From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 02:26:43 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:26:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> <54006794.4090109@skynet.be> Message-ID: Likewise, Australia has a regulation prohibiting the psyching of a strong and artificial opening bid (for example it is verboten to psyche an Acol 2C opening bid or a Precision 1C opening bid). On the issue of "both players forget"; if the explaining player later remembers, then Law 20F4 requires the explainer to *immediately* summon the Director. Today in Australlia is deemed to be the first day of spring. This season is celebrated by a famous song written by Tom Lehrer: *Spring is here, spring is here* *Life is skittles and life is beer* *I think the loveliest time of the year* *Is the spring, I do, don?t you? ?Course you do* *But there?s one thing that makes spring complete for me* *And makes every Sunday a treat for me* *All the world seems in tune on a spring afternoon* *When we?re poisoning pigeons in the park* *Every Sunday you?ll see my sweetheart and me* *As we poison the pigeons in the park* *When they see us coming* *The birdies all try and hide* *But they still go for peanuts* *When coated with cyanide* *The sun?s shining bright* *Everything seems all right* *When we?re poisoning pigeons in the park* *We?ve gained notoriety* *And caused much anxiety* *In the Audubon Society* *With our games* *They call it impiety* *And lack of propriety* *And quite a variety* *Of unpleasant names* *But it?s not against any religion* *To want to dispose of a pigeon* *So if Sunday you?re free* *Why don?t you come with me* *And we?ll poison the pigeons in the park* *And maybe we?ll do in a squirrel or two* *While we?re poisoning pigeons in the park* *We?ll murder them all amid laughter and merriment* *Except for the few we take home to experiment* *My pulse will be quickenin?* *With each drop of strychnine* *We feed to a pigeon* *It just takes a smidgin* *To poison a pigeon in the park* On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB < petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at> wrote: > Am 29.08.2014, 13:44 Uhr, schrieb Herman De Wael : > > > > > > > Matthias Berghaus schreef: > >> > >>> The deviation is actual system and is subject to system regulation and > >>> misexplanation. > >>> The misbid can only be subject to misexplanation as to the frequency of > >>> the occurence. > >> > >> That is the question. It has become not so unusual to assign an > >> artificial score if you use a two-suited convention and something > >> happens. The Dutch have done it (don`t know whether they still do), the > >> Austrians have don it (same..), maybe others have, I don`t know. IMO > >> 40C1 is in the rules to let them do it. > > > > I believe that rule to be against the laws of the game, but I accept it > > in some limited cases, like the Dutch example. > > I believe that a player is allowed to forget his system, and the laws > > guarantee that this does not get punished. What the Dutch have done is > > to get round this by saying that in specially described situations, > > forgetting a convention is "paying insufficient attention to the game". > > JFTR, Austrian Regulations use 40B2 > > "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, > disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding." > > Certain special partnership understandings are allowed subject to the > condition that they are used correctly. Whenever you forget (or psyche, or > whatever), you are using a SPU which is not allowed in this tournament and > will at best score Av-. > > (Note: We discussed this regulation in Honnef and it was considered legal.) > > Petrus > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140901/7edbfb47/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 1 03:01:40 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 21:01:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> <54006794.4090109@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 20:26:43 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > Likewise, Australia has a regulation prohibiting the psyching of a > strong and artificial opening bid (for example it is >verboten to psyche > an Acol 2C opening bid or a Precision 1C opening bid). >On the issue of "both players forget"; if the explaining player later > remembers, then Law 20F4 requires the explainer >to *immediately* summon > the Director. Not relevant. The problem is that the players both forgot they were playing criss-cross. But the bid was explained as criss-cross. >Today in Australlia is deemed to be the first day of spring. This season > is celebrated by a famous song written by Tom >Lehrer: > >> Spring is here, spring is here > >> Life is skittles and life is beer > >> I think the loveliest time of the year > >> Is the spring, I do, don?t you? ?Course you do > >> But there?s one thing that makes spring complete for me > >> And makes every Sunday a treat for me > >> > >> All the world seems in tune on a spring afternoon > >> When we?re poisoning pigeons in the park > >> Every Sunday you?ll see my sweetheart and me > >> As we poison the pigeons in the park > >> > >> When they see us coming > >> The birdies all try and hide > >> But they still go for peanuts > >> When coated with cyanide > >> > >> The sun?s shining bright > >> Everything seems all right > >> When we?re poisoning pigeons in the park > >> > >> We?ve gained notoriety > >> And caused much anxiety > >> In the Audubon Society > >> With our games > >> They call it impiety > >> And lack of propriety > >> And quite a variety > >> Of unpleasant names > >> > >> But it?s not against any religion > >> To want to dispose of a pigeon > >> > >> So if Sunday you?re free > >> Why don?t you come with me > >> And we?ll poison the pigeons in the park > >> And maybe we?ll do in a squirrel or two > >> While we?re poisoning pigeons in the park > >> > >> We?ll murder them all amid laughter and merriment > >> Except for the few we take home to experiment > >> > >> My pulse will be quickenin? > >> With each drop of strychnine > >> We feed to a pigeon > >> It just takes a smidgin > >> To poison a pigeon in the park >> > > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB > wrote: >> Am 29.08.2014, 13:44 Uhr, schrieb Herman De Wael : >> >>> >>> >>> Matthias Berghaus schreef: >>>> >>>>> The deviation is actual system and is subject to system regulation >>>>> and >>>>> misexplanation. >>>>> The misbid can only be subject to misexplanation as to the frequency >>>>> of >>>>> the occurence. >>>> >>>> That is the question. It has become not so unusual to assign an >>>> artificial score if you use a two-suited convention and something >>>> happens. The Dutch have done it (don`t know whether they still do), >>>> the >>>> Austrians have don it (same..), maybe others have, I don`t know. IMO >>>> 40C1 is in the rules to let them do it. >>> >>> I believe that rule to be against the laws of the game, but I accept it >>> in some limited cases, like the Dutch example. >>> I believe that a player is allowed to forget his system, and the laws >>> guarantee that this does not get punished. What the Dutch have done is >>> to get round this by saying that in specially described situations, >>> forgetting a convention is "paying insufficient attention to the game". >> >> JFTR, Austrian Regulations use 40B2 >> >> "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, >> disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership >> understanding." >> >> Certain special partnership understandings are allowed subject to the >> condition that they are used correctly. Whenever you forget (or psyche, >> or >> whatever), you are using a SPU which is not allowed in this tournament >> and >> will at best score Av-. >> >> (Note: We discussed this regulation in Honnef and it was considered >> legal.) >> >>>> Petrus >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140901/a6c137ce/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 1 09:12:04 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:12:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> <54006794.4090109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54041C44.2060103@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > > Not relevant. The problem is that the players both forgot they were > playing criss-cross. But the bid was explained as criss-cross. > If both players forgot, then who gave the explanation? Could be of course that the opponents just looked at the system card. But I'd say that if both players forget (and towards the same) then there is very strong evidence that the "same" is the actual agreement and the system card is wrong. hence misexplanation. Herman. From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Mon Sep 1 16:27:17 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 10:27:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net> On 8/30/2014 9:29 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:58:48 -0400, Richard Hills > wrote: > > Fortunately, the Lawbook is nuanced. In addition to Law 40C1 > (which describes *frequent* deviations - caused either by > forgetfulness or by intent - as creating an implicit partnership > understanding), there is also Law 75C (which describes > *infrequent* deviations - caused either by forgetfulness or by > intent - as not requiring any disclosure). Law 75C emphasises that > it is the partnership understanding, *not* a partner's cards, > which much be disclosed. > > > If I correctly remember your position on this, Richard, if both > players forget they are playing a convention, their "understanding" at > that moment is that they are not playing the convention. I would say that Richard takes this position because he understands the subtleties of the English language, and thus the potential consequences of TPTB's choice to replace the phrase "partnership agreement" with "partnership understanding" in TFLB. Which leads one to ask whether TPTB understood those subtleties as well as Richard does and intended the consequences. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 1 19:37:43 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:37:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget In-Reply-To: <54041C44.2060103@skynet.be> References: <54002602.4000904@skynet.be> <001001cfc35c$25aff5d0$710fe170$@online.no> <54003752.7090703@skynet.be> <002e01cfc363$e7e1d770$b7a58650$@online.no> <540048AC.8070304@skynet.be> <5400606A.1040308@t-online.de> <54006794.4090109@skynet.be> <54041C44.2060103@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 03:12:04 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> >> Not relevant. The problem is that the players both forgot they were >> playing criss-cross. But the bid was explained as criss-cross. >> > > If both players forgot, then who gave the explanation? > > Could be of course that the opponents just looked at the system card. > But I'd say that if both players forget (and towards the same) then > there is very strong evidence that the "same" is the actual agreement > and the system card is wrong. hence misexplanation. I think the question woke them up. It's clear that their agreement is criss-cross. It's not a typical convention to play, they play with other players, and they both forgot. Do you still want to rule misexplanation if they neither one remembered it was criss-cross but they explained it that way? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 1 19:39:08 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:39:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net> References: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 10:27:17 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On 8/30/2014 9:29 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:58:48 -0400, Richard Hills >> wrote: >> >> Fortunately, the Lawbook is nuanced. In addition to Law 40C1 >> (which describes *frequent* deviations - caused either by >> forgetfulness or by intent - as creating an implicit partnership >> understanding), there is also Law 75C (which describes >> *infrequent* deviations - caused either by forgetfulness or by >> intent - as not requiring any disclosure). Law 75C emphasises that >> it is the partnership understanding, *not* a partner's cards, >> which much be disclosed. >> >> >> If I correctly remember your position on this, Richard, if both >> players forget they are playing a convention, their "understanding" at >> that moment is that they are not playing the convention. > > I would say that Richard takes this position because he understands the > subtleties of the English language, and thus the potential consequences > of TPTB's choice to replace the phrase "partnership agreement" with > "partnership understanding" in TFLB. Which leads one to ask whether > TPTB understood those subtleties as well as Richard does and intended > the consequences. Right. It's not clear that L75 has the same subtlety, and I can't really find fault with directors who followed that law and ruled correct explanation. > -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From g3 at nige1.com Mon Sep 1 22:38:45 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 21:38:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: References: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net> Message-ID: <7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> Although unlikely to happen before the demise of Bridge, WBF rule clarifications could mitigate such problems. e.g. a solution that doesn't rely too much on mind-reading might be: "Players in partnership must have identical WBF system-cards, including all their main understandings. For the purposes of the rules, what is on their system-card is their understanding, no matter that they've forgotten it or discussed something different, later. WBF, NBO, and club websites would provide editable cards for standard systems and popular variations. Clubs would hold a stock of simple system cards that players could use. If a pair want to play something different, they must create appropriate system-cards, first." That is one possibility. Others may have simpler better suggestions. But almost anything would be better than the current miasma. And, of course, Richard Hills is right that the law-book needs restructuring. Perhaps as a flow-diagrams (after pruning). From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Sep 1 22:47:50 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 16:47:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: <7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> References: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net> <7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> Message-ID: <5404DB76.20503@nhcc.net> On 9/1/2014 4:38 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > For the purposes of the rules, what is on their > system-card is their understanding, So there's no way to rule against players who put something on their system card (and explain accordingly), then play something entirely different? From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 1 23:33:25 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 23:33:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: <7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> References: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net> <7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> Message-ID: <5404E625.2010409@t-online.de> Am 01.09.2014 22:38, schrieb Nigel Guthrie: > Although unlikely to happen before the demise of Bridge, WBF rule > clarifications could mitigate such problems. e.g. a solution that doesn't > rely too much on mind-reading might be: > > "Players in partnership must have identical WBF system-cards, including all > their main understandings. That is already in the usual regulations. > For the purposes of the rules, what is on their > system-card is their understanding, no matter that they've forgotten it or > discussed something different, later. No. I give you a real case: An Australian and a New Zealander (never mind names, I don`t remember. Not famous people or internationally known, then. Don`t know about today as I can`t remember who these guys were.) They had met on BBO or OK or whatever, and decided to play the European Open Pairs. One of them (the New Zealander IIRC) had prepared the convention cards, which were indeed identical. They said "1C=at least 4). As it turned out the Australian guy assumed that 1C usually showed 4+, but could be 3 with a 4333 shape and a 4card major, and he explained his partners 1C as 3+. This was with screens and horrible things happened to their Russian opponents, one asking his Australian screenmate and the other looking at the CC. As it turned out they had never discussed this, both assuming that the other was doing the same as himself. So they had never discussed it, period. They did not, in fact, have an agreement, never mind their CC. I do not want a lot of Secretary Birds to fill in their CCs with what is least likely to hurt them. Knowing human beings, this is what would happen, believe me. Don`t tell me that there are ethical players around, I know that. They are never the problem... > WBF, NBO, and club websites would > provide editable cards for standard systems and popular variations. WBF and most NBOs I know about do. What clubs do is none of our business, or the WBFs, for that matter. Why should they _have_ a website? Most clubs in my country do, but surely not all, and it is no use to force them to do so when the average age in some of them is 75+. > Clubs > would hold a stock of simple system cards that players could use. My club does, and even provides a container to hold CCs the people don`t want to carry around, but want to use again. Different types (4card-Major, Better Minor, Polish club etc) are available for decades. Their number does not lessen, as no one uses them. > If a pair > want to play something different, they must create appropriate system-cards, > first." This would be for the regulating body to mandate, not for you and me, even if I deem your suggestion sensible, which I do. > > That is one possibility. Others may have simpler better suggestions. But > almost anything would be better than the current miasma. > > And, of course, Richard Hills is right that the law-book needs > restructuring. Perhaps as a flow-diagrams (after pruning). > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Tue Sep 2 01:56:52 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 00:56:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: <5404E625.2010409@t-online.de> References: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net> <7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> <5404E625.2010409@t-online.de> Message-ID: [Nige1] Although unlikely to happen before the demise of Bridge, WBF rule clarifications could mitigate such problems. e.g. a solution that doesn't rely too much on mind-reading might be: "Players in partnership must have identical WBF system-cards, including all their main understandings. [Matthias Berghaus] That is already in the usual regulations. [nige2] My suggestion is that TFLB should cover most of the rules of Bridge, delegating as little as practically possible to local regulation. [Nige1] For the purposes of the rules, what is on their system-card is their understanding, no matter that they've forgotten it or discussed something different, later. [Matthias] No. I give you a real case: An Australian and a New Zealander (never mind names, I don`t remember. Not famous people or internationally known, then. Don`t know about today as I can`t remember who these guys were.) They had met on BBO or OK or whatever, and decided to play the European Open Pairs. One of them (the New Zealander IIRC) had prepared the convention cards, which were indeed identical. They said "1C=at least 4). As it turned out the Australian guy assumed that 1C usually showed 4+, but could be 3 with a 4333 shape and a 4card major, and he explained his partners 1C as 3+. This was with screens and horrible things happened to their Russian opponents, one asking his Australian screenmate and the other looking at the CC. As it turned out they had never discussed this, both assuming that the other was doing the same as himself. So they had never discussed it, period. They did not, in fact, have an agreement, never mind their CC. I do not want a lot of Secretary Birds to fill in their CCs with what is least likely to hurt them. Knowing human beings, this is what would happen, believe me. Don`t tell me that there are ethical players around, I know that. They are never the problem... [Nige2] Under the proposed rule, if a pair's system-card is wrong or "economical with the truth" about understandings, then that is a failure to disclose. Also, the partner who said "3+" would be guilty of misexplanation. [Nige1] WBF, NBO, and club websites would provide editable cards for standard systems and popular variations. [Matthias] WBF and most NBOs I know about do. What clubs do is none of our business, or the WBFs, for that matter. Why should they _have_ a website? Most clubs in my country do, but surely not all, and it is no use to force them to do so when the average age in some of them is 75+. [Nige2] Not "must" but "would". Perhaps, in the case of clubs, I should have written "ideally, would". [Nige1] Clubs would hold a stock of simple system cards that players could use. [Matthias] My club does, and even provides a container to hold CCs the people don`t want to carry around, but want to use again. Different types (4card-Major, Better Minor, Polish club etc) are available for decades. Their number does not lessen, as no one uses them. [Nige2] The proposed rule might provide more incentive for players to use them. [Nige1] If a pair want to play something different, they must create appropriate system-cards, first." [Matthias] This would be for the regulating body to mandate, not for you and me, even if I deem your suggestion sensible, which I do. [Nige2] The proposed rule would be a universal law not a local regulation. [Nige1] That is one possibility. Others may have simpler better suggestions. But almost anything would be better than the current miasma. And, of course, Richard Hills is right that the law-book needs restructuring. Perhaps as flow-diagrams (after pruning). [Nige2] Thank you, Matthias for your useful criticisms. The suggestion has drawbacks but IMO fewer than players endure now. If anybody comes up with another simple solution that improves the lot of players but is more to the taste of TDs, then we should all support it. From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 04:45:54 2014 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 21:45:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: <5404DB76.20503@nhcc.net> References: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net> <7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> <5404DB76.20503@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 9/1/2014 4:38 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> For the purposes of the rules, what is on their >> system-card is their understanding, > > So there's no way to rule against players who put something on their > system card (and explain accordingly), then play something entirely > different? I would be happiest with a ruling that what is on their system card is *not* their understanding if neither player can remember it in the heat of battle. If neither player can understand how to play a convention, then it is not their understanding. What's on their system card doesn't override how they play. I would even take it a step further: If one player cannot remember a convention that's on the card, then it is not their partnership understanding. I would take it even one step further still: If one player forgets the supposed understanding that is on the system card, the director should quiz that player on the details of that understanding, and if that player can't explain the understanding, then it is not a partnership understanding, and almost anything that has been stated should be ruled MI. --Jerry Fusselman From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 11:25:27 2014 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 05:25:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: <7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> References: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net> <7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> Message-ID: <54058D07.6030305@gmail.com> On 09/01/2014 04:38 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: <...> > > And, of course, Richard Hills is right that the law-book needs > restructuring. Perhaps as a flow-diagrams (after pruning). > I suggest (yes, once again) that the WBF could do with cancelling a meeting or two and using the money saved on getting a good bridge-playing technical author to go through TFLB and translate it into simple English with a logical structure. And just in case anybody else holds Grattan's views, no, I am not impugning anyone's academic qualifications by this suggestion. I've seen at first hand what a good technical author can do as regards clarifying a document. It's a humbling experience when the original was your own work. Brian. From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 2 13:01:08 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:01:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: <54058D07.6030305@gmail.com> References: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net> <7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> <54058D07.6030305@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001401cfc69d$335928c0$9a0b7a40$@online.no> Brian > On 09/01/2014 04:38 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > And, of course, Richard Hills is right that the law-book needs > > restructuring. Perhaps as a flow-diagrams (after pruning). > > > > I suggest (yes, once again) that the WBF could do with cancelling a > meeting or two and using the money saved on getting a good > bridge-playing technical author to go through TFLB and translate it > into simple English with a logical structure. > > And just in case anybody else holds Grattan's views, no, I am not > impugning anyone's academic qualifications by this suggestion. I've > seen at first hand what a good technical author can do as regards > clarifying a document. It's a humbling experience when the original > was your own work. [Sven Pran] Grattan came up with a very good (in my honest opinion) suggestion for a completely restructured law book in 2007. However, it was the decision of WBFLC to maintain the existing paragraph numbers unchanged and keep the existing structure, so his suggestion was voted down. Pity if you ask me. From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Tue Sep 2 16:32:49 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:32:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: References: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net> <7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> <5404DB76.20503@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5405D511.7030608@verizon.net> On 9/1/2014 10:45 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> On 9/1/2014 4:38 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>> For the purposes of the rules, what is on their >>> system-card is their understanding, >> So there's no way to rule against players who put something on their >> system card (and explain accordingly), then play something entirely >> different? > I would be happiest with a ruling that what is on their system card is > *not* their understanding if neither player can remember it in the > heat of battle. > > If neither player can understand how to play a convention, then it is > not their understanding. What's on their system card doesn't override > how they play. > > I would even take it a step further: If one player cannot remember a > convention that's on the card, then it is not their partnership > understanding. That seems right to me, and *should have* been exactly what TPTB meant when they changed "partnership agreement" to "partnership understanding" in this context. A "partnership understanding" exists whenever both members of the partnership have the same understanding, regardless of the existence of some differing "agreement" that may have been explicitly established previously. Thus if both players would offer consistent explanations of a call or sequence, that explanation consititues their "partnership understanding" regardless of any differing "agreement" that may appear on their CC or system notes. And if their interpretations differ, they do not have an "understanding", notwithstanding that whichever explanation (if either) matches the CC or notes remains their "agreement". -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From g3 at nige1.com Tue Sep 2 21:40:51 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 20:40:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: <5405D511.7030608@verizon.net> References: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net><7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> <5404DB76.20503@nhcc.net> <5405D511.7030608@verizon.net> Message-ID: <1B1444B535804E7AA4D7122F226A6A39@G3> [Steve Willner] So there's no way to rule against players who put something on their system card (and explain accordingly), then play something entirely different? [jerry Fusselman] I would be happiest with a ruling that what is on their system card is *not* their understanding if neither player can remember it in the heat of battle. If neither player can understand how to play a convention, then it is not their understanding. What's on their system card doesn't override how they play. I would even take it a step further: If one player cannot remember a convention that's on the card, then it is not their partnership understanding. [Eric Landau] That seems right to me, and *should have* been exactly what TPTB meant when they changed "partnership agreement" to "partnership understanding" in this context. A "partnership understanding" exists whenever both members of the partnership have the same understanding, regardless of the existence of some differing "agreement" that may have been explicitly established previously. Thus if both players would offer consistent explanations of a call or sequence, that explanation consititues their "partnership understanding" regardless of any differing "agreement" that may appear on their CC or system notes. And if their interpretations differ, they do not have an "understanding", notwithstanding that whichever explanation (if either) matches the CC or notes remains their "agreement". [nige1] Among possible sources of evidence for partnership understandings are 1. What they've written on their SC. 2. What they say it is. 3. What they think it is. Ideally, both players have the same understanding. And #1 coincides with #2, #3... If completed SCs are compulsory, then #1 is relatively easy to police and verify, Manifestly, some TDs prefer other sources. IMO, players would benefit if, by and large, they could trust information on opponents' SCs, without bothering to "protect themselves". Whatever the information source is (e.g. #1 or #2), when a partnership deviates from its disclosed "understandings" then the TD must still decide if it 's guilty of a CPU. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Sep 3 22:57:38 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 16:57:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: <54058D07.6030305@gmail.com> References: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net> <7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> <54058D07.6030305@gmail.com> Message-ID: <540780C2.4030106@nhcc.net> On 9/2/2014 5:25 AM, Brian wrote: > I suggest (yes, once again) that the WBF could do with cancelling a > meeting or two and using the money saved on getting a good > bridge-playing technical author to go through TFLB and translate it > into simple English with a logical structure. My suggestion would be a couple of the people who have to translate the Laws into other languages. Translating is not going to be possible unless one knows what the Laws are supposed to mean in English. > I've > seen at first hand what a good technical author can do as regards > clarifying a document. It's a humbling experience when the original > was your own work. Oh, boy, Brian, you are right about that last! "Humbling" might even be too mild. And I'm considered a pretty good writer, as scientists go. The counter-argument, of course, is that the Laws are deliberately ambiguous in order to gain LC consensus. I am not convinced that's wrong. From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 08:15:47 2014 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 02:15:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: <540780C2.4030106@nhcc.net> References: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net> <7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> <54058D07.6030305@gmail.com> <540780C2.4030106@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <54080393.3010007@gmail.com> On 09/03/2014 04:57 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 9/2/2014 5:25 AM, Brian wrote: >> I suggest (yes, once again) that the WBF could do with cancelling a >> meeting or two and using the money saved on getting a good >> bridge-playing technical author to go through TFLB and translate it >> into simple English with a logical structure. > > My suggestion would be a couple of the people who have to translate the > Laws into other languages. Translating is not going to be possible > unless one knows what the Laws are supposed to mean in English. > The most important consideration is that whoever does it should NOT have been involved in the process of framing the new laws at an earlier stage. The tendency to see what you think/know is written, rather than what's actually written, is too great, IMO. >> I've >> seen at first hand what a good technical author can do as regards >> clarifying a document. It's a humbling experience when the original >> was your own work. > > Oh, boy, Brian, you are right about that last! "Humbling" might even be > too mild. And I'm considered a pretty good writer, as scientists go. > > The counter-argument, of course, is that the Laws are deliberately > ambiguous in order to gain LC consensus. I am not convinced that's wrong. *IF* your counter-argument is correct, then I think that's enormously short-sighted on the part of the WBFLC. Translating plain English into other languages is one thing, trying to accurately translate deliberate ambiguities (written in complex English) into other languages must be an order of magnitude more difficult. I no longer play offline bridge due to personal circumstances. The only reason I stick with this mailing list is to see what happens if/when the WBFLC or its subcommittee(s) ever come up with a new version of the online laws. When you frequently have four players from four different countries at a table, often with no common language except a few (sometimes extremely few!) words of English, differences in Laws due to the different translations are the last thing you need! Brian. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Sep 4 15:24:56 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 09:24:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Both players forget & numbering In-Reply-To: <54080393.3010007@gmail.com> References: <54048245.3090703@verizon.net> <7A6CC02653354C9D89DD792A2AAC1C11@G3> <54058D07.6030305@gmail.com> <540780C2.4030106@nhcc.net> <54080393.3010007@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54086828.4030603@nhcc.net> On 2014-09-04 2:15 AM, Brian wrote: > The tendency to see what you think/know is written, > rather than what's actually written, is too great Exactly. > *IF* your counter-argument is correct, then I think that's enormously > short-sighted on the part of the WBFLC. From our viewpoint, yes. From the viewpoint of an individual member of the WBFLC, maybe not. Think about the politics. (I hope I'm wrong.) From bridge at vwalther.de Sun Sep 7 14:22:26 2014 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 14:22:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. Message-ID: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> We are discussing the following case here in germany. Dummy is on lead, having diamond J96. Maybe the six was covering the lower half of the 9. Declarer orders the "Diamond 8"., Dummy touches the diamonds fingering out the card in the middle, RHO plays the King of Diamonds, and dummy discovers "It's the nine, not the eight". Declarer "play the 8 of spades than!" According to 46.B4 the call of the "Diamond 8" was "void". I see some ambiguity about the meaning of this word. Does this mean we should handle the situation as if declarer never ordered a card from dummy, which leads us to handle the King of Diamonds as penalty card? Or is calling a card that dummy does not have still an irregularity because it is not in accordance with law 45.B? In this case 46B4 is just the rectification of this irregularity (Rectification: The void call has no binding effect for the card to be played for dummy, declarer has to name a legal one). This would lead to 47A, allowing to withdraw the king. In the latter case -which makes much more sense to me- it might be a good idea to replace "void" by "invalid" in law 46. Greetings, Volker From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 7 15:50:38 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 15:50:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> > Volker Walther > We are discussing the following case here in germany. > > Dummy is on lead, having diamond J96. > Maybe the six was covering the lower half of the 9. > Declarer orders the "Diamond 8"., Dummy touches the diamonds fingering > out the card in the middle, RHO plays the King of Diamonds, and dummy > discovers "It's the nine, not the eight". Declarer "play the 8 of spades than!" > > > According to 46.B4 the call of the "Diamond 8" was "void". I see some > ambiguity about the meaning of this word. Does this mean we should > handle the situation as if declarer never ordered a card from dummy, > which leads us to handle the King of Diamonds as penalty card? > > Or is calling a card that dummy does not have still an irregularity because it is > not in accordance with law 45.B? In this case 46B4 is just the rectification of > this irregularity (Rectification: The void call has no binding effect for the card to > be played for dummy, declarer has to name a legal one). This would lead to > 47A, allowing to withdraw the king. > > In the latter case -which makes much more sense to me- it might be a good > idea to replace "void" by "invalid" in law 46. > > Greetings, Volker [Sven Pran] "Void" or "invalid" makes little difference. There is an irregularity, Declarer has not called any card and the rectification is that he may call any legal card. The problem is of course how to treat the King of Diamonds. Legally it is a lead out of turn and must be handled as such. (Technically RHO has also violated Law 74B1 !) From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Sep 7 16:19:30 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 15:19:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> Message-ID: <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> Dummy has placed in the played position a card that was not named by declarer, and I think we can look to Law 45D. On 07/09/2014 14:50, Sven Pran wrote: >> Volker Walther >> We are discussing the following case here in germany. >> >> Dummy is on lead, having diamond J96. >> Maybe the six was covering the lower half of the 9. >> Declarer orders the "Diamond 8"., Dummy touches the diamonds fingering >> out the card in the middle, RHO plays the King of Diamonds, and dummy >> discovers "It's the nine, not the eight". Declarer "play the 8 of spades > than!" >> >> According to 46.B4 the call of the "Diamond 8" was "void". I see some >> ambiguity about the meaning of this word. Does this mean we should >> handle the situation as if declarer never ordered a card from dummy, >> which leads us to handle the King of Diamonds as penalty card? >> >> Or is calling a card that dummy does not have still an irregularity > because it is >> not in accordance with law 45.B? In this case 46B4 is just the > rectification of >> this irregularity (Rectification: The void call has no binding effect for > the card to >> be played for dummy, declarer has to name a legal one). This would lead to >> 47A, allowing to withdraw the king. >> >> In the latter case -which makes much more sense to me- it might be a good >> idea to replace "void" by "invalid" in law 46. >> >> Greetings, Volker > [Sven Pran] > "Void" or "invalid" makes little difference. There is an irregularity, > Declarer has not called any card and the rectification is that he may call > any legal card. > > The problem is of course how to treat the King of Diamonds. > > Legally it is a lead out of turn and must be handled as such. (Technically > RHO has also violated Law 74B1 !) > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 7 16:45:51 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 16:45:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <000d01cfcaaa$6ba59ae0$42f0d0a0$@online.no> Indeed he has. I concentrated on the description from Volker and overlooked that Law 45D in fact is the relevant law. Thanks for the reminder Sven > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Gordon Rainsford > Sendt: 7. september 2014 16:20 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. > > Dummy has placed in the played position a card that was not named by > declarer, and I think we can look to Law 45D. > > On 07/09/2014 14:50, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Volker Walther > >> We are discussing the following case here in germany. > >> > >> Dummy is on lead, having diamond J96. > >> Maybe the six was covering the lower half of the 9. > >> Declarer orders the "Diamond 8"., Dummy touches the diamonds fingering > >> out the card in the middle, RHO plays the King of Diamonds, and dummy > >> discovers "It's the nine, not the eight". Declarer "play the 8 of > >> spades > > than!" > >> > >> According to 46.B4 the call of the "Diamond 8" was "void". I see some > >> ambiguity about the meaning of this word. Does this mean we should > >> handle the situation as if declarer never ordered a card from dummy, > >> which leads us to handle the King of Diamonds as penalty card? > >> > >> Or is calling a card that dummy does not have still an irregularity > > because it is > >> not in accordance with law 45.B? In this case 46B4 is just the > > rectification of > >> this irregularity (Rectification: The void call has no binding effect > >> for > > the card to > >> be played for dummy, declarer has to name a legal one). This would > >> lead to 47A, allowing to withdraw the king. > >> > >> In the latter case -which makes much more sense to me- it might be a > >> good idea to replace "void" by "invalid" in law 46. > >> > >> Greetings, Volker > > [Sven Pran] > > "Void" or "invalid" makes little difference. There is an irregularity, > > Declarer has not called any card and the rectification is that he may > > call any legal card. > > > > The problem is of course how to treat the King of Diamonds. > > > > Legally it is a lead out of turn and must be handled as such. > > (Technically RHO has also violated Law 74B1 !) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Sun Sep 7 20:46:39 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 14:46:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 10:19:30 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > Dummy has placed in the played position a card that was not named by > declarer, and I think we can look to Law 45D. From the OP: "Dummy touches the diamonds fingering out the card in the middle" This is not placing a card in the played position. But right, proper execution of this coup requires dummy to follow the rules and sit quietly and see if the opponent attempts to follow suit the call of a nonexistent card. Asking the ACBL, they said the defender's played card was a penalty card. I would have to actually see the rack before I ruled that way. Bob > > On 07/09/2014 14:50, Sven Pran wrote: >>> Volker Walther >>> We are discussing the following case here in germany. >>> >>> Dummy is on lead, having diamond J96. >>> Maybe the six was covering the lower half of the 9. >>> Declarer orders the "Diamond 8"., Dummy touches the diamonds fingering >>> out the card in the middle, RHO plays the King of Diamonds, and dummy >>> discovers "It's the nine, not the eight". Declarer "play the 8 of >>> spades >> than!" >>> >>> According to 46.B4 the call of the "Diamond 8" was "void". I see some >>> ambiguity about the meaning of this word. Does this mean we should >>> handle the situation as if declarer never ordered a card from dummy, >>> which leads us to handle the King of Diamonds as penalty card? >>> >>> Or is calling a card that dummy does not have still an irregularity >> because it is >>> not in accordance with law 45.B? In this case 46B4 is just the >> rectification of >>> this irregularity (Rectification: The void call has no binding effect >>> for >> the card to >>> be played for dummy, declarer has to name a legal one). This would >>> lead to >>> 47A, allowing to withdraw the king. >>> >>> In the latter case -which makes much more sense to me- it might be a >>> good >>> idea to replace "void" by "invalid" in law 46. >>> >>> Greetings, Volker >> [Sven Pran] >> "Void" or "invalid" makes little difference. There is an irregularity, >> Declarer has not called any card and the rectification is that he may >> call >> any legal card. >> >> The problem is of course how to treat the King of Diamonds. >> >> Legally it is a lead out of turn and must be handled as such. >> (Technically >> RHO has also violated Law 74B1 !) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Sep 7 20:59:49 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 20:59:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Am 07.09.2014, 20:46 Uhr, schrieb Robert Frick : > On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 10:19:30 -0400, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> Dummy has placed in the played position a card that was not named by >> declarer, and I think we can look to Law 45D. > > From the OP: "Dummy touches the diamonds fingering out the card in the > middle" > > This is not placing a card in the played position. > > But right, proper execution of this coup requires dummy to follow the > rules and sit quietly and see if the opponent attempts to follow suit the > call of a nonexistent card. > > Asking the ACBL, they said the defender's played card was a penalty card. > I would have to actually see the rack before I ruled that way. > IMO, calling for a non-existing card violates correct procedure and therefore is an irregularity, so whatever you may have to rule concerning the DK, there is always 12A1 to compensate defenders after the hand. Petrus From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 7 21:12:55 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 15:12:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 14:59:49 -0400, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Am 07.09.2014, 20:46 Uhr, schrieb Robert Frick : > >> On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 10:19:30 -0400, Gordon Rainsford >> wrote: >> >>> Dummy has placed in the played position a card that was not named by >>> declarer, and I think we can look to Law 45D. >> >> From the OP: "Dummy touches the diamonds fingering out the card in the >> middle" >> >> This is not placing a card in the played position. >> >> But right, proper execution of this coup requires dummy to follow the >> rules and sit quietly and see if the opponent attempts to follow suit >> the >> call of a nonexistent card. >> >> Asking the ACBL, they said the defender's played card was a penalty >> card. >> I would have to actually see the rack before I ruled that way. >> > > IMO, calling for a non-existing card violates correct procedure and > therefore is an irregularity, so whatever you may have to rule concerning > the DK, there is always 12A1 to compensate defenders after the hand. > I like this. Is there any way to justify this position using the laws? From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Sep 7 22:49:52 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 16:49:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <540CC4F0.5070104@nhcc.net> On 2014-09-07 2:59 PM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > IMO, calling for a non-existing card violates correct procedure and > therefore is an irregularity, so whatever you may have to rule concerning > the DK, there is always 12A1 to compensate defenders after the hand. My view also, and it seems perfectly justified by the definition of "irregularity" and L12A1. If declarer is smart, he will ask that the penalty card be waived. If I were TD, I'd suggest he do so. In the novice game, I'd just rule that way in the first place, advising them that this isn't strictly correct but produces the right result. From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 7 23:12:21 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 23:12:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <001201cfcae0$6b6f3910$424dab30$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > >>> Dummy has placed in the played position a card that was not named by > >>> declarer, and I think we can look to Law 45D. > >> > >> From the OP: "Dummy touches the diamonds fingering out the card in > >> the middle" > >> > >> This is not placing a card in the played position. [Sven Pran] "fingering out the card" ??? Once Dummy in response to something declarer said (or indicated) has removed a card from its position among his other cards his action will normally be ruled to having played the card. > > IMO, calling for a non-existing card violates correct procedure and > > therefore is an irregularity, so whatever you may have to rule > > concerning the DK, there is always 12A1 to compensate defenders after the > hand. > > > > I like this. Is there any way to justify this position using the laws? [Sven Pran] Hardly. Law 46B4 is very clear on this irregularity and the consequential rectification, and Law 12B2 is equally clear that "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side" . Besides NOS should answer to having paid insufficient attention to the game. (Law 74B1) From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 8 03:44:01 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 21:44:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: <001201cfcae0$6b6f3910$424dab30$@online.no> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> <001201cfcae0$6b6f3910$424dab30$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 17:12:21 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> >>> Dummy has placed in the played position a card that was not named by >> >>> declarer, and I think we can look to Law 45D. >> >> >> >> From the OP: "Dummy touches the diamonds fingering out the card in >> >> the middle" >> >> >> >> This is not placing a card in the played position. > > [Sven Pran] > "fingering out the card" ??? > Once Dummy in response to something declarer said (or indicated) has > removed > a card from its position among his other cards his action will normally > be > ruled to having played the card. Of course. I am not saying anyone actually follows the rules on this. Sorry for the confusion. I meant that the card was not placed in the played position *as defined by the laws*. > >> > IMO, calling for a non-existing card violates correct procedure and >> > therefore is an irregularity, so whatever you may have to rule >> > concerning the DK, there is always 12A1 to compensate defenders after > the >> hand. >> > >> >> I like this. Is there any way to justify this position using the laws? > > [Sven Pran] > Hardly. > > Law 46B4 is very clear on this irregularity ?? "if declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card" It does not say that declarer must not call for (or mention) a card that is not in dummy. Or may not, or should not, or shall not. Or might not. Or that there is anything wrong with doing this. and the consequential > rectification, and Law 12B2 is equally clear that "The Director may not > award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in > these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side" . Um, there is normally *no* penalty for calling for a nonexistent card. Everyone goes "huh?", declarer blushes, and they go on with play. It's not a big deal. > > Besides NOS should answer to having paid insufficient attention to the > game. > (Law 74B1) Laughing. My "NOS" nearly went apoplectic when I told him the "paying insufficient to the game" line. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 8 09:16:02 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 09:16:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> <001201cfcae0$6b6f3910$424dab30$@online.no> Message-ID: <001301cfcb34$bfa0fb50$3ee2f1f0$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > >> > IMO, calling for a non-existing card violates correct procedure and > >> > therefore is an irregularity, so whatever you may have to rule > >> > concerning the DK, there is always 12A1 to compensate defenders > >> > after > > the > >> hand. > >> > > >> > >> I like this. Is there any way to justify this position using the laws? > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Hardly. > > > > Law 46B4 is very clear on this irregularity > > ?? "if declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer > may designate any legal card" > > It does not say that declarer must not call for (or mention) a card that is not in > dummy. Or may not, or should not, or shall not. Or might not. Or that there is > anything wrong with doing this. > > > > and the consequential > > rectification, and Law 12B2 is equally clear that "The Director may > > not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification > > provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either > side" . > > Um, there is normally *no* penalty for calling for a nonexistent card. > Everyone goes "huh?", declarer blushes, and they go on with play. It's not a big > deal. [Sven Pran] It is still an irregularity with a prescribed rectification. That the rectification simply says "try again and do it right this time" with no kind of penalty is irrelevant. > > > Besides NOS should answer to having paid insufficient attention to the > > game. > > (Law 74B1) > > > Laughing. My "NOS" nearly went apoplectic when I told him the "paying > insufficient to the game" line. [Sven Pran] Law 74B1 is of course irrelevant when RHO plays in response to what is deemed a (void) play from Dummy. From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Mon Sep 8 12:26:59 2014 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 12:26:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140908102705.D2F5D205B7B@spamfilter.webreus.nl> How about the clause "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" in the beginning paragraph of 46D? Declarer's "incontrovertible" intention was to play the card that to to him looked like an 8, but actually was a 9. I would consider that card played, unless he can convince me that the 9 instead of the 8 required a totally different strategy. From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 8 13:17:37 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 13:17:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: <20140908102705.D2F5D205B7B@spamfilter.webreus.nl> References: <20140908102705.D2F5D205B7B@spamfilter.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <002001cfcb56$7f404c60$7dc0e520$@online.no> Peter Smulders > How about the clause "except when declarer's different intention is > incontrovertible" > in the beginning paragraph of 46D? > > Declarer's "incontrovertible" intention was to play the card that to to him > looked like an 8, but actually was a 9. > I would consider that card played, unless he can convince me that the 9 instead > of the 8 required a totally different strategy. [Sven Pran] If that was declarer's incontrovertible intention I would expect him to just replace the void designation with the correct designation for that card. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 8 16:46:16 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:46:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: <20140908102705.D2F5D205B7B@spamfilter.webreus.nl> References: <20140908102705.D2F5D205B7B@spamfilter.webreus.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 06:26:59 -0400, Peter Smulders wrote: > How about the clause "except when declarer's > different intention is incontrovertible" > in the beginning paragraph of 46D? > > Declarer's "incontrovertible" intention was to play the card that > to to him looked like an 8, but actually was a 9. > I would consider that card played, unless he can convince me > that the 9 instead of the 8 required a totally different strategy. Nice. And it solves this problem, but it isn't a general answer. If they call for the nonexistent 3 of spades, they could mean the 4 of spades or the 3 of diamonds. (And then, legally speaking, I think the call is void and they can substitute what they want. Right?) Once declarer said "singleton king" and defender took that as calling for the lead of the (now) singleton king of diamonds from dummy. She played her ace. The declarer was remarking on the fact that the king of clubs had been singleton and wanted the ace of diamonds to be a penalty card. I ruled no. Again, the ACBL advice was yes. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 8 16:52:05 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:52:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: <001301cfcb34$bfa0fb50$3ee2f1f0$@online.no> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> <001201cfcae0$6b6f3910$424dab30$@online.no> <001301cfcb34$bfa0fb50$3ee2f1f0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 03:16:02 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> >> > IMO, calling for a non-existing card violates correct procedure and >> >> > therefore is an irregularity, so whatever you may have to rule >> >> > concerning the DK, there is always 12A1 to compensate defenders >> >> > after >> > the >> >> hand. >> >> > >> >> >> >> I like this. Is there any way to justify this position using the >> laws? >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Hardly. >> > >> > Law 46B4 is very clear on this irregularity >> >> ?? "if declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and > declarer >> may designate any legal card" >> >> It does not say that declarer must not call for (or mention) a card that > is not in >> dummy. Or may not, or should not, or shall not. Or might not. Or that > there is >> anything wrong with doing this. >> >> >> >> and the consequential >> > rectification, and Law 12B2 is equally clear that "The Director may >> > not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification >> > provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to >> either >> side" . >> >> Um, there is normally *no* penalty for calling for a nonexistent card. >> Everyone goes "huh?", declarer blushes, and they go on with play. It's >> not > a big >> deal. > > [Sven Pran] > It is still an irregularity with a prescribed rectification. That the > rectification simply says "try again and do it right this time" with no > kind > of penalty is irrelevant. Yes, but where does L46B say that it's an irregularity? > >> >> > Besides NOS should answer to having paid insufficient attention to the >> > game. >> > (Law 74B1) >> >> >> Laughing. My "NOS" nearly went apoplectic when I told him the "paying >> insufficient to the game" line. > > [Sven Pran] > Law 74B1 is of course irrelevant when RHO plays in response to what is > deemed a (void) play from Dummy. The opinion here seems to depend on which way you first decide to rule. The ACBL person thought this was relevant. I mean, if you are going to rule against the defender, you use every reason you can find, and most people seem to find this one pretty easily. Do you remember writing this, Sven? "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card. So RHO "following suit" with the 5 of spades was a lead out of turn." From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 8 16:54:31 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:54:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 14:59:49 -0400, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Am 07.09.2014, 20:46 Uhr, schrieb Robert Frick : > >> On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 10:19:30 -0400, Gordon Rainsford >> wrote: >> >>> Dummy has placed in the played position a card that was not named by >>> declarer, and I think we can look to Law 45D. >> >> From the OP: "Dummy touches the diamonds fingering out the card in the >> middle" >> >> This is not placing a card in the played position. >> >> But right, proper execution of this coup requires dummy to follow the >> rules and sit quietly and see if the opponent attempts to follow suit >> the >> call of a nonexistent card. >> >> Asking the ACBL, they said the defender's played card was a penalty >> card. >> I would have to actually see the rack before I ruled that way. >> > > IMO, calling for a non-existing card violates correct procedure and > therefore is an irregularity, so whatever you may have to rule concerning > the DK, there is always 12A1 to compensate defenders after the hand. > Sorry, I forgot another possible criticism of this. It is strange, as director, to rule a card a penalty card and then protect the defense if they are damaged by your ruling. From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 8 23:11:44 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 23:11:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> <001201cfcae0$6b6f3910$424dab30$@online.no> <001301cfcb34$bfa0fb50$3ee2f1f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <001001cfcba9$7ec5fd90$7c51f8b0$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > Yes, but where does L46B say that it's an irregularity? [Sven Pran] Definitions: Irregularity A deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. [...] > > Law 74B1 is of course irrelevant when RHO plays in response to what is > > deemed a (void) play from Dummy. > > The opinion here seems to depend on which way you first decide to rule. > The ACBL person thought this was relevant. I mean, if you are going to rule > against the defender, you use every reason you can find, and most people seem > to find this one pretty easily. > > Do you remember writing this, Sven? > > "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may > designate any legal card. So RHO "following suit" with the 5 of spades was a > lead out of turn." [Sven Pran] Sure. And what i have tried to say is that if RHO plays after declarer has made a void call but Dummy has not in any way played (or tried to play) any card then L74B1 is relevant. But if Dummy actually plays a card then L74B1 is no longer relevant, now we instead have Law 45D. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Sep 9 05:15:20 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 23:15:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: References: <20140908102705.D2F5D205B7B@spamfilter.webreus.nl> Message-ID: >"Robert Frick" > Once declarer said "singleton king" and defender took that as calling for > the lead of the (now) singleton king of diamonds from dummy. She played > her ace. The declarer was remarking on the fact that the king of clubs had > been singleton and wanted the ace of diamonds to be a penalty card. I > ruled no. Again, the ACBL advice was yes. I once encountered a similar situation; which I posted on rec.games bridge in 1993. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.games.bridge/%22Which$20jack$3F%22/rec.games.bridge/VZX8TxQnv_E The contract was 3S. Declarer (South) had taken six tricks, and had the lead in his hand at trick 11. It was presumably known to all the players that the trumps were out, that dummy's club jack was the only one left, and that the red aces were out. Here is the position at trick 11: - KJ - J - - Q7 5 K Q9 - - - T86 - - Declarer led the six of hearts at trick 11, and played dummy's king. For the next trick, he called "Jack," without specifying a suit. Dummy pushed the jack of clubs forward slightly and removed her hand from the card; West did not notice this. East, assuming the club jack had been the one led (not that it mattered), threw the diamond nine. Declarer played the heart eight. West thought that dummy had led the heart jack, since dummy had won a heart trick and then declarer called "Jack." Dummy no longer had a hand on either card at this point; from the position of the cards, you could tell that she had either pushed the club jack forward or pulled the heart jack back. West thus played the heart queen to (as he believed) follow suit. Declarer then claimed the thirteenth trick, scoring up his contract. At that point, West called the director. Equity would be served by ruling that the CJ was led but that West could retract the HQ because he had been misled by the ambiguous declaration; this could also be ruled as, "dummy plays a card that declarer did not name", which can be retracted since E-W had not played to the thirteenth trick. Alternatively, you could rule that the HJ was led, and West wins two tricks; or you could rule that the CJ was led (as it was incontrovertible that declarer would lead a known winner first) and West legally discarded the HQ on it, so that North wins both tricks. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 08:32:25 2014 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 08:32:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: References: <20140908102705.D2F5D205B7B@spamfilter.webreus.nl> Message-ID: On the last case, the laws (L46B3a) are pretty clear that the HJ is lead from dummy.... 2014-09-09 5:15 GMT+02:00 David Grabiner : > >"Robert Frick" > > > Once declarer said "singleton king" and defender took that as calling for > > the lead of the (now) singleton king of diamonds from dummy. She played > > her ace. The declarer was remarking on the fact that the king of clubs > had > > been singleton and wanted the ace of diamonds to be a penalty card. I > > ruled no. Again, the ACBL advice was yes. > > I once encountered a similar situation; which I posted on rec.games bridge > in > 1993. > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.games.bridge/%22Which$20jack$3F%22/rec.games.bridge/VZX8TxQnv_E > > The contract was 3S. Declarer (South) had taken six tricks, and had the > lead in his hand at trick 11. It was presumably known to all the > players that the trumps were out, that dummy's club jack was the only > one left, and that the red aces were out. > > Here is the position at trick 11: > > - > KJ > - > J > - - > Q7 5 > K Q9 > - - > - > T86 > - > - > > Declarer led the six of hearts at trick 11, and played dummy's king. > For the next trick, he called "Jack," without specifying a suit. Dummy > pushed the jack of clubs forward slightly and removed her hand from the > card; West did not notice this. East, assuming the club jack had been > the one led (not that it mattered), threw the diamond nine. Declarer > played the heart eight. > > West thought that dummy had led the heart jack, since dummy had won a > heart trick and then declarer called "Jack." Dummy no longer had a hand > on either card at this point; from the position of the cards, you could > tell that she had either pushed the club jack forward or pulled the > heart jack back. West thus played the heart queen to (as he believed) > follow suit. > > Declarer then claimed the thirteenth trick, scoring up his contract. At > that point, West called the director. > > Equity would be served by ruling that the CJ was led but that West could > retract > the HQ because he had been misled by the ambiguous declaration; this could > also > be ruled as, "dummy plays a card that declarer did not name", which can be > retracted since E-W had not played to the thirteenth trick. > Alternatively, you > could rule that the HJ was led, and West wins two tricks; or you could > rule that > the CJ was led (as it was incontrovertible that declarer would lead a known > winner first) and West legally discarded the HQ on it, so that North wins > both > tricks. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140910/3467769a/attachment.html From hermandw2610 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 10:22:23 2014 From: hermandw2610 at gmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:22:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: References: <20140908102705.D2F5D205B7B@spamfilter.webreus.nl> Message-ID: The laws are equally clear that L46B3a is overriden by the start of L46B: except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible. it would not be a stretch of the imagination to find that the Director at the table found this intention to be indeed clear. So with equally exact legal writing, Harald rules 2 tricks to defenders, I 2 tricks to declarer. (I actually would not rule that way, ruling 45D and saying that dummy did not put the correct jack in a played position. West i perfectly ok in following to the HJ, which, after all, is the card that was named and - apparently to hin, placed in a played position. East can take his card back and both sides receive one trick. Herman. 2014-09-10 8:32 GMT+02:00 Harald Berre Skj?ran : > On the last case, the laws (L46B3a) are pretty clear that the HJ is lead > from dummy.... > > 2014-09-09 5:15 GMT+02:00 David Grabiner : > >> >"Robert Frick" >> >> > Once declarer said "singleton king" and defender took that as calling >> for >> > the lead of the (now) singleton king of diamonds from dummy. She played >> > her ace. The declarer was remarking on the fact that the king of clubs >> had >> > been singleton and wanted the ace of diamonds to be a penalty card. I >> > ruled no. Again, the ACBL advice was yes. >> >> I once encountered a similar situation; which I posted on rec.games >> bridge in >> 1993. >> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.games.bridge/%22Which$20jack$3F%22/rec.games.bridge/VZX8TxQnv_E >> >> The contract was 3S. Declarer (South) had taken six tricks, and had the >> lead in his hand at trick 11. It was presumably known to all the >> players that the trumps were out, that dummy's club jack was the only >> one left, and that the red aces were out. >> >> Here is the position at trick 11: >> >> - >> KJ >> - >> J >> - - >> Q7 5 >> K Q9 >> - - >> - >> T86 >> - >> - >> >> Declarer led the six of hearts at trick 11, and played dummy's king. >> For the next trick, he called "Jack," without specifying a suit. Dummy >> pushed the jack of clubs forward slightly and removed her hand from the >> card; West did not notice this. East, assuming the club jack had been >> the one led (not that it mattered), threw the diamond nine. Declarer >> played the heart eight. >> >> West thought that dummy had led the heart jack, since dummy had won a >> heart trick and then declarer called "Jack." Dummy no longer had a hand >> on either card at this point; from the position of the cards, you could >> tell that she had either pushed the club jack forward or pulled the >> heart jack back. West thus played the heart queen to (as he believed) >> follow suit. >> >> Declarer then claimed the thirteenth trick, scoring up his contract. At >> that point, West called the director. >> >> Equity would be served by ruling that the CJ was led but that West could >> retract >> the HQ because he had been misled by the ambiguous declaration; this >> could also >> be ruled as, "dummy plays a card that declarer did not name", which can be >> retracted since E-W had not played to the thirteenth trick. >> Alternatively, you >> could rule that the HJ was led, and West wins two tricks; or you could >> rule that >> the CJ was led (as it was incontrovertible that declarer would lead a >> known >> winner first) and West legally discarded the HQ on it, so that North wins >> both >> tricks. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Berre Skj?ran > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia Please do not save this address - always use: hermandw at skynet.be. Herman De Wael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140910/8ea10713/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 10:33:45 2014 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:33:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: References: <20140908102705.D2F5D205B7B@spamfilter.webreus.nl> Message-ID: You're right, Herman. If one finds that declarer's different intentsion is incontrovertible (I would in this case), one rules that the CJ is indeed the played card. Agree with Herman on the rest of the ruling. 2014-09-10 10:22 GMT+02:00 Herman De Wael : > The laws are equally clear that L46B3a is overriden by the start of L46B: > except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible. it would > not be a stretch of the imagination to find that the Director at the table > found this intention to be indeed clear. > So with equally exact legal writing, Harald rules 2 tricks to defenders, I > 2 tricks to declarer. > (I actually would not rule that way, ruling 45D and saying that dummy did > not put the correct jack in a played position. West i perfectly ok in > following to the HJ, which, after all, is the card that was named and - > apparently to hin, placed in a played position. East can take his card back > and both sides receive one trick. > Herman. > > 2014-09-10 8:32 GMT+02:00 Harald Berre Skj?ran : > >> On the last case, the laws (L46B3a) are pretty clear that the HJ is lead >> from dummy.... >> >> 2014-09-09 5:15 GMT+02:00 David Grabiner : >> >>> >"Robert Frick" >>> >>> > Once declarer said "singleton king" and defender took that as calling >>> for >>> > the lead of the (now) singleton king of diamonds from dummy. She played >>> > her ace. The declarer was remarking on the fact that the king of clubs >>> had >>> > been singleton and wanted the ace of diamonds to be a penalty card. I >>> > ruled no. Again, the ACBL advice was yes. >>> >>> I once encountered a similar situation; which I posted on rec.games >>> bridge in >>> 1993. >>> >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.games.bridge/%22Which$20jack$3F%22/rec.games.bridge/VZX8TxQnv_E >>> >>> The contract was 3S. Declarer (South) had taken six tricks, and had the >>> lead in his hand at trick 11. It was presumably known to all the >>> players that the trumps were out, that dummy's club jack was the only >>> one left, and that the red aces were out. >>> >>> Here is the position at trick 11: >>> >>> - >>> KJ >>> - >>> J >>> - - >>> Q7 5 >>> K Q9 >>> - - >>> - >>> T86 >>> - >>> - >>> >>> Declarer led the six of hearts at trick 11, and played dummy's king. >>> For the next trick, he called "Jack," without specifying a suit. Dummy >>> pushed the jack of clubs forward slightly and removed her hand from the >>> card; West did not notice this. East, assuming the club jack had been >>> the one led (not that it mattered), threw the diamond nine. Declarer >>> played the heart eight. >>> >>> West thought that dummy had led the heart jack, since dummy had won a >>> heart trick and then declarer called "Jack." Dummy no longer had a hand >>> on either card at this point; from the position of the cards, you could >>> tell that she had either pushed the club jack forward or pulled the >>> heart jack back. West thus played the heart queen to (as he believed) >>> follow suit. >>> >>> Declarer then claimed the thirteenth trick, scoring up his contract. At >>> that point, West called the director. >>> >>> Equity would be served by ruling that the CJ was led but that West could >>> retract >>> the HQ because he had been misled by the ambiguous declaration; this >>> could also >>> be ruled as, "dummy plays a card that declarer did not name", which can >>> be >>> retracted since E-W had not played to the thirteenth trick. >>> Alternatively, you >>> could rule that the HJ was led, and West wins two tricks; or you could >>> rule that >>> the CJ was led (as it was incontrovertible that declarer would lead a >>> known >>> winner first) and West legally discarded the HQ on it, so that North >>> wins both >>> tricks. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Kind regards, >> Harald Berre Skj?ran >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > -- > This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia > Please do not save this address - always use: > hermandw at skynet.be. > > Herman De Wael > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140910/7312f297/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Sep 10 16:04:44 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:04:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <540C6972.5060603@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <54105A7C.4040002@nhcc.net> On 2014-09-08 10:54 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > It is strange, as director, to rule a card a penalty card and then > protect the defense if they are damaged by your ruling. In practice I wouldn't expect ever to rule that way. Let's go back to my favorite example: declarer or dummy bumps the table, spilling a cup of hot coffee into a defender's lap. The defender jumps and exposes a bunch of cards. If you give only the technical ruling, declarer will benefit both from seeing the cards and from treating them as penalty cards. Of course no decent Director will allow the declaring side to gain any advantage, but different Directors may take different routes to achieve this. _My_ route is first to suggest waiving the penalty cards, which declarer will certainly do if he understands the consequences of not doing so. In addition, if I think seeing the cards gave declarer an advantage, I'll adjust the score later. (This is not so severe as treating the cards as UI, which I expect some Directors would do.) This boils down to saying the table bump is an irregularity and applying L12A1. There's a WBFLC minute saying that anything not specified as a proper procedure is an irregularity. The vast majority of irregularities at the table have no effect, but the NOS needs to be protected in the rare cases there is damage. The adjusted score, if needed, is based on what would have happened if the table bump had not occurred and may be split or (in some jurisdictions) weighted. If instead a defender exposes cards because of the declaring side's random remarks, hiding cards, mis-calls, etc., the situation is the same as the table bump, and the Director should take the same route as he would have in that case. From bridge at vwalther.de Wed Sep 10 16:58:05 2014 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:58:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> Message-ID: <541066FD.3020208@vwalther.de> on 07.09.2014 15:50 Sven Pran wrote: >> Volker Walther >> We are discussing the following case here in germany. >> >> Dummy is on lead, having diamond J96. >> Maybe the six was covering the lower half of the 9. >> Declarer orders the "Diamond 8"., Dummy touches the diamonds fingering >> out the card in the middle, RHO plays the King of Diamonds, and dummy >> discovers "It's the nine, not the eight". Declarer "play the 8 of spades > than!" >> >> >> According to 46.B4 the call of the "Diamond 8" was "void". I see some >> ambiguity about the meaning of this word. Does this mean we should >> handle the situation as if declarer never ordered a card from dummy, >> which leads us to handle the King of Diamonds as penalty card? >> >> Or is calling a card that dummy does not have still an irregularity > because it is >> not in accordance with law 45.B? In this case 46B4 is just the > rectification of >> this irregularity (Rectification: The void call has no binding effect for > the card to >> be played for dummy, declarer has to name a legal one). This would lead to >> 47A, allowing to withdraw the king. >> >> In the latter case -which makes much more sense to me- it might be a good >> idea to replace "void" by "invalid" in law 46. >> >> Greetings, Volker > > [Sven Pran] > "Void" or "invalid" makes little difference. There is an irregularity, > Declarer has not called any card and the rectification is that he may call > any legal card. > > The problem is of course how to treat the King of Diamonds. > > Legally it is a lead out of turn and must be handled as such. (Technically > RHO has also violated Law 74B1 !) Didn't declarer violate 74B1 as well? From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 10 17:28:58 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:28:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: <541066FD.3020208@vwalther.de> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <541066FD.3020208@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <001201cfcd0b$f15d6d80$d4184880$@online.no> > Volker Walther > > [Sven Pran] > > "Void" or "invalid" makes little difference. There is an irregularity, > > Declarer has not called any card and the rectification is that he may > > call any legal card. > > > > The problem is of course how to treat the King of Diamonds. > > > > Legally it is a lead out of turn and must be handled as such. > > (Technically RHO has also violated Law 74B1 !) > > Didn't declarer violate 74B1 as well? [Sven Pran] Technically yes, that can be argued. But there is an important difference: Declarer has called a card that was not in Dummy, this is a mistake which normally is accidental and excusable. RHO has played a card without waiting for the play from Dummy to be executed. Law 45B says: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. The play of that card is not completed before Dummy has done his part of the job (unless Declarer picks up the card himself as specified in the next sentence of L45B). Now, when it turns out that Declarer's call was void, it is RHO's own burial that he did not wait for the play to be completed before he played his own card. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Sep 10 18:06:52 2014 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:06:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: <001201cfcd0b$f15d6d80$d4184880$@online.no> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <541066FD.3020208@vwalther.de> <001201cfcd0b$f15d6d80$d4184880$@online.no> Message-ID: <106117613.7674944.1410365212372.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Sven Pran" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Mercredi 10 Septembre 2014 17:28:58 > Objet: Re: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. > > > Volker Walther > > > [Sven Pran] > > > "Void" or "invalid" makes little difference. There is an irregularity, > > > Declarer has not called any card and the rectification is that he may > > > call any legal card. > > > > > > The problem is of course how to treat the King of Diamonds. > > > > > > Legally it is a lead out of turn and must be handled as such. > > > (Technically RHO has also violated Law 74B1 !) > > > > Didn't declarer violate 74B1 as well? > > [Sven Pran] > Technically yes, that can be argued. > But there is an important difference: Declarer has called a card that was > not in Dummy, this is a mistake which normally is accidental and excusable. > RHO has played a card without waiting for the play from Dummy to be > executed. > > Law 45B says: > Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks > up the card and faces it on the table. > > The play of that card is not completed before Dummy has done his part of the > job (unless Declarer picks up the card himself as specified in the next > sentence of L45B). it makes no difference in present case but this is not what L45 says. a card is played once declarer has named it. what happens after ("after which...") is something dummy must do to facilitate the progress of operations. if declarer doesn't name rank and suit of a card present in dummy, no card is played and other laws (45D, 46...) are needed to resolve the mess. jpr > Now, when it turns out that Declarer's call was void, it is RHO's own burial > that he did not wait for the play to be completed before he played his own > card. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 10 20:19:17 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:19:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. In-Reply-To: <106117613.7674944.1410365212372.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <000c01cfcaa2$b64bb000$22e31000$@online.no> <541066FD.3020208@vwalther.de> <001201cfcd0b$f15d6d80$d4184880$@online.no> <106117613.7674944.1410365212372.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <001701cfcd23$bc1388e0$343a9aa0$@online.no> > ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre [...] > it makes no difference in present case but this is not what L45 says. a card is > played once declarer has named it. what happens after ("after which...") is > something dummy must do to facilitate the progress of operations. if declarer > doesn't name rank and suit of a card present in dummy, no card is played and > other laws (45D, 46...) are needed to resolve the mess. > jpr [Sven Pran] That is exactly the point: No play has taken place even when Declarer has named a card unless that card exists in Dummy. RHO shall not be heard on an argument that he just followed suit to Declarer's call. If this call was void then RHO has led out of turn (or played out of turn if the lead was not in Dummy). > > > Now, when it turns out that Declarer's call was void, it is RHO's own > > burial that he did not wait for the play to be completed before he > > played his own card. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw2610 at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 09:56:46 2014 From: hermandw2610 at gmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:56:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula Message-ID: Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. What do you bid? -- This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia Please do not save this address - always use: hermandw at skynet.be. Herman De Wael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140911/caf96bc1/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Sep 11 10:25:51 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:25:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33CAB7F1-B13E-4D19-BE77-70BB8A2C8C26@btinternet.com> I pass. I have the hand I've shown. Sent from my iPhone so may be more terse than usual > On 11 Sep 2014, at 08:56, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: > > teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 > > partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double > LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again > pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. > What do you bid? > > -- > This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia > Please do not save this address - always use: > hermandw at skynet.be. > > Herman De Wael > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140911/ca9c9ce1/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 11 10:40:38 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 04:40:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Passs On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 03:56:46 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: > > teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 > AKQ72 > > partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double > LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again > pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. > What do you bid? > > --This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia > Please do not save this address - always use: > hermandw at skynet.be. >Herman De Wael -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140911/a7e8676a/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Sep 11 10:43:24 2014 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:43:24 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I should be in no danger of losing the postmortem with a pass bill From: Herman De Wael Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:56 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. What do you bid? -- This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia Please do not save this address - always use: hermandw at skynet.be. Herman De Wael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/20140911/9edf1106/attachment.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Sep 11 10:57:59 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 10:57:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54116417.8000402@t-online.de> Pass. Am I going to make 4S opposite xxxx, KJx, xxx,xxx? No. Am 11.09.2014 09:56, schrieb Herman De Wael: > Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: > > teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 > AKQ72 > > partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double > LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again > pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. > What do you bid? > > -- > This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia > Please do not save this address - always use: > hermandw at skynet.be . > Herman De Wael > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From vip at centrum.is Thu Sep 11 10:58:14 2014 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:58:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1055810751.21501713.1410425894148.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> I would bid 4 spades. I know parther could hold xxx-xxxx-xxx-xxx, but he could also hold xxxx-xxxx-Kx-xxx, and 4Sp have a decent chance to make. Here is no correct bid to make. A matter of style. Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Herman De Wael" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Fimmtudagur, 11. September, 2014 07:56:46 Efni: [BLML] Ruling in Pula Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. What do you bid? -- This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia Please do not save this address - always use: hermandw at skynet.be . ? Herman De Wael _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 11:06:21 2014 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 21:06:21 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: <54116417.8000402@t-online.de> References: <54116417.8000402@t-online.de> Message-ID: I am bidding 4S and I don't think it is close. I know I am not making opposite Matthias' hand but I don't care there are thousands upon thousands of hands where I am making and I think they are way more frequent. On 11 September 2014 20:57, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Pass. Am I going to make 4S opposite xxxx, KJx, xxx,xxx? No. > > Am 11.09.2014 09:56, schrieb Herman De Wael: > > Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: > > > > teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 > > AKQ72 > > > > partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double > > LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again > > pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. > > What do you bid? > > > > -- > > This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia > > Please do not save this address - always use: > > hermandw at skynet.be . > > Herman De Wael > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140911/35f1f06a/attachment-0001.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 11:05:13 2014 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:05:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: <54116417.8000402@t-online.de> References: <54116417.8000402@t-online.de> Message-ID: Clear pass, IMO. 4S is a good contract vs Kxxx xxx Kxx xxx, but with that hand parther would have bid game. 2014-09-11 10:57 GMT+02:00 Matthias Berghaus : > Pass. Am I going to make 4S opposite xxxx, KJx, xxx,xxx? No. > > Am 11.09.2014 09:56, schrieb Herman De Wael: > > Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: > > > > teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 > > AKQ72 > > > > partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double > > LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again > > pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. > > What do you bid? > > > > -- > > This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia > > Please do not save this address - always use: > > hermandw at skynet.be . > > Herman De Wael > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140911/12ae60f5/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 11 11:08:59 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:08:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001d01cfcda0$062b0da0$128128e0$@online.no> Pass is obvious to me. Partner has shown complete lack of values and ?saved? from 3HX which he apparently reckons would be a disaster for your side, even after you have shown a ?whale?. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Herman De Wael Sendt: 11. september 2014 09:57 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Ruling in Pula Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. What do you bid? -- This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia Please do not save this address - always use: hermandw at skynet.be. Herman De Wael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140911/0d331483/attachment.html From vip at centrum.is Thu Sep 11 12:16:59 2014 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 10:16:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: <1055810751.21501713.1410425894148.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <1055810751.21501713.1410425894148.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <1854916965.21569564.1410430619773.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> I want to add 1 more thing. This case looks like a hesitation problem. If partner hesitated on 3H or 3Hx, Now I PASS Vigfus -------------------------------------------- I would bid 4 spades. I know parther could hold xxx-xxxx-xxx-xxx, but he could also hold xxxx-xxxx-Kx-xxx, and 4Sp have a decent chance to make. Here is no correct bid to make. A matter of style. Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Herman De Wael" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Fimmtudagur, 11. September, 2014 07:56:46 Efni: [BLML] Ruling in Pula Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. What do you bid? -- This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia Please do not save this address - always use: hermandw at skynet.be . ? Herman De Wael _______________________________________________ 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 11 12:24:52 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:24:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54117874.5010000@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/09/2014 9:56, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: > > teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 > AKQ72 > > partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double > LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again > pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. > What do you bid? > I think I've made my job. So I pass. Facing the expected 4342 near-yarborough 3S is the right contract. (hope it is not 3343 !) From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 11 12:29:06 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:29:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54117972.8070705@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/09/2014 9:56, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: > > teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 > AKQ72 > > One should notice that, if this boils down to a tempo question, partner's tempo in bidding 3S did NOT unmistakably suggest bidding 4S. He might hold Jxxx - JTxx - xxx - xx (should I pass ?), or xxx - xxx - xxxx - xxx (help !), or Jxx - xxx - Kxxx - xxx (spades or diamonds ?) From jrhind at therock.bm Thu Sep 11 13:17:06 2014 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:17:06 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pass, I have already bid my hand. From: Herman De Wael Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 4:56 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. What do you bid? -- This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia Please do not save this address - always use: hermandw at skynet.be. Herman De Wael _______________________________________________ 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/20140911/385dc805/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Sep 11 21:10:08 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:10:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52E4411A5CCD42A0BD62C7DF4F4C1E17@G3> [Herman De Wael] Teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 _P (1H) _X (3H) _P (_P) _X (_P) 3S (_P) ?? [Nige1] IMO 4S = 10, Pass = 8. Your hand seems be a borderline pass of John McLaren's "Ace extra test". 4S is reasonable because you have about an ace to spare if, like most players, you would double twice with Axxx 4 Axx AKxxx. So far the poll seems to confirm that, for BLMLers, Pass and 4S are both LAs. From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Sep 11 22:38:55 2014 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 22:38:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2D31411429F143B399966ECDAD185DB6@CiborKomputer> From: Herman De Wael Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 9:56 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. What do you bid? [KC] Pass, obviously. Even thinking is overbidding. Best regards, K. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140911/cc0fcb03/attachment-0001.html From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Sep 11 23:02:06 2014 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 23:02:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: <54116417.8000402@t-online.de> Message-ID: From: Wayne Burrows Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 11:06 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Pula I am bidding 4S and I don't think it is close. I know I am not making opposite Matthias' hand but I don't care there are thousands upon thousands of hands where I am making [KC] Thousands? There are actually very few with which partner wouldn?t have bid 4s himself. For instance if he has 5S then he is virtually guaranteed to have a near-yarboroough. Somebody offerered xxxx-xxxx-Kx-xxx. Indeed opposite A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 this hand offers a decent game but we are non-vulnerable so the bonus for making game isn't that big (if it makes you gain roughly the same amounts of IMPs you lose by overbidding if it doesn't). And the given hand requires a 3-2 spade split to begin with. After a pre-empt bad breaks are more likely than normally (the 3S pre-emptor who bid 3S at unfavorable vulnerabilty will almost always have a singleton somwhere - it means that either the trumps or clubs will break badly), if you do go down you will often go down more than down one and you will very often get doubled when spades break 4-1. 4S is trying to hit a home run. On some hands you will succeed but more often it will lead to a disaster or simply change a plus score to a minus score. Best regards, K. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Sep 12 01:15:25 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:15:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9DFE77CFE7714208B9592522ED0A5CEB@erdos> >teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 >partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double >LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again >pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. Partner has a very wide range of holdings, but I don't need much to make game, so I'll try 4S. I did seriously consider passing. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 03:01:03 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 11:01:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: <9DFE77CFE7714208B9592522ED0A5CEB@erdos> References: <9DFE77CFE7714208B9592522ED0A5CEB@erdos> Message-ID: Because we are non-vulnerable at imps I would call Pass. If we had been vulnerable at imps I would call 4S. In my opinion both Pass and 4S are logical alternatives (4S is particularly a logical alternative if Hashmat is my partner, since I have authorised information from many previous deals that Hashmat is slightly conservative in competitive auctions). Best wishes, Richard Apocryphal saying of the Reverend William Spooner: "Christianity is a completely different lay of wife." On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:15 AM, David Grabiner < grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > >teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 > AKQ72 > > >partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double > >LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again > >pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. > > Partner has a very wide range of holdings, but I don't need much to make > game, > so I'll try 4S. I did seriously consider passing. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140912/7732b555/attachment.html From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Sep 12 12:41:13 2014 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 11:41:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48D448E6BCA94B77B1D61E1996BC8BD8@Lounge> Hi I reckon pairs I would pass and Vul at imps I would bid 4S. Under the conditions below I consider it very close and it would be state of the match that would sway me. Ahead or level I would bid 4S and behind I would Pass. However if partner bid a SLOW 3S I would consider myself cheating if I did not raise to 4. In my school partners NEVER hesitate and then bid 3S on hands they were considering bidding 4. They ALWAYS bid 4 with the explanation that after they had hesitated they just had to bid it. The hesitation will only be from something like xxxx KJ10 xxx xxx (should I pass for penalties) or Kxx xxx xxxx xxx (should I bid 3S or 4D) ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From: Herman De Wael Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 8:56 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula Let me introduce the ruling as a poll: teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again pass, 3Sp from partner, pass. What do you bid? -- This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia Please do not save this address - always use: hermandw at skynet.be. Herman De Wael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/20140912/b8fcde4b/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 12 17:40:27 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:40:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: <9DFE77CFE7714208B9592522ED0A5CEB@erdos> Message-ID: <541313EB.90204@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/09/2014 3:01, Richard Hills a ?crit : > Because we are non-vulnerable at imps I would call Pass. If we had > been vulnerable at imps I would call 4S. In my opinion both Pass and > 4S are logical alternatives (4S is particularly a logical alternative > if Hashmat is my partner, since I have authorised information from > many previous deals that Hashmat is slightly conservative in > competitive auctions). Something more has to be considered. Okay, pass and 4S are both logical alternatives. But does the hesitation suggest one over the other ? The standards of provability for saying "this has been suggested" are fairly high. Higherr than in former versions lf TFLB. How could you, me, the TD, or anybody without ESP, ascertain whether partner hesitated between 3S and 4S, or between 3S and pass, or between 3S and 4m (with 33(34)) ? Contrast with a slow penalty double. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 12 17:45:21 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:45:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: <48D448E6BCA94B77B1D61E1996BC8BD8@Lounge> References: <48D448E6BCA94B77B1D61E1996BC8BD8@Lounge> Message-ID: <54131511.3090604@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/09/2014 12:41, David a ?crit : > Hi > I reckon pairs I would pass and Vul at imps I would bid 4S. > Under the conditions below I consider it very close and it would be > state of the match that would sway me. > Ahead or level I would bid 4S and behind I would Pass. > However if partner bid a SLOW 3S I would consider myself cheating if I > did not raise to 4. > In my school partners NEVER hesitate and then bid 3S on hands they > were considering bidding 4. > They ALWAYS bid 4 with the explanation that after they had hesitated > they just had to bid it. > The hesitation will only be from something like xxxx KJ10 xxx xxx > (should I pass for penalties) or > Kxx xxx xxxx xxx (should I bid 3S or 4D) > Agreed. Which means that "what has been suggested" depends on who hesitated. ... but what if your interpretation were wrong and partner in fact had a somwhat positive hand ? How would they rule ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140912/41ab76f1/attachment.html From bridge at vwalther.de Sat Sep 13 14:43:53 2014 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:43:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. conclusion for 2017 In-Reply-To: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <54143C09.3070800@vwalther.de> Conclusion If i counted it right, two of you decided the has been a lead out of turn, and did not say anything about an irregularity made by declarer. It seems to me they interpreted the "void" call as something that was of no influence to the game. Three of you decided that naming a card not in dummy is an irregularity and used 12A1 to protect defenders. Conclusion: I think we need some clarification here. I do not like both approaches: I also think naming a card not in dummy is an irregularity. I would love it, if 46B4 would stress this fact. According to 12B2 we must not use 12A1 because we already have 46B4. I think the situation that arises when declarer named a card to be played from dummy should be subject to law 47D or E. All the people who decided to make the King of Diamonds a penalty card made a reference to 74B1 as well. But let us compare the situation to the one 47E1 is dealing with: We have the same degree of inattentiveness here, and a law that allows to retract the card. We have 45B "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card,..." So RHO following suit to the named card is only an irregularity if declarers naming was already irregular. My understanding of the law is that no penalty should arise from not checking whether the opps committed an infraction. Suggestion for the 2017 laws: 46.b.4 If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy this is an illegal play that has to be withdrawn and declarer may designate any legal card. Greetings, Volker Am 07.09.2014 um 14:22 schrieb Volker Walther: > We are discussing the following case here in germany. > > Dummy is on lead, having diamond J96. > Maybe the six was covering the lower half of the 9. > Declarer orders the "Diamond 8"., Dummy touches the diamonds fingering > out the card in the middle, RHO plays the King of Diamonds, and dummy > discovers "It's the nine, not the eight". Declarer "play the 8 of spades > than!" > > > According to 46.B4 the call of the "Diamond 8" was "void". I see some > ambiguity about the meaning of this word. Does this mean we should > handle the situation as if declarer never ordered a card from dummy, > which leads us to handle the King of Diamonds as penalty card? > > Or is calling a card that dummy does not have still an irregularity > because it is not in accordance with law 45.B? In this case 46B4 is just > the rectification of this irregularity (Rectification: The void call has > no binding effect for the card to be played for dummy, declarer has to > name a legal one). This would lead to 47A, allowing to withdraw the king. > > In the latter case -which makes much more sense to me- it might be a > good idea to replace "void" by "invalid" in law 46. > > Greetings, Volker > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 13 17:12:55 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 17:12:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. conclusion for 2017 In-Reply-To: <54143C09.3070800@vwalther.de> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <54143C09.3070800@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <000801cfcf65$335308c0$99f91a40$@online.no> The all-important difference is whether or not Dummy acted like playing a card in response to Declarer's call. A change of the laws is required if (and only if) we want RHO to have the right to "follow suit" to a card called from dummy whether or not the called card exists, and to retract his played card with no further rectifications as permitted when L45D applies also in a case governed by L46B4. The current L46B4 does not give him such right. > Volker Walther > Conclusion > If i counted it right, two of you decided the has been a lead out of turn, and did > not say anything about an irregularity made by declarer. > It seems to me they interpreted the "void" call as something that was of no > influence to the game. > > Three of you decided that naming a card not in dummy is an irregularity and > used 12A1 to protect defenders. > > Conclusion: I think we need some clarification here. > > I do not like both approaches: > > I also think naming a card not in dummy is an irregularity. > I would love it, if 46B4 would stress this fact. > According to 12B2 we must not use 12A1 because we already have 46B4. > > I think the situation that arises when declarer named a card to be played from > dummy should be subject to law 47D or E. > > All the people who decided to make the King of Diamonds a penalty card made > a reference to 74B1 as well. > But let us compare the situation to the one 47E1 is dealing with: We have the > same degree of inattentiveness here, and a law that allows to retract the card. > > We have 45B "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card,..." > So RHO following suit to the named card is only an irregularity if declarers > naming was already irregular. My understanding of the law is that no penalty > should arise from not checking whether the opps committed an infraction. > > Suggestion for the 2017 laws: > 46.b.4 If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy this is an illegal play that has > to be withdrawn and declarer may designate any legal card. > > Greetings, Volker > > > Am 07.09.2014 um 14:22 schrieb Volker Walther: > > We are discussing the following case here in germany. > > > > Dummy is on lead, having diamond J96. > > Maybe the six was covering the lower half of the 9. > > Declarer orders the "Diamond 8"., Dummy touches the diamonds fingering > > out the card in the middle, RHO plays the King of Diamonds, and dummy > > discovers "It's the nine, not the eight". Declarer "play the 8 of > > spades than!" > > > > > > According to 46.B4 the call of the "Diamond 8" was "void". I see some > > ambiguity about the meaning of this word. Does this mean we should > > handle the situation as if declarer never ordered a card from dummy, > > which leads us to handle the King of Diamonds as penalty card? > > > > Or is calling a card that dummy does not have still an irregularity > > because it is not in accordance with law 45.B? In this case 46B4 is > > just the rectification of this irregularity (Rectification: The void > > call has no binding effect for the card to be played for dummy, > > declarer has to name a legal one). This would lead to 47A, allowing to > withdraw the king. > > > > In the latter case -which makes much more sense to me- it might be a > > good idea to replace "void" by "invalid" in law 46. > > > > Greetings, Volker > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 13 19:38:17 2014 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:38:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. conclusion for 2017 In-Reply-To: <54143C09.3070800@vwalther.de> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <54143C09.3070800@vwalther.de> Message-ID: As I read the law, when declarer designates a card not in dummy, it is canceled immediately. In the case described, I would rule that dummy's fingering the card not designated by declarer to have been placed in a played position [because it looks like dummy's overt act appears to have put the card in a played position]. This is subsequent to the canceling of declarer's call. Then, prior to the drawing attention to declarer's erroneous call, declarer's RHO faces the DK- and then attention is drawn. Because attention has been drawn prior to both sides playing the next trick- the fingered card must be withdrawn; also, the DK may be withdrawn AND if so, then a different card substituted. If this is done, it [of course] presents a bit of difficulty to some since doing so would be [ostensibly] a POOT perpetrated by the application of law- or does the law thereby make it RHO's turn? regards roger pewick -----Original Message----- From: Volker Walther Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 7:43 AM To: blml Subject: Re: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. conclusion for 2017 Conclusion If i counted it right, two of you decided the has been a lead out of turn, and did not say anything about an irregularity made by declarer. It seems to me they interpreted the "void" call as something that was of no influence to the game. Three of you decided that naming a card not in dummy is an irregularity and used 12A1 to protect defenders. Conclusion: I think we need some clarification here. I do not like both approaches: I also think naming a card not in dummy is an irregularity. I would love it, if 46B4 would stress this fact. According to 12B2 we must not use 12A1 because we already have 46B4. I think the situation that arises when declarer named a card to be played from dummy should be subject to law 47D or E. All the people who decided to make the King of Diamonds a penalty card made a reference to 74B1 as well. But let us compare the situation to the one 47E1 is dealing with: We have the same degree of inattentiveness here, and a law that allows to retract the card. We have 45B "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card,..." So RHO following suit to the named card is only an irregularity if declarers naming was already irregular. My understanding of the law is that no penalty should arise from not checking whether the opps committed an infraction. Suggestion for the 2017 laws: 46.b.4 If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy this is an illegal play that has to be withdrawn and declarer may designate any legal card. Greetings, Volker Am 07.09.2014 um 14:22 schrieb Volker Walther: > We are discussing the following case here in germany. > > Dummy is on lead, having diamond J96. > Maybe the six was covering the lower half of the 9. > Declarer orders the "Diamond 8"., Dummy touches the diamonds fingering > out the card in the middle, RHO plays the King of Diamonds, and dummy > discovers "It's the nine, not the eight". Declarer "play the 8 of spades > than!" > > > According to 46.B4 the call of the "Diamond 8" was "void". I see some > ambiguity about the meaning of this word. Does this mean we should > handle the situation as if declarer never ordered a card from dummy, > which leads us to handle the King of Diamonds as penalty card? > > Or is calling a card that dummy does not have still an irregularity > because it is not in accordance with law 45.B? In this case 46B4 is just > the rectification of this irregularity (Rectification: The void call has > no binding effect for the card to be played for dummy, declarer has to > name a legal one). This would lead to 47A, allowing to withdraw the king. > > In the latter case -which makes much more sense to me- it might be a > good idea to replace "void" by "invalid" in law 46. From vip at centrum.is Mon Sep 15 00:56:18 2014 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 22:56:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. conclusion for 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <54143C09.3070800@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <1816232071.23061069.1410735378444.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> After having thought this problem over, my conclution is... 1. Declarer made infraction. (Intented or Uninted) 2. RHO did not check if declarer made infraction and played the King of Diamonds. That can never be an infraction by RHO. 3. I allow declarer to designate a new card from dummy. Law 46B4 --- BUT --- I will NEVER let RHO be damaged because declarers infraction If the Diamond King is considered a penalty card, the TD can use Law 50E3 If RHO becomes damaged because of declarers knowledge about the existence of diamond king, Then we can use Law 16D If there is no way in the laws to handle this case, then we can use Law 12A1 Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson ---------------------------------------- Am 07.09.2014 um 14:22 schrieb Volker Walther: > We are discussing the following case here in germany. > > Dummy is on lead, having diamond J96. > Maybe the six was covering the lower half of the 9. > Declarer orders the "Diamond 8"., Dummy touches the diamonds fingering > out the card in the middle, RHO plays the King of Diamonds, and dummy > discovers "It's the nine, not the eight". Declarer "play the 8 of spades > than!" > > > According to 46.B4 the call of the "Diamond 8" was "void". I see some > ambiguity about the meaning of this word. Does this mean we should > handle the situation as if declarer never ordered a card from dummy, > which leads us to handle the King of Diamonds as penalty card? > > Or is calling a card that dummy does not have still an irregularity > because it is not in accordance with law 45.B? In this case 46B4 is just > the rectification of this irregularity (Rectification: The void call has > no binding effect for the card to be played for dummy, declarer has to > name a legal one). This would lead to 47A, allowing to withdraw the king. > > In the latter case -which makes much more sense to me- it might be a > good idea to replace "void" by "invalid" in law 46. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bridge at vwalther.de Mon Sep 15 02:56:05 2014 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 02:56:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. conclusion for 2017 In-Reply-To: <1816232071.23061069.1410735378444.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <54143C09.3070800@vwalther.de> <1816232071.23061069.1410735378444.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <54163925.3020209@vwalther.de> Am 15.09.2014 um 00:56 schrieb Vigf?s P?lsson: > After having thought this problem over, my conclution is... > > 1. Declarer made infraction. (Intented or Uninted) > 2. RHO did not check if declarer made infraction and played the King of Diamonds. That can never be an infraction by RHO. > 3. I allow declarer to designate a new card from dummy. Law 46B4 > > --- BUT --- > I will NEVER let RHO be damaged because declarers infraction > > If the Diamond King is considered a penalty card, the TD can use Law 50E3 > If RHO becomes damaged because of declarers knowledge about the existence of diamond king, Then we can use Law 16D > If there is no way in the laws to handle this case, then we can use Law 12A1 > > Greetings from Iceland > Vigfus Palsson > Thx, but that sounds twisted to me. First you say defenders are the offending side an punish them with a penalty card. And then you switch to declarer being the offending side and try to use 50.3? I think 50.3 should only be used if the defenders (with the penalty-card) benefit from the knowledge about the penalty-card. In Germany the discussion went to the same direction: Most people did not feel comfortable with the DK being a penalty card. But they did not find a suitable law to allow the withdraw. And a minority simply ignored declarers irregularity because of 46.B4 and had no problem with DK being a penalty-card. Greetings, Volker > ---------------------------------------- > > > Am 07.09.2014 um 14:22 schrieb Volker Walther: >> We are discussing the following case here in germany. >> >> Dummy is on lead, having diamond J96. >> Maybe the six was covering the lower half of the 9. >> Declarer orders the "Diamond 8"., Dummy touches the diamonds fingering >> out the card in the middle, RHO plays the King of Diamonds, and dummy >> discovers "It's the nine, not the eight". Declarer "play the 8 of spades >> than!" >> >> >> According to 46.B4 the call of the "Diamond 8" was "void". I see some >> ambiguity about the meaning of this word. Does this mean we should >> handle the situation as if declarer never ordered a card from dummy, >> which leads us to handle the King of Diamonds as penalty card? >> >> Or is calling a card that dummy does not have still an irregularity >> because it is not in accordance with law 45.B? In this case 46B4 is just >> the rectification of this irregularity (Rectification: The void call has >> no binding effect for the card to be played for dummy, declarer has to >> name a legal one). This would lead to 47A, allowing to withdraw the king. >> >> In the latter case -which makes much more sense to me- it might be a >> good idea to replace "void" by "invalid" in law 46. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 08:00:18 2014 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:00:18 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: <54116417.8000402@t-online.de> Message-ID: Opposite five spades and a yarborough we may have play for game. On 12 September 2014 09:02, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > From: Wayne Burrows > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 11:06 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Pula > > I am bidding 4S and I don't think it is close. > > > I know I am not making opposite Matthias' hand but I don't care there are > thousands upon thousands of hands where I am making > > [KC] > > Thousands? There are actually very few with which partner wouldn?t have bid > 4s himself. > For instance if he has 5S then he is virtually guaranteed to have a > near-yarboroough. > > > Somebody offerered xxxx-xxxx-Kx-xxx. Indeed opposite A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 > this hand offers a decent game but we are non-vulnerable so the bonus for > making game > isn't that big (if it makes you gain roughly the same amounts of IMPs you > lose by overbidding if it doesn't). > And the given hand requires a 3-2 spade split to begin with. > > After a pre-empt bad breaks are more likely than normally (the 3S > pre-emptor > who bid 3S at unfavorable vulnerabilty will almost always have a singleton > somwhere - it means that either the trumps or clubs will break badly), > if you do go down you will often go down more than down one and you will > very often > get doubled when spades break 4-1. > > 4S is trying to hit a home run. On some hands you will succeed but more > often it will lead > to a disaster or simply change a plus score to a minus score. > > Best regards, > K. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140915/a4c0129b/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 15 14:56:17 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:56:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: <54116417.8000402@t-online.de> Message-ID: <5416E1F1.2000802@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/09/2014 8:00, Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > Opposite five spades and a yarborough we may have play for game. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 15 14:57:23 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:57:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: <54116417.8000402@t-online.de> Message-ID: <5416E233.9020805@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/09/2014 8:00, Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > Opposite five spades and a yarborough we may have play for game. What exactly makes you think that partner holds five spades ? The timing ? (sorry, last message went away at the wrong time) From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Sep 15 16:59:01 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:59:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. conclusion for 2017 In-Reply-To: <54163925.3020209@vwalther.de> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <54143C09.3070800@vwalther.de> <1816232071.23061069.1410735378444.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <54163925.3020209@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Am 15.09.2014, 02:56 Uhr, schrieb Volker Walther : > Am 15.09.2014 um 00:56 schrieb Vigf?s P?lsson: >> After having thought this problem over, my conclution is... >> >> 1. Declarer made infraction. (Intented or Uninted) >> 2. RHO did not check if declarer made infraction and played the King >> of Diamonds. That can never be an infraction by RHO. >> 3. I allow declarer to designate a new card from dummy. Law 46B4 >> >> --- BUT --- >> I will NEVER let RHO be damaged because declarers infraction >> >> If the Diamond King is considered a penalty card, the TD can use Law >> 50E3 >> If RHO becomes damaged because of declarers knowledge about the >> existence of diamond king, Then we can use Law 16D >> If there is no way in the laws to handle this case, then we can use Law >> 12A1 >> >> Greetings from Iceland >> Vigfus Palsson >> > > Thx, but that sounds twisted to me. > First you say defenders are the offending side an punish them with a > penalty card. And then you switch to declarer being the offending side > and try to use 50.3? I think 50.3 should only be used if the defenders > (with the penalty-card) benefit from the knowledge about the > penalty-card. > > In Germany the discussion went to the same direction: > Most people did not feel comfortable with the DK being a penalty card. > But they did not find a suitable law to allow the withdraw. "A card prematurely exposed [...] by a defender is a penalty card *** unless the Director designates otherwise *** You might "designate otherwise". BTW, if you consider 46B4 a rectification which makes 12A1 inapplicable: then 23 may be used afterwards. Petrus From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 18:44:58 2014 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:44:58 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: <5416E233.9020805@ulb.ac.be> References: <54116417.8000402@t-online.de> <5416E233.9020805@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Nothing. I never claimed partner would have five spades. I was simply responding to an argument that if partner had five spades he was pretty much guaranteed to have a near-yarborough. I responded with the argument that in that case even with a complete yarborough we might have play for ten tricks. My simulations tell me that up to around a little over 30% of the time partner will have five spades. Its hard to get exact numbers as it will depend on how often partner will bid 3S with three spades as well as other decisions - whether to bid 3S or 4m with a 4=6 hand for example. I just did a further simulation and with 0 hcp and five spades ten or more tricks were available double dummy nearly 47% of the time (I wouldnt expect single dummy to be much different under those conditions). With four spades partner is likely to have a few more hcp (indeed even with five spades a complete yarborough is unlikely) - the probability distributions for hcp weighted away from 0. It may be different with some partner's with known characteristics for the type of hands they may hesitate with but, for a large number of players, I suspect that a hand that would cause them problems is one without any good suit. In that case the hesitation may suggest exactly the hand where 4S is a poor bet and therefore not be suggested by any hesitation UI. On 16 September 2014 00:57, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 15/09/2014 8:00, Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > > Opposite five spades and a yarborough we may have play for game. > > What exactly makes you think that partner holds five spades ? The timing ? > > (sorry, last message went away at the wrong time) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140915/5cb574e6/attachment.html From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Sep 15 22:49:29 2014 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:49:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: <54116417.8000402@t-online.de> Message-ID: <09E440D358D947E99C12612914140F1E@CiborKomputer> From: Wayne Burrows Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 8:00 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Pula Opposite five spades and a yarborough we may have play for game. [KC] Well, in Axxxx - Q1098 we also have "a play" for 5 tricks but it doesn't mean that it makes sense to bid a contract where we need to play such a suit for no loser. Back to nos moutons: xxxxx xxx xxx xx A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 4S spades is a very bad contract on this layout given that the pre-emptor will almost always have a singleton somewhere (in this case it will be a black suit), that the strong hand will be in dummy which will make it easy to defend and that the likelyhood of a double of 4S is significant. And we are non-vul which means there is no big payoff for making a game. Yes, we have "a play" for game here but we also have a play for -300. Most likely we will simply convert a plus score to a minus score. Even opposite Qxxxx xxx xxx xx 4S is only so-so given the bidding and the vulnerability. Best regards, Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 23:05:13 2014 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:05:13 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: <09E440D358D947E99C12612914140F1E@CiborKomputer> References: <54116417.8000402@t-online.de> <09E440D358D947E99C12612914140F1E@CiborKomputer> Message-ID: On 16 September 2014 08:49, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > From: Wayne Burrows > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 8:00 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Pula > > Opposite five spades and a yarborough we may have play for game. > > [KC] > > Well, in Axxxx - Q1098 we also have "a play" for 5 tricks > but it doesn't mean that it makes sense to bid a contract > where we need to play such a suit for no loser. > > Back to nos moutons: > > xxxxx > xxx > xxx > xx > > A852 > 4 > AJ4 > AKQ72 > > 4S spades is a very bad contract on this layout given > that the pre-emptor will almost always have a singleton somewhere > (in this case it will be a black suit), that the strong hand will be in > dummy which will make it > easy to defend and that the likelyhood of a double of 4S is significant. > And we are non-vul which means there is no big payoff for making a game. > > Yes, we have "a play" for game here but we also have a play for -300. > Most likely we will simply convert a plus score to a minus score. > > Even opposite > > Qxxxx > xxx > xxx > xx > > 4S is only so-so given the bidding and the vulnerability. > > Best regards, > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Of course we can find bad examples. How likely are they? And how bad are they? Game seems to have some reasonable play even opposite these bad example even if they are not the worst one could construct. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140915/4541ff21/attachment-0001.html From vip at centrum.is Mon Sep 15 23:49:46 2014 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:49:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. conclusion for 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <54143C09.3070800@vwalther.de> <1816232071.23061069.1410735378444.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <54163925.3020209@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <1822682686.23587222.1410817786630.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Hello Volker and Petrus. In my point of view this case is all about justice. Of course it sounds twisted to use law 50E3 in this case, and I am sure that the Law makers did not have in mind such usage when they wrote this law 50E3. But my first statement was that declarer started with infraction and then becomes the offending side. The heading paragraph of law 50 gives the TD much power to rule that the diamond king is not a penalty card. So we can use that option in stead of law 50E3, as Petrus pointed out. I knew about this option but I did not find it in the Laws, until Petrus showed me. So the conclution of this case will be Law 23 to adjust score if the defence is damaged because declarer did not play another diamond or declarer did get unauthorised information of the diamond king position. Vigfus ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Petrus Schuster OSB" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: M?nudagur, 15. September, 2014 14:59:01 Efni: Re: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. conclusion for 2017 Am 15.09.2014, 02:56 Uhr, schrieb Volker Walther : > Am 15.09.2014 um 00:56 schrieb Vigf?s P?lsson: >> After having thought this problem over, my conclution is... >> >> 1. Declarer made infraction. (Intented or Uninted) >> 2. RHO did not check if declarer made infraction and played the King >> of Diamonds. That can never be an infraction by RHO. >> 3. I allow declarer to designate a new card from dummy. Law 46B4 >> >> --- BUT --- >> I will NEVER let RHO be damaged because declarers infraction >> >> If the Diamond King is considered a penalty card, the TD can use Law >> 50E3 >> If RHO becomes damaged because of declarers knowledge about the >> existence of diamond king, Then we can use Law 16D >> If there is no way in the laws to handle this case, then we can use Law >> 12A1 >> >> Greetings from Iceland >> Vigfus Palsson >> > > Thx, but that sounds twisted to me. > First you say defenders are the offending side an punish them with a > penalty card. And then you switch to declarer being the offending side > and try to use 50.3? I think 50.3 should only be used if the defenders > (with the penalty-card) benefit from the knowledge about the > penalty-card. > > In Germany the discussion went to the same direction: > Most people did not feel comfortable with the DK being a penalty card. > But they did not find a suitable law to allow the withdraw. "A card prematurely exposed [...] by a defender is a penalty card *** unless the Director designates otherwise *** You might "designate otherwise". BTW, if you consider 46B4 a rectification which makes 12A1 inapplicable: then 23 may be used afterwards. Petrus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Sep 16 03:45:09 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:45:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. conclusion for 2017 In-Reply-To: <1822682686.23587222.1410817786630.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <54143C09.3070800@vwalther.de> <1816232071.23061069.1410735378444.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <54163925.3020209@vwalther.de> <1822682686.23587222.1410817786630.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <54179625.4070305@nhcc.net> On 2014-09-15 5:49 PM, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > ... Law 23 to adjust score if the defence is damaged While I'm sympathetic to this, I don't think it goes far enough. L23 requires that declarer "could have known" and doesn't apply otherwise. I'd prefer a solution that prevents damage to defenders even when the damage could not have been predicted. Is this too much sympathy for the innocent side? From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Sep 16 03:57:29 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:57:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: <54116417.8000402@t-online.de> <5416E233.9020805@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <54179909.5070605@nhcc.net> On 2014-09-15 12:44 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > for a large number of players, I suspect that a hand that would cause > them problems is one without any good suit. In that case the hesitation > may suggest exactly the hand where 4S is a poor bet and therefore not be > suggested by any hesitation UI. I think we agree that pass and 4S are LAs even if we disagree on which is preferred. Which one is suggested over the other strikes me as a much harder question, but I tend to agree with Wayne's view above. Someone else -- and now I've forgotten who -- suggested much the same. As an aside, it's important to check the methods in use. For some people, 4S would be _stronger_ than 4H. For them, 4S isn't a LA, but 4H is. A very few -- probably none in Europe -- might use methods where 4C is possible. Of course we're all assuming this is a "tray came back slowly" problem, but maybe it's something else entirely. On 2014-09-15 4:49 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > the pre-emptor will almost always have a singleton somewhere That depends on opponents. Many of us will happily preempt to the three level with four trumps and no singleton. Some will even do it with 4333 shape, though I'm not one of those. > And we are non-vul which means there is no big payoff for making a > game. Payoff is smaller, but partner knew that when he chose 3S rather than 4S. I'm a 4S bidder, but if vulnerable I'd be a passer (assuming no UI). Others may have a different view, depending on agreements about who stretches when vulnerable. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 09:45:51 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:45:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story Message-ID: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> You have all discussed this ruling at length. Indeed, most of you have guessed correctly, the 3Sp bid did not come as quickly as could be. 3Sp bidder had KJ106 J7 9875 653. And therein lies a first problem. What did you expect partner could possibly have as a maximum? Surely we must allow a player to know where the maximum his partner can have, would lie? Not so as to be sure of what hesitating partner has, but so as to be able to average the probabilities. Someone calculated the probability of making against a near yarborough at near 50%. Surely the probabilities go up with the number of points partner can hold. If partner can hold as much as 5 points, where the probability of making 4Sp will be 90% or so, then the average probability reaches 70%, more than enough to make the game biddable. And yet no-one (not in my poll, not in another one, not on blml) asks about the aggressivity of partner. So let's continue the actual story. Although all the boards in Pula were pre-dealt and duplicated, this actual board was dealt at the table. Someone (in fact the possible offenders on this hand, but that is not important) had sat at a wrong table, and started playing board 9. When the were transported to the correct table, this left two matches (four tabled) without a board 9. So I hand-dealt a replacement, and this was it For completeness, the full hand N: KJ106 J7 9875 653. W: Q74 K10965 106 1094 E: 93 AQ832 KQ32 J8 S: A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 Since no one apart from 16 players had seen the board, I could do a large poll. I used three of the directors (all Polish), two players (both Czech) and two friends (Belgians). The result of my poll: 6-1. (space left blank for creation of tension) 6-1 in favour of 4Sp. The sole outcast was the ageing Belgian, who would have bid 4Sp if vulnerable but not when not vulnerable. Considering that the actual pair were young Poles I decided to allow the 4Sp bid. The opponent decided to appeal. He told be he had asked three players, all of whom passed. Between this time and the appeal, I asked by partner (4Sp) and Slawek Latala texted his group of top Poles (who bid 4Sp at 6-1 also). The Appeal Committee consisted of 3 players. One of them stated he would also bid 4Sp, and the others did not object. But the Committee did its job and asked for the definition of LA to be read. And then they decided, albeit by 2-1, to consider Pass a LA and to return the score to 3Sp+1. Which was the reason for my question. If a poll produces a result of 6-1, should that not count as a minority too small to make it a LA? Should we not be allowed to use judgment as to who we consider peers. We ask someone, and he's in a minority of one. He is totally unlike the player in age and bridge tradition (French <> Polish, you cannot be more different). If the polling system is going to work, we need a treshold below which we might accept a minority opinion not to be a LA. Otherwise, we can just keep on asking and we'll be certain to find someone. That sounds too much like 'if it hesitates, shoot it', to me. Comments? Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 09:48:55 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:48:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest (2) Message-ID: <5417EB67.5060704@skynet.be> One more interesting fact. When telling me he would appeal, the player told me the happenings at the other table: same bidding, small hesitation by 3Sp bidder (in fact he claimed he had not hesitated) and the stong hand decided to pass out of ethical reasons. That South is a lurker on blml, so be nice to him. It does seem there's an East-West split here: my 6 bidders mostly East Europeans, the passers (including you lot) mostly Westerners. Herman. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 10:01:26 2014 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:01:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story In-Reply-To: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> References: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> Message-ID: I'd say that if one out of seven chose an alternative, it's clearly within the limit of being an LA. And it seems like you didn't ask the polled players if they considered any other alternative than the chosen. You might have found that several of the 4S bidders considered passing, and that it perhaps was a close decision for some of them. If only 1/10 chose an alternative, and none of the others considered it, it's below the threshold for an LA. IMO. 2014-09-16 9:45 GMT+02:00 Herman De Wael : > You have all discussed this ruling at length. > > Indeed, most of you have guessed correctly, the 3Sp bid did not come as > quickly as could be. > > 3Sp bidder had KJ106 J7 9875 653. > > And therein lies a first problem. What did you expect partner could > possibly have as a maximum? Surely we must allow a player to know where > the maximum his partner can have, would lie? Not so as to be sure of > what hesitating partner has, but so as to be able to average the > probabilities. Someone calculated the probability of making against a > near yarborough at near 50%. Surely the probabilities go up with the > number of points partner can hold. If partner can hold as much as 5 > points, where the probability of making 4Sp will be 90% or so, then the > average probability reaches 70%, more than enough to make the game > biddable. > > And yet no-one (not in my poll, not in another one, not on blml) asks > about the aggressivity of partner. > > So let's continue the actual story. > > Although all the boards in Pula were pre-dealt and duplicated, this > actual board was dealt at the table. Someone (in fact the possible > offenders on this hand, but that is not important) had sat at a wrong > table, and started playing board 9. When the were transported to the > correct table, this left two matches (four tabled) without a board 9. So > I hand-dealt a replacement, and this was it > For completeness, the full hand > N: KJ106 J7 9875 653. > W: Q74 K10965 106 1094 > E: 93 AQ832 KQ32 J8 > S: A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 > > Since no one apart from 16 players had seen the board, I could do a > large poll. I used three of the directors (all Polish), two players > (both Czech) and two friends (Belgians). The result of my poll: 6-1. > > > > (space left blank for creation of tension) > > > > > > > 6-1 in favour of 4Sp. > The sole outcast was the ageing Belgian, who would have bid 4Sp if > vulnerable but not when not vulnerable. > Considering that the actual pair were young Poles I decided to allow the > 4Sp bid. > > The opponent decided to appeal. He told be he had asked three players, > all of whom passed. > > Between this time and the appeal, I asked by partner (4Sp) and Slawek > Latala texted his group of top Poles (who bid 4Sp at 6-1 also). > > The Appeal Committee consisted of 3 players. One of them stated he would > also bid 4Sp, and the others did not object. But the Committee did its > job and asked for the definition of LA to be read. > > And then they decided, albeit by 2-1, to consider Pass a LA and to > return the score to 3Sp+1. > > Which was the reason for my question. If a poll produces a result of > 6-1, should that not count as a minority too small to make it a LA? > Should we not be allowed to use judgment as to who we consider peers. We > ask someone, and he's in a minority of one. He is totally unlike the > player in age and bridge tradition (French <> Polish, you cannot be more > different). > > If the polling system is going to work, we need a treshold below which > we might accept a minority opinion not to be a LA. > > Otherwise, we can just keep on asking and we'll be certain to find > someone. That sounds too much like 'if it hesitates, shoot it', to me. > > Comments? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140916/4dfc7717/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 10:24:50 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:24:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story In-Reply-To: References: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5417F3D2.2040808@skynet.be> Harald Berre Skj?ran schreef: > I'd say that if one out of seven chose an alternative, it's clearly > within the limit of being an LA. > And it seems like you didn't ask the polled players if they considered > any other alternative than the chosen. > You might have found that several of the 4S bidders considered passing, > and that it perhaps was a close decision for some of them. > How close the decision is, does not matter for the sake of L16B1b. And I don't need a poll to rule that a significant proportion would consider passing. What I'm concerned about is when we should "judge some might select it". Considering those words at face value, we should rule against even if no one in the poll does select it, because "some might". > If only 1/10 chose an alternative, and none of the others considered it, > it's below the threshold for an LA. IMO. > 1/10? Do you really want to be polling 10 players for each case? Do you know how difficult it is to find 10 players to poll? And surely everyone considers alternatives. The word in the laws is "seriously consider" it. What does that mean. Don't you want your pollees to seriously consider each alternative? Herman. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 12:14:31 2014 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:14:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story In-Reply-To: <5417F3D2.2040808@skynet.be> References: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> <5417F3D2.2040808@skynet.be> Message-ID: If I and all other polled thought 4S was absolutely clear, none of us would consider pass at all. And pass wouldn't be an LA at all. If I and a few other polled thought this was a somewhat close decision, say 70-30, but all of us, except one who passed, chose 4S, we all seriously considered pass. And pass has to be an LA. Thus, I'd say it's not enough to poll some number of players what they would bid. You also have to ask them if they had any serious alternatives, and how close the decision was for them. If not, I'd say the poll result is not good enough to base a ruling upon. 2014-09-16 10:24 GMT+02:00 Herman De Wael : > Harald Berre Skj?ran schreef: > > I'd say that if one out of seven chose an alternative, it's clearly > > within the limit of being an LA. > > And it seems like you didn't ask the polled players if they considered > > any other alternative than the chosen. > > You might have found that several of the 4S bidders considered passing, > > and that it perhaps was a close decision for some of them. > > > > How close the decision is, does not matter for the sake of L16B1b. And I > don't need a poll to rule that a significant proportion would consider > passing. > What I'm concerned about is when we should "judge some might select it". > Considering those words at face value, we should rule against even if no > one in the poll does select it, because "some might". > > > If only 1/10 chose an alternative, and none of the others considered it, > > it's below the threshold for an LA. IMO. > > > > 1/10? Do you really want to be polling 10 players for each case? Do you > know how difficult it is to find 10 players to poll? > And surely everyone considers alternatives. The word in the laws is > "seriously consider" it. What does that mean. Don't you want your > pollees to seriously consider each alternative? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140916/0c16dbeb/attachment.html From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 12:26:19 2014 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:26:19 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story In-Reply-To: References: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 16 September 2014 20:01, Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > I'd say that if one out of seven chose an alternative, it's clearly within > the limit of being an LA. > And it seems like you didn't ask the polled players if they considered any > other alternative than the chosen. > You might have found that several of the 4S bidders considered passing, > and that it perhaps was a close decision for some of them. > > If only 1/10 chose an alternative, and none of the others considered it, > it's below the threshold for an LA. IMO. > Certainly the way the laws are now written the definition of logical alternative has a very low threshold for the number of players that would choose an action. There are also significant problems in polling and basing decisions on polls with very small samples. The margin of error is great. One in only seven could in reality mean a much lower or considerably higher proportion. And some polls are conducted on significantly smaller samples. Herman's point that it depends on partner is of course valid. I contend often that in an established partnership especially one is likely to know well, at least in the long run, what partner is most likely to be thinking about in any given situation. Here I don't have any general problem with the ruling as the poll indicates 4S, for a random player I think the hesitation is more likely to be an awkward rather than a strong hand, perhaps the weaker the player the more likely they would be to have values, and the poll concurs with my thoughts. With a small sample it is always reasonable to weigh the poll against your own thoughts if there is a difference to see if there is reason for the discrepancy. That is the poll should only be a guide. Of course in the actual situation we are again dealing with a small sample, 1. So this could be the time that a strong player hesitates with values or whatever other anomaly might turn up. This makes rulings very hard to be fair and to be seen to be fair. > > 2014-09-16 9:45 GMT+02:00 Herman De Wael : > >> You have all discussed this ruling at length. >> >> Indeed, most of you have guessed correctly, the 3Sp bid did not come as >> quickly as could be. >> >> 3Sp bidder had KJ106 J7 9875 653. >> >> And therein lies a first problem. What did you expect partner could >> possibly have as a maximum? Surely we must allow a player to know where >> the maximum his partner can have, would lie? Not so as to be sure of >> what hesitating partner has, but so as to be able to average the >> probabilities. Someone calculated the probability of making against a >> near yarborough at near 50%. Surely the probabilities go up with the >> number of points partner can hold. If partner can hold as much as 5 >> points, where the probability of making 4Sp will be 90% or so, then the >> average probability reaches 70%, more than enough to make the game >> biddable. >> >> And yet no-one (not in my poll, not in another one, not on blml) asks >> about the aggressivity of partner. >> >> So let's continue the actual story. >> >> Although all the boards in Pula were pre-dealt and duplicated, this >> actual board was dealt at the table. Someone (in fact the possible >> offenders on this hand, but that is not important) had sat at a wrong >> table, and started playing board 9. When the were transported to the >> correct table, this left two matches (four tabled) without a board 9. So >> I hand-dealt a replacement, and this was it >> For completeness, the full hand >> N: KJ106 J7 9875 653. >> W: Q74 K10965 106 1094 >> E: 93 AQ832 KQ32 J8 >> S: A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 >> >> Since no one apart from 16 players had seen the board, I could do a >> large poll. I used three of the directors (all Polish), two players >> (both Czech) and two friends (Belgians). The result of my poll: 6-1. >> >> >> >> (space left blank for creation of tension) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 6-1 in favour of 4Sp. >> The sole outcast was the ageing Belgian, who would have bid 4Sp if >> vulnerable but not when not vulnerable. >> Considering that the actual pair were young Poles I decided to allow the >> 4Sp bid. >> >> The opponent decided to appeal. He told be he had asked three players, >> all of whom passed. >> >> Between this time and the appeal, I asked by partner (4Sp) and Slawek >> Latala texted his group of top Poles (who bid 4Sp at 6-1 also). >> >> The Appeal Committee consisted of 3 players. One of them stated he would >> also bid 4Sp, and the others did not object. But the Committee did its >> job and asked for the definition of LA to be read. >> >> And then they decided, albeit by 2-1, to consider Pass a LA and to >> return the score to 3Sp+1. >> >> Which was the reason for my question. If a poll produces a result of >> 6-1, should that not count as a minority too small to make it a LA? >> Should we not be allowed to use judgment as to who we consider peers. We >> ask someone, and he's in a minority of one. He is totally unlike the >> player in age and bridge tradition (French <> Polish, you cannot be more >> different). >> >> If the polling system is going to work, we need a treshold below which >> we might accept a minority opinion not to be a LA. >> >> Otherwise, we can just keep on asking and we'll be certain to find >> someone. That sounds too much like 'if it hesitates, shoot it', to me. >> >> Comments? >> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Berre Skj?ran > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140916/9acfc47e/attachment.html From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Sep 16 12:40:55 2014 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:40:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story In-Reply-To: <5417F3D2.2040808@skynet.be> References: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> <5417F3D2.2040808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <635ACEB5B0EF43A282E65FACBB305317@Lounge> The problem that several of us are having with this ruling is not whether 3S is an LA rather is 4S DEMONSTRABLY suggested over Pass. We believe the converse to be true. ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 9:24 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story Harald Berre Skj?ran schreef: > I'd say that if one out of seven chose an alternative, it's clearly > within the limit of being an LA. > And it seems like you didn't ask the polled players if they considered > any other alternative than the chosen. > You might have found that several of the 4S bidders considered passing, > and that it perhaps was a close decision for some of them. > How close the decision is, does not matter for the sake of L16B1b. And I don't need a poll to rule that a significant proportion would consider passing. What I'm concerned about is when we should "judge some might select it". Considering those words at face value, we should rule against even if no one in the poll does select it, because "some might". > If only 1/10 chose an alternative, and none of the others considered it, > it's below the threshold for an LA. IMO. > 1/10? Do you really want to be polling 10 players for each case? Do you know how difficult it is to find 10 players to poll? And surely everyone considers alternatives. The word in the laws is "seriously consider" it. What does that mean. Don't you want your pollees to seriously consider each alternative? Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Tue Sep 16 14:18:51 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:18:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story In-Reply-To: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> References: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> Message-ID: {Herman] You have all discussed this ruling at length. Indeed, most of you have guessed correctly, the 3Sp bid did not come as quickly as could be. 3Sp bidder had KJ106 J7 9875 653. And therein lies a first problem. What did you expect partner could possibly have as a maximum? Surely we must allow a player to know where the maximum his partner can have, would lie? Not so as to be sure of what hesitating partner has, but so as to be able to average the probabilities. Someone calculated the probability of making against a near yarborough at near 50%. Surely the probabilities go up with the number of points partner can hold. If partner can hold as much as 5 points, where the probability of making 4Sp will be 90% or so, then the average probability reaches 70%, more than enough to make the game biddable. And yet no-one (not in my poll, not in another one, not on blml) asks about the aggressivity of partner. So let's continue the actual story. [Nige1] Pollees must rely on the director to present the full facts, including any matters of style, of which he is aware. [Herman] [SNIP] Since no one apart from 16 players had seen the board, I could do a large poll. I used three of the directors (all Polish), two players (both Czech) and two friends (Belgians). The result of my poll: 6-1. (space left blank for creation of tension) 6-1 in favour of 4Sp. The sole outcast was the ageing Belgian, who would have bid 4Sp if vulnerable but not when not vulnerable. Considering that the actual pair were young Poles I decided to allow the 4Sp bid. The opponent decided to appeal. He told be he had asked three players, all of whom passed. Between this time and the appeal, I asked by partner (4Sp) and Slawek Latala texted his group of top Poles (who bid 4Sp at 6-1 also). The Appeal Committee consisted of 3 players. One of them stated he would also bid 4Sp, and the others did not object. But the Committee did its job and asked for the definition of LA to be read. And then they decided, albeit by 2-1, to consider Pass a LA and to return the score to 3Sp+1. Which was the reason for my question. If a poll produces a result of 6-1, should that not count as a minority too small to make it a LA? Should we not be allowed to use judgment as to who we consider peers. We ask someone, and he's in a minority of one. He is totally unlike the player in age and bridge tradition (French <> Polish, you cannot be more different). If the polling system is going to work, we need a treshold below which we might accept a minority opinion not to be a LA. Otherwise, we can just keep on asking and we'll be certain to find someone. That sounds too much like 'if it hesitates, shoot it', to me. Comments? {Nige2] When an extensive poll of the player's peers reaches an overwhelming conclusion, I agree with Herman that should be decisive. Anyway, an appeals committee should be reluctant to second-guess the director on matters of judgement, especially when no new facts or arguments emerge. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 16 18:34:20 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:34:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula In-Reply-To: References: <54116417.8000402@t-online.de> <09E440D358D947E99C12612914140F1E@CiborKomputer> Message-ID: <5418668C.6050507@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/09/2014 23:05, Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > > > Of course we can find bad examples. How likely are they? And how bad > are they? That's the important question, of course. Giver the 3H bid, the probability of 2/2 spades is significantly lower that that of 3/1, and if we have 4-4 then 4/1 is also more probable than usual, and if partner had enough to finesse the spades then he hans't another card to come into his hand. Now if you tell me you know that this particular LHO often preempts of flat hands it might be different. > Game seems to have some reasonable play even opposite these bad > example even if they are not the worst one could construct. > > -- > Wayne Burrows > Palmerston North > New Zealand > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140916/d9e580b3/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 16 18:40:25 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:40:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story In-Reply-To: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> References: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <541867F9.2070205@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/09/2014 9:45, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > Which was the reason for my question. If a poll produces a result of > 6-1, should that not count as a minority too small to make it a LA? > AG : IIRC, not only the number of players who made the alternative bid, but also the number of those who considered it, should be taken into account. Here, among us, it is "most". >Whence pass is a LA. But that's not, not at all, the key to the problem. The key is that no LA has been suggested strongly enough by the tempo. Whence neither 4S nor pass can be disallowed. (not even 4C IMO) Best regards Alain From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Tue Sep 16 21:36:05 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:36:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy. conclusion for 2017 In-Reply-To: <54179625.4070305@nhcc.net> References: <540C4E02.8000707@vwalther.de> <54143C09.3070800@vwalther.de> <1816232071.23061069.1410735378444.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <54163925.3020209@vwalther.de> <1822682686.23587222.1410817786630.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <54179625.4070305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Am 16.09.2014, 03:45 Uhr, schrieb Steve Willner : > On 2014-09-15 5:49 PM, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: >> ... Law 23 to adjust score if the defence is damaged > > While I'm sympathetic to this, I don't think it goes far enough. L23 > requires that declarer "could have known" and doesn't apply otherwise. > I'd prefer a solution that prevents damage to defenders even when the > damage could not have been predicted. Is this too much sympathy for the > innocent side? But surely a player "could have known" that many an opponent would carelessly follow to an invalid play, and that seeing a defender's card and completely changing the play might damage defenders - even without penalty card provisions? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Sep 16 23:37:20 2014 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:37:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story In-Reply-To: <5417F3D2.2040808@skynet.be> References: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> <5417F3D2.2040808@skynet.be> Message-ID: >And I don't need a poll to rule that a significant proportion would >consider >passing. Beware of this approach, Herman. As they say in Hollywood "nobody knows anything". First of all don't forget that the LA depends on the class of player involved. I've run myself or watched taken several polls in my life. The results were astonishing to me at times. You would never believe what bids poeple could consider or not consider making. I remember a poll where everyone in my circles could think of no other call than pass (there was no other option even considered) & yet when people with sklills similar to the players involved were polled they would all bid 5C and 6C (total brain cancer to me) and not even contemplate passing. So for the class of players involved passing wasn't an LA at all. Always make a poll. Don't be lazy. Best regards, Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 08:28:42 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:28:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story In-Reply-To: References: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> <5417F3D2.2040808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54192A1A.4020209@skynet.be> Konrad Ciborowski schreef: >> And I don't need a poll to rule that a significant proportion would >> consider >> passing. > > Beware of this approach, Herman. > As they say in Hollywood "nobody knows anything". > > First of all don't forget that the LA depends on the class of player > involved. > > I've run myself or watched taken several polls in my life. > The results were astonishing to me at times. > You would never believe what bids poeple could consider or not consider > making. > I remember a poll where everyone in my circles could think of no other > call than pass (there was no other option even considered) & yet when people > with sklills similar to the players involved were polled they > would all bid 5C and 6C (total brain cancer to me) > and not even contemplate passing. > > So for the class of players involved passing wasn't an LA at all. > > Always make a poll. Don't be lazy. > Well, if you give the hand, and the reply does not come in 2 seconds, that means they have considered it, no? So take it for read that many polled players considered passing. That part of the definition was OK. Herman. > Best regards, > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Wed Sep 17 11:37:55 2014 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (Olivix) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:37:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story In-Reply-To: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> References: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008e01cfd25b$0f2df240$2d89d6c0$@beauvillain@wanadoo.fr> Hello, May bey ou should have asked two questions (it's what i do usually) 1) for the director What do yhou consider bidding? 2) for the players What do you bid? The second one is of no use for ruling, but it helps a lot to have a fair answer to 1) witch is the way to know if "pass" is a LA Sometimes (...) everybody consider passing or bidding (or balance between two bids) and after everybody do the same thing, Since 2007, that means that the 0% vote-bid IS a LA If hou have, say, 1) 40% balancing between "pass" & "4S" 2) 100% biding "4S" So "pass" is a LA and you rule for 170 Best regards, Hope to see you in a championship, i am now available to direct more often :) Olivier, -----Message d'origine----- De?: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de Herman De Wael Envoy??: mardi 16 septembre 2014 09:46 ??: blml Objet?: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story You have all discussed this ruling at length. Indeed, most of you have guessed correctly, the 3Sp bid did not come as quickly as could be. 3Sp bidder had KJ106 J7 9875 653. And therein lies a first problem. What did you expect partner could possibly have as a maximum? Surely we must allow a player to know where the maximum his partner can have, would lie? Not so as to be sure of what hesitating partner has, but so as to be able to average the probabilities. Someone calculated the probability of making against a near yarborough at near 50%. Surely the probabilities go up with the number of points partner can hold. If partner can hold as much as 5 points, where the probability of making 4Sp will be 90% or so, then the average probability reaches 70%, more than enough to make the game biddable. And yet no-one (not in my poll, not in another one, not on blml) asks about the aggressivity of partner. So let's continue the actual story. Although all the boards in Pula were pre-dealt and duplicated, this actual board was dealt at the table. Someone (in fact the possible offenders on this hand, but that is not important) had sat at a wrong table, and started playing board 9. When the were transported to the correct table, this left two matches (four tabled) without a board 9. So I hand-dealt a replacement, and this was it For completeness, the full hand N: KJ106 J7 9875 653. W: Q74 K10965 106 1094 E: 93 AQ832 KQ32 J8 S: A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72 Since no one apart from 16 players had seen the board, I could do a large poll. I used three of the directors (all Polish), two players (both Czech) and two friends (Belgians). The result of my poll: 6-1. (space left blank for creation of tension) 6-1 in favour of 4Sp. The sole outcast was the ageing Belgian, who would have bid 4Sp if vulnerable but not when not vulnerable. Considering that the actual pair were young Poles I decided to allow the 4Sp bid. The opponent decided to appeal. He told be he had asked three players, all of whom passed. Between this time and the appeal, I asked by partner (4Sp) and Slawek Latala texted his group of top Poles (who bid 4Sp at 6-1 also). The Appeal Committee consisted of 3 players. One of them stated he would also bid 4Sp, and the others did not object. But the Committee did its job and asked for the definition of LA to be read. And then they decided, albeit by 2-1, to consider Pass a LA and to return the score to 3Sp+1. Which was the reason for my question. If a poll produces a result of 6-1, should that not count as a minority too small to make it a LA? Should we not be allowed to use judgment as to who we consider peers. We ask someone, and he's in a minority of one. He is totally unlike the player in age and bridge tradition (French <> Polish, you cannot be more different). If the polling system is going to work, we need a treshold below which we might accept a minority opinion not to be a LA. Otherwise, we can just keep on asking and we'll be certain to find someone. That sounds too much like 'if it hesitates, shoot it', to me. Comments? Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Sep 17 15:38:04 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:38:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story In-Reply-To: References: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54198EBC.5030702@nhcc.net> On 2014-09-16 6:26 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Certainly the way the laws are now written the definition of logical > alternative has a very low threshold for the number of players that > would choose an action. > > There are also significant problems in polling and basing decisions on > polls with very small samples. The margin of error is great. I agree with both of Wayne's points. The way I usually explain "LA" is that you don't have to bid hearts when you really have spades, and you don't have to pass a forcing bid, but anything that's at all reasonable in context is a LA. We don't have percentages any more, but it probably corresponds to an action that 5-10% of equivalent players would actually choose. Reliably estimating 5-10% from a poll would require hundreds of pollees. That's obviously impractical. The purpose of polling is not to reach a numerical decision but rather to make sure the TD hasn't overlooked some line of reasoning for or against some action. On 2014-09-16 12:40 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > not only the number of players who made the alternative bid, > but also the number of those who considered it, should be taken into > account. Here, among us, it is "most". Whence pass is a LA. This is another reason polls are tricky. As Konrad wrote, one needs to be sure the pollees are peers of the players concerned. On the surface, a 6-1 vote tends to suggest both options are LAs. Even 7-0 might do so if many of the 7 are considering the other option. In this case, I have no doubt that both pass and 4S are LAs. > But that's not, not at all, the key to the problem. The key is that no > LA has been suggested strongly enough by the tempo. I agree that "what is suggested?" is the key to the problem, but I don't think it's so clear that neither alternative is suggested. As I wrote earlier, I thought the tempo suggested passing, but the actual hand at the table was suggesting 4S. Maybe this is a case where one has to know one's partner. I'd want to ask the player who bid 4S why he bid it before ruling, but I have a lot of sympathy for the player at the other table who passed because he thought partner's tempo suggested bidding on. From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Wed Sep 17 22:35:05 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:35:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Pula - the rest of the story In-Reply-To: References: <5417EAAF.9050501@skynet.be> <5417F3D2.2040808@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sep 16, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > If I and all other polled thought 4S was absolutely clear, none of us would consider pass at all. And pass wouldn't be an LA at all. > > If I and a few other polled thought this was a somewhat close decision, say 70-30, but all of us, except one who passed, chose 4S, we all seriously considered pass. And pass has to be an LA. > > Thus, I'd say it's not enough to poll some number of players what they would bid. You also have to ask them if they had any serious alternatives, and how close the decision was for them. If not, I'd say the poll result is not good enough to base a ruling upon. Well put. I fear the term "poll" is misleading. "Poll" suggests determining a "winner" by one vote per pollee, like an election. Which is why we give results like "6 of 7 bid this, 1 of 7 bid that", which tells us essentially nothing. "What would you bid?" is the wrong question; it should be "What might you bid?" or "What would you consider bidding?" An action is a logical alternative if a significant number of "peers" would seriously consider it, even if it would get no "first choice" votes. We should think of what we're doing as "consulting" rather than "polling". Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 06:23:30 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:23:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling Message-ID: Butler pairs, electronic bridge mate machines in use. Five board rounds. The previous table passed boards 6 to 10 in the order of 6, 7, 8, 10, 9. Both North-South and East-West carelessly fail to notice this, so North's contract of 3NT making 11 tricks on board 10 is scored as board 9 on the bridge mate. The Director, Sean Mullamphy, has configured the bridge mates so that they display a travelling score sheet. South and East observe an anomaly on the traveller - the other two scores are 2S by East-West, with one -200 and the other -400. The Director does not immediately rule board 9 to be unplayable. North passes, East passes (holding a weak two in spades), South opens 1S, West doubles, all pass. +500 to East-West. How should Sean rule now? Best wishes, Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140918/bdc9a890/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Thu Sep 18 07:46:26 2014 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 07:46:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001e01cfd303$e35d0300$aa170900$@t-online.de> He should apply Law 16 C2c , giving Avg- to both pairs. von Richard Hills Butler pairs, electronic bridge mate machines in use. Five board rounds. The previous table passed boards 6 to 10 in the order of 6, 7, 8, 10, 9. Both North-South and East-West carelessly fail to notice this, so North's contract of 3NT making 11 tricks on board 10 is scored as board 9 on the bridge mate. The Director, Sean Mullamphy, has configured the bridge mates so that they display a travelling score sheet. South and East observe an anomaly on the traveller - the other two scores are 2S by East-West, with one -200 and the other -400. The Director does not immediately rule board 9 to be unplayable. North passes, East passes (holding a weak two in spades), South opens 1S, West doubles, all pass. +500 to East-West. How should Sean rule now? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140918/0683ced5/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 18 16:01:28 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:01:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would do director error. This comes up a lot here. The question is if they can play the hand. Usually not. Sometimes yes, it depends mostly on how good they are. If they all agree to play the hand, then it counts, but I've never had any subsequent complaints. (Oh, if it's a skilled pair and an unskilled pair, then I probably don't offer the choice to play it, an unskilled pair would not realize how much a skilled pair can infer.) On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:23:30 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > Butler pairs, electronic bridge mate machines in use. Five board rounds. > The previous table passed boards 6 to 10 in >the order of 6, 7, 8, 10, > 9. Both North-South and East-West carelessly fail to notice this, so > North's contract of 3NT >making 11 tricks on board 10 is scored as board > 9 on the bridge mate. > > The Director, Sean Mullamphy, has configured the bridge mates so that > they display a travelling score sheet. South >and East observe an > anomaly on the traveller - the other two scores are 2S by East-West, > with one -200 and the >other -400. The Director does not immediately > rule board 9 to be unplayable. North passes, East passes (holding a > >weak two in spades), South opens 1S, West doubles, all pass. +500 to > East-West. How should Sean rule now? > > Best wishes, > > Richard -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140918/06444a59/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Sep 19 02:10:30 2014 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:10:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> It appears that preknowledge of the results turned out to make the board unplayable, so we need an adjusted score. N-S and E-W are both at fault for playing board 10 and entering the score on board 9, so I would rule average-minus. (Passing the boards out of order is not an infraction, so this table is the only one at fault.) I have seen situations in which the TD waited to apply Law 16C, so the TD's procedure here is reasonable, and I wouldn't rule TD error. In one tournament, I sat down to play boards 25-27, and the opponents continued discussing the previous board, "3NT isn't any better; everyone is 4-4-4-1." I contacted the TD in a later round when I was due to play board 24. He said to play the board and he would stand by. I had no decisions to make in the bidding on my 4-4-4-1 6-count, but when I was on lead against 3NT, the TD then ruled, "Average-plus to both sides"; had I been dummy, the board might have been playable. ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Hills To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:23 AM Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling Butler pairs, electronic bridge mate machines in use. Five board rounds. The previous table passed boards 6 to 10 in the order of 6, 7, 8, 10, 9. Both North-South and East-West carelessly fail to notice this, so North's contract of 3NT making 11 tricks on board 10 is scored as board 9 on the bridge mate. The Director, Sean Mullamphy, has configured the bridge mates so that they display a travelling score sheet. South and East observe an anomaly on the traveller - the other two scores are 2S by East-West, with one -200 and the other -400. The Director does not immediately rule board 9 to be unplayable. North passes, East passes (holding a weak two in spades), South opens 1S, West doubles, all pass. +500 to East-West. How should Sean rule now? Best wishes, Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20140919/55ff7853/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 06:14:41 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 14:14:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> Message-ID: Two points. East chose a demonstrably suggested logical alternative by Passing instead of opening 2S. However, selecting a demonstrably suggested logical alternnative is prohibited by Law 16B (unauthorised information from partner), and this was a Law 16C situation (unauthorised information from other sources). Contra-however, Law 73C is broader than Law 16, so East's Pass may still have been illegal. By the way, I sat East. Secondly, Director Sean Mullamphy may have been partially at fault, due to him unnecessarily configuring the bridge mates to display a travelling scoresheet. (One player who was not at the affected table has a strong opinion that for all imps sessions the travelling scoresheet should be turned off.) Hence I agree with Sean's ruling of Average for both sides. Best wishes, Riichard On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:10 AM, David Grabiner < grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > It appears that preknowledge of the results turned out to make the board > unplayable, so we need an adjusted score. N-S and E-W are both at fault > for playing board 10 and entering the score on board 9, so I would rule > average-minus. (Passing the boards out of order is not an infraction, so > this table is the only one at fault.) > > I have seen situations in which the TD waited to apply Law 16C, so the > TD's procedure here is reasonable, and I wouldn't rule TD error. In one > tournament, I sat down to play boards 25-27, and the opponents continued > discussing the previous board, "3NT isn't any better; everyone is > 4-4-4-1." I contacted the TD in a later round when I was due to play board > 24. He said to play the board and he would stand by. I had no decisions > to make in the bidding on my 4-4-4-1 6-count, but when I was on lead > against 3NT, the TD then ruled, "Average-plus to both sides"; had I been > dummy, the board might have been playable. > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Richard Hills > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Sent:* Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:23 AM > *Subject:* [BLML] Law 16C ruling > > Butler pairs, electronic bridge mate machines in use. Five board rounds. > The previous table passed boards 6 to 10 in the order of 6, 7, 8, 10, 9. > Both North-South and East-West carelessly fail to notice this, so North's > contract of 3NT making 11 tricks on board 10 is scored as board 9 on the > bridge mate. > > The Director, Sean Mullamphy, has configured the bridge mates so that they > display a travelling score sheet. South and East observe an anomaly on the > traveller - the other two scores are 2S by East-West, with one -200 and the > other -400. The Director does not immediately rule board 9 to be > unplayable. North passes, East passes (holding a weak two in spades), South > opens 1S, West doubles, all pass. +500 to East-West. How should Sean rule > now? > > Best wishes, > > Richard > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140919/2552dea8/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 19 16:06:20 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:06:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> Message-ID: If the players have knowledge of a board that could influence play of the board, they probably should not be allowed to play the board. Or, given that they are allowed to play the board, they should not be punished for making a good decision. East was put in the unfair position of either making the losing bid or making the winning bid and having the board not count (and being accused of whatever). On a different topic, it seems inappropriate to mention the director's name, even with permission. It's irrelevant, and any subsequent discussion could be construed as criticism of the director, when it should be just a discussion of either principles or some ruling. Bob On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:14:41 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > Two points. >East chose a demonstrably suggested logical alternative by Passing > instead of opening 2S. However, selecting a >demonstrably suggested > logical alternnative is prohibited by Law 16B (unauthorised information > from partner), and >this was a Law 16C situation (unauthorised > information from other sources). Contra-however, Law 73C is broader > >than Law 16, so East's Pass may still have been illegal. By the way, I > sat East. >Secondly, Director Sean Mullamphy may have been partially at fault, due > to him unnecessarily configuring the bridge >mates to display a > travelling scoresheet. (One player who was not at the affected table has > a strong opinion that for >all imps sessions the travelling scoresheet > should be turned off.) Hence I agree with Sean's ruling of Average for > both >sides. >Best wishes, >Riichard > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:10 AM, David Grabiner > wrote: >> It appears that preknowledge of the results turned out to make the >> board unplayable, so we need an adjusted >>score. N-S and E-W are both >> at fault for playing board 10 and entering the score on board 9, so I >> would rule >>average-minus. (Passing the boards out of order is not an >> infraction, so this table is the only one at fault.) >>I have seen situations in which the TD waited to apply Law 16C, so the >> TD's procedure here is reasonable, and I >>wouldn't rule TD error. In >> one tournament, I sat down to play boards 25-27, and the opponents >> continued >>discussing the previous board, "3NT isn't any better; >> everyone is 4-4-4-1." I contacted the TD in a later round >>when I was >> due to play board 24. He said to play the board and he would stand >> by. I had no decisions to make in >>the bidding on my 4-4-4-1 6-count, >> but when I was on lead against 3NT, the TD then ruled, "Average-plus to >> both >>sides"; had I been dummy, the board might have been playable. >>> ----- Original Message -----From: Richard HillsTo: Bridge Laws Mailing >>> ListSent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:23 AM >>> Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling >>> >>> Butler pairs, electronic bridge mate machines in use. Five board >>> rounds. The previous table passed boards 6 to 10 >>>in the order of 6, >>> 7, 8, 10, 9. Both North-South and East-West carelessly fail to notice >>> this, so North's contract of >>>3NT making 11 tricks on board 10 is >>> scored as board 9 on the bridge mate. >>> >>> The Director, Sean Mullamphy, has configured the bridge mates so that >>> they display a travelling score sheet. >>>South and East observe an >>> anomaly on the traveller - the other two scores are 2S by East-West, >>> with one -200 >>>and the other -400. The Director does not immediately >>> rule board 9 to be unplayable. North passes, East passes >>>(holding a >>> weak two in spades), South opens 1S, West doubles, all pass. +500 to >>> East-West. How should Sean >>>rule now? >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140919/d1056cb6/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Sep 20 03:47:30 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:47:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> Message-ID: <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> On 2014-09-18 8:10 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > It appears that preknowledge of the results turned out to make the board > unplayable, so we need an adjusted score. I think we all agree with that... in particular an artificial score. > N-S and E-W are both at fault > for playing board 10 and entering the score on board 9, so I would rule > average-minus. I have almost no experience with BridgeMates, but isn't it North's job to enter scores for the correct board? Is there some indication EW should have noticed before OK'ing the score? As I say, I don't understand the relevant procedures. Presumably if the BridgeMate had not been set to display prior scores, both boards would have been played normally but scores switched. The error wouldn't have been detected until play was over and all scores posted. Or is there something I'm missing? L73C contains the words "from his partner," so I don't think it applies. From lali808 at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 05:11:00 2014 From: lali808 at gmail.com (Lali) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:11:00 -1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> Message-ID: It depends on how the bridgemates or the bridgepads are set up. For tournaments we don't allow seeing "traveler" results and for most of our clubs locally we have it turned off but it depends on the club. Sometimes insistent patrons who miss seeing traveler results, ask that it be shown on the electronic scorers. This is a good reason to not allow patrons seeing traveler results. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2014-09-18 8:10 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > > It appears that preknowledge of the results turned out to make the board > > unplayable, so we need an adjusted score. > > I think we all agree with that... in particular an artificial score. > > > N-S and E-W are both at fault > > for playing board 10 and entering the score on board 9, so I would rule > > average-minus. > > I have almost no experience with BridgeMates, but isn't it North's job > to enter scores for the correct board? Is there some indication EW > should have noticed before OK'ing the score? As I say, I don't > understand the relevant procedures. > > Presumably if the BridgeMate had not been set to display prior scores, > both boards would have been played normally but scores switched. The > error wouldn't have been detected until play was over and all scores > posted. Or is there something I'm missing? > > L73C contains the words "from his partner," so I don't think it applies. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140920/9abfedf5/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 20 10:00:17 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:00:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000d01cfd4a8$ec1fe060$c45fa120$@online.no> Steve Willner > I have almost no experience with BridgeMates, but isn't it North's job to enter > scores for the correct board? Is there some indication EW should have noticed > before OK'ing the score? As I say, I don't understand the relevant procedures. [Sven Pran] As East is responsible for acknowledging the entered score EW has the same responsibility as NS if there is an error in what has been entered and acknowledged. > Presumably if the BridgeMate had not been set to display prior scores, both > boards would have been played normally but scores switched. The error > wouldn't have been detected until play was over and all scores posted. Or is > there something I'm missing? [Sven Pran] No, you have it absolutely correct. From bridge at vwalther.de Sat Sep 20 14:44:59 2014 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:44:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> Richard hills wrote > Butler pairs, electronic bridge mate machines in use. Five board > rounds. The previous table passed boards 6 to 10 in the order of 6, > 7, 8, 10, 9. Both North-South and East-West carelessly fail to notice > this, so North's contract of 3NT making 11 tricks on board 10 is > scored as board 9 on the bridge mate. > > The Director, Sean Mullamphy, has configured the bridge mates so that > they display a travelling score sheet. South and East observe an > anomaly on the traveller - the other two scores are 2S by East-West, > with one -200 and the other -400. The Director does not immediately > rule board 9 to be unplayable. North passes, East passes (holding a > weak two in spades), South opens 1S, West doubles, all pass. +500 to > East-West. How should Sean rule now? Am 20.09.2014 um 03:47 schrieb Steve Willner: > > I have almost no experience with BridgeMates, but isn't it North's > job to enter scores for the correct board? Is there some indication > EW should have noticed before OK'ing the score? As I say, I don't > understand the relevant procedures. If the first board is played North has to enter the boardnumber, kontract, declarer, lead and over/undertricks. (alternatively he is asked for the tricks made). >From the second round on the bridgemate usually choses the subsequent board number automatically. This could have been disabled, but that is annoying. So if north does not realize the board out of order, he will entr the score to the wrong board. Now East has to confirm the result. This is presented in a form like: Board 9 , North 3NT + 2 Lead 2D. +460. It is a common error that East does not realize that he played board 10 and there is a 9 on the Bridgemate. They often only check the result. Sometimes they only press CONFIRM like other players nodd when North shows the traveller. When the result has been confirmed the bridgemate displays the achieved result in % (MP scoring) and players may read the traveller and the complete distribution. In this case they recieved information about the yet unplayed Board 9. This could only happen because both sides did not check check whether the board number on board and bridgemate where identical. The TD may disable this feature, but in the most contests the players prefer to see an immediate result. Furthermore the players sometimes realize they made an error, only because they did see the other results. E.g. in this case nobody would have realized that a wrong score had been entered on Board 9, if they had not seen the traveller with all these Spade contracts. They did not even realize that North, beeing vulnarable, only made 460. They probably would have continued, playing 2 Spades-? and enter this result to board 10. Hiding the travellers does not solve the problem. We have two offending sides, AVG- to both according 16C2d. I would never allow to continue play after this information had been given, but according to 16C2c it is allowed. When East did not open his weak 2 the UI affected the result, so back to AVG-. Greetings, Volker From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Sep 20 22:23:25 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:23:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> On 2014-09-20 8:44 AM, Volker Walther wrote: > This is presented in a form like: > Board 9 , North 3NT + 2 Lead 2D. +460. Thanks for the clear explanation. So the lesson for East is to check everything (or at least the board number), not just the contract and tricks. > We have two offending sides, AVG- to both according 16C2d. Shouldn't it be avg to both for both sides partly at fault? By the way, if the sponsor has enough technology to have BridgeMates, why in the world was the event run as Butler? Doesn't the scoring program handle cross-IMPs? From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Sep 21 09:30:51 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 08:30:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <541E7EAB.3040401@btinternet.com> On 20/09/2014 21:23, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2014-09-20 8:44 AM, Volker Walther wrote: >> This is presented in a form like: >> Board 9 , North 3NT + 2 Lead 2D. +460. > Thanks for the clear explanation. So the lesson for East is to check > everything (or at least the board number), not just the contract and tricks. > >> We have two offending sides, AVG- to both according 16C2d. > Shouldn't it be avg to both for both sides partly at fault? They are also both directly at fault. The categories are not discrete. Personally I would prefer to give Average to both sides, but our L&E committee here in England decided otherwise, so we too would give Av- to both sides. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 21 11:08:57 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:08:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> Steve Willner schreef: > On 2014-09-20 8:44 AM, Volker Walther wrote: >> This is presented in a form like: >> Board 9 , North 3NT + 2 Lead 2D. +460. > > Thanks for the clear explanation. So the lesson for East is to check > everything (or at least the board number), not just the contract and tricks. > >> We have two offending sides, AVG- to both according 16C2d. > > Shouldn't it be avg to both for both sides partly at fault? > No, North made a clear infraction, entering the wrong board number. Certainly Av- for him. I don't like Av- for East for not checking the board number. That is not something he is required to do. He is allowed to check if the score that is entered is the correct one, but if he trusts his opponent he is not required to do so (although I may rule that score stands if he subsequently tells me he made an overtrick and North disagrees). East is not "required" to check the entry and I would not punish him for not noticing North's error. Av+ or Av if you want to be more strict, but never Av-, IMO. > By the way, if the sponsor has enough technology to have BridgeMates, > why in the world was the event run as Butler? Doesn't the scoring > program handle cross-IMPs? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 21 11:59:14 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:59:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > Steve Willner schreef: > > On 2014-09-20 8:44 AM, Volker Walther wrote: > >> This is presented in a form like: > >> Board 9 , North 3NT + 2 Lead 2D. +460. > > > > Thanks for the clear explanation. So the lesson for East is to check > > everything (or at least the board number), not just the contract and tricks. > > > >> We have two offending sides, AVG- to both according 16C2d. > > > > Shouldn't it be avg to both for both sides partly at fault? > > > > No, North made a clear infraction, entering the wrong board number. > Certainly Av- for him. > > I don't like Av- for East for not checking the board number. That is not > something he is required to do. He is allowed to check if the score that is > entered is the correct one, but if he trusts his opponent he is not required to do > so (although I may rule that score stands if he subsequently tells me he made > an overtrick and North disagrees). East is not "required" to check the entry and > I would not punish him for not noticing North's error. Av+ or Av if you want to be > more strict, but never Av-, IMO. [Sven Pran] As far as I know Bridgemate regulations require East to verify and accept the data entered by North. This is never optional, and Bridgemate terminals will not proceed until after East has pressed OK. > > By the way, if the sponsor has enough technology to have BridgeMates, > > why in the world was the event run as Butler? Doesn't the scoring > > program handle cross-IMPs? > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Sun Sep 21 13:12:11 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:12:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> Message-ID: <541EB28B.3010105@skynet.be> Sven Pran schreef: > As far as I know Bridgemate regulations require East to verify and accept > the data entered by North. > This is never optional, and Bridgemate terminals will not proceed until > after East has pressed OK. > Well, I'm fairly certain they also proceed after North has pressed OK. And you're talking about regulations. Does Norway have bridgemate regulations? Does your club? Do those regulations oblige East to check the board number? Have you announced clearly that if the board number is incorrect, East will also be considered at fault? Unless you have clearly done one of these, East cannot be deemed at fault for something North has done. And, just to be complete, even if Norwegian regulations have this provision, what makes you assume the regulations in this actual case have it? The original poster stated nothing of the kind, and he would have if they did have it. So he's asking out of the blue and I don't assume such regulation exists. So my ruling would be as stated. OK? Herman. From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 21 16:22:48 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 16:22:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling - procedures prescribed with the use of Bridgemate Message-ID: <000801cfd5a7$85510d50$8ff327f0$@online.no> I am talking about the regulation, instruction or whatever you want to call it that is published together with the Bridgemate system and which is reflected in the instructions shown on every Bridgemate terminal when any information is to be entered on the terminal. Instructions on Bridgemate has the same power as instructions from the Director, disobeying them is subject to penalty under Law 90 B 8, and of course also to rectification of whatever kind when such disobedience has resulted in error(s). Is this sufficient for you? > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 21. september 2014 13:12 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling > > Sven Pran schreef: > > As far as I know Bridgemate regulations require East to verify and > > accept the data entered by North. > > This is never optional, and Bridgemate terminals will not proceed > > until after East has pressed OK. > > > > Well, I'm fairly certain they also proceed after North has pressed OK. > > And you're talking about regulations. Does Norway have bridgemate > regulations? Does your club? Do those regulations oblige East to check the > board number? Have you announced clearly that if the board number is > incorrect, East will also be considered at fault? > Unless you have clearly done one of these, East cannot be deemed at fault for > something North has done. > > And, just to be complete, even if Norwegian regulations have this provision, > what makes you assume the regulations in this actual case have it? The original > poster stated nothing of the kind, and he would have if they did have it. So he's > asking out of the blue and I don't assume such regulation exists. So my ruling > would be as stated. > > OK? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 21 17:02:47 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 17:02:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling - procedures prescribed with the use of Bridgemate In-Reply-To: <000801cfd5a7$85510d50$8ff327f0$@online.no> References: <000801cfd5a7$85510d50$8ff327f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <541EE897.7070500@skynet.be> I wish you good luck in defending before an appeals committee that an instruction that is enclosed in a box which asn't been opened by the players at the tabel has the value of a regulation. Herman. Sven Pran schreef: > I am talking about the regulation, instruction or whatever you want to call > it that is published together with the Bridgemate system and which is > reflected in the instructions shown on every Bridgemate terminal when any > information is to be entered on the terminal. > > Instructions on Bridgemate has the same power as instructions from the > Director, disobeying them is subject to penalty under Law 90 B 8, and of > course also to rectification of whatever kind when such disobedience has > resulted in error(s). > > Is this sufficient for you? > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Herman De Wael >> Sendt: 21. september 2014 13:12 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling >> >> Sven Pran schreef: >>> As far as I know Bridgemate regulations require East to verify and >>> accept the data entered by North. >>> This is never optional, and Bridgemate terminals will not proceed >>> until after East has pressed OK. >>> >> >> Well, I'm fairly certain they also proceed after North has pressed OK. >> >> And you're talking about regulations. Does Norway have bridgemate >> regulations? Does your club? Do those regulations oblige East to check the >> board number? Have you announced clearly that if the board number is >> incorrect, East will also be considered at fault? >> Unless you have clearly done one of these, East cannot be deemed at fault > for >> something North has done. >> >> And, just to be complete, even if Norwegian regulations have this > provision, >> what makes you assume the regulations in this actual case have it? The > original >> poster stated nothing of the kind, and he would have if they did have it. > So he's >> asking out of the blue and I don't assume such regulation exists. So my > ruling >> would be as stated. >> >> OK? >> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 21 17:57:37 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 17:57:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling - procedures prescribed with the use of Bridgemate In-Reply-To: <541EE897.7070500@skynet.be> References: <000801cfd5a7$85510d50$8ff327f0$@online.no> <541EE897.7070500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01cfd5b4$c4ae98c0$4e0bca40$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > I wish you good luck in defending before an appeals committee that an > instruction that is enclosed in a box which asn't been opened by the players at > the tabel has the value of a regulation. > Herman. [Sven Pran] Enclosed in a box which hasn't been opened by the players at the table ????? Have you never seen a Bridgemate in use ? There is no box for any player to open, but there are specific instructions displayed by the Bridgemate terminal on its display screen. These instructions tell North and East in detail how they are supposed to operate the terminal. The terminal will never proceed unless each instruction is obeyed, but the terminal can of course not know if an entry was made by the incorrect player. However, such an action (by an incorrect player) does not release the specified player from his responsibility. > > Sven Pran schreef: > > I am talking about the regulation, instruction or whatever you want to > > call it that is published together with the Bridgemate system and > > which is reflected in the instructions shown on every Bridgemate > > terminal when any information is to be entered on the terminal. > > > > Instructions on Bridgemate has the same power as instructions from the > > Director, disobeying them is subject to penalty under Law 90 B 8, and > > of course also to rectification of whatever kind when such > > disobedience has resulted in error(s). > > > > Is this sufficient for you? > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > >> av Herman De Wael > >> Sendt: 21. september 2014 13:12 > >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling > >> > >> Sven Pran schreef: > >>> As far as I know Bridgemate regulations require East to verify and > >>> accept the data entered by North. > >>> This is never optional, and Bridgemate terminals will not proceed > >>> until after East has pressed OK. > >>> > >> > >> Well, I'm fairly certain they also proceed after North has pressed OK. > >> > >> And you're talking about regulations. Does Norway have bridgemate > >> regulations? Does your club? Do those regulations oblige East to > >> check the board number? Have you announced clearly that if the board > >> number is incorrect, East will also be considered at fault? > >> Unless you have clearly done one of these, East cannot be deemed at > >> fault > > for > >> something North has done. > >> > >> And, just to be complete, even if Norwegian regulations have this > > provision, > >> what makes you assume the regulations in this actual case have it? > >> The > > original > >> poster stated nothing of the kind, and he would have if they did have it. > > So he's > >> asking out of the blue and I don't assume such regulation exists. So > >> my > > ruling > >> would be as stated. > >> > >> OK? > >> > >> Herman. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 22 01:02:15 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 19:02:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling - procedures prescribed with the use of Bridgemate In-Reply-To: <541EE897.7070500@skynet.be> References: <000801cfd5a7$85510d50$8ff327f0$@online.no> <541EE897.7070500@skynet.be> Message-ID: I am with Sven on this one -- pushing OK means OK. But there is a real problem with given EW an average+. That gives them an incentive to okay a wrong result. And even an incentive to play the boards out of order. On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:02:47 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > I wish you good luck in defending before an appeals committee that an > instruction that is enclosed in a box which asn't been opened by the > players at the tabel has the value of a regulation. > Herman. > > Sven Pran schreef: >> I am talking about the regulation, instruction or whatever you want to >> call >> it that is published together with the Bridgemate system and which is >> reflected in the instructions shown on every Bridgemate terminal when >> any >> information is to be entered on the terminal. >> >> Instructions on Bridgemate has the same power as instructions from the >> Director, disobeying them is subject to penalty under Law 90 B 8, and of >> course also to rectification of whatever kind when such disobedience has >> resulted in error(s). >> >> Is this sufficient for you? >> >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >>> Herman De Wael >>> Sendt: 21. september 2014 13:12 >>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling >>> >>> Sven Pran schreef: >>>> As far as I know Bridgemate regulations require East to verify and >>>> accept the data entered by North. >>>> This is never optional, and Bridgemate terminals will not proceed >>>> until after East has pressed OK. >>>> >>> >>> Well, I'm fairly certain they also proceed after North has pressed OK. >>> >>> And you're talking about regulations. Does Norway have bridgemate >>> regulations? Does your club? Do those regulations oblige East to check >>> the >>> board number? Have you announced clearly that if the board number is >>> incorrect, East will also be considered at fault? >>> Unless you have clearly done one of these, East cannot be deemed at >>> fault >> for >>> something North has done. >>> >>> And, just to be complete, even if Norwegian regulations have this >> provision, >>> what makes you assume the regulations in this actual case have it? The >> original >>> poster stated nothing of the kind, and he would have if they did have >>> it. >> So he's >>> asking out of the blue and I don't assume such regulation exists. So my >> ruling >>> would be as stated. >>> >>> OK? >>> >>> Herman. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 02:39:24 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:39:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling - procedures prescribed with the use of Bridgemate In-Reply-To: References: <000801cfd5a7$85510d50$8ff327f0$@online.no> <541EE897.7070500@skynet.be> Message-ID: In response to Herman's quibble, Aussie bridgemates require North or South to enter the score (and press the OK button), and East or West to check the score. Only when the East-West player has hit the Accept button is the score sent to the central computer. Note: A useful bit of design for the Aussie bridgemates is that the OK button is distinct from the Accept button. This prevents North-South accidentally accepting their own erroneous score. Best wishes, Richard Most frequent line from Guardians of the Galaxy: "I am Groot." Most poignant line from Guardians of the Galaxy: "We are Groot." On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > I am with Sven on this one -- pushing OK means OK. > > But there is a real problem with given EW an average+. That gives them an > incentive to okay a wrong result. And even an incentive to play the boards > out of order. > > > > On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:02:47 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > > I wish you good luck in defending before an appeals committee that an > > instruction that is enclosed in a box which asn't been opened by the > > players at the tabel has the value of a regulation. > > Herman. > > > > Sven Pran schreef: > >> I am talking about the regulation, instruction or whatever you want to > >> call > >> it that is published together with the Bridgemate system and which is > >> reflected in the instructions shown on every Bridgemate terminal when > >> any > >> information is to be entered on the terminal. > >> > >> Instructions on Bridgemate has the same power as instructions from the > >> Director, disobeying them is subject to penalty under Law 90 B 8, and of > >> course also to rectification of whatever kind when such disobedience has > >> resulted in error(s). > >> > >> Is this sufficient for you? > >> > >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > av > >>> Herman De Wael > >>> Sendt: 21. september 2014 13:12 > >>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling > >>> > >>> Sven Pran schreef: > >>>> As far as I know Bridgemate regulations require East to verify and > >>>> accept the data entered by North. > >>>> This is never optional, and Bridgemate terminals will not proceed > >>>> until after East has pressed OK. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Well, I'm fairly certain they also proceed after North has pressed OK. > >>> > >>> And you're talking about regulations. Does Norway have bridgemate > >>> regulations? Does your club? Do those regulations oblige East to check > >>> the > >>> board number? Have you announced clearly that if the board number is > >>> incorrect, East will also be considered at fault? > >>> Unless you have clearly done one of these, East cannot be deemed at > >>> fault > >> for > >>> something North has done. > >>> > >>> And, just to be complete, even if Norwegian regulations have this > >> provision, > >>> what makes you assume the regulations in this actual case have it? The > >> original > >>> poster stated nothing of the kind, and he would have if they did have > >>> it. > >> So he's > >>> asking out of the blue and I don't assume such regulation exists. So my > >> ruling > >>> would be as stated. > >>> > >>> OK? > >>> > >>> Herman. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Blml mailing list > >>> Blml at rtflb.org > >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140922/4a88081c/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 22 08:38:41 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:38:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling - procedures prescribed with the use of Bridgemate In-Reply-To: <000a01cfd5b4$c4ae98c0$4e0bca40$@online.no> References: <000801cfd5a7$85510d50$8ff327f0$@online.no> <541EE897.7070500@skynet.be> <000a01cfd5b4$c4ae98c0$4e0bca40$@online.no> Message-ID: <541FC3F1.80808@skynet.be> Have you ever seen a bridgemate in Belgium? Those specific instructions are different according to the versions. In the oldest version, it asked East to control. Me, always sitting West, had to ask for it. The newer versions ask something like "control E/W". If you believe that is a firm instruction with the same value as a national regulation, you'll be proven sadly mistaken when the case reaches the CAS in Lausanne. Sven Pran schreef: >> Herman De Wael >> I wish you good luck in defending before an appeals committee that an >> instruction that is enclosed in a box which asn't been opened by the > players at >> the tabel has the value of a regulation. >> Herman. > [Sven Pran] > Enclosed in a box which hasn't been opened by the players at the table > ????? > > Have you never seen a Bridgemate in use ? > > There is no box for any player to open, but there are specific instructions > displayed by the Bridgemate terminal on its display screen. These > instructions tell North and East in detail how they are supposed to operate > the terminal. > > The terminal will never proceed unless each instruction is obeyed, but the > terminal can of course not know if an entry was made by the incorrect > player. However, such an action (by an incorrect player) does not release > the specified player from his responsibility. > >> >> Sven Pran schreef: >>> I am talking about the regulation, instruction or whatever you want to >>> call it that is published together with the Bridgemate system and >>> which is reflected in the instructions shown on every Bridgemate >>> terminal when any information is to be entered on the terminal. >>> >>> Instructions on Bridgemate has the same power as instructions from the >>> Director, disobeying them is subject to penalty under Law 90 B 8, and >>> of course also to rectification of whatever kind when such >>> disobedience has resulted in error(s). >>> >>> Is this sufficient for you? >>> >>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>>> av Herman De Wael >>>> Sendt: 21. september 2014 13:12 >>>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling >>>> >>>> Sven Pran schreef: >>>>> As far as I know Bridgemate regulations require East to verify and >>>>> accept the data entered by North. >>>>> This is never optional, and Bridgemate terminals will not proceed >>>>> until after East has pressed OK. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, I'm fairly certain they also proceed after North has pressed OK. >>>> >>>> And you're talking about regulations. Does Norway have bridgemate >>>> regulations? Does your club? Do those regulations oblige East to >>>> check the board number? Have you announced clearly that if the board >>>> number is incorrect, East will also be considered at fault? >>>> Unless you have clearly done one of these, East cannot be deemed at >>>> fault >>> for >>>> something North has done. >>>> >>>> And, just to be complete, even if Norwegian regulations have this >>> provision, >>>> what makes you assume the regulations in this actual case have it? >>>> The >>> original >>>> poster stated nothing of the kind, and he would have if they did have > it. >>> So he's >>>> asking out of the blue and I don't assume such regulation exists. So >>>> my >>> ruling >>>> would be as stated. >>>> >>>> OK? >>>> >>>> Herman. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Mon Sep 22 08:39:58 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:39:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling - procedures prescribed with the use of Bridgemate In-Reply-To: References: <000801cfd5a7$85510d50$8ff327f0$@online.no> <541EE897.7070500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <541FC43E.2080502@skynet.be> Them's no Aussie Bridgemate, them's just the (equally Dutch) Model II. Richard Hills schreef: > In response to Herman's quibble, Aussie bridgemates require North or > South to enter the score (and press the OK button), and East or West to > check the score. Only when the East-West player has hit the Accept > button is the score sent to the central computer. > Note: A useful bit of design for the Aussie bridgemates is that the OK > button is distinct from the Accept button. This prevents North-South > accidentally accepting their own erroneous score. > Best wishes, > Richard > Most frequent line from Guardians of the Galaxy: > "I am Groot." > Most poignant line from Guardians of the Galaxy: > "We are Groot." > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Robert Frick > wrote: > > I am with Sven on this one -- pushing OK means OK. > > But there is a real problem with given EW an average+. That gives > them an > incentive to okay a wrong result. And even an incentive to play the > boards > out of order. > > > > On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:02:47 -0400, Herman De Wael > > > wrote: > > > I wish you good luck in defending before an appeals committee that an > > instruction that is enclosed in a box which asn't been opened by the > > players at the tabel has the value of a regulation. > > Herman. > > > > Sven Pran schreef: > >> I am talking about the regulation, instruction or whatever you > want to > >> call > >> it that is published together with the Bridgemate system and > which is > >> reflected in the instructions shown on every Bridgemate terminal > when > >> any > >> information is to be entered on the terminal. > >> > >> Instructions on Bridgemate has the same power as instructions > from the > >> Director, disobeying them is subject to penalty under Law 90 B > 8, and of > >> course also to rectification of whatever kind when such > disobedience has > >> resulted in error(s). > >> > >> Is this sufficient for you? > >> > >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] P? > vegne av > >>> Herman De Wael > >>> Sendt: 21. september 2014 13:12 > >>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling > >>> > >>> Sven Pran schreef: > >>>> As far as I know Bridgemate regulations require East to verify and > >>>> accept the data entered by North. > >>>> This is never optional, and Bridgemate terminals will not proceed > >>>> until after East has pressed OK. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Well, I'm fairly certain they also proceed after North has > pressed OK. > >>> > >>> And you're talking about regulations. Does Norway have bridgemate > >>> regulations? Does your club? Do those regulations oblige East > to check > >>> the > >>> board number? Have you announced clearly that if the board > number is > >>> incorrect, East will also be considered at fault? > >>> Unless you have clearly done one of these, East cannot be deemed at > >>> fault > >> for > >>> something North has done. > >>> > >>> And, just to be complete, even if Norwegian regulations have this > >> provision, > >>> what makes you assume the regulations in this actual case have > it? The > >> original > >>> poster stated nothing of the kind, and he would have if they > did have > >>> it. > >> So he's > >>> asking out of the blue and I don't assume such regulation > exists. So my > >> ruling > >>> would be as stated. > >>> > >>> OK? > >>> > >>> Herman. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Blml mailing list > >>> Blml at rtflb.org > >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 22 11:19:10 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:19:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling - procedures prescribed with the use of Bridgemate In-Reply-To: <541FC3F1.80808@skynet.be> References: <000801cfd5a7$85510d50$8ff327f0$@online.no> <541EE897.7070500@skynet.be> <000a01cfd5b4$c4ae98c0$4e0bca40$@online.no> <541FC3F1.80808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001901cfd646$453d6520$cfb82f60$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > Those specific instructions are different according to the versions. In the oldest > version, it asked East to control. Me, always sitting West, had to ask for it. The > newer versions ask something like "control E/W". > If you believe that is a firm instruction with the same value as a national > regulation, you'll be proven sadly mistaken when the case reaches the CAS in > Lausanne. [Sven Pran] I treat the instructions displayed on Bridgemate as part of the tournament regulations with strength equal to other instructions from the Director. And what is displayed on the Bridgemate is clear enough to avoid any misunderstanding regardless of language and Bridgemate version. (I know because I have been involved in both.) If committees anywhere else in the world accept disobedience against such instructions then so be it, I don't. And I have never had any difficulty in that respect. From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Mon Sep 22 14:37:50 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:37:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sep 21, 2014, at 5:59 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > As far as I know Bridgemate regulations require East to verify and accept > the data entered by North. > This is never optional, and Bridgemate terminals will not proceed until > after East has pressed OK. But the terminals do not know the regulations. They will not proceed until after *someone* has pressed OK. It is not uncommon for a hurried E-W pair, perhaps behind on the clock or desperate to get to the loo, to move on before the deal is scored, and typically when that happens North OKs his own entry and gets back to the table rather than disrupting the game by calling the director to take the Bridgemate to the next table for the OK. I'm not aware of any regulations that deal with this rather common irregularity. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 22 17:15:06 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 17:15:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> Message-ID: <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> Eric Landau > On Sep 21, 2014, at 5:59 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > As far as I know Bridgemate regulations require East to verify and > > accept the data entered by North. > > This is never optional, and Bridgemate terminals will not proceed > > until after East has pressed OK. > > But the terminals do not know the regulations. They will not proceed until after > *someone* has pressed OK. It is not uncommon for a hurried E-W pair, > perhaps behind on the clock or desperate to get to the loo, to move on before > the deal is scored, and typically when that happens North OKs his own entry > and gets back to the table rather than disrupting the game by calling the > director to take the Bridgemate to the next table for the OK. I'm not aware of > any regulations that deal with this rather common irregularity. [Sven Pran] Right, and whenever this happens East is responsible for the OK that is pressed on his behalf. Of course we rectify it whenever an error is discovered, and if the irregularity as such has not disturbed or delayed the event then that usually is it. But penalties are easily "earned" when such failures to follow correct procedure delays the whole event. (Series type matches for teams are particularly vulnerable in this respect.) From diggadog at iinet.net.au Tue Sep 23 08:24:15 2014 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:24:15 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> Message-ID: <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> Common ABF supplementary regulation "1.3 Players must use the methods and equipment in the manner specified by the Tournament Organiser (TO). Players must record the score for each board after it is played and before the commencement of the next board. It is an offence to leave the table at the conclusion of a match without first confirming the completeness and validity of the data entered into the scoring unit. Every player present at the table is equally responsible for the accuracy of the scores." Cheers bill -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:15 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling Eric Landau > On Sep 21, 2014, at 5:59 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > As far as I know Bridgemate regulations require East to verify and > > accept the data entered by North. > > This is never optional, and Bridgemate terminals will not proceed > > until after East has pressed OK. > > But the terminals do not know the regulations. They will not proceed until after > *someone* has pressed OK. It is not uncommon for a hurried E-W pair, > perhaps behind on the clock or desperate to get to the loo, to move on before > the deal is scored, and typically when that happens North OKs his own entry > and gets back to the table rather than disrupting the game by calling the > director to take the Bridgemate to the next table for the OK. I'm not aware of > any regulations that deal with this rather common irregularity. [Sven Pran] Right, and whenever this happens East is responsible for the OK that is pressed on his behalf. Of course we rectify it whenever an error is discovered, and if the irregularity as such has not disturbed or delayed the event then that usually is it. But penalties are easily "earned" when such failures to follow correct procedure delays the whole event. (Series type matches for teams are particularly vulnerable in this respect.) _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4025/8256 - Release Date: 09/22/14 From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 23 09:32:10 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:32:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> Message-ID: <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> "accuracy of the scores". Nothing about the accuracy of the board number. QED. And other countries may not even have a regulation as complete as this one. Herman. bill kemp schreef: > Common ABF supplementary regulation > "1.3 Players must use the methods and equipment in the manner specified > by the Tournament Organiser (TO). Players must record the score for each > board after it is played and before the commencement of the next board. It > is an offence to leave the table at the conclusion of a match without first > confirming the completeness and validity of the data entered into the > scoring unit. Every player present at the table is equally responsible for > the accuracy of the scores." > > Cheers > > bill > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sven Pran > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:15 PM > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling > > Eric Landau >> On Sep 21, 2014, at 5:59 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> As far as I know Bridgemate regulations require East to verify and >>> accept the data entered by North. >>> This is never optional, and Bridgemate terminals will not proceed >>> until after East has pressed OK. >> >> But the terminals do not know the regulations. They will not proceed > until after >> *someone* has pressed OK. It is not uncommon for a hurried E-W pair, >> perhaps behind on the clock or desperate to get to the loo, to move on > before >> the deal is scored, and typically when that happens North OKs his own > entry >> and gets back to the table rather than disrupting the game by calling the >> director to take the Bridgemate to the next table for the OK. I'm not > aware of >> any regulations that deal with this rather common irregularity. > > [Sven Pran] > Right, and whenever this happens East is responsible for the OK that is > pressed on his behalf. > > Of course we rectify it whenever an error is discovered, and if the > irregularity as such has not disturbed or delayed the event then that > usually is it. But penalties are easily "earned" when such failures to > follow correct procedure delays the whole event. (Series type matches for > teams are particularly vulnerable in this respect.) > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4025/8256 - Release Date: 09/22/14 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 23 09:52:38 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:52:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > > "accuracy of the scores". > Nothing about the accuracy of the board number. > QED. [Sven Pran] Come on, Herman This is far below your dignity, don't sink that low! From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Sep 23 10:10:35 2014 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 10:10:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54212AFB.205@t-online.de> Am 23.09.2014 09:32, schrieb Herman De Wael: > "accuracy of the scores". > Nothing about the accuracy of the board number. > QED. How can a score entered on the wrong board be accurate? > And other countries may not even have a regulation as complete as this one. > Herman. > > From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 23 10:11:40 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 10:11:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no> Message-ID: <54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> Sven Pran schreef: >> Herman De Wael >> >> "accuracy of the scores". >> Nothing about the accuracy of the board number. >> QED. > > [Sven Pran] > Come on, Herman > This is far below your dignity, don't sink that low! > How low? I am saying that when North makes a mistake, East should not suffer. You keep telling me that East is obliged to check the board number. I ask by what Law or regulation, and someone sends me a copy of - an Australian regulation (other countries do not have this) - which does not state that the board number must be checked Surely this is adequate proof of my saying that East, in Belgium, should not suffer from a mistake made by North? I really don't see why you should insist on Av- for something which, not even in Australia, is a requirement from East. And this is all very dignified. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 23 12:21:59 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:21:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no> <54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran schreef: > >> Herman De Wael > >> > >> "accuracy of the scores". > >> Nothing about the accuracy of the board number. > >> QED. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Come on, Herman > > This is far below your dignity, don't sink that low! > > > > How low? > I am saying that when North makes a mistake, East should not suffer. > You keep telling me that East is obliged to check the board number. I ask by > what Law or regulation, and someone sends me a copy of > - an Australian regulation (other countries do not have this) > - which does not state that the board number must be checked > > Surely this is adequate proof of my saying that East, in Belgium, should not > suffer from a mistake made by North? > > I really don't see why you should insist on Av- for something which, not even in > Australia, is a requirement from East. > > And this is all very dignified. [Sven Pran] Once more: North is responsible for entering the relevant information on each board, East is responsible for verifying and acknowledging the information that North has entered. This is according to conditions of contest of which Bridgemate instructions are part. So your position is definitely not dignified, and I am very surprised by your attitude. In fact I find your information (if it is correct) that Belgian authorities have chosen to disregard Bridgemate instructions as binding on the contestants extremely surprising. From g3 at nige1.com Tue Sep 23 15:53:06 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:53:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no><54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> Message-ID: [Nigel] IMO, the WBFLC should lay down rules governing convention-cards, bridge-mates, bidding-boxes, written-bidding, screens, and so on as appendices to TFLB. There's no sensible reason to delegate such responsibility to local jurisdiction -- the inevitable result is variation and omission. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 23 17:26:04 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:26:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no><54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> Message-ID: <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> I second that suggestion. Herman. Nigel Guthrie schreef: > [Nigel] > IMO, the WBFLC should lay down rules governing convention-cards, > bridge-mates, bidding-boxes, written-bidding, screens, and so on as > appendices to TFLB. There's no sensible reason to delegate such > responsibility to local jurisdiction -- the inevitable result is variation > and omission. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 23 18:14:03 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:14:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no><54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/09/2014 17:26 Seconded, except that rules for written explanations an convention cards still have to be given default values by OBs. And don't forget that, behind screens at least, Washoe explanations, which I used 20 years ago and are still used in Leuven. > I second that suggestion. > Herman. > > Nigel Guthrie schreef: >> [Nigel] >> IMO, the WBFLC should lay down rules governing convention-cards, >> bridge-mates, bidding-boxes, written-bidding, screens, and so on as >> appendices to TFLB. There's no sensible reason to delegate such >> responsibility to local jurisdiction -- the inevitable result is variation >> and omission. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 06:30:55 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:30:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no> <54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford They are also both directly at fault. The categories are not discrete. Personally I would prefer to give Average to both sides, but our L&E committee here in England decided otherwise, so we too would give Av- to both sides. Richard Hills: Has the EBU L&EC considered Law 7? Last Thursday's session was a Mitchell movement, so Sean Mullamphy suggested that a strict constructionist view of the 2007 Lawbook would lead to a ruling of Average Minus to North-South and Average to East-West. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 23/09/2014 17:26 > > Seconded, except that rules for written explanations an convention cards > still have to be given default values by OBs. > > And don't forget that, behind screens at least, Washoe explanations, > which I used 20 years ago and are still used in Leuven. > > > I second that suggestion. > > Herman. > > > > Nigel Guthrie schreef: > >> [Nigel] > >> IMO, the WBFLC should lay down rules governing convention-cards, > >> bridge-mates, bidding-boxes, written-bidding, screens, and so on as > >> appendices to TFLB. There's no sensible reason to delegate such > >> responsibility to local jurisdiction -- the inevitable result is > variation > >> and omission. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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/20140924/3d3fd4ac/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 24 09:11:14 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:11:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no> <54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000c01cfd7c6$bb0a3ae0$311eb0a0$@online.no> Being ?primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table? does not include being responsible for opponents? failure in procedure. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 24. september 2014 06:31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling Gordon Rainsford They are also both directly at fault. The categories are not discrete. Personally I would prefer to give Average to both sides, but our L&E committee here in England decided otherwise, so we too would give Av- to both sides. Richard Hills: Has the EBU L&EC considered Law 7? Last Thursday's session was a Mitchell movement, so Sean Mullamphy suggested that a strict constructionist view of the 2007 Lawbook would lead to a ruling of Average Minus to North-South and Average to East-West. Bilde er fjernet av sender. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: Le 23/09/2014 17:26 Seconded, except that rules for written explanations an convention cards still have to be given default values by OBs. And don't forget that, behind screens at least, Washoe explanations, which I used 20 years ago and are still used in Leuven. > I second that suggestion. > Herman. > > Nigel Guthrie schreef: >> [Nigel] >> IMO, the WBFLC should lay down rules governing convention-cards, >> bridge-mates, bidding-boxes, written-bidding, screens, and so on as >> appendices to TFLB. There's no sensible reason to delegate such >> responsibility to local jurisdiction -- the inevitable result is variation >> and omission. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20140924/ef7aa34d/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140924/ef7aa34d/attachment-0001.jpe From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 24 15:31:00 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:31:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <000c01cfd7c6$bb0a3ae0$311eb0a0$@online.no> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no> <54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <000c01cfd7c6$bb0a3ae0$311eb0a0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 03:11:14 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > Being ?primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play > at the table? does not include being responsible for >opponents? failure > in procedure. But it would include being responsible for playing the boards in order? I gave up on punishing NS when I forced a pair to play NS even though they wanted to play EW and then they played the boards out of order and they looked at the wrong traveller. Which brings up the issue, isn't this the same as looking the wrong traveller with pick up slips? > > >> > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Richard Hills > Sendt: 24. september 2014 06:31 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling > > > Gordon Rainsford > > > They are also both directly at fault. The categories are not discrete. > Personally I would prefer to give Average to both sides, but our L&E > committee here in England decided otherwise, so we too would give Av- to > both sides. > > > Richard Hills: > > > Has the EBU L&EC considered Law 7? Last Thursday's session was a > Mitchell movement, so Sean Mullamphy >suggested that a strict > constructionist view of the 2007 Lawbook would lead to a ruling of > Average Minus to North->South and Average to East-West. > > > > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > > Le 23/09/2014 17:26 > > Seconded, except that rules for written explanations an convention cards > still have to be given default values by OBs. > > And don't forget that, behind screens at least, Washoe explanations, > which I used 20 years ago and are still used in Leuven. > > >> I second that suggestion. >> Herman. >> >> Nigel Guthrie schreef: >>> [Nigel] >>> IMO, the WBFLC should lay down rules governing convention-cards, >>> bridge-mates, bidding-boxes, written-bidding, screens, and so on as >>> appendices to TFLB. There's no sensible reason to delegate such >>> responsibility to local jurisdiction -- the inevitable result is >>> variation >>> and omission. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140924/de497dab/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140924/de497dab/attachment.jpe From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 24 16:34:00 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:34:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no> <54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <000c01cfd7c6$bb0a3ae0$311eb0a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000f01cfd804$9589f970$c09dec50$@online.no> Where in law or regulation do you find a requirement that boards are played in order? I have only seen such a requirement in conditions for contests directly watched on Internet. (I would else limit such responsibility to be that they do not play a board not intended for them to be played in that round) Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Frick Sendt: 24. september 2014 15:31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 03:11:14 -0400, Sven Pran < svenpran at online.no> wrote: Being ?primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table? does not include being responsible for opponents? failure in procedure. But it would include being responsible for playing the boards in order? I gave up on punishing NS when I forced a pair to play NS even though they wanted to play EW and then they played the boards out of order and they looked at the wrong traveller. Which brings up the issue, isn't this the same as looking the wrong traveller with pick up slips? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 24. september 2014 06:31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling Gordon Rainsford They are also both directly at fault. The categories are not discrete. Personally I would prefer to give Average to both sides, but our L&E committee here in England decided otherwise, so we too would give Av- to both sides. Richard Hills: Has the EBU L&EC considered Law 7? Last Thursday's session was a Mitchell movement, so Sean Mullamphy suggested that a strict constructionist view of the 2007 Lawbook would lead to a ruling of Average Minus to North-South and Average to East-West. Bilde er fjernet av sender. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: Le 23/09/2014 17:26 Seconded, except that rules for written explanations an convention cards still have to be given default values by OBs. And don't forget that, behind screens at least, Washoe explanations, which I used 20 years ago and are still used in Leuven. > I second that suggestion. > Herman. > > Nigel Guthrie schreef: >> [Nigel] >> IMO, the WBFLC should lay down rules governing convention-cards, >> bridge-mates, bidding-boxes, written-bidding, screens, and so on as >> appendices to TFLB. There's no sensible reason to delegate such >> responsibility to local jurisdiction -- the inevitable result is variation >> and omission. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140924/2302d3e8/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140924/2302d3e8/attachment-0001.jpe From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 24 17:13:32 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:13:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <000f01cfd804$9589f970$c09dec50$@online.no> References: <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no> <54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <000c01cfd7c6$bb0a3ae0$311eb0a0$@online.no> <000f01cfd804$9589f970$c09dec50$@online.no> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:34:00 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > Where in law or regulation do you find a requirement that boards are > played in order? Intriguing! It would actually be a good strategy for North to play the boards out of order, as that would tend to confuse and disrupt EW. Obviously, North can't do that solely for the purppose of annoying them, but I think North can do that to try to get a better score. > > I have only seen such a requirement in conditions for contests directly > watched on Internet. > > > (I would else limit such responsibility to be that they do not play a > board not intended for them to be played in that >round) > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 24. september 2014 15:31 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling > > > On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 03:11:14 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > Being ?primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play > at the table? does not include being responsible >for opponents? failure > in procedure. > > > But it would include being responsible for playing the boards in order? > > > I gave up on punishing NS when I forced a pair to play NS even though > they wanted to play EW and then they >played the boards out of order and > they looked at the wrong traveller. > > > Which brings up the issue, isn't this the same as looking the wrong > traveller with pick up slips? > > > >> >> >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Richard Hills >> Sendt: 24. september 2014 06:31 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling >> >> >> Gordon Rainsford >> >> >> They are also both directly at fault. The categories are not discrete. >> Personally I would prefer to give Average to both sides, but our L&E >> committee here in England decided otherwise, so we too would give Av- to >> both sides. >> >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> >> Has the EBU L&EC considered Law 7? Last Thursday's session was a >> Mitchell movement, so Sean Mullamphy >>suggested that a strict >> constructionist view of the 2007 Lawbook would lead to a ruling of >> Average Minus to North->>South and Average to East-West. >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Alain Gottcheiner >> wrote: >> >> Le 23/09/2014 17:26 >> >> Seconded, except that rules for written explanations an convention cards >> still have to be given default values by OBs. >> >> And don't forget that, behind screens at least, Washoe explanations, >> which I used 20 years ago and are still used in Leuven. >> >> >>> I second that suggestion. >>> Herman. >>> >>> Nigel Guthrie schreef: >>>> [Nigel] >>>> IMO, the WBFLC should lay down rules governing convention-cards, >>>> bridge-mates, bidding-boxes, written-bidding, screens, and so on as >>>> appendices to TFLB. There's no sensible reason to delegate such >>>> responsibility to local jurisdiction -- the inevitable result is >>>> variation >>>> and omission. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > > >> -- > > ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140924/e30212f8/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140924/e30212f8/attachment.jpe From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Sep 24 17:26:39 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:26:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: References: <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no> <54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <000c01cfd7c6$bb0a3ae0$311eb0a0$@online.no> <000f01cfd804$9589f970$c09dec50$@online.no> Message-ID: <5422E2AF.4080309@btinternet.com> On 24/09/2014 16:13, Robert Frick wrote: > > Intriguing! It would actually be a good strategy for North to play the > boards out of order, as that would tend to confuse and disrupt EW. > Obviously, North can't do that solely for the purppose of annoying > them, but I think North can do that to try to get a better score. How would it have that effect? Why would they be bothered? When playing barometer events we deliberately put boards out in a different order on each table as it is less obvious to which board any overheard snippets of conversation might apply. From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 24 22:42:12 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:42:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <5422E2AF.4080309@btinternet.com> References: <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no> <54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <000c01cfd7c6$bb0a3ae0$311eb0a0$@online.no> <000f01cfd804$9589f970$c09dec50$@online.no> <5422E2AF.4080309@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <000f01cfd838$05412f80$0fc38e80$@online.no> > Gordon Rainsford > > When playing barometer events we deliberately put boards out in a > different order on each table as it is less obvious to which board any > overheard snippets of conversation might apply. [Sven Pran] And with three or more boards per round we (usually) have less copies than the number of tables. From vip at centrum.is Wed Sep 24 23:44:16 2014 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:44:16 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <5422E2AF.4080309@btinternet.com> References: <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <000c01cfd7c6$bb0a3ae0$311eb0a0$@online.no> <000f01cfd804$9589f970$c09dec50$@online.no> <5422E2AF.4080309@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <1685823131.28264306.1411595056741.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> In Iceland it is very simple. We do not configure the bridgemats for seeing the results from other tables. Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 25 09:26:17 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:26:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <1685823131.28264306.1411595056741.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <000c01cfd7c6$bb0a3ae0$311eb0a0$@online.no> <000f01cfd804$9589f970$c09dec50$@online.no> <5422E2AF.4080309@btinternet.com> <1685823131.28264306.1411595056741.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <5423C399.5060204@skynet.be> People in Belgium would refuse to play in a club that does not show the results from other tables. Clubs would refuse to buy bridgemates if that option were not available. Vigf?s P?lsson schreef: > In Iceland it is very simple. > > We do not configure the bridgemats for seeing the results from other tables. > > Greetings from Iceland > Vigfus Palsson > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Sep 25 09:34:36 2014 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:34:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no><54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003001cfd893$28263b20$7872b160$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> I do not think that we are going to do that. First question is "what is wrong with variations?". Having organisations around the world using their brains to inmprove the quality of bridge, as you try to do yourself once in a while, helps us to make progress. Having dictates normally does not. I give an example. The Dutch Federation has never excepted the previous regulation that behind screens 25B was not applicable. Intended wrong calls could be changed like 25A. We did not like that. For some of the subjects mentioned the WBF and EBL have their own regulations, which can be adopted if wanted. The Dutch Federation for example has adopted the bidding box regulations which now is an appendix in our lawbook. ton Seconded, except that rules for written explanations an convention cards still have to be given default values by OBs. And don't forget that, behind screens at least, Washoe explanations, which I used 20 years ago and are still used in Leuven. > I second that suggestion. > Herman. > > Nigel Guthrie schreef: >> [Nigel] >> IMO, the WBFLC should lay down rules governing convention-cards, >> bridge-mates, bidding-boxes, written-bidding, screens, and so on as >> appendices to TFLB. There's no sensible reason to delegate such >> responsibility to local jurisdiction -- the inevitable result is >> variation and omission. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2014.0.4765 / Virusdatabase: 4025/8257 - datum van uitgifte: 09/22/14 From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 25 09:38:46 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:38:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <1685823131.28264306.1411595056741.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <000c01cfd7c6$bb0a3ae0$311eb0a0$@online.no> <000f01cfd804$9589f970$c09dec50$@online.no> <5422E2AF.4080309@btinternet.com> <1685823131.28264306.1411595056741.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <000d01cfd893$bf6bf830$3e43e890$@online.no> > Vigf?s P?lsson > In Iceland it is very simple. > > We do not configure the bridgemats for seeing the results from other tables. > > Greetings from Iceland > Vigfus Palsson [Sven Pran] Same in Norway (there may be exceptions, but I don't know of any) From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 25 10:36:59 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:36:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <003001cfd893$28263b20$7872b160$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no><54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <003001cfd893$28263b20$7872b160$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <5423D42B.1010605@skynet.be> correct Ton, there is nothing wrong with local variations. but there is also nothing right with it. why should the Belgian and Dutch bidding box regulations differ? why should these federations not adopt the WBF regulation? And what is then wrong with putting those regulations in the lawbook. I think we could solve a lot of problems if we decide for the entire world when a bid is made with a bidding box. No need for every country to differ here. Herman. ton schreef: > I do not think that we are going to do that. First question is "what is > wrong with variations?". > Having organisations around the world using their brains to inmprove the > quality of bridge, as you try to do yourself once in a while, helps us to > make progress. Having dictates normally does not. > > I give an example. The Dutch Federation has never excepted the previous > regulation that behind screens 25B was not applicable. Intended wrong calls > could be changed like 25A. We did not like that. > > For some of the subjects mentioned the WBF and EBL have their own > regulations, which can be adopted if wanted. The Dutch Federation for > example has adopted the bidding box regulations which now is an appendix in > our lawbook. > > ton > > > Seconded, except that rules for written explanations an convention cards > still have to be given default values by OBs. > > And don't forget that, behind screens at least, Washoe explanations, which I > used 20 years ago and are still used in Leuven. > >> I second that suggestion. >> Herman. >> >> Nigel Guthrie schreef: >>> [Nigel] >>> IMO, the WBFLC should lay down rules governing convention-cards, >>> bridge-mates, bidding-boxes, written-bidding, screens, and so on as >>> appendices to TFLB. There's no sensible reason to delegate such >>> responsibility to local jurisdiction -- the inevitable result is >>> variation and omission. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > ----- > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com > Versie: 2014.0.4765 / Virusdatabase: 4025/8257 - datum van uitgifte: > 09/22/14 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Sep 25 11:03:22 2014 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:03:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <5423cc36.0158b40a.0c81.6c4eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no><54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <5423cc36.0158b40a.0c81.6c4eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <5423DA5A.2070007@gmail.com> On 09/25/2014 03:34 AM, ton wrote: > I do not think that we are going to do that. First question is "what is > wrong with variations?". Certainly the variations in alerting regulations cause a lot of friction online when you have a table of players from different jurisdictions. The usual requirement online is "alert what you think your opponents might not understand", which usually seems to come across as "alert what's not alertable in your local jurisdiction" to the players who play both on and off line. Brian. From bridge at vwalther.de Thu Sep 25 11:45:24 2014 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:45:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <000d01cfd893$bf6bf830$3e43e890$@online.no> References: <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <000c01cfd7c6$bb0a3ae0$311eb0a0$@online.no> <000f01cfd804$9589f970$c09dec50$@online.no> <5422E2AF.4080309@btinternet.com> <1685823131.28264306.1411595056741.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <000d01cfd893$bf6bf830$3e43e890$@online.no> Message-ID: <5423E434.4000108@vwalther.de> Am 25.09.2014 um 09:38 schrieb Sven Pran: >> Vigf?s P?lsson >> In Iceland it is very simple. >> >> We do not configure the bridgemats for seeing the results from other > tables. >> >> Greetings from Iceland >> Vigfus Palsson > [Sven Pran] > Same in Norway (there may be exceptions, but I don't know of any) > Do you check the results for plausibility? Or are you accepting that sometimes results are entered on the wrong board? It looks to me like someone is cutting off the wire to the oil pressure warning lamp of his car. Volker Walther From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 25 11:46:35 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:46:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <5423DA5A.2070007@gmail.com> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no><54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <5423cc36.0158b40a.0c81.6c4eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <5423DA5A.2070007@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5423E47B.8000907@skynet.be> Yes Brian, but In contrast to all other regulations, alert regulations cannot be other than national. Imagine the problem of trying to write a single alert procedure for France and Poland - in which of the two countries do you wish all 1Cl openings to be alerted? Or imagine an alert procedure that obliges an Englishman to alert a 1NT of 12-14. or one that obliges a Frenchman to alert 15-17. Only a national regulation can cater for this. Which is a very good reason why all other regulations could be world-wide. Herman. Brian schreef: > On 09/25/2014 03:34 AM, ton wrote: >> I do not think that we are going to do that. First question is "what is >> wrong with variations?". > > Certainly the variations in alerting regulations cause a lot of > friction online when you have a table of players from different > jurisdictions. The usual requirement online is "alert what you think > your opponents might not understand", which usually seems to come > across as "alert what's not alertable in your local jurisdiction" to > the players who play both on and off line. > > > Brian. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Sep 25 12:22:39 2014 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 12:22:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <5423E434.4000108@vwalther.de> References: <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <000c01cfd7c6$bb0a3ae0$311eb0a0$@online.no> <000f01cfd804$9589f970$c09dec50$@online.no> <5422E2AF.4080309@btinternet.com> <1685823131.28264306.1411595056741.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <000d01cfd893$bf6bf830$3e43e890$@online.no> <5423E434.4000108@vwalther.de> Message-ID: I check. The scoring program we use, Tomas Brenning's Magic, has an option for this - "Suspicious results". Of course, it tells you that both directions playing 1NT is suspicious. But that's no problem. You'll catch all contracts where they've entered wrong declaring side. And quite a lot more. 2014-09-25 11:45 GMT+02:00 Volker Walther : > Am 25.09.2014 um 09:38 schrieb Sven Pran: > >> Vigf?s P?lsson > >> In Iceland it is very simple. > >> > >> We do not configure the bridgemats for seeing the results from other > > tables. > >> > >> Greetings from Iceland > >> Vigfus Palsson > > [Sven Pran] > > Same in Norway (there may be exceptions, but I don't know of any) > > > > Do you check the results for plausibility? Or are you accepting that > sometimes results are entered on the wrong board? > It looks to me like someone is cutting off the wire to the oil pressure > warning lamp of his car. > > Volker Walther > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140925/3a69e69f/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 25 16:40:56 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:40:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: References: <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <000c01cfd7c6$bb0a3ae0$311eb0a0$@online.no> <000f01cfd804$9589f970$c09dec50$@online.no> <5422E2AF.4080309@btinternet.com> <1685823131.28264306.1411595056741.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <000d01cfd893$bf6bf830$3e43e890$@online.no> <5423E434.4000108@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <001201cfd8ce$b82356a0$286a03e0$@online.no> I agree with Harald, but my experience is that when we deliver handouts on paper (individually) to each pair immediately after end of round (as I do) then scoring errors are reported (and fixed) right away. That is both faster and more effective than ?suspicious results? (at least it was last time I tried it). Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Harald Berre Skj?ran Sendt: 25. september 2014 12:23 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling I check. The scoring program we use, Tomas Brenning's Magic, has an option for this - "Suspicious results". Of course, it tells you that both directions playing 1NT is suspicious. But that's no problem. You'll catch all contracts where they've entered wrong declaring side. And quite a lot more. 2014-09-25 11:45 GMT+02:00 Volker Walther : Am 25.09.2014 um 09:38 schrieb Sven Pran: >> Vigf?s P?lsson >> In Iceland it is very simple. >> >> We do not configure the bridgemats for seeing the results from other > tables. >> >> Greetings from Iceland >> Vigfus Palsson > [Sven Pran] > Same in Norway (there may be exceptions, but I don't know of any) > Do you check the results for plausibility? Or are you accepting that sometimes results are entered on the wrong board? It looks to me like someone is cutting off the wire to the oil pressure warning lamp of his car. Volker Walther _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140925/316a15f5/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Sep 25 19:39:26 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:39:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <5423E47B.8000907@skynet.be> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no><54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <5423cc36.0158b40a.0c81.6c4eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com><5423DA5A.2070007@gmail.com> <5423E47B.8000907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <9A3454AA8BEF4EB4AF2DCDB4C843A949@G3> [Ton] I do not think that we are going to do that. First question is "what is wrong with variations?". Having organisations around the world using their brains to improve the quality of bridge, as you try to do yourself once in a while, helps us to make progress. Having dictates normally does not. I give an example. The Dutch Federation has never excepted the previous regulation that behind screens 25B was not applicable. Intended wrong calls could be changed like 25A. We did not like that. For some of the subjects mentioned the WBF and EBL have their own regulations, which can be adopted if wanted. The Dutch Federation for example has adopted the bidding box regulations which now is an appendix in our lawbook. For some of the subjects mentioned the WBF and EBL have their own regulations, which can be adopted if wanted. The Dutch Federation for example has adopted the bidding box regulations which now is an appendix in our lawbook. [Nige1] Currently the WBF and EBL publish regulations for *some* aspects of the game, which local jurisdictions are free to adopt. Better would be rules for *most* of the game, laid down as appendices to the law-book, which local legislators would implement by default, relieving them of an unnecessary burden. The WBF could allow some leeway for tweaking by local legislators. I hope most LAs would appreciate the enormous benefit to players of a a level playing field devoid of inelegant variation. [Herman] In contrast to all other regulations, alert regulations cannot be other than national. Imagine the problem of trying to write a single alert procedure for France and Poland - in which of the two countries do you wish all 1Cl openings to be alerted? Or imagine an alert procedure that obliges an Englishman to alert a 1NT of 12-14. or one that obliges a Frenchman to alert 15-17. Only a national regulation can cater for this. Which is a very good reason why all other regulations could be world-wide. [Nige2] Perhaps, Herman and I should quit while we're ahead but, arguably, even disclosure regulations could be universal. Local law-makers would be understandably reluctant to give up their mountains of local regulation but a simple suggestion is: Scrap alerts completely. "Announce" the meaning of partners' calls (where possible, by pointing to the appropriate boxes on a written card, supplied to every table). Opponents would have the power to "switch off" further explanations, at any time during the auction. This would save the time currently taken waiting for alerts and asking questions. It would also result in less annoying UI to neighbouring tables. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Sep 26 01:34:47 2014 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:34:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <9A3454AA8BEF4EB4AF2DCDB4C843A949@G3> References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos> <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no> <54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <5423cc36.0158b40a.0c81.6c4eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <5423DA5A.2070007@gmail.com> <5423E47B.8000907@skynet.be> <9A3454AA8BEF4EB4AF2DCDB4C843A949@G3> Message-ID: > > [Nige2] > Opponents would have the power to "switch off" further explanations, at any time during the auction. What a huge amount of unauthorized information the presence or absence of a "switch off" would provide! Partner is not interested in the meaning of the auction?---okay, he is not interested in action by our side. Or if, surprise, he does take some action, he was going to act regardless of meanings. Partner *is* interested in the meaning of the auction?---okay, I should be more inclined to take action. Sometimes, when I am declarer, I start to explain our auction but my RHO will try to stop me---perhaps hoping for a particular lead that my explanation could ruin. Sorry, giving players options to stop explanations is a terrible idea. Jerry Fusselman From g3 at nige1.com Fri Sep 26 03:07:43 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:07:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: References: <74998375FE90462A8CDCFA7B20882886@erdos><541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de><541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be><000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no><001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no><676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba><542121FA.4070503@skynet.be><000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no><54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be><001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be><54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be><5423cc36.0158b40a.0c81.6c4eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com><5423DA5A.2070007@gmail.com> <5423E47B.8000907@skynet.be><9A3454AA8BEF4EB4AF2DCDB4C843A949@G3> Message-ID: [jerry Fusselman] What a huge amount of unauthorized information the presence or absence of a "switch off" would provide! Partner is not interested in the meaning of the auction?---okay, he is not interested in action by our side. Or if, surprise, he does take some action, he was going to act regardless of meanings. Partner *is* interested in the meaning of the auction?---okay, I should be more inclined to take action. Sometimes, when I am declarer, I start to explain our auction but my RHO will try to stop me---perhaps hoping for a particular lead that my explanation could ruin. Sorry, giving players options to stop explanations is a terrible idea. [Nigel] Players already have those options. Under current local alert regulations, you have the power to switch explanation on or off, by asking (or not asking) about each individual alert! Even worse: the way you ask each question may give UI. Under the proposed protocol, the default would be that you explain partner's call, unprompted. Opponents would have the power to switch off explanations for the remainder of that auction. You could still ask for an explanation *of the whole auction* before the opening lead. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 26 03:14:20 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 21:14:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <9A3454AA8BEF4EB4AF2DCDB4C843A949@G3> References: <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no> <54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <5423cc36.0158b40a.0c81.6c4eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <5423DA5A.2070007@gmail.com> <5423E47B.8000907@skynet.be> <9A3454AA8BEF4EB4AF2DCDB4C843A949@G3> Message-ID: My understanding is that in some places, a call is irrevocable when it leaves the bidding box. The ACBL has two slightly different statements about when a call is irrevocable, but roughly it is when the card hits the table. I don't see how the WBFLC can create a single standard without making a lot of people angry. And to me it isn't like one or the other is obviously better as a law. So the WBFLC would be making a somewhat arbitrary decision. Really, it would be an unmanageable disaster to change what people expect here, so I guess everyone else would have to change to the better of the ACBL standards. So I am sympathetic to the WBFLC not getting involved. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Sep 26 03:25:20 2014 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:25:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling Message-ID: [jerry Fusselman] What a huge amount of unauthorized information the presence or absence of a "switch off" would provide! Partner is not interested in the meaning of the auction?---okay, he is not interested in action by our side. Or if, surprise, he does take some action, he was going to act regardless of meanings. Partner *is* interested in the meaning of the auction?---okay, I should be more inclined to take action. Sometimes, when I am declarer, I start to explain our auction but my RHO will try to stop me---perhaps hoping for a particular lead that my explanation could ruin. Sorry, giving players options to stop explanations is a terrible idea. [Nigel] Players already have those options. Under current local alert regulations, you have the power to switch explanation on or off, by asking (or not asking) about each individual alert! Even worse: the way you ask each question may give UI. Under the proposed protocol, the default would be that you explain partner's call, unprompted. Opponents would have the power to switch off explanations for the remainder of that auction. You could still ask for an explanation *of the whole auction* before the opening lead. [Jerry] Saying "I don't care to ask about this call at this time" conveys a lot less information than "I don't care to hear which of your calls are alertable or even what any of them mean until, possibly, after the auction is complete, for whatever they mean and no matter how the auction goes, I'm not going to be interested." _______________________________________________ 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/20140926/7aab8cdf/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Sep 26 03:44:09 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:44:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3A1D91C267C549898AF603BD37CFC0CE@G3> [Jerry] Saying "I don't care to ask about this call at this time" conveys a lot less information than "I don't care to hear which of your calls are alertable or even what any of them mean until, possibly, after the auction is complete, for whatever they mean and no matter how the auction goes, I'm not going to be interested." [Nigel] I think that asking or not asking about individual alerts has more potential UI. But Jerry's point of view is reasonable. Perfection is impossible: but we can strive for improvement. IMO scrapping rain-forests of local alert regulations would be simpler and better. From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 26 09:13:44 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:13:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: References: <541CDCB2.5020606@nhcc.net> <541D76CB.70805@vwalther.de> <541DE23D.7080603@nhcc.net> <541E95A9.8010100@skynet.be> <000701cfd582$b34f7ef0$19ee7cd0$@online.no> <001801cfd677$fe2bcf50$fa836df0$@online.no> <676621EFDD364E6C9A86A184B4A9EED3@toshiba> <542121FA.4070503@skynet.be> <000a01cfd703$59535160$0bf9f420$@online.no> <54212B3C.8050908@skynet.be> <001701cfd718$35fe29f0$a1fa7dd0$@online.no> <5421910C.4030800@skynet.be> <54219C4B.1020209@ulb.ac.be> <5423cc36.0158b40a.0c81.6c4eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <5423DA5A.2070007@gmail.com> <5423E47B.8000907@skynet.be> <9A3454AA8BEF4EB4AF2DCDB4C843A949@G3> Message-ID: <001101cfd959$69a60b40$3cf221c0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > My understanding is that in some places, a call is irrevocable when it leaves the > bidding box. The ACBL has two slightly different statements about when a call > is irrevocable, but roughly it is when the card hits the table. I don't see how the > WBFLC can create a single standard without making a lot of people angry. > > And to me it isn't like one or the other is obviously better as a law. So the > WBFLC would be making a somewhat arbitrary decision. Really, it would be an > unmanageable disaster to change what people expect here, so I guess > everyone else would have to change to the better of the ACBL standards. > > So I am sympathetic to the WBFLC not getting involved. [Sven Pran] And don't forget Law 25A: "Until his partner makes a call ....." From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 26 14:51:21 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:51:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54256149.6070306@ulb.ac.be> Le 26/09/2014 3:25, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > > > Saying "I don't care to ask about this call at this time" conveys a > lot less information than "I don't care to hear which of your calls > are alertable or even what any of them mean until, possibly, after the > auction is complete, for whatever they mean and no matter how the > auction goes, I'm not going to be interested." I beg to differ. Playing 1H/S overcalls of artifical ambiguous clubs (Polish) as 2-suited, but natural overcalls of "nothing else" clubs (Dutch doubleton), when I don't ask and overcall, I show a two-suiter with 6 cards in the bid suit. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140926/f2efb936/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 30 13:22:47 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:22:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 16C ruling In-Reply-To: <54256149.6070306@ulb.ac.be> References: <54256149.6070306@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <542A9287.9050105@ulb.ac.be> Le 26/09/2014 14:51, Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Le 26/09/2014 3:25, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : >> >> >> Saying "I don't care to ask about this call at this time" conveys a >> lot less information than "I don't care to hear which of your calls >> are alertable or even what any of them mean until, possibly, after >> the auction is complete, for whatever they mean and no matter how the >> auction goes, I'm not going to be interested." > > I beg to differ. > > Playing 1H/S overcalls of artifical ambiguous clubs (Polish) as > 2-suited, but natural overcalls of "nothing else" clubs (Dutch > doubleton), when I don't ask and overcall, I show a two-suiter with 6 > cards in the bid suit. > Sorry, meant 5, of course. And here is another example : 1C 2C Dbl 2C is self-alerting ; not asking, then doubling, carries at least as much information as asking, then passing. Furthermore, there are cases when you'll "need" to avoid asking. For exaple, after 1C pass 1D(T-Walsh) your 1H overcall would be artificial, but if you don't ask, then overcall 1H, you make it a natural bid. Really, the best course of action is always to ask, at least about calls made during the first round. Alas, this is made impractical by the fact that the opponents are compelled to explain every detail. What about limiting automatical explanations to the first round of bidding, and making it a short explanation, letting the opponents ask 'please tell me more' ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140930/05da4ca1/attachment.html From ken.johnston at btinternet.com Tue Sep 30 19:31:16 2014 From: ken.johnston at btinternet.com (Ken Johnston) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 18:31:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation? In-Reply-To: <542A9287.9050105@ulb.ac.be> References: <54256149.6070306@ulb.ac.be> <542A9287.9050105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 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 Sent from my iPad From ken.johnston at btinternet.com Tue Sep 30 19:34:38 2014 From: ken.johnston at btinternet.com (Ken Johnston) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 18:34:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation? In-Reply-To: References: <54256149.6070306@ulb.ac.be> <542A9287.9050105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <40462021-3212-42BD-B520-DB4A7D174D24@btinternet.com> 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 > > Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Tue Sep 30 22:10:43 2014 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:10:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation? In-Reply-To: <40462021-3212-42BD-B520-DB4A7D174D24@btinternet.com> References: <54256149.6070306@ulb.ac.be> <542A9287.9050105@ulb.ac.be> <40462021-3212-42BD-B520-DB4A7D174D24@btinternet.com> Message-ID: 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 From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 30 22:49:26 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:49:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation? In-Reply-To: References: <54256149.6070306@ulb.ac.be> <542A9287.9050105@ulb.ac.be> <40462021-3212-42BD-B520-DB4A7D174D24@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <000201cfdcf0$06d6b5b0$14842110$@online.no> 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 From ken.johnston at btinternet.com Tue Sep 30 23:24:25 2014 From: ken.johnston at btinternet.com (Ken Johnston) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:24:25 +0100 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: <38116EFF-8940-41B3-9A3D-C53B4EF7B4DC@btinternet.com> Yes, South passed and West bid 5S (never post in a hurry;) Sent from my iPad > On 30 Sep 2014, at 21:49, Sven Pran wrote: > > 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