which case we have a misbid in addition to the misinformation) or > 12-14. > > > If the defenders has chosen an unfortunate defense based on the > assumption that opener has 15-17 and can show a >reasonable argument for > a different defense given the correct information that the agreement is > 12-14 then the >director should (probably) rule damage caused by > misinformation. If they can see dummy in fact has 12 HCP, I would not be inclined to rule that they were damaged by thinking the dummy had 15-17. I am guessing you are not talking about the situation under discussion. > > Again it doesn?t matter whether the hand is actually 15-17 (and we have > a misbid in addition) or 12-14. Damage was >then caused by defenders > choosing their defense based on misinformation rather than on the > correct information. > > > However, if the erroneous disclosure is corrected before defenders had > to choose their defense then they have no >foundation for a claim that > they have been damaged by the misinformation, they had the correct > information at the >time they needed it. This is the nub of the issue. The opponents are entitled to a correct description of the partnership explanation, and when the receive the wrong explanation, this can be corrected and there can be no further damage. As you say. The opponents are not entitled to the player's faulty understanding. This can't be "corrected", because it's already correct. What about this damage? The simplistic but wrong idea is that when the partnership understanding is corrected, there can be no further damage. > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 27. januar 2014 18:01 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] not in Kansas > > > Simpler example: > > > 1NT P 4H > > > 1NT is explained as 15-17. In fact, the partnership agreement is 12-14. > During the play, the defender decides that >declarer might have a weaker > hand than he in fact does. This choice works out badly. He argues that > he was >damaged by the 15-17 explanation, that if he had been told > 12-14, he wouldn't have chosen that defense. Everyone >agrees on that. > > > This might look like a simple ruling. It isn't. > > > A mistaken explanation has two components. The first is, of course, that > the opponents do not receive the correct >partnership explanation. We of > course rectify for that. But in this example, the correct partnership > understanding is >irrelevant. If the opponents are given that, say prior > to the opening lead, that changes nothing. > > > The second component is that the explainer is giving information about > how he interprets the bid. This is >presumably free information to the > opponents -- they are not entitled to it. Presumably the opponents use > it at their >own risk. I don't even know if this is an infraction. This > is what caused the defense to go wrong. > > > > 2. To illustrate, suppose everything is the same, but the opponents do > not ask about the 1NT bid and there is no >formal explanation. Instead, > when dummy comes down, declarer says "I thought we played 15-17 HCP for > 1NT," >and dummy answers, "No, we play 12-14 not vulnerable." Then do > you rectify when the opponents are damaged by >this exchange? > > > Maybe you do, maybe you don't. The point is, you should be giving the > same ruling in both situations, for the same >reason. > > > Finally, a mistaken explanation of 15-17, corrected to 12-14 before the > opening lead, gets the same ruling too. You >can't think of the correct > explanation cancelling out the wrong explanation. -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140202/46c8096e/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 3 01:05:06 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 19:05:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You see the auction 1C P 1S P 2S P 4S P Dummy comes down with only three trump. Declarer says "Your bid promised 4-card support." That's a true description of the partnership agreement. Is that an infraction? You decide to defend as if it might be a 4-3 spade fit. It turns out to be a 5-3 spade fit and your defense was unsuccessful. Can you call the director and ask for protection? Is this ruling obvious? The answer "no" seemed attractive to me until I considered this question: When is it declarer's best strategy to make this remark (assuming no rectification)? Certainly not when there is a 4-3 fit, it just alerts the opponents to the possible best defense. But when declarer is in a 5-3 fit, this comment might induce a misdefense. Same thing for the comment, "You don't have your bid. I don't have a chance of making this contract." Assuming no rectification, the best time for making this comment is when a clever defense might be your contract. There is no advantage to making this comment if there really is no chance you will make your contract. If this is an infraction, then L23 applies. I also like the spirit of L73D. Put simply, when a player volunteers information, and he could have been aware that this action was more likely to benefit his side than hurt it, the director can rectify. Or, when a player volunteers information, he must be careful that this information is not likely to work to his benefit. From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 3 01:07:30 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 01:07:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: <001001cf1a20$2ce8e590$86bab0b0$@online.no> <52E47E81.80206@iinet.net.au> <52E4ABFE.2070001@iinet.net.au> <000c01cf1aee$70e52dc0$52af8940$@online.no> <001d01cf1af5$d5707360$80515a20$@online.no> <001301cf1baa$0766c680$16345380$@online.no> Message-ID: <002d01cf2073$ee940680$cbbc1380$@online.no> Robert Frick If the defenders has chosen an unfortunate defense based on the assumption that opener has 15-17 and can show a reasonable argument for a different defense given the correct information that the agreement is 12-14 then the director should (probably) rule damage caused by misinformation. If they can see dummy in fact has 12 HCP, I would not be inclined to rule that they were damaged by thinking the dummy had 15-17. I am guessing you are not talking about the situation under discussion. [Sven Pran] They cannot see dummy before selecting their opening lead. And why limit a discussion on principles to the situations where the opener becomes dummy? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140203/a515e90e/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 3 01:09:30 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 01:09:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003201cf2074$36af0a50$a40d1ef0$@online.no> Why change the case? Have you run out of both real and imaginary arguments? > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 3. februar 2014 01:05 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] not in Kansas > > You see the auction > > 1C P 1S P > 2S P 4S P > > Dummy comes down with only three trump. Declarer says "Your bid promised > 4-card support." That's a true description of the partnership agreement. > Is that an infraction? You decide to defend as if it might be a 4-3 spade fit. It > turns out to be a 5-3 spade fit and your defense was unsuccessful. > Can you call the director and ask for protection? > > Is this ruling obvious? The answer "no" seemed attractive to me until I > considered this question: When is it declarer's best strategy to make this > remark (assuming no rectification)? Certainly not when there is a 4-3 fit, it just > alerts the opponents to the possible best defense. But when declarer is in a 5-3 > fit, this comment might induce a misdefense. > > Same thing for the comment, "You don't have your bid. I don't have a chance of > making this contract." Assuming no rectification, the best time for making this > comment is when a clever defense might be your contract. > There is no advantage to making this comment if there really is no chance you > will make your contract. > > If this is an infraction, then L23 applies. I also like the spirit of L73D. > > Put simply, when a player volunteers information, and he could have been > aware that this action was more likely to benefit his side than hurt it, the > director can rectify. Or, when a player volunteers information, he must be > careful that this information is not likely to work to his benefit. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Feb 3 04:08:34 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 22:08:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3096B888ADFE425FA13F821057403964@erdos> "Robert Frick" writes: > You see the auction > > 1C P 1S P > 2S P 4S P > > Dummy comes down with only three trump. Declarer says "Your bid promised > 4-card support." That's a true description of the partnership agreement. > Is that an infraction? You decide to defend as if it might be a 4-3 spade > fit. It turns out to be a 5-3 spade fit and your defense was unsuccessful. > Can you call the director and ask for protection? > > Is this ruling obvious? The answer "no" seemed attractive to me until I > considered this question: When is it declarer's best strategy to make this > remark (assuming no rectification)? Certainly not when there is a 4-3 fit, > it just alerts the opponents to the possible best defense. But when > declarer is in a 5-3 fit, this comment might induce a misdefense. > > Same thing for the comment, "You don't have your bid. I don't have a > chance of making this contract." Assuming no rectification, the best time > for making this comment is when a clever defense might be your contract. > There is no advantage to making this comment if there really is no chance > you will make your contract. There is a difference between these two situations. The remark in the first situation was true, and a common situation. Unless it was likely to be done with the intention of misleading, I wouldn't rule against a declarer. The remark in the second situation is one that the declarer could reasonably have known would mislead the opponents, and thus a ruling can be mased > Put simply, when a player volunteers information, and he could have been > aware that this action was more likely to benefit his side than hurt it, > the director can rectify. Or, when a player volunteers information, he > must be careful that this information is not likely to work to his benefit. While I agree with the principle, I don't agree with the interpretation. From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Mon Feb 3 04:15:02 2014 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (a.witzen) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 04:15:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <973076495.1586180.1391397302756.open-xchange@upcmail.upc.nl> what about this action: 1c D 1S 2H 4S 5H D ap and the 1 S bidder has only 1 spade and 4 hearts. In holland the 1S bid is called a baby psyche by the way. do you correct this one? It is very normal to support 1S in yyour example with a 3-card fit if you dont have other means to tell them (using CBS for instance) i am not inclined to correct this aND i think half the world wont. regards anton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140203/1f7020e1/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 3 04:51:12 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 03:51:12 +0000 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0CF9C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>>You see the auction >>> >>>1C P 1S P >>>2S P 4S P >>> >>>Dummy comes down with only three trump[s]. Declarer says "Your bid >>>promised 4-card support." That's a true description of the partnership >>>agreement. Is that an infraction? David Grabiner: >>There is a difference between these two situations. The remark in the >>first situation [above] was true, and a common situation. Unless it was >>likely to be done with the intention of misleading, I wouldn't rule against >>a declarer. >>>You decide to defend as if it might be a 4-3 spade fit. It turns out to be a >>>5-3 spade fit and your defense was unsuccessful. >>>Can you call the director and ask for protection? Law 21A: "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding." [second hypothetical situation and David Grabiner's response to it snipped] Anton Witzen: >What about this action: >1C X 1S 2H >4S 5H X all Pass >and the 1S bidder has only 1 spade and 4 hearts? In [The Netherlands] the >1S bid is called a baby psyche by the way. >Do you correct this one? >It is very normal to support 1S in your example with a 3-card fit if you >don't have other means to tell them (using CBS for instance) >I am not inclined to correct this AND I think half the world won't. >regards >anton Richard Hills: I am Down Under in the other half of the world, so as a Director I would correct. A "baby psyche" is so called because only a baby would be fooled by it. In particular the partner of the "baby psycher" is not fooled. So a "baby psyche" is definitely NOT a true psyche; instead an undisclosed pre- existing implicit mutual partnership understanding. Hence as Director I rule under Law 40B4: "A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score." And, in the particular hypothetical circumstances proposed by Anton, the soi-disant "baby psycher" has also perpetrated an illegal convention. Hence as Director I would also rule under Law 40B5: "When a side is damaged by an opponent's use of a special partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations governing the tournament the score shall be adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty." Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): "Good is a state of illusion," said Uncle Ingemar in his even, monotonous voice," which ascribes to man the non-existent attributes of altruism, humility, and piety. How can we recognize Good as being an illusion? Because there is only man and The Black One in the universe, and to worship The Black One is to worship the ultimate expression of oneself. Thus, since we have proven Good to be an illusion, we necessarily recognize its attributes as non-existent. Understood?" Barrent didn't answer. "Do you understand?" the priest asked more sharply. "Eh?" Barrent said. He had been dozing with his eyes open. He forced himself awake and managed to say, "Yes, Uncle, I understand." "Excellent. Understanding that, we ask, why did The Black One allow even the illusion of Good to exist in an Evil universe? And the answer is found in the Law of Necessary Opposites; for Evil could not be recognized as such without something to contrast it with. The best contrast is an opposite. And the opposite of Evil is Good." The priest smiled triumphantly. "It's so simple and clear-cut, isn't it?" UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140203/09d749c1/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 4 02:25:24 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 20:25:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: <003201cf2074$36af0a50$a40d1ef0$@online.no> References: <003201cf2074$36af0a50$a40d1ef0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 19:09:30 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > Why change the case? Have you run out of both real and imaginary > arguments? 1C P 1S P 2S P 4S P P P Dummy comes down with 3 trumps. Declarer says "We are playing a 4-3 fit." Declarer actually has 5 spades. Declarer lied, presumably with the intention of creating the impression that it was a 4-3 fit and inducing a misdefense. The short story is that we have to allow rectification when the opps were damaged; we don't want to play bridge allowing declarer to lie to deceive the defense. That's the easy case. Same thing, but declarer says "I thought your bid showed 4 spades." Now declarer is telling the truth. And declarer could just be a blabbermouth. But declarer is again creating the impression of a 4-3 fit. If he shows up with 5 spades and the opponents are damaged, do we rectify? I think the answer is, again, that if we think about it long enough, we don't want to allow bridge to be played that way. Should we look at intention? The Probst cheat draws attention to the possibility of a 4-3 fit only when he has 5 spades. One principle of constructing laws is not to allow the Probst cheat to prosper. What about this player? When it is a 4-3 fit, he decides not to complain about partner's bidding until the hand is over. He doesn't want to draw attention to the possibility. When it is a 5-3 fits, it is safe to complain about partner's bid when he sees the dummy, so he does. He has, unwittingly, adopted the same strategy as the Probst cheat. Do we want to allow this with no danger of rectification when the opponents are misled? From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Tue Feb 4 02:43:10 2014 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (a.witzen) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 02:43:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0CF9C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0CF9C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <1978076885.1617139.1391478191012.open-xchange@upcmail.upc.nl> the 4S bid clearly shows that opener believes that partner has at least 4 spades, so it is not a concealed understanding, and indeed only a baby opponent can be fooled by this 1S bid:) otherwise, a D after 4S would be normal action regards anton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140204/7ffc347f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 4 03:31:21 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 02:31:21 +0000 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0DCDA@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Anton Witzen: >>>What about this action: >>>1C X 1S 2H >>>4S 5H X all Pass >>>and the 1S bidder has only 1 spade and 4 hearts? In [The Netherlands] the >>>1S bid is called a baby psyche by the way. >>>Do you correct this one? >>>It is very normal to support 1S in your example with a 3-card fit if you >>>don't have other means to tell them (using CBS for instance) >>>I am not inclined to correct this AND I think half the world won't. >>>regards >>>anton Richard Hills: >>I am Down Under in the other half of the world, so as a Director I would >>correct. A "baby psyche" is so called because only a baby would be fooled >>by it. In particular the partner of the "baby psycher" is not fooled. So a >>"baby psyche" is definitely NOT a true psyche; instead an undisclosed pre- >>existing implicit mutual partnership understanding. Hence as Director I rule >>under Law 40B4: >>..... Anton Witzen: >The 4S bid clearly shows that opener believes that partner has at least 4 >spades, so it is not a concealed understanding, >..... WBF Code of Practice, page 8: "A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal [for example, in Anton's above hypothetical, an 'entirely normal' raise to 4S]. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action [for example, in Anton's above hypothetical, an opponent's choice to compete to 5H] and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140204/c62ea2bc/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 5 02:17:49 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 01:17:49 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0F89A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 49: "Except in the normal course of play or ++application of law++ (see for example Law 47E), when a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to Law 68 when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress, and see Law 68B2 when partner objects to a defender's concession." Law 50 preamble: "A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (++see Law 49++ and Law 23 may apply)." Law 76B4: "A spectator must not disturb a player." Philadelphia WBF LC Meeting 2010, item 12 (thank you to Bill Kemp): "The committee took note of a discussion on BLML concerning cards exposed when a spectator "pushing past" a table stumbles into a player. Observation was made that in such a circumstance the Director is empowered by Law 50 to designate that the exposed cards are not penalty cards." Richard Hills: The above WBF LC minute demonstrates that the Director can designate otherwise under the Law 50 preamble because of applying a rectification for a "pushing past" Law 76B4 irregularity, which counts as a Law 49 "application of law". But is the Director empowered to arbitrarily cancel Penalty Card(s) merely due to her personal set of values? That is, when the ONLY irregularity is SOLELY caused by the defending side? The classic case is the Palsied Old Lady who unintentionally knocks over her card-holder, in principle creating 13 Penalty Cards. It seems to me that the notionally wide-ranging "designates otherwise" power of the Law 50 preamble is constrained by its cross-reference to Law 49. And it seems to me that the solution is to abolish Penalty Cards in the 2015 Lawbook, rather than to give the Director the arbitrary power to over-rule the non-offending side's rights and wishes - which could potentially affect which contestant was victorious in the tournament. (Of course, if my partner Hashmat and I played against such a Palsied Old Lady, our right and wish would be to request the Director to waive the 13 Penalty Cards, pursuant to Law 81C5.) Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): "But I didn't commit the crime!" Barrent said. "I didn't do it, and you must have known it!" "Of course I knew it," the robot-confessor said. "But my powers and duties are strictly defined. I sentence according to evidence, not intuition. By law, the robot-confessors must weigh only the concrete evidence which is put before them. They must, when in doubt, sentence. In fact, the mere presence of a man before me charged with murder must be taken as a strong presumption of his guilt." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140205/6627841c/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 5 02:47:00 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 20:47:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0F89A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0F89A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 20:17:49 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Law 49: >?Except in the normal course of play or ++application of law++ (see for > example Law 47E), when a defender?s card is in a position in which his > partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as > being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but > see the footnote to Law 68 when a defender has made a statement > concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress, and see Law 68B2 > when partner objects to a defender?s concession.? >Law 50 preamble: >?A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a > penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (++see Law 49++ > and Law 23 may apply).? >Law 76B4: >?A spectator must not disturb a player.? >Philadelphia WBF LC Meeting 2010, item 12 (thank you to Bill Kemp): >?The committee took note of a discussion on BLML concerning cards > exposed when a spectator ?pushing past? a table stumbles into a player. > Observation was made that in such a circumstance the Director is > empowered by Law 50 to designate that the exposed cards are not > penalty cards.? >Richard Hills: >The above WBF LC minute demonstrates that the Director can > designate otherwise under the Law 50 preamble because of applying a > rectification for a ?pushing past? Law 76B4 irregularity, which counts > as a Law 49 ?application of law?. >But is the Director empowered to arbitrarily cancel Penalty Card(s) > merely due to her personal set of values? That is, when the ONLY > irregularity is SOLELY caused by the defending side? >The classic case is the Palsied Old Lady who unintentionally knocks > over her card-holder, in principle creating 13 Penalty Cards. It seems > to me that the notionally wide-ranging ?designates otherwise? power > of the Law 50 preamble is constrained by its cross-reference to Law 49. >And it seems to me that the solution is to abolish Penalty Cards in the > 2015 Lawbook, rather than to give the Director the arbitrary power to > over-rule the non-offending side?s rights and wishes ? which could > potentially affect which contestant was victorious in the tournament. >(Of course, if my partner Hashmat and I played against such a Palsied > Old Lady, our right and wish would be to request the Director to waive > the 13 Penalty Cards, pursuant to Law 81C5.) RIght. Law 50 obviously places no restrictions on Director. As Max Bevin was claimed to have said, there are no limits in law on the TD's ability to deem a card not to be a penalty card However, this is not a natural-language interpretation of L50. I will write on that. >> > Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): >?But I didn?t commit the crime!? Barrent said. ?I didn?t do it, and you > must have known it!? >?Of course I knew it,? the robot-confessor said. ?But my powers and > duties are strictly defined. I sentence according to evidence, not > intuition. By law, the robot-confessors must weigh only the concrete > evidence which is put before them. They must, when in doubt, sentence. > In fact, the mere presence of a man before me charged with murder must > be taken as a strong presumption of his guilt.? > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140205/d1ae70b7/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 5 02:57:44 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 20:57:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0F89A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0F89A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: The statement, "Members may vote unless they have committed a felony" is normally not taken as permission to commit a felony. It merely talks about what happens if they committed a felony. L50: A card prematurely exposed by a defender is a penalty card unless the director designates otherwise. The natural language interpretation is that there are situations where the director might designate otherwise, but not that director is being given new rights to do so. The reality is, we expect the laws to say exactly when a prematurely exposed card is and is not a penalty card. L50 is then what to do with those penalty cards. It is extremely unlikely that the lawmakers intended to give the director unspecified rights to designate a prematurely exposed card as a penalty card. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140205/34058859/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 5 03:11:19 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 02:11:19 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0F91D@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Orson Scott Card, Speaker for the Dead (1986): "The truth is a beautiful and terrible thing, and therefore should be treated with great caution." >I remember Max Bavin [WBF Chief Director] remarking to me that >there are no limits in law on the TD's ability to deem a card not to >be a penalty card. Commonly it's use whenever the other side has >done something to contribute to the card being exposed. > >Gordon Rainsford [EBU Chief Director] Richard Hills [semi-official proof-reader and indexer of the Laws]: The Admirable Max and the Admirable Gordon are not in and of themselves speaking with the corporate authority of the Exalted WBF Laws Committee. And (despite me being a Speaker for the Dead), neither do I speak with the corporate authority of the Exalted WBF Laws Committee. Grattan Endicott [Coordinator of 2007 Drafting Committee], February 2009, with "++" emphasis inserted by RH: +=+ My longstanding belief is that statements of or about law and regulation should be ++precise and of ineluctable meaning++. I do not always succeed and I do accept improvements offered by others. I would change the text of the laws for ++greater clarity++ in some places but the ++decision to reword has to be a corporate one++. People who have lived with a law for years tend to be comfortable with it as it is, even if ++the language is arguably problematic++. [snipped discussion of Law 12C1(e)(ii)] Another aspect is that an adjusted score is discretionary and takes the place of any score obtained in play; the auction may be rolled back to a point at which the infraction occurred and at which the probabilities are to be assessed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140205/5352281c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 5 07:00:02 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 06:00:02 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0FA57@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662): "I have made this [letter] longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter." Jeff Easterson: >That would solve my problem but how did you know that the card called >for was not in dummy? I see no indication of this in the original text. Richard Hills: I have tried to minimise my verbosity in blml posts by using ultra-succinct precision. Alas, sometimes I am over-succinct and misinterpreted. As for the Admirable Author of the original text, he obviously never* has the time to make his posts shorter or less ambiguous. *Hardly ever. Jeff Easterson: >Again, what am I missing? > >JE Richard Hills: What many blmlers seem to be missing is that calling for a non-existent card from dummy is an infraction; hence the Director may adjust the score under Law 12A if the defenders were consequently (but not merely subsequently) damaged. Correspondence on the Battle of Waterloo between Eric and Edgar: http://blakjak.org/lws_lan0.htm UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140205/9c18ffe9/attachment-0001.html From roger-eymard at orange.fr Wed Feb 5 11:05:20 2014 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 11:05:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32517087C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Hello BLMLers I need your highly praised advices It happens often that a player, having played a card, wants to change it for another. When summoned, the director has to decide whether he allows the change or not. His decision is based on Law 45C4b first sentence and Law 47C : "Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought." "To Change an Inadvertent Designation A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification after a change of designation permitted by Law 45C4(b)." Does that mean that an inadvertently played card by a defender does not become a penalty card according to Law 50 ? (similarly as would become a card falling accidentally from the hand) I dare not think of the use of that by a ch... ! By the way, two points seem unclear to me in the writing of Law 45C4b (both in English and in the word for word French translation) First point : What does designation mean in relation with the act of playing a card ? >From Merriam-Webster's dictionary : 1 : the act of indicating or identifying 2 : appointment to or selection for an office, post, or service 3 : a distinguishing name, sign, or title >From the Oxford dictionary : The action of choosing someone to hold an office or post >From the Student's Dictionary of American English : 1 : act of designating 2 : a descriptive title, name 3 : appointment, selection It seems that the meaning "the act of indicating" is appropriate for a card played from dummy by declarer. But I don't believe that the purpose of the Law is restricted to such a case. The Lawmakers would have explicitly indicated such a restriction. But in order to apply the Law to the cases of cards played by declarer, or by a defender, we have to distort the meaning "selection for an office" into "selection for the trick under progress". Which rises a new case : What would be an unintended selection ? "selection" implies a conscious choice, which cannot be unintended. Second point : "Until his partner has played a card" does not apply to the third or fourth contributor to a trick. So, may I suggest an explanatory paraphrase (to be re-written in good English.) : "Except when his partner has subsequently played a card for the same trick a player may change an inadvertently played card if he does so without pause for thought (a card is played inadvertently if the player did not think, even for the shortest while, of playing it for the trick under progress, or about playing it in a subsequent trick)". "Inadvertent" (the word is used in Law 47C) would mean for the play of a card as it does for a call : "without any contribution of the brain". Your opinion please ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140205/d1680423/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 5 13:13:57 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:13:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32517087C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <001a01cf226b$bff42f90$3fdc8eb0$@online.no> I suppose the easy answer to this is that when a card is touched by hand it is played ? not designated. Designating a card means that it is referred to (i.e. named or pointed at) without touching it. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Roger Eymard Sendt: 5. februar 2014 11:05 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? Hello BLMLers I need your highly praised advices It happens often that a player, having played a card, wants to change it for another. When summoned, the director has to decide whether he allows the change or not. His decision is based on Law 45C4b first sentence and Law 47C : ?Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought.? ?To Change an Inadvertent Designation A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification after a change of designation permitted by Law 45C4(b).? Does that mean that an inadvertently played card by a defender does not become a penalty card according to Law 50 ? (similarly as would become a card falling accidentally from the hand) I dare not think of the use of that by a ch .. ! By the way, two points seem unclear to me in the writing of Law 45C4b (both in English and in the word for word French translation) First point : What does designation mean in relation with the act of playing a card ? >From Merriam-Webster?s dictionary : 1 : the act of indicating or identifying 2 : appointment to or selection for an office, post, or service 3 : a distinguishing name, sign, or title >From the Oxford dictionary : The action of choosing someone to hold an office or post >From the Student?s Dictionary of American English : 1 : act of designating 2 : a descriptive title, name 3 : appointment, selection It seems that the meaning ?the act of indicating? is appropriate for a card played from dummy by declarer. But I don?t believe that the purpose of the Law is restricted to such a case. The Lawmakers would have explicitly indicated such a restriction. But in order to apply the Law to the cases of cards played by declarer, or by a defender, we have to distort the meaning ?selection for an office? into ?selection for the trick under progress?. Which rises a new case : What would be an unintended selection ? ?selection? implies a conscious choice, which cannot be unintended. Second point : ?Until his partner has played a card? does not apply to the third or fourth contributor to a trick. So, may I suggest an explanatory paraphrase (to be re-written in good English ) : ?Except when his partner has subsequently played a card for the same trick a player may change an inadvertently played card if he does so without pause for thought (a card is played inadvertently if the player did not think, even for the shortest while, of playing it for the trick under progress, or about playing it in a subsequent trick)?. ?Inadvertent? (the word is used in Law 47C) would mean for the play of a card as it does for a call : ?without any contribution of the brain?. Your opinion please ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140205/7be02f1f/attachment.html From roger-eymard at orange.fr Wed Feb 5 13:33:48 2014 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:33:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32517087C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001a01cf226b$bff42f90$3fdc8eb0$@online.no> Message-ID: <70A58AEF789F4214A7CD02D8DF05BFA1@magnifique> Law 47C seems to make equivalent "unintended designation" and "inadvertent play". Otherwise, what could be the meaning of "withdrawn and returned to hand" ? ----- Original Message ----- From: Sven Pran To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 1:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? I suppose the easy answer to this is that when a card is touched by hand it is played - not designated. Designating a card means that it is referred to (i.e. named or pointed at) without touching it. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Roger Eymard Sendt: 5. februar 2014 11:05 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? Hello BLMLers I need your highly praised advices It happens often that a player, having played a card, wants to change it for another. When summoned, the director has to decide whether he allows the change or not. His decision is based on Law 45C4b first sentence and Law 47C : "Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought." "To Change an Inadvertent Designation A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification after a change of designation permitted by Law 45C4(b)." Does that mean that an inadvertently played card by a defender does not become a penalty card according to Law 50 ? (similarly as would become a card falling accidentally from the hand) I dare not think of the use of that by a ch... ! By the way, two points seem unclear to me in the writing of Law 45C4b (both in English and in the word for word French translation) First point : What does designation mean in relation with the act of playing a card ? From Merriam-Webster's dictionary : 1 : the act of indicating or identifying 2 : appointment to or selection for an office, post, or service 3 : a distinguishing name, sign, or title From the Oxford dictionary : The action of choosing someone to hold an office or post From the Student's Dictionary of American English : 1 : act of designating 2 : a descriptive title, name 3 : appointment, selection It seems that the meaning "the act of indicating" is appropriate for a card played from dummy by declarer. But I don't believe that the purpose of the Law is restricted to such a case. The Lawmakers would have explicitly indicated such a restriction. But in order to apply the Law to the cases of cards played by declarer, or by a defender, we have to distort the meaning "selection for an office" into "selection for the trick under progress". Which rises a new case : What would be an unintended selection ? "selection" implies a conscious choice, which cannot be unintended. Second point : "Until his partner has played a card" does not apply to the third or fourth contributor to a trick. So, may I suggest an explanatory paraphrase (to be re-written in good English.) : "Except when his partner has subsequently played a card for the same trick a player may change an inadvertently played card if he does so without pause for thought (a card is played inadvertently if the player did not think, even for the shortest while, of playing it for the trick under progress, or about playing it in a subsequent trick)". "Inadvertent" (the word is used in Law 47C) would mean for the play of a card as it does for a call : "without any contribution of the brain". Your opinion please ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20140205/70ce35eb/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 5 15:22:33 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:22:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? In-Reply-To: <70A58AEF789F4214A7CD02D8DF05BFA1@magnifique> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32517087C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001a01cf226b$bff42f90$3fdc8eb0$@online.no> <70A58AEF789F4214A7CD02D8DF05BFA1@magnifique> Message-ID: <003101cf227d$b652a680$22f7f380$@online.no> Where in the laws have you found the term ?inadvertent play?? Certainly not in Law 47C. (Don?t confuse ?designation? and ?play?!) Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Roger Eymard Sendt: 5. februar 2014 13:34 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? Law 47C seems to make equivalent "unintended designation" and "inadvertent play". Otherwise, what could be the meaning of "withdrawn and returned to hand" ? ----- Original Message ----- From: Sven Pran To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 1:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? I suppose the easy answer to this is that when a card is touched by hand it is played ? not designated. Designating a card means that it is referred to (i.e. named or pointed at) without touching it. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Roger Eymard Sendt: 5. februar 2014 11:05 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? Hello BLMLers I need your highly praised advices It happens often that a player, having played a card, wants to change it for another. When summoned, the director has to decide whether he allows the change or not. His decision is based on Law 45C4b first sentence and Law 47C : ?Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought.? ?To Change an Inadvertent Designation A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification after a change of designation permitted by Law 45C4(b).? Does that mean that an inadvertently played card by a defender does not become a penalty card according to Law 50 ? (similarly as would become a card falling accidentally from the hand) I dare not think of the use of that by a ch .. ! By the way, two points seem unclear to me in the writing of Law 45C4b (both in English and in the word for word French translation) First point : What does designation mean in relation with the act of playing a card ? >From Merriam-Webster?s dictionary : 1 : the act of indicating or identifying 2 : appointment to or selection for an office, post, or service 3 : a distinguishing name, sign, or title >From the Oxford dictionary : The action of choosing someone to hold an office or post >From the Student?s Dictionary of American English : 1 : act of designating 2 : a descriptive title, name 3 : appointment, selection It seems that the meaning ?the act of indicating? is appropriate for a card played from dummy by declarer. But I don?t believe that the purpose of the Law is restricted to such a case. The Lawmakers would have explicitly indicated such a restriction. But in order to apply the Law to the cases of cards played by declarer, or by a defender, we have to distort the meaning ?selection for an office? into ?selection for the trick under progress?. Which rises a new case : What would be an unintended selection ? ?selection? implies a conscious choice, which cannot be unintended. Second point : ?Until his partner has played a card? does not apply to the third or fourth contributor to a trick. So, may I suggest an explanatory paraphrase (to be re-written in good English ) : ?Except when his partner has subsequently played a card for the same trick a player may change an inadvertently played card if he does so without pause for thought (a card is played inadvertently if the player did not think, even for the shortest while, of playing it for the trick under progress, or about playing it in a subsequent trick)?. ?Inadvertent? (the word is used in Law 47C) would mean for the play of a card as it does for a call : ?without any contribution of the brain?. Your opinion please ? _____ _______________________________________________ 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/20140205/fa36a216/attachment.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Wed Feb 5 16:40:30 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 16:40:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32517087C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Am 05.02.2014, 11:05 Uhr, schrieb Roger Eymard : > Hello BLMLers > > > I need your highly praised advices > > It happens often that a player, having played a card, wants to change it > for another. When summoned, the director has to decide whether he allows > the change or not. His decision is based on Law 45C4b first sentence and > Law 47C : > > > "Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended > designation if he does so without pause for thought." > > > "To Change an Inadvertent Designation > > > A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further > rectification after a change of designation permitted by Law 45C4(b)." > > > Does that mean that an inadvertently played card by a defender does not > become a penalty card according to Law 50 ? (similarly as would become a > card falling accidentally from the hand) See 45C4a: any player may play a card by naming it, although the most common case is of course declarer calling for a card from dummy. And 45C4b applies only to such plays, not to cards being played by physically removing them from a hand. I quote from Ton's Commentary: Law 45 The word ?designat-es/ion? in C4 is used to distinguish the play of a card as described in A and B (second sentence) from playing it in another way. A card manually played by declarer from dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced if it is a legal card. Only in the case of a card played in another way, by naming it for example, it is possible to change it. This law states that such designation needs to be unintended and that the player already knew which card he wanted to play, at that moment. Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not have already put a card in the played position. Law 45D states that it is possible that5 cards may have to be withdrawn if dummy plays a card that declarer did not designate to be played. If declarer leads from dummy and a wrong card is played, the trick may be completed and the lead to the next trick put on the table. If declarer now notices the mistake, he is allowed to play the intended card from dummy. The TD should carefully explain to RHO that if he does not change his card declarer is not allowed to change his card either. LHO is allowed to change it anyway. best regards, Petrus From roger-eymard at orange.fr Wed Feb 5 17:39:25 2014 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:39:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32517087C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <31AC76C147DD49619257784449D1E9EA@magnifique> Thank you for your answers. As it always seemed to me, apart from the cases described in Law 47, a manually played card can never be withdrawn (could it be exceptions according to Law 81C5 in case of disability of the player ? If yes, what would become the withdrawwn card ?) Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? > Am 05.02.2014, 11:05 Uhr, schrieb Roger Eymard : > >> Hello BLMLers >> >> >> I need your highly praised advices >> >> It happens often that a player, having played a card, wants to change it >> for another. When summoned, the director has to decide whether he allows >> the change or not. His decision is based on Law 45C4b first sentence and >> Law 47C : >> >> >> "Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended >> designation if he does so without pause for thought." >> >> >> "To Change an Inadvertent Designation >> >> >> A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further >> rectification after a change of designation permitted by Law 45C4(b)." >> >> >> Does that mean that an inadvertently played card by a defender does not >> become a penalty card according to Law 50 ? (similarly as would become a >> card falling accidentally from the hand) > > See 45C4a: any player may play a card by naming it, although the most > common case is of course declarer calling for a card from dummy. And 45C4b > applies only to such plays, not to cards being played by physically > removing them from a hand. > > I quote from Ton's Commentary: > Law 45 > The word ?designat-es/ion? in C4 is used to distinguish the play of a card > as described in A and B > (second sentence) from playing it in another way. A card manually played > by declarer from dummy or > by a defender cannot be replaced if it is a legal card. Only in the case > of a card played in another way, > by naming it for example, it is possible to change it. This law states > that such designation needs to be > unintended and that the player already knew which card he wanted to play, > at that moment. Moreover, > partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not have already put > a card in the played position. > Law 45D states that it is possible that5 cards may have to be withdrawn if > dummy plays a card that > declarer did not designate to be played. If declarer leads from dummy and > a wrong card is played, the > trick may be completed and the lead to the next trick put on the table. If > declarer now notices the mistake, he is allowed to play the intended card > from dummy. The TD should carefully explain to RHO > that if he does not change his card declarer is not allowed to change his > card either. LHO is allowed to > change it anyway. > > best regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Feb 5 17:53:13 2014 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:53:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? In-Reply-To: <70A58AEF789F4214A7CD02D8DF05BFA1@magnifique> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32517087C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001a01cf226b$bff42f90$3fdc8eb0$@online.no> <70A58AEF789F4214A7CD02D8DF05BFA1@magnifique> Message-ID: <00a301cf2292$c211cdb0$46356910$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Sven: I suppose the easy answer to this is that when a card is touched by hand it is played - not designated. Designating a card means that it is referred to (i.e. named or pointed at) without touching it. ton: This remark is very true and means that normally spoken only declarer is involved. I have said before that L 45C4b is terribly written, by far the winner in the 2007 edition. We wanted to make the treatment equal to that in L25A. But we did not succeed. To give this law still some sense we have decided (should be somewhere in the minutes) to allow a change as long as dummy has not put the 'wrong' card in the played position. I trust that the next version will say what we aimed for in 2006. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140205/5dbe31d2/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Feb 5 18:25:56 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:25:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> On 2014-02-02 7:05 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 1C P 1S P 2S P 4S P > > Dummy comes down with only three trump. Declarer says "Your bid > promised 4-card support." That's a true description of the > partnership agreement. Is that an infraction? It is certainly an irregularity, which is all L23 requires. > when a player volunteers information, *other than as required by Law* > and he could have been aware that this action was more likely to > benefit his side than hurt it, the director can rectify. An example is L21F5b(ii). Maybe a corrected explanation as required shouldn't be construed as "volunteering" information, but L23 doesn't apply when supplying the information is no irregularity. On 2014-02-02 10:08 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > The remark ... was true, and a common situation. > Unless it was likely to be done > with the intention of misleading, I wouldn't rule against a > declarer. L23 has nothing about intention. The test is "could have known," not "did know." On 2014-02-02 10:15 PM, a.witzen wrote: > 1c D 1S 2H > 4S 5H D ap > and the 1 S bidder has only 1 spade and 4 hearts. > In holland the 1S bid is called a baby psyche Same name in the US, though we don't put an 'e' at the end. I don't see what this case has to do with the other ones. If the true agreement about 1S is that it shows spades, there's no infraction. If the true agreement is otherwise and was not properly disclosed, that's ordinary MI with the usual consequences. There's also a possible issue of illegal convention if the true agreement is something like "spades or weak without spades" and such agreement is not legal in the jurisdiction concerned. (That agreement is legal in the ACBL if properly disclosed.) Opener's 4S bid strongly suggests that the agreement is that 1S shows spades, but the Director should investigate whether there's any contrary evidence. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Feb 5 22:46:38 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 16:46:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? In-Reply-To: <001a01cf226b$bff42f90$3fdc8eb0$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32517087C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001a01cf226b$bff42f90$3fdc8eb0$@online.no> Message-ID: <52F2B13E.7030006@nhcc.net> On 2014-02-05 7:13 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Designating a card means that it is referred to (i.e. named or pointed > at) without touching it. As others have commented, normally this means by declarer with regard to dummy's cards. David Stevenson pointed out (in another forum) that it could also apply for example when a handicapped player designates cards orally, and they are put in position by someone else. If the conditions for L45C4b apply, for example, to a card from dummy, I don't see why dummy having put a card into played position should eliminate the option of a change. It may, of course, be harder to establish that the requirements (especially no "pause for thought") are met, but I don't see anything that entirely rules out a change. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 6 00:03:29 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 23:03:29 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Unintentionally designated? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A114A8@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 45C4(b): "Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. If an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another (see Laws 47D and 16D1)." ton: >This ..... means that normally spoken only declarer is involved. I have >said before that L 45C4b is terribly written, by far the winner in the >2007 edition. richard: Yes and No. I recall that members of the 2007 Drafting Committee (!!!) differed in their interpretation of the first sentence of Law 68B2: "Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred." I hope that my preferred interpretation appears in the 2015 Lawbook: "Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, neither a concession nor a claim has occurred." ton: >We wanted to make the treatment equal to that in L25A. But we did not >succeed. To give this law still some sense we have decided (should be >somewhere in the minutes) to allow a change as long as dummy has not >put the 'wrong' card in the played position. I trust that the next version >will say what we aimed for in 2006. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 14th August 2012, item 4: "It is noted that the ACBL has a drafting committee in place, but presently without a chairman. Mr Wildavsky undertook liaison between the ACBL and the WBF so that the progress and decisions of the bodies may be co- ordinated." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140205/d249036c/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Feb 6 01:51:03 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 00:51:03 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? In-Reply-To: <52F2B13E.7030006@nhcc.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32517087C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001a01cf226b$bff42f90$3fdc8eb0$@online.no> <52F2B13E.7030006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5F638FC9639B4D02A83301625812A2D1@G3> Law-makers and top directors relish this kind of argument. Unfortunately they fail to recognize that special dispensation for "mechanical" errors is mainly of benefit to rationalising secretary birds. Few club-directors or ordinary players are going to waste their time trawling though obscure minutes and interpretations for this kind of daft nonsense. Ordinary directors and players cling to the tenuous hope that bridge is just a game and outcomes should be decided by bidding and play skills, rather than by unnecessary director mumbo jumbo. In the rare cases where a handicapped player drops cards or whatever, few would draw attention to the infraction and if a director were called it would only be to ask that penalties be waived From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 6 07:34:13 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 01:34:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0FA57@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0FA57@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 01:00:02 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662): >?I have made this [letter] longer than usual, only because I have not > had the > time to make it shorter.? >Jeff Easterson: > >> That would solve my problem but how did you know that the card called >> for was not in dummy? I see no indication of this in the original text. >Richard Hills: >I have tried to minimise my verbosity in blml posts by using > ultra-succinct > precision. Alas, sometimes I am over-succinct and misinterpreted. >As for the Admirable Author of the original text, he obviously never* has > the time to make his posts shorter or less ambiguous. >*Hardly ever. >Jeff Easterson: > >> Again, what am I missing? >> >> JE >Richard Hills: >What many blmlers seem to be missing is that calling for a non-existent > card from dummy is an infraction; Too succinct. Please, leave in the logic supporting your conclusions. >> hence the Director may adjust the > score under Law 12A if the defenders were consequently (but not merely > subsequently) damaged. >Correspondence on the Battle of Waterloo between Eric and Edgar: >http://blakjak.org/lws_lan0.htm > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140206/7ec5a3dc/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Feb 7 11:50:02 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:50:02 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? In-Reply-To: <00a301cf2292$c211cdb0$46356910$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32517087C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <001a01cf226b$bff42f90$3fdc8eb0$@online.no> <70A58AEF789F4214A7CD02D8DF05BFA1@magnifique> <00a301cf2292$c211cdb0$46356910$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <52F4BA5A.4070705@btinternet.com> I'd agree with Ton that Law 45C4b is badly written, though I don't think it's a clear winner over L27B1b. If there is a minute to the effect that Ton says, it must have passed us by in the EBU, because we usually put such things in our White Book, and on this subject it gives a different interpretation: "Law 45C4 (b): What is 'Until partner has played'? The usual case of the application of Law 45C4 (b) is when a card is named to be played from dummy: in this case 'until partner has played' is confusing. The EBU interpretation of this law is that the time limit to change a designation of a card played by dummy is until declarer plays a card (from his hand) to the trick, and if dummy plays third or fourth to the trick it is until declarer quits the trick." Since I and probably others have drawn this to the attention of the committee's secretary, and Ton's post indicates that they are already aware of it, I think we can be hopeful that it will be clarified one way or the other in the next Laws. Gordon Rainsford On 05/02/2014 16:53, ton wrote: > > Sven: > > I suppose the easy answer to this is that when a card is touched > by hand it is played -- not designated. > > Designating a card means that it is referred to (i.e. named or > pointed at) without touching it. > > ton: > > This remark is very true and means that normally spoken only > declarer is involved. I have said before that L 45C4b is terribly > written, by far the winner in the 2007 edition. > > We wanted to make the treatment equal to that in L25A. But we did > not succeed. To give this law still some sense we have decided > (should be somewhere in the minutes) to allow a change as long as > dummy has not put the 'wrong' card in the played position. I > trust that the next version will say what we aimed for in 2006. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140207/1c08acd0/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Feb 7 13:20:39 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:20:39 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Inadvertently played ? In-Reply-To: <31AC76C147DD49619257784449D1E9EA@magnifique> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC32517087C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <31AC76C147DD49619257784449D1E9EA@magnifique> Message-ID: <52F4CF97.1020906@btinternet.com> On 05/02/2014 16:39, Roger Eymard wrote: > Thank you for your answers. As it always seemed to me, apart from the cases > described in Law 47, a manually played card can never be withdrawn I think this is true, though of course declarer is free to change his mind until the card has reached the state of being played, even if it's been seen by the other players. Gordon Rainsford From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 9 21:41:23 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 15:41:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> References: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:25:56 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2014-02-02 7:05 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> 1C P 1S P 2S P 4S P >> >> Dummy comes down with only three trump. Declarer says "Your bid >> promised 4-card support." That's a true description of the >> partnership agreement. Is that an infraction? > > It is certainly an irregularity, which is all L23 requires. Off topic, but I think the understanding is that if a player commits an irregularity, it's an infraction. Is it something declarer must not do, should not do, or does not do? And can you provide the law the player is not following? That would be of great help in arguing with other people that there is an irregularity. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 9 21:42:04 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 15:42:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> References: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Again, the auction is 1C P 1S P 2S P 4S P P P and partner puts down only 3-card spade support. If your agreement is that he has shown 4-card spade suit, and you are playing a 4-3 fit, this would be a really bad time to correct partner, because it would alert the opponents to your problem. But if you are in a 5-3 fit, it is safe to mention this, and in fact would even be a good strategy. Now, what if that isn't your agreement, and in fact you and your partner have agreed that he might have 3 spades? No problem, as long as you don't mind being a little devious. You say "I thought we agreed that your bid promised four spades." Your partner then corrects, saying "No we agreed it promises only 3." Again, you might trick the opponents into thinking you are in a 4-3 fit when it is really 5-3. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 9 21:42:08 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 15:42:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> References: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Here's a variation you can execute before seeing the dummy. Your partner bids an artificial 2D. You then bid no trump. If your oppoents ask what the 2D bid means, you say it is natural, and your partner corrects and says it is artificial. Obviously, don't try this trick unless you want a diamond lead. From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 9 23:58:29 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 23:58:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002a01cf25ea$7332d580$59988080$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Here's a variation you can execute before seeing the dummy. Your partner bids > an artificial 2D. You then bid no trump. If your oppoents ask what the 2D bid > means, you say it is natural, and your partner corrects and says it is artificial. > Obviously, don't try this trick unless you want a diamond lead. [Sven Pran] Obviously don't try this trick unless you want to be considered a cheat. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 10 02:14:25 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 20:14:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: <002a01cf25ea$7332d580$59988080$@online.no> References: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> <002a01cf25ea$7332d580$59988080$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 17:58:29 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> Here's a variation you can execute before seeing the dummy. Your partner > bids >> an artificial 2D. You then bid no trump. If your oppoents ask what the >> 2D > bid >> means, you say it is natural, and your partner corrects and says it is > artificial. >> Obviously, don't try this trick unless you want a diamond lead. > > [Sven Pran] > Obviously don't try this trick unless you want to be considered a cheat. Impossible to prove. But good point, you should try this against weaker players. It would depend on the auction I think. Or don't do it too often. I am more worried about catching it. One person wrote, in this discussion "However, if the erroneous disclosure is corrected before defenders had to choose their defense then they have no foundation for a claim that they have been damaged by the misinformation, they had the correct information at the time they needed it." That worries me. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Feb 10 07:26:51 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:26:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Am 09.02.2014, 21:41 Uhr, schrieb Robert Frick : > On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:25:56 -0500, Steve Willner > wrote: > >> On 2014-02-02 7:05 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> 1C P 1S P 2S P 4S P >>> >>> Dummy comes down with only three trump. Declarer says "Your bid >>> promised 4-card support." That's a true description of the >>> partnership agreement. Is that an infraction? >> >> It is certainly an irregularity, which is all L23 requires. > > Off topic, but I think the understanding is that if a player commits an > irregularity, it's an infraction. > Irregularity ? a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. (Definitions) The Laws are designed to define correct procedure ... (Preface) The correct procedure for trick 1 is set out in Law 41. Every deviation from this procedure (such as extraneous remarks) is an irregularity as defined above. Apart from that, such remarks are also an infraction of 74B2. > Is it something declarer must not do, should not do, or does not do? 74B2 is a "should"-law. But this is only of importance for a possible procedural penalty, not for a score adjustment under law 12. Regards, Petrus From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 10 11:22:22 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:22:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> <002a01cf25ea$7332d580$59988080$@online.no> Message-ID: <001501cf2649$fd68ddd0$f83a9970$@online.no> > Robert Frick > > [Sven Pran] > > Obviously don't try this trick unless you want to be considered a cheat. > > Impossible to prove. But good point, you should try this against weaker players. > It would depend on the auction I think. Or don't do it too often. > > I am more worried about catching it. One person wrote, in this discussion > "However, if the erroneous disclosure is corrected before defenders had to > choose their defense then they have no foundation for a claim that they have > been damaged by the misinformation, they had the correct information at the > time they needed it." That worries me. [Sven Pran] Nice try. However, it shouldn't be too difficult from seeing declarer's cards with solid stoppers in Diamonds to deduce that declarer probably has deliberately given misinformation about the 2D bid being natural before he bid 3NT? You know what they say: You can try a good bluff once, but do not attempt a retry until long time has passed or you will be revealed. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Feb 10 14:03:41 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:03:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <52F8CE2D.6070509@aol.com> I've been wondering about this since the thread began. Why should (does) the declarer say anything at all? He can discuss it after it is played. Is this a game where it is usual for the players/declarers to interrupt play to discuss the bidding? If his comment misleads the opponents they might have a right for redress. And if he intentionally tries to mislead them it is a serious matter indeed. Ciao, JE Am 09.02.2014 21:42, schrieb Robert Frick: > Again, the auction is > > 1C P 1S P > 2S P 4S P > P P > > and partner puts down only 3-card spade support. If your agreement is that > he has shown 4-card spade suit, and you are playing a 4-3 fit, this would > be a really bad time to correct partner, because it would alert the > opponents to your problem. But if you are in a 5-3 fit, it is safe to > mention this, and in fact would even be a good strategy. > > Now, what if that isn't your agreement, and in fact you and your partner > have agreed that he might have 3 spades? No problem, as long as you don't > mind being a little devious. You say "I thought we agreed that your bid > promised four spades." Your partner then corrects, saying "No we agreed > it promises only 3." Again, you might trick the opponents into thinking > you are in a 4-3 fit when it is really 5-3. > _______________________________________________ > 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 JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Feb 10 14:04:55 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:04:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <52F8CE77.2000401@aol.com> I'd not suggest trying this if there is a decent TD around, JE Am 09.02.2014 21:42, schrieb Robert Frick: > Here's a variation you can execute before seeing the dummy. Your partner > bids an artificial 2D. You then bid no trump. If your oppoents ask what > the 2D bid means, you say it is natural, and your partner corrects and > says it is artificial. Obviously, don't try this trick unless you want a > diamond lead. > _______________________________________________ > 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 JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Feb 10 14:06:22 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:06:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> <002a01cf25ea$7332d580$59988080$@online.no> Message-ID: <52F8CECE.9030301@aol.com> See below: Am 10.02.2014 02:14, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 17:58:29 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Robert Frick >>> Here's a variation you can execute before seeing the dummy. Your partner >> bids >>> an artificial 2D. You then bid no trump. If your oppoents ask what the >>> 2D >> bid >>> means, you say it is natural, and your partner corrects and says it is >> artificial. >>> Obviously, don't try this trick unless you want a diamond lead. >> [Sven Pran] >> Obviously don't try this trick unless you want to be considered a cheat. > Impossible to prove. Is it? How about asking why he made the bid after seeing the hands? > But good point, you should try this against weaker > players. It would depend on the auction I think. Or don't do it too often. > > I am more worried about catching it. One person wrote, in this discussion > "However, if the erroneous disclosure is corrected before defenders had to > choose their defense then they have no foundation for a claim that they > have been damaged by the misinformation, they had the correct information > at the time they needed it." That worries me. > _______________________________________________ > 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 10 15:50:43 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:50:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: <52F8CE77.2000401@aol.com> References: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> <52F8CE77.2000401@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:04:55 -0500, Jeff Easterson wrote: > I'd not suggest trying this if there is a decent TD around, JE And if not? It all looks so innocent. Prior to opening lead, declarer (upon being asked) describes his partner's diamond bid as natural. Partner corrects, saying it is artificial. This happens all of the time. The defender tries an opening diamond lead, hoping declarer also does not have a diamond stopper. This doesn't work because declarer has good diamonds. 1. Players. The infraction was corrected, the defender used the information at his own risk. What percentage of players are going to call the director? 2. DIrectors. What percentage of directors are going to spontaneously rectify? You can give this scenario to your fellow directors and see how many of them spontaneous volunteer that they are going to rectify. I am guessing that the typical response, to quote from this thread, is "misinformation had been corrected before play began, consequently no adjusted score for damage during the play period." 3. Justification. Which laws do I use to support my decision to rectify? Jeff, I hope you are right and the decent directors rectify. I'm not sure how many people agree with me. And I worry about the director in Kansas who just read the lawbook. > > Am 09.02.2014 21:42, schrieb Robert Frick: >> Here's a variation you can execute before seeing the dummy. Your partner >> bids an artificial 2D. You then bid no trump. If your oppoents ask what >> the 2D bid means, you say it is natural, and your partner corrects and >> says it is artificial. Obviously, don't try this trick unless you want a >> diamond lead. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 11 01:45:29 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:45:29 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Unintentionally designated? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A15E6F@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Gordon Rainsford: >I'd agree with Ton that Law 45C4b is badly written, though I don't >think it's a clear winner over L27B1b. If there is a minute to the effect >that Ton says, it must have passed us by in the EBU, because we usually >put such things in our White Book, Richard Hills: Now that the dust has settled, I would like to respond to an EBU Distinguished Director who (with prima facie reason) accused me a few months ago of "trolling" the EBU L&EC authors of the Wondrous White Book. Yes and No. Yes, the EBU L&EC is more diligent and more organised than the WBF LC (but, to be fair to the WBF LC, it is much harder for a world- wide committee to organise face-to-face meetings). No, the EBU L&EC is composed of fallible humans, so it sometimes errs in Law. A classic example is the traditional EBU "Red Psyche" regulation, which was legal under the 1997 Lawbook, but has now been rendered illegal by the 2007 Law 40C1: "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. 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. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty." Gordon Rainsford: >and on this subject it gives a different interpretation: > >"Law 45C4 (b): What is 'Until partner has played'? The usual case of the >application of Law 45C4 (b) is when a card is named to be played from >dummy: in this case 'until partner has played' is confusing. The EBU >interpretation of this law is that the time limit to change a designation of a >card played by dummy is until declarer plays a card (from his hand) to the >trick, and if dummy plays third or fourth to the trick it is until declarer quits >the trick." > >Since I and probably others have drawn this to the attention of the >committee's secretary, and Ton's post indicates that they are already aware >of it, I think we can be hopeful that it will be clarified one way or the other >in the next Laws. Richard Hills: Ton's recollection is faulty; there is not any extant WBF LC minute which clarifies Law 45C4(b). However, there are two WBF LC minutes which clarify the parallel "unintended" Law, Law 25A. WBF LC minutes, 18th October 2011, item 6: The committee confirmed once again that if a player's attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call the 'pause for thought' should be assessed from the moment when he first recognizes his error. It was decided to add to the Laws a footnote to Law 25A as follows: "A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error." The question is referred for further examination in the next review of the Laws. WBF LC minutes, 20th October 2011, item 7: When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the call withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. No unauthorized information is conveyed by it. Law 16D does not apply to the change of an unintended call. If the Director allows a call that should not be allowed under this Law it is a Director's error and Law 82C applies. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140211/df614a07/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Feb 11 03:02:25 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:02:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <52F984B1.6040509@nhcc.net> On 2014-02-09 3:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Off topic, but I think the understanding is that if a player commits an > irregularity, it's an infraction. I don't know anyone who thinks that; see the Definitions. > Is it something declarer must not do, should not do, or does not do? Anything not prescribed by Law is an irregularity. Asking the waiter for a beer might be an example. Nothing prohibits it, but it isn't part of the prescribed procedures of the game. If it damages opponents in some unpredictable way, that's tough for the opponents (unless you think it's actually an infraction, perhaps of L74B1 or B2, but I doubt many Directors would so rule absent special circumstances). But if some irregularity damages opponents in a _predictable_ way -- something a villain might try -- then L23 comes in. > I worry about the director in Kansas who just read the lawbook. If he reads L23, he'll be OK. It's fair, though, to doubt that many ACBL TDs will do so. From g3 at nige1.com Wed Feb 12 20:47:48 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:47:48 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Trump outstanding Message-ID: Declarer claims without a claim statement, in this 3-card ending, with hearts trumps, and dummy to lead: Dummy has S: x C: x x. Declarer's RHO has H:8 S:x C:x Declarer has H: 9 x x. Declarer's LHO has nothing worth mentioning. Defenders dispute the claim. How would you rule at the club? At national level? From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Wed Feb 12 21:24:47 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:24:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Trump outstanding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 12.02.2014, 20:47 Uhr, schrieb Nigel Guthrie : > Declarer claims without a claim statement, in this 3-card ending, with > hearts trumps, and dummy to lead: > Dummy has S: x C: x x. > Declarer's RHO has H:8 S:x C:x > Declarer has H: 9 x x. > Declarer's LHO has nothing worth mentioning. > Defenders dispute the claim. How would you rule at the club? At national > level? > I would have to see the full play in order to form an opinion whether "it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent?s hand" (70C2). Petrus From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Wed Feb 12 22:17:12 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:17:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Trump outstanding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26E8D089-930A-4274-97DB-8CA191CA9422@verizon.net> On Feb 12, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Declarer claims without a claim statement, in this 3-card ending, with > hearts trumps, and dummy to lead: > Dummy has S: x C: x x. > Declarer's RHO has H:8 S:x C:x > Declarer has H: 9 x x. > Declarer's LHO has nothing worth mentioning. > Defenders dispute the claim. How would you rule at the club? At national > level? I'd allow the claim, following ACBL guidelines. Declarer can play any card from dummy, then when RHO follows, it is "normal" to ruff low, and then, with only one suit remaining, it is "normal" to play it from the top. Even if declarer firmly believes that all the trump are gone, it would still be "not normal" to ruff dummy's card with the 9 from 932, or then to play the 3 from the 93 remaining. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 13 09:07:24 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:07:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Trump outstanding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52FC7D3C.3030601@skynet.be> well, according to my "rules", dummy plays any suit, declarer ruffs, and having nothing but hearts, cashes them, top down, for three tricks. however, I first need to know from declarer how many tricks he claimed. Because if he thought the outstanding trump was high (higher than his 9) and he claimed two tricks conceding what he thinks to be the 10, then I say he will play low first, conceding a trick to the 8. Nigel Guthrie schreef: > Declarer claims without a claim statement, in this 3-card ending, with > hearts trumps, and dummy to lead: > Dummy has S: x C: x x. > Declarer's RHO has H:8 S:x C:x > Declarer has H: 9 x x. > Declarer's LHO has nothing worth mentioning. > Defenders dispute the claim. How would you rule at the club? At national > level? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 09:12:49 2014 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:12:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Trump outstanding In-Reply-To: <52FC7D3C.3030601@skynet.be> References: <52FC7D3C.3030601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52FC7E81.3090907@gmail.com> > Nigel Guthrie schreef: >> Declarer claims without a claim statement, in this 3-card ending, with >> hearts trumps, and dummy to lead: >> Dummy has S: x C: x x. >> Declarer's RHO has H:8 S:x C:x >> Declarer has H: 9 x x. >> Declarer's LHO has nothing worth mentioning. >> Defenders dispute the claim. How would you rule at the club? At national >> level? At the national level here, everybody would put the cards back in the board, give 3 tricks to declarer and move on. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 14 19:38:01 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:38:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question Message-ID: A player came to me privately and wanted information about the laws. The opponents complained because I told him. The ACBL said "the appropriate thing is to call the director to the table." I have to admit, I don't see the problem in a player coming to me privately to ask a question. In this case, I think the player was trying to avoid giving UI to partner. But giving AI to the opponents seems like a valid reason too. If he comes to me privately, and I take him back to the table to ask his questions, that's now a part of the proper procedure of the game, right? Specifically, "..arising from the lgan procedures authorized in these Laws." Of course, it is kind of silly to take L16 seriously and call this AI. But it's also pretty silly to force a player to give information to partner and then call it UI. Bob From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 20:11:40 2014 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:11:40 -0600 Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "The ACBL said `the appropriate thing is to call the director to the table.' " I don't understand exactly what this means. Would you please elaborate? Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140214/12c5c64e/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 15 02:39:35 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:39:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Suppose you look down and see you have pulled the wrong card from your bidding box. If you will be allowed to correct your bid, then you want to call the director and explain the situation. If you won't be allowed to correct the bid, calling the director and explaining your problem isn't going to work well for you. The opponents will find out you made the wrong bid. Your partner might find out too, but that might be UI to your partner, creating even more problems for your side. You could make your best guess. I think that's what most people do. But you could also just walk up to the director and ask what the law is. I would be happy to answer. But the person answering for the ACBL said the appropriate thing is to call the director to the table. On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:11:40 -0500, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > "The ACBL said `the appropriate thing is to call the director to the > table.' " > >> I don't understand exactly what this means. Would you please elaborate? > > Jerry Fusselman -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140215/dfa31a83/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Feb 15 06:20:58 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:20:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001201cf2a0d$b6058430$22108c90$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: Saturday, 15 February 2014 12:40 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] asking the director a question Suppose you look down and see you have pulled the wrong card from your bidding box [L25A1 will work a treat] . If you will be allowed to correct your bid[you will have no problem] , then you want to call the director and explain the situation. If you won't be allowed to correct the bid[you will] , calling the director and explaining your problem isn't going to work well for you[only in america] . The opponents will find out you made the wrong bid[the mispulled bid never occurred] . Your partner might find out too[so what] , but that might be UI to your partner[no it won't], creating even more problems for your side[i.e. none at all]. You could make your best guess. I think that's what most people do. But you could also just walk up to the director and ask what the law is. I would be happy to answer. But the person answering for the ACBL said the appropriate thing is to call the director to the table. On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:11:40 -0500, Jerry Fusselman wrote: "The ACBL said `the appropriate thing is to call the director to the table.' " I don't understand exactly what this means. Would you please elaborate? Jerry Fusselman [tony (Sydney) Do we use the same FLB? -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140215/3e2daa14/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Feb 15 07:37:29 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:37:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000a01cf2a18$66a3b460$33eb1d20$@optusnet.com.au> Upon thinking over previous dismissive missive, I think Robert may have meant: the player half pulls out a 1C from bidding box, and then thinks: no, I think 1NT would work better even though I have 5422, so wants to ask if the 1C bid is actually "made", and if not, can it be changed "without pause for thought". I still vote no Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: Saturday, 15 February 2014 12:40 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] asking the director a question Suppose you look down and see you have pulled the wrong card from your bidding box. If you will be allowed to correct your bid, then you want to call the director and explain the situation. If you won't be allowed to correct the bid, calling the director and explaining your problem isn't going to work well for you. The opponents will find out you made the wrong bid. Your partner might find out too, but that might be UI to your partner, creating even more problems for your side. You could make your best guess. I think that's what most people do. But you could also just walk up to the director and ask what the law is. I would be happy to answer. But the person answering for the ACBL said the appropriate thing is to call the director to the table. On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:11:40 -0500, Jerry Fusselman wrote: "The ACBL said `the appropriate thing is to call the director to the table.' " I don't understand exactly what this means. Would you please elaborate? Jerry Fusselman -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140215/54e23c16/attachment-0001.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Feb 15 15:14:53 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:14:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52FF765D.3070608@aol.com> It probably depends on the exact situation and question but I imagine there are cases in which it would be harmless to answer the question privately. If this were to happen to me as TD I'd consider the question and then decide to respond immediately or return to the table with the player before responding or (I suppose this could be possible) refusing to answer the question. As said above; it all depends on the question and the TD ought to have the experience and knowledge of the laws to evaluate this and know what to do.That is what he is there for. Ciao, JE Am 14.02.2014 19:38, schrieb Robert Frick: > A player came to me privately and wanted information about the laws. The > opponents complained because I told him. > > The ACBL said "the appropriate thing is to call the director to the table." > > I have to admit, I don't see the problem in a player coming to me > privately to ask a question. In this case, I think the player was trying > to avoid giving UI to partner. But giving AI to the opponents seems like a > valid reason too. > > If he comes to me privately, and I take him back to the table to ask his > questions, that's now a part of the proper procedure of the game, right? > Specifically, "..arising from the lgan procedures authorized in these > Laws." > > Of course, it is kind of silly to take L16 seriously and call this AI. But > it's also pretty silly to force a player to give information to partner > and then call it UI. > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > 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 swillner at nhcc.net Sat Feb 15 17:41:06 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 11:41:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Disallowed Message-ID: <52FF98A2.3040607@nhcc.net> The ACBL forbids "Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto" even in its highest-level competitions. Is there any other jurisdiction that has a similar restriction? From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Feb 15 17:51:36 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 11:51:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52FF9B18.3000605@nhcc.net> On 2014-02-14 8:39 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > But you could also just walk up to the director and ask what the law is. > I would be happy to answer. But the person answering for the ACBL said > the appropriate thing is to call the director to the table. Let me rephrase Robert's question in multiple parts in hopes of getting helpful answers. 1. A player approaches you (the Director) away from the table and is seeking a ruling or at least advice about the current deal. Should you listen at all? Why or why not? 2. If the answer to 1, is "yes," the player explains circumstances and asks whether he will be allowed to change his call. (L25A is the relevant one, but of course the player doesn't know that.) a) if you decide you will rule "no," do you tell the player privately, or do you give your ruling to the whole table? Why? b) if you are tempted to rule "yes," I think you have to hear from opponents before you rule. Perhaps they will state facts that will change your ruling. Anybody disagree? What question(s) will you ask when you come to the table? These questions are more about practical directing than about the Laws _per se_. Still, I think they are within this group's expertise. From richard.willey at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 18:32:01 2014 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 12:32:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Disallowed In-Reply-To: <52FF98A2.3040607@nhcc.net> References: <52FF98A2.3040607@nhcc.net> Message-ID: As I recall, Italy forbids psyching altogether, as does Austria. On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > The ACBL forbids "Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or > conventional responses thereto" even in its highest-level competitions. > > Is there any other jurisdiction that has a similar restriction? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140215/1ad362ef/attachment.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Feb 15 21:32:18 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 21:32:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Disallowed In-Reply-To: References: <52FF98A2.3040607@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Am 15.02.2014, 18:32 Uhr, schrieb richard willey : > As I recall, Italy forbids psyching altogether, as does Austria. > I cannot speak for Italy, but in Austria psyches are legal, with the following exceptions: - artificial strong opening bids may not be psyched - in pairs tournaments, opening bids of 1 in a suit in 1st and 2nd position have to conform to the rule of 18. - psyching to give opponents a good score is prohibited. - When a Special Partnership Understanding has been conditionally allowed (Law 40B2a), you may not psyche it in such a way that you then fail to meet the condition. Regards, Petrus From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 15 22:13:42 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:13:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The dummy comes down. Defender says to his partner, "Notice how the dummy showed diamonds but doesn't have a diamond stopper." Anyone upset? Of course yes. The dummy comes down. Defender calls you to the table, points out that dummy showed diamonds but doesn't have a diamond stopper and asks you for protection. Same reaction? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140215/241ab4d0/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 15 22:18:37 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:18:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question In-Reply-To: <001201cf2a0d$b6058430$22108c90$@optusnet.com.au> References: <001201cf2a0d$b6058430$22108c90$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 00:20:58 -0500, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: Saturday, 15 February 2014 12:40 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] asking the director a question > > > Suppose you look down and see you have pulled the wrong card from your > bidding box > > [L25A1 will work a treat] > > . If you will be allowed to correct your bid[you will have no problem] > , then you want to call the director and >explain the situation. > > > If you won't be allowed to correct the bid[you will] , calling the > director and explaining your problem isn't going to >work well for > you[only in america] . The opponents will find out you made the wrong > bid[the mispulled bid >never occurred] . Your partner might find out > too[so what] , but that might be UI to your partner[no it >won?t], > creating even more problems for your side[i.e. none at all]. This seems to ignore the possibility that partner has passed? Or else, can you explain what you mean? Ton suggests other cases where a claimed mispull should not be allowed to be changed. For example, I bid 1H, call the director and claim mispull, and he says it's too late to change. You say that is not UI to my partner ("no it won't'). Did you really mean to say that? > > > You could make your best guess. I think that's what most people do. > > > But you could also just walk up to the director and ask what the law is. > I would be happy to answer. But the person >answering for the ACBL said > the appropriate thing is to call the director to the table. > > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:11:40 -0500, Jerry Fusselman > wrote: >> >> >> "The ACBL said `the appropriate thing is to call the director to the >> table.' " >> >> >> I don't understand exactly what this means. Would you please elaborate? >> >> >>>> Jerry Fusselman > > >> [tony (Sydney) Do we use the same FLB? > > >> -- > > ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140215/6551c53e/attachment-0001.html From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Mon Feb 17 00:32:24 2014 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (a.witzen) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 00:32:24 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908285655.142420.1392593544719.open-xchange@upcmail.upc.nl> In the first case, nobody has to be upset and defenders have to keep their mouth shut, naming a suit doeesnt promise a stopper i think, perhaps ssome old culbertson adepts do, but nobody els does, in he sacond case, when called as director i should say the same and give defendents a warning not to spill my time regards anton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140216/423a5899/attachment.html From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Mon Feb 17 00:45:39 2014 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (a.witzen) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 00:45:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question In-Reply-To: <52FF9B18.3000605@nhcc.net> References: <52FF9B18.3000605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <1295606573.142497.1392594339153.open-xchange@upcmail.upc.nl> i think that in all cases the opps need to know what is going on, so the only thing you can do is to send him back to the table and to order him to call him, then he tells what is going on and you can make a decision after hearing opps if needed. I think it is not forbidden to pproach the td away from the table as it is not forbidden to go to the toilet in the middle of a game, it is the TD who must be the responsible one to make the right move regards, anton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140216/bcf14226/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 17 02:48:18 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:48:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question In-Reply-To: <908285655.142420.1392593544719.open-xchange@upcmail.upc.nl> References: <908285655.142420.1392593544719.open-xchange@upcmail.upc.nl> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:32:24 -0500, a.witzen wrote: > In the first case, nobody has to be upset and defenders have to keep > their mouth shut,naming a suit doeesnt promise a stopper i think, > perhaps ssome old culbertson adepts do, but nobody els does,in he sacond > case, when called as director i should say the same and give defendents > a warning not to spill my timeregardsanton Thanks, I may have mangled my example, But I think you are making the general point I wanted to make: The defenders can't just comment on the dummy. But if they call the director, then they can. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140217/2131318c/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 17 08:21:14 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:21:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question In-Reply-To: References: <908285655.142420.1392593544719.open-xchange@upcmail.upc.nl> Message-ID: <5301B86A.8040204@skynet.be> Robert gives a good example, and then agrees with a wrong answer. All of us agree that commenting on dummy creates UI. And, IMO, so does calling the TD. So calling the TD here should not be allowed. And leaving the table discreetly to talk to the TD would, again IMO, be acceptable. This also creates UI, but of a very minor sort - very seldomly do people know why someone talks to the TD, and if partner guesses correctly, it's probably because he's noticed the absent stopper as well. I would accept that a player does not know that, at this time, there's nothing the TD can do, and he should be allowed to ask about that. Robert's example was a very good one in which speaking to the TD off the table must be accepted - and therefore the principle should be that it is allowed. I agree with all the other answers that say that sometimes the TD will refuse to answer the question in private and instead ask to be called to the table, so that he can inform with all present. But this case is not like that. Herman. Robert Frick schreef: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:32:24 -0500, a.witzen wrote: > > In the first case, nobody has to be upset and defenders have to keep > their mouth shut, > naming a suit doeesnt promise a stopper i think, perhaps ssome old > culbertson adepts do, but nobody els does, > in he sacond case, when called as director i should say the same and > give defendents a warning not to spill my time > regards > anton > > > > Thanks, I may have mangled my example, But I think you are making the > general point I wanted to make: The defenders can't just comment on the > dummy. But if they call the director, then they can. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 17 08:52:56 2014 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:52:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question In-Reply-To: <5301B86A.8040204@skynet.be> References: <908285655.142420.1392593544719.open-xchange@upcmail.upc.nl> <5301B86A.8040204@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00ef01cf2bb5$45a52700$d0ef7500$@xs4all.nl> It is not uncommon for players to walk up to me during a board to ask something. What for example often happens is that a player has misbid, and wakes up because of his partners explanation. They now know they are in some sort of trouble, and want to know how to best get out of it. In that case I have no trouble in explaining to them their duties and how these sort of things are handled. They can then go back to their table and try to minimize the damage. Basically I inform them of the law, which they could/should know anyhow. Of course I do not give bridge advice. Should they ask me a question that makes it clear the director should have been called to the table I will of course convert their private "what do I do now?" question into a TD-call for the table. Hans From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 17 22:08:02 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:08:02 +0000 Subject: [BLML] asking the director a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A1A4C0@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Hans: >..... >Basically I inform them of the law, which they could/should know >anyhow. Of course I do not give bridge advice. Richard: After the current Lawbook was published, John (MadDog) Probst cunningly argued that the Director could / should inform a player of Law 78D, before that player makes a decision for which the imp table is relevant. WBF Laws Committee minutes 2008 ("++" emphasis by RJH): LAW 16 and others - concerning information rights 16A1(d) allows the player use of his ++memory++ of information in the laws and regulations. It does ++not authorize him to look++ during the auction and play ++at the printed regulations, the law book++, or anyone's scorecard or the backs of bidding cards etc. as (Law 40C3(a)) an aid to memory. For system card and notes see Law 20G2. Neither does 78D authorize players to consult during the auction and play printed copies of the information given them under this law. 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents' prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An "alternative" call is not the same call with another meaning - for example, if the reply to an opponent is that "5D shows diamonds preference", any reply to a further question "what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?" is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.) Hans: >Should they ask me a question that makes it clear the director >should have been called to the table I will of course convert their >private "what do I do now?" question into a TD-call for the table. Richard: In my opinion that is "cigol sdrawkcab". A private summoning of the Director away from the table (to avoid creating unnecessary UI) is and always was a Law 9 summoning of the Director. WBF Laws Committee minutes 2008 ("++" emphasis by RJH): 81C2 requires the Director to advise players of their rights and responsibilities under the laws. He ++confines such information++ to rights and responsibilities that are ++relevant to the situation++ he is dealing with. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140217/19e39381/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 18 17:39:58 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:39:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: <52F984B1.6040509@nhcc.net> References: <52F27424.5020101@nhcc.net> <52F984B1.6040509@nhcc.net> Message-ID: The casual understanding is that declarer can say whatever irrelevant or true comments that he wants. For example, if we say declarer saying something to make the opponents laugh, we probably would not go to the table and tell him he couldn't talk. Having said that, declarer must be careful when his comment might lead the defense astray. I think L73D has the right attitude. When declarer "could have known" that this comment might benefit his side, then L23 should be applied. In this thread, it applies to true comments about the partnership understanding, given gratuitously. The not-in-Kansas part is that this also apply to inferences about his own hand when he misdescribes his partner's bid. For example, he incorrectly describes his partner's bid as natural; his partner corrects that it is artificial. This elminates any (further) L20F infraction, but it doesn't eliminate damage as described above -- when defenders make a wrong inference about his hand and he could have known his incorrect explanation would lead defender's astray.