From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 1 22:55:00 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 21:55:00 +0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E5E17@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >I think we can rule out that that the ruling is obvious given the current >laws because >(1) the director ruled one way, >(2) a committee overturned the director, >(3) the ACBL expert sided with the director, and >(4) I would side with the committee. Richard Hills: The evidence does not support the premise. The correct Law 70D1 ruling was obvious, but various ACBL personalities were incompetent. If a claimer mistakenly believes and states "all my cards are high", then playing any random card first is a Law 70D1 normal line. The Director must rule that the "winners" are played in the most costly normal (but not irrational) order. From the January 1983 edition of The Bridge World, Page 18: Kaplan gave several relevant examples about incorrectly claiming all the tricks. Here is one of them. WEST S --- H Q 6 D K C 7 SOUTH S K Q H K D Q C --- South is on lead in a notrump contract, and claims the last four tricks (forgetting that the DK is still outstanding). Kaplan does not permit South to cash the three actual winners first. Neither does Kaplan "Burn" South by ruling that South instantly leads the DQ, then discards the HK on the C7, giving South zero tricks. Instead, Kaplan rules that South chooses the unluckiest of random (but not irrational) plays. Kaplan rules that South cashes the HK, then leads the DQ, giving South one trick. 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/20140101/f60c59d4/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jan 1 23:40:18 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2014 17:40:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim In-Reply-To: <52C279E7.3010701@skynet.be> References: <52C279E7.3010701@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 03:01:43 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > I agree that there ought to be standardization. > And everyone does. > As long as the standard is theirs. > This case is very close to one where the EBL AC ruled in favour of the > claimer - one does not play trumps as other suits, trumps are kept to > last. > But not even European directors wished to follow the EBL AC's lead and > accept this as a precedent. > > So waht we need is not just standardization, but also a willingness of > directors to accept the standards set by others. In theory, the director is responsible for knowing the laws and the AC serves only to help with issues of bridge judgment. Right? So an AC would seem to be an invalid source of precedent on anything. Of course, on this issue the AC would seem to be just a second coin flip for the side that didn't like the first coin flip. At my club, the response from the ACBL expert tends to have God-like status. However, they are clear that the next expert that is consulted might not give the same answer. So one cannot rely on the previous answer and they don't necessarily follow their own precedent. In my particular case, the expert's opinion also seemed idiosyncratic. (He would never force a player to play a trump if it was the 6 or lower; he would force/allow the player to play a trump if it was the queen or higher. I guess 7 through Jack is a matter of judgment.) > > A very merry year 2014 to all - maybe it will bring us good claim > procedures. > > Herman. > > Robert Frick schreef: >> Declarer claims with 3 high cards and the deuce of trump, saying "that's >> it." There was a higher trump out, and if declarer starts with the deuce >> of trumps, then the defenders take 3 tricks. >> >> Is this an easy ruling? It seems like a common situation. Is this one of >> those things where it's okay to use judgment, so some directors might >> rule >> one way and some another? >> >> I think we can rule out that that the ruling is obvious given the >> current >> laws because (1) the director ruled one way, (2) a committee overturned >> the director, (3) the ACBL expert sided with the director, and (4) I >> would >> side with the committee. A director at the game tonight said he >> originally >> sided with the committee, changed his mind when he heard the rationale >> for >> the ACBL ruling, and seems to be changing it again as I argue with him. >> >> Does the ruling depend on what declarer's trump is? Different answers on >> that too, of course. >> >> Needless to say, I am a fan of the way I would rule and, more >> importantly, >> that things be standardized. >> >> Bob >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jan 1 23:46:25 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2014 17:46:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E5E17@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E5E17@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:55:00 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL > >> I think we can rule out that that the ruling is obvious given the >> current >> laws because >> (1) the director ruled one way, >> (2) a committee overturned the director, >> (3) the ACBL expert sided with the director, and >> (4) I would side with the committee. >Richard Hills: >The evidence does not support the premise. The correct Law 70D1 > ruling was obvious, but various ACBL personalities were incompetent. >If a claimer mistakenly believes and states ?all my cards are high?, then > playing any random card first is a Law 70D1 normal line. The Director > must rule that the ?winners? are played in the most costly normal (but > not irrational) order. Ironically, the evidence you provide here is consistent with my claim that some people rule one way and some people rule another. As I meant to imply, everyone believes they are right. >> > From the January 1983 edition of The Bridge World, Page 18: >Kaplan gave several relevant examples about incorrectly claiming all > the tricks. Here is one of them. >WEST > S --- > H Q 6 > D K > C 7 > SOUTH > S K Q > H K > D Q > C --- >South is on lead in a notrump contract, and claims the last four tricks > (forgetting that the DK is still outstanding). >Kaplan does not permit South to cash the three actual winners first. >Neither does Kaplan ?Burn? South by ruling that South instantly leads > the DQ, then discards the HK on the C7, giving South zero tricks. >Instead, Kaplan rules that South chooses the unluckiest of random (but > not irrational) plays. Kaplan rules that South cashes the HK, then leads > the DQ, giving South one trick. This example does not suffice. As Herman noted, and as the various ACBL expert noted, there could be something special about trump. Does the principle even work? A player claims with 4 trumps, stating all trump are out. If indeed they are all out, it is "rational" to play any trump. But at least here in ACBL, the ruling (AFAIK) is to give the player that the highest trump is played first. Perhaps that is a matter of regulation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140101/c585537e/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 2 02:11:31 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 01:11:31 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Obvious [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E5F12@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: It is obvious that men once walked upon the moon. Merely because some conspiracy theorists believe that NASA faked the moon landings does not make the truth any less obvious. Nigel Guthrie: > ..... The rules are too ..... sophisticated for players, directors, and law- >makers to understand and apply. ..... Richard Hills: It is obvious that the Laws of Duplicate Bridge are ++insufficiently++ sophisticated for players, directors, and law-makers to understand and apply. Modern rules for other games of comparable difficulty (for example, Eclipse - http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/69496/eclipse-rulebook - a popular and sophisticated game) include illustrated indicative examples explaining thorny points. Another benchmark for "obvious" is: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/climate-change-a-note-from-our-letters-editors-20131021-2vvjd.html UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140102/c68f903a/attachment.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Thu Jan 2 04:47:22 2014 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 22:47:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Obvious [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8pCn1n01K4CfRNu01pCpfv> References: <8pCn1n01K4CfRNu01pCpfv> Message-ID: Plunk your magic twanger, Froggy. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard HILLS Sent: 01/01/2014 8:12 PM To: Laws Bridge Subject: [BLML] Obvious [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: It is obvious that men once walked upon the moon. Merely because some conspiracy theorists believe that NASA faked the moon landings does not make the truth any less obvious. Nigel Guthrie: > ..... The rules are too ..... sophisticated for players, directors, and law- >makers to understand and apply. ..... Richard Hills: It is obvious that the Laws of Duplicate Bridge are ++insufficiently++ sophisticated for players, directors, and law-makers to understand and apply. Modern rules for other games of comparable difficulty (for example, Eclipse - http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/69496/eclipse-rulebook - a popular and sophisticated game) include illustrated indicative examples explaining thorny points. Another benchmark for "obvious" is: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/climate-change-a-note-from-our-let ters-editors-20131021-2vvjd.html UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140102/c6b433d1/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 2 06:11:19 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 05:11:19 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Obvious [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E725A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Oxford Dictionary: sea lawyer noun informal an eloquently and obstinately argumentative person: one of those mouthy sea lawyers full of pseudo-intellectual yammer Nigel Guthrie: > ..... In competitive Bridge, secretary-bird [sea lawyer] skills rival >basic bridge-skills in importance and director-decisions decide too >many results ...... Richard Hills: Yes, on this point Nigel is obviously correct. The Muppets (2011 movie): Kermit the Frog: "What? You kidnapped Jack Black? That's illegal! Fozzie Bear: "What's more illegal, Kermit: briefly inconveniencing Jack Black, or destroying the Muppets?" Kermit the Frog: "Kidnapping Jack Black, Fozzie!" =+= Richard the Frog: "What? As a Director you were bullied by a sea- lawyer to ignore the Laws and rule in his favour? That's illegal!" Fozzie Hills: "What's more illegal, Richard: briefly inconveniencing the Lawbook, or avoiding being bullied?" Richard the Frog "Infracting the Laws, Fozzie!" 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/20140102/303880e0/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 2 09:06:32 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 09:06:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E5E17@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E5E17@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52C51E08.9040106@skynet.be> Richard again falls into a common trap: to assume that what he believes must be correct: Richard HILLS schreef: > Richard Hills: > The evidence does not support the premise. The correct Law 70D1 > ruling was obvious, obvious to Richard perhaps, but not to those involved, obviously. but various ACBL personalities were incompetent. Richard calls everyone who disagrees with him incompetent. That way, Richard can be certain that he must be competent. Nice! > If a claimer mistakenly believes and states ?all my cards are high?, then > playing any random card first is a Law 70D1 normal line. And where does Richard find this? This is patently untrue. If I believe my spades from AKQJ2 are high, then playing the two is still not a normal line. I said "high", not "alone". Just to prove that Richard's statement is false. This thread is about whether or not playing a trump first is "normal". Richard asserts that it is, and calls everyone else incompetent. When asked to elaborate why it is normal, Richard states that it is, because it is. Richard has added nothing to the discussion. Nothing new there. > The Director > must rule that the ?winners? are played in the most costly normal (but > not irrational) order. Indeed, another self-evident truth. And "normal" means? And then, just to provide some light relief, Richard provides an example, which tells us nothing about the case at hand, since it deals with: > From the January 1983 edition of The Bridge World, Page 18: > Kaplan gave several relevant examples about incorrectly claiming all > the tricks. Here is one of them. > WEST > S --- > H Q 6 > D K > C 7 > SOUTH > S K Q > H K > D Q > C --- > South is on lead in a notrump contract, and claims the last four tricks a no-trump contract. > (forgetting that the DK is still outstanding). > Kaplan does not permit South to cash the three actual winners first. > Neither does Kaplan ?Burn? South by ruling that South instantly leads > the DQ, then discards the HK on the C7, giving South zero tricks. > Instead, Kaplan rules that South chooses the unluckiest of random (but > not irrational) plays. Kaplan rules that South cashes the HK, then leads > the DQ, giving South one trick. Completely correct ruling, but totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What about making it a diamond contract, and the Queen th D2? If Richard believes the ruling is the same then, he has understood nothing. Mind you, I am not even stating my personal opinion here, just that Richard has added nothing to the discussion. Herman. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jan 2 13:36:44 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:36:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E5E17@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E5E17@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52C55D5C.3060407@aol.com> What am I missing? In Kaplan's example I don't understand why he allows the declarer to cash the heart trick before leading diamonds. If the declarer believes that all of his cards are high he would seem just as likely to play the diamond first. ("any random card") Ciao, JE Am 01.01.2014 22:55, schrieb Richard HILLS: > UNOFFICIAL > >I think we can rule out that that the ruling is obvious given the current > >laws because > >(1) the director ruled one way, > >(2) a committee overturned the director, > >(3) the ACBL expert sided with the director, and > >(4) I would side with the committee. > Richard Hills: > The evidence does not support the premise. The correct Law 70D1 > ruling was obvious, but various ACBL personalities were incompetent. > If a claimer mistakenly believes and states ?all my cards are high?, then > playing any random card first is a Law 70D1 normal line. The Director > must rule that the ?winners? are played in the most costly normal (but > not irrational) order. > From the January 1983 edition of The Bridge World, Page 18: > Kaplan gave several relevant examples about incorrectly claiming all > the tricks. Here is one of them. > WEST > S --- > H Q 6 > D K > C 7 > SOUTH > S K Q > H K > D Q > C --- > South is on lead in a notrump contract, and claims the last four tricks > (forgetting that the DK is still outstanding). > Kaplan does not permit South to cash the three actual winners first. > Neither does Kaplan ?Burn? South by ruling that South instantly leads > the DQ, then discards the HK on the C7, giving South zero tricks. > Instead, Kaplan rules that South chooses the unluckiest of random (but > not irrational) plays. Kaplan rules that South cashes the HK, then leads > the DQ, giving South one trick. > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv. http://www.avast.com From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Jan 2 15:15:58 2014 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 15:15:58 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52C55D5C.3060407@aol.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E5E17@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52C55D5C.3060407@aol.com> Message-ID: <72356634.18974975.1388672158321.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Jeff Easterson" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Jeudi 2 Janvier 2014 13:36:44 > Objet: Re: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > What am I missing? In Kaplan's example I don't understand why he allows > the declarer to cash the heart trick before leading diamonds. If the > declarer believes that all of his cards are high he would seem just as > likely to play the diamond first. ("any random card") to allow west to score 3 tricks instead of only 2 otherwise. jpr > > Ciao, JE > > Am 01.01.2014 22:55, schrieb Richard HILLS: > > UNOFFICIAL > > >I think we can rule out that that the ruling is obvious given the current > > >laws because > > >(1) the director ruled one way, > > >(2) a committee overturned the director, > > >(3) the ACBL expert sided with the director, and > > >(4) I would side with the committee. > > Richard Hills: > > The evidence does not support the premise. The correct Law 70D1 > > ruling was obvious, but various ACBL personalities were incompetent. > > If a claimer mistakenly believes and states ?all my cards are high?, then > > playing any random card first is a Law 70D1 normal line. The Director > > must rule that the ?winners? are played in the most costly normal (but > > not irrational) order. > > From the January 1983 edition of The Bridge World, Page 18: > > Kaplan gave several relevant examples about incorrectly claiming all > > the tricks. Here is one of them. > > WEST > > S --- > > H Q 6 > > D K > > C 7 > > SOUTH > > S K Q > > H K > > D Q > > C --- > > South is on lead in a notrump contract, and claims the last four tricks > > (forgetting that the DK is still outstanding). > > Kaplan does not permit South to cash the three actual winners first. > > Neither does Kaplan ?Burn? South by ruling that South instantly leads > > the DQ, then discards the HK on the C7, giving South zero tricks. > > Instead, Kaplan rules that South chooses the unluckiest of random (but > > not irrational) plays. Kaplan rules that South cashes the HK, then leads > > the DQ, giving South one trick. > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > > advise > > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > > privileged > > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > --- > Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz > ist aktiv. > http://www.avast.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 2 17:43:31 2014 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:43:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52C55D5C.3060407@aol.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E5E17@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52C55D5C.3060407@aol.com> Message-ID: <52C59733.4020103@starpower.net> On 1/2/2014 7:36 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > What am I missing? In Kaplan's example I don't understand why he allows > the declarer to cash the heart trick before leading diamonds. If the > declarer believes that all of his cards are high he would seem just as > likely to play the diamond first. ("any random card") Indeed. The HK and DQ are both "normal" here. However, were he to play the DQ first, it would be irrational (not "normal"), holding the remaining KQ/K/-/-, all (believed to be) high, to then pitch the HK on the C7, so he would take two tricks. Cashing the HK first holds him to one. > Am 01.01.2014 22:55, schrieb Richard HILLS: > >> From the January 1983 edition of The Bridge World, Page 18: >> Kaplan gave several relevant examples about incorrectly claiming all >> the tricks. Here is one of them. >> WEST >> S --- >> H Q 6 >> D K >> C 7 >> SOUTH >> S K Q >> H K >> D Q >> C --- >> South is on lead in a notrump contract, and claims the last four tricks >> (forgetting that the DK is still outstanding). >> Kaplan does not permit South to cash the three actual winners first. >> Neither does Kaplan ?Burn? South by ruling that South instantly leads >> the DQ, then discards the HK on the C7, giving South zero tricks. >> Instead, Kaplan rules that South chooses the unluckiest of random (but >> not irrational) plays. Kaplan rules that South cashes the HK, then leads >> the DQ, giving South one trick. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 2 22:22:35 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 21:22:35 +0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E783E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >I agree that there ought to be standardization. >And everyone does. >As long as the standard is theirs. >This case is very close to one where the EBL AC ruled in favour of the >claimer - one does not play trumps as other suits, trumps are kept to last. Richard Hills: With regards to the concept "as long as the standard is theirs", I am curious. Was Herman a voting member of that EBL Appeals Committee, or was Herman merely a non-voting observer and/or scribe? Herman De Wael: >But not even European directors wished to follow the EBL AC's lead >and accept this as a precedent. Richard Hills: I have been reliably informed that the Conditions of Contest for the 2014 world championship will abolish Appeals Committees. Such a CoC is legal under Laws 80B2(k) and 93A. I suspect that the primary reason for this clause of the CoC is to save time. However, in my personal and un- informed opinion a secondary reason for this AC abolition may be that the WBF powers-that-be correctly believe that the collective wisdom of world- class Directors is superior to the collective wisdom of world-class Appeals Committees (as demonstrated by the lack of wisdom shown by the EBL Appeals Committee in fallaciously ruling "trumps last"). Herman De Wael: >So what we need is not just standardization, but also a willingness of >directors to accept the standards set by others. Richard Hills: Yes and No. What we need is a willingness of Directors to accept a standard of two plus two does not equal five. A claim stating "all of my cards are winners" does not equal a claim stating "all of my cards are probably winners, but just in case I have forgotten an outstanding trump I will play the deuce of trumps last". Herman De Wael: >A very merry year 2014 to all - maybe it will bring us good claim >procedures. > >Herman. Richard Hills: Yes, a very merry 2014 to blml in general and to Herman in particular. Yes, bring us good claim procedures in general. But for the specific claim at the stem of this thread the Chief Director of Australia agrees with me that this is a 2+2=4 no-brainer - the Director must grant all of the tricks to the defence pursuant to Law 70D1: The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 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/20140102/a86147a2/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 2 23:07:07 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 22:07:07 +0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E788C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: NORTH S A K Q T 3 H T 9 8 7 D 6 5 4 C K WEST EAST S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 H J 5 4 H --- D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 SOUTH S 8 4 H A K Q 6 3 2 D A 8 2 C A 3 Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, saying, "Pulling trumps." How would you rule? Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and _now_ claims the balance with no statement. How would you rule? Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, otherwise 12." How would you rule? Richard Hills: Before the humble leadership of Pope Francis there was the similar humility of President Yitzhak Ben Zvi. Barry Cohen, The Life of the Party, pages 106-107: Yitzhak Ben Zvi, Israel's second President after Chaim Weizmann, was in office from 1952 to 1963. An old left-wing kibbutznik himself, he eschewed the trappings of office and remained in his small second- floor flat in Jerusalem. This created certain problems because few countries have more need for security than Israel. Without a Presidential residence, with appropriate security built into it, the security forces had to settle for a small sentry box at floor level out on the street. At all hours of the day or night a lone sergeant sat or stood in the sentry box guarding Israel's President. Amos Oz, one of the nation's leading writers and an old family friend of the Ben Zvi's, then only a teenager, was returning home one evening from a youth meeting and had to pass the President's flat. He glanced into the sentry box out of curiosity and did a complete double-take. There sitting in the sentry box with a sergeant's cap on was the President himself. "Mr President?" Amos enquired, too surprised to understand what was going on. "Shoosh Amos, don't make a fuss. The sergeant's wife is having a baby. He's gone to the hospital to see her. Where else should he be at a time like this?" "But why are you here?" asked Amos still bemused. "I'm looking after me until he gets back. He's absent without leave, silly boy. Now go home and give my love to your mother and father." 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/20140102/6d1959cd/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jan 3 08:05:56 2014 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 08:05:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E788C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E788C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: Case 1: Down 1 Case 2: Make Case 3: Down 2 2014/1/2 Richard HILLS > UNOFFICIAL > > The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: > > NORTH > S A K Q T 3 > H T 9 8 7 > D 6 5 4 > C K > WEST EAST > S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 > H J 5 4 H --- > D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 > C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 > SOUTH > S 8 4 > H A K Q 6 3 2 > D A 8 2 > C A 3 > > Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, > saying, "Pulling trumps." > > How would you rule? > > Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to > the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and _*now*_ > claims the balance with no statement. > > How would you rule? > > Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the > diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have > six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one > diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, > otherwise 12." > > How would you rule? > > > > Richard Hills: > > Before the humble leadership of Pope Francis there was the similar > humility of President Yitzhak Ben Zvi. > > Barry Cohen, The Life of the Party, pages 106-107: > > Yitzhak Ben Zvi, Israel?s second President after Chaim Weizmann, was > in office from 1952 to 1963. An old left-wing kibbutznik himself, he > eschewed the trappings of office and remained in his small second- > floor flat in Jerusalem. This created certain problems because few > countries have more need for security than Israel. Without a > Presidential residence, with appropriate security built into it, the > security forces had to settle for a small sentry box at floor level > out on the street. At all hours of the day or night a lone sergeant > sat or stood in the sentry box guarding Israel?s President. > > Amos Oz, one of the nation?s leading writers and an old family > friend of the Ben Zvi?s, then only a teenager, was returning home > one evening from a youth meeting and had to pass the President?s > flat. He glanced into the sentry box out of curiosity and did a > complete double-take. There sitting in the sentry box with a > sergeant?s cap on was the President himself. > > ?Mr President?? Amos enquired, too surprised to understand what was > going on. ?Shoosh Amos, don't make a fuss. The sergeant?s wife is > having a baby. He?s gone to the hospital to see her. Where else > should he be at a time like this?? > > ?But why are you here?? asked Amos still bemused. ?I?m looking after > me until he gets back. He?s absent without leave, silly boy. Now go > home and give my love to your mother and father.? > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140103/bd73f827/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 3 08:45:02 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 08:45:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E783E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E783E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52C66A7E.9050900@skynet.be> Richard HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > Herman De Wael: >>I agree that there ought to be standardization. >>And everyone does. >>As long as the standard is theirs. >>This case is very close to one where the EBL AC ruled in favour of the >>claimer - one does not play trumps as other suits, trumps are kept to last. > Richard Hills: > With regards to the concept ?as long as the standard is theirs?, I am > curious. Was Herman a voting member of that EBL Appeals Committee, > or was Herman merely a non-voting observer and/or scribe? I don't remember, it could have been either. Why does it matter? It's the function that matters, not who's on it. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 3 08:52:21 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 08:52:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E783E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E783E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52C66C35.1060809@skynet.be> Richard HILLS schreef: > Richard Hills: > I have been reliably informed that the Conditions of Contest for the 2014 > world championship will abolish Appeals Committees. Such a CoC is indeed. > legal under Laws 80B2(k) and 93A. I suspect that the primary reason for > this clause of the CoC is to save time. However, in my personal and un- > informed opinion a secondary reason for this AC abolition may be that the > WBF powers-that-be correctly believe that the collective wisdom of world- > class Directors is superior to the collective wisdom of world-class Appeals > Committees (as demonstrated by the lack of wisdom shown by the EBL > Appeals Committee in fallaciously ruling ?trumps last?). Not only does Richard believe he is right, he also states it as obvious. There is no rule that says "trumps first", so applying a rule that says "trumps last" cannot be called fallacious. There is only a rule that says "all normal play". No-one knows what "normal" means, and everyone wants consensus. What better way than to study rulings that have been handed down by major bodies who have studied the case and discussed it at length? One thing is certainly not better: listening to the pontification of one Australian who has no function whatsoever. "Trumps last" is what beginners do. It's what's logical in case something has gone wrong. It's what players accept if they are subjected to a ruling. No player accepts that he would play the trump two first. As such, "trumps last" seems more "normal" to me than "trumps first". Richard falls into a common trap: he takes a simple rule "all suits equal" and applies it literally. That rule has no validity except as a guideline. It's a good rule, but there is a better one: "all suits equal except trumps". It serves no purpose, in a discussion about which rule it should be, to keep saying that Richard's rule is the correct one and Mine is -fallacious-. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 3 08:56:36 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 08:56:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E788C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E788C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52C66D34.3000306@skynet.be> Richard HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: > NORTH > S A K Q T 3 > H T 9 8 7 > D 6 5 4 > C K > WEST EAST > S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 > H J 5 4 H --- > D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 > C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 > SOUTH > S 8 4 > H A K Q 6 3 2 > D A 8 2 > C A 3 > Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, > saying, "Pulling trumps." > How would you rule? I see no objection to this claim, but maybe I'm missing something. > Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to > the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and __now__ > claims the balance with no statement. > How would you rule? I find this action extremely strange. I would ask claimer why he did not claim immediately, but I may be persuaded by him simply saying "I was not looking carefully". > Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the > diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have > six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one > diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, > otherwise 12." > How would you rule? Again, seems correct - 13 tricks. I must be missing something. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 3 09:08:54 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:08:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E788C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52C67016.4000708@skynet.be> From Harald's answers I conclude that: Harald Berre Skj?ran schreef: > Case 1: Down 1 > Case 2: Make The contract is making when spades are 4-2 but not when they are 5-1. OK, but since they are in fact 4-2, why not give the first claimer the same contract? OK, he did not notice that he could not cope with them being 5-1, but does that mean he's going to misplay it if they are 4-2? Are you suggesting that a player who claims at trick one cannot play? Cannot cope with some simple lines of play, like blocking suits or keeping entries? Apparently the winning line is: - three rounds of trumps (even if there is a better line we won't give that to either claimer) - Two spades (or three, doesn't matter) - spade ruff - club to the king - two more spades (or one), discarding two diamonds - diamond ruff - ace of clubs. - one trump left in both hands Or am I wrong? Now what can declarer one do other than declarer two? cash the king of clubs before trying the spades? Forgetting to count the spades and not ruffing the jack when it appears? Playing a fourth round ot trumps? Tell me, because I can't see it. And perhaps I am missing something obvious, of course. I don't care being caught with my pants down. Herman. > Case 3: Down 2 > > > 2014/1/2 Richard HILLS > > > UNOFFICIAL > The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: > NORTH > S A K Q T 3 > H T 9 8 7 > D 6 5 4 > C K > WEST EAST > S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 > H J 5 4 H --- > D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 > C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 > SOUTH > S 8 4 > H A K Q 6 3 2 > D A 8 2 > C A 3 > Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, > saying, "Pulling trumps." > How would you rule? > Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to > the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and __now__ > claims the balance with no statement. > How would you rule? > Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the > diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have > six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one > diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, > otherwise 12." > How would you rule? > Richard Hills: > Before the humble leadership of Pope Francis there was the similar > humility of President Yitzhak Ben Zvi. > Barry Cohen, The Life of the Party, pages 106-107: > Yitzhak Ben Zvi, Israel?s second President after Chaim Weizmann, was > in office from 1952 to 1963. An old left-wing kibbutznik himself, he > eschewed the trappings of office and remained in his small second- > floor flat in Jerusalem. This created certain problems because few > countries have more need for security than Israel. Without a > Presidential residence, with appropriate security built into it, the > security forces had to settle for a small sentry box at floor level > out on the street. At all hours of the day or night a lone sergeant > sat or stood in the sentry box guarding Israel?s President. > Amos Oz, one of the nation?s leading writers and an old family > friend of the Ben Zvi?s, then only a teenager, was returning home > one evening from a youth meeting and had to pass the President?s > flat. He glanced into the sentry box out of curiosity and did a > complete double-take. There sitting in the sentry box with a > sergeant?s cap on was the President himself. > ?Mr President?? Amos enquired, too surprised to understand what was > going on. ?Shoosh Amos, don't make a fuss. The sergeant?s wife is > having a baby. He?s gone to the hospital to see her. Where else > should he be at a time like this?? > ?But why are you here?? asked Amos still bemused. ?I?m looking after > me until he gets back. He?s absent without leave, silly boy. Now go > home and give my love to your mother and father.? > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au > . See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Berre Skj?ran > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From g3 at nige1.com Fri Jan 3 15:44:41 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:44:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E788C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E788C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: [Richard HILLS] The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: NORTH S A K Q T 3 H T 9 8 7 D 6 5 4 C K WEST EAST S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 H J 5 4 H --- D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 SOUTH S 8 4 H A K Q 6 3 2 D A 8 2 C A 3 Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, saying, "Pulling trumps." Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and _now_ claims the balance with no statement. Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, otherwise 12." How would you rule? [Nige1] Thank you, Richard, for the Interesting problems and amusing anecdotes. Harald seems to have given the judgement of Solomon on the BW deal. But my sympathies are with Herman's point of view. Anyway, In practice, under current law, different directors give different rulings. Even with comprehensive guide-lines, how can the ordinary director cope with complex play analysis. Inconsistent rulings are inevitable. Seeking advice from experts is not an ideal solution, especially if they've played the board. Taking into account the claimer's expertise, introduces even more subjectivity and variation. A simpler-claim law would be modelled on rubber-bridge: A claiming declarer exposes his hand; declarer plays on until defenders are satisfied. Sometimes, the result would be different from what happens now with a disputed claim, but arguably much fairer, at least from a player's point of view. A "Bridge" result -- usually without director involvement. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jan 3 15:53:27 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:53:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim In-Reply-To: <52C66C35.1060809@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E783E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52C66C35.1060809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52C6CEE7.2070408@nhcc.net> On 2014-01-03 2:52 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > saying that Richard's rule is the correct one and Mine is -fallacious-. The "trumps last" rule might or might not be correct, but it can't be fallacious. That word implies a logical flaw, which is doesn't exist. L70E2 allows RAs to establish regulations; "trumps last" would fall under this authority and would be perfectly logical. I'm not aware of any authority having enacted _any_ regulation pursuant to L70E2. Does anyone know of any? Absent regulation, each case has to be judged on its merits, and it should surprise no one if "trumps first" is deemed "irrational" rather than "normal" in at least some cases. It also should surprise no one that similar cases receive differing rulings. That was Robert's point in the first place. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jan 4 09:54:38 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 08:54:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E8EFA@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 70E2: The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. "from the top down") in which the Director shall deem ++a++ suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law). Steve Willner: >The "trumps last" rule might or might not be correct, but it can't be >fallacious. That word implies a logical flaw, which is doesn't exist. >L70E2 allows RAs to establish regulations; "trumps last" would fall >under this authority and would be perfectly logical. Richard Hills: A fallacious argument by Steve Willner, who has misread Law 70E2. Any and all Law 70E2 rules created by a Regulating Authority must be restricted to the order of play of cards in ++a++ single suit, not to the selection of cards from ++different++ suits. Steve Willner: >I'm not aware of any authority having enacted _any_ regulation pursuant >to L70E2. Does anyone know of any? EBU White Book, clause 70.5: Top down? A declarer who states that he is cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered. Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be normal to give him three tricks since it might be considered irrational to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered careless rather than irrational to lose a trick to a singleton six. Steve Willner: >Absent regulation, each case has to be judged on its merits, ..... Richard Hills: Agreed. There is no such animal as Law 94 (Trumps Last): "In a trump contract, when a claimer states that all of her cards are winners, the Director must always deem that the claimer's trump(s) are played last." 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/20140104/8d026913/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jan 4 11:05:26 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:05:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E8EFA@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E8EFA@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52C7DCE6.4000509@skynet.be> Richard HILLS schreef: > Richard Hills: > Agreed. There is no such animal as Law 94 (Trumps Last): > ?In a trump contract, when a claimer states that all of her cards are > winners, the Director must always deem that the claimer?s trump(s) are > played last.? No, there isn't. Neither is there such an animal as Law 95 (any suit first) "In a trump contract, when a claimer states all of her cards alre winneres, the Director must consider trumps first to be a normal line." And this is the object of the discussion. Merely restating your opinion does not strengthen that view, Richard. There must be other arguments. I can propose four: - a very senior appeal committee has once decided thusly (and no equally senior committee has, to my knowledge, decided otherwise) - this is what beginners do - it is the logical thing to do (keeping trumps just to get back in if and when a mistake has occured) - ruling against a claimer in this manner sets bad blood - they don't accept that this is a normal line, and the only way you will get your ruling accepted is to rely on scripture - which does not exist. Any arguments against, Richard? Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 5 03:07:13 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 21:07:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52C7DCE6.4000509@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E8EFA@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52C7DCE6.4000509@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 05:05:26 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Richard HILLS schreef: >> Richard Hills: >> Agreed. There is no such animal as Law 94 (Trumps Last): >> ?In a trump contract, when a claimer states that all of her cards are >> winners, the Director must always deem that the claimer?s trump(s) are >> played last.? > > No, there isn't. > Neither is there such an animal as Law 95 (any suit first) > "In a trump contract, when a claimer states all of her cards alre > winneres, the Director must consider trumps first to be a normal line." > > And this is the object of the discussion. > Merely restating your opinion does not strengthen that view, Richard. > > There must be other arguments. > I can propose four: > - a very senior appeal committee has once decided thusly (and no equally > senior committee has, to my knowledge, decided otherwise) > - this is what beginners do Is this true? Beginners make a lot of really strange plays. > - it is the logical thing to do (keeping trumps just to get back in if > and when a mistake has occured) This implies care in play. It is expressly what the laws forbid. > - ruling against a claimer in this manner sets bad blood - they don't > accept that this is a normal line, and the only way you will get your > ruling accepted is to rely on scripture - which does not exist. Well, this came up at the table, and I think the director was going to get "bad blood" no matter which way she ruled. The problem would be solved, however, if the director could say "This is how the ACBL tells us to rule in this situation. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jan 5 22:22:55 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 21:22:55 +0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >> - this is what beginners do >Is this true? Beginners make a lot of really strange plays. One beginner had a cunning strategy to avoid the strictures of Law 70C. He would always draw an extra round of trumps (i.e. one ?trumps first? round) to check for lurkers. This proved especially expensive in a 7D contract in which I was the hapless dummy. The unnecessary extra round of trumps meant that the subsequent cross-ruff was now one trick short. Best wishes, Richard UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140105/5467bf8d/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 6 02:11:21 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 20:11:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 16:22:55 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL > >>> - this is what beginners do > >> Is this true? Beginners make a lot of really strange plays. >One beginner had a cunning strategy to avoid the strictures > of Law 70C. He would always draw an extra round of > trumps (i.e. one ?trumps first? round) to check for lurkers. >This proved especially expensive in a 7D contract in which > I was the hapless dummy. The unnecessary extra round of > trumps meant that the subsequent cross-ruff was now one > trick short. To me, that's why it's a problem when a player claims "drawing trumps". How many rounds of trump do we give this player as making? I like Eric's answer, to keep drawing trumps until neither defender follows. (To continue the theme of good ideas which should be standardized.) Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140106/2bc9c18d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 6 02:12:18 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 01:12:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EBE27@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: NORTH S A K Q T 3 H T 9 8 7 D 6 5 4 C K WEST EAST S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 H J 5 4 H --- D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 SOUTH S 8 4 H A K Q 6 3 2 D A 8 2 C A 3 Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, saying, "Pulling trumps." Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and _now_ claims the balance with no statement. Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, otherwise 12." How would you rule? Harald Berre Skj?ran >>>Case 1: Down 1 >>>Case 2: Make >>>Case 3: Down 2 Herman De Wael: >>..... >>Tell me, because I can't see it. >>And perhaps I am missing something obvious, of course. >>I don't care being caught with my pants down. Nigel Guthrie: >Thank you, Richard, for the interesting problems and amusing anecdotes. > >Harald seems to have given the judgement of Solomon on the BW deal. >But my sympathies are with Herman's point of view. Anyway, in >practice, under current law, different directors give different rulings. >..... Richard Hills: In times past different Directors gave different (often illegal) rulings when UI interacted with MI, or when a legal misbid caused potentially illegal consequences. Edgar Kaplan resolved this problem by creating an indicative example, what is now Law 75. Likewise, Edgar Kaplan's claim examples above (with solutions) could be incorporated into the 2015 claim laws. Solution One: Down 1. Declarer claimed prematurely. If East holds jack-fifth or -sixth in spades there are never more than 12 tricks. So the timing of the claim demonstrably suggests that declarer miscounted her tricks, believing that twelve top tricks were thirteen. Hence the ruling by Edgar Kaplan is that it would be "careless or inferior" for declarer to take out her two entries to dummy - dummy's fourth trump and the king of clubs - before playing on spades. Note: If this Kaplanic example was included in the 2015 Lawbook, then it would refute the idiosyncratic "Law 94" of trumps last. Solution Two: Make. Declarer claimed at the very moment she had discovered that spades were not breaking badly and thus the contract was cold. Solution Three: Down 2. In 6NT declarer's claim statement was deficient. She had not considered the blockage and entry problems if hearts broke 3-0 (as indeed they did).The careful and superior, not careless and inferior, line of play is to unblock the king of clubs and discard dummy's fourth heart upon the ace of clubs BEFORE declarer has cashed three top hearts. Len Dixon, nonagenarian bridge columnist for The Canberra Times: "Never use a long word where a minimalist, diminutive, and un- assuming expression sufficiently and comprehensively circumscribes and delineates the full connotations of the aforesaid utterance and adequately relays the exigent parameters being thereby elucidated." 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/20140106/3833d136/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 6 02:47:52 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 20:47:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EBE27@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EBE27@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: What are the general principles in Kaplan's answers? It's okay to have examples in the lawbook, but they should arise out of existing laws. My position is that there are standard problems in judging claims, and that guidance or regulation on these simple situations could eliminate disagreement. I have no problem with directors making different decisions on oneshot complex situations (such as example #1). 1. Under consideration now is when a player claims, thinking his hand is good, and a trump is out. Do we force declarer to play a losing trump? I would rule yes. If a regulation said no, I would be comfortable with that. 2. Playing a suit from the top-down. 3. Discarding a suit (or playing a loser from the suit) from the bottom up. I think everyone would agree with this, but the laws could be interpreted as saying the opposite when declarer's claim implies the suit is irrelevant. 4. Trumping low. The ACBL apparently gives this advice. To me, trumping high is always a thoughtful play. Requiring a low trump is simple and easy to implement. If it leads to losing a trick -- the player should have claimed. 5. Kaplan suggests a fifth, which I think directors already use -- we can look at subtle cues, such as when the claim occurs, the number of tricks being claimed for. These suggest the claimer's planned line of play. 6. ACBL suggests that the director is supposed to distinguish poorly stated claims from incorrect claims. I have found this regulation to be very useful. 7. Declarer claims, suggesting dummy is good and he is pitching the winners in his hand on the diamonds in dummy. When one of those winners turns out not to be a winner, because RHO plays a higher card or trumps, the rational play is to ruff (or overruff). This is my policy. 8. Declarer cannot be forced to take an excessively clever line of play. (This, IMO, follows from the current laws -- excessively clever is not normal.) 9. I have complained several times on Kaplan's third example -- how clever to we allow declarer to be in untangling blocked suits? His example is of no help, as he addresses an extreme example. On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 20:12:18 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: > NORTH > S A K Q T 3 > H T 9 8 7 > D 6 5 4 > C K > WEST EAST > S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 > H J 5 4 H --- > D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 > C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 > SOUTH > S 8 4 > H A K Q 6 3 2 > D A 8 2 > C A 3 >Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, > saying, ?Pulling trumps.? >Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to > the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and _now_ > claims the balance with no statement. >Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the > diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, ?I have > six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one > diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, > otherwise 12.? >How would you rule? >Harald Berre Skj?ran > >>>> Case 1: Down 1 >>>> Case 2: Make >>>> Case 3: Down 2 >Herman De Wael: > >>> ..... >>> Tell me, because I can?t see it. >>> And perhaps I am missing something obvious, of course. >>> I don?t care being caught with my pants down. >Nigel Guthrie: > >> Thank you, Richard, for the interesting problems and amusing anecdotes. >> >> Harald seems to have given the judgement of Solomon on the BW deal. >> But my sympathies are with Herman?s point of view. Anyway, in >> practice, under current law, different directors give different rulings. >> ..... >Richard Hills: >In times past different Directors gave different (often illegal) rulings > when UI interacted with MI, or when a legal misbid caused potentially > illegal consequences. Edgar Kaplan resolved this problem by creating an > indicative example, what is now Law 75. >Likewise, Edgar Kaplan?s claim examples above (with solutions) could > be incorporated into the 2015 claim laws. >Solution One: >Down 1. Declarer claimed prematurely. If East holds jack-fifth or > -sixth in spades there are never more than 12 tricks. So the timing of > the claim demonstrably suggests that declarer miscounted her tricks, > believing that twelve top tricks were thirteen. Hence the ruling by > Edgar Kaplan is that it would be ?careless or inferior? for declarer to > take out her two entries to dummy ? dummy?s fourth trump and the > king of clubs ? before playing on spades. > Note: If this Kaplanic example was included in the 2015 Lawbook, > then it would refute the idiosyncratic ?Law 94? of trumps last. >Solution Two: >Make. Declarer claimed at the very moment she had discovered > that spades were not breaking badly and thus the contract was cold. >Solution Three: >Down 2. In 6NT declarer?s claim statement was deficient. She had > not considered the blockage and entry problems if hearts broke 3-0 > (as indeed they did).The careful and superior, not careless and > inferior, line of play is to unblock the king of clubs and discard > dummy?s fourth heart upon the ace of clubs BEFORE declarer has > cashed three top hearts. >Len Dixon, nonagenarian bridge columnist for The Canberra Times: >?Never use a long word where a minimalist, diminutive, and un- > assuming expression sufficiently and comprehensively circumscribes > and delineates the full connotations of the aforesaid utterance and > adequately relays the exigent parameters being thereby elucidated.? > 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/20140106/c122de56/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 6 03:41:32 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 02:41:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EBE4A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >..... >7. Declarer claims, suggesting dummy is good and he is pitching >the winners in his hand on the diamonds in dummy. When one of >those winners turns out not to be a winner, because RHO plays a >higher card or trumps, the rational play is to ruff (or over-ruff). >This is my policy. >..... Also policy of WBF Laws Committee 30th October 2001, item 3: ?The committee discussed Law 70E. It was agreed that it is assumed declarer would see cards as they would be played and to take account of what he would see.? 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/20140106/a4a6136c/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 6 03:47:11 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 21:47:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EBE4A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EBE4A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 21:41:32 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL > >> ..... >> 7. Declarer claims, suggesting dummy is good and he is pitching >> the winners in his hand on the diamonds in dummy. When one of >> those winners turns out not to be a winner, because RHO plays a >> higher card or trumps, the rational play is to ruff (or over-ruff). >> This is my policy. >> ..... >Also policy of WBF Laws Committee 30th October 2001, item 3: >?The committee discussed Law 70E. It was agreed that it is > assumed declarer would see cards as they would be played and to > take account of what he would see.? This seems like a great regulation to me. Thanks for finding it, Richard. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140106/4d5ddb9a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 6 04:08:43 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 03:08:43 +0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EBE95@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>What are the general principles in Kaplan?s answers? >>It?s okay to have examples in the lawbook, but they >>should arise out of existing laws. >>..... Ton Kooijman, 15th November 2002: >It is time for the Kooijman-doctrine, which is: > >We Have To Follow The Laws Of Bridge When Acting >As TD. (I give up the appeal committees, just received a >message from a member of my AC accusing me of >following the laws regarding claims) Grattan Endicott, 15th November 2002: +=+ :-) you mean it confused her when you did? :-) +=+ 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/20140106/8f8a44ac/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 6 08:07:39 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 08:07:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52CA563B.7050706@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 16:22:55 -0500, Richard HILLS > wrote: > > UNOFFICIAL > >> - this is what beginners do > >Is this true? Beginners make a lot of really strange plays. > One beginner had a cunning strategy to avoid the strictures > of Law 70C. He would always draw an extra round of > trumps (i.e. one ?trumps first? round) to check for lurkers. > This proved especially expensive in a 7D contract in which > I was the hapless dummy. The unnecessary extra round of > trumps meant that the subsequent cross-ruff was now one > trick short. > > > To me, that's why it's a problem when a player claims "drawing trumps". > How many rounds of trump do we give this player as making? I like Eric's > answer, to keep drawing trumps until neither defender follows. (To > continue the theme of good ideas which should be standardized.) > Again, an idea which begins by suggesting that a claimer has made a mistake for which not a single piece of evidence exists. Unless there is proof to the contrary, we must assume that a claimer has a correct count of the trump suit and will play just enough rounds of trumps. The standard of play after a claim is careless, not wrong. Miscounting is wrong, not merely careless. Herman. > Bob > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 6 08:21:21 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 08:21:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EBE27@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EBE27@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52CA5971.4010503@skynet.be> I dispute the wisdom of Kaplan's first answer. Kaplan is right in concluding that claimer has failed to see that the spades are not yet certain of yielding six tricks. But he is wrong in deducing that this means claimer has miscounted spades. A far better conclusion it to say that claimer has _not yet_ counted the spades. I n my humble opinion, whereas players might claim carelessly, this does not mean that they will play (extra) carelessly. When deciding on which suit to play first, decisions about unblocking and checking long suits before others will still be carried out, and there is no evidence that claimer will get this wrong. I see no reason to assume that the first claimer is in any other situation than the second one, except for the checking of the spade suit. The second claimer could just as easily have noticed the spade suit and claimed 13 tricks saying "13 if spades are not 5-1", as there is nothing claimer can do is they are 5-1. Herman. Richard HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: > NORTH > S A K Q T 3 > H T 9 8 7 > D 6 5 4 > C K > WEST EAST > S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 > H J 5 4 H --- > D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 > C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 > SOUTH > S 8 4 > H A K Q 6 3 2 > D A 8 2 > C A 3 > Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, > saying, ?Pulling trumps.? > Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to > the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and _now_ > claims the balance with no statement. > Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the > diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, ?I have > six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one > diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, > otherwise 12.? > How would you rule? > Harald Berre Skj?ran >>>>Case 1: Down 1 >>>>Case 2: Make >>>>Case 3: Down 2 > Herman De Wael: >>>..... >>>Tell me, because I can?t see it. >>>And perhaps I am missing something obvious, of course. >>>I don?t care being caught with my pants down. > Nigel Guthrie: >>Thank you, Richard, for the interesting problems and amusing anecdotes. >> >>Harald seems to have given the judgement of Solomon on the BW deal. >>But my sympathies are with Herman?s point of view. Anyway, in >>practice, under current law, different directors give different rulings. >>..... > Richard Hills: > In times past different Directors gave different (often illegal) rulings > when UI interacted with MI, or when a legal misbid caused potentially > illegal consequences. Edgar Kaplan resolved this problem by creating an > indicative example, what is now Law 75. > Likewise, Edgar Kaplan?s claim examples above (with solutions) could > be incorporated into the 2015 claim laws. > Solution One: > Down 1. Declarer claimed prematurely. If East holds jack-fifth or > -sixth in spades there are never more than 12 tricks. So the timing of > the claim demonstrably suggests that declarer miscounted her tricks, > believing that twelve top tricks were thirteen. Hence the ruling by > Edgar Kaplan is that it would be ?careless or inferior? for declarer to > take out her two entries to dummy ? dummy?s fourth trump and the > king of clubs ? before playing on spades. > Note: If this Kaplanic example was included in the 2015 Lawbook, > then it would refute the idiosyncratic ?Law 94? of trumps last. > Solution Two: > Make. Declarer claimed at the very moment she had discovered > that spades were not breaking badly and thus the contract was cold. > Solution Three: > Down 2. In 6NT declarer?s claim statement was deficient. She had > not considered the blockage and entry problems if hearts broke 3-0 > (as indeed they did).The careful and superior, not careless and > inferior, line of play is to unblock the king of clubs and discard > dummy?s fourth heart upon the ace of clubs BEFORE declarer has > cashed three top hearts. > Len Dixon, nonagenarian bridge columnist for The Canberra Times: > ?Never use a long word where a minimalist, diminutive, and un- > assuming expression sufficiently and comprehensively circumscribes > and delineates the full connotations of the aforesaid utterance and > adequately relays the exigent parameters being thereby elucidated.? > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 6 09:39:12 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:39:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52CA6BB0.2090405@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 16:22:55 -0500, Richard HILLS > > To me, that's why it's a problem when a player claims "drawing trumps". > How many rounds of trump do we give this player as making? I like Eric's > answer, to keep drawing trumps until neither defender follows. (To > continue the theme of good ideas which should be standardized.) > Another reason why this is not a good idea: 765432 AK AK AK2 opposite AKQ8 5432 432 43 7S, claimed after the lead, without a word. Under the above rule, the S8 would have to be played if trumps are 3-0. You should be prepared to follow a rule even in obvious cases. Far better is it to assume that claimers can count (unless they have demonstrated they have counted incorrectly). Mind you, I did say "count", not "have counted". It is quite possible for a claimer to not have noticed a discard, and therefrom miscount. This would be applicable to side suits, but hardly ever to the trump suit. But when, at the moment of the claim, a suit still contains 13 cards, then a claimer should be considered to be able to count the suit from there. Otherwise most perfectly obvious claims become contestable. Herman. > Bob > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jan 6 12:28:13 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:28:13 -0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> It?s hard to define standards as to the line of play that the director should impose on a declarer who has made an incomplete or faulty claim. For example suppose declarer has miscounted trumps, again. A defender has a heart void and the outstanding trump. In the two card ending, declarer claims the remaining tricks, with no statement, holding A. SA HA. Should the director rule that declarer plays SA first? B. S2 HA. Should the director rule that declarer plays HA first? C. S8 HA. Should the director toss a coin? In all 3 cases, my interpretation of current law, is that the director should rule against the claimer. Herman may disagree. Unfortunately, standard rules don?t seem to work. The rules in such cases would be longer than the law-book. Are law-makers likely to simplify laws like claim-law? No. that would go against ?devolution of responsibility?, one of their main aims. It would deprive directors or the power to decide close cases in any way they choose. It would deprive BLMLers of endless argument. The only people to benefit would be ordinary players. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140106/2b53ba95/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jan 6 13:12:09 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:12:09 -0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> Message-ID: <40DFEC731F044AF49F9783E0DF07504B@G3> Correction It?s hard to define standards as to the line of play that the director should impose on a declarer who has made an incomplete or faulty claim. For example suppose declarer has again miscounted trumps (SPADES). A defender has a heart void and the outstanding trump. Declarer claims the remaining tricks, with no statement, in the 2 card ending, holding A. SA HA. Should the director rule that declarer plays SA first? B. S2 HA. Should the director rule that declarer plays HA first? C. S8 HA. Should the director toss a coin? In all 3 cases, my interpretation of current law, is that the director should rule against the claimer. Herman may disagree. Unfortunately, standard rules don?t seem to work. The rules in such cases would be longer than the law-book. Are law-makers likely to simplify laws like claim-law? No. that would go against ?devolution of responsibility?, one of their main aims. It would deprive directors of the power to decide close cases in any way they choose. It would deprive BLMLers of endless argument. The only people to benefit would be ordinary players. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140106/eb97f3e6/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 6 15:22:24 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:22:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52CA6BB0.2090405@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52CA6BB0.2090405@skynet.be> Message-ID: Hi Herman, You could have the regulation be "the player draws trumps until both players show out, unless the number of trumps outstanding is less than this, and then the player draws that many rounds of trumps." That's longer. But it's fine with me. I think, when such a claim is made before any trumps are played, declarer could be prepared for a 3-0 break and hence claim. It's a little dicier when such a claim is made in the middle of the hand. Suppose the position is this, with 1 or 2 trumps outstanding. Spades are trump xx xxx x - AK AKQx -- -- Suppose you play one round of trump and only one person follows. If there are no trump out, you have the rest, trumping your long heart. If there is a trump out, you should draw it and hope hearts break. If we adopt the above principal, you can claim and get the best of both worlds. So we probably want: "....unless trumps have not been played and the number of trumps outstanding is less than this...." > Robert Frick schreef: >> On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 16:22:55 -0500, Richard HILLS >> >> To me, that's why it's a problem when a player claims "drawing trumps". >> How many rounds of trump do we give this player as making? I like Eric's >> answer, to keep drawing trumps until neither defender follows. (To >> continue the theme of good ideas which should be standardized.) >> > > Another reason why this is not a good idea: > > 765432 > AK > AK > AK2 > > opposite > > AKQ8 > 5432 > 432 > 43 > > 7S, claimed after the lead, without a word. > Under the above rule, the S8 would have to be played if trumps are 3-0. > You should be prepared to follow a rule even in obvious cases. > Far better is it to assume that claimers can count (unless they have > demonstrated they have counted incorrectly). > > Mind you, I did say "count", not "have counted". It is quite possible > for a claimer to not have noticed a discard, and therefrom miscount. > This would be applicable to side suits, but hardly ever to the trump > suit. > But when, at the moment of the claim, a suit still contains 13 cards, > then a claimer should be considered to be able to count the suit from > there. Otherwise most perfectly obvious claims become contestable. > > Herman. > >> Bob >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 6 15:40:07 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:40:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52CA563B.7050706@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52CA563B.7050706@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 02:07:39 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 16:22:55 -0500, Richard HILLS >> wrote: >> >> UNOFFICIAL >> >> - this is what beginners do >> >Is this true? Beginners make a lot of really strange plays. >> One beginner had a cunning strategy to avoid the strictures >> of Law 70C. He would always draw an extra round of >> trumps (i.e. one ?trumps first? round) to check for lurkers. >> This proved especially expensive in a 7D contract in which >> I was the hapless dummy. The unnecessary extra round of >> trumps meant that the subsequent cross-ruff was now one >> trick short. >> >> >> To me, that's why it's a problem when a player claims "drawing trumps". >> How many rounds of trump do we give this player as making? I like Eric's >> answer, to keep drawing trumps until neither defender follows. (To >> continue the theme of good ideas which should be standardized.) >> > > Again, an idea which begins by suggesting that a claimer has made a > mistake for which not a single piece of evidence exists. > Unless there is proof to the contrary, we must assume that a claimer has > a correct count of the trump suit and will play just enough rounds of > trumps. > The standard of play after a claim is careless, not wrong. Miscounting > is wrong, not merely careless. Has declarer made a mistake? Yes. 1. Infracting the law which says the claim must be accompanied by a clear statement of how the hand would be played. 2. Making a claim which the director might not accept. If the player has calculated that he can afford to draw three rounds of trumps, how hard is it to say "Drawing three rounds of trumps"? I am not sure what you mean by "The standard of play after a claim is careless, not wrong." Does that mean the director must consider only correct lines of plays? The declarer is assumed to have full knowledge of what has been played, to have counted out every suit, to have remembered every discard, and to make flawless inferences? To me, it is careless not to count a suit or planned out how to play the hand, or not remembered a discard. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 6 16:27:11 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:27:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> Message-ID: <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie schreef: > It?s hard to define standards as to the line of play that the director > should impose on a declarer who has made an incomplete or faulty claim. > For example suppose > declarer has miscounted trumps, again. A defender has a heart void and > the outstanding trump. In the two card ending, declarer > claims the remaining tricks, with no statement, holding > A. SA HA. Should the director rule that declarer plays SA first? > B. S2 HA. Should the director rule that declarer plays HA first? > C. S8 HA. Should the director toss a coin? > In all 3 cases, my interpretation of current law, is that the director > should rule against the claimer. Herman may disagree. Unfortunately, > standard rules don?t seem to work. The rules in such cases would be > longer than the law-book. How can you interpret the current law if what you are asking for is a clarification of the current law. Either the law is complete, and we should not be having any discussion, or it is not, and we are having the discussion that we are having. I agree that guidelines on what is normal should be made more explicit. We already have guidelines, but they are incomplete, and some people believe they should be followed to the letter nevertheless. That is plainly wrong. I propose my set of guidelines. I believe they are what players would expect and accept. 1) A claimer shall make no mistakes in the play or the count after the claim. Any mistakes he has made before the claim should count against him, of course. 2) A claimer shall play the suits as follows: - first trumps, until all trumps are out - then any long non-trump suit (a long suit is one which will become free), top-down - then any high card (a high card will leave opponents with long suit winners) - finally trumps 3) Any blockage shall be dealt with sufficiently competently. I may find other rules to add to this, but I believe this set could lead to a more homogenous claim ruling. > Are law-makers likely to simplify laws like claim-law? No. that would > go against ?devolution of responsibility?, one of their main aims. It > would deprive directors or the power to decide close cases in any way > they choose. It would deprive BLMLers of endless argument. The only > people to benefit would be ordinary players. > > You imply a set of objectives the WBF surely does not have. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 6 16:32:51 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:32:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52CA6BB0.2090405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52CACCA3.1080009@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > Hi Herman, > > You could have the regulation be "the player draws trumps until both > players show out, unless the number of trumps outstanding is less than > this, and then the player draws that many rounds of trumps." > > That's longer. But it's fine with me. I think, when such a claim is made > before any trumps are played, declarer could be prepared for a 3-0 break > and hence claim. > > It's a little dicier when such a claim is made in the middle of the hand. > Suppose the position is this, with 1 or 2 trumps outstanding. Spades are > trump > > xx > xxx > x > - > > AK > AKQx > -- > -- > > Suppose you play one round of trump and only one person follows. If there > are no trump out, you have the rest, trumping your long heart. If there is > a trump out, you should draw it and hope hearts break. If we adopt the > above principal, you can claim and get the best of both worlds. > No, because you are failing to take account of one thing: the normal line depends on what claimer "knows" about the hand. It does not matter whether there are 1 or 2 trumps out: it matters whether claimer believes it's one or two. Sometimes a claimer will get away with a wrong view of matters, but we will never know. But most of the time, the wording and timing of the claim will be logical only in one world-view for claimer, and he will probably lose his claim. In the above scenario, usually, the player will either say "I trump the last heart" or "drawing the last trump". Or it may be that this situation occurs just after drawing the (in the mind of claimer) penultimate trump. Again, we know what claimer thought and the normal line follows from that. Herman. > So we probably want: "....unless trumps have not been played and the > number of trumps outstanding is less than this...." > > > > >> Robert Frick schreef: >>> On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 16:22:55 -0500, Richard HILLS >>> >>> To me, that's why it's a problem when a player claims "drawing trumps". >>> How many rounds of trump do we give this player as making? I like Eric's >>> answer, to keep drawing trumps until neither defender follows. (To >>> continue the theme of good ideas which should be standardized.) >>> >> >> Another reason why this is not a good idea: >> >> 765432 >> AK >> AK >> AK2 >> >> opposite >> >> AKQ8 >> 5432 >> 432 >> 43 >> >> 7S, claimed after the lead, without a word. >> Under the above rule, the S8 would have to be played if trumps are 3-0. >> You should be prepared to follow a rule even in obvious cases. >> Far better is it to assume that claimers can count (unless they have >> demonstrated they have counted incorrectly). >> >> Mind you, I did say "count", not "have counted". It is quite possible >> for a claimer to not have noticed a discard, and therefrom miscount. >> This would be applicable to side suits, but hardly ever to the trump >> suit. >> But when, at the moment of the claim, a suit still contains 13 cards, >> then a claimer should be considered to be able to count the suit from >> there. Otherwise most perfectly obvious claims become contestable. >> >> Herman. >> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 6 16:37:54 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 10:37:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52CACCA3.1080009@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52CA6BB0.2090405@skynet.be> <52CACCA3.1080009@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 10:32:51 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> Hi Herman, >> >> You could have the regulation be "the player draws trumps until both >> players show out, unless the number of trumps outstanding is less than >> this, and then the player draws that many rounds of trumps." >> >> That's longer. But it's fine with me. I think, when such a claim is made >> before any trumps are played, declarer could be prepared for a 3-0 break >> and hence claim. >> >> It's a little dicier when such a claim is made in the middle of the >> hand. >> Suppose the position is this, with 1 or 2 trumps outstanding. Spades are >> trump >> >> xx >> xxx >> x >> - >> >> AK >> AKQx >> -- >> -- >> >> Suppose you play one round of trump and only one person follows. If >> there >> are no trump out, you have the rest, trumping your long heart. If there >> is >> a trump out, you should draw it and hope hearts break. If we adopt the >> above principal, you can claim and get the best of both worlds. >> > > No, because you are failing to take account of one thing: the normal > line depends on what claimer "knows" about the hand. It does not matter > whether there are 1 or 2 trumps out: it matters whether claimer believes > it's one or two. Sometimes a claimer will get away with a wrong view of > matters, but we will never know. But most of the time, the wording and > timing of the claim will be logical only in one world-view for claimer, > and he will probably lose his claim. > > In the above scenario, usually, the player will either say "I trump the > last heart" or "drawing the last trump". Or it may be that this > situation occurs just after drawing the (in the mind of claimer) > penultimate trump. Again, we know what claimer thought and the normal > line follows from that. Sorry, I am not getting how you rule. The player claims in the above situation. If your ruling depends on what the claimer believes, how do you determine that? > > Herman. > >> So we probably want: "....unless trumps have not been played and the >> number of trumps outstanding is less than this...." >> >> >> >> >>> Robert Frick schreef: >>>> On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 16:22:55 -0500, Richard HILLS >>>> >>>> To me, that's why it's a problem when a player claims "drawing >>>> trumps". >>>> How many rounds of trump do we give this player as making? I like >>>> Eric's >>>> answer, to keep drawing trumps until neither defender follows. (To >>>> continue the theme of good ideas which should be standardized.) >>>> >>> >>> Another reason why this is not a good idea: >>> >>> 765432 >>> AK >>> AK >>> AK2 >>> >>> opposite >>> >>> AKQ8 >>> 5432 >>> 432 >>> 43 >>> >>> 7S, claimed after the lead, without a word. >>> Under the above rule, the S8 would have to be played if trumps are 3-0. >>> You should be prepared to follow a rule even in obvious cases. >>> Far better is it to assume that claimers can count (unless they have >>> demonstrated they have counted incorrectly). >>> >>> Mind you, I did say "count", not "have counted". It is quite possible >>> for a claimer to not have noticed a discard, and therefrom miscount. >>> This would be applicable to side suits, but hardly ever to the trump >>> suit. >>> But when, at the moment of the claim, a suit still contains 13 cards, >>> then a claimer should be considered to be able to count the suit from >>> there. Otherwise most perfectly obvious claims become contestable. >>> >>> Herman. >>> >>>> Bob >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 6 16:40:15 2014 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 10:40:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim In-Reply-To: <52CA6BB0.2090405@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52CA6BB0.2090405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52CACE5F.3020701@starpower.net> On 1/6/2014 3:39 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: > >> >> To me, that's why it's a problem when a player claims "drawing trumps". >> How many rounds of trump do we give this player as making? I like Eric's >> answer, to keep drawing trumps until neither defender follows. (To >> continue the theme of good ideas which should be standardized.) > > Another reason why this is not a good idea: > > 765432 > AK > AK > AK2 > > opposite > > AKQ8 > 5432 > 432 > 43 > > 7S, claimed after the lead, without a word. > Under the above rule, the S8 would have to be played if trumps are 3-0. > You should be prepared to follow a rule even in obvious cases. > Far better is it to assume that claimers can count (unless they have > demonstrated they have counted incorrectly). My position on this has been misunderstood. Let me clarify for the record... A player who claims with the statement that he will draw trumps undertakes to pull as many rounds of trumps as there are trumps outstanding; he essentially asserts that his claim is good after drawing trumps even if the n outstanding trumps break n-0. In Herman's example, that means three rounds; under no circumstances would I presume the play of a fourth round (unless, of course, it was explicit in the claim statement). Modifying this is the principle that the claimer is presumed to see the cards his opponents would have put on the table, so we allow him to stop short of pulling n rounds of trumps if he would first reach a position in which both opponents would show out. For example, with a nine-card fit, the claimer may be presumed to stop pulling trumps after three rounds if they're 2-2, but must pull four rounds if they are 3-1 or 4-0. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 6 16:45:29 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:45:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52CA563B.7050706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52CACF99.8010602@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 02:07:39 -0500, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Robert Frick schreef: >>> On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 16:22:55 -0500, Richard HILLS >>> wrote: >>> >>> UNOFFICIAL >>> >> - this is what beginners do >>> >Is this true? Beginners make a lot of really strange plays. >>> One beginner had a cunning strategy to avoid the strictures >>> of Law 70C. He would always draw an extra round of >>> trumps (i.e. one ?trumps first? round) to check for lurkers. >>> This proved especially expensive in a 7D contract in which >>> I was the hapless dummy. The unnecessary extra round of >>> trumps meant that the subsequent cross-ruff was now one >>> trick short. >>> >>> >>> To me, that's why it's a problem when a player claims "drawing trumps". >>> How many rounds of trump do we give this player as making? I like Eric's >>> answer, to keep drawing trumps until neither defender follows. (To >>> continue the theme of good ideas which should be standardized.) >>> >> >> Again, an idea which begins by suggesting that a claimer has made a >> mistake for which not a single piece of evidence exists. >> Unless there is proof to the contrary, we must assume that a claimer has >> a correct count of the trump suit and will play just enough rounds of >> trumps. >> The standard of play after a claim is careless, not wrong. Miscounting >> is wrong, not merely careless. > > Has declarer made a mistake? Yes. 1. Infracting the law which says the > claim must be accompanied by a clear statement of how the hand would be > played. 2. Making a claim which the director might not accept. Yes, these are mistakes. But mistake 2 is not an infraction, so it will only be punished by the partner when director rules against him. Number 1 is an infraction, but it is never punished, other than in leaving the possibility of being ruled against when in fact claimer had a correct claim. You make the mistake of wanting to punish careless claims. You should only rule against wrong claims, not against careless ones. And sometimes a correct claim will be ruled a wrong one because of the carelessness. But you should not want to rule just on the basis of the carelessness. > If the > player has calculated that he can afford to draw three rounds of trumps, > how hard is it to say "Drawing three rounds of trumps"? > My point is that this claimer has not calculated the number of rounds he can afford to draw. He did not miscalculate it, he never did the calculation in the first place. And I don't believe he would miscalculate it once he gets down to it. > I am not sure what you mean by "The standard of play after a claim is > careless, not wrong." Does that mean the director must consider only > correct lines of plays? Yes indeed. If a claimer knows there are three trumps out, and they are 2-1, the claimer is deemed to notice both defenders following suit to the first one, and he shall play only one round after that. The standard here is carelessness. I believe it is wrong (call it irrational if you will) to draw three rounds of trumps here. That cannot be called a normal line. Of course, that is if declarer "knows" three trumps are out. Whether this be true or not. If there are in fact four out, or two (divided 1-1), this claimer shall always play two rounds of trumps. > The declarer is assumed to have full knowledge of > what has been played, no, but that would be a mistake made before the claim, not afterwards. to have counted out every suit, certainly not, and I would never rule that a claimer had done so unless he demonstrates it in his claim statement; to have remembered > every discard, absolutely not and to make flawless inferences? this one, yes. If he "knows" there are three trumps out, and both follow suit to the first round, claimer shall flawlessly make the inference that only one round more is needed. To me, it is careless not > to count a suit or planned out how to play the hand, or not remembered a > discard. Indeed. But I will not rule that a claimer has miscounted a suit if he claims it at a correct moment. All the mistakes that you cite above will come to light because of an abnormal claim. But a claimer as the one in the Kaplan example has made no such errors, since no cards have yet been played. So I will not rule that he has miscounted spades, rather that he has not yet counted them. And I will certainly not rule that he will miscount them and continue to play other suits until only the (non-running) spade suit is left. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 6 16:52:56 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:52:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <52CA6BB0.2090405@skynet.be> <52CACCA3.1080009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52CAD158.8020807@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: >>> >>> It's a little dicier when such a claim is made in the middle of the >>> hand. >>> Suppose the position is this, with 1 or 2 trumps outstanding. Spades are >>> trump >>> >>> xx >>> xxx >>> x >>> - >>> >>> AK >>> AKQx >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Suppose you play one round of trump and only one person follows. If >>> there >>> are no trump out, you have the rest, trumping your long heart. If there >>> is >>> a trump out, you should draw it and hope hearts break. If we adopt the >>> above principal, you can claim and get the best of both worlds. >>> >> >> No, because you are failing to take account of one thing: the normal >> line depends on what claimer "knows" about the hand. It does not matter >> whether there are 1 or 2 trumps out: it matters whether claimer believes >> it's one or two. Sometimes a claimer will get away with a wrong view of >> matters, but we will never know. But most of the time, the wording and >> timing of the claim will be logical only in one world-view for claimer, >> and he will probably lose his claim. >> >> In the above scenario, usually, the player will either say "I trump the >> last heart" or "drawing the last trump". Or it may be that this >> situation occurs just after drawing the (in the mind of claimer) >> penultimate trump. Again, we know what claimer thought and the normal >> line follows from that. > > Sorry, I am not getting how you rule. The player claims in the above > situation. If your ruling depends on what the claimer believes, how do you > determine that? > Well, as I stated: if he claims with one kind of statement, I know he "knows" one thing, if he claims with the other one, I know he "knows" the other lay-out. And sometimes, he will claim without either statement. I may well rule against him then, regardless. But sometimes you can find other evidence. He will say : "LHO followed with the 2-3 and 5, and RHO showed the "7-6 and 9". If those elements are true, I may well rule that he knows the correct lay-out. I believe that the most important aspect of claim ruling is getting into the head of claimer. Which is why most examples are flawed, since they don't come from real life. Even the Kaplan case is somehow contrived and my difference with Kaplan may well be the consequence of me being more relaxed about careless claims. It will be a very different ruling in either of these cases (same hands as Kaplan example one in both) A- declarer looks at dummy shouts at dummy about not being in seven and says "thirteen easy tricks" B- declarer (a beginner) thinks for 10 minutes and says "I don't see how I can lose a trick - I have 13" Whereas claimer A has not looked at the spades and is unlikely to miscount them, claimer B has obviously miscounted them. Do you see the difference? Herman. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jan 6 21:33:52 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 20:33:52 -0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> Message-ID: [Nigel] Are law-makers likely to simplify laws like claim-law? No. that would go against ?devolution of responsibility?, one of their main aims. [Herman de Wael] You imply a set of objectives the WBF surely does not have. [TFLB, In the introductory section, specifying philosophy and principal aims of law-makers] ...Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers. There are fewer automatic penalties: they are replaced by the concept of rectification of a situation that unfortunately has arisen. Bridge is played in different ways in different countries so the Laws give more power to Regulating Authorities to make controlling regulations... We have tried to clarify the areas of responsibility of Regulating Authorities, Tournament Organizers and Directors and it is made clear that certain responsibilities may be either assigned or delegated. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jan 6 21:49:43 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 20:49:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> Message-ID: [Herman] I propose my set of guidelines. I believe they are what players would expect and accept. 1) A claimer shall make no mistakes in the play or the count after the claim. Any mistakes he has made before the claim should count against him, of course. [Nigel] Richard is right that a faulty or incomplete claim demonstrates that - declarer lacks relevant bridge-skill or - he has lost the place or - he is trying it on, (trusting that gullible defenders won't bother to dispute it or that TD Herman will find a successful line of play for him). From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Jan 6 22:06:18 2014 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:06:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52CB1ACA.2090103@comcast.net> On 1/6/14, 10:27 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > I propose my set of guidelines. I believe they are what players would > expect and accept. > 1) A claimer shall make no mistakes in the play or the count after the > claim. Any mistakes he has made before the claim should count against > him, of course. > 2) A claimer shall play the suits as follows: > - first trumps, until all trumps are out > - then any long non-trump suit (a long suit is one which will become > free), top-down > - then any high card (a high card will leave opponents with long suit > winners) > - finally trumps > 3) Any blockage shall be dealt with sufficiently competently. > > I may find other rules to add to this, but I believe this set could lead > to a more homogenous claim ruling. > Your rule 2 seems unusually harsh for for someone who has claimed saying, "high cross-ruff." FWIW, I have twice had opponents question a claim of this type. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 6 22:42:56 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 21:42:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EDBCB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >>How can you interpret the current law if what you are asking for is a >>clarification of the current law. Either the law is complete, and we >>should not be having any discussion, Richard Hills: Indeed we should not be having any discussion. Edgar Kaplan set an intermediate three-question quiz for Directors on ruling claims, and Harald Berre Skj?ran passed that quiz with flying colours, giving 100% accurate answers pursuant to the Law 70A criterion "any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer". Herman De Wael: >>or it is not, and we are having the discussion that we are having. >> >>I agree that guidelines on what is normal should be made more >>explicit. We already have guidelines, but they are incomplete, and >>some people believe they should be followed to the letter >>nevertheless. That is plainly wrong. >> >>I propose my set of guidelines. I believe they are what players would >>expect and accept. >>1) A claimer shall make no mistakes in the play or the count after the >>claim. Any mistakes he has made before the claim should count >>against him, of course. Richard Hills: Now that is a 100% illegal guideline, contrary to Law 70A's "doubtful point" criterion. Nigel Guthrie: >Richard is right that a faulty or incomplete claim demonstrates that Richard Hills: Yes and No. Change "demonstrates" to "may demonstrate". For example, Harald Berre Skj?ran and Edgar Kaplan accept an incomplete claim in Kaplan's example #2. Nigel Guthrie: >- declarer lacks relevant bridge-skill or Richard Hills: Yes, in Kaplan's example #3 declarer may carelessly discard one of dummy's diamonds on the ace of clubs, blocking the hearts, and thus restricting herself to ten tricks in 6NT. Nigel Guthrie: >- he has lost the place or Richard Hills: Yes, see Kaplan's example #1. An anonymous Aussie bridge poet: I'm giving up bridge - tonight's my last night It's amen to Stayman, I give up the fight. The insults and muddles are giving me troubles And I can't sleep at night for thinking of doubles. My cards are all rotten and I have forgotten Who's played and what's trumps and what's gone on my right So for now it's all over - I'm off to the back wood I'm bidding good-bye to Gerber and Blackwood. I can't stand the hassle, I can't stand the pain I'm getting those bad cards again and again. So I'm giving up bridge - tonight's my last night, Declarer is horrid and nothing's going right. My partner's a dope and I'm losing all hope, And when he says "double" I know we're in trouble. My points are not high and I'm wondering why He kept on bidding right up to the sky. We're in seven spades and all my hope fades When surprise, surprise, the high bidding pays We're winning all tricks, the defenders feel sick And I have to admit my partner's a brick. But I'm giving up bridge - tonight's my last night Farewell to conventions - I give up the fight So I leave with few words but some that are true Bridge is a game - not for me but for you. So be kind to your partners and don't mind their cheek For it's only a game - Oh yes. I'll see you next week. 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/20140106/0f639a60/attachment-0001.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Jan 6 23:23:19 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 23:23:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EDBCB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EDBCB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: > Richard Hills: > > Now that is a 100% illegal guideline, contrary to Law 70A's "doubtful > point" criterion. > But let's not forget the main clause of this sentence: "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides". "doubt" is in the eye of the Director. Petrus From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 6 23:55:19 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:55:19 +0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EDC2F@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Petrus: >But let?s not forget the main clause of this [Law 70A] sentence: >?the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as >possible to both sides?. > >?doubt? is in the eye of the Director. Richard: But since the word ?doubtful? does not appear in the Definitions, the Director is bound to apply the standard dictionary meaning of ?doubtful points?. That is, the Director cannot arbitrarily apply a self-created guideline that it is always ?beyond doubt? that a claimer will be deemed to play and count correctly. The Free Dictionary: umpire (?ampai?) noun in cricket, tennis etc, a person who supervises a game, makes sure that it is played according to the rules, and decides doubtful points. Word History: Had it not been for the linguistic process known as false splitting or juncture loss, the angry, anguished cry ?Kill the ump? could have been ?Kill the nump?. In the case of umpire we can almost see this process in action by studying the Middle English Dictionary entry for noumpere, the Middle English ancestor of our word. Noumpere comes from the Old French nonper, made up of non, ?not,? and per, ?equal?: as an impartial arbiter of a dispute between two people, the arbiter is not equivalent to or a partisan of either of them. In Middle English the earliest recorded form is noumper (about 1350); the earliest dated form without an n is owmpere, from 1440. How the n was lost can be seen if we compare the sequence a noounpier in a text written in 1426-1427 with the sequence an Oumper from a text written probably around 1475. The n of noumpere has here become attached to the indefinite article, giving us an instead of a and, eventually, umpire instead of *numpire. The same process of false splitting is responsible for the forms apron and adder, originally napron and naddre, as well as many other words that once began with n. False splitting also caused some words that originally began with vowels to have an n from a preceding indefinite article added on, such as nickname (from the phrase an eke name) and newt (from an eute). 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/20140106/59cb59ed/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 7 02:08:42 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 01:08:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EDD0E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: >..... >I propose my set of guidelines. I believe they are what players would >expect and accept. >1) A claimer shall make no mistakes in the play or the count after the >claim. Any mistakes he has made before the claim should count >against him, of course. >..... Richard Hills: Now that is a 100% illegal guideline, contrary to Law 70A?s ?doubtful point? criterion. Kansas City 2001 appeals casebook, number twenty-one Subject (Claim): So What?s Your [Doubtful] Point? Event: North American Pairs Flight B, Second Qualifying Session Bd: 23 S K9763 Dlr: South H 4 Vul: Both D AQ542 C K9 S T4 S A2 H A976 H QJT32 D KJ D T9763 C AT543 C 8 S QJ85 H K85 D 8 C QJ762 West North East South Pass 1C 1S X (1) 2C 2H 3D X 3S Pass Pass Pass (1) Negative The Play (East on lead): Trick 1 HQ, H5, H6, H4 2 HJ, H8, H7, S3 3 DA, D3, D8, DJ 4 D2, D6, S5, DK 5 SQ, S4, S6, SA 6 C8, C2, CA, C9 7 C3, CK, S2, C6 The Facts: The opening lead was the HQ. The play went as shown in the diagram. With six cards remaining and East on lead, North claimed in the position below saying only that he would draw the last trump with the jack. S K97 H --- D Q54 C --- S T S --- H A9 H T32 D --- D T97 C T54 C --- S J8 H K D --- C QJ7 The Director was then called and upon further questioning North stated which winners he had but did not mention that the remaining spade was the ten, even when given a second chance. Since he did not state that if East led a diamond at that point he would ruff with the jack and throw a diamond on a club before drawing the last trump, there was doubt that he was aware that the remaining trump was the ten. The Director therefore assigned a result of 3S down one, +100 for E/W (Law 70A: ?doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer?). The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director?s ruling. North said he knew that one trump remained (either the ten or the nine). He said he would use the jack to pull the last trump before playing the C QJ. When questioned by the table Director, declarer had not mentioned that the remaining spade was the ten or even the importance of which spade he would ruff with. By the time the case was screened he added that he knew the remaining spade was bigger than the eight but was unsure whether it was the ten or nine. Upon further questioning by the Panel he did not seem to realize that East had 2=5=5=1 distribution, leaving no room for the S 10. He had just vaguely worked out that East was long in diamonds and short in clubs, with some hearts. E/W maintained that declarer had not said what he would do if a diamond were led. The Panel Decision: If declarer had worked out the distribution of the hand he would have known that East had five hearts (from the auction), five diamonds (because West had played the D KJ) and one club and thus had room for only two spades. He did not seem aware of this. He stated that the S 10 could be in either hand but he assumed it was in the West hand. This became important with the lead of a diamond. If West had started with S 104 declarer must ruff with the jack and cash the C Q before pulling the last trump. If East had started with S A102 then declarer must ruff with the eight, pull the last trump with the jack and play the C Q. [1997] Law 70E says: ?The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card?unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational.? Clearly information was available that would lead to the winning action but just as clearly declarer had not worked this out. He did not know the location of the S 10 and could not be permitted to get it right. No expert players were consulted as this was simply a matter of applying Law 70E based on an evaluation of declarer?s bridge awareness. The Panel assigned the result for 3S down one, +100 for E/W. DIC of Event: Matt Smith Panel: Susan Patricelli (Reviewer), Betty Bratcher, Mike Flader, Ron Johnston (scribe) Players consulted: none reported Larry Cohen: ?This is way beyond what a claimer can get away with. Nothing convinces me that declarer knew what was going on. Yes, the position (to an expert player) should have been clear, but this was obviously not an expert player. Let?s face it, declarer thought the missing spade might be the nine or ten when the nine was in his hand. He can?t be the brightest star in his galaxy. Are there not meritless appeals for Flight B? This lacked merit.? Grattan Endicott: ?To draw upon Punch?s famous advice for those about to marry: Advice for those about to claim??Don?t?!? 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/20140107/8a6c1ab9/attachment-0001.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 08:02:04 2014 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:02:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EDBCB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EDBCB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: In my mind, these three rulings were all pretty simple and straightforward. And this is how we have ruled claims in Norway for at least 30 years, probably more. I might have explained my reasoning, but, as suspected, Richard did so later on in the thread. I see Herman would rule different - no surprise. I completely understand and accept his reasoning, but disagree. I'm going just a little longer in the direction of forcing careless plays on claimers with no claim statement who hasn't demonstrated with their play of the hand up to the point of the claim that they know the problem at hand (in the play). 2014/1/6 Richard HILLS > UNOFFICIAL > > Herman De Wael: > > >>How can you interpret the current law if what you are asking for is a > >>clarification of the current law. Either the law is complete, and we > >>should not be having any discussion, > > Richard Hills: > > Indeed we should not be having any discussion. Edgar Kaplan set an > intermediate three-question quiz for Directors on ruling claims, and > Harald Berre Skj?ran passed that quiz with flying colours, giving 100% > accurate answers pursuant to the Law 70A criterion ?any doubtful point > as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer?. > > Herman De Wael: > > >>or it is not, and we are having the discussion that we are having. > >> > >>I agree that guidelines on what is normal should be made more > >>explicit. We already have guidelines, but they are incomplete, and > >>some people believe they should be followed to the letter > >>nevertheless. That is plainly wrong. > >> > >>I propose my set of guidelines. I believe they are what players would > >>expect and accept. > >>1) A claimer shall make no mistakes in the play or the count after the > >>claim. Any mistakes he has made before the claim should count > >>against him, of course. > > Richard Hills: > > Now that is a 100% illegal guideline, contrary to Law 70A?s ?doubtful > point? criterion. > > Nigel Guthrie: > > >Richard is right that a faulty or incomplete claim demonstrates that > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and No. Change ?demonstrates? to ?may demonstrate?. For > example, Harald Berre Skj?ran and Edgar Kaplan accept an incomplete > claim in Kaplan?s example #2. > > Nigel Guthrie: > > >- declarer lacks relevant bridge-skill or > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, in Kaplan?s example #3 declarer may carelessly discard one of > dummy?s diamonds on the ace of clubs, blocking the hearts, and thus > restricting herself to ten tricks in 6NT. > > Nigel Guthrie: > > >- he has lost the place or > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, see Kaplan?s example #1. > > An anonymous Aussie bridge poet: > > I'm giving up bridge - tonight's my last night > It's amen to Stayman, I give up the fight. > The insults and muddles are giving me troubles > And I can't sleep at night for thinking of doubles. > > My cards are all rotten and I have forgotten > Who's played and what's trumps and what's gone on my right > So for now it's all over - I'm off to the back wood > I'm bidding good-bye to Gerber and Blackwood. > > I can't stand the hassle, I can't stand the pain > I'm getting those bad cards again and again. > So I'm giving up bridge - tonight's my last night, > Declarer is horrid and nothing's going right. > > My partner's a dope and I'm losing all hope, > And when he says "double" I know we're in trouble. > My points are not high and I'm wondering why > He kept on bidding right up to the sky. > > We're in seven spades and all my hope fades > When surprise, surprise, the high bidding pays > We're winning all tricks, the defenders feel sick > And I have to admit my partner's a brick. > > But I'm giving up bridge - tonight's my last night > Farewell to conventions - I give up the fight > So I leave with few words but some that are true > Bridge is a game - not for me but for you. > > So be kind to your partners and don't mind their cheek > For it's only a game - Oh yes. I'll see you next week. > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140107/d0deccdf/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 7 08:29:41 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:29:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A new ruling Message-ID: <52CBACE5.1070905@skynet.be> I doubt if anyone has ever seen this one: Dealer passes. A conversation is under way. 10 seconds go by. Dealer puts a second green pass card on top of the first one. (no-one else has made a call). TD! Try and find it in the lawbook! Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 7 08:33:39 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:33:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52CBADD3.80708@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie schreef: > [Herman] > I propose my set of guidelines. I believe they are what players would > expect and accept. > 1) A claimer shall make no mistakes in the play or the count after the > claim. Any mistakes he has made before the claim should count against > him, of course. > > [Nigel] > Richard is right that a faulty or incomplete claim demonstrates that > - declarer lacks relevant bridge-skill or > - he has lost the place or > - he is trying it on, (trusting that gullible defenders won't bother to > dispute it or that TD Herman will find a successful line of play for him). > A faulty or incomplete claim demonstrates nothing of the sort. There can be many reasons why a player claims, some of them faulty, some not. Don't forget that you could be called to judge on a perfectly correct claim as well. If you have guidelines that tell you that players should not be trusted to be able to count to 13, you will have to rule against many claimers that are now simply not TD-called upon. It is true that a faulty claim demonstrates that something has gone wrong, but it is up to the TD to find out what that something was, and have claimer suffer the worst for that one. But it serves no purpose to judge him uncapable of simple bridge skills simply because he forgot one card in the past, or because he failed to mention something het thought unimportant at the time of his claim. Herman. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 7 08:34:53 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:34:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52CB1ACA.2090103@comcast.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> <52CB1ACA.2090103@comcast.net> Message-ID: <52CBAE1D.8080403@skynet.be> Robert Park schreef: > On 1/6/14, 10:27 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> I propose my set of guidelines. I believe they are what players would >> expect and accept. >> 1) A claimer shall make no mistakes in the play or the count after the >> claim. Any mistakes he has made before the claim should count against >> him, of course. >> 2) A claimer shall play the suits as follows: >> - first trumps, until all trumps are out >> - then any long non-trump suit (a long suit is one which will become >> free), top-down >> - then any high card (a high card will leave opponents with long suit >> winners) >> - finally trumps >> 3) Any blockage shall be dealt with sufficiently competently. >> >> I may find other rules to add to this, but I believe this set could lead >> to a more homogenous claim ruling. >> > Your rule 2 seems unusually harsh for for someone who has claimed > saying, "high cross-ruff." FWIW, I have twice had opponents question a > claim of this type. OK, change that to 2) A claimer who hasn't stated a particularline shall be deemed to play as follows: OK? Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 7 08:37:10 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:37:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EDBCB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EDBCB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52CBAEA6.3020809@skynet.be> Richard HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL >>>I propose my set of guidelines. I believe they are what players would >>>expect and accept. >>>1) A claimer shall make no mistakes in the play or the count after the >>>claim. Any mistakes he has made before the claim should count >>>against him, of course. > Richard Hills: > Now that is a 100% illegal guideline, contrary to Law 70A?s ?doubtful > point? criterion. Richard shall henceforth rule that every single claimer will miscount every suit, will forget to draw every 13th trump, and will probably revoke twice. After all, these are all doubtful points, and according to Richard, doubtful points go against claimer. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 7 08:41:36 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:41:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EDD0E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EDD0E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52CBAFB0.3060703@skynet.be> Richard sends us a good example, but what does it prove? Does he believe I would get this differently? Does it deal with playing trumps first or last? No further comment. Herman. Richard HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > Herman De Wael: >>..... >>I propose my set of guidelines. I believe they are what players would >>expect and accept. >>1) A claimer shall make no mistakes in the play or the count after the >>claim. Any mistakes he has made before the claim should count >>against him, of course. >>..... > Richard Hills: > Now that is a 100% illegal guideline, contrary to Law 70A?s ?doubtful > point? criterion. > *Kansas City 2001 appeals casebook, number twenty-one* > *Subject (Claim): *So What?s Your [Doubtful] Point? > *Event: *North American Pairs Flight B, Second Qualifying Session > Bd: 23 S K9763 > Dlr: South H 4 > Vul: Both D AQ542 > C K9 > S T4 S A2 > H A976 H QJT32 > D KJ D T9763 > C AT543 C 8 > S QJ85 > H K85 > D 8 > C QJ762 > *West **North **East **South* > Pass > 1C 1S X (1) 2C > 2H 3D X 3S > Pass Pass Pass > (1) Negative > *The Play (East on lead):* > *Trick *1 HQ, H5, H6, H4 > 2 HJ, H8, H7, S3 > 3 DA, D3, D8, DJ > 4 D2, D6, S5, DK > 5 SQ, S4, S6, SA > 6 C8, C2, CA, C9 > 7 C3, CK, S2, C6 > *The Facts: *The opening lead was the HQ. The play went as shown in > the diagram. With six cards remaining and East on lead, North claimed > in the position below saying only that he would draw the last trump with > the jack. > S K97 > H --- > D Q54 > C --- > S T S --- > H A9 H T32 > D --- D T97 > C T54 C --- > S J8 > H K > D --- > C QJ7 > The Director was then called and upon further questioning North > stated which winners he had but did not mention that the remaining > spade was the ten, even when given a second chance. Since he did not > state that if East led a diamond at that point he would ruff with the > jack and throw a diamond on a club before drawing the last trump, > there was doubt that he was aware that the remaining trump was the > ten. > The Director therefore assigned a result of 3S down one, +100 for E/W > (Law 70A: ?doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer?). > *The Appeal: *N/S appealed the Director?s ruling. North said he knew > that one trump remained (either the ten or the nine). He said he would > use the jack to pull the last trump before playing the C QJ. When > questioned by the table Director, declarer had not mentioned that the > remaining spade was the ten or even the importance of which spade he > would ruff with. By the time the case was screened he added that he > knew the remaining spade was bigger than the eight but was unsure > whether it was the ten or nine. Upon further questioning by the Panel he > did not seem to realize that East had 2=5=5=1 distribution, leaving no > room for the S 10. He had just vaguely worked out that East was long > in diamonds and short in clubs, with some hearts. E/W maintained that > declarer had not said what he would do if a diamond were led. > *The Panel Decision: *If declarer had worked out the distribution of the > hand he would have known that East had five hearts (from the auction), > five diamonds (because West had played the D KJ) and one club and > thus had room for only two spades. He did not seem aware of this. He > stated that the S 10 could be in either hand but he assumed it was in the > West hand. This became important with the lead of a diamond. If West > had started with S 104 declarer must ruff with the jack and cash the > C Q before pulling the last trump. If East had started with S A102 then > declarer must ruff with the eight, pull the last trump with the jack and > play the C Q. > [1997] Law 70E says: ?The Director shall not accept from claimer any > unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one > opponent rather than the other with a particular card?unless failure to > adopt this line of play would be irrational.? > Clearly information was available that would lead to the winning action > but just as clearly declarer had not worked this out. He did not know > the location of the S 10 and could not be permitted to get it right. No > expert players were consulted as this was simply a matter of applying > Law 70E based on an evaluation of declarer?s bridge awareness. The > Panel assigned the result for 3S down one, +100 for E/W. > *DIC of Event: *Matt Smith > *Panel: *Susan Patricelli (Reviewer), Betty Bratcher, Mike Flader, Ron > Johnston (scribe) > *Players consulted: *none reported > *L**arry **Cohen: *?This is way beyond what a claimer can get away with. > Nothing convinces me that declarer knew what was going on. Yes, > the position (to an expert player) should have been clear, but this was > obviously not an expert player. Let?s face it, declarer thought the > missing spade might be the nine or ten when the nine was in his hand. > He can?t be the brightest star in his galaxy. Are there not meritless > appeals for Flight B? This lacked merit.? > *Grattan **Endicott: *?To draw upon Punch?s famous advice for those > about to marry: Advice for those about to claim??Don?t?!? > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 7 08:44:37 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:44:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EDBCB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <52CBB065.9090601@skynet.be> Harald Berre Skj?ran schreef: > In my mind, these three rulings were all pretty simple and > straightforward. And this is how we have ruled claims in Norway for at > least 30 years, probably more. > I might have explained my reasoning, but, as suspected, Richard did so > later on in the thread. > I see Herman would rule different - no surprise. I completely understand > and accept his reasoning, but disagree. I'm going just a little longer > in the direction of forcing careless plays on claimers with no claim > statement who hasn't demonstrated with their play of the hand up to the > point of the claim that they know the problem at hand (in the play). > My examples are about hands where there is no problem. Hands which a beginner will play top-down and in the order I mentioned (trumps to draw, long suits, high cards, long trumps). Out only difference seems to be whether we allow a claimer (who has not yet demonstrated he is missing any cards in a suit) to be able to count to 13. There are no mistakes I don't ascribe to a claimer that you do in orway. But I call "mistakes" something worse than not counting one singe suit. OK? Herman. > > 2014/1/6 Richard HILLS > > > UNOFFICIAL > Herman De Wael: > >>How can you interpret the current law if what you are asking for is a > >>clarification of the current law. Either the law is complete, and we > >>should not be having any discussion, > Richard Hills: > Indeed we should not be having any discussion. Edgar Kaplan set an > intermediate three-question quiz for Directors on ruling claims, and > Harald Berre Skj?ran passed that quiz with flying colours, giving 100% > accurate answers pursuant to the Law 70A criterion ?any doubtful point > as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer?. > Herman De Wael: > >>or it is not, and we are having the discussion that we are having. > >> > >>I agree that guidelines on what is normal should be made more > >>explicit. We already have guidelines, but they are incomplete, and > >>some people believe they should be followed to the letter > >>nevertheless. That is plainly wrong. > >> > >>I propose my set of guidelines. I believe they are what players would > >>expect and accept. > >>1) A claimer shall make no mistakes in the play or the count after the > >>claim. Any mistakes he has made before the claim should count > >>against him, of course. > Richard Hills: > Now that is a 100% illegal guideline, contrary to Law 70A?s ?doubtful > point? criterion. > Nigel Guthrie: > >Richard is right that a faulty or incomplete claim demonstrates that > Richard Hills: > Yes and No. Change ?demonstrates? to ?may demonstrate?. For > example, Harald Berre Skj?ran and Edgar Kaplan accept an incomplete > claim in Kaplan?s example #2. > Nigel Guthrie: > >- declarer lacks relevant bridge-skill or > Richard Hills: > Yes, in Kaplan?s example #3 declarer may carelessly discard one of > dummy?s diamonds on the ace of clubs, blocking the hearts, and thus > restricting herself to ten tricks in 6NT. > Nigel Guthrie: > >- he has lost the place or > Richard Hills: > Yes, see Kaplan?s example #1. > An anonymous Aussie bridge poet: > I'm giving up bridge - tonight's my last night > It's amen to Stayman, I give up the fight. > The insults and muddles are giving me troubles > And I can't sleep at night for thinking of doubles. > My cards are all rotten and I have forgotten > Who's played and what's trumps and what's gone on my right > So for now it's all over - I'm off to the back wood > I'm bidding good-bye to Gerber and Blackwood. > I can't stand the hassle, I can't stand the pain > I'm getting those bad cards again and again. > So I'm giving up bridge - tonight's my last night, > Declarer is horrid and nothing's going right. > My partner's a dope and I'm losing all hope, > And when he says "double" I know we're in trouble. > My points are not high and I'm wondering why > He kept on bidding right up to the sky. > We're in seven spades and all my hope fades > When surprise, surprise, the high bidding pays > We're winning all tricks, the defenders feel sick > And I have to admit my partner's a brick. > But I'm giving up bridge - tonight's my last night > Farewell to conventions - I give up the fight > So I leave with few words but some that are true > Bridge is a game - not for me but for you. > So be kind to your partners and don't mind their cheek > For it's only a game - Oh yes. I'll see you next week. > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au > . See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Berre Skj?ran > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From vip at centrum.is Tue Jan 7 09:37:47 2014 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:37:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] A new ruling In-Reply-To: <52CBACE5.1070905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1121223661.20989873.1389083867871.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> In Iceland we call this "AhersluPASS" The Player involved is telling partner that he has a real PASS And all the players laugh. The TD is never called. NO UI. No new information. I wish you all BLML'rs a happy new year Vigfus ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Herman De Wael" Til: "blml" Sent: ?ri?judagur, 7. Jan?ar, 2014 07:29:41 Efni: [BLML] A new ruling I doubt if anyone has ever seen this one: Dealer passes. A conversation is under way. 10 seconds go by. Dealer puts a second green pass card on top of the first one. (no-one else has made a call). TD! Try and find it in the lawbook! Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petereidt at t-online.de Tue Jan 7 09:51:47 2014 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:51:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A new ruling In-Reply-To: <52CBACE5.1070905@skynet.be> References: <52CBACE5.1070905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002d01cf0b85$b5407510$1fc15f30$@t-online.de> Happy New Year all around :) von Herman De Wael > I doubt if anyone has ever seen this one: > > Dealer passes. > A conversation is under way. 10 seconds go by. > Dealer puts a second green pass card on top of the first one. > (no-one else has made a call). > > TD! > > Try and find it in the lawbook! I have some firm idea, but as I'm always spoiling Herman's (funny) questions my lips are closed ... From jfchevalier at ffbridge.net Tue Jan 7 09:59:23 2014 From: jfchevalier at ffbridge.net (=?windows-1252?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Chevalier?=) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:59:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140107/774f7c26/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 7 11:03:20 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:03:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> Message-ID: <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> Claim cases will always be cases of judgment unless the laws are dramatically changed. A couple of alternatives for such changes: 1: When a player claims then all four hands are immediately faced and the claimer?s opponents conduct the play of the remaining tricks. (I believe that is the law in rubber bridge?) 2: A player ending the play (in any way that resembles today?s claim procedures) concedes all remaining tricks. Are we interested in any such change? No, I don?t think so. The fact that two different TDs may have different opinions is well known. We are indeed individuals and not robots. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier Sendt: 7. januar 2014 09:59 Til: blml at rtflb.org Emne: Re: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Hi, This discussion shows that with the same law and the same facts 2 very goods TDs could have different rulings. For me it is obvious that the law have to be rewrite to avoid that. Another way is that the WBF should give an official guideline for some typical unclear situations. JF Chevalier Le 06/01/2014 21:33, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : [Nigel] Are law-makers likely to simplify laws like claim-law? No. that would go against ?devolution of responsibility?, one of their main aims. [Herman de Wael] You imply a set of objectives the WBF surely does not have. [TFLB, In the introductory section, specifying philosophy and principal aims of law-makers] ...Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers. There are fewer automatic penalties: they are replaced by the concept of rectification of a situation that unfortunately has arisen. Bridge is played in different ways in different countries so the Laws give more power to Regulating Authorities to make controlling regulations... We have tried to clarify the areas of responsibility of Regulating Authorities, Tournament Organizers and Directors and it is made clear that certain responsibilities may be either assigned or delegated. _______________________________________________ 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/20140107/5a1bd859/attachment.html From jfchevalier at ffbridge.net Tue Jan 7 13:36:49 2014 From: jfchevalier at ffbridge.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Chevalier?=) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 13:36:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> Message-ID: <52CBF4E1.1090200@ffbridge.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140107/21187291/attachment.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Tue Jan 7 16:07:10 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 16:07:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A new ruling In-Reply-To: <52CBACE5.1070905@skynet.be> References: <52CBACE5.1070905@skynet.be> Message-ID: Am 07.01.2014, 08:29 Uhr, schrieb Herman De Wael : > I doubt if anyone has ever seen this one: > > Dealer passes. > A conversation is under way. 10 seconds go by. > Dealer puts a second green pass card on top of the first one. > (no-one else has made a call). > > TD! > > Try and find it in the lawbook! > > Herman. What's wrong with 25B? The laws don't require the substituted call to be a different one. Petrus From g3 at nige1.com Tue Jan 7 19:37:01 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 18:37:01 -0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> Message-ID: [Sven Pran] Claim cases will always be cases of judgment unless the laws are dramatically changed. A couple of alternatives for such changes: 1: When a player claims then all four hands are immediately faced and the claimer?s opponents conduct the play of the remaining tricks. (I believe that is the law in rubber bridge?) 2: A player ending the play (in any way that resembles today?s claim procedures) concedes all remaining tricks. Are we interested in any such change? No, I don?t think so. The fact that two different TDs may have different opinions is well known. We are indeed individuals and not robots. [Nige1] Like other current laws, claim-law results in different rulings on the same facts. After faulty or incomplete claims, in the interests of consistency, Herman proposes more standard interpretations, which seems a good idea. IMO these standards should be in the law-book -- there's no sensible argument for different regulators having different rules. Drawbacks of standardisation are that it can hardly cover all cases and it would result in even more sophisticated law. Players may prefer something simpler like Rubber-Bridge claim law. I bow to Sven's superior legal knowledge, but from my experience of rubber-bridge, I understand the Rubber bridge protocol to be simple and fair: after the claiming declarer faces his hand, defenders can ask declarer to play on until they are satisfied. (They play double-dummy - declarer continues single-dummy). This encourages claims. It makes the game faster and more fun. Thus a "bridge" result is obtained without the necessity of a director having to test his play-skills. Nobody would expect this kind of solution to be popular with directors but law-makers also should seek the opinion of ordinary players on proposals like this. From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 20:30:09 2014 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 14:30:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> Message-ID: <52CC55C1.6000203@gmail.com> On 01/07/2014 01:37 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > <...> > Drawbacks of standardisation are that it can hardly cover all cases and it > would result in even more sophisticated law. Players may prefer something > simpler like Rubber-Bridge claim law. I bow to Sven's superior legal > knowledge, but from my experience of rubber-bridge, I understand the Rubber > bridge protocol to be simple and fair: after the claiming declarer faces > his hand, defenders can ask declarer to play on until they are satisfied. > (They play double-dummy - declarer continues single-dummy). This encourages > claims. It makes the game faster and more fun. > > Thus a "bridge" result is obtained without the necessity of a director > having to test his play-skills. > As Nigel knows, this is also the norm in online bridge, when no TD is available (in non-tourney play) and the four players at the table may not even have a common language. At least online, it seems to work well. Brian. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 7 22:44:19 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 21:44:19 +0000 Subject: [BLML] A new ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EF839@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Words of the year: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/words-and-language/blog/collins-word-of-the-year-2013-is,85,HCB.html >>I doubt if anyone has ever seen this one: >> >>Dealer passes. >>A conversation is under way. 10 seconds go by. >>Dealer puts a second green pass card on top of the first one. >>(no-one else has made a call). >> >>TD! >> >>Try and find it in the lawbook! >> >>Herman. >What's wrong with 25B? The laws don't require the substituted >call to be a different one. > >Petrus Technically it is a Pass out of rotation. Law 30B3: "After any player has bid a pass out of rotation at offender's LHO's turn to call is treated as a change of call. Law 25 applies." But Law 30B3 has a typo. Instead of "has bid", the phrase should be "has called". Richard UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140107/a2536396/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jan 8 02:21:34 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 20:21:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> Message-ID: On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 13:37:01 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > IMO > these standards should be in the law-book -- there's no sensible argument > for different regulators having different rules. My understanding is that France, and I am guessing Belgium, has "looser" standards for accepting a claim, which also means the players there are more liable to make what other might perceive as "sloppy" claims. It seems reasonable to me that the WBFLC allow different regulations in different areas. (Which means regulating authorities should be made aware of potential regulations.) > > Drawbacks of standardisation are that it can hardly cover all cases and > it > would result in even more sophisticated law. I am not so worried about the complicated cases. I am not sure why. Maybe it is because people tend not to claim in complicated situations. Or that those devolve into simple questions. Right, people have claimed about the laws becoming more sophisticated. Players may prefer > something > simpler like Rubber-Bridge claim law. When someone claims, and then the claim is unexpectedly challenged, that is useful information to the claimer. He might be alerted to the potential value of playing another round of trump. Or he might think about which suit to play first of two suits which he feels are good. The lawmakers obviously do not like this possibility. It is also possible for the defenders to challenge the claim after they have shown their hands to each other (and hence to declarer). I don't see how you could deal with this. From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Wed Jan 8 03:06:25 2014 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:06:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A new ruling References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EF839@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard HILLS To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 7:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A new ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL Words of the year: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/words-and-language/blog/collins-word-of-the-year-2013-is,85,HCB.html >>I doubt if anyone has ever seen this one: >> >>Dealer passes. >>A conversation is under way. 10 seconds go by. >>Dealer puts a second green pass card on top of the first one. >>(no-one else has made a call). >> >>TD! >> >>Try and find it in the lawbook! >> >>Herman. >What's wrong with 25B? The laws don't require the substituted >call to be a different one. > >Petrus Technically it is a Pass out of rotation. Law 30B3: "After any player has bid a pass out of rotation at offender's LHO's turn to call is treated as a change of call. Law 25 applies." But Law 30B3 has a typo. Instead of "has bid", the phrase should be "has called". Richard UNOFFICIAL Are you sure? I can't see any reason to think typo. Perhaps a comma after "bid" would be nice. "After any player has bid, a pass out of rotation at offender's LHO's turn to call is treated as a change of call. Law 25 applies." Wouldn't 30A cover all "no bid" situations, if one must rule beyond 29A here? Jan _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 8 03:22:51 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 02:22:51 +0000 Subject: [BLML] A new ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319EF9F0@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>[Dealer passes twice] >> >>Technically it is a Pass out of rotation. Law 30B3: >> >>"After any player has bid a pass out of rotation at offender's >>LHO's turn to call is treated as a change of call. Law 25 applies." >> >>But Law 30B3 has a typo. Instead of "has bid", the phrase should >>be "has called". >> >>Richard >Are you sure? I can't see any reason to think typo. > >Perhaps a comma after "bid" would be nice. > >"After any player has bid, a pass out of rotation at offender's >LHO's turn to call is treated as a change of call. Law 25 applies." > >Wouldn't 30A cover all "no bid" situations, if one must rule beyond >29A here? > >Jan Second thoughts. Yes, Jan has convinced me to change my mind, and instead to apply Law 30's words as they are written. Hence I (and Petrus) were wrong in electing to use Law 25. Richard Law 30A (including its prologue): "When a player has passed out of rotation and the call is cancelled, the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, the following provisions apply (if the pass is artificial see C): When a player has passed out of rotation before any player has bid the offender must pass when next it is his turn to call and Law 23 may apply." 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/20140108/944d41b6/attachment.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Wed Jan 8 16:45:43 2014 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:45:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> Message-ID: What is considered to be the downside or disadvantage of the Rubber bridge claim process described below? Mmbridge -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie Sent: 01/07/2014 1:37 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] from my experience of rubber-bridge, I understand the Rubber bridge protocol to be simple and fair: after the claiming declarer faces his hand, defenders can ask declarer to play on until they are satisfied. (They play double-dummy - declarer continues single-dummy). This encourages claims. It makes the game faster and more fun. Thus a "bridge" result is obtained without the necessity of a director having to test his play-skills. Nobody would expect this kind of solution to be popular with directors but law-makers also should seek the opinion of ordinary players on proposals like this. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 8 17:17:13 2014 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 11:17:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> Message-ID: <52CD7A09.3010507@starpower.net> On 1/8/2014 10:45 AM, Jim Fox wrote: > What is considered to be the downside or disadvantage of the Rubber bridge claim process described below? > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > > from my experience of rubber-bridge, I understand the Rubber > bridge protocol to be simple and fair: after the claiming declarer faces > his hand, defenders can ask declarer to play on until they are satisfied. > (They play double-dummy - declarer continues single-dummy). This encourages > claims. It makes the game faster and more fun. Declarers generally claim when they believe there are no significant considerations left in the play, that the hand is "over". An objecting opponent tells him that there may be something left to think about. Without the "play ceases" requirement of the dupicate laws, he gets to rethink the position and continue playing more carefully than he presumably would have otherwise. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From g3 at nige1.com Wed Jan 8 19:15:59 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:15:59 -0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <52CD7A09.3010507@starpower.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> <52CD7A09.3010507@starpower.net> Message-ID: <854D2A2AAE154B5980866CF71337C87B@G3> {Nigei] from my experience of rubber-bridge, I understand the Rubber bridge protocol to be simple and fair: after the claiming declarer faces his hand, defenders can ask declarer to play on until they are satisfied. (They play double-dummy - declarer continues single-dummy). This encourages claims. It makes the game faster and more fun. [Eric Landau] Declarers generally claim when they believe there are no significant considerations left in the play, that the hand is "over". An objecting opponent tells him that there may be something left to think about. Without the "play ceases" requirement of the dupicate laws, he gets to rethink the position and continue playing more carefully than he presumably would have otherwise. [Nige2] Eric points out one of the drawbacks of "Rubber-Bridge" protocol. But players learn to be wary of claimers who are "lazy" or on "fishing expeditions". When a rubber-bridge defender asks declarer to play-on that doesn't signal that declarer has miscounted or that there is a bad-break. Just that he suspects that declarer has no lead-pipe cinch. We must usually settle for less than perfection and simple rules like this seem to have fewer drawbacks than current more complex duplicate rules. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 8 22:50:51 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 21:50:51 +0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F169B@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Grattan Endicott (2001), discussing a Flight B declarer's claim: "To draw upon Punch's famous advice for those about to marry: Advice for those about to claim-'Don't'!" Eric Landau: >Declarers generally claim when they believe there are no significant >considerations left in the play, that the hand is "over". An objecting >opponent tells him that there may be something left to think about. >Without the "play ceases" requirement of the duplicate laws, he >gets to rethink the position and continue playing more carefully >than he presumably would have otherwise. Richard Hills: Indeed, Eric has pointed out that the costs outweigh the benefits of deleting "play ceases" from the Duplicate claim laws. Note that the online bridge claim laws and half of the rubber bridge claim laws delete "play ceases" due to force majeure; an independent Director is not available. BUT the other half of the rubber bridge claim laws requires play to cease, with adjudication by an independent Arbiter. And, as Grattan wittily hints, a Flight B / non-expert declarer should think twice before claiming. Because that non-expert declarer may have overlooked a possible subsequent 50/50 guess, and after prematurely claiming the non-expert declarer is automatically deemed by the Director to guess wrong. World Wide Words http://www.worldwidewords.org. This is one modern appearance of "blatteroon", in a humorously verbose encomium studded with Yiddishisms that was published to mark the retirement of an eminent US legal expert: Yale Kamisar's acute logorrhoea ... is well known to all. The only uncertainty, it seems, concerns the magnitude of the problem; some but certainly not all would go so far as to label him a blatteroon, a verbomaniac, or even a pisk or a plyoot. Wayne R LaFave, in the Michigan Law Review, Aug 2004. Pisk is Yiddish for a garrulous speaker, from the Polish word for a shriek or squeal; a plyoot is a loudmouth. Mildred Gutkin wrote, "About pisk: in the Yiddish-speaking world of my childhood, a pisk was an animal's mouth, as distinguished from moil, the proper word for the human body part. The cat has a pisk; a person has a moil. To speak of a person's pisk, therefore, is derogatory, intimating loose lips or some such, and that person is, with great contempt, a piscatch. Blatteroon indeed, the meaning then readily extended to dismiss the entire individual, body and soul, as a scoundrel." Howard Wolff added, "During my childhood in the 1930s and 1940s in Brooklyn, fermach deine pisk meant 'Shut your mouth' or 'Shut up'. But I must admit that I haven't heard the word used in that or any other way in many years." Miriam Miller contributed further Yiddish terms: "The common phrase frosk in pisk means a slap on the mouth. Pisk has come to mean a loudmouth, not garrulous but dominating conversation. One way to say garrulous is hock meir ein chinick, to knock or bang like a tea kettle, to yammer on until one wishes he would shut up. Your bubbie (grandma) might hock you a chinick, but she wouldn't be a pisk." 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/20140108/fa6968ad/attachment-0001.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Thu Jan 9 04:54:47 2014 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 22:54:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> Message-ID: So, Mr De Wael, can we say that the De Wael school of claims adjudication seeks to determine whether claimer must simply make "normal" plays to get the tricks or must needs "rethink the position" to make "better than normal" plays to get the claimed tricks? Mmbridge -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Eric Landau Sent: 01/08/2014 11:17 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On 1/8/2014 10:45 AM, Jim Fox wrote: > What is considered to be the downside or disadvantage of the Rubber bridge claim process described below? > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > > from my experience of rubber-bridge, I understand the Rubber > bridge protocol to be simple and fair: after the claiming declarer faces > his hand, defenders can ask declarer to play on until they are satisfied. > (They play double-dummy - declarer continues single-dummy). This encourages > claims. It makes the game faster and more fun. Declarers generally claim when they believe there are no significant considerations left in the play, that the hand is "over". An objecting opponent tells him that there may be something left to think about. Without the "play ceases" requirement of the dupicate laws, he gets to rethink the position and continue playing more carefully than he presumably would have otherwise. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 9 05:10:09 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 04:10:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F2906@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >As Nigel knows, this is also the norm in online bridge, when no TD is >available (in non-tourney play) and the four players at the table may >not even have a common language. At least online, it seems to work well. >Brian And of course no TD is available on Sundays when my friends and I get together to test our skill at a variety of multi-player strategy boardgames. Our long-standing favourite game is Power Grid. http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2651/power-grid The regulars in our gaming group have each played Power Grid more than 100 times. Occasionally a newbie volunteers to join us in PG. The PG equivalent of a doubtful claim is the newbie attempting a very bad (or downright horrendous) move, which will give her an infinitesimal chance of avoiding last place. The PG equivalent of a TD summoning to rule on a doubtful claim is us experienced players advising the newbie to take back her doubtful move, and giving reasons why (while trying to be careful to avoid information overload). Richard UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140109/a1b30a5f/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 9 07:32:06 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:32:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> Message-ID: <52CE4266.3080902@skynet.be> Jim Fox schreef: > So, Mr De Wael, can we say that the De Wael school of claims adjudication > seeks to determine whether claimer must simply make "normal" plays to get > the tricks or must needs "rethink the position" to make "better than normal" > plays to get the claimed tricks? > I have no inkling at what yu're on about. Sorry. Herman. > Mmbridge > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Eric Landau > Sent: 01/08/2014 11:17 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On 1/8/2014 10:45 AM, Jim Fox wrote: > >> What is considered to be the downside or disadvantage of the Rubber bridge > claim process described below? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Nigel Guthrie >> >> from my experience of rubber-bridge, I understand the Rubber >> bridge protocol to be simple and fair: after the claiming declarer faces >> his hand, defenders can ask declarer to play on until they are satisfied. >> (They play double-dummy - declarer continues single-dummy). This > encourages >> claims. It makes the game faster and more fun. > > Declarers generally claim when they believe there are no significant > considerations left in the play, that the hand is "over". An objecting > opponent tells him that there may be something left to think about. > Without the "play ceases" requirement of the dupicate laws, he gets to > rethink the position and continue playing more carefully than he > presumably would have otherwise. > From jimfox00 at cox.net Thu Jan 9 14:08:19 2014 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:08:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> Message-ID: I suggest try to re-read carefully. Mmbridge -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: 01/09/2014 1:32 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Jim Fox schreef: > So, Mr De Wael, can we say that the De Wael school of claims adjudication > seeks to determine whether claimer must simply make "normal" plays to get > the tricks or must needs "rethink the position" to make "better than normal" > plays to get the claimed tricks? > I have no inkling at what yu're on about. Sorry. Herman. > Mmbridge > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Eric Landau > Sent: 01/08/2014 11:17 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On 1/8/2014 10:45 AM, Jim Fox wrote: > >> What is considered to be the downside or disadvantage of the Rubber bridge > claim process described below? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Nigel Guthrie >> >> from my experience of rubber-bridge, I understand the Rubber >> bridge protocol to be simple and fair: after the claiming declarer faces >> his hand, defenders can ask declarer to play on until they are satisfied. >> (They play double-dummy - declarer continues single-dummy). This > encourages >> claims. It makes the game faster and more fun. > > Declarers generally claim when they believe there are no significant > considerations left in the play, that the hand is "over". An objecting > opponent tells him that there may be something left to think about. > Without the "play ceases" requirement of the dupicate laws, he gets to > rethink the position and continue playing more carefully than he > presumably would have otherwise. > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 9 15:57:38 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:57:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> Message-ID: <52CEB8E2.4000806@skynet.be> Well, I still don't get it. You seem to imply that I give to a claimer the successfull line. I do nothing of the sort. What I refuse to do, however, is to give to claimer a deliberately losing line, just in order to be able to rule against him. What I do is give him, as the laws say, the worst of all normal lines. And some people are asking advice on what are normal lines. And I am giving such an advice. There is no question of "rethinking the position". Just of not calling some lines normal that no sane player would ever play, like bottom-up and the like. Herman. Jim Fox schreef: > I suggest try to re-read carefully. > > Mmbridge > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 01/09/2014 1:32 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Jim Fox schreef: >> So, Mr De Wael, can we say that the De Wael school of claims adjudication >> seeks to determine whether claimer must simply make "normal" plays to get >> the tricks or must needs "rethink the position" to make "better than > normal" >> plays to get the claimed tricks? >> > > I have no inkling at what yu're on about. Sorry. > Herman. > >> Mmbridge >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Eric Landau >> Sent: 01/08/2014 11:17 AM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> On 1/8/2014 10:45 AM, Jim Fox wrote: >> >>> What is considered to be the downside or disadvantage of the Rubber > bridge >> claim process described below? >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Nigel Guthrie >>> >>> from my experience of rubber-bridge, I understand the Rubber >>> bridge protocol to be simple and fair: after the claiming declarer faces >>> his hand, defenders can ask declarer to play on until they are satisfied. >>> (They play double-dummy - declarer continues single-dummy). This >> encourages >>> claims. It makes the game faster and more fun. >> >> Declarers generally claim when they believe there are no significant >> considerations left in the play, that the hand is "over". An objecting >> opponent tells him that there may be something left to think about. >> Without the "play ceases" requirement of the dupicate laws, he gets to >> rethink the position and continue playing more carefully than he >> presumably would have otherwise. >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 9 22:55:41 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:55:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F30D1@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilisation (1960): "For the present," the judge said, "your religious impiety can be waived, since it is a first offense. But non-drug addiction is a major crime against the state of Omega. The uninterrupted use of drugs is an enforced privilege of every citizen. It is well known that privileges must be exercised, otherwise they will be lost. To lose our privileges would be to lose the very cornerstone of our liberty. Therefore to reject or otherwise fail to perform a privilege is tantamount to high treason." Richard Hills paraphrases Edgar Kaplan: Law 74B4 defines claiming as an enforced privilege, by prohibiting "playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent". Ergo, Edgar Kaplan described claimers as being "on the side of the angels". Thus Edgar Kaplan's opinion was that Directors and Appeals Committees should not be too harsh on an incomplete claim statement by a claimer when it was obvious that the claimer knew / would know what was going on. Herman De Wael concurs: Well, I still don't get it. You [Mmbridge] seem to imply that I give to a claimer the successful line. I do nothing of the sort. What I refuse to do, however, is to give to claimer a deliberately losing line, just in order to be able to rule against him. What I do is give him, as the laws say, the worst of all normal lines. And some people are asking advice on what are normal lines. And I am giving such an advice. There is no question of "rethinking the position". Just of not calling some lines normal that no sane player would ever play, like bottom-up and the like. Herman. 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/20140109/4d11f719/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 10 00:08:11 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:08:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F30D1@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F30D1@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <001901cf0d8f$ab38bb20$01aa3160$@online.no> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard HILLS Sendt: 9. januar 2014 22:56 Til: Laws Bridge Emne: [BLML] The privilege of claiming [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL [ ] Richard Hills paraphrases Edgar Kaplan: Law 74B4 defines claiming as an enforced privilege, by prohibiting ?playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent?. [Sven Pran] Law 74B4 does not prohibit any player from playing on regardless of what reason that player might have. There is a difference between ?should not? and ?must not? or ?may not?. The latter are prohibitions, ?should not? is just a recommendation and failure to obey is not often penalized. It is perfectly legal, and in fact recommended for a player who for whatever reason is not absolutely sure that the rest of the tricks are his, to play on rather than to claim. Ergo, [ ] [Sven Pran] the rest of your logic fails. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140109/ae852712/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 10 01:00:37 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:00:37 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F315A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills paraphrases Edgar Kaplan: >>Law 74B4 defines claiming as an enforced privilege, by prohibiting >>"playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his for >>the purpose of disconcerting an opponent". Sven Pran: >Law 74B4 does not prohibit any player from playing on regardless >of what reason that player might have. Richard Hills, improved paraphrase: Law 74B4 defines claiming as ++sometimes++ an enforced privilege, by prohibiting "playing on although ++he knows++ that all the tricks are surely his for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent". Sven Pran: >There is a difference between "should not" and "must not" or "may >not". The latter are prohibitions, "should not" is just a recommendation Richard Hills: The most important Law in the Lawbook - Law 74A2 - defines the meaning of "courtesy": "avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game" (relevant to this debate because the prologue to Law 74B4 is, "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:"). Law 74A2 does not merely use the word "should", it uses the stronger phrase "should carefully". Sven Pran: >and failure to obey is not often penalized. > >It is perfectly legal, and in fact recommended for a player who for >whatever reason is not absolutely sure that the rest of the tricks are >his, to play on rather than to claim. Richard Hills: Sven and I seem to be in agreement. Yes, Sven's criterion of "not absolutely sure that the rest of the tricks are his" I accept, as it is the antonym of the Law 74B4 criterion "he knows". Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilisation (1960): "Accordingly," the judge went on, "the law must simultaneously be broken and not broken. Those who never break a law never rise in status. They are usually killed off in one way or another, since they lack the necessary initiative to survive. For those who, like yourself, break laws, the situation is somewhat different. The law punishes them with absolute severity--unless they can get away with it." The judge paused. In a thoughtful voice he continued, "The highest type of man on Omega is the individual who understands the laws, appreciates their necessity, knows the penalties for infraction, then breaks them--and succeeds! That, sir, is your ideal criminal and your ideal Omegan. And that is what you have succeeded in doing, Will Barrent, by winning the Trial by Ordeal." 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/20140110/ca3b0398/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 10 01:18:32 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 01:18:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F315A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F315A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <002d01cf0d99$7f50e8c0$7df2ba40$@online.no> Richard Hills, improved paraphrase: Law 74B4 defines claiming as ++sometimes++ an enforced privilege, by prohibiting "playing on although ++he knows++ that all the tricks are surely his for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent". [Sven Pran] Not much of an improvement. Who is competent to rule that a player does so for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent when the player plays on rather than claiming and then asserts that he did so because he was not absolutely sure all the tricks were his? Law 74A is indeed the most important law in the book and so is also most of Law 74B, but just Law 74B4 is a misfortune that had best been forgotten. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140110/facdd46f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 10 02:05:17 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 01:05:17 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F31E7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >Who is competent to rule that a player [fails to claim] for the >purpose of disconcerting an opponent when the player plays on >rather than claiming and then [the player] asserts that he did so >because he was not absolutely sure all the tricks were his? > >Law 74A is indeed the most important law in the book and so is >also most of Law 74B, but just Law 74B4 is a misfortune that >had best been forgotten. Richard Hills: Is Law 79A2 another "best been forgotten misfortune"? Many years ago I foolishly argued on blml that it was impossible to enforce Law 79A2: "A player must not ++knowingly++ accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." because of the word "knowingly". I was quickly corrected by the much more experienced Director Ton Kooijman, who related one of his at-the-table experiences. Ton discovered an expert player who had prima facie infracted Law 79A2. Ton then extensively - and very publicly - interrogated the expert at the table, until the expert had to EITHER admit that he had infracted Law 79A2, OR admit that he was a complete idiot who could not count to thirteen. (As I recall, when given this Morton's Fork of humiliating options, the expert chose to publicly confess to idiocy.) Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilisation (1960): Jay's frosty blue eyes flashed when he spoke of the law. His back stiffened, and his mouth grew firm. "The law," he said, "is above the criminal and the judge, and rules them both. The law is inescapable, for an action is either lawful or unlawful. The law, indeed, may be said to have a life of its own, an existence quite apart from the finite lives of the beings who administer it. The law governs every aspect of human behaviour; therefore, to the same extent that humans are lawful beings, the law is human. And being human, the law has its idiosyncrasies, just as a man has his. For a citizen who abides by the law, the law is distant and difficult to find. For those who reject and violate it, the law emerges from its musty sepulchres and goes in search of the transgressor." "And that," Barrent said, "is why I was chosen for the Hunt?" "Of course," Jay said. "If you had not been chosen in that way, the zealous and never-sleeping law would have selected another means, using whatever instruments were at its disposal." 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/20140110/113e9c2d/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jan 10 02:47:11 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 20:47:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another darn claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319E95F4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <027F46D6506C41D8B0B49B7C4D4F717C@G3> <52CACB4F.7080108@skynet.be> <52CBC1EB.3090509@ffbridge.net> <002a01cf0b8f$b2426bc0$16c74340$@online.no> Message-ID: Perhaps ironically, declarer today claimed in this situation. Spades were trump x -- --- QJ10x -- -- -- 10x x 109x Kxxxx -- KJ J98 --- -- It is relatively simple for declarer to get all of the tricks. But she thought the hearts were high. So presumably she would lose a heart trick. Of course, if everything in her hand is good, it is rational to play trumps first, which could lead to down two. Fortunately, she eliminated my angst. She said she could cash her two top trumps first, then her jack of hearts. I decided that if she could say that line of play, it must be normal. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 10 11:10:31 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:10:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F31E7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F31E7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <002101cf0dec$324c0700$96e41500$@online.no> Sven Pran: >Who is competent to rule that a player [fails to claim] for the >purpose of disconcerting an opponent when the player plays on >rather than claiming and then [the player] asserts that he did so >because he was not absolutely sure all the tricks were his? > >Law 74A is indeed the most important law in the book and so is >also most of Law 74B, but just Law 74B4 is a misfortune that >had best been forgotten. Richard Hills: Is Law 79A2 another "best been forgotten misfortune"? Many years ago I foolishly argued on blml that it was impossible to enforce Law 79A2: "A player must not ++knowingly++ accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." because of the word "knowingly". I was quickly corrected by the much more experienced Director Ton Kooijman, who related one of his at-the-table experiences. Ton discovered an expert player who had prima facie infracted Law 79A2. Ton then extensively - and very publicly - interrogated the expert at the table, until the expert had to EITHER admit that he had infracted Law 79A2, OR admit that he was a complete idiot who could not count to thirteen. (As I recall, when given this Morton's Fork of humiliating options, the expert chose to publicly confess to idiocy.) [.] [Sven Pran] An expert player will have no problem with his claims, either they are good or he will admit his failure directly. The more ordinary player will (and should) be encouraged to play on simply because how easily he can make mistakes. The expert player will also be aware that claiming against an ordinary player will usually be a waste of time because of the extra explanations necessary. So even when the expert player knows that all remaining tricks are his he should refrain from claiming if he also suspects that the situation is not equally obvious to his opponents. I have met many players who request that each board is played out just for the reason that they cannot follow the reasoning behind a claim. In my opinion such requests shall take precedence over Law 74B4, and if you insist upon a relevant law then look at Law 74A2: The "expert" should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to an opponent or might interfere with his enjoyment of the game. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140110/496aff13/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Jan 10 20:08:41 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 19:08:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002101cf0dec$324c0700$96e41500$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F31E7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <002101cf0dec$324c0700$96e41500$@online.no> Message-ID: [Sven Pran] I have met many players who request that each board is played out just for the reason that they cannot follow the reasoning behind a claim. In my opinion such requests shall take precedence over Law 74B4, and if you insist upon a relevant law then look at Law 74A2: The ?expert? should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to an opponent or might interfere with his enjoyment of the game. [Nige1] Rubber-bridge protocol achieves Sven's aim. But it has considerable additional advantages: It facilitates claims. You can claim even when you find it hard to express yourself. Or when the play is obvious but a comprehensive claim statement would take some time. It overcomes differences in language. The relative skills of the claimer and his opponents less irrelevant. When declarer males a claim, the play is usually faster because defenders play on double-dummy and concede as soon as they are satisfied. In short, it encourages claims and makes the game fairer, faster and more fun. From g3 at nige1.com Fri Jan 10 21:16:11 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:16:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F31E7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL><002101cf0dec$324c0700$96e41500$@online.no> Message-ID: <5AEB4B0F96314DDD853E620ABA746E47@G3> Corrected, Sorry [Sven Pran] I have met many players who request that each board is played out just for the reason that they cannot follow the reasoning behind a claim. In my opinion such requests shall take precedence over Law 74B4, and if you insist upon a relevant law then look at Law 74A2: The ?expert? should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to an opponent or might interfere with his enjoyment of the game. [Nige1] Rubber-bridge protocol achieves Sven's aim. But it has considerable additional advantages: It facilitates claims. You can claim even when you find it hard to express yourself. Or when the play is obvious but a comprehensive claim statement would take some time. Ands It overcomes differences in language. The skill of the claimer relative to his opponents is less relevant. When declarer males a claim, the play is usually faster because defenders play on double-dummy and concede as soon as they are satisfied. In short, it encourages claims and makes the game fairer, faster and more fun. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jan 11 14:24:22 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 14:24:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hermann's posting Message-ID: <52D14606.7010405@aol.com> Regarding Herrmann's posting (two passes by first hand): This may lead tome being excluded from the blml due to lack of seriousness/frivolity but I strongly suspect that were I the TD called to the table in this case I'd tell the player to return one of the pass cards to his bidding card container and tell the others to contine with the bidding as if nothing had happened. Ciao, JE --- Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv. http://www.avast.com From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 11 14:51:56 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 14:51:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hermann's posting In-Reply-To: <52D14606.7010405@aol.com> References: <52D14606.7010405@aol.com> Message-ID: <000001cf0ed4$4b393650$e1aba2f0$@online.no> Jeff Easterson > Regarding Herrmann's posting (two passes by first hand): > > This may lead tome being excluded from the blml due to lack of > seriousness/frivolity but I strongly suspect that were I the TD called to the > table in this case I'd tell the player to return one of the pass cards to his bidding > card container and tell the others to contine with the bidding as if nothing had > happened. > > Ciao, JE [Sven Pran] That would also be my action (with a smile). UNLESS of course, if at the table I sensed an attempt of some deliberate malpractice. (None such was indicated in OP.) From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Jan 11 16:38:22 2014 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:38:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming In-Reply-To: <5AEB4B0F96314DDD853E620ABA746E47@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F31E7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL><002101cf0dec$324c0700$96e41500$@online.no> <5AEB4B0F96314DDD853E620ABA746E47@G3> Message-ID: <52D1656E.1010002@starpower.net> On 1/10/2014 3:16 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Sven Pran] > I have met many players who request that each board is played out just for > the reason that they cannot follow the reasoning behind a claim. In my > opinion such requests shall take precedence over Law 74B4, and if you insist > upon a relevant law then look at Law 74A2: The ?expert? should carefully > avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to an > opponent or might interfere with his enjoyment of the game. > > [Nige1] > Rubber-bridge protocol achieves Sven's aim. But it has considerable > additional advantages: It facilitates claims. You can claim even when you > find it hard to express yourself. Or when the play is obvious but a > comprehensive claim statement would take some time. Ands It overcomes > differences in language. The skill of the claimer relative to his > opponents is less relevant. When declarer males a claim, the play is usually > faster because defenders play on double-dummy and concede as soon as they > are satisfied. In short, it encourages claims and makes the game fairer, > faster and more fun. It is not uncommon among experts, although I suppose it's technically illegal, to "pseudo-accidentally", without claiming or obviously facing their cards, tilt their hand far enough forward for their opponents to see it clearly, then continue to play on, leaving their opponents free to either accept the implied claim by conceding or to let the play continue. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 12 07:58:55 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 07:58:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hermann's posting In-Reply-To: <52D14606.7010405@aol.com> References: <52D14606.7010405@aol.com> Message-ID: <52D23D2F.7070605@skynet.be> Which is exactly what I did - nd then I asked for the real ruling on blml, and look how interesting it was! Herman. (no double letters at all!) Jeff Easterson schreef: > Regarding Herrmann's posting (two passes by first hand): > > This may lead tome being excluded from the blml due to lack of > seriousness/frivolity but I strongly suspect that were I the TD called > to the table in this case I'd tell the player to return one of the pass > cards to his bidding card container and tell the others to contine with > the bidding as if nothing had happened. > > Ciao, JE > > > --- > 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 > > From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 12 08:01:43 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 08:01:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming In-Reply-To: <52D1656E.1010002@starpower.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F31E7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL><002101cf0dec$324c0700$96e41500$@online.no> <5AEB4B0F96314DDD853E620ABA746E47@G3> <52D1656E.1010002@starpower.net> Message-ID: <52D23DD7.2040308@skynet.be> Eric Landau schreef: > > It is not uncommon among experts, although I suppose it's technically > illegal, to "pseudo-accidentally", without claiming or obviously facing > their cards, tilt their hand far enough forward for their opponents to > see it clearly, then continue to play on, leaving their opponents free > to either accept the implied claim by conceding or to let the play continue. > And such action must be severely dealt with if something falls amiss. For one thing, this constitutes declarer's claim, not opponent's concession, IMO. Which may become important once the opponents conspire to find the perfect defence. If it is considered a concession, that would not count. IMO, such a perfect defence should be allowed and declarer be ruled against. Agreed? Herman. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 12 10:55:58 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:55:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming In-Reply-To: <52D23DD7.2040308@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F31E7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL><002101cf0dec$324c0700$96e41500$@online.no> <5AEB4B0F96314DDD853E620ABA746E47@G3> <52D1656E.1010002@starpower.net> <52D23DD7.2040308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701cf0f7c$7ea11140$7be333c0$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > Eric Landau schreef: > > > > It is not uncommon among experts, although I suppose it's technically > > illegal, to "pseudo-accidentally", without claiming or obviously > > facing their cards, tilt their hand far enough forward for their > > opponents to see it clearly, then continue to play on, leaving their > > opponents free to either accept the implied claim by conceding or to let the > play continue. > > > > And such action must be severely dealt with if something falls amiss. > For one thing, this constitutes declarer's claim, not opponent's concession, > IMO. > Which may become important once the opponents conspire to find the perfect > defence. If it is considered a concession, that would not count. > IMO, such a perfect defence should be allowed and declarer be ruled against. > Agreed? > > Herman. [Sven Pran] Yes, Law 48B2 says: When declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim), and Law 68 then applies. I shall probably rule differently if declarer shows his cards to only one of the defenders, not to both. From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Jan 12 16:28:08 2014 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:28:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming In-Reply-To: <52D23DD7.2040308@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F31E7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL><002101cf0dec$324c0700$96e41500$@online.no> <5AEB4B0F96314DDD853E620ABA746E47@G3> <52D1656E.1010002@starpower.net> <52D23DD7.2040308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52D2B488.6040906@starpower.net> On 1/12/2014 2:01 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau schreef: > >> It is not uncommon among experts, although I suppose it's technically >> illegal, to "pseudo-accidentally", without claiming or obviously facing >> their cards, tilt their hand far enough forward for their opponents to >> see it clearly, then continue to play on, leaving their opponents free >> to either accept the implied claim by conceding or to let the play continue. > > And such action must be severely dealt with if something falls amiss. > For one thing, this constitutes declarer's claim, not opponent's > concession, IMO. The entire point of such action is that it constitutes neither. It is (if the opponents go along, which is why I wrote "among experts") governed by the laws regarding "accidental" exposure of one or more cards in declarer's hand. The laws regarding claims and concessions are avoided altogether, which, again, is the point. > Which may become important once the opponents conspire to find the > perfect defence. If it is considered a concession, that would not count. > IMO, such a perfect defence should be allowed and declarer be ruled against. > Agreed? By taking this action, declarer is inviting the opponents to find the perfect defense by allowing them to continue double-dummy. If they can find a line that gets them a trick (or more) they get that trick, without anybody having to rule against (or for) anybody. If they can see that there is obviously no way for them take a trick, they may choose, if they wish, to concede the rest and score up the hand. There is nothing to rule on in either case, and the TD does not get involved. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 12 21:47:39 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 15:47:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming In-Reply-To: <52D2B488.6040906@starpower.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F31E7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <002101cf0dec$324c0700$96e41500$@online.no> <5AEB4B0F96314DDD853E620ABA746E47@G3> <52D1656E.1010002@starpower.net> <52D23DD7.2040308@skynet.be> <52D2B488.6040906@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:28:08 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On 1/12/2014 2:01 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau schreef: >> >>> It is not uncommon among experts, although I suppose it's technically >>> illegal, to "pseudo-accidentally", without claiming or obviously facing >>> their cards, tilt their hand far enough forward for their opponents to >>> see it clearly, then continue to play on, leaving their opponents free >>> to either accept the implied claim by conceding or to let the play >>> continue. >> >> And such action must be severely dealt with if something falls amiss. >> For one thing, this constitutes declarer's claim, not opponent's >> concession, IMO. > > The entire point of such action is that it constitutes neither. It is > (if the opponents go along, which is why I wrote "among experts") > governed by the laws regarding "accidental" exposure of one or more > cards in declarer's hand. The laws regarding claims and concessions are > avoided altogether, which, again, is the point. To me, declarer is suggesting that play be curtailed. I would rule that way without a second thought. Suppose declarer gains useful information from exposing his cards. Suppose the defense loses heart and does not play thoughtfully. > >> Which may become important once the opponents conspire to find the >> perfect defence. If it is considered a concession, that would not count. >> IMO, such a perfect defence should be allowed and declarer be ruled >> against. >> Agreed? > > By taking this action, declarer is inviting the opponents to find the > perfect defense by allowing them to continue double-dummy. If they can > find a line that gets them a trick (or more) they get that trick, > without anybody having to rule against (or for) anybody. If they can > see that there is obviously no way for them take a trick, they may > choose, if they wish, to concede the rest and score up the hand. There > is nothing to rule on in either case, and the TD does not get involved. > -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 12 21:56:43 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 15:56:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup Message-ID: I know, I am probably the only one who cares about this. But, undeterred..... A player ran the Blind Declarer Coup this last week. She called for the 5 of spades, and the opponent played a spade. (Dummy never played a card.) Following the "expert" advice from the ACBL (which I argued against, serving only to annoy one more person), I ruled her small spade a penalty card. Declarer then called for the 5 of diamonds. It strikes me now, declarer has committed an infraction. Declarer "should" name the suit and denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not. Perhaps it is a stretch, but I could apply Law 23. But this solution is not satisfactory. I impose a penalty card on the defense and then punish declarer if the defense was hurt by having the penalty card. (Of course, the usual purpose of a penalty card is to protect declarer.) Bob From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 12 23:15:35 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 23:15:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000f01cf0fe3$d17a74d0$746f5e70$@online.no> > Robert Frick > I know, I am probably the only one who cares about this. But, undeterred..... > > > A player ran the Blind Declarer Coup this last week. She called for the 5 of > spades, and the opponent played a spade. (Dummy never played a card.) > Following the "expert" advice from the ACBL (which I argued against, serving > only to annoy one more person), I ruled her small spade a penalty card. > Declarer then called for the 5 of diamonds. > > It strikes me now, declarer has committed an infraction. Declarer "should" > name the suit and denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not. > Perhaps it is a stretch, but I could apply Law 23. > > But this solution is not satisfactory. I impose a penalty card on the defense and > then punish declarer if the defense was hurt by having the penalty card. (Of > course, the usual purpose of a penalty card is to protect declarer.) > > Bob [Sven Pran] Law 50 states: 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). In the situation described I would normally "designate otherwise" and rule that the 5 of spades shall be restored to the defender's hand without any rectification. Dummy never plays any card, he moves a card to the played position after declarer plays it by naming it. (If I find that the defender has contributed to his irregularity by unacceptable inattention I would probably rule major penalty card) From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 13 09:24:16 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:24:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3319F31E7@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <002101cf0dec$324c0700$96e41500$@online.no> <5AEB4B0F96314DDD853E620ABA746E47@G3> <52D1656E.1010002@starpower.net> <52D23DD7.2040308@skynet.be> <52D2B488.6040906@starpower.net> Message-ID: <52D3A2B0.2050004@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:28:08 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On 1/12/2014 2:01 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau schreef: >>> >>>> It is not uncommon among experts, although I suppose it's technically >>>> illegal, to "pseudo-accidentally", without claiming or obviously facing >>>> their cards, tilt their hand far enough forward for their opponents to >>>> see it clearly, then continue to play on, leaving their opponents free >>>> to either accept the implied claim by conceding or to let the play >>>> continue. >>> >>> And such action must be severely dealt with if something falls amiss. >>> For one thing, this constitutes declarer's claim, not opponent's >>> concession, IMO. >> >> The entire point of such action is that it constitutes neither. It is >> (if the opponents go along, which is why I wrote "among experts") >> governed by the laws regarding "accidental" exposure of one or more >> cards in declarer's hand. The laws regarding claims and concessions are >> avoided altogether, which, again, is the point. > > > To me, declarer is suggesting that play be curtailed. I would rule that > way without a second thought. Suppose declarer gains useful information > from exposing his cards. Suppose the defense loses heart and does not play > thoughtfully. > > Exactly. There is nothing wrong if nothing goes wrong. But what if it does go wrong? Then we have to rule Imagine the following scenario: South is declarer. West is on lead. South shows his cards to West, and West puts his cards in the pocket. "What's happening?" asks East. "Just made" says West. "Not if you play clubs" says East. If this is declarer's claim, the West will be deemed to play clubs and the contract is down. But if it is defender's concession, then, after East's objection, play continues but West has UI, so the club will not be deemed to be played and the contract is made. So, which is it? Declarer's claim or Defender's concession. Herman > > >> >>> Which may become important once the opponents conspire to find the >>> perfect defence. If it is considered a concession, that would not count. >>> IMO, such a perfect defence should be allowed and declarer be ruled >>> against. >>> Agreed? >> >> By taking this action, declarer is inviting the opponents to find the >> perfect defense by allowing them to continue double-dummy. If they can >> find a line that gets them a trick (or more) they get that trick, >> without anybody having to rule against (or for) anybody. If they can >> see that there is obviously no way for them take a trick, they may >> choose, if they wish, to concede the rest and score up the hand. There >> is nothing to rule on in either case, and the TD does not get involved. >> > > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Jan 13 14:37:11 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:37:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> I don't understand this. "A player called for the 5 of spades...." Wasn't this player the declarer? "Declarer should name name the suit and and denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not." Then what was the 5 of spades? Who called for it if not the declarer? What am I missing? Ciao, JE Am 12.01.2014 21:56, schrieb Robert Frick: > I know, I am probably the only one who cares about this. But, > undeterred..... > > > A player ran the Blind Declarer Coup this last week. She called for the 5 > of spades, and the opponent played a spade. (Dummy never played a card.) > Following the "expert" advice from the ACBL (which I argued against, > serving only to annoy one more person), I ruled her small spade a penalty > card. Declarer then called for the 5 of diamonds. > > It strikes me now, declarer has committed an infraction. Declarer "should" > name the suit and denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not. > Perhaps it is a stretch, but I could apply Law 23. > > But this solution is not satisfactory. I impose a penalty card on the > defense and then punish declarer if the defense was hurt by having the > penalty card. (Of course, the usual purpose of a penalty card is to > protect declarer.) > > 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 svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 13 15:04:06 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:04:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> References: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> Message-ID: <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> Jeff Easterson > I don't understand this. "A player called for the 5 of spades...." > Wasn't this player the declarer? "Declarer should name name the suit and and > denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not." Then what was the 5 of > spades? Who called for it if not the declarer? > > What am I missing? [Sven Pran] That "the player" was declarer who called (from dummy) a card that was not in dummy. Initially we have Law 46B4: If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card. So RHO "following suit" with the 5 of spades was a lead out of turn. > Ciao, JE > > Am 12.01.2014 21:56, schrieb Robert Frick: > > I know, I am probably the only one who cares about this. But, > > undeterred..... > > > > > > A player ran the Blind Declarer Coup this last week. She called for > > the 5 of spades, and the opponent played a spade. (Dummy never played > > a card.) Following the "expert" advice from the ACBL (which I argued > > against, serving only to annoy one more person), I ruled her small > > spade a penalty card. Declarer then called for the 5 of diamonds. > > > > It strikes me now, declarer has committed an infraction. Declarer "should" > > name the suit and denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not. > > Perhaps it is a stretch, but I could apply Law 23. > > > > But this solution is not satisfactory. I impose a penalty card on the > > defense and then punish declarer if the defense was hurt by having the > > penalty card. (Of course, the usual purpose of a penalty card is to > > protect declarer.) > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Jan 13 15:12:29 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:12:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> References: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> Message-ID: <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> 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. Again, what am I missing? JE Am 13.01.2014 15:04, schrieb Sven Pran: > Jeff Easterson >> I don't understand this. "A player called for the 5 of spades...." >> Wasn't this player the declarer? "Declarer should name name the suit and > and >> denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not." Then what was the > 5 of >> spades? Who called for it if not the declarer? >> >> What am I missing? > [Sven Pran] That "the player" was declarer who called (from dummy) a card > that was not in dummy. > > Initially we have Law 46B4: > If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer > may designate any legal card. > > So RHO "following suit" with the 5 of spades was a lead out of turn. > >> Ciao, JE >> >> Am 12.01.2014 21:56, schrieb Robert Frick: >>> I know, I am probably the only one who cares about this. But, >>> undeterred..... >>> >>> >>> A player ran the Blind Declarer Coup this last week. She called for >>> the 5 of spades, and the opponent played a spade. (Dummy never played >>> a card.) Following the "expert" advice from the ACBL (which I argued >>> against, serving only to annoy one more person), I ruled her small >>> spade a penalty card. Declarer then called for the 5 of diamonds. >>> >>> It strikes me now, declarer has committed an infraction. Declarer > "should" >>> name the suit and denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not. >>> Perhaps it is a stretch, but I could apply Law 23. >>> >>> But this solution is not satisfactory. I impose a penalty card on the >>> defense and then punish declarer if the defense was hurt by having the >>> penalty card. (Of course, the usual purpose of a penalty card is to >>> protect declarer.) >>> >>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > --- Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv. http://www.avast.com From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 13 16:48:11 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:48:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> References: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> Message-ID: <000001cf1076$dd6c4780$9844d680$@online.no> You might be right, in which case I have misunderstood OP. So let's see what we have got, assuming for a fact that "she", the player calling for the 5 of spades was indeed declarer. (If not the entire OP is just ridiculous with extraneous remarks and plays around the table): At the moment declarer called for the 5 of spades this card was played from dummy. What dummy did or didn't do is immaterial. If dummy has the called card then it is played and there is nothing to worry about. Otherwise Law 46B4 applies and declarer must designate another (legal) card to be played from dummy. If this card is a spade then I would rule that the card (prematurely) played by RHO remains played, play continues and there is again nothing more to worry about. If, however, the card eventually called from dummy is not a spade and the play of a small spade by RHO now will be a revoke then RHO must of course retract this spade and replace it with a legal play. The retracted card should now normally be ruled a major penalty card, but as declarer is mainly at fault for this situation I shall use my powers (Law 50) and rule "otherwise", i.e. that this card played by RHO shall instead just be restored to RHO's hand without any further rectification. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jeff > Easterson > Sendt: 13. januar 2014 15:12 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup > > 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. > Again, what am I missing? > > JE > > Am 13.01.2014 15:04, schrieb Sven Pran: > > Jeff Easterson > >> I don't understand this. "A player called for the 5 of spades...." > >> Wasn't this player the declarer? "Declarer should name name the suit > >> and > > and > >> denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not." Then what was > >> the > > 5 of > >> spades? Who called for it if not the declarer? > >> > >> What am I missing? > > [Sven Pran] That "the player" was declarer who called (from dummy) a > > card that was not in dummy. > > > > Initially we have Law 46B4: > > If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and > > declarer may designate any legal card. > > > > So RHO "following suit" with the 5 of spades was a lead out of turn. > > > >> Ciao, JE > >> > >> Am 12.01.2014 21:56, schrieb Robert Frick: > >>> I know, I am probably the only one who cares about this. But, > >>> undeterred..... > >>> > >>> > >>> A player ran the Blind Declarer Coup this last week. She called for > >>> the 5 of spades, and the opponent played a spade. (Dummy never > >>> played a card.) Following the "expert" advice from the ACBL (which I > >>> argued against, serving only to annoy one more person), I ruled her > >>> small spade a penalty card. Declarer then called for the 5 of diamonds. > >>> > >>> It strikes me now, declarer has committed an infraction. Declarer > > "should" > >>> name the suit and denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not. > >>> Perhaps it is a stretch, but I could apply Law 23. > >>> > >>> But this solution is not satisfactory. I impose a penalty card on > >>> the defense and then punish declarer if the defense was hurt by > >>> having the penalty card. (Of course, the usual purpose of a penalty > >>> card is to protect declarer.) > >>> > >>> 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 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > --- > Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist > aktiv. > http://www.avast.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jan 14 03:06:50 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:06:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] can't agree on contract Message-ID: Is there a standard solution to what to do when the players cannot agree on the contract? EW claim it was 3H; NS claim it was 4H From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jan 14 03:13:15 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:13:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> References: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:12:29 -0500, Jeff Easterson wrote: > 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. > Again, what am I missing? Sorry, right, there was no 5 of spades in dummy. She called for a nonexistant card, so the call was void. > > JE > > Am 13.01.2014 15:04, schrieb Sven Pran: >> Jeff Easterson >>> I don't understand this. "A player called for the 5 of spades...." >>> Wasn't this player the declarer? "Declarer should name name the suit >>> and >> and >>> denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not." Then what was >>> the >> 5 of >>> spades? Who called for it if not the declarer? >>> >>> What am I missing? >> [Sven Pran] That "the player" was declarer who called (from dummy) a >> card >> that was not in dummy. >> >> Initially we have Law 46B4: >> If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and >> declarer >> may designate any legal card. >> >> So RHO "following suit" with the 5 of spades was a lead out of turn. >> >>> Ciao, JE >>> >>> Am 12.01.2014 21:56, schrieb Robert Frick: >>>> I know, I am probably the only one who cares about this. But, >>>> undeterred..... >>>> >>>> >>>> A player ran the Blind Declarer Coup this last week. She called for >>>> the 5 of spades, and the opponent played a spade. (Dummy never played >>>> a card.) Following the "expert" advice from the ACBL (which I argued >>>> against, serving only to annoy one more person), I ruled her small >>>> spade a penalty card. Declarer then called for the 5 of diamonds. >>>> >>>> It strikes me now, declarer has committed an infraction. Declarer >> "should" >>>> name the suit and denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not. >>>> Perhaps it is a stretch, but I could apply Law 23. >>>> >>>> But this solution is not satisfactory. I impose a penalty card on the >>>> defense and then punish declarer if the defense was hurt by having the >>>> penalty card. (Of course, the usual purpose of a penalty card is to >>>> protect declarer.) >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > --- > Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus > Schutz ist aktiv. > http://www.avast.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 14 03:32:23 2014 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:32:23 -0600 Subject: [BLML] can't agree on contract In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Frick" Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 20:06 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] can't agree on contract > Is there a standard solution to what to do when the players cannot agree > on the contract? EW claim it was 3H; NS claim it was 4H This happened to me after my fifth board of my first tournament. Pard put me in a lousy 3N contract and the opponents claimed it was 2N. We called the TD and he made a ruling. The opponents appealed and the AC upheld the table ruling. Not that it made much of a difference. Everyone was making four except me- squeaking by with 9 tricks when the OL gave me a trick. The standard solution is to call the TD and tell what happened. regards roger pewick From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jan 14 05:19:51 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 23:19:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <000001cf1076$dd6c4780$9844d680$@online.no> References: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> <000001cf1076$dd6c4780$9844d680$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:48:11 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > You might be right, in which case I have misunderstood OP. > So let's see what we have got, assuming for a fact that "she", the player > calling for the 5 of spades was indeed declarer. (If not the entire OP is > just ridiculous with extraneous remarks and plays around the table): > > At the moment declarer called for the 5 of spades this card was played > from > dummy. What dummy did or didn't do is immaterial. > > If dummy has the called card then it is played and there is nothing to > worry > about. > > Otherwise Law 46B4 applies and declarer must designate another (legal) > card > to be played from dummy. > > If this card is a spade then I would rule that the card (prematurely) > played > by RHO remains played, play continues and there is again nothing more to > worry about. > > If, however, the card eventually called from dummy is not a spade and the > play of a small spade by RHO now will be a revoke then RHO must of course > retract this spade and replace it with a legal play. > > The retracted card should now normally be ruled a major penalty card, > but as > declarer is mainly at fault for this situation I shall use my powers (Law > 50) and rule "otherwise", i.e. that this card played by RHO shall instead > just be restored to RHO's hand without any further rectification. > I'm would not interpret Law 50 as giving director the power to waive any penalty card you wish. Also, Law 49 doesn't give you that power: "Except in the normal course of play or application of a law, when a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face,....each such card becomes a penalty card." But it would be useful for my similar problem -- declarer said singleton king, talking about clubs and being in hand; careless defender thought he was calling for the now-singleton king of diamonds in dummy. It would have been useful to just say her play/exposure of the ace of diamonds was not a penalty card. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 14 09:55:40 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:55:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <000001cf1076$dd6c4780$9844d680$@online.no> References: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> <000001cf1076$dd6c4780$9844d680$@online.no> Message-ID: <52D4FB8C.5000005@skynet.be> Sven Pran schreef: > You might be right, in which case I have misunderstood OP. > So let's see what we have got, assuming for a fact that "she", the player > calling for the 5 of spades was indeed declarer. (If not the entire OP is > just ridiculous with extraneous remarks and plays around the table): > > At the moment declarer called for the 5 of spades this card was played from > dummy. What dummy did or didn't do is immaterial. > > If dummy has the called card then it is played and there is nothing to worry > about. > > Otherwise Law 46B4 applies and declarer must designate another (legal) card > to be played from dummy. > > If this card is a spade then I would rule that the card (prematurely) played > by RHO remains played, play continues and there is again nothing more to > worry about. > > If, however, the card eventually called from dummy is not a spade and the > play of a small spade by RHO now will be a revoke then RHO must of course > retract this spade and replace it with a legal play. > > The retracted card should now normally be ruled a major penalty card, but as > declarer is mainly at fault for this situation I shall use my powers (Law > 50) and rule "otherwise", i.e. that this card played by RHO shall instead > just be restored to RHO's hand without any further rectification. > In which case you're being inconsistent. If declarer changes the S5 into the S7, you rule that the S6 must be played (like a penalty card) But if he changes it to the DA, you don't make the S6 a penalty card. That's not consistent. I would also allow defender to change if declarer merely announces a different height of spade. Herman. >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Jeff >> Easterson >> Sendt: 13. januar 2014 15:12 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup >> >> 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. >> Again, what am I missing? >> >> JE >> >> Am 13.01.2014 15:04, schrieb Sven Pran: >>> Jeff Easterson >>>> I don't understand this. "A player called for the 5 of spades...." >>>> Wasn't this player the declarer? "Declarer should name name the suit >>>> and >>> and >>>> denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not." Then what was >>>> the >>> 5 of >>>> spades? Who called for it if not the declarer? >>>> >>>> What am I missing? >>> [Sven Pran] That "the player" was declarer who called (from dummy) a >>> card that was not in dummy. >>> >>> Initially we have Law 46B4: >>> If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and >>> declarer may designate any legal card. >>> >>> So RHO "following suit" with the 5 of spades was a lead out of turn. >>> >>>> Ciao, JE >>>> >>>> Am 12.01.2014 21:56, schrieb Robert Frick: >>>>> I know, I am probably the only one who cares about this. But, >>>>> undeterred..... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A player ran the Blind Declarer Coup this last week. She called for >>>>> the 5 of spades, and the opponent played a spade. (Dummy never >>>>> played a card.) Following the "expert" advice from the ACBL (which I >>>>> argued against, serving only to annoy one more person), I ruled her >>>>> small spade a penalty card. Declarer then called for the 5 of > diamonds. >>>>> >>>>> It strikes me now, declarer has committed an infraction. Declarer >>> "should" >>>>> name the suit and denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not. >>>>> Perhaps it is a stretch, but I could apply Law 23. >>>>> >>>>> But this solution is not satisfactory. I impose a penalty card on >>>>> the defense and then punish declarer if the defense was hurt by >>>>> having the penalty card. (Of course, the usual purpose of a penalty >>>>> card is to protect declarer.) >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> >> --- >> Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus > Schutz ist >> aktiv. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 14 09:56:02 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:56:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: References: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> <000001cf1076$dd6c4780$9844d680$@online.no> Message-ID: <000701cf1106$74d29ef0$5e77dcd0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > I'm would not interpret Law 50 as giving director the power to waive any > penalty card you wish. [Sven Pran] Then under what circumstances will you allow the director to "designate otherwise"? Law 50 says: 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). I consider this law giving the director such power "for cause" in special situations, for instance like the one you presented. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 14 09:58:06 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:58:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52D4FB8C.5000005@skynet.be> References: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> <000001cf1076$dd6c4780$9844d680$@online.no> <52D4FB8C.5000005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801cf1106$bdbd00b0$39370210$@online.no> I agree I was not consistent, and on second thoughts I tend to agree with you. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 14. januar 2014 09:56 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup > > Sven Pran schreef: > > You might be right, in which case I have misunderstood OP. > > So let's see what we have got, assuming for a fact that "she", the > > player calling for the 5 of spades was indeed declarer. (If not the > > entire OP is just ridiculous with extraneous remarks and plays around the > table): > > > > At the moment declarer called for the 5 of spades this card was played > > from dummy. What dummy did or didn't do is immaterial. > > > > If dummy has the called card then it is played and there is nothing to > > worry about. > > > > Otherwise Law 46B4 applies and declarer must designate another (legal) > > card to be played from dummy. > > > > If this card is a spade then I would rule that the card (prematurely) > > played by RHO remains played, play continues and there is again > > nothing more to worry about. > > > > If, however, the card eventually called from dummy is not a spade and > > the play of a small spade by RHO now will be a revoke then RHO must of > > course retract this spade and replace it with a legal play. > > > > The retracted card should now normally be ruled a major penalty card, > > but as declarer is mainly at fault for this situation I shall use my > > powers (Law > > 50) and rule "otherwise", i.e. that this card played by RHO shall > > instead just be restored to RHO's hand without any further rectification. > > > > In which case you're being inconsistent. > If declarer changes the S5 into the S7, you rule that the S6 must be played (like > a penalty card) But if he changes it to the DA, you don't make the S6 a penalty > card. > That's not consistent. > I would also allow defender to change if declarer merely announces a different > height of spade. > > Herman. > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > >> av > > Jeff > >> Easterson > >> Sendt: 13. januar 2014 15:12 > >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup > >> > >> 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. > >> Again, what am I missing? > >> > >> JE > >> > >> Am 13.01.2014 15:04, schrieb Sven Pran: > >>> Jeff Easterson > >>>> I don't understand this. "A player called for the 5 of spades...." > >>>> Wasn't this player the declarer? "Declarer should name name the > >>>> suit and > >>> and > >>>> denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not." Then what > >>>> was the > >>> 5 of > >>>> spades? Who called for it if not the declarer? > >>>> > >>>> What am I missing? > >>> [Sven Pran] That "the player" was declarer who called (from dummy) a > >>> card that was not in dummy. > >>> > >>> Initially we have Law 46B4: > >>> If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and > >>> declarer may designate any legal card. > >>> > >>> So RHO "following suit" with the 5 of spades was a lead out of turn. > >>> > >>>> Ciao, JE > >>>> > >>>> Am 12.01.2014 21:56, schrieb Robert Frick: > >>>>> I know, I am probably the only one who cares about this. But, > >>>>> undeterred..... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> A player ran the Blind Declarer Coup this last week. She called > >>>>> for the 5 of spades, and the opponent played a spade. (Dummy never > >>>>> played a card.) Following the "expert" advice from the ACBL (which > >>>>> I argued against, serving only to annoy one more person), I ruled > >>>>> her small spade a penalty card. Declarer then called for the 5 of > > diamonds. > >>>>> > >>>>> It strikes me now, declarer has committed an infraction. Declarer > >>> "should" > >>>>> name the suit and denomination of the intended card. Declarer did not. > >>>>> Perhaps it is a stretch, but I could apply Law 23. > >>>>> > >>>>> But this solution is not satisfactory. I impose a penalty card on > >>>>> the defense and then punish declarer if the defense was hurt by > >>>>> having the penalty card. (Of course, the usual purpose of a > >>>>> penalty card is to protect declarer.) > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Blml mailing list > >>>> Blml at rtflb.org > >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Blml mailing list > >>> Blml at rtflb.org > >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >>> > >> > >> > >> --- > >> Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! > >> Antivirus > > Schutz ist > >> aktiv. > >> http://www.avast.com > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jan 14 11:32:15 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 05:32:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <000701cf1106$74d29ef0$5e77dcd0$@online.no> References: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> <000001cf1076$dd6c4780$9844d680$@online.no> <000701cf1106$74d29ef0$5e77dcd0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:56:02 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> I'm would not interpret Law 50 as giving director the power to waive any >> penalty card you wish. > [Sven Pran] > Then under what circumstances will you allow the director to "designate > otherwise"? 46D, card misplayed by dummy, the defender's card is not a penalty card. L47D, following a withdrawn card by declarer or dummy L47E1, change of play based on misinformation L47E2 In other words, there are a lot of times where the laws say an exposed card is not a penalty card. I interpreted L49 as referring to these situations. > > Law 50 says: > 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). > > I consider this law giving the director such power "for cause" in special > situations, for instance like the one you presented. I like your interpretation. For example, I am hurrying to the players to finish the round. A player revokes because he is playing too quickly, corrects the revoke. I can can designate the first-played card as not being a penalty card? "cause" is kind of a vague thing. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 14 12:04:46 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:04:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: References: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> <000001cf1076$dd6c4780$9844d680$@online.no> <000701cf1106$74d29ef0$5e77dcd0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000901cf1118$70886cf0$519946d0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Sendt: 14. januar 2014 11:32 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup > > On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:56:02 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> I'm would not interpret Law 50 as giving director the power to waive > >> any penalty card you wish. > > [Sven Pran] > > Then under what circumstances will you allow the director to > > "designate otherwise"? > > 46D, card misplayed by dummy, the defender's card is not a penalty card. [Sven Pran] Typo for 45D > > L47D, following a withdrawn card by declarer or dummy > > L47E1, change of play based on misinformation > > L47E2 > [Sven Pran] All the above examples have one thing in common: They explicitly state that the withdrawn cards are returned to the hand, i.e. with no further rectification. So Law 50 does not at all apply in these situations. > In other words, there are a lot of times where the laws say an exposed card is > not a penalty card. I interpreted L49 as referring to these situations. > > > > > > > Law 50 says: > > 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). > > > > I consider this law giving the director such power "for cause" in > > special situations, for instance like the one you presented. > > I like your interpretation. For example, I am hurrying to the players to finish the > round. A player revokes because he is playing too quickly, corrects the revoke. I > can can designate the first-played card as not being a penalty card? > > "cause" is kind of a vague thing. [Sven Pran] "Cause" occurs some placed in the laws and depends on judgment by the director. Rulings "for cause" can be subject to appeal. I cannot see that you have provided a single example where the clause "designates otherwise" has any mission when you refuse to use this clause in the situation described. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jan 15 02:31:26 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:31:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <000901cf1118$70886cf0$519946d0$@online.no> References: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> <000001cf1076$dd6c4780$9844d680$@online.no> <000701cf1106$74d29ef0$5e77dcd0$@online.no> <000901cf1118$70886cf0$519946d0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 06:04:46 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 14. januar 2014 11:32 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup >> >> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:56:02 -0500, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> Robert Frick >> >> I'm would not interpret Law 50 as giving director the power to waive >> >> any penalty card you wish. >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Then under what circumstances will you allow the director to >> > "designate otherwise"? >> >> 46D, card misplayed by dummy, the defender's card is not a penalty card. > [Sven Pran] Typo for 45D >> >> L47D, following a withdrawn card by declarer or dummy >> >> L47E1, change of play based on misinformation >> >> L47E2 >> > [Sven Pran] > All the above examples have one thing in common: They explicitly state > that > the withdrawn cards are returned to the hand, i.e. with no further > rectification. > So Law 50 does not at all apply in these situations. > >> In other words, there are a lot of times where the laws say an exposed > card is >> not a penalty card. I interpreted L49 as referring to these situations. >> >> >> >> > >> > Law 50 says: >> > 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). >> > >> > I consider this law giving the director such power "for cause" in >> > special situations, for instance like the one you presented. >> >> I like your interpretation. For example, I am hurrying to the players to > finish the >> round. A player revokes because he is playing too quickly, corrects the > revoke. I >> can can designate the first-played card as not being a penalty card? >> >> "cause" is kind of a vague thing. > > [Sven Pran] > "Cause" occurs some placed in the laws and depends on judgment by the > director. Rulings "for cause" can be subject to appeal. > > I cannot see that you have provided a single example where the clause > "designates otherwise" has any mission when you refuse to use this > clause in > the situation described. A player drops the 10 of spades. I rule it is not a penalty card. According to your argument, L50 says it therefore is not a penalty card. I agree, I guess, that L50 says this. But I never heard of L50 being applied that way. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 15 10:24:47 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:24:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: References: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> <000001cf1076$dd6c4780$9844d680$@online.no> <000701cf1106$74d29ef0$5e77dcd0$@online.no> <000901cf1118$70886cf0$519946d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <001501cf11d3$a2f6d210$e8e47630$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...} > > [Sven Pran] > > "Cause" occurs some placed in the laws and depends on judgment by the > > director. Rulings "for cause" can be subject to appeal. > > > > I cannot see that you have provided a single example where the clause > > "designates otherwise" has any mission when you refuse to use this > > clause in the situation described. > > > A player drops the 10 of spades. I rule it is not a penalty card. > According to your argument, L50 says it therefore is not a penalty card. > > I agree, I guess, that L50 says this. But I never heard of L50 being applied that > way. [Sven Pran] If a defender (by himself) drops the 10 of spades and it could be possible for his partner to see it's face then it is a (major) penalty card. The only exception is if the defender in question is subject to some extreme disability that could give cause for leniency , but even this is questionable. Otherwise your ruling that the card is not a penalty card ranks among the most serious director errors I have heard of. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 15 11:58:10 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:58:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <001501cf11d3$a2f6d210$e8e47630$@online.no> References: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> <000001cf1076$dd6c4780$9844d680$@online.no> <000701cf1106$74d29ef0$5e77dcd0$@online.no> <000901cf1118$70886cf0$519946d0$@online.no> <001501cf11d3$a2f6d210$e8e47630$@online.no> Message-ID: <52D669C2.50005@skynet.be> Sven Pran schreef: >> >> A player drops the 10 of spades. I rule it is not a penalty card. >> According to your argument, L50 says it therefore is not a penalty card. >> >> I agree, I guess, that L50 says this. But I never heard of L50 being > applied that >> way. > > [Sven Pran] > If a defender (by himself) drops the 10 of spades and it could be possible > for his partner to see it's face then it is a (major) penalty card. > The only exception is if the defender in question is subject to some extreme > disability that could give cause for leniency , but even this is > questionable. Indeed it is. Even a handicapped player should deal with his handicap and not drop his cards. Where I would draw the line of acceptance is when declarer (or dummy) has in some manner contributed to the showing of the cards. For example - the handicapped defender fumbles a card and declarer meanwhile hits his leg on the table, toppling the card holder. > Otherwise your ruling that the card is not a penalty card ranks among the > most serious director errors I have heard of. > Well, considerering that a director needs to keep his players happy, he should not impose penalties that the non-offenders don't want themselves. And whereas lead penalties for offender's partner need not be imposed, the compulsary play of a major penalty card is something that cannot be waived, so the TD should "designate otherwise" if declarer asks him to do so. Herman. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 15 15:22:50 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:22:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52D669C2.50005@skynet.be> References: <52D3EC07.6000508@aol.com> <001e01cf1068$531ac420$f9504c60$@online.no> <52D3F44D.30308@aol.com> <000001cf1076$dd6c4780$9844d680$@online.no> <000701cf1106$74d29ef0$5e77dcd0$@online.no> <000901cf1118$70886cf0$519946d0$@online.no> <001501cf11d3$a2f6d210$e8e47630$@online.no> <52D669C2.50005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301cf11fd$462c2510$d2846f30$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > > [Sven Pran] > > If a defender (by himself) drops the 10 of spades and it could be > > possible for his partner to see it's face then it is a (major) penalty card. > > The only exception is if the defender in question is subject to some > > extreme disability that could give cause for leniency , but even this > > is questionable. > > Indeed it is. Even a handicapped player should deal with his handicap and not > drop his cards. > Where I would draw the line of acceptance is when declarer (or dummy) has in > some manner contributed to the showing of the cards. > For example - the handicapped defender fumbles a card and declarer > meanwhile hits his leg on the table, toppling the card holder. > > > Otherwise your ruling that the card is not a penalty card ranks among > > the most serious director errors I have heard of. > > > > Well, considerering that a director needs to keep his players happy, he should > not impose penalties that the non-offenders don't want themselves. > And whereas lead penalties for offender's partner need not be imposed, the > compulsary play of a major penalty card is something that cannot be waived, so > the TD should "designate otherwise" if declarer asks him to do so. [Sven Pran] There is no need to involve Law 50 for this, the director has all the power he may wish from Law 81C5: The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: ..... 5. to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jan 17 02:32:00 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:32:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> On 2014-01-12 3:56 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Perhaps it is a stretch, but I could apply Law 23. Not a stretch at all; it's exactly what L23 is for. That's what I wrote the last time this topic came up. > I impose a penalty card on the defense and then punish declarer if > the defense was hurt by having the penalty card. Once you explain that, any sensible declarer will ask that you waive the penalty card, and you will. Sven's ruling ("not a penalty card") gets to the same result more simply. The only real question is how the Director should explain the ruling to the players; I suppose one has to know one's customers. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jan 17 03:56:48 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 21:56:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:32:00 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2014-01-12 3:56 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Perhaps it is a stretch, but I could apply Law 23. > > Not a stretch at all; it's exactly what L23 is for. That's what I wrote > the last time this topic came up. What if there was no intended card? Perhaps declarer really wanted to play the nonexistant two of spades. Now there is no infraction, right? > >> I impose a penalty card on the defense and then punish declarer if >> the defense was hurt by having the penalty card. > > Once you explain that, any sensible declarer will ask that you waive the > penalty card, and you will. Declarer might not think to ask that. > Sven's ruling ("not a penalty card") gets > to the same result more simply. The only real question is how the > Director should explain the ruling to the players; I suppose one has to > know one's customers. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 17 04:50:07 2014 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 21:50:07 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Steve Willner" Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 19:32 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup > On 2014-01-12 3:56 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Perhaps it is a stretch, but I could apply Law 23. > > Not a stretch at all; it's exactly what L23 is for. That's what I wrote > the last time this topic came up. > >> I impose a penalty card on the defense and then punish declarer if >> the defense was hurt by having the penalty card. > > Once you explain that, any sensible declarer will ask that you waive the > penalty card, and you will. Sven's ruling ("not a penalty card") gets > to the same result more simply. The only real question is how the > Director should explain the ruling to the players; I suppose one has to > know one's customers. If I understand this, by correct application of law the outcome is that declarer's designation is automatically canceled, and the defender having played a card afterwards has thereby LOOT, rejected, and thus results in a PC. [a] the assertion that L23 provides for canceling a PC is kaka; L23's remedy provides for adjusted scores, not canceling of PCs [b] if the purpose of the law is that the TD is supposed to cancel that PC then the law should make special mention of it for that situation rather than create arguments over TD ethics; or player ethics; and no, the law makes no such special mention. [c] my opinion is that when a contestant acts OOT he should be subject to the prescribed remedy; particularly when he just can't wait for dummy to move the non existent card to a played position regards roger pewick From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jan 18 03:50:31 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 21:50:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> On 2014-01-16 9:56 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Perhaps declarer really wanted to play > the nonexistant two of spades. That's what I assumed all along, but I don't see why it matters. > Now there is no infraction, right? What difference does that make? L23 refers only to irregularity. I suppose "offender" introduces some confusion, but the explicit use of "irregularity" rather than "infraction" seems clear enough. >> >Once you explain [L23], any sensible declarer will ask that you waive the >> >penalty card, and you will. > Declarer might not think to ask that. If giving the "long ruling," you explain that: L81C2. Indeed in any case where there may be an adjusted score later, the Director must advise the players of the possibility. Knowing the possibility might well affect a player's action, and there's nothing special about L23 in this regard. But see below. On 2014-01-16 10:50 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > [a] the assertion that L23 provides for canceling a PC is kaka; So far as I've seen, no one has asserted that. > L23's remedy provides for adjusted scores, not canceling of PCs Yes. For anyone still confused, the sequence is something like L23, 81C3, 81C2, 81C5. A sensible declarer should always choose this route over an adjusted score, so the "short ruling" that Sven and others suggest leads to the same outcome. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 18 09:58:00 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:58:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> I am astonished over this reluctance to simply use Law 50 and rule that "in this case the director designates otherwise" - no penalty card. Continue play. Nobody has so far come up with any good argument against such ruling. Steve Willner > On 2014-01-16 9:56 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > Perhaps declarer really wanted to play the nonexistant two of spades. > > That's what I assumed all along, but I don't see why it matters. > > > Now there is no infraction, right? > > What difference does that make? L23 refers only to irregularity. I suppose > "offender" introduces some confusion, but the explicit use of "irregularity" > rather than "infraction" seems clear enough. > > >> >Once you explain [L23], any sensible declarer will ask that you > >> >waive the penalty card, and you will. > > > Declarer might not think to ask that. > > If giving the "long ruling," you explain that: L81C2. Indeed in any case where > there may be an adjusted score later, the Director must advise the players of > the possibility. Knowing the possibility might well affect a player's action, and > there's nothing special about L23 in this regard. But see below. > > On 2014-01-16 10:50 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > > [a] the assertion that L23 provides for canceling a PC is kaka; > > So far as I've seen, no one has asserted that. > > > L23's remedy provides for adjusted scores, not canceling of PCs > > Yes. For anyone still confused, the sequence is something like L23, 81C3, 81C2, > 81C5. A sensible declarer should always choose this route over an adjusted > score, so the "short ruling" that Sven and others suggest leads to the same > outcome. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jan 18 17:07:11 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:07:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:58:00 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > I am astonished over this reluctance to simply use Law 50 and rule that > "in this case the director designates otherwise" - no penalty card. > > Continue play. > > Nobody has so far come up with any good argument against such ruling. Are you arguing that the director can, at any time, simply designate that an exposed care is not a penalty card? Well, you are, but you also said that position is completely wrong. (You called my example of that, "among the most serious director errors I have heard of".) Basically, you said that the director does not have the power you wish to give him. So far, all I see is that when the law leads to the wrong ruling concerning an exposed card, you (alone) say the director can say it is not a penalty card. When the law leads to the right or intended ruling, the director does not have the right to do that. Which is not in the laws. If we accept that, you have to argue the law's intention. Roger, and others, feel that the defender was not paying sufficient attention to the game and deserves the penalty card. So it's a matter of judgment. So people don't even agree on whether or not the card should be a penalty card (or a LOOT). Bob > > Steve Willner >> On 2014-01-16 9:56 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> > Perhaps declarer really wanted to play the nonexistant two of spades. >> >> That's what I assumed all along, but I don't see why it matters. >> >> > Now there is no infraction, right? >> >> What difference does that make? L23 refers only to irregularity. I > suppose >> "offender" introduces some confusion, but the explicit use of > "irregularity" >> rather than "infraction" seems clear enough. >> >> >> >Once you explain [L23], any sensible declarer will ask that you >> >> >waive the penalty card, and you will. >> >> > Declarer might not think to ask that. >> >> If giving the "long ruling," you explain that: L81C2. Indeed in any >> case > where >> there may be an adjusted score later, the Director must advise the >> players > of >> the possibility. Knowing the possibility might well affect a player's > action, and >> there's nothing special about L23 in this regard. But see below. >> >> On 2014-01-16 10:50 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: >> > [a] the assertion that L23 provides for canceling a PC is kaka; >> >> So far as I've seen, no one has asserted that. >> >> > L23's remedy provides for adjusted scores, not canceling of PCs >> >> Yes. For anyone still confused, the sequence is something like L23, >> 81C3, > 81C2, >> 81C5. A sensible declarer should always choose this route over an > adjusted >> score, so the "short ruling" that Sven and others suggest leads to the > same >> outcome. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jan 18 17:17:06 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:17:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> On 2014-01-18 3:58 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > I am astonished over this reluctance to simply use Law 50 and rule that > "in this case the director designates otherwise" - no penalty card. > > Continue play. > > Nobody has so far come up with any good argument against such ruling. Perhaps the "good argument" is that the Laws give no authority for such a ruling. The route I've suggested gets to the same effect, though, and is entirely consistent with the Laws. I believe it's of wider application than this exact situation. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 18 18:57:15 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:57:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000b01cf1476$b9f34ca0$2dd9e5e0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:58:00 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > > > I am astonished over this reluctance to simply use Law 50 and rule > > that "in this case the director designates otherwise" - no penalty card. > > > > Continue play. > > > > Nobody has so far come up with any good argument against such ruling. > > Are you arguing that the director can, at any time, simply designate that an > exposed care is not a penalty card? [Sven Pran] Yes, if he judges that the circumstances justify a ruling that the exposed card should not be designated a penalty card then Law 50 gives him the power to do just that. He does not need any Law 81C5 request from a non-offending side for a waiver of rectification, but his designation can of course be appealed by the non-offending side. > Well, you are, but you also said that position is completely wrong. (You called > my example of that, "among the most serious director errors I have heard of".) > Basically, you said that the director does not have the power you wish to give > him. [Sven Pran] As far as I can remember you referred to an entirely different scenario. I have challenged folks to come up with examples where the clause "unless the Director designates otherwise" is relevant when they claim that it is not relevant in the situation we discuss. [Sven Pran] So far nobody has provided any such example. Instead there has been some ingenious artificial constructions involving for instance Law 23. I am still waiting. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 18 18:59:33 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:59:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> Steve Willner > Sendt: 18. januar 2014 17:17 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup > > On 2014-01-18 3:58 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > I am astonished over this reluctance to simply use Law 50 and rule > > that "in this case the director designates otherwise" - no penalty card. > > > > Continue play. > > > > Nobody has so far come up with any good argument against such ruling. > > Perhaps the "good argument" is that the Laws give no authority for such a > ruling. The route I've suggested gets to the same effect, though, and is entirely > consistent with the Laws. I believe it's of wider application than this exact > situation. [Sven Pran] Maybe you could provide a situation where the clause "unless the Director designates otherwise" in Law 50 is relevant? From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jan 19 23:01:56 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:01:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> Message-ID: <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> On 2014-01-18 12:59 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Maybe you could provide a situation where the clause "unless the Director > designates otherwise" in Law 50 is relevant? Cases where the Laws say the card is withdrawn without rectification. After a corrected revoke is the first example that comes to mind (L62C). I think someone gave a different example earlier in this thread; it certainly won't surprise me if there are others. I thought there was something about change of play after MI is corrected (like L21B), but now I can't find it. This would be another case where a wise declarer will ask to have the penalty waived, and a wise Director may shortcut the process by saying "not a penalty card." My view at the moment, having now been forced to think about this more carefully, is that "not a penalty card" is useful when an adjusted score may ensue, and declarer is therefore better off having the penalty card waived. Whether the Director should explain all this at the table or just rule "not a penalty card" is not clear to me. As I wrote earlier, it probably depends on knowing one's customers. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 19 23:40:23 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:40:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001401cf1567$71ff1130$55fd3390$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2014-01-18 12:59 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Maybe you could provide a situation where the clause "unless the > > Director designates otherwise" in Law 50 is relevant? > > Cases where the Laws say the card is withdrawn without rectification. [Sven Pran] In such cases the clause in Law 50 is superfluous > After a corrected revoke is the first example that comes to mind (L62C). > I think someone gave a different example earlier in this thread; it certainly > won't surprise me if there are others. > > I thought there was something about change of play after MI is corrected (like > L21B), but now I can't find it. This would be another case where a wise declarer > will ask to have the penalty waived, and a wise Director may shortcut the > process by saying "not a penalty card." > > My view at the moment, having now been forced to think about this more > carefully, is that "not a penalty card" is useful when an adjusted score may > ensue, and declarer is therefore better off having the penalty card waived. > Whether the Director should explain all this at the table or just rule "not a > penalty card" is not clear to me. As I wrote earlier, it probably depends on > knowing one's customers. [Sven Pran] Do you really mean what you are trying to express here? From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 20 08:35:36 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:35:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> Steve is missing the point that Sven is trying to make, and Sven is completely correct in this matter. Both examples that Steve gives are dealt with in specific laws, telling us the shown card is NOT a penalty card. L50 then does not enter into application, and there is no need for the TD to "designate otherwise". Sven was asking for cases in which the TD would do so. Considering that the Lawmakers have put the phrase in, they must have imagined that such cases are possible. We have mentioned a few, some involving a handicapped defender. Sven and I believe the blind declarer coup is another such example. Whenever a TD feels that the shown card was somehow caused by an extraneous fact, he is entitled by the laws to designate the shown card "not a penalty card". Herman. Steve Willner schreef: > On 2014-01-18 12:59 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Maybe you could provide a situation where the clause "unless the Director >> designates otherwise" in Law 50 is relevant? > > Cases where the Laws say the card is withdrawn without rectification. > After a corrected revoke is the first example that comes to mind (L62C). > I think someone gave a different example earlier in this thread; it > certainly won't surprise me if there are others. > > I thought there was something about change of play after MI is corrected > (like L21B), but now I can't find it. This would be another case where > a wise declarer will ask to have the penalty waived, and a wise Director > may shortcut the process by saying "not a penalty card." > > My view at the moment, having now been forced to think about this more > carefully, is that "not a penalty card" is useful when an adjusted score > may ensue, and declarer is therefore better off having the penalty card > waived. Whether the Director should explain all this at the table or > just rule "not a penalty card" is not clear to me. As I wrote earlier, > it probably depends on knowing one's customers. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jan 20 16:05:22 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:05:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> On 2014-01-20 2:35 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Both examples that Steve gives are dealt with in specific laws, telling > us the shown card is NOT a penalty card. L50 then does not enter into > application, and there is no need for the TD to "designate otherwise". Except for the phrase in question, the preamble of L50 is unconditional. If the phrase were removed, there would be a conflict with other specific Laws. That is sufficient reason to have the phrase present. > Sven was asking for cases in which the TD would do so. Considering that > the Lawmakers have put the phrase in, they must have imagined that such > cases are possible. Yes, at least one such case is explicit. > We have mentioned a few, some involving a handicapped defender. Sven and > I believe the blind declarer coup is another such example. > > Whenever a TD feels that the shown card was somehow caused by an > extraneous fact, he is entitled by the laws to designate the shown card > "not a penalty card". I am not sure "caused by an extraneous fact" is enough, though I'm not sure it isn't. The exact language is "exposed by a defender," which implies some agency on the defender's part but isn't as explicit as one might wish. Handicapped defender is a difficult question, and I expect there will be a range of opinions on that. What I am sure of is the route I suggested when declarer's action creating the exposed card might lead to an adjusted score. Either the "long verson" or the "short version" of the ruling seems OK to me, but some players may react better to one or the other. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 20 16:24:48 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:24:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2014-01-20 2:35 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Both examples that Steve gives are dealt with in specific laws, > > telling us the shown card is NOT a penalty card. L50 then does not > > enter into application, and there is no need for the TD to "designate > otherwise". > > Except for the phrase in question, the preamble of L50 is unconditional. > If the phrase were removed, there would be a conflict with other specific > Laws. That is sufficient reason to have the phrase present. [Sven Pran] It is not the director who "designates otherwisse" in such cases, it is the other specific laws that prevents any application of Law 50 at all. > > Sven was asking for cases in which the TD would do so. Considering > > that the Lawmakers have put the phrase in, they must have imagined > > that such cases are possible. > > Yes, at least one such case is explicit. [Sven Pran] And that is? > > > We have mentioned a few, some involving a handicapped defender. Sven > > and I believe the blind declarer coup is another such example. > > > > Whenever a TD feels that the shown card was somehow caused by an > > extraneous fact, he is entitled by the laws to designate the shown > > card "not a penalty card". > > I am not sure "caused by an extraneous fact" is enough, though I'm not sure it > isn't. The exact language is "exposed by a defender," which implies some > agency on the defender's part but isn't as explicit as one might wish. > Handicapped defender is a difficult question, and I expect there will be a range > of opinions on that. [Sven Pran] The important fact is that the director is entitled by Law 50 to designate otherwise, but he will need a relevant cause for such designation and his ruling in this respect can be subject to appeal. "Extraneous fact" itself is certainly not enough, there must be some circumstances that makes the defender in question not, or only marginally at fault in such a way that the director finds reason to excuse him from the rectification of having a penalty card imposed. This (at least most times) probably requires that the declaring side is found guilty of having somehow provoked the exposure of a defender's card. > What I am sure of is the route I suggested when declarer's action creating the > exposed card might lead to an adjusted score. Either the "long verson" or the > "short version" of the ruling seems OK to me, but some players may react > better to one or the other. [Sven Pran] The fact that a penalty card might lead to an adjusted score is itself never under any circumstance cause for not designating an exposed card a penalty card. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jan 20 16:52:59 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:52:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> Message-ID: <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> On 2014-01-20 10:24 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > And that is? Withdrawn card after unestablished revoke is corrected. Do we really need to repeat everything? > The important fact is that the director is entitled by Law 50 to designate > otherwise, It isn't clear what you mean by "entitled," but if you mean "for anything the Director regards as good cause," this is the subject under discussion, not a "fact." > but he will need a relevant cause for such designation and his > ruling in this respect can be subject to appeal. I'd say "consistent with the Laws." An appeal is always possible but will be futile in such cases. > This (at least most times) > probably requires that the declaring side is found guilty of having somehow > provoked the exposure of a defender's card. Ah, now here we can test whether there is really a difference or not. Suppose declarer does something that violates no Law, and no reasonable declarer could imagine it resulting in a defender's exposed card. Yet somehow it does. Are you going to "designate otherwise?" I don't think I am. > The fact that a penalty card might lead to an adjusted score is itself never > under any circumstance cause for not designating an exposed card a penalty > card. I don't understand this assertion. You have an irregularity by declarer, and you will consider an adjusted score at the end if declarer gained from a penalty card. You will explain all the ramifications to declarer, and any sensible declarer will ask to have the penalty card waived. If you want to do it that way, I have no objection, but can it really be wrong to "designate otherwise" and shorten the whole process? From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 20 17:16:52 2014 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:16:52 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be><52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be><52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Sven Pran" Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 09:24 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup > Steve Willner >> On 2014-01-20 2:35 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> > Both examples that Steve gives are dealt with in specific laws, >> > telling us the shown card is NOT a penalty card. L50 then does not >> > enter into application, and there is no need for the TD to "designate >> otherwise". >> >> Except for the phrase in question, the preamble of L50 is unconditional. >> If the phrase were removed, there would be a conflict with other > specific >> Laws. That is sufficient reason to have the phrase present. > > [Sven Pran] > It is not the director who "designates otherwisse" in such cases, it is > the > other specific laws that prevents any application of Law 50 at all. > >> > Sven was asking for cases in which the TD would do so. Considering >> > that the Lawmakers have put the phrase in, they must have imagined >> > that such cases are possible. >> >> Yes, at least one such case is explicit. > [Sven Pran] > And that is? > >> >> > We have mentioned a few, some involving a handicapped defender. Sven >> > and I believe the blind declarer coup is another such example. >> > >> > Whenever a TD feels that the shown card was somehow caused by an >> > extraneous fact, he is entitled by the laws to designate the shown >> > card "not a penalty card". >> >> I am not sure "caused by an extraneous fact" is enough, though I'm not > sure it >> isn't. The exact language is "exposed by a defender," which implies some >> agency on the defender's part but isn't as explicit as one might wish. >> Handicapped defender is a difficult question, and I expect there will be >> a > range >> of opinions on that. > > [Sven Pran] > The important fact is that the director is entitled by Law 50 to designate > otherwise, but he will need a relevant cause for such designation and his > ruling in this respect can be subject to appeal. Some issue has been made suggesting that L50 authorizes/ empowers the TD to declare a prematurely exposed card to not be a PC. I'll point out that L50 does not authorize the TD to do anything of the sort. It does say what the effect is when he does so. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 20 17:29:32 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:29:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2014-01-20 10:24 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > And that is? > > Withdrawn card after unestablished revoke is corrected. Do we really need to > repeat everything? [Sven Pran] What on earth is the relevance? Law 62 is quite clear. > > The important fact is that the director is entitled by Law 50 to > > designate otherwise, > > It isn't clear what you mean by "entitled," but if you mean "for anything the > Director regards as good cause," this is the subject under discussion, not a > "fact." [Sven Pran] The please clarify how you understand the clause "unless the Director designates otherwise" > > > but he will need a relevant cause for such designation and his ruling > > in this respect can be subject to appeal. > > I'd say "consistent with the Laws." An appeal is always possible but will be > futile in such cases. > > > This (at least most times) > > probably requires that the declaring side is found guilty of having > > somehow provoked the exposure of a defender's card. > > Ah, now here we can test whether there is really a difference or not. > Suppose declarer does something that violates no Law, and no reasonable > declarer could imagine it resulting in a defender's exposed card. Yet somehow > it does. Are you going to "designate otherwise?" I don't think I am. > > > The fact that a penalty card might lead to an adjusted score is itself > > never under any circumstance cause for not designating an exposed card > > a penalty card. > > I don't understand this assertion. You have an irregularity by declarer, and you > will consider an adjusted score at the end if declarer gained from a penalty > card. You will explain all the ramifications to declarer, and any sensible > declarer will ask to have the penalty card waived. If you want to do it that way, > I have no objection, but can it really be wrong to "designate otherwise" and > shorten the whole process? [Sven Pran] Waiving the penalty shall have no impact on the assessment of an adjusted score. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jan 20 17:53:36 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:53:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> Message-ID: <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> Everything here is repetitive. Those who have followed the earlier thread can ignore the rest of this message. On 2014-01-20 11:29 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Law 62 is quite clear. but would conflict with L50 if the "designates otherwise" phrase were removed. > The please clarify how you understand the clause "unless the Director > designates otherwise" It makes L50 conditional on other Laws but does not in itself give the Director discretionary powers. > Waiving the penalty shall have no impact on the assessment of an adjusted > score. Except that you won't need an adjusted score if the penalty card is waived (or not applied in the first place via "designates otherwise.") From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 20 23:29:23 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:29:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2014-01-20 11:29 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Law 62 is quite clear. > > but would conflict with L50 if the "designates otherwise" phrase were > removed. [Sven Pran] No, it would not. Law 62 is a more specific law than Law 50 and as such takes precedence. > > The please clarify how you understand the clause "unless the Director > > designates otherwise" > > It makes L50 conditional on other Laws but does not in itself give the Director > discretionary powers. [Sven Pran] No, it doesn't. Same comment as above. > > > Waiving the penalty shall have no impact on the assessment of an > > adjusted score. > > Except that you won't need an adjusted score if the penalty card is waived (or > not applied in the first place via "designates otherwise.") [Sven Pran] I don't believe what I see here. How can you be so sure that just waiving a penalty card rectification removes every possible reason for an adjusted score at the end of play? Maybe you should (re-)read, study and make sure you understand Law 12? From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jan 22 03:52:12 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 21:52:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> Message-ID: <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> On 2014-01-20 5:29 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Law 62 is a more specific law than Law 50 and as such > takes precedence. We agree on how a conflict would be resolved if there were one, but that's not the same as avoiding a conflict in the first place. > No, it doesn't. If you think "designates otherwise" gives the Director discretionary powers, are there guidelines for how those powers are to be exercised? (As noted in my earlier message, I don't see that the text gives discretionary powers at all.) > How can you be so sure that just waiving a penalty card rectification > removes every possible reason for an adjusted score at the end of play? Good grief! Nothing in bridge is "always" or "never." (That is the bridge version of "nothing," of course.) I'm sure you can find circumstances where an adjusted score will be needed even after the penalty card is waived. However, for cases such as we've been discussing, you will usually need an adjusted score if you keep the penalty card and almost never if you waive it. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 22 08:34:24 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:34:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <52DF7480.1060407@skynet.be> I'm afraid I don't understand this latest post by Steve. But allow me to try and clarify the discussion so far. Sven (and me) believe that the phrase "designates otherwise" means that the TD is free to so designate whenever he sees fit. Steve believes the phrase is merely there to escape from the inconsistency that exists when some law makes a shown card penalty free while L50 clearly indicates it is a penalty card. Sven's argument (or at least mine) is that the lawmakers must have meant soomething when they wrote L50, so there must be cases where the TD is allowed to "designate otherwise". Steve provides another reason why the phrase is in the lawbook, which would invalidate our argument. That's weher we are at present. Now I submit the Steve that if the WBF had indeed wished to add something to L50 to resolve an inconsistency, would they not have added something much more clearer like "unless some other law tells us the shown card can be retaken without penalty"? Therefore I resubmit that the phrase is there to allow a TD to waive penalty cards for some other reason. Which does not answer the important question as to when the TD ought to do so, but I don't really think this thread was about that particular subject. I feel that Sven and Steve (and many others) agree that in this case the shown card ought to be allowed retaken. And even those posters who disagree that it should do so because they think they might have a different "table feel" and don't want to allow the inattentive defender to go scot-free. I agree with that sentiment. Sometimes you may have the feeling that the defender knew quite well the S2 was not on the table, and he was trying something on. Herman. Steve Willner schreef: [snip] From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Jan 22 09:25:55 2014 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:25:55 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52DF7480.1060407@skynet.be> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> <52DF7480.1060407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <52DF8093.5080403@iinet.net.au> Philadelphia WBF LC Meeting 2010 12. 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. Best wishes Bill Kemp On 22/01/2014 3:34 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I'm afraid I don't understand this latest post by Steve. > > But allow me to try and clarify the discussion so far. > > Sven (and me) believe that the phrase "designates otherwise" means that > the TD is free to so designate whenever he sees fit. > Steve believes the phrase is merely there to escape from the > inconsistency that exists when some law makes a shown card penalty free > while L50 clearly indicates it is a penalty card. > > Sven's argument (or at least mine) is that the lawmakers must have meant > soomething when they wrote L50, so there must be cases where the TD is > allowed to "designate otherwise". > Steve provides another reason why the phrase is in the lawbook, which > would invalidate our argument. > > That's weher we are at present. > > Now I submit the Steve that if the WBF had indeed wished to add > something to L50 to resolve an inconsistency, would they not have added > something much more clearer like "unless some other law tells us the > shown card can be retaken without penalty"? > > Therefore I resubmit that the phrase is there to allow a TD to waive > penalty cards for some other reason. > > Which does not answer the important question as to when the TD ought to > do so, but I don't really think this thread was about that particular > subject. I feel that Sven and Steve (and many others) agree that in this > case the shown card ought to be allowed retaken. > And even those posters who disagree that it should do so because they > think they might have a different "table feel" and don't want to allow > the inattentive defender to go scot-free. I agree with that sentiment. > Sometimes you may have the feeling that the defender knew quite well the > S2 was not on the table, and he was trying something on. > > Herman. > > Steve Willner schreef: > [snip] > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140122/49b74599/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 22 10:19:36 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:19:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001801cf1753$12546940$36fd3bc0$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2014-01-20 5:29 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Law 62 is a more specific law than Law 50 and as such takes > > precedence. > > We agree on how a conflict would be resolved if there were one, but that's not > the same as avoiding a conflict in the first place. > > > No, it doesn't. > > If you think "designates otherwise" gives the Director discretionary powers, > are there guidelines for how those powers are to be exercised? > (As noted in my earlier message, I don't see that the text gives discretionary > powers at all.) > > > How can you be so sure that just waiving a penalty card rectification > > removes every possible reason for an adjusted score at the end of play? > > Good grief! > > Nothing in bridge is "always" or "never." (That is the bridge version of > "nothing," of course.) I'm sure you can find circumstances where an adjusted > score will be needed even after the penalty card is waived. > However, for cases such as we've been discussing, you will usually need an > adjusted score if you keep the penalty card and almost never if you waive it. [Sven Pran] I cannot remember a single case during my more than 30 years as active director where an adjusted score has been an issue in connection with a penalty card. The mere existence of a penalty card gives declarer rights which are up to him to use as best he can to his own advantage, and that has to my knowledge always been sufficient to compensate for whatever damage could have been caused. On the contrary only God knows how many cases not involving penalty cards I have had to award adjusted scores. And for the record: I cannot remember any but may have had one or two cases with waved penalty card(s). From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jan 22 11:40:52 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:40:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <001801cf1753$12546940$36fd3bc0$@online.no> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> <001801cf1753$12546940$36fd3bc0$@online.no> Message-ID: <52DFA034.80907@t-online.de> Am 22.01.2014 10:19, schrieb Sven Pran: > And for the record: I cannot remember any but may have had one or two > cases with waved penalty card(s). I can remember one: At a German championship a defender had played a card out of turn. I explained the laws and the consequences. Declarer did not accept the lead, but now asked me not to make the led card a penalty card, as he felt that he may have contributed to the LOOT by a remark he had made and which may have mislead defender. If I remember correctly I declared the card UI for both sides, as both were partly responsible. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jan 22 14:59:48 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:59:48 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <52DFCED4.8050701@btinternet.com> On 22/01/2014 02:52, Steve Willner wrote: > If you think "designates otherwise" gives the Director discretionary > powers, are there guidelines for how those powers are to be exercised? > (As noted in my earlier message, I don't see that the text gives > discretionary powers at all.) I remember Max Bavin 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 From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jan 22 16:39:18 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:39:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52DFCED4.8050701@btinternet.com> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> <52DFCED4.8050701@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <52DFE626.5080400@nhcc.net> Herman accurately summarized the argument. On 2014-01-22 8:59 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > I remember Max Bavin 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. This plus the WBFLC minute cited by Bill Kemp convince me that this is the accepted interpretation. (Despite Herman's argument, I still don't think it is obvious from the Laws text.) > Commonly it's use whenever the other side has done something to > contribute to the card being exposed. This is essentially the condition I was proposing, and the outcome will be exactly the same in such cases. One situation where there could be a difference is a handicapped defender exposing a card because of the handicap. Many declarers will ask that the penalty card be waived, but some may not. I would have argued that the TD has no authority to waive the penalty card in such a case, but apparently he does. Whether the TD should exercise that authority is a good question and probably depends on the level of competition and perhaps on whether the RA has given guidance. From g3 at nige1.com Wed Jan 22 17:48:40 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:48:40 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52DFCED4.8050701@btinternet.com> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no><52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> <52DFCED4.8050701@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <1DBB829F22F247CCBEB6B8275B789B6E@G3> [Gordon Rainsford] I remember Max Bavin 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. [Nige1] It seems reasonable that the director should have the legal power to waive the penalty-card designation when he deems that its cause included a significant contribution from factors outwith the control of the "offending" player or his partner. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jan 23 05:36:29 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 23:36:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52DFE626.5080400@nhcc.net> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> <52DFCED4.8050701@btinternet.com> <52DFE626.5080400@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:39:18 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > Herman accurately summarized the argument. > > On 2014-01-22 8:59 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> I remember Max Bavin 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. > > This plus the WBFLC minute cited by Bill Kemp convince me that this is > the accepted interpretation. (Despite Herman's argument, I still don't > think it is obvious from the Laws text.) > >> Commonly it's use whenever the other side has done something to >> contribute to the card being exposed. > > This is essentially the condition I was proposing, and the outcome will > be exactly the same in such cases. We can think of other cases where a director might want to waive a penalty card. For example, a defender is cashing tricks in diamonds against no trump and his partner drops the 10 of spades. The direc tor determines that this has no effect on play, and it is obviously silly to allow declarer to insist on a spade lead. Obviously, this is a matter for judgment. The point is, by the WBFLC minute, the law seems to be as Sven and Herman and Max Bavin say -- "there are no limits in law on the TD's ability to deem a card not to be a penalty card". I'm with Steve, I would not have read the law that way. But it does make for more equitable rulings. That's good. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 23 09:54:43 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:54:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> <52DFCED4.8050701@btinternet.com> <52DFE626.5080400@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000601cf1818$c37ee9f0$4a7cbdd0$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > We can think of other cases where a director might want to waive a penalty > card. For example, a defender is cashing tricks in diamonds against no trump > and his partner drops the 10 of spades. The director determines that this has > no effect on play, and it is obviously silly to allow declarer to insist on a spade > lead. [Sven Pran] This is no cause for "designating otherwise". As described this irregularity is entirely the fault of the defender. > Obviously, this is a matter for judgment. The point is, by the WBFLC minute, the > law seems to be as Sven and Herman and Max Bavin say -- "there are no limits > in law on the TD's ability to deem a card not to be a penalty card". I'm with > Steve, I would not have read the law that way.[Sven Pran] [Sven Pran] Nor should you. But it does make for more > equitable rulings. That's good. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 23 10:14:22 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:14:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <000601cf1818$c37ee9f0$4a7cbdd0$@online.no> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> <52DFCED4.8050701@btinternet.com> <52DFE626.5080400@nhcc.net> <000601cf1818$c37ee9f0$4a7cbdd0$@online.no> Message-ID: <52E0DD6E.2040101@skynet.be> I agree with Sven that this goes slightly over the line where it would be ok to waive the penalty. The laws clearly state that a dropped card, if it is an honour, should be punished. IMO Some outside influence is needed in order for the TD to correctly "designate otherwise" Herman. Sven Pran schreef: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> We can think of other cases where a director might want to waive a penalty >> card. For example, a defender is cashing tricks in diamonds against no > trump >> and his partner drops the 10 of spades. The director determines that this > has >> no effect on play, and it is obviously silly to allow declarer to insist > on a spade >> lead. > > [Sven Pran] > This is no cause for "designating otherwise". As described this irregularity > is entirely the fault of the defender. > >> Obviously, this is a matter for judgment. The point is, by the WBFLC > minute, the >> law seems to be as Sven and Herman and Max Bavin say -- "there are no > limits >> in law on the TD's ability to deem a card not to be a penalty card". I'm > with >> Steve, I would not have read the law that way.[Sven Pran] > > [Sven Pran] > Nor should you. > > But it does make for more >> equitable rulings. That's good. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 23 10:29:00 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:29:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52E0DD6E.2040101@skynet.be> References: <52D88810.7040802@nhcc.net> <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> <52DFCED4.8050701@btinternet.com> <52DFE626.5080400@nhcc.net> <000601cf1818$c37ee9f0$4a7cbdd0$@online.no> <52E0DD6E.2040101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701cf181d$8d1c3cf0$a754b6d0$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > I agree with Sven that this goes slightly over the line where it would be ok to > waive the penalty. The laws clearly state that a dropped card, if it is an honour, > should be punished. [Sven Pran] And if it is a single card below the rank of honours it becomes a minor penalty card which is also "punished" although rather lenient. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jan 23 11:16:53 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:16:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <52E0DD6E.2040101@skynet.be> References: <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> <52DFCED4.8050701@btinternet.com> <52DFE626.5080400@nhcc.net> <000601cf1818$c37ee9f0$4a7cbdd0$@online.no> <52E0DD6E.2040101@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 04:14:22 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > I agree with Sven that this goes slightly over the line where it would > be ok to waive the penalty. The laws clearly state that a dropped card, > if it is an honour, should be punished. IMO Some outside influence is > needed in order for the TD to correctly "designate otherwise" > Herman. Except there is no line like that in the laws. Steve and I were arguing that: The laws list when the director can designate an exposed card not to be a penalty card, and L50 does not entitle director to go beyond that list; L50 then just says what happens when the director follows the list and designates that an exposed card is not a penalty card. You and Sven, and apparently Max and the WBFLC, interpreted L50 as saying director can designate an exposed card not to be a penalty card, even though the laws do not otherwise say so. Eat your medicine. L50 makes no mention of "just cause" or "influence of the opponents" or "handicapped". You are now taking the exact same position and Steve and I. A player drops the 10 of the spades during the auction. That player then bids spades, his partner supports, and it is obvious that they will lead spades against whatever eventual contract it is. But his partner is on lead. To achieve equity, the director designates that the card is not a penalty card. The opponents were not in any way damaged by this infraction -- everyone is in 4 Hearts making 4 on a spade lead. It does make 5 if spades is not the opening lead. There is no statement that the purpose of the laws is to punish the player for dropping a card, or to reward the opponents because a card was dropped. How do you want to interpret L50 for this case? > > Sven Pran schreef: >>> Robert Frick >> [...] >>> We can think of other cases where a director might want to waive a >>> penalty >>> card. For example, a defender is cashing tricks in diamonds against no >> trump >>> and his partner drops the 10 of spades. The director determines that >>> this >> has >>> no effect on play, and it is obviously silly to allow declarer to >>> insist >> on a spade >>> lead. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> This is no cause for "designating otherwise". As described this >> irregularity >> is entirely the fault of the defender. >> >>> Obviously, this is a matter for judgment. The point is, by the WBFLC >> minute, the >>> law seems to be as Sven and Herman and Max Bavin say -- "there are no >> limits >>> in law on the TD's ability to deem a card not to be a penalty card". >>> I'm >> with >>> Steve, I would not have read the law that way.[Sven Pran] >> >> [Sven Pran] >> Nor should you. >> >> But it does make for more >>> equitable rulings. That's good. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 23 11:32:59 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:32:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: References: <52D9EBF7.9010005@nhcc.net> <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> <52DFCED4.8050701@btinternet.com> <52DFE626.5080400@nhcc.net> <000601cf1818$c37ee9f0$4a7cbdd0$@online.no> <52E0DD6E.2040101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801cf1826$7dc12eb0$79438c10$@online.no> Robert appears to be one of those persons who is unable to understand the obvious. The director obviously must have some cause for Law 50 "designating otherwise". Such ruling is a matter of judgement by the director and his ruling is therefore subject to a possible appeal. What we have shown is that Law 50 opens the door for the director to apply his judgement and "designate otherwise", but obviously not at random. > Robert Frick > Sendt: 23. januar 2014 11:17 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 04:14:22 -0500, Herman De Wael > > wrote: > > > I agree with Sven that this goes slightly over the line where it would > > be ok to waive the penalty. The laws clearly state that a dropped > > card, if it is an honour, should be punished. IMO Some outside > > influence is needed in order for the TD to correctly "designate otherwise" > > Herman. > > Except there is no line like that in the laws. > > Steve and I were arguing that: The laws list when the director can designate an > exposed card not to be a penalty card, and L50 does not entitle director to go > beyond that list; L50 then just says what happens when the director follows the > list and designates that an exposed card is not a penalty card. > > You and Sven, and apparently Max and the WBFLC, interpreted L50 as saying > director can designate an exposed card not to be a penalty card, even though > the laws do not otherwise say so. > > Eat your medicine. L50 makes no mention of "just cause" or "influence of the > opponents" or "handicapped". You are now taking the exact same position and > Steve and I. > > A player drops the 10 of the spades during the auction. That player then bids > spades, his partner supports, and it is obvious that they will lead spades > against whatever eventual contract it is. But his partner is on lead. To achieve > equity, the director designates that the card is not a penalty card. > > The opponents were not in any way damaged by this infraction -- everyone is in > 4 Hearts making 4 on a spade lead. It does make 5 if spades is not the opening > lead. There is no statement that the purpose of the laws is to punish the player > for dropping a card, or to reward the opponents because a card was dropped. > > How do you want to interpret L50 for this case? > > > > > > > > Sven Pran schreef: > >>> Robert Frick > >> [...] > >>> We can think of other cases where a director might want to waive a > >>> penalty card. For example, a defender is cashing tricks in diamonds > >>> against no > >> trump > >>> and his partner drops the 10 of spades. The director determines that > >>> this > >> has > >>> no effect on play, and it is obviously silly to allow declarer to > >>> insist > >> on a spade > >>> lead. > >> > >> [Sven Pran] > >> This is no cause for "designating otherwise". As described this > >> irregularity is entirely the fault of the defender. > >> > >>> Obviously, this is a matter for judgment. The point is, by the WBFLC > >> minute, the > >>> law seems to be as Sven and Herman and Max Bavin say -- "there are > >>> no > >> limits > >>> in law on the TD's ability to deem a card not to be a penalty card". > >>> I'm > >> with > >>> Steve, I would not have read the law that way.[Sven Pran] > >> > >> [Sven Pran] > >> Nor should you. > >> > >> But it does make for more > >>> equitable rulings. That's good. > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jan 23 15:52:09 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:52:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: <000801cf1826$7dc12eb0$79438c10$@online.no> References: <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> <52DFCED4.8050701@btinternet.com> <52DFE626.5080400@nhcc.net> <000601cf1818$c37ee9f0$4a7cbdd0$@online.no> <52E0DD6E.2040101@skynet.be> <000801cf1826$7dc12eb0$79438c10$@online.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:32:59 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > Robert appears to be one of those persons who is unable to understand the > obvious. > > The director obviously must have some cause for Law 50 "designating > otherwise". > Such ruling is a matter of judgement by the director and his ruling is > therefore subject to a possible appeal. > > What we have shown is that Law 50 opens the door for the director to > apply > his judgement and "designate otherwise", but obviously not at random. Not random at all. Both achieved equity while protecting the nonoffending side. Who could ask for anything more. L50 places no restrictions on director. I mean, I don't see how anyone can read it and think it entitles director t anything. But if you do, there are no restricitons. Appeals? If you rule a penalty card in the situations I describe, do you advise them they can appeal? > >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 23. januar 2014 11:17 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup >> >> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 04:14:22 -0500, Herman De Wael >> >> wrote: >> >> > I agree with Sven that this goes slightly over the line where it would >> > be ok to waive the penalty. The laws clearly state that a dropped >> > card, if it is an honour, should be punished. IMO Some outside >> > influence is needed in order for the TD to correctly "designate > otherwise" >> > Herman. >> >> Except there is no line like that in the laws. >> >> Steve and I were arguing that: The laws list when the director can > designate an >> exposed card not to be a penalty card, and L50 does not entitle director > to go >> beyond that list; L50 then just says what happens when the director > follows the >> list and designates that an exposed card is not a penalty card. >> >> You and Sven, and apparently Max and the WBFLC, interpreted L50 as >> saying >> director can designate an exposed card not to be a penalty card, even > though >> the laws do not otherwise say so. >> >> Eat your medicine. L50 makes no mention of "just cause" or "influence of > the >> opponents" or "handicapped". You are now taking the exact same position > and >> Steve and I. >> >> A player drops the 10 of the spades during the auction. That player then > bids >> spades, his partner supports, and it is obvious that they will lead >> spades >> against whatever eventual contract it is. But his partner is on lead. To > achieve >> equity, the director designates that the card is not a penalty card. >> >> The opponents were not in any way damaged by this infraction -- everyone > is in >> 4 Hearts making 4 on a spade lead. It does make 5 if spades is not the > opening >> lead. There is no statement that the purpose of the laws is to punish >> the > player >> for dropping a card, or to reward the opponents because a card was > dropped. >> >> How do you want to interpret L50 for this case? >> >> >> >> >> > >> > Sven Pran schreef: >> >>> Robert Frick >> >> [...] >> >>> We can think of other cases where a director might want to waive a >> >>> penalty card. For example, a defender is cashing tricks in diamonds >> >>> against no >> >> trump >> >>> and his partner drops the 10 of spades. The director determines that >> >>> this >> >> has >> >>> no effect on play, and it is obviously silly to allow declarer to >> >>> insist >> >> on a spade >> >>> lead. >> >> >> >> [Sven Pran] >> >> This is no cause for "designating otherwise". As described this >> >> irregularity is entirely the fault of the defender. >> >> >> >>> Obviously, this is a matter for judgment. The point is, by the WBFLC >> >> minute, the >> >>> law seems to be as Sven and Herman and Max Bavin say -- "there are >> >>> no >> >> limits >> >>> in law on the TD's ability to deem a card not to be a penalty card". >> >>> I'm >> >> with >> >>> Steve, I would not have read the law that way.[Sven Pran] >> >> >> >> [Sven Pran] >> >> Nor should you. >> >> >> >> But it does make for more >> >>> equitable rulings. That's good. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Blml mailing list >> >> Blml at rtflb.org >> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Blml mailing list >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> -- >> ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 23 18:14:31 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:14:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Blind Declarer Coup In-Reply-To: References: <000001cf142b$6432bdf0$2c9839d0$@online.no> <52DAA902.6080302@nhcc.net> <000c01cf1477$0ba39f50$22eaddf0$@online.no> <52DC4B54.8020900@nhcc.net> <52DCD1C8.5070900@skynet.be> <52DD3B32.2010701@nhcc.net> <000701cf15f3$c1f9bf00$45ed3d00$@online.no> <52DD465B.6000506@nhcc.net> <000e01cf15fc$cd42e950$67c8bbf0$@online.no> <52DD5490.5010906@nhcc.net> <001301cf162f$12410a00$36c31e00$@online.no> <52DF325C.1000001@nhcc.net> <52DFCED4.8050701@btinternet.com> <52DFE626.5080400@nhcc.net> <000601cf1818$c37ee9f0$4a7cbdd0$@online.no> <52E0DD6E.2040101@skynet.be> <000801cf1826$7dc12eb0$79438c10$@online.no> Message-ID: <001e01cf185e$958d6da0$c0a848e0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:32:59 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Robert appears to be one of those persons who is unable to understand > > the obvious. > > > > The director obviously must have some cause for Law 50 "designating > > otherwise". > > Such ruling is a matter of judgement by the director and his ruling is > > therefore subject to a possible appeal. > > > > What we have shown is that Law 50 opens the door for the director to > > apply his judgement and "designate otherwise", but obviously not at > > random. > > > Not random at all. Both achieved equity while protecting the nonoffending side. > Who could ask for anything more.[Sven Pran] [Sven Pran] I only wonder what is your definition of equity? (But I do definitely not care about your answer, so just please skip it.) > > L50 places no restrictions on director. I mean, I don't see how anyone can read > it and think it entitles director t anything. But if you do, there are no > restricitons. > > Appeals? If you rule a penalty card in the situations I describe, do you advise > them they can appeal? [Sven Pran] Certainly not, because that will be a standard rectification in a situation not subject to any judgement. But if I use my judgement and under my power to "designate otherwise" rule that the card in question is not a penalty card I should of course inform the players of their right to appeal my ruling. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jan 25 22:51:49 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 16:51:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] (2017) exposed card and who caused it Message-ID: When a player has an illegally exposed card: 1. If this is primarily the fault of the opponents, the card is returned to the player's hand without penalty. Information from the card is AI to partner and UI to the opponents. 2. When each side has contributed about equally to the card being exposed, or neither side is at fault, the card is withdrawn without penalty and information is UI to partner and opponents. Some notes. a. This is consistent with the current policy concerning withdrawn cards. b. The underlying structure of the laws concerning exposed cards should be this: All exposed cards become penalty cards, except [list]. To achieve to this structure, Law 50 must be interpreted as merely describing what happens to exposed cards that are designated as penalty cards, not as some sort of additional license for director to declare an exposed card not to be a penalty card. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jan 25 22:55:08 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 16:55:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas Message-ID: 1NT P 2C P 2H P 2NT(1) P 3NT 2NT is alerted and described as "may or may not have a 4-card major". This is an incorrect description of the partnership agreement, which in fact is that it denies a 4-card major. Suppose that this explanation is corrected before the opening lead. The defenders can still infer that declarer probably does not have a 4-card spade suit. Suppose this damages the defense. Put one way, the opponents are damaged by the wrong explanation. Is there any rectification? Note that the players have received the correct information. Does this correction cancel out the wrong information? From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 25 23:52:50 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:52:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001001cf1a20$2ce8e590$86bab0b0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > > 1NT P 2C P > 2H P 2NT(1) P > 3NT > > 2NT is alerted and described as "may or may not have a 4-card major". This is > an incorrect description of the partnership agreement, which in fact is that it > denies a 4-card major. > > Suppose that this explanation is corrected before the opening lead. The > defenders can still infer that declarer probably does not have a 4-card spade > suit. Suppose this damages the defense. Put one way, the opponents are > damaged by the wrong explanation. > > Is there any rectification? Note that the players have received the correct > information. Does this correction cancel out the wrong information? [Sven Pran] (For simplicity I assume that South is declarer) East is the last defender to pass (not shown in the diagram above) and should be given the option to replace this pass with a different call as specified in Law 21B1{a}. Except for that no change of calls made by the defending side during the auction may be allowed. The defending side has received correct information before the opening lead. Consequently no rectification (in the form of adjusted score) can be given for actions (i.e. play) taken by either defender during the play period. However, the director can (and probably should) award an adjusted score if he judges that the defending side has been damaged by the incorrect information in that they might probably have selected different call or calls during the auction subsequent to the 2NT bid (other than the last pass by East allowed to be changed under Law 21B1{a} ) and consequently would have selected a different line of play. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 25 23:54:41 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:54:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) exposed card and who caused it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001101cf1a20$6f4d3440$4de79cc0$@online.no> HUH? What is this supposed to mean? > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 25. januar 2014 22:52 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] (2017) exposed card and who caused it > > When a player has an illegally exposed card: > > 1. If this is primarily the fault of the opponents, the card is returned to the > player's hand without penalty. Information from the card is AI to partner and UI > to the opponents. > > 2. When each side has contributed about equally to the card being exposed, or > neither side is at fault, the card is withdrawn without penalty and information is > UI to partner and opponents. > > Some notes. > > a. This is consistent with the current policy concerning withdrawn cards. > > b. The underlying structure of the laws concerning exposed cards should be > this: All exposed cards become penalty cards, except [list]. To achieve to this > structure, Law 50 must be interpreted as merely describing what happens to > exposed cards that are designated as penalty cards, not as some sort of > additional license for director to declare an exposed card not to be a penalty > card. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jan 25 23:59:01 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:59:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: <001001cf1a20$2ce8e590$86bab0b0$@online.no> References: <001001cf1a20$2ce8e590$86bab0b0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:52:50 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> >> 1NT P 2C P >> 2H P 2NT(1) P >> 3NT >> >> 2NT is alerted and described as "may or may not have a 4-card major". >> This > is >> an incorrect description of the partnership agreement, which in fact is > that it >> denies a 4-card major. >> >> Suppose that this explanation is corrected before the opening lead. The >> defenders can still infer that declarer probably does not have a 4-card > spade >> suit. Suppose this damages the defense. Put one way, the opponents are >> damaged by the wrong explanation. >> >> Is there any rectification? Note that the players have received the > correct >> information. Does this correction cancel out the wrong information? > > [Sven Pran] (For simplicity I assume that South is declarer) > > East is the last defender to pass (not shown in the diagram above) and > should be given the option to replace this pass with a different call as > specified in Law 21B1{a}. Except for that no change of calls made by the > defending side during the auction may be allowed. > > The defending side has received correct information before the opening > lead. > Consequently no rectification (in the form of adjusted score) can be > given > for actions (i.e. play) taken by either defender during the play period. > However, the director can (and probably should) award an adjusted score > if > he judges that the defending side has been damaged by the incorrect > information in that they might probably have selected different call or > calls during the auction subsequent to the 2NT bid (other than the last > pass > by East allowed to be changed under Law 21B1{a} ) and consequently would > have selected a different line of play. Does anyone else rule this way? (The opponents aren't changing their calls.) Can I summarize? You rectify for lack of correct information; once they opponents have the correct information, there is no rectification. There is no rectifiction for the opponents receiving information that they weren't entitled to (the declarer's wrong opinion of the bid), and they use that at their own risk. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 26 00:04:01 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:04:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] (2017) exposed card and who caused it In-Reply-To: <001101cf1a20$6f4d3440$4de79cc0$@online.no> References: <001101cf1a20$6f4d3440$4de79cc0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:54:41 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > HUH? > What is this supposed to mean? A suggested change to the laws for 2017. Everyone seems to agree on the first one. The problem is how to implement it. Invoking Law 50 is the poison pill. Matthias gave an example of the second one and it seems uncontroversial. When a player has an illegally exposed card: 1. If this is primarily the fault of the opponents, the card is returned to the player's hand without penalty. Information from the card is AI to partner and UI to the opponents. 2. When each side has contributed about equally to the card being exposed, or neither side is at fault, the card is withdrawn without penalty and information is UI to partner and opponents. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun Jan 26 04:18:25 2014 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:18:25 +0800 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: <001001cf1a20$2ce8e590$86bab0b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <52E47E81.80206@iinet.net.au> Every one I know rules that way Best wishes Bill Kemp On 26/01/2014 6:59 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:52:50 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Robert Frick >>> >>> 1NT P 2C P >>> 2H P 2NT(1) P >>> 3NT >>> >>> 2NT is alerted and described as "may or may not have a 4-card major". >>> This >> is >>> an incorrect description of the partnership agreement, which in fact is >> that it >>> denies a 4-card major. >>> >>> Suppose that this explanation is corrected before the opening lead. The >>> defenders can still infer that declarer probably does not have a 4-card >> spade >>> suit. Suppose this damages the defense. Put one way, the opponents are >>> damaged by the wrong explanation. >>> >>> Is there any rectification? Note that the players have received the >> correct >>> information. Does this correction cancel out the wrong information? >> [Sven Pran] (For simplicity I assume that South is declarer) >> >> East is the last defender to pass (not shown in the diagram above) and >> should be given the option to replace this pass with a different call as >> specified in Law 21B1{a}. Except for that no change of calls made by the >> defending side during the auction may be allowed. >> >> The defending side has received correct information before the opening >> lead. >> Consequently no rectification (in the form of adjusted score) can be >> given >> for actions (i.e. play) taken by either defender during the play period. >> However, the director can (and probably should) award an adjusted score >> if >> he judges that the defending side has been damaged by the incorrect >> information in that they might probably have selected different call or >> calls during the auction subsequent to the 2NT bid (other than the last >> pass >> by East allowed to be changed under Law 21B1{a} ) and consequently would >> have selected a different line of play. > Does anyone else rule this way? (The opponents aren't changing their > calls.) > > Can I summarize? You rectify for lack of correct information; once they > opponents have the correct information, there is no rectification. > > There is no rectifiction for the opponents receiving information that they > weren't entitled to (the declarer's wrong opinion of the bid), and they > use that at their own risk. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140126/1fed20b0/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun Jan 26 07:32:30 2014 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:32:30 +0800 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: <52E47E81.80206@iinet.net.au> References: <001001cf1a20$2ce8e590$86bab0b0$@online.no> <52E47E81.80206@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <52E4ABFE.2070001@iinet.net.au> Sorry, misreading, please ignore previous Best wishes Helen and Bill Kemp On 26/01/2014 11:18 AM, bill kemp wrote: > Every one I know rules that way > Best wishes > Bill Kemp > On 26/01/2014 6:59 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:52:50 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>>> Robert Frick >>>> >>>> 1NT P 2C P >>>> 2H P 2NT(1) P >>>> 3NT >>>> >>>> 2NT is alerted and described as "may or may not have a 4-card major". >>>> This >>> is >>>> an incorrect description of the partnership agreement, which in fact is >>> that it >>>> denies a 4-card major. >>>> >>>> Suppose that this explanation is corrected before the opening lead. The >>>> defenders can still infer that declarer probably does not have a 4-card >>> spade >>>> suit. Suppose this damages the defense. Put one way, the opponents are >>>> damaged by the wrong explanation. >>>> >>>> Is there any rectification? Note that the players have received the >>> correct >>>> information. Does this correction cancel out the wrong information? >>> [Sven Pran] (For simplicity I assume that South is declarer) >>> >>> East is the last defender to pass (not shown in the diagram above) and >>> should be given the option to replace this pass with a different call as >>> specified in Law 21B1{a}. Except for that no change of calls made by the >>> defending side during the auction may be allowed. >>> >>> The defending side has received correct information before the opening >>> lead. >>> Consequently no rectification (in the form of adjusted score) can be >>> given >>> for actions (i.e. play) taken by either defender during the play period. >>> However, the director can (and probably should) award an adjusted score >>> if >>> he judges that the defending side has been damaged by the incorrect >>> information in that they might probably have selected different call or >>> calls during the auction subsequent to the 2NT bid (other than the last >>> pass >>> by East allowed to be changed under Law 21B1{a} ) and consequently would >>> have selected a different line of play. >> Does anyone else rule this way? (The opponents aren't changing their >> calls.) >> >> Can I summarize? You rectify for lack of correct information; once they >> opponents have the correct information, there is no rectification. >> >> There is no rectifiction for the opponents receiving information that they >> weren't entitled to (the declarer's wrong opinion of the bid), and they >> use that at their own risk. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20140126/41bbbe67/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jan 26 17:38:40 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:38:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: References: <001001cf1a20$2ce8e590$86bab0b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <52E53A10.9080106@nhcc.net> On 2014-01-25 5:59 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > There is no rectifiction for the opponents receiving information that they > weren't entitled to (the declarer's wrong opinion of the bid), and they > use that at their own risk. Except in the very unlikely event L23 applies. Or something even more obscure than that. Another case is declarer accidentally dropping a card face up. Usually it will make no difference. Occasionally it will help the defense. In some rare cases it might divert the defense from the winning line. No rectification, just bad luck (unless L23 applies). From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 26 21:59:09 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:59:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: <52E4ABFE.2070001@iinet.net.au> References: <001001cf1a20$2ce8e590$86bab0b0$@online.no> <52E47E81.80206@iinet.net.au> <52E4ABFE.2070001@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: At the table, South did not correct North's mistaken explanation. This had no effect on play. Which is to say, the defense is exactly the same whether or not South provides the correct explanation. So there was no damage from not hearing the correct explanation and hence no rectification. So the question remains: Do you rectify for misleading information that the players are not entitled to and which they presumably used at their own risk? It seems to me that the rulings have to be the same, whether or not South corrects. On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 01:32:30 -0500, bill kemp wrote: > Sorry, > misreading, > please ignore previous > > Best wishes > Helen and Bill Kemp > On 26/01/2014 11:18 AM, bill kemp wrote: >> Every one I know rules that way >> Best wishes >> Bill Kemp >> On 26/01/2014 6:59 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:52:50 -0500, Sven Pran >>> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>> Robert Frick >>>>> >>>>> 1NT P 2C P >>>>> 2H P 2NT(1) P >>>>> 3NT >>>>> >>>>> 2NT is alerted and described as "may or may not >>>>>have a 4-card >>>>> major". This >>>> is >>>>> an incorrect description of the partnership >>>>>agreement, which in >>>>> fact is >>>> that it >>>>> denies a 4-card major. >>>>> >>>>> Suppose that this explanation is corrected before >>>>>the opening >>>>> lead. The >>>>> defenders can still infer that declarer probably >>>>>does not have >>>>> a 4-card >>>> spade >>>>> suit. Suppose this damages the defense. Put one >>>>>way, the >>>>> opponents are >>>>> damaged by the wrong explanation. >>>>> >>>>> Is there any rectification? Note that the players >>>>>have received >>>>> the >>>> correct >>>>> information. Does this correction cancel out the >>>>>wrong >>>>> information? >>>> [Sven Pran] (For simplicity I assume that South is >>>>declarer) >>>> >>>> East is the last defender to pass (not shown in the diagram >>>> >>>>above) and >>>> should be given the option to replace this pass with a >>>>different >>>> call as >>>> specified in Law 21B1{a}. Except for that no change of >>>>calls made >>>> by the >>>> defending side during the auction may be allowed. >>>> >>>> The defending side has received correct information before >>>>the >>>> opening lead. >>>> Consequently no rectification (in the form of adjusted >>>>score) can >>>> be given >>>> for actions (i.e. play) taken by either defender during the >>>>play >>>> period. >>>> However, the director can (and probably should) award an >>>>adjusted >>>> score if >>>> he judges that the defending side has been damaged by the >>>> >>>>incorrect >>>> information in that they might probably have selected >>>>different >>>> call or >>>> calls during the auction subsequent to the 2NT bid (other >>>>than >>>> the last pass >>>> by East allowed to be changed under Law 21B1{a} ) and >>>> >>>>consequently would >>>> have selected a different line of play. >>> Does anyone else rule this way? (The opponents aren't changing their >>> calls.) >>> >>> Can I summarize? You rectify for lack of correct information; once >>> >>>they opponents have the correct information, there is no >>> rectification. >>> >>> There is no rectifiction for the opponents receiving information that >>> >>>they weren't entitled to (the declarer's wrong opinion of the bid), >>> and >>>they use that at their own risk. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> > -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140126/c1a5a891/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 27 00:29:19 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:29:19 +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> Message-ID: <000c01cf1aee$70e52dc0$52af8940$@online.no> Score can be adjusted after an irregularity if the irregularity has damaged the non-offending side. This is fundamental knowledge for any (qualified) director. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 26. januar 2014 21:59 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] not in Kansas At the table, South did not correct North's mistaken explanation. This had no effect on play. Which is to say, the defense is exactly the same whether or not South provides the correct explanation. So there was no damage from not hearing the correct explanation and hence no rectification. So the question remains: Do you rectify for misleading information that the players are not entitled to and which they presumably used at their own risk? It seems to me that the rulings have to be the same, whether or not South corrects. On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 01:32:30 -0500, bill kemp wrote: Sorry, misreading, please ignore previous Best wishes Helen and Bill Kemp On 26/01/2014 11:18 AM, bill kemp wrote: Every one I know rules that way Best wishes Bill Kemp On 26/01/2014 6:59 AM, Robert Frick wrote: On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:52:50 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: Robert Frick 1NT P 2C P 2H P 2NT(1) P 3NT 2NT is alerted and described as "may or may not have a 4-card major". This is an incorrect description of the partnership agreement, which in fact is that it denies a 4-card major. Suppose that this explanation is corrected before the opening lead. The defenders can still infer that declarer probably does not have a 4-card spade suit. Suppose this damages the defense. Put one way, the opponents are damaged by the wrong explanation. Is there any rectification? Note that the players have received the correct information. Does this correction cancel out the wrong information? [Sven Pran] (For simplicity I assume that South is declarer) East is the last defender to pass (not shown in the diagram above) and should be given the option to replace this pass with a different call as specified in Law 21B1{a}. Except for that no change of calls made by the defending side during the auction may be allowed. The defending side has received correct information before the opening lead. Consequently no rectification (in the form of adjusted score) can be given for actions (i.e. play) taken by either defender during the play period. However, the director can (and probably should) award an adjusted score if he judges that the defending side has been damaged by the incorrect information in that they might probably have selected different call or calls during the auction subsequent to the 2NT bid (other than the last pass by East allowed to be changed under Law 21B1{a} ) and consequently would have selected a different line of play. Does anyone else rule this way? (The opponents aren't changing their calls.) Can I summarize? You rectify for lack of correct information; once they opponents have the correct information, there is no rectification. There is no rectifiction for the opponents receiving information that they weren't entitled to (the declarer's wrong opinion of the bid), and they use that at their own risk. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140126/313c3309/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 27 00:43:01 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:43:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: <000c01cf1aee$70e52dc0$52af8940$@online.no> References: <001001cf1a20$2ce8e590$86bab0b0$@online.no> <52E47E81.80206@iinet.net.au> <52E4ABFE.2070001@iinet.net.au> <000c01cf1aee$70e52dc0$52af8940$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:29:19 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > > Score can be adjusted after an irregularity if the irregularity has > damaged the non-offending side. This is fundamental >knowledge for any > (qualified) director. We're not in Kansas. In your previous answer, you gave no adjustment for damage during the play caused during by the wrong explanation. How do you reconcile? Sven: "The defending side has received correct information before the opening lead. Consequently no rectification (in the form of adjusted score) can be given for actions (i.e. play) taken by either defender during the play period." > > >> > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 26. januar 2014 21:59 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] not in Kansas > > > At the table, South did not correct North's mistaken explanation. This > had no effect on play. Which is to say, the >defense is exactly the same > whether or not South provides the correct explanation. So there was no > damage from >not hearing the correct explanation and hence no > rectification. > > > So the question remains: Do you rectify for misleading information that > the players are not entitled to and which >they presumably used at their > own risk? > > > It seems to me that the rulings have to be the same, whether or not > South corrects. > > > > > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 01:32:30 -0500, bill kemp > wrote: >> >> >> Sorry, >> misreading, >> please ignore previous >> >> >> Best wishes >> Helen and Bill Kemp >> >> On 26/01/2014 11:18 AM, bill kemp wrote: >>> >>> Every one I know rules that way >>> >>> Best wishes >>> Bill Kemp >>> >>> On 26/01/2014 6:59 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:52:50 -0500, Sven Pran >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Robert Frick >>>>>>1NT P 2C P >>>>>> 2H P 2NT(1) P >>>>>> 3NT >>>>>>2NT is alerted and described as "may or may not have a 4-card >>>>>> major". This >>>>> is >>>>>> an incorrect description of the partnership agreement, which in >>>>>> fact is >>>>> that it >>>>>> denies a 4-card major. >>>>>>Suppose that this explanation is corrected before the opening lead. >>>>>> The >>>>>> defenders can still infer that declarer probably does not have a >>>>>> 4-card >>>>> spade >>>>>> suit. Suppose this damages the defense. Put one way, the opponents >>>>>> are >>>>>> damaged by the wrong explanation. >>>>>>Is there any rectification? Note that the players have received the >>>>> correct >>>>>> information. Does this correction cancel out the wrong information? >>>>> [Sven Pran] (For simplicity I assume that South is declarer) >>>>>East is the last defender to pass (not shown in the diagram above) >>>>> and >>>>> should be given the option to replace this pass with a different >>>>> call as >>>>> specified in Law 21B1{a}. Except for that no change of calls made by >>>>> the >>>>> defending side during the auction may be allowed. >>>>>The defending side has received correct information before the >>>>> opening lead. >>>>> Consequently no rectification (in the form of adjusted score) can be >>>>> given >>>>> for actions (i.e. play) taken by either defender during the play >>>>> period. >>>>> However, the director can (and probably should) award an adjusted >>>>> score if >>>>> he judges that the defending side has been damaged by the incorrect >>>>> information in that they might probably have selected different call >>>>> or >>>>> calls during the auction subsequent to the 2NT bid (other than the >>>>> last pass >>>>> by East allowed to be changed under Law 21B1{a} ) and consequently >>>>> would >>>>> have selected a different line of play. >>>> Does anyone else rule this way? (The opponents aren't changing their >>>> calls.) >>>>Can I summarize? You rectify for lack of correct information; once >>>> they opponents have the correct information, there is no >>>> rectification. >>>>There is no rectifiction for the opponents receiving information that >>>> they weren't entitled to (the declarer's wrong opinion of the bid), >>>> and they use that at their own risk. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > >> -- > > ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140126/d43aae36/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 27 01:22:15 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 01:22:15 +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> Message-ID: <001d01cf1af5$d5707360$80515a20$@online.no> I have never indicated that an irregularity always or never results in adjusted score (rectification) and I don?t know what has given you that idea. Adjusted score is awarded after an irregularity in order to compensate for damage caused by that irregularity (and nothing more). For my last comment you explicitly stated that there was no damage, consequently no adjusted score. For the previous comment you had explicitly stated that misinformation had been corrected before play began, consequently no adjusted score for damage during the play period, only for damage caused by the (uncorrected) misinformation i.e. during the auction period. I am located in Norway, I have no idea why being or not being in Kansas is relevant in any way. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 27. januar 2014 00:43 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] not in Kansas On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:29:19 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: Score can be adjusted after an irregularity if the irregularity has damaged the non-offending side. This is fundamental knowledge for any (qualified) director. We're not in Kansas. In your previous answer, you gave no adjustment for damage during the play caused during by the wrong explanation. How do you reconcile? Sven: "The defending side has received correct information before the opening lead. Consequently no rectification (in the form of adjusted score) can be given for actions (i.e. play) taken by either defender during the play period." Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 26. januar 2014 21:59 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] not in Kansas At the table, South did not correct North's mistaken explanation. This had no effect on play. Which is to say, the defense is exactly the same whether or not South provides the correct explanation. So there was no damage from not hearing the correct explanation and hence no rectification. So the question remains: Do you rectify for misleading information that the players are not entitled to and which they presumably used at their own risk? It seems to me that the rulings have to be the same, whether or not South corrects. On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 01:32:30 -0500, bill kemp wrote: Sorry, misreading, please ignore previous Best wishes Helen and Bill Kemp On 26/01/2014 11:18 AM, bill kemp wrote: Every one I know rules that way Best wishes Bill Kemp On 26/01/2014 6:59 AM, Robert Frick wrote: On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:52:50 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: Robert Frick 1NT P 2C P 2H P 2NT(1) P 3NT 2NT is alerted and described as "may or may not have a 4-card major". This is an incorrect description of the partnership agreement, which in fact is that it denies a 4-card major. Suppose that this explanation is corrected before the opening lead. The defenders can still infer that declarer probably does not have a 4-card spade suit. Suppose this damages the defense. Put one way, the opponents are damaged by the wrong explanation. Is there any rectification? Note that the players have received the correct information. Does this correction cancel out the wrong information? [Sven Pran] (For simplicity I assume that South is declarer) East is the last defender to pass (not shown in the diagram above) and should be given the option to replace this pass with a different call as specified in Law 21B1{a}. Except for that no change of calls made by the defending side during the auction may be allowed. The defending side has received correct information before the opening lead. Consequently no rectification (in the form of adjusted score) can be given for actions (i.e. play) taken by either defender during the play period. However, the director can (and probably should) award an adjusted score if he judges that the defending side has been damaged by the incorrect information in that they might probably have selected different call or calls during the auction subsequent to the 2NT bid (other than the last pass by East allowed to be changed under Law 21B1{a} ) and consequently would have selected a different line of play. Does anyone else rule this way? (The opponents aren't changing their calls.) Can I summarize? You rectify for lack of correct information; once they opponents have the correct information, there is no rectification. There is no rectifiction for the opponents receiving information that they weren't entitled to (the declarer's wrong opinion of the bid), and they use that at their own risk. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140127/fb1b76f1/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 27 18:01:05 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:01:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas In-Reply-To: <001d01cf1af5$d5707360$80515a20$@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> Message-ID: 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140127/51421f19/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 27 22:52:09 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:52:09 +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> Message-ID: <001301cf1baa$0766c680$16345380$@online.no> 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. 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. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140127/f3d69697/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jan 28 04:19:56 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:19:56 -0500 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> Message-ID: <52E721DC.4070204@nhcc.net> On 2014-01-27 12:01 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 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? Yes, of course. L74B2 or 74C4. L74C2 is possible but perhaps a stretch. Anyway from any of those to 12A1, etc. I wouldn't expect the average ACBL Director to get this right. > 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 one is trickier. There's no adjustment for MI _per se_, but you still have to consider L23. Events are equivalent to declarer telling opponents "The legal auction indicates I have around 12 points, but I might have a much weaker hand," when in fact declarer has full strength. It looks to me as though declarer "could have been aware" that such misdirection "could well damage" the other side. In other words, a villain might adopt the strategy of announcing the wrong range for 1NT. It is likely opponents are passing throughout and won't be damaged by the MI (which will be corrected before the opening lead), but maybe they will be misled about the villain's own hand. If a villain could do it, even an innocent player is not allowed to benefit. Normal correction of MI is a wholly different matter. The key is "could have been aware." I think John Probst would have liked this. I sure do miss his input. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jan 28 15:57:53 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:57:53 +0100 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: <52E7C571.6000705@aol.com> Am 27.01.2014 22:52, schrieb Sven Pran: > > I am not going to waste much more time on this > You have my heartfelt sympathy. I am amazed by (and admire) your patience. I stopped seriously reading the postings from Frick on this point long ago. JE > > 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. 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. > > *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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 29 06:56:58 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 05:56:58 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The privilege of claiming [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0772C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 74B4: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the ++purpose of disconcerting++ an opponent." Sven Pran: >>[snip] >>The expert player will also be aware that claiming against an >>ordinary player will usually be a waste of time because of the extra >>explanations necessary. So even when the expert player knows that >>all remaining tricks are his he should refrain from claiming if he also >>suspects that the situation is not equally obvious to his opponents. >> >>I have met many players who request that each board is played out >>just for the reason that they cannot follow the reasoning behind a >>claim. In my opinion such requests shall take precedence over Law >>74B4, and if you insist upon a relevant law then look at Law 74A2: >> >>The "expert" should carefully avoid any remark or action that might >>cause annoyance or embarrassment to an opponent or might interfere >>with his enjoyment of the game. Richard Hills: I fully agree with Sven that Law 74A2 takes precedence, because of the key clause in Law 74B4:"for the purpose of disconcerting". Indeed, when I am playing against non-experts I never claim on a double squeeze; instead I carefully avoid "disconcerting" them by delaying my claims until after I have drawn trumps and hold nothing but very obvious winners. Law 74C5, bracketed phrase and footnote: "(but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by un- intentionally seeing an opponent's card*). * See Law 73D2 when a player may have shown his cards intentionally." Law 73D2: "A player may not ++attempt to mislead++ an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure." Eric Landau: >It is not uncommon among experts, although I suppose it's technically >illegal, to "pseudo-accidentally", without claiming or obviously facing >their cards, tilt their hand far enough forward for their opponents to >see it clearly, then continue to play on, leaving their opponents free >to either accept the implied claim by conceding or to let the play >continue. Richard Hills: In my opinion not even "technically" unLawful. In my opinion a declarer who accidentally-on-purpose reveals her cards for the benign purpose of speeding up play has not committed any illegality, since she is not making any "attempt to mislead". Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilisation (1960): "Then I'm happy to say that everything is in order. The Landing Day Hunt ends at sundown. You can leave here with knowledge that everything is correct and that your rights are in no way being violated." "Leave here? After sundown, you mean." Mr. Frendlyer shook his head and smiled sadly. "I'm afraid not. According to the law, you must leave here at once." "But they'll kill me!" "That's very true," Frendlyer said. "Unfortunately, it can't be helped. A victim, by definition, is one who is to be killed." "I thought this was a protective organization." "It is. But we protect rights, not victims. Your rights are not being violated. The Hadjis have the privilege of killing you on Landing Day, at any time before sundown, if you are not in your barracks area. 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/20140129/abef7709/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 30 06:15:15 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 05:15:15 +0000 Subject: [BLML] can't agree on contract [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A091BB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >This happened to me after my fifth board of my first tournament. Pard put >me in a lousy 3N contract and the opponents claimed it was 2N. We called >the TD and he made a ruling. The opponents appealed and the AC upheld the >table ruling. Not that it made much of a difference. Everyone was making >four except me- squeaking by with 9 tricks when the OL gave me a trick. > >The standard solution is to call the TD and tell what happened. > >regards >roger Pewick Edgar Kaplan's recommendation was that the Director should question all four players about what they were thinking about during each call made. Since the key issue was bound up in what were the total number of calls and/or the nature of calls occurring in the auction, Edgar's procedure would almost always uncover the truth (or, at the very least, permit the Director to rule under the Law 85A "balance of probabilities" criterion). regards richard Hills Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): On Omega, the law was kept secret. Older residents used their knowledge of the law to enforce their rule over the newcomers. This system was condoned and reinforced by the doctrine of the inequality of all men, which lay at the heart of the Omegan legal system. Through planned inequality and enforced ignorance, power and status remained in the hands of the older residents. 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/20140130/1bebd475/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 30 06:38:52 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 05:38:52 +0000 Subject: [BLML] not in Kansas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A091E0@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran: >>I am not going to waste much more time on this >>..... Jeff Easterson: >You have my heartfelt sympathy. I am amazed by (and admire) your >patience. I stopped seriously reading the postings from Frick on this >point long ago. JE Richard Hills: Yes and No. Sometimes it is useful for a novice Director to boldly go where no novice Director has gone before, willingly choosing to follow the clich? that, "There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers." For example, a prima facie "stupid" question starting the "can't agree on contract" thread elicited two very informative answers from Roger Pewick and Edgar Kaplan. Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): "I am a priest," the man said. "You are a newcomer to my district. I haven't noticed you at services." "I hadn't known anything about-" The priest held up his hand. "Under both the sacred and the profane law, ignorance is no excuse for non-performance of one's duties. Indeed, ignorance can be punished as an act of willful neglect, based upon the Total Personal Responsibility Act of '23, to say nothing of the Lesser Codicil." 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/20140130/65568f8b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 31 01:39:01 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:39:01 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Dorothy not in Kansas anymore [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A09B17@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL John (MadDog) Probst, December 2008: >I happily spent a couple of minutes describing a hand I didn't >hold last night. Bore no resemblance at all, in fact, but I'd >been conscious of that. After I faced my hand my opponent burst >out laughing and said "well done". > >Footnote: It's difficult to keep a straight face when you're >describing the hand you've bid rather than the one you hold, but >that's what we do. john Richard Hills, December 2008: It is even more difficult to keep a straight face when you're describing a card that partner holds which also appears in dummy. Against declarer's 1NT contract my expert partner (Dorothy Jesner) led the nine of spades to dummy's deuce, my five and declarer's ace. At that point declarer asked me about the systemic meaning of the nine of spades. I replied that Dorothy was promising the ten of spades but denying any higher honour. But dummy's spade holding was: KQT42, (opposite declarer's spade holding of A7 doubleton). So at this point all four players know that Dorothy's opening lead was a false card. At trick two declarer led the seven of spades, and the trey appeared from Dorothy. Declarer now had to decide whether Dorothy's opening lead was a false card from: (a) 9863 (systemic opening lead eight of spades), or (b) 973 (systemic opening lead seven of spades), or (c) J983 (systemic opening lead trey of spades). At the table declarer guessed wrong, one off. We narrowly won this Grand Final match, which was the Canberra Bridge Club's equivalent-to-Bermuda-Bowl Honour Board team championship. At the concluding scoring our octogenarian kibitzer (Dorothy's husband George) was wild with applause. :-) Richard Hills, November 2010 footnote: George Jesner passed away for the last time in October 2010. He will be much missed, not only for his bridge expertise, but also for his wicked sense of humour. It is a little known fact that the Stayman convention was actually invented by Sam Stayman's partner, George Rapee. Likewise the "Benji" Twos convention, locally popular in Britain and Australia, was actually invented by Albert Benjamin's partner, George Jesner. Best wishes Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 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/20140131/83563e06/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jan 31 02:17:37 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 20:17:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] can't agree on contract [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A091BB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A091BB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:15:15 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL > >> This happened to me after my fifth board of my first tournament. Pard >> put >> me in a lousy 3N contract and the opponents claimed it was 2N. We called >> the TD and he made a ruling. The opponents appealed and the AC upheld >> the >> table ruling. Not that it made much of a difference. Everyone was making >> four except me- squeaking by with 9 tricks when the OL gave me a trick. >> >> The standard solution is to call the TD and tell what happened. >> >> regards >> roger Pewick >Edgar Kaplan?s recommendation was that the Director should question all > four players about what they were thinking about during each call made. >Since the key issue was bound up in what were the total number of calls > and/or the nature of calls occurring in the auction, Edgar?s procedure > would > almost always uncover the truth (or, at the very least, permit the > Director to > rule under the Law 85A ?balance of probabilities? criterion). Seems like wishful thinking to me. What's Plan B? Does "balance of probabilities" include the directors opinion of the people involved? Really, it's a simple ruling if you want to do balance of probability -- rule in favor of the people with the better memory. Or I guess rule in favor of whoever seems more passionate. In case you are having trouble reading between the lines, of course you ask people what they thought was happening. I don't remember that ever helping. >> > regards > richard Hills >Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): >On Omega, the law was kept secret. Older residents used their knowledge > of the law to enforce their rule over the newcomers. This system was > condoned and reinforced by the doctrine of the inequality of all men, > which > lay at the heart of the Omegan legal system. Through planned inequality > and > enforced ignorance, power and status remained in the hands of the older > residents. > 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/20140131/f3bf7e46/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 31 03:18:59 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 02:18:59 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Edgar Kaplan (was "can't agree contract") [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A09BA9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>Edgar Kaplan's recommendation was that the Director should question all >>four players about what they were thinking about during each call made. >> >>Since the key issue was bound up in what were the total number of calls >>and/or the nature of calls occurring in the auction, Edgar's procedure would >>almost always uncover the truth (or, at the very least, permit the Director to >>rule under the Law 85A "balance of probabilities" criterion). >Seems like wishful thinking to me. What's Plan B? >..... Edgar Kaplan was a Renaissance genius with many talents, but "wishful thinker" was NOT one of them. http://www.blakjak.org/kaplan.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/20140131/f5efaab6/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 31 05:28:14 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:28:14 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Grattan's third ear (was Edgar Kaplan) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A0AD9C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL No, No, Nanette (1925 Broadway musical), "Tea for Two": "We won't have it known, dear, That we own a telephone, dear." >..... >Does "balance of probabilities" include the Director's >opinion of the people involved? Really, it's a simple ruling >if you want to do balance of probability -- rule in favour of >the people with the better memory. Or I guess rule in favour >of whoever seems more passionate. >..... Richard Hills: No, No, Nyet. Very rarely "better memory" equals "better liar". Not so rarely "more passionate" equals "self-deluded". "She won't have a look, dear, Inside her Lawbook, dear." Those diligent Directors who actually bother to read the words of Law 85A will observe that it defines "balance of probabilities" as "++in accordance with++ the weight of the evidence [the Director] is able to collect". Macquarie Dictionary: -phrase in accordance with, in line with: "in accordance with your wishes" Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World June 1984, Appeals Committee XVII, Issues of Fact: A Committee should consider the surrounding circumstances and the inherent probabilities. In the long run, though, it will have to trust to common sense and ordinary human intuition in deciding whom to believe. Thus, it is important to hear all four players, not just one from each side -- sometimes, questions will reveal that one player is not nearly so sure as his partner, that he is merely being loyal in backing up his partner's version (if one player fails to appear at the hearing, it is fair to conclude that this may be the case). Still, there is no arithmetical rule. Even if the witnesses appear to be two-to-one, or three-to-one, for a particular version, the committee members may find themselves more impressed by the one. Then they should rule that way, the way their instincts tell them the balance of probability lies. It is rare for there to be a dramatic conflict of testimony: "He huddled for a long time," versus, "I didn't hesitate one bit". Normally, the huddler can be coaxed into acknowledging a break in tempo. ("Surely you couldn't have been happy about doubling with your singleton deuce - didn't you think at all about passing around to partner?" "Oh, maybe I did think a little, but not for very long.") When a stubborn conflict does persist, a Committee can be influenced by the alleged huddler's hand - would he be likely to have a problem? However, what sways a Committee most is a fact of life: There are 100 players who deny indignantly that they huddled, when they did, for every one player who claims that an opponent huddled, when he didn't. There is that one player though. The chances are that committee members have seen him before, and they will surely see him again (whenever he gets a horrible score he conjures up some opponent's impropriety to blame it on). Still, even the chronic complainer may be justified on occasion - and he probably is if he has complained early, before he learned that he was headed for an infuriating zero. Grattan Endicott, 8th August 2008: +=+ What Edgar was describing was his own personal approach to situations in appeals committees. Other AC members have their several ways and there are as many as there are committeemen. The most useful asset for a committee member is a third ear, the one that listens to what lies behind the words spoken. ~ 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/20140131/ee8efb0f/attachment-0001.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Fri Jan 31 15:36:21 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 09:36:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] can't agree on contract In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A091BB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <4188D86F-00BE-4320-8EF3-D4F83375C00D@verizon.net> On Jan 30, 2014, at 8:17 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:15:15 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > > Edgar Kaplan?s recommendation was that the Director should question all > four players about what they were thinking about during each call made. > > Since the key issue was bound up in what were the total number of calls > and/or the nature of calls occurring in the auction, Edgar?s procedure would > almost always uncover the truth (or, at the very least, permit the Director to > rule under the Law 85A ?balance of probabilities? criterion). > > Seems like wishful thinking to me. What's Plan B? > > Does "balance of probabilities" include the directors opinion of the people involved? Really, it's a simple ruling if you want to do balance of probability -- rule in favor of the people with the better memory. Or I guess rule in favor of whoever seems more passionate. > > In case you are having trouble reading between the lines, of course you ask people what they thought was happening. I don't remember that ever helping. 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. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140131/1d7a873e/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jan 31 19:55:24 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:55:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] can't agree on contract In-Reply-To: <4188D86F-00BE-4320-8EF3-D4F83375C00D@verizon.net> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A091BB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <4188D86F-00BE-4320-8EF3-D4F83375C00D@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 09:36:21 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 30, 2014, at 8:17 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:15:15 -0500, Richard HILLS >> wrote: >>>>>> >>> Edgar Kaplan?s recommendation was that the Director should question all >>> four players about what they were thinking about during each call made. >>>Since the key issue was bound up in what were the total number of calls >>> and/or the nature of calls occurring in the auction, Edgar?s procedure >>> would >>> almost always uncover the truth (or, at the very least, permit the >>> Director to >>> rule under the Law 85A ?balance of probabilities? criterion). >> >> Seems like wishful thinking to me. What's Plan B? >> >> Does "balance of probabilities" include the directors opinion of the >> people involved? Really, it's a simple >>ruling if you want to do >> balance of probability -- rule in favor of the people with the better >> memory. Or I >>guess rule in favor of whoever seems more passionate. >> >> In case you are having trouble reading between the lines, of course you >> ask people what they thought >>was happening. I don't remember that >> ever helping. > > 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. > > > Eric Landau > Silver Spring MD > New York NY > -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140131/4ad22f9b/attachment.html