From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Oct 1 03:28:34 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 21:28:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation? In-Reply-To: References: <54256149.6070306@ulb.ac.be> <542A9287.9050105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <838D99F578214C98B2023BB2CC7A742A@erdos> The key question: does the hestation demonstrably suggest a call over a logical alternative? Here, it can't. The pass is forcing, so West's logical alternative to 5S is double. West has no idea whether East was considering doubling (suggesting double over 5S) or bidding something (suggesting 5S over double). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Johnston" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 1:31 PM Subject: [BLML] Hesitation? >N E S W > 1S > P 2NT P 4D > 5C P P 5S > > Result 5S +1 > > 2NT alerted as game raise in spades. Director called after play and told E > hesitated after 5C. NS adamant long hesitation, EW adamant that there wasn't. > > West > AKQ62 > 876 > A9 > Q52 > > East > JT43 > AKJ2 > J5432 > ------- > Ruling please. > > Many thanks > > Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 1 09:36:08 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:36:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation? In-Reply-To: <000201cfdcf0$06d6b5b0$14842110$@online.no> References: <54256149.6070306@ulb.ac.be> <542A9287.9050105@ulb.ac.be> <40462021-3212-42BD-B520-DB4A7D174D24@btinternet.com> <000201cfdcf0$06d6b5b0$14842110$@online.no> Message-ID: <542BAEE8.8000507@skynet.be> I'm amazed at the eas with which Sven (of whom I know no other affiliation than Norwegian) assumes that what Norway decides is what MOST jurisdictions decide). I myself know of the Belgian, French, Dutch, English and Croatian regulations, and the EBL/WBF ones, and never did I encounter a Stop regulations that requires a stop before 5C over 4S. All these regulations require stops before 2NT and 4S, but that does not seem to solve this problem. BTW, pass seems forcing, so no adjustment needed. Herman. Sven Pran schreef: > 1: The diagram shows South as declarer in 5S so there is obviouosly > something wrong. > 2: I believe most (if not all) jurisdictions now have the compulsory STOP in > competitive auctions. If so here then there is a compulsory 10 seconds pause > after the 5C bid. > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Petrus Schuster OSB >> Sendt: 30. september 2014 22:11 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Hesitation? >> >> Am 30.09.2014, 19:34 Uhr, schrieb Ken Johnston >> : >> >>> Sorry should add, 5C would go 2 off. EW vul, NS non-vul >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>>> On 30 Sep 2014, at 18:31, Ken Johnston >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> N E S W >>>> 1S >>>> P 2NT P 4D >>>> 5C P 5S All pass >>>> >>>> Result 5S +1 >>>> >>>> 2NT alerted as game raise in spades. Director called after play and >>>> told E hesitated after 5C. NS adamant long hesitation, EW adamant >>>> that there wasn't. >>>> >>>> West >>>> AKQ62 >>>> 876 >>>> A9 >>>> Q52 >>>> >>>> East >>>> JT43 >>>> AKJ2 >>>> J5432 >>>> ------- >>>> Ruling please. >>>> >>>> Many thanks >>>> >> >> IMO, East's pass is forcing, so PASS is not a LA for W. The hesitation - > if there >> was one - does not suggest DBL over 5S or vv, so the requirements of 16B1 > are >> not met: score stands (and no need to decide whether there was a > hesitation). >> >> Regards, >> Petrus >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 1 09:54:12 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:54:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation? In-Reply-To: <542BAEE8.8000507@skynet.be> References: <54256149.6070306@ulb.ac.be> <542A9287.9050105@ulb.ac.be> <40462021-3212-42BD-B520-DB4A7D174D24@btinternet.com> <000201cfdcf0$06d6b5b0$14842110$@online.no> <542BAEE8.8000507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001701cfdd4c$e3e1e900$aba5bb00$@online.no> Do they really not apply STOP in competitive auctions? > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 1. oktober 2014 09:36 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Hesitation? > > I'm amazed at the eas with which Sven (of whom I know no other affiliation > than Norwegian) assumes that what Norway decides is what MOST > jurisdictions decide). I myself know of the Belgian, French, Dutch, English and > Croatian regulations, and the EBL/WBF ones, and never did I encounter a Stop > regulations that requires a stop before 5C over 4S. > All these regulations require stops before 2NT and 4S, but that does not seem > to solve this problem. > > BTW, pass seems forcing, so no adjustment needed. > > Herman. > > Sven Pran schreef: > > 1: The diagram shows South as declarer in 5S so there is obviouosly > > something wrong. > > 2: I believe most (if not all) jurisdictions now have the compulsory > > STOP in competitive auctions. If so here then there is a compulsory 10 > > seconds pause after the 5C bid. > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > >> av Petrus Schuster OSB > >> Sendt: 30. september 2014 22:11 > >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Hesitation? > >> > >> Am 30.09.2014, 19:34 Uhr, schrieb Ken Johnston > >> : > >> > >>> Sorry should add, 5C would go 2 off. EW vul, NS non-vul > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPad > >>> > >>>> On 30 Sep 2014, at 18:31, Ken Johnston > >>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> N E S W > >>>> 1S > >>>> P 2NT P 4D > >>>> 5C P 5S All pass > >>>> > >>>> Result 5S +1 > >>>> > >>>> 2NT alerted as game raise in spades. Director called after play and > >>>> told E hesitated after 5C. NS adamant long hesitation, EW adamant > >>>> that there wasn't. > >>>> > >>>> West > >>>> AKQ62 > >>>> 876 > >>>> A9 > >>>> Q52 > >>>> > >>>> East > >>>> JT43 > >>>> AKJ2 > >>>> J5432 > >>>> ------- > >>>> Ruling please. > >>>> > >>>> Many thanks > >>>> > >> > >> IMO, East's pass is forcing, so PASS is not a LA for W. The > >> hesitation - > > if there > >> was one - does not suggest DBL over 5S or vv, so the requirements of > >> 16B1 > > are > >> not met: score stands (and no need to decide whether there was a > > hesitation). > >> > >> Regards, > >> Petrus > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 1 11:57:11 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 11:57:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation? In-Reply-To: <001701cfdd4c$e3e1e900$aba5bb00$@online.no> References: <54256149.6070306@ulb.ac.be> <542A9287.9050105@ulb.ac.be> <40462021-3212-42BD-B520-DB4A7D174D24@btinternet.com> <000201cfdcf0$06d6b5b0$14842110$@online.no> <542BAEE8.8000507@skynet.be> <001701cfdd4c$e3e1e900$aba5bb00$@online.no> Message-ID: <542BCFF7.2090803@skynet.be> No, they don't. Sven Pran schreef: > Do they really not apply STOP in competitive auctions? > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Herman De Wael >> Sendt: 1. oktober 2014 09:36 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Hesitation? >> >> I'm amazed at the eas with which Sven (of whom I know no other affiliation >> than Norwegian) assumes that what Norway decides is what MOST >> jurisdictions decide). I myself know of the Belgian, French, Dutch, > English and >> Croatian regulations, and the EBL/WBF ones, and never did I encounter a > Stop >> regulations that requires a stop before 5C over 4S. >> All these regulations require stops before 2NT and 4S, but that does not > seem >> to solve this problem. >> >> BTW, pass seems forcing, so no adjustment needed. >> >> Herman. >> >> Sven Pran schreef: >>> 1: The diagram shows South as declarer in 5S so there is obviouosly >>> something wrong. >>> 2: I believe most (if not all) jurisdictions now have the compulsory >>> STOP in competitive auctions. If so here then there is a compulsory 10 >>> seconds pause after the 5C bid. >>> >>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>>> av Petrus Schuster OSB >>>> Sendt: 30. september 2014 22:11 >>>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Hesitation? >>>> >>>> Am 30.09.2014, 19:34 Uhr, schrieb Ken Johnston >>>> : >>>> >>>>> Sorry should add, 5C would go 2 off. EW vul, NS non-vul >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>>> On 30 Sep 2014, at 18:31, Ken Johnston >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> N E S W >>>>>> 1S >>>>>> P 2NT P 4D >>>>>> 5C P 5S All pass >>>>>> >>>>>> Result 5S +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> 2NT alerted as game raise in spades. Director called after play and >>>>>> told E hesitated after 5C. NS adamant long hesitation, EW adamant >>>>>> that there wasn't. >>>>>> >>>>>> West >>>>>> AKQ62 >>>>>> 876 >>>>>> A9 >>>>>> Q52 >>>>>> >>>>>> East >>>>>> JT43 >>>>>> AKJ2 >>>>>> J5432 >>>>>> ------- >>>>>> Ruling please. >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks >>>>>> >>>> >>>> IMO, East's pass is forcing, so PASS is not a LA for W. The >>>> hesitation - >>> if there >>>> was one - does not suggest DBL over 5S or vv, so the requirements of >>>> 16B1 >>> are >>>> not met: score stands (and no need to decide whether there was a >>> hesitation). >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Petrus >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From madam at civilradio.hu Wed Oct 1 12:06:45 2014 From: madam at civilradio.hu (=?iso-8859-2?B?TWFneWFyIMFk4W0=?=) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 12:06:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] multi and counter-multi Message-ID: <71756A7401774468BA148110BEA4AFC9@adam> Teams, screens are in use (North and East on one side) Board 28, NS vuln, East dealer JTxx x ATx KJTxx AKxxx Qxx xx A9xxxx K9xx Qx xx xx x KQJT Jxxx AQxx East South West North (explanations below) 2d 2s x 4h P p 4s p 5h x p p p Table result: 5h* -4, +800 The facts: 2d: Multi, weak 2 in a major, or 20-22 BAL 2s: According to south, counter-multi (take-out double of spades) Indeed, this is NS's agreement. However, north forgets this, and does not alert, treating (and explaining) it as a natural overcall in spades x: according to west, shows spades. According to east, pass with spades, bid 3h with hearts 4h: according to north, splinter, agreeing spades. According to south, natural, to play. 4s: west thought they have spades, and wanted to save. At the other side of the screen, they realize that something went wrong, since passing a splinter and than not letting it play is more than unusual. 5h: He thought they are in trouble, had no idea what 4s was, and bid his suit, intended as natural x: now the other side also sees that something went wrong Supposing that NS's agreement is that 2s is a take-out double of spades, what is your decision? Thanks: Adam Magyar From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 1 13:41:39 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 13:41:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] multi and counter-multi In-Reply-To: <71756A7401774468BA148110BEA4AFC9@adam> References: <71756A7401774468BA148110BEA4AFC9@adam> Message-ID: <542BE873.3030700@skynet.be> Complicated! Magyar ?d?m schreef: > Teams, screens are in use (North and East on one side) > Board 28, NS vuln, East dealer > > JTxx > x > ATx > KJTxx > AKxxx Qxx > xx A9xxxx > K9xx Qx > xx xx > x > KQJT > Jxxx > AQxx > > East South West North (explanations below) > 2d 2s x 4h > P p 4s p > 5h x p p > p > > Table result: 5h* -4, +800 > > The facts: > 2d: Multi, weak 2 in a major, or 20-22 BAL > 2s: According to south, counter-multi (take-out double of spades) Indeed, > this is NS's agreement. However, north forgets this, and does not alert, > treating (and explaining) it as a natural overcall in spades > x: according to west, shows spades. According to east, pass with spades, bid > 3h with hearts > 4h: according to north, splinter, agreeing spades. According to south, > natural, to play. > 4s: west thought they have spades, and wanted to save. At the other side of > the screen, they realize that something went wrong, since passing a splinter > and than not letting it play is more than unusual. > 5h: He thought they are in trouble, had no idea what 4s was, and bid his > suit, intended as natural > x: now the other side also sees that something went wrong > > > Supposing that NS's agreement is that 2s is a take-out double of spades, > what is your decision? > OK, let's deal with just this one case: SW have the correct explanations: 2S: counter-Multi X: shows spades 4H: natural, to play (and an unintended psychic bid) South passes 4S: natural, and West has not received MI, so this is at his own risk and a consequence of North's bid of East's suiit. 5H and X: consequences of this. No correction, obviously, here. NE have a wrong explanation: 2S: counter-multi, but explained as natural (misexplanation) X: pass-or-correct, but this misexplanation is a concequence of the other one 4H: natural, but explained as splinter (another misexplanation) Now East has to make a call based on misinformation. He chooses to pass, which IMO is a misbid. His partner has (in his opinion) asked to pass or correct, so he should now double the conventional 4H to show hearts. With correct information (negative and heart acceptance) he should of course double. He knows this cannot be a correct description of the opponents' hands, all the more reason to clarify the situation for partner. We should allow him the benefit of the doubt that he would double (and that partner would leave it in) so if an adjustment is needed, it will be to 4HX (or 4SX if that is worse). But the question remains: did East contribute to his bas result by not doubling 4H which was explained as splinter to him? If we judge this to be a grave error, then a split score might be the result. I don't believe that not doubling a conventional bid can ever be a grave error. After all, the bidding is not over, and doubling should mean something, else it only serves to give opponents more room. From East's view, NS have bid 8 spades so partner cannot think he has spades and there is no reason to double. I judge that West's call of 4Sp is based on his partner's not doubling, and (which he would have done with correct information) and therefore based on the wrong explanation that East has received from North (natural and splinter). This can never be judged a grave error. With correct explanation, East will double, West will leave it in, and South will pass. North might retreat to 4Sp, which will also be doubled. South who does not understand might well take this back to 5H. So the adjustment is from 5HX to 5HX, but for the other side. To make things easy, give them the equal number of tricks (7 to EW) which is 5 down. (-1400) > Thanks: > Adam Magyar > You're welcome Herman. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Oct 1 14:36:16 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 14:36:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] multi and counter-multi In-Reply-To: <542BE873.3030700@skynet.be> References: <71756A7401774468BA148110BEA4AFC9@adam> <542BE873.3030700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <542BF540.1040701@t-online.de> Am 01.10.2014 13:41, schrieb Herman De Wael: > Complicated! > > Magyar ?d?m schreef: >> Teams, screens are in use (North and East on one side) >> Board 28, NS vuln, East dealer >> >> JTxx >> x >> ATx >> KJTxx >> AKxxx Qxx >> xx A9xxxx >> K9xx Qx >> xx xx >> x >> KQJT >> Jxxx >> AQxx >> >> East South West North (explanations below) >> 2d 2s x 4h >> P p 4s p >> 5h x p p >> p >> >> Table result: 5h* -4, +800 >> >> The facts: >> 2d: Multi, weak 2 in a major, or 20-22 BAL >> 2s: According to south, counter-multi (take-out double of spades) Indeed, >> this is NS's agreement. However, north forgets this, and does not alert, >> treating (and explaining) it as a natural overcall in spades >> x: according to west, shows spades. According to east, pass with spades, bid >> 3h with hearts >> 4h: according to north, splinter, agreeing spades. According to south, >> natural, to play. >> 4s: west thought they have spades, and wanted to save. At the other side of >> the screen, they realize that something went wrong, since passing a splinter >> and than not letting it play is more than unusual. >> 5h: He thought they are in trouble, had no idea what 4s was, and bid his >> suit, intended as natural >> x: now the other side also sees that something went wrong >> >> >> Supposing that NS's agreement is that 2s is a take-out double of spades, >> what is your decision? >> > OK, let's deal with just this one case: > > SW have the correct explanations: > 2S: counter-Multi > X: shows spades > 4H: natural, to play (and an unintended psychic bid) > South passes > 4S: natural, and West has not received MI, so this is at his own risk > and a consequence of North's bid of East's suiit. > 5H and X: consequences of this. > No correction, obviously, here. > > NE have a wrong explanation: > 2S: counter-multi, but explained as natural (misexplanation) > X: pass-or-correct, but this misexplanation is a concequence of the > other one > 4H: natural, but explained as splinter (another misexplanation) > Now East has to make a call based on misinformation. He chooses to pass, > which IMO is a misbid. Well, no. A bad bid, maybe. See below. > His partner has (in his opinion) asked to pass or > correct, so he should now double the conventional 4H to show hearts. > With correct information (negative and heart acceptance) he should of > course double. He knows this cannot be a correct description of the > opponents' hands, all the more reason to clarify the situation for > partner. We should allow him the benefit of the doubt that he would > double (and that partner would leave it in) so if an adjustment is > needed, it will be to 4HX (or 4SX if that is worse). > But the question remains: did East contribute to his bas result by not > doubling 4H which was explained as splinter to him? If we judge this to > be a grave error, then a split score might be the result. > > I don't believe that not doubling a conventional bid can ever be a grave > error. This may be an overbid, but in this case it certainly does not look like a serious error to me. > After all, the bidding is not over, and doubling should mean > something, else it only serves to give opponents more room. From East's > view, NS have bid 8 spades so partner cannot think he has spades and > there is no reason to double. > > I judge that West's call of 4Sp is based on his partner's not doubling, > and (which he would have done with correct information) and therefore > based on the wrong explanation that East has received from North > (natural and splinter). This can never be judged a grave error. > > With correct explanation, East will double, West will leave it in, and > South will pass. I agree more or less with what you wrote above, but here I am not so sure. East is only entitled to the correct explanation, so if he hears "to play", what is he to do? Opps seems to have a misunderstanding, since West ought to have at least heart tolerance for his double of 2 Spades. Is he really likely to double? Should be presented to a couple of East`s peers. If the TD thinks he would have doubled (maybe a weighted score?), then the rest follows, and 1400 is certainly possible (I am too lazy to analyze this slaughter...) Another poll about that 4S by West, but this is likely to return a "what else" when N/S have a heart fit. > North might retreat to 4Sp, which will also be doubled. > South who does not understand might well take this back to 5H. > So the adjustment is from 5HX to 5HX, but for the other side. > To make things easy, give them the equal number of tricks (7 to EW) > which is 5 down. (-1400) > > > >> Thanks: >> Adam Magyar >> > You're welcome > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 1 16:02:51 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 16:02:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] multi and counter-multi In-Reply-To: <71756A7401774468BA148110BEA4AFC9@adam> References: <71756A7401774468BA148110BEA4AFC9@adam> Message-ID: <000601cfdd80$642d0c60$2c872520$@online.no> > Magyar ?d?m > Teams, screens are in use (North and East on one side) Board 28, NS vuln, East > dealer > > JTxx > x > ATx > KJTxx > AKxxx Qxx > xx A9xxxx > K9xx Qx > xx xx > x > KQJT > Jxxx > AQxx > > East South West North (explanations below) > 2d 2s x 4h > P p 4s p > 5h x p p > p > > Table result: 5h* -4, +800 > > The facts: > 2d: Multi, weak 2 in a major, or 20-22 BAL > 2s: According to south, counter-multi (take-out double of spades) Indeed, this is > NS's agreement. However, north forgets this, and does not alert, treating (and > explaining) it as a natural overcall in spades > x: according to west, shows spades. According to east, pass with spades, bid > 3h with hearts > 4h: according to north, splinter, agreeing spades. According to south, natural, > to play. > 4s: west thought they have spades, and wanted to save. At the other side of > the screen, they realize that something went wrong, since passing a splinter > and than not letting it play is more than unusual. > 5h: He thought they are in trouble, had no idea what 4s was, and bid his suit, > intended as natural > x: now the other side also sees that something went wrong > > > Supposing that NS's agreement is that 2s is a take-out double of spades, what > is your decision? [Sven Pran] In my world West's double of 2S is "pass or correct" which implies that he has spades, some values and possibly some hearts. The explanations given are OK. East now has misinformation that South has spades. West on the other hand has misinformation that North/South have "superfit" in hearts and as a consequence of this misinformation and the auction that East/West have spades. The 5H bid by East makes it clear to everybody that something has gone very wrong. I shall definitely at least roll the auction back to 4S in West going one down for +50, but I am inclined to roll the auction further back to 4H in North (undoubled, or North might escape disaster, for instance with SOS Redouble) going three or four down for -300 or -400. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 1 16:51:53 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 16:51:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] multi and counter-multi In-Reply-To: <542BE873.3030700@skynet.be> References: <71756A7401774468BA148110BEA4AFC9@adam> <542BE873.3030700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <542C1509.9030408@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/10/2014 13:41, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Complicated! > > Magyar ?d?m schreef: >> Teams, screens are in use (North and East on one side) >> Board 28, NS vuln, East dealer >> >> JTxx >> x >> ATx >> KJTxx >> AKxxx Qxx >> xx A9xxxx >> K9xx Qx >> xx xx >> x >> KQJT >> Jxxx >> AQxx >> >> East South West North (explanations below) >> 2d 2s x 4h >> P p 4s p >> 5h x p p >> p >> >> Table result: 5h* -4, +800 >> >> The facts: >> 2d: Multi, weak 2 in a major, or 20-22 BAL >> 2s: According to south, counter-multi (take-out double of spades) Indeed, >> this is NS's agreement. However, north forgets this, and does not alert, >> treating (and explaining) it as a natural overcall in spades >> x: according to west, shows spades. According to east, pass with spades, bid >> 3h with hearts >> 4h: according to north, splinter, agreeing spades. According to south, >> natural, to play. >> 4s: west thought they have spades, and wanted to save. At the other side of >> the screen, they realize that something went wrong, since passing a splinter >> and than not letting it play is more than unusual. >> 5h: He thought they are in trouble, had no idea what 4s was, and bid his >> suit, intended as natural >> x: now the other side also sees that something went wrong >> >> >> Supposing that NS's agreement is that 2s is a take-out double of spades, >> what is your decision? >> > OK, let's deal with just this one case: > > SW have the correct explanations: > 2S: counter-Multi > X: shows spades > 4H: natural, to play (and an unintended psychic bid) > South passes > 4S: natural, and West has not received MI, so this is at his own risk > and a consequence of North's bid of East's suiit. > 5H and X: consequences of this. > No correction, obviously, here. > > NE have a wrong explanation: > 2S: counter-multi, but explained as natural (misexplanation) > X: pass-or-correct, but this misexplanation is a concequence of the > other one > 4H: natural, but explained as splinter (another misexplanation) > Now East has to make a call based on misinformation. He chooses to pass, > which IMO is a misbid. His partner has (in his opinion) asked to pass or > correct, so he should now double the conventional 4H to show hearts. > With correct information (negative and heart acceptance) he should of > course double. He knows this cannot be a correct description of the > opponents' hands, all the more reason to clarify the situation for > partner. We should allow him the benefit of the doubt that he would > double (and that partner would leave it in) so if an adjustment is > needed, it will be to 4HX (or 4SX if that is worse). > But the question remains: did East contribute to his bas result by not > doubling 4H which was explained as splinter to him? If we judge this to > be a grave error, then a split score might be the result. > > I don't believe that not doubling a conventional bid can ever be a grave > error. After all, the bidding is not over, and doubling should mean > something, else it only serves to give opponents more room. And sometimes it only helps opponent remember that it is artificial. Indeed it will never be called an egregious error. It is always conceivable not to double. (unless your system specifically specifies so, like in Rosebkranz) > From East's > view, NS have bid 8 spades so partner cannot think he has spades and > there is no reason to double. > > I judge that West's call of 4Sp is based on his partner's not doubling, > and (which he would have done with correct information) and therefore > based on the wrong explanation that East has received from North > (natural and splinter). This can never be judged a grave error. > > With correct explanation, East will double, West will leave it in, and > South will pass. North might retreat to 4Sp, which will also be doubled. > South who does not understand might well take this back to 5H. > AG : IMO this is beyond "a result that is at all possible". Unless South is desperately dumb, the result will be 5C*-1 (or could it be -2) after South takes 4S out to 4NT. 'or redoubles if this fits his style) NB : there is absolutely no technical merit to counter-multi. It can't be worse to play 2 of a major as takeout of the *othe* major. Whether this should be broad- or narrow-ranged is another matter, but surely it can't be wrong to allow partner to pass, or to make an economical cue-bid. Best regards Alain From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 1 17:10:02 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 11:10:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation? In-Reply-To: <001701cfdd4c$e3e1e900$aba5bb00$@online.no> References: <54256149.6070306@ulb.ac.be> <542A9287.9050105@ulb.ac.be> <40462021-3212-42BD-B520-DB4A7D174D24@btinternet.com> <000201cfdcf0$06d6b5b0$14842110$@online.no> <542BAEE8.8000507@skynet.be> <001701cfdd4c$e3e1e900$aba5bb00$@online.no> Message-ID: <542C194A.4090800@nhcc.net> On 2014-10-01 3:54 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Do they really not apply STOP in competitive auctions? The ACBL does not. I can see why it would be a good idea, but it would be hard to enforce given our players' bad habits. (Few players here even observe the skip bid pause.) From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Oct 1 17:27:49 2014 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 17:27:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] multi and counter-multi In-Reply-To: <542C1509.9030408@ulb.ac.be> References: <71756A7401774468BA148110BEA4AFC9@adam> <542BE873.3030700@skynet.be> <542C1509.9030408@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1806420967.12205566.1412177269024.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alain Gottcheiner" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Mercredi 1 Octobre 2014 16:51:53 > Objet: Re: [BLML] multi and counter-multi > > Le 1/10/2014 13:41, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > Complicated! > > > > Magyar ?d?m schreef: > >> Teams, screens are in use (North and East on one side) > >> Board 28, NS vuln, East dealer > >> > >> JTxx > >> x > >> ATx > >> KJTxx > >> AKxxx Qxx > >> xx A9xxxx > >> K9xx Qx > >> xx xx > >> x > >> KQJT > >> Jxxx > >> AQxx > >> > >> East South West North (explanations below) > >> 2d 2s x 4h > >> P p 4s p > >> 5h x p p > >> p > >> > >> Table result: 5h* -4, +800 > >> > >> The facts: > >> 2d: Multi, weak 2 in a major, or 20-22 BAL > >> 2s: According to south, counter-multi (take-out double of spades) Indeed, > >> this is NS's agreement. However, north forgets this, and does not alert, > >> treating (and explaining) it as a natural overcall in spades > >> x: according to west, shows spades. According to east, pass with spades, > >> bid > >> 3h with hearts > >> 4h: according to north, splinter, agreeing spades. According to south, > >> natural, to play. > >> 4s: west thought they have spades, and wanted to save. At the other side > >> of > >> the screen, they realize that something went wrong, since passing a > >> splinter > >> and than not letting it play is more than unusual. > >> 5h: He thought they are in trouble, had no idea what 4s was, and bid his > >> suit, intended as natural > >> x: now the other side also sees that something went wrong > >> > >> > >> Supposing that NS's agreement is that 2s is a take-out double of spades, > >> what is your decision? > >> > > OK, let's deal with just this one case: > > > > SW have the correct explanations: > > 2S: counter-Multi > > X: shows spades > > 4H: natural, to play (and an unintended psychic bid) > > South passes > > 4S: natural, and West has not received MI, so this is at his own risk > > and a consequence of North's bid of East's suiit. > > 5H and X: consequences of this. > > No correction, obviously, here. > > > > NE have a wrong explanation: > > 2S: counter-multi, but explained as natural (misexplanation) > > X: pass-or-correct, but this misexplanation is a concequence of the > > other one > > 4H: natural, but explained as splinter (another misexplanation) > > Now East has to make a call based on misinformation. He chooses to pass, > > which IMO is a misbid. His partner has (in his opinion) asked to pass or > > correct, so he should now double the conventional 4H to show hearts. > > With correct information (negative and heart acceptance) he should of > > course double. He knows this cannot be a correct description of the > > opponents' hands, all the more reason to clarify the situation for > > partner. We should allow him the benefit of the doubt that he would > > double (and that partner would leave it in) so if an adjustment is > > needed, it will be to 4HX (or 4SX if that is worse). > > But the question remains: did East contribute to his bas result by not > > doubling 4H which was explained as splinter to him? If we judge this to > > be a grave error, then a split score might be the result. > > > > I don't believe that not doubling a conventional bid can ever be a grave > > error. After all, the bidding is not over, and doubling should mean > > something, else it only serves to give opponents more room. > > And sometimes it only helps opponent remember that it is artificial. > Indeed it will never be called an egregious error. It is always > conceivable not to double. (unless your system specifically specifies > so, like in Rosebkranz) > > > From East's > > view, NS have bid 8 spades so partner cannot think he has spades and > > there is no reason to double. > > > > I judge that West's call of 4Sp is based on his partner's not doubling, > > and (which he would have done with correct information) and therefore > > based on the wrong explanation that East has received from North > > (natural and splinter). This can never be judged a grave error. > > > > With correct explanation, East will double, West will leave it in, and > > South will pass. North might retreat to 4Sp, which will also be doubled. > > South who does not understand might well take this back to 5H. > > > > AG : IMO this is beyond "a result that is at all possible". Unless South > is desperately dumb, the result will be 5C*-1 (or could it be -2) after > South takes 4S out to 4NT. 'or redoubles if this fits his style) > > NB : there is absolutely no technical merit to counter-multi. a gratuitous opinion > It can't > be worse to play 2 of a major as takeout of the *othe* major. Whether > this should be broad- or narrow-ranged is another matter, but surely it > can't be wrong to allow partner to pass, it can be wrong when he has a strong hand and is willing to be allowed another call. otherwise he would need another bid to express this sort of hand. it could lead to a better or a worse scheme of defense but the respective merits are not absolutely obvious. a practical advantage of this counter-multi is that you can use the same pattern of responses as over weak-2M openings. jpr > or to make an economical cue-bid. > > > Best regards > > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 20:01:07 2014 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 13:01:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation? In-Reply-To: <542C194A.4090800@nhcc.net> References: <54256149.6070306@ulb.ac.be> <542A9287.9050105@ulb.ac.be> <40462021-3212-42BD-B520-DB4A7D174D24@btinternet.com> <000201cfdcf0$06d6b5b0$14842110$@online.no> <542BAEE8.8000507@skynet.be> <001701cfdd4c$e3e1e900$aba5bb00$@online.no> <542C194A.4090800@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > > On 2014-10-01 3:54 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Do they really not apply STOP in competitive auctions? > > The ACBL does not. I can see why it would be a good idea, but it would > be hard to enforce given our players' bad habits. (Few players here > even observe the skip bid pause.) > However, I think we in the ACBL all observe the skip bid pause when we have a real problem. :) Thus, observing the pause rule after a skip bid often causes a director call alleging BIT. Jerry Fusselman From vip at centrum.is Wed Oct 1 22:37:12 2014 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 20:37:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] multi and counter-multi In-Reply-To: <71756A7401774468BA148110BEA4AFC9@adam> References: <71756A7401774468BA148110BEA4AFC9@adam> Message-ID: <2124500543.2538455.1412195832223.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> North/South gave misexplaination. No doubt about that and score has to be adjusted. Weighted score. 4HxN -1100 50% 4SxS -1400 50% We can not give some score 100% weight We can argue about what contract and what weight, but the result will always be very bad for N/S Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 2 09:17:29 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:17:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] multi and counter-multi In-Reply-To: <2124500543.2538455.1412195832223.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <71756A7401774468BA148110BEA4AFC9@adam> <2124500543.2538455.1412195832223.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <000601cfde10$f5a6b520$e0f41f60$@online.no> > Vigf?s P?lsson > North/South gave misexplaination. No doubt about that and score has to be > adjusted. > Weighted score. > > 4HxN -1100 50% > 4SxS -1400 50% > > We can not give some score 100% weight > We can argue about what contract and what weight, but the result will always > be very bad for N/S [Sven Pran] The Director cannot disregard the probability that N/S will find refuge in 5X from either of your alternatives. In 4HX and 4SX they will certainly know that something has gone wrong and quite likely run for possible escape. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 3 02:58:38 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 20:58:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid Message-ID: 2C P 2H(1) P 3C P 3S P 3NT P P P 2H was not alerted but before opening lead was explained as a double negative. The player on lead had Kxx 1087x QJx Kxx Having a choice between hearts and diamonds, he chose to lead a heart. This did not work out well and a diamond lead would have set the contract. He argued that if 2H had been properly alerted, his partner would have not doubled, suggesting not to lead a heart and he was more likely to lead a diamond. Which is all true. It's already a difficult ruling, but in our normal way. Assume for the sake of argument that you buy into this. The interesting thing is this. Suppose partner might have doubled 2 Hearts, had he known it was artificial, and this lead would have worked well. Then the player can safely lead a diamond, as an unsuccessful diamond lead will be changed to a heart lead. Therefore, the opening leader can safely assume that partner would not have doubled the 2 Heart bid. Hence, if the opening leader has worked all of this out in his head, he should lead whatever he thinks is best assuming partner would have passed the 2 Heart bid. (And, ironically, since partner did pass the 2H call, there are a lot of simple ways to arrive at this position, including not thinking about anything at all.) If this latter consideration is correct, there is perhaps no reason to roll back play. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 3 16:25:42 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:25:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] multi and counter-multi In-Reply-To: <1806420967.12205566.1412177269024.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> References: <71756A7401774468BA148110BEA4AFC9@adam> <542BE873.3030700@skynet.be> <542C1509.9030408@ulb.ac.be> <1806420967.12205566.1412177269024.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <542EB1E6.5060806@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/10/2014 17:27, ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre a ?crit : > it can be wrong when he has a strong hand and is willing to be allowed another call. otherwise he would need another bid to express this sort of hand. it could lead to a better or a worse scheme of defense but the respective merits are not absolutely obvious. > a practical advantage of this counter-multi is that you can use the same pattern of responses as over weak-2M openings. But this is true of "reverse-counter-multi" too, of course - plus you stay out of trouble in many cases (typically when you can play 2H instead of 3) - plus you disallow artificial doubles from n?3 (like game-try in the excluded major) - plus you get to cue-bid 2S instead of 3S when partner has hearts. In fact, the best defense is probably : - double as takeout of hearts - 2H as takeout of spades In both cases the range can be rather broad because partner can use an economical mini-cue. Obviously having your cake and eating mine. Best regards Alain > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 4 03:32:58 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 21:32:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thinking about this, it doesn't seem right to adjust. It doesn't seem right that declarer could lead a heart and then ask for an adjustment if a diamond lead would have worked better. On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 20:58:38 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > 2C P 2H(1) P > 3C P 3S P > 3NT P P P > > 2H was not alerted but before opening lead was explained as a double > negative. The player on lead had > > Kxx > 1087x > QJx > Kxx > > Having a choice between hearts and diamonds, he chose to lead a heart. > This did not work out well and a diamond lead would have set the > contract. > > He argued that if 2H had been properly alerted, his partner would have > not > doubled, suggesting not to lead a heart and he was more likely to lead a > diamond. Which is all true. > > It's already a difficult ruling, but in our normal way. Assume for the > sake of argument that you buy into this. > > > The interesting thing is this. Suppose partner might have doubled 2 > Hearts, had he known it was artificial, and this lead would have worked > well. Then the player can safely lead a diamond, as an unsuccessful > diamond lead will be changed to a heart lead. > > Therefore, the opening leader can safely assume that partner would not > have doubled the 2 Heart bid. > > Hence, if the opening leader has worked all of this out in his head, he > should lead whatever he thinks is best assuming partner would have passed > the 2 Heart bid. (And, ironically, since partner did pass the 2H call, > there are a lot of simple ways to arrive at this position, including not > thinking about anything at all.) > > If this latter consideration is correct, there is perhaps no reason to > roll back play. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Oct 4 03:51:05 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 21:51:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> On 2014-10-02 8:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 2C P 2H(1) P > 3C P 3S P > 3NT P P P > > 2H was not alerted but before opening lead was explained as a double > negative. > The interesting thing is this. Suppose partner might have doubled 2 > Hearts, had he known it was artificial, and this lead would have worked > well. Then the player can safely lead a diamond, as an unsuccessful > diamond lead will be changed to a heart lead. > > Therefore, the opening leader can safely assume that partner would not > have doubled the 2 Heart bid. > > Hence, if the opening leader has worked all of this out in his head, he > should lead whatever he thinks is best assuming partner would have passed > the 2 Heart bid. When was the Director called? I'd expect the Director to explain that the lead should be based on the auction going exactly as it did. If defenders would have done better in a different auction, they'll get an adjusted score. No need for OL to work out legal consequences; he just has to work out bridge consequences. If the TD wasn't called, I'd normally expect no adjustment. Both sides knew there was an irregularity. Despite that, it is technically the bidding side's responsibility to call the TD before correcting the MI, so if the bidding side is experienced and the defending side is not, I'd consider an adjusted score on that basis. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 4 04:35:13 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 22:35:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 21:51:05 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2014-10-02 8:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> 2C P 2H(1) P >> 3C P 3S P >> 3NT P P P >> >> 2H was not alerted but before opening lead was explained as a double >> negative. > >> The interesting thing is this. Suppose partner might have doubled 2 >> Hearts, had he known it was artificial, and this lead would have worked >> well. Then the player can safely lead a diamond, as an unsuccessful >> diamond lead will be changed to a heart lead. >> >> Therefore, the opening leader can safely assume that partner would not >> have doubled the 2 Heart bid. >> >> Hence, if the opening leader has worked all of this out in his head, he >> should lead whatever he thinks is best assuming partner would have >> passed >> the 2 Heart bid. > > When was the Director called? I'd expect the Director to explain that > the lead should be based on the auction going exactly as it did. With the same lack of alert and then subsequent explanation? I was expecting a different answer. > If defenders would have done better in a different auction, they'll get > an > adjusted score. No need for OL to work out legal consequences; he just > has to work out bridge consequences. So, off-topic kind of, but if the opening leader decides that declarer might not have a heart stopper, because of the confusion in the auction, and leads a heart, and that doesn't work out well, you are going to protect him? I think I need more details for your answer. > > If the TD wasn't called, I'd normally expect no adjustment. Both sides > knew there was an irregularity. Despite that, it is technically the > bidding side's responsibility to call the TD before correcting the MI, > so if the bidding side is experienced and the defending side is not, I'd > consider an adjusted score on that basis. No TD in this case, but again the question is what the TD says (hopefully not "lead as if the auction was the way the auction was") and then what happens. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Oct 4 18:10:28 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 12:10:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> >> I'd expect the Director to explain that >> the lead should be based on the auction going exactly as it did. On 2014-10-03 10:35 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > With the same lack of alert and then subsequent explanation? Perhaps I was too terse. Opening leader should assume the actual calls would have been the same, even given proper alerts and explanations. In this case, he assumes partner would still have chosen to pass even if 2H had been alerted and explained. The Director should explain this. (Also, the final pass of the auction is allowed to be replaced, but in this case it won't be.) The effect is that opening leader should assume partner could have made a lead-directing double of 2H but chose not to. However, this is a bridge inference, and it's not the Director's job to make it for the player. The Director has a slightly delicate task in phrasing his explanation -- giving the legal position but not bridge inferences -- but it's possible to do that. > if the opening leader decides that declarer > might not have a heart stopper, because of the confusion in the auction, > and leads a heart, and that doesn't work out well, you are going to > protect him? No. Once the legal position and all partnership understandings are explained, opening leader is on his own. The only protection is if the auction would have been different without the MI. There's a separate issue of what to do if the TD was not called at the right time and therefore the legal position was never explained. Generally I'd protect beginners -- after advising them always to call the TD in cases of doubt -- but not players who should have known better. PPs are certainly possible in addition to or instead of score adjustment. The position is the same as others in which the TD should have been called but wasn't. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 4 19:20:22 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 13:20:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Nice answer. Now I think we can get serious. >>> I'd expect the Director to explain that >>> the lead should be based on the auction going exactly as it did. > > On 2014-10-03 10:35 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> With the same lack of alert and then subsequent explanation? > > Perhaps I was too terse. Opening leader should assume the actual calls > would have been the same, even given proper alerts and explanations. In > this case, he assumes partner would still have chosen to pass even if 2H > had been alerted and explained. The Director should explain this. > (Also, the final pass of the auction is allowed to be replaced, but in > this case it won't be.) > > The effect is that opening leader should assume partner could have made > a lead-directing double of 2H but chose not to. However, this is a > bridge inference, and it's not the Director's job to make it for the > player. The Director has a slightly delicate task in phrasing his > explanation -- giving the legal position but not bridge inferences -- > but it's possible to do that. This seems to be a good idea -- director instructs the players to play as if the bid had been alerted and everyone had made the same calls. Well, at least for this situation. I have never seen this advice. I don't know if I could justify giving it as a director. Does anyone direct this way? > >> if the opening leader decides that declarer >> might not have a heart stopper, because of the confusion in the auction, >> and leads a heart, and that doesn't work out well, you are going to >> protect him? > > No. Once the legal position and all partnership understandings are > explained, opening leader is on his own. The only protection is if the > auction would have been different without the MI. The problem here is just that you seem to be contradicting yourself. You wrote "If defenders would have done better in a different auction, they'll get an adjusted score." Then when I give an example of how they would have done better in a different auction (the 2H bid is immediately alerted), you do not adjust. Your ruling seems to be write, so I assume you want to take back your first statement? > > There's a separate issue of what to do if the TD was not called at the > right time and therefore the legal position was never explained. > Generally I'd protect beginners -- after advising them always to call > the TD in cases of doubt -- but not players who should have known > better. PPs are certainly possible in addition to or instead of score > adjustment. The position is the same as others in which the TD should > have been called but wasn't. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From vip at centrum.is Sun Oct 5 01:18:42 2014 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 23:18:42 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <131524018.4097335.1412464722856.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Here is a irregulaty and law 75B is our case. No doubt about that. That leads us to law 12C Now we look at law 12C1b. Did the opening leader do a "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)" ??? NO WAY Score has to be adjusted. Probably weighted score. Perhaps 50% heart opening lead and 50% diamond opening lead In this case I allow the opening leader to "eat the cake" and "keep the cake" Greetings form Iceland Vigfus Palsson On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 20:58:38 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > 2C P 2H(1) P > 3C P 3S P > 3NT P P P > > 2H was not alerted but before opening lead was explained as a double > negative. The player on lead had > > Kxx > 1087x > QJx > Kxx > > Having a choice between hearts and diamonds, he chose to lead a heart. > This did not work out well and a diamond lead would have set the > contract. > > He argued that if 2H had been properly alerted, his partner would have > not > doubled, suggesting not to lead a heart and he was more likely to lead a > diamond. Which is all true. > > It's already a difficult ruling, but in our normal way. Assume for the > sake of argument that you buy into this. > > > The interesting thing is this. Suppose partner might have doubled 2 > Hearts, had he known it was artificial, and this lead would have worked > well. Then the player can safely lead a diamond, as an unsuccessful > diamond lead will be changed to a heart lead. > > Therefore, the opening leader can safely assume that partner would not > have doubled the 2 Heart bid. > > Hence, if the opening leader has worked all of this out in his head, he > should lead whatever he thinks is best assuming partner would have passed > the 2 Heart bid. (And, ironically, since partner did pass the 2H call, > there are a lot of simple ways to arrive at this position, including not > thinking about anything at all.) > > If this latter consideration is correct, there is perhaps no reason to > roll back play. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Oct 5 03:24:28 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 21:24:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <131524018.4097335.1412464722856.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <131524018.4097335.1412464722856.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 19:18:42 -0400, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > Here is a irregulaty and law 75B is our case. No doubt about that. > > That leads us to law 12C > > Now we look at law 12C1b. > Did the opening leader do a "serious error (unrelated to the > infraction)" ??? > > NO WAY > > Score has to be adjusted. Probably weighted score. > Perhaps 50% heart opening lead and 50% diamond opening lead > > In this case I allow the opening leader to "eat the cake" and "keep the > cake" > > Greetings form Iceland > > Vigfus Palsson Steve? How do you answer this? This makes perfect sense to me if the opening leader hadn't found out that the 2H bid was artificial until after the opening lead.. Here, it is awkward that defender's best strategy is to choose the opening lead that it most likely to result in damage. Here, that is a heart lead, succeeding whenever a heart or diamond would have worked (if the director rules the same as you). > > > > > > On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 20:58:38 -0400, Robert Frick > wrote: > >> 2C P 2H(1) P >> 3C P 3S P >> 3NT P P P >> >> 2H was not alerted but before opening lead was explained as a double >> negative. The player on lead had >> >> Kxx >> 1087x >> QJx >> Kxx >> >> Having a choice between hearts and diamonds, he chose to lead a heart. >> This did not work out well and a diamond lead would have set the >> contract. >> >> He argued that if 2H had been properly alerted, his partner would have >> not >> doubled, suggesting not to lead a heart and he was more likely to lead a >> diamond. Which is all true. >> >> It's already a difficult ruling, but in our normal way. Assume for the >> sake of argument that you buy into this. >> >> >> The interesting thing is this. Suppose partner might have doubled 2 >> Hearts, had he known it was artificial, and this lead would have worked >> well. Then the player can safely lead a diamond, as an unsuccessful >> diamond lead will be changed to a heart lead. >> >> Therefore, the opening leader can safely assume that partner would not >> have doubled the 2 Heart bid. >> >> Hence, if the opening leader has worked all of this out in his head, he >> should lead whatever he thinks is best assuming partner would have >> passed >> the 2 Heart bid. (And, ironically, since partner did pass the 2H call, >> there are a lot of simple ways to arrive at this position, including not >> thinking about anything at all.) >> >> If this latter consideration is correct, there is perhaps no reason to >> roll back play. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Oct 5 21:34:53 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 15:34:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <54319D5D.9020901@nhcc.net> On 2014-10-04 1:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > The problem here is just that you seem to be contradicting yourself. You > wrote "If > defenders would have done better in a different auction, What's the contradiction? If correct information wouldn't have changed the auction, the defenders have all relevant information at the time of the opening lead, and the table result should be unaffected by MI. If the auction would have been different, damage might exist. That's the usual sort of judgment ruling. On 2014-10-04 7:18 PM, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > Here is a irregulaty and law 75B is our case. No doubt about that. > That leads us to law 12C L75B tells the players what to do after the MI. L40B4 is what sends us to 12C to rectify damage caused by the MI. > Did the opening leader do a "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)" ??? No one thinks so. Even if he did, we'd still adjust the OS score, but only if the MI caused damage. > Score has to be adjusted. Only if there's damage. If the MI is corrected before the opening lead, and the auction wouldn't have changed with correct information, how can there be damage? If you want to say you will give the actual table result as your adjusted score, I won't argue with you. It seems silly to me, though. From vip at centrum.is Sun Oct 5 22:38:18 2014 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 20:38:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <54319D5D.9020901@nhcc.net> References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> <54319D5D.9020901@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2071628607.4310712.1412541498849.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> There was a big damage here. No question about that. Two damages. 1. The player who faced 2H bid missed the oppurtunity to PASS or DOUBLE that artificial bid. 2. The opening leader knew about his partner's lost oppurtunity, and was in complete darkness of what to do. I do very well understand the opening leader that he did not figure out himself how to handle this situation. The bidding... 2C - pass - 2H* - PASS 3C - pass - 3S - pass 3NT- all pass There is a HUGE difference in this bidding sequence, depending on Alert is given or not. Without alert, the PASS has almost no meaning With alert, the PASS gives valuable information, which can not be corrected before the opening lead is faced. I allow the defence to eat the cake and keep the cake in this case. Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Steve Willner" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunnudagur, 5. Okt?ber, 2014 19:34:53 Efni: Re: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid On 2014-10-04 1:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > The problem here is just that you seem to be contradicting yourself. You > wrote "If > defenders would have done better in a different auction, What's the contradiction? If correct information wouldn't have changed the auction, the defenders have all relevant information at the time of the opening lead, and the table result should be unaffected by MI. If the auction would have been different, damage might exist. That's the usual sort of judgment ruling. On 2014-10-04 7:18 PM, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > Here is a irregulaty and law 75B is our case. No doubt about that. > That leads us to law 12C L75B tells the players what to do after the MI. L40B4 is what sends us to 12C to rectify damage caused by the MI. > Did the opening leader do a "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)" ??? No one thinks so. Even if he did, we'd still adjust the OS score, but only if the MI caused damage. > Score has to be adjusted. Only if there's damage. If the MI is corrected before the opening lead, and the auction wouldn't have changed with correct information, how can there be damage? If you want to say you will give the actual table result as your adjusted score, I won't argue with you. It seems silly to me, though. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Oct 5 22:53:42 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 16:53:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <2071628607.4310712.1412541498849.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> <54319D5D.9020901@nhcc.net> <2071628607.4310712.1412541498849.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <5431AFD6.3080109@nhcc.net> On 2014-10-05 4:38 PM, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > 1. The player who faced 2H bid missed the oppurtunity to PASS or > DOUBLE that artificial bid. He missed the chance to double, but he did in fact pass. > 2. The opening leader knew about his partner's lost oppurtunity, and > was in complete darkness of what to do. No. He assumes partner would have passed and plays accordingly. If partner would have doubled, there might be damage. Look at it this way, _if_ you adjust the score, you'll adjust to what would have happened if the irregularity -- the MI -- had not occurred. If third hand would have passed (and everyone has proper instruction on the legal status), the table result tells you what that result would have been. No need for an adjusted score in that scenario. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 6 03:43:27 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:43:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <5431AFD6.3080109@nhcc.net> References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> <54319D5D.9020901@nhcc.net> <2071628607.4310712.1412541498849.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <5431AFD6.3080109@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 16:53:42 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2014-10-05 4:38 PM, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: >> 1. The player who faced 2H bid missed the oppurtunity to PASS or >> DOUBLE that artificial bid. > > He missed the chance to double, but he did in fact pass. > >> 2. The opening leader knew about his partner's lost oppurtunity, and >> was in complete darkness of what to do. > > No. He assumes partner would have passed and plays accordingly. Why? If > partner would have doubled, there might be damage. > > Look at it this way, _if_ you adjust the score, you'll adjust to what > would have happened if the irregularity -- the MI -- had not occurred. > If third hand would have passed (and everyone has proper instruction on > the legal status), the table result tells you what that result would > have been. No need for an adjusted score in that scenario. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 6 03:53:14 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:53:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <131524018.4097335.1412464722856.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <131524018.4097335.1412464722856.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <5431F60A.1090903@nhcc.net> On 2014-10-04 7:18 PM, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > Here is a irregulaty and law 75B is our case. > > Score has to be adjusted. After posting my previous message, it occurred to me to ask whether we are writing about the same case. In the original story, the MI was corrected before the opening lead. In that version, opening leader can assume the auction would not have changed had 2H been timely alerted. If that's true, an adjusted score shouldn't be needed because we know the result "had the irregularity not occurred." Mention of L75B suggests you were writing about a different situation where the MI wasn't corrected until play ended. In that case -- quite different -- an adjusted score is more likely. However, I'd still want to know why OL chose a lead in dummy's presumed natural suit and why a correct explanation would have made that lead less likely. In still a third situation, where OL led something other than a heart, OL's partner would have doubled an artificial heart bid, and the resulting heart lead would have helped the defense, I expect everyone would adjust the score (absent some bizarre, unstated further circumstance). That shouldn't be controversial. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 6 09:37:28 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:37:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <5431AFD6.3080109@nhcc.net> References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> <54319D5D.9020901@nhcc.net> <2071628607.4310712.1412541498849.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <5431AFD6.3080109@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <543246B8.2070105@skynet.be> Sorry Steve, but you are missing a point. Steve Willner schreef: > On 2014-10-05 4:38 PM, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: >> 1. The player who faced 2H bid missed the oppurtunity to PASS or >> DOUBLE that artificial bid. > > He missed the chance to double, but he did in fact pass. > >> 2. The opening leader knew about his partner's lost oppurtunity, and >> was in complete darkness of what to do. > > No. He assumes partner would have passed and plays accordingly. If > partner would have doubled, there might be damage. > > Look at it this way, _if_ you adjust the score, you'll adjust to what > would have happened if the irregularity -- the MI -- had not occurred. > If third hand would have passed (and everyone has proper instruction on > the legal status), the table result tells you what that result would > have been. No need for an adjusted score in that scenario. If the MI had not occurred, the pass would have a different meaning. So the bidding, although the same, would have a different meaning. I quite understand the possibility of a change from a heart to a diamond lead as an adjustment. I don't see why the TD ought to explain anything before the lead, though. And I accept that a clever player would lead a heart, expecting it to be a double shot. Opponents just ought to have alerted, that's all. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 6 09:48:23 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:48:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <5431F60A.1090903@nhcc.net> References: <131524018.4097335.1412464722856.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <5431F60A.1090903@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <54324947.4080707@skynet.be> Steve Willner schreef: > > After posting my previous message, it occurred to me to ask whether we > are writing about the same case. In the original story, the MI was > corrected before the opening lead. In that version, opening leader can > assume the auction would not have changed had 2H been timely alerted. > If that's true, an adjusted score shouldn't be needed because we know > the result "had the irregularity not occurred." > I don't think it really matters whether the correction has occured or not. > Mention of L75B suggests you were writing about a different situation > where the MI wasn't corrected until play ended. In that case -- quite > different -- an adjusted score is more likely. However, I'd still want > to know why OL chose a lead in dummy's presumed natural suit and why a > correct explanation would have made that lead less likely. > > In still a third situation, where OL led something other than a heart, > OL's partner would have doubled an artificial heart bid, and the > resulting heart lead would have helped the defense, I expect everyone > would adjust the score (absent some bizarre, unstated further > circumstance). That shouldn't be controversial. Well, just take this case again, and say that 2H IS doubled, after not being alerted. So the double is negative and a diamond lead is warranted. What would have happened with an alert? There would not have been a double, and a diamond lead is still correct. Now go back to the original case. 2H is not alerted, and not doubled, so a heart lead is advisable. What would have happened after an alert? There would have been a double, and the heart lead is still advisable. The only problem now is that after a non-alert, a non-double is not as strong as a double is over an alert. The only way of showing diamonds after a natural call is if we are also willing to play in diamonds. And we might not be strong enough for that. So whereas the heart lead after 2H-Alert-X is almost automatic, the diamond lead after 2H-Alert-pass is not. Which is why the opening leader still has two options. Should he be allowed to use both? I think he should. Herman. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Oct 7 03:36:14 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 21:36:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <543246B8.2070105@skynet.be> References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> <54319D5D.9020901@nhcc.net> <2071628607.4310712.1412541498849.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <5431AFD6.3080109@nhcc.net> <543246B8.2070105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5433438E.7030307@nhcc.net> On 2014-10-06 3:37 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sorry Steve, but you are missing a point. If so, I'm afraid I still don't see what it is. It's pretty common for the declaring side to give MI and correct it before the opening lead. Often it happens that the defenders were passing no matter what, and once they have full information for the defense, nobody even thinks about an adjusted score. Are you suggesting that practice is wrong? Or is the original case for some reason an exception to the general practice? It seems to me that once opening leader knows his partner wouldn't have doubled (2H in this case) for the lead, he is in the same position regardless of whether he finds this out during the auction or during the correction period. Why are you advocating an adjusted score in the latter case? From Cibor at poczta.fm Tue Oct 7 08:30:56 2014 From: Cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 08:30:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <5433438E.7030307@nhcc.net> References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> <54319D5D.9020901@nhcc.net> <2071628607.4310712.1412541498849.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <5431AFD6.3080109@nhcc.net> <543246B8.2070105@skynet.be> <5433438E.7030307@nhcc.net> Message-ID: > > It seems to me that once opening leader knows his partner wouldn't have > doubled (2H in this case) for the lead, he is in the same position > regardless of whether he finds this out during the auction or during the > correction period. No, he isn't. If the 2H is alerted in time then partner's pass over 2H means "I don't have a clear preference for the heart lead". For example partner cannot have KQJxx in hearts for instance or else he would have doubled the artificial 2H. That's why there is a slight preference for selecting a diamond. As it went the pass over 2H is meaningless. As the opening leader I appreciate the late correction but now my partner _can_ have KQJxx in hearts or the like (he couldn't have doubled 2H because he thought that 2H was natural). So on the bidding there is no preference for leading either suit. Best regards, Konrad Ciborowski From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 7 13:34:56 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:34:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <5433438E.7030307@nhcc.net> References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> <54319D5D.9020901@nhcc.net> <2071628607.4310712.1412541498849.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <5431AFD6.3080109@nhcc.net> <543246B8.2070105@skynet.be> <5433438E.7030307@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5433CFE0.4090404@skynet.be> Steve Willner schreef: > On 2014-10-06 3:37 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Sorry Steve, but you are missing a point. > > If so, I'm afraid I still don't see what it is. > > It's pretty common for the declaring side to give MI and correct it > before the opening lead. Often it happens that the defenders were > passing no matter what, and once they have full information for the > defense, nobody even thinks about an adjusted score. Are you suggesting > that practice is wrong? Or is the original case for some reason an > exception to the general practice? > > It seems to me that once opening leader knows his partner wouldn't have > doubled (2H in this case) for the lead, he is in the same position > regardless of whether he finds this out during the auction or during the > correction period. Why are you advocating an adjusted score in the > latter case? Because he DOESN'T FIND out that partner would not have doubled. He does not know whether partner would have doubled or not. So he is none the wiser about his partner's preference for hearts or diamonds. If the call HAD been alerted, his partner would also have passed, but this is now a pass with a (slightly) different meaning, indicating a (possibly small) preference for diamonds. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Oct 7 15:16:29 2014 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 15:16:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <2071628607.4310712.1412541498849.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> <54319D5D.9020901@nhcc.net> <2071628607.4310712.1412541498849.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <5433E7AD.9050701@vwalther.de> I love Steves approach of the problem, and I think it is the right one. The problem arises because a meta-information is passed: A player receives the information, that his partner was not completely informed about a bid that opponents made when he passed. In fact I am not sure whether this is an allowed information. To make things clear it might be helpful to imagine we are playing with screens. N E S W 2C - pass - 2H* - PASS 3C - pass - 3S - pass 3NT- all pass *Alerted and explained the by North, unalerted by West. Before the opening lead is made South calls the TD and explains that he did not alert and explain the 2H bid. Every TD will check whether damage arouse from West not knowing the meaning of 2H. Maybe West will be allowed to redraw his final pass. But I see no reason why a TD should go around the table an inform East, that West lately received the correct information of 2H. But surely we would adjust, if we see the possibility that a correctly informed West would have made other calls and these modified bidding gives East the information for a better lead. That is exactly what Steve suggests! East should act as if Wests action are based on correct information and ignore the (unauthorized) meta-information which he would not have behind screens. We only adjust if West might have acted different with correct explanation. Greetings, Volker Walther Am 05.10.2014 um 22:38 schrieb Vigf?s P?lsson: > There was a big damage here. No question about that. Two damages. > > 1. The player who faced 2H bid missed the oppurtunity to PASS or DOUBLE that artificial bid. > 2. The opening leader knew about his partner's lost oppurtunity, and was in complete darkness of what to do. > > I do very well understand the opening leader that he did not figure out himself how to handle this situation. > > The bidding... > > 2C - pass - 2H* - PASS > 3C - pass - 3S - pass > 3NT- all pass > > There is a HUGE difference in this bidding sequence, depending on Alert is given or not. > Without alert, the PASS has almost no meaning > With alert, the PASS gives valuable information, which can not be corrected before the opening lead is faced. > > I allow the defence to eat the cake and keep the cake in this case. > > Greetings from Iceland > > Vigfus Palsson > > > > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > Fr?: "Steve Willner" > Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunnudagur, 5. Okt?ber, 2014 19:34:53 > Efni: Re: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid > > On 2014-10-04 1:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> The problem here is just that you seem to be contradicting yourself. You >> wrote "If >> defenders would have done better in a different auction, > > What's the contradiction? If correct information wouldn't have changed > the auction, the defenders have all relevant information at the time of > the opening lead, and the table result should be unaffected by MI. > > If the auction would have been different, damage might exist. That's > the usual sort of judgment ruling. > > On 2014-10-04 7:18 PM, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > > Here is a irregulaty and law 75B is our case. No doubt about that. > > That leads us to law 12C > > L75B tells the players what to do after the MI. L40B4 is what sends us > to 12C to rectify damage caused by the MI. > > > Did the opening leader do a "serious error (unrelated to the > infraction)" ??? > > No one thinks so. Even if he did, we'd still adjust the OS score, but > only if the MI caused damage. > > > Score has to be adjusted. > > Only if there's damage. If the MI is corrected before the opening lead, > and the auction wouldn't have changed with correct information, how can > there be damage? > > If you want to say you will give the actual table result as your > adjusted score, I won't argue with you. It seems silly to me, though. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Oct 8 03:50:34 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 21:50:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> <54319D5D.9020901@nhcc.net> <2071628607.4310712.1412541498849.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <5431AFD6.3080109@nhcc.net> <543246B8.2070105@skynet.be> <5433438E.7030307@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 02:30:56 -0400, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >> It seems to me that once opening leader knows his partner wouldn't have >> doubled (2H in this case) for the lead, he is in the same position >> regardless of whether he finds this out during the auction or during the >> correction period. > > No, he isn't. If the 2H is alerted in time then partner's pass over 2H > means "I don't have a clear preference for the heart lead". > For example partner cannot have KQJxx in hearts for instance or else he > would have > doubled the artificial 2H. > That's why there is a slight preference for selecting a diamond. > > As it went the pass over 2H is meaningless. As the opening leader > I appreciate the late correction but now my partner _can_ have > KQJxx in hearts or the like (he couldn't have doubled 2H because he > thought > that 2H was natural). So on the bidding there is no preference for > leading either suit. To perhaps paraphrase Steve's position, a pass is a pass. Had the bid been alerted the player would have done the same thing -- passed. You and Herman are arguing that a pass over a natural bid is not the same as a pass over an artificial bid. When I take this player who passed aside and ask if he would have done something different, does he say, "Yes, I would have passed to deny a strong interest in a heart lead"? Konrad, the practical difficulties with your answer, technically correct or not, seem really large. Right now, if someone forgets to alert new-minor-forcing (common), I look if the hand behind the artificial bid and see if they might have doubled instead of passed. Usually not and I go back to all my other tasks. You are suggesting that I always have to do a lot more work than this. I doubt directors do this. I am not fond of the idea. Bob From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 8 15:51:05 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 09:51:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <5433CFE0.4090404@skynet.be> References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> <54319D5D.9020901@nhcc.net> <2071628607.4310712.1412541498849.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <5431AFD6.3080109@nhcc.net> <543246B8.2070105@skynet.be> <5433438E.7030307@nhcc.net> <5433CFE0.4090404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54354149.4030303@nhcc.net> On 2014-10-07 7:34 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Because he DOESN'T FIND out that partner would not have doubled. This is where we disagree. In my view, once the MI is corrected, the TD explains that the NOS should _assume_ that the auction would be unchanged. If the auction would have changed, of course the NOS are protected. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 8 15:55:16 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 09:55:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid In-Reply-To: <543246B8.2070105@skynet.be> References: <542F5289.4000601@nhcc.net> <54301BF4.3040205@nhcc.net> <54319D5D.9020901@nhcc.net> <2071628607.4310712.1412541498849.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <5431AFD6.3080109@nhcc.net> <543246B8.2070105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54354244.9030201@nhcc.net> On 2014-10-06 3:48 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I don't think it really matters whether the correction has occured or > not. So why ever bother correcting MI? Just stop play and give an adjusted score. On 2014-10-06 3:37 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > And I accept that a clever player would lead a heart, expecting it to > be a double shot. As far as I can tell, in your view it doesn't matter what the lead is. You are giving the NOS the benefit of the best double-dummy defense. Why play the deal at all? From geller at nifty.com Sat Oct 11 16:18:49 2014 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:18:49 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Mispull or 36B? Message-ID: <54393C49.8080405@nifty.com> North DLR W N E S - 1H X X The director is called. South claims a mispull of XX. Should the director approve this claim, or should L36 be applied? From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Oct 11 16:36:05 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:36:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mispull or 36B? In-Reply-To: <54393C49.8080405@nifty.com> References: <54393C49.8080405@nifty.com> Message-ID: <54394055.6000602@btinternet.com> It seems to me to be a matter of judgement, but I don't think you have to apply L36 if you think it was an unintended call. Gordon Rainsford On 11/10/2014 15:18, Robert Geller wrote: > North DLR > W N E S > - 1H X X > > The director is called. South claims a mispull of XX. > > Should the director approve this claim, or should L36 be applied? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 11 17:06:28 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:06:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mispull or 36B? In-Reply-To: <54394055.6000602@btinternet.com> References: <54393C49.8080405@nifty.com> <54394055.6000602@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <000701cfe564$ef99ad30$cecd0790$@online.no> It is of course a matter of judgement, but this looks to me as a situation for Law 25A (Unintended call) unless some convincing argument for the contrary is presented. > Gordon Rainsford > It seems to me to be a matter of judgement, but I don't think you have to apply > L36 if you think it was an unintended call. > > Gordon Rainsford > > > On 11/10/2014 15:18, Robert Geller wrote: > > North DLR > > W N E S > > - 1H X X > > > > The director is called. South claims a mispull of XX. > > > > Should the director approve this claim, or should L36 be applied? > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 04:41:10 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:41:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mispull or 36B? In-Reply-To: <000701cfe564$ef99ad30$cecd0790$@online.no> References: <54393C49.8080405@nifty.com> <54394055.6000602@btinternet.com> <000701cfe564$ef99ad30$cecd0790$@online.no> Message-ID: Some years ago blml discussed a similar case where the notionally illegal call was actually intended as an Alert card. Technically Law 25A does not permi the replacement of an unintended call with an Alert (merely permitting the replacement with an originally intended ++call++). I suggest that therefore the 2017 Drafting Committee broaden the scope of Law 25A. Rick Riordan, The Blood of Olympus page 98: He considered shooting a column of fire at the nearest tour bus and blowing up the gas tank, but he decided that might be a tad dramatic. On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > It is of course a matter of judgement, but this looks to me as a situation > for Law 25A (Unintended call) unless some convincing argument for the > contrary is presented. > > Gordon Rainsford > > It seems to me to be a matter of judgement, but I don't think you have to > apply > > L36 if you think it was an unintended call. > > > > Gordon Rainsford > > > > > > On 11/10/2014 15:18, Robert Geller wrote: > > > North DLR > > > W N E S > > > - 1H X X > > > > > > The director is called. South claims a mispull of XX. > > > > > > Should the director approve this claim, or should L36 be applied? > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Blml mailing list > > > Blml at rtflb.org > > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20141013/95216bf6/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 13 15:49:24 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:49:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Mispull or 36B? In-Reply-To: <000701cfe564$ef99ad30$cecd0790$@online.no> References: <54393C49.8080405@nifty.com> <54394055.6000602@btinternet.com> <000701cfe564$ef99ad30$cecd0790$@online.no> Message-ID: <543BD864.5010901@nhcc.net> On 2014-10-11 11:06 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > It is of course a matter of judgement, but this looks to me as a situation > for Law 25A (Unintended call) This is a good case to ask about practical directing. How should the TD approach this sort of case, and what questions should he ask? Another example came up recently. The auction was something like W N E S 1D - 1H - 1S - P 3C -...starts pulling card from bidding box after 5-10 s pause West: Hey wait! Director please! You can presumably establish the above facts with everyone at the table. What questions do you ask West? At the table or privately? West will tell you he meant to bid 2C and only noticed the 3C card when he looked towards the table as North was about to bid. I realize no one can give an actual ruling here; I'm interested in the proper procedure and factors to be considered. Does West's hand matter? Stop card use/non-use? Other? By the way, in the ACBL, North has not yet called. In other jurisdictions, North has called, though I don't think anyone but North knew what the call was. I don't think this makes any difference, but maybe I'm missing something. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Oct 14 11:30:55 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:30:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mispull or 36B? In-Reply-To: <543BD864.5010901@nhcc.net> References: <54393C49.8080405@nifty.com> <54394055.6000602@btinternet.com> <000701cfe564$ef99ad30$cecd0790$@online.no> <543BD864.5010901@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <543CED4F.7070205@btinternet.com> I think if they have used the stop card you can discount it as a mis-pull for 2C. However if they haven't used the stop card I think you need to establish whether they usually do, or else it doesn't help you very much either way. I usually take care to explain to the player exactly which changes are allowed by the law and which are not, and then ask something like "at the moment you were taking out the bidding card which card where you trying to take out". I wouldn't look at the hand at this point, for the usual reason that I'm likely to give UI and make the board unplayable. However, having properly established the legal position with the player, I would be prepared to adjust aftewards if I had reason to believe it was a change of mind. Gordon Rainsford 13/10/2014 14:49, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2014-10-11 11:06 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> It is of course a matter of judgement, but this looks to me as a situation >> for Law 25A (Unintended call) > This is a good case to ask about practical directing. How should the TD > approach this sort of case, and what questions should he ask? > > Another example came up recently. The auction was something like > W N E S > 1D - 1H - 1S - P > 3C -...starts pulling card from bidding box after 5-10 s pause > West: Hey wait! Director please! > > You can presumably establish the above facts with everyone at the table. > What questions do you ask West? At the table or privately? West will > tell you he meant to bid 2C and only noticed the 3C card when he looked > towards the table as North was about to bid. > > I realize no one can give an actual ruling here; I'm interested in the > proper procedure and factors to be considered. Does West's hand matter? > Stop card use/non-use? Other? > > By the way, in the ACBL, North has not yet called. In other > jurisdictions, North has called, though I don't think anyone but North > knew what the call was. I don't think this makes any difference, but > maybe I'm missing something. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 17 03:22:31 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 21:22:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Mispull or 36B? In-Reply-To: <543CED4F.7070205@btinternet.com> References: <54393C49.8080405@nifty.com> <54394055.6000602@btinternet.com> <000701cfe564$ef99ad30$cecd0790$@online.no> <543BD864.5010901@nhcc.net> <543CED4F.7070205@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <54406F57.8020909@nhcc.net> Thanks, Gordon. Very useful. Do you do all of this at the table, or do you establish the initial facts away from it? On 2014-10-14 5:30 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > I think if they have used the stop card you can discount it as a > mis-pull for 2C. However if they haven't used the stop card I think you > need to establish whether they usually do, or else it doesn't help you > very much either way. > > I usually take care to explain to the player exactly which changes are > allowed by the law and which are not, and then ask something like "at > the moment you were taking out the bidding card which card where you > trying to take out". I wouldn't look at the hand at this point, for the > usual reason that I'm likely to give UI and make the board unplayable. > However, having properly established the legal position with the player, > I would be prepared to adjust aftewards if I had reason to believe it > was a change of mind. From geller at nifty.com Fri Oct 17 04:14:27 2014 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:14:27 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Mispull or 36B? In-Reply-To: <54406F57.8020909@nhcc.net> References: <54393C49.8080405@nifty.com> <54394055.6000602@btinternet.com> <000701cfe564$ef99ad30$cecd0790$@online.no> <543BD864.5010901@nhcc.net> <543CED4F.7070205@btinternet.com> <54406F57.8020909@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <54407B83.1040602@nifty.com> My thanks to all of you who've discussed this issue. The actual South hand for the player-claimed mispull was A9753 Q8 64 J973 Just to refresh your memory the auuction was W N E S - 1H X X* Knowing the actual hand, how should the the director have ruled? (2014/10/17 10:22), Steve Willner wrote: > Thanks, Gordon. Very useful. Do you do all of this at the table, or do > you establish the initial facts away from it? > > > On 2014-10-14 5:30 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> I think if they have used the stop card you can discount it as a >> mis-pull for 2C. However if they haven't used the stop card I think you >> need to establish whether they usually do, or else it doesn't help you >> very much either way. >> >> I usually take care to explain to the player exactly which changes are >> allowed by the law and which are not, and then ask something like "at >> the moment you were taking out the bidding card which card where you >> trying to take out". I wouldn't look at the hand at this point, for the >> usual reason that I'm likely to give UI and make the board unplayable. >> However, having properly established the legal position with the player, >> I would be prepared to adjust aftewards if I had reason to believe it >> was a change of mind. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 17 04:30:13 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:30:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Mispull or 36B? In-Reply-To: <54407B83.1040602@nifty.com> References: <54393C49.8080405@nifty.com> <54394055.6000602@btinternet.com> <000701cfe564$ef99ad30$cecd0790$@online.no> <543BD864.5010901@nhcc.net> <543CED4F.7070205@btinternet.com> <54406F57.8020909@nhcc.net> <54407B83.1040602@nifty.com> Message-ID: <54407F35.7020605@nhcc.net> On 2014-10-16 10:14 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > The actual South hand for the player-claimed mispull was > A9753 Q8 64 J973 > > Just to refresh your memory the auction was > W N E S > - 1H X X* What did the player say the redouble was intended to show? And what would double of 1S have shown? It's possible the player mentally transposed East's double into "I have spades" and wanted to make a penalty double, but I wouldn't assume that without knowing more. On the other hand, the hand looks awfully light and off-shape for a redouble, so I agree with being suspicious. The trouble is neither possibility really makes sense, at least to me. From g3 at nige1.com Fri Oct 17 04:55:41 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 03:55:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mispull or 36B? In-Reply-To: <54407B83.1040602@nifty.com> References: <54393C49.8080405@nifty.com> <54394055.6000602@btinternet.com> <000701cfe564$ef99ad30$cecd0790$@online.no> <543BD864.5010901@nhcc.net> <543CED4F.7070205@btinternet.com><54406F57.8020909@nhcc.net> <54407B83.1040602@nifty.com> Message-ID: [Robert Geller] The actual South hand for the player-claimed mispull was A9753 Q8 64 J973 Just to refresh your memory the auuction was W N E S - 1H X X* [Nige1] Friends at the club estimate that the vast majority of such mistakes are slips of the mind (especially when bidding cards come from different sections of the box). If they're right, it does not necessarily imply that offending players are deliberate liars. They probably just rationalise, in the same way they would in the outside world. It's sad that current rules are designed to handicap players, who have the misfortune to be honest and self-aware. From geller at nifty.com Fri Oct 17 05:05:14 2014 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:05:14 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Mispull or 36B? In-Reply-To: <54407F35.7020605@nhcc.net> References: <54393C49.8080405@nifty.com> <54394055.6000602@btinternet.com> <000701cfe564$ef99ad30$cecd0790$@online.no> <543BD864.5010901@nhcc.net> <543CED4F.7070205@btinternet.com> <54406F57.8020909@nhcc.net> <54407B83.1040602@nifty.com> <54407F35.7020605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5440876A.1070102@nifty.com> I was West. When the dummy came down I asked North if they had any special agreement about the redouble and he said no (so it notinally showed 10+ points or so, as is standard here, and probably most other places). The director never followed up (even though she had access to the hand records) and neither did we. It seems obvious though that South had some kind of brain cramp. (2014/10/17 11:30), Steve Willner wrote: > On 2014-10-16 10:14 PM, Robert Geller wrote: >> The actual South hand for the player-claimed mispull was >> A9753 Q8 64 J973 >> >> Just to refresh your memory the auction was >> W N E S >> - 1H X X* > > What did the player say the redouble was intended to show? And what > would double of 1S have shown? It's possible the player mentally > transposed East's double into "I have spades" and wanted to make a > penalty double, but I wouldn't assume that without knowing more. On the > other hand, the hand looks awfully light and off-shape for a redouble, > so I agree with being suspicious. The trouble is neither possibility > really makes sense, at least to me. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 20 02:53:03 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 20:53:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Play (play what?) Message-ID: It's come up twice in the last month. Declarer said "play". Dummy was following suit. In one case declarer's "play" was accompanied by a wave of the hand, the second time it was not. In both cases, it was obvious that declarer should want to play the high card. Of course, this could be treated as equivalent to saying just the suit. Or it could be a truly ambiguous call, to which dummy is supposed to answer "play what?". I suppose it depends on whether, in that region, the word "play" is typically used to designate a small card. Bob From Cibor at poczta.fm Mon Oct 20 10:24:49 2014 From: Cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:24:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does not knowing your system invalidate an agreement? Message-ID: Hi gang, Let's say I agree to play a bidding system / a convention / a lead system with my partner. For the sake of argument let's say my first time French partner offers me to play "Majeure Cinqui?me" and I say "OK", and we have our CC filled. Let's say that I then open 1NT on 12 points. Let's say that the opponents end up with a poor score because they expect me to hold a stronger hand (for example they misdefend). You are called to the table and after a few questions you discover that I opened 1NT because I genuinely, truly believed that the weak NT is an integral part of the French standard (which is of course not the case). Our CC says "1NT 15-17". Your ruling? The question that bothers me is: What is our agreement in the light of L40? I see two options: 1? Our agreement is Majeure Cinqui?me (and thus strong NT) and I just don't know the system I have agreed to play but this is purely my problem, no MI 2? De facto we have no agreement at all as to the meaning of the 1NT call (because one of us is convinced 1NT = 15-17 and the other 1NT = 12-14) and thus the opponents were misinformed. Your thoughts? Best regards, Krak?w, Poland From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Oct 20 11:59:48 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 20:59:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Play (play what?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004d01cfec4c$96291c60$c27b5520$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Robert Frick > Sent: Monday, 20 October 2014 11:53 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Play (play what?) > > It's come up twice in the last month. Declarer said "play". Dummy was > following suit. > > In one case declarer's "play" was accompanied by a wave of the hand, > the > second time it was not. In both cases, it was obvious that declarer should > want to play the high card. > > Of course, this could be treated as equivalent to saying just the suit. Or > it could be a truly ambiguous call, to which dummy is supposed to > answer > "play what?". > > I suppose it depends on whether, in that region, the word "play" is > typically used to designate a small card. > > Bob I have a pair who visit occasionally from Canada who employ this system. I think it means "play the obvious card whether high or low". Noone seems to have any problem with it. I personally use a similar system "Yes, please", which requests dummy to play the obvious card. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From g3 at nige1.com Mon Oct 20 15:23:30 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:23:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Play (play what?) In-Reply-To: <004d01cfec4c$96291c60$c27b5520$@optusnet.com.au> References: <004d01cfec4c$96291c60$c27b5520$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: [Robert Frick] It's come up twice in the last month. Declarer said "play". Dummy was following suit. In one case declarer's "play" was accompanied by a wave of the hand, the second time it was not. In both cases, it was obvious that declarer should want to play the high card. Of course, this could be treated as equivalent to saying just the suit. Or it could be a truly ambiguous call, to which dummy is supposed to answer "play what?". I suppose it depends on whether, in that region, the word "play" is typically used to designate a small card. [Tony Musgrove] I have a pair who visit occasionally from Canada who employ this system. I think it means "play the obvious card whether high or low". No one seems to have any problem with it. I personally use a similar system "Yes, please", which requests dummy to play the obvious card. [TFLB L45B] Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from dummy's hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself. [TFLB L46A] When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card. [TFLB L46B] In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): 1 a. If declarer in playing from dummy calls high or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the highest card. b. If he directs dummy to win the trick he is deemed to have called the lowest card that it is known will win the trick. c. If he calls low words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the lowest card. 2. If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. 3. If declarer designates a rank but not a suit a. In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit. b. In all other cases declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such cards that can be legally played declarer must designate which is intended. 4. If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card. 5. If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying ?play anything? or words of like meaning) either defender may designate the play from dummy. [Nige1] If a particular law is often broken, and that practice is widely condoned, it weakens the other laws. L46B seems to pander to normal lax practice. Unfortunately, in any dispute, directors often interpret ?when declarer?s different intention is incontrovertible? to mean whatever declarer says he meant. If directors started to rule for non-offenders, instead, then most declarers would start to comply with the law. Alternatively and perhaps more sensibly, law-makers could properly legalise some of ?incomplete and erroneous declarations?. When there is a choice of dummy-play, however, ?Play the obvious card? should never be an acceptable interpretation (IMO). From g3 at nige1.com Mon Oct 20 15:38:04 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:38:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Does not knowing your system invalidate an agreement? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Konrad Ciborowski] Let's say I agree to play a bidding system / a convention / a lead system with my partner. For the sake of argument let's say my first time French partner offers me to play "Majeure Cinqui?me" and I say "OK", and we have our CC filled. Let's say that I then open 1NT on 12 points. Let's say that the opponents end up with a poor score because they expect me to hold a stronger hand (for example they misdefend). You are called to the table and after a few questions you discover that I opened 1NT because I genuinely, truly believed that the weak NT is an integral part of the French standard (which is of course not the case). Our CC says "1NT 15-17". Your ruling? The question that bothers me is: What is our agreement in the light of L40? I see two options: 1? Our agreement is Majeure Cinqui?me (and thus strong NT) and I just don't know the system I have agreed to play but this is purely my problem, no MI 2? De facto we have no agreement at all as to the meaning of the 1NT call (because one of us is convinced 1NT = 15-17 and the other 1NT = 12-14) and thus the opponents were misinformed. [Nige1] Players often forget or fail to learn their agreements. IMO, If you agree to play a system or convention (e.g. as defined in a particular book) then that is your agreement; furthermore, opponents should be able to rely on whatever is written on your system-card. So I go for 1? Our agreement is Majeure Cinqui?me (and thus strong NT) and I just don't know the system I have agreed to play but this is purely my problem, no MI This seems simple common sense, and easy to enforce. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 21 03:13:30 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:13:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does not knowing your system invalidate an agreement? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 04:24:49 -0400, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Hi gang, > > Let's say I agree to play a bidding system / a convention / a lead > system with my partner. > For the sake of argument let's say my first time French partner offers > me to play "Majeure Cinqui?me" > and I say "OK", and we have our CC filled. > > Let's say that I then open 1NT on 12 points. Let's say that the > opponents end up with a poor score > because they expect me to hold a stronger hand (for example they > misdefend). > > You are called to the table and after a few questions you discover that > I opened 1NT because > I genuinely, truly believed that the weak NT is an integral part of the > French standard > (which is of course not the case). Our CC says "1NT 15-17". > > Your ruling? The question that bothers me is: > > What is our agreement in the light of L40? I see two options: > > 1? Our agreement is Majeure Cinqui?me (and thus strong NT) and I just > don't know > the system I have agreed to play but this is purely my problem, no MI > 2? De facto we have no agreement at all as to the meaning of the 1NT > call (because > one of us is convinced 1NT = 15-17 and the other 1NT = 12-14) > and thus the opponents were misinformed. > > Your thoughts? The short story is that the laws do not handle the situation where players agree on a convention by name. There are many complications and no consistency among answers that I know of. I suspect that usually there is a core to a convention with ambiguities, and when you agree on a convention, you agree on the core. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 04:28:44 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:28:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Does not knowing your system invalidate an agreement? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: [snip] What is our agreement in the light of L40? I see two options: 1? Our agreement is Majeure Cinqui?me (and thus strong NT) and I just don't know the system I have agreed to play but this is purely my problem, no MI 2? De facto we have no agreement at all as to the meaning of the 1NT call (because one of us is convinced 1NT = 15-17 and the other 1NT = 12-14) and thus the opponents were misinformed. Your thoughts? Best regards, Krak?w, Poland Richard Hills: A key phrase in Law 40 is "parttnership understanding". If there is not any prior understanding between BOTH partners, then there is not any partnership understanding. Hence the 2nd option, a ruling of MI applies. Compare and contrast a prior partnership understanding which one partner later unintentionally forgets or later intentionally psyches. No infraction, no MI. =+= Two examples of bridge humour (featuring 1930s American expert P. Hal Sims): An inexperienced partnership challenged P. Hal Sims and his expert partner to a rubber bridge game. To even the odds, the inexperienced partnership requested a handicap. Sims thought for a while, and replied, "Okay, you can cheat." Sims had superb so-called "table presence", so he could almost always guess a two-way finesse for a queen. But one time Sims expostulated, "Dammit, you both have the queen." However, this was true. A friend of Sims had secretly rigged the deck. On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 04:24:49 -0400, Konrad Ciborowski > wrote: > > > Hi gang, > > > > Let's say I agree to play a bidding system / a convention / a lead > > system with my partner. > > For the sake of argument let's say my first time French partner offers > > me to play "Majeure Cinqui?me" > > and I say "OK", and we have our CC filled. > > > > Let's say that I then open 1NT on 12 points. Let's say that the > > opponents end up with a poor score > > because they expect me to hold a stronger hand (for example they > > misdefend). > > > > You are called to the table and after a few questions you discover that > > I opened 1NT because > > I genuinely, truly believed that the weak NT is an integral part of the > > French standard > > (which is of course not the case). Our CC says "1NT 15-17". > > > > Your ruling? The question that bothers me is: > > > > What is our agreement in the light of L40? I see two options: > > > > 1? Our agreement is Majeure Cinqui?me (and thus strong NT) and I just > > don't know > > the system I have agreed to play but this is purely my problem, no MI > > 2? De facto we have no agreement at all as to the meaning of the 1NT > > call (because > > one of us is convinced 1NT = 15-17 and the other 1NT = 12-14) > > and thus the opponents were misinformed. > > > > Your thoughts? > > > The short story is that the laws do not handle the situation where players > agree on a convention by name. > > There are many complications and no consistency among answers that I know > of. > > I suspect that usually there is a core to a convention with ambiguities, > and when you agree on a convention, you agree on the core. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20141021/f589071e/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 04:39:00 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:39:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Play (play what?) In-Reply-To: References: <004d01cfec4c$96291c60$c27b5520$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: ..... Unfortunately, in any dispute, directors often interpret ?when declarer?s different intention is incontrovertible? to mean whatever declarer says he meant. ...... Richard Hills: Since "incontrovertible" does not appear in The Definitions, the word means what a standard English dictionary says it means. That is, "not subject to controversy". Tony Musgrove's "Yes, please" Law 46B call is not subject to controversy on the occasions that Tony uses it. What's the problem? On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Robert Frick] > It's come up twice in the last month. Declarer said "play". Dummy was > following suit. In one case declarer's "play" was accompanied by a wave of > the hand, the second time it was not. In both cases, it was obvious that > declarer should want to play the high card. Of course, this could be > treated as equivalent to saying just the suit. Or it could be a truly > ambiguous call, to which dummy is supposed to answer "play what?". I > suppose > it depends on whether, in that region, the word "play" is typically used to > designate a small card. > > [Tony Musgrove] > I have a pair who visit occasionally from Canada who employ this system. I > think it means "play the obvious card whether high or low". No one seems > to > have any problem with it. I personally use a similar system "Yes, please", > which requests dummy to play the obvious card. > > [TFLB L45B] > Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy > picks > up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from dummy's hand > declarer > may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself. > > [TFLB L46A] > When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state > both the suit and the rank of the desired card. > > [TFLB L46B] > In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be > played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's > different intention is incontrovertible): > 1 a. If declarer in playing from dummy calls high or words of like meaning, > he is deemed to have called the highest card. > b. If he directs dummy to win the trick he is deemed to have called the > lowest card that it is known will win the trick. > c. If he calls low words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the > lowest card. > 2. If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called > the lowest card of the suit indicated. > 3. If declarer designates a rank but not a suit > a. In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy > won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in > that suit. > b. In all other cases declarer must play a card from dummy of the > designated > rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such cards that > can be legally played declarer must designate which is intended. > 4. If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and > declarer may designate any legal card. > 5. If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank > (as by saying ?play anything? or words of like meaning) either defender may > designate the play from dummy. > > [Nige1] > If a particular law is often broken, and that practice is widely condoned, > it weakens the other laws. L46B seems to pander to normal lax practice. > Unfortunately, in any dispute, directors often interpret ?when declarer?s > different intention is incontrovertible? to mean whatever declarer says he > meant. If directors started to rule for non-offenders, instead, then most > declarers would start to comply with the law. > > Alternatively and perhaps more sensibly, law-makers could properly legalise > some of ?incomplete and erroneous declarations?. When there is a choice of > dummy-play, however, ?Play the obvious card? should never be an acceptable > interpretation (IMO). > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20141021/2d458f30/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Oct 21 12:12:40 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:12:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Play (play what?) In-Reply-To: References: <004d01cfec4c$96291c60$c27b5520$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <3A184C6E45B749ECB77714D01FDBDAEA@G3> [Richard Hills] Since "incontrovertible" does not appear in The Definitions, the word means what a standard English dictionary says it means. That is, "not subject to controversy". Tony Musgrove's "Yes, please" Law 46B call is not subject to controversy on the occasions that Tony uses it. What's the problem? [Nige1] To be serious for a moment, there seem to be many problems e.g. 1. Illegality. According to the law, "Yes please" is an "incomplete and erroneous designation". IMO, a director should assiduously abide by the rules -- to show a good example -- and to try to foster respect for the law. 2. Potential adverse ruling. Were bolshie defenders to dispute which card was designated, presumably, the director should rule in their favour. 3. But the main problem is with the law itself. It should be enforced, rationalised or scrapped. Perhaps some new designations (like "small" or "top") should be legalised but I don't think "Yes please" is a sensible candidate. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Oct 21 18:14:22 2014 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:14:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Play (play what?) In-Reply-To: <3A184C6E45B749ECB77714D01FDBDAEA@G3> References: <004d01cfec4c$96291c60$c27b5520$@optusnet.com.au> <3A184C6E45B749ECB77714D01FDBDAEA@G3> Message-ID: <9B8C2120-82C1-4220-B5D3-468961D709D7@btopenworld.com> "Play" really annoys me, but this and "yes, please" and other noncommittal designations should never refer to anything but the lowest card of the suit led. This "obvious card" nonsense is illegal. > On 21 Oct 2014, at 11:12, "Nigel Guthrie" wrote: > > [Richard Hills] > Since "incontrovertible" does not appear in The Definitions, the word means > what a standard English dictionary says it means. That is, "not subject to > controversy". Tony Musgrove's "Yes, please" Law 46B call is not subject to > controversy on the occasions that Tony uses it. What's the problem? > > [Nige1] > To be serious for a moment, there seem to be many problems e.g. > 1. Illegality. According to the law, "Yes please" is an "incomplete and > erroneous designation". IMO, a director should assiduously abide by the > rules -- to show a good example -- and to try to foster respect for the law. > 2. Potential adverse ruling. Were bolshie defenders to dispute which card > was designated, presumably, the director should rule in their favour. > 3. But the main problem is with the law itself. It should be enforced, > rationalised or scrapped. Perhaps some new designations (like "small" or > "top") should be legalised but I don't think "Yes please" is a sensible > candidate. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml