From bridge at vwalther.de Sat Aug 1 01:53:39 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 01:53:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Should it be allowed to give incomplete Answers? (Was: Answering about details) Message-ID: <55BC0A83.2060902@vwalther.de> Hello all, Sometimes in sleepless nights I have the strange feeling that it might be a good idea to allow incomplete answers and to jettison the principle of full disclosure. Alain touched this nerve again. Simple example: 2D Multi. Agreement: 1) Strong NT 21-23 2) Strong 3-Suiter 17-24 3) Semiforcing Minor 4) Weak, 5-10(11) pt and a 6-card major If you explain, you are playing multi, beginners are usually scared and do not interfere, because they are informed about the lot of strong hands and do not realize that Multi with overwhelming odds shows the weak major. Expereinced Players use defences against Multi that are based on the assumption, 2D is showing a weak major. As a consequence the information that 2D may contain the strong types 1)-3) can be regarded as useless, since opps and partner firstly ignore them in their actions. Not mentioning them would not change opps actions. So we could introduce a concept of "useful information". "When asked about a bid, explain what it usually shows. If you omit an information that is of no influence to subsequent actions, this is not be treated as misinformation. Give additional informations about the bidding, if it comes out that they are relevant." Following this concept the explanation "2D shows a weak 6 card major, or on rare occasions some strong hands" would be sufficient. This is a way to deal with the problem that too much information voids information; of cause the concept is far away from "full disclosure" The reality of the current law is somewhere in between: Law 20 requires "full disclosure". But Law 21 gives redress only if there the offending side gained an advantage by the misinformation, which will not happen if "useless" information was concealed. I am aware of the problems that will arise discussing whether a specific information can be regarded as useless. But we have these problems now as well, when we try to determine whether misinformation caused damage. The idea, it could be possible to inform opps about all the implications of a bidding system looks like an illusion to me. If it really is an illusion it might be wise to face the facts. Greetings, Volker From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 06:19:54 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:19:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <873bd89a82407c6c1d4740a825dcab12@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3> <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> <55B926FB.6030509@vwalther.de> <2e45a33ab7f5c32ce0f6c3ed68d5702d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <873bd89a82407c6c1d4740a825dcab12@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gotttcheiner: [snip] My guess is that your opponents didn't ask because they needed time to play the deals. And that's the main problem with explaining in full detail. Richard Hills: Alain's guess is wrong. I am an extremely quick player (having won several Aussie Speedball Teams), so the opponents are not at risk of a slow play fine unless they are mega-snails. Partner opens 1D, and I alert. Upon enquiry I disclose, "Hashmat has 10-14 hcp and an unbalanced hand with 2 or 3 suits. He denies a 5-card major, with the one exception that he may hold 5/5 in both majors. He may or may not hold either or both 4-card majors. And he could hold as few as zero diamonds." However, following Volker Walther's concept of disclosing Useful Information, I do not at this stage announce that, "Hashmat holds at least two controls (A = 2, K = 1)." Only if I relay to game or slam do I tally Hashmat's controls for the opponents, as then their opening lead is significantly affected (plus their subsequent defensive planning is affected, should Hashmat be declarer). To my mind the most apposite Law dealing with the concept of Useful Information is Law 40B4. Its opening phrase is, "A side that is damaged as a consequence". If a truncated explanation by Alain Gottcheiner provides less-than-Full Disclosure, and if as a consequence Alain's opponents are damaged, then and only then should Director Herman De Wael adjust the score. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Saturday, August 1, 2015, agot > wrote: > Le 31.07.2015 03:25, Richard Hills a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > > [snip] > > > > When I alert my partner's 2H opening, and say "5 hearts, 4+ minor, > > about 7-11 HCP", I do not add "hearts should not be too weak,2 Aces > > would be a liability, honor-third in spades too, vulnerability is > > a consideration, 11 HCP might also be opened 1H, and anyway the bid > > is never forced" ; even though I know all of this. Would you ? > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > > > Yes I would and I did. Put me alongside Steve Willner and Volker > > Walther. When I played the idiosyncratic and unusual Symmetric Relay > > system with Hashmat Ali, I very carefully described its positive and > > negative inferences. > > > > Some of my expert opponents noticed that I enjoyed giving Full > > Disclosure, so they taunted me by refusing to ask any questions. :-) > > :-) > > > I understand that ; I've been a relayer myself. > > But in most cases, giving all details would be harmful to the opponent's > comprehension. As they say it, too much information voids information. > > One interesting example is high jumps. What opponents would want to know > at the time they're made is whether this is a fit-jump, a splinter, or a > global description (like in fruit-machine Swiss) ; also perhaps the > range and how many trumps are guaranteed. I doubt they would find it > essential, at that time, to know the minimal holding in side suits (for > a splinter), or what whether one splinters or bids economically with a > good suit and a singleton. If they want to know specifically this > (probably at the time of lead), they'll ask. > > My guess is that your opponents didn't ask because they needed time to > play the deals.And that's the main problem with explaining in full > detail. > > Best regards > > > ?lain > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150801/db98be5e/attachment-0001.html From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Sat Aug 1 11:16:02 2015 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 11:16:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Should it be allowed to give incomplete Answers? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55BC8E52.8000700@home.nl> IMHO the proposed answer "2D shows a weak 6 card major, or on rare occasions some strong hands" covers all the possibilities and should be considered as a complete answer in the spirit of full disclosure. When later on in the bidding it turns out that the strong variant is used I would give a new alert and supply further details on request. But this is not the same as "giving useful information only". The possibility of a strong hand is essential even though it may be useless information in 90% of the cases. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 16:22:40 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:22:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Should it be allowed to give incomplete Answers? In-Reply-To: <55BC8E52.8000700@home.nl> References: <55BC8E52.8000700@home.nl> Message-ID: Peter Smulders: [snip] But this is not the same as "giving useful information only". The possibility of a strong hand is essential even though it may be useless information in 90% of the cases. Richard Hills: In my opinion Peter is arguing a semantic quibble. I would instead argue that the 10% possibility of a strong hand is 100% Useful Information. In 2002 Israel Erdnbaum suggested that blml should be renamed SEQUEL, the Society for Enhancement of the Quality of the English Language. :-) :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills On Saturday, August 1, 2015, Peter Smulders wrote: > IMHO the proposed answer > > "2D shows a weak 6 card major, or > on rare occasions some strong hands" > > covers all the possibilities and should be considered as a complete > answer in the spirit of > full disclosure. When later on in the bidding it turns out that the > strong variant is used > I would give a new alert and supply further details on request. > > But this is not the same as "giving useful information only". The > possibility of a strong > hand is essential even though it may be useless information in 90% of > the cases. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150801/4ef15cb4/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 3 15:27:05 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 15:27:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Should_it_be_allowed_to_give_incomplete_Answers?= =?utf-8?q?=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <55BC8E52.8000700@home.nl> Message-ID: Le 01.08.2015 16:22, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Peter Smulders: > > [snip] > > But this is not the same as "giving useful information only". > The?possibility of a strong?hand is essential even though it may be > useless information in 90% of?the cases. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion Peter is arguing a semantic quibble. I would instead > argue that the 10% possibility of a strong hand is 100% Useful > Information. > > In 2002?Israel Erdnbaum?suggested?that blml should be renamed > SEQUEL, the Society for Enhancement of the Quality of the English > Language. :-) :-) There are indeed semantic issues in explanations, and one should strive to avoid ambiguities. I remember that on one occasion I explained partner's 2H opening as "Weak in Spades or strong in Hearts" (meaning in my mind : a weak 2-bid in Spades or a strong 2-bid in Hearts), and the opponent understood it as "short spades or long hearts". It would be bizarre, but I was responsible for the misunderstanding. Whence "a weak 6-card major, or one of several strong hands" isn't enough ; "a weak 2-bid, 6-card long, in either major, or one of several strong hands" is IMO ; the formulation makezs it clear enough that, if opponents do need, NOW, to know what the strong types are, they may ask for further information, but it's umpteen-to-one that they don't. One interesting linked problem : 2C p 2S. In principle, I don't alert 2S, but suppose they ask. My answer, woudl be : "he has a fair 5-card spade suit and some useful values". If opponents wanted to know what I consider "a fair 5-card suit", my answer would be "it is left to the appreciation of the bidder". If this is true, is it enough, or am I compelled to give examples ? Best regards Alain From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Aug 4 01:51:07 2015 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 19:51:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Should it be allowed to give incomplete Answers? In-Reply-To: References: <55BC8E52.8000700@home.nl> Message-ID: <703F5F5C1C20419D9F39078243B9EC53@erdos> "agot" writes: > There are indeed semantic issues in explanations, and one should strive > to avoid ambiguities. > > I remember that on one occasion I explained partner's 2H opening as > "Weak in Spades or strong in Hearts" (meaning in my mind : a weak 2-bid > in Spades or a strong 2-bid in Hearts), and the opponent understood it > as "short spades or long hearts". It would be bizarre, but I was > responsible for the misunderstanding. Similarly: S W N E 1N 2S! 2N! 3D West's 2S was explained as "spades and a minor", and North's 2N as "asks me to bid 3C". East misunderstood the bid as showing clubs (rather than Lebensohl), and assumed West's second seat was diamonds, as there weren't enough clubs in the deck for that to be the suit. North bid 3NT when the bidding came back to him to avoid the legal mess if he doubled 3D. From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Sun Aug 16 16:46:15 2015 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:46:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> Message-ID: <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: curious Datum: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:40:02 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson An: Bridge Laws Mailing List Team tournament, Swiss. Called to table after the hand was played. Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players. Here the bidding: N E S W 1cl 1di 1he ps 4he ps ps dbl ps ps 4sp dbl all pass Result: 4sp+1 1cl = strong, 16+ 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their handbag. Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference. No hand records but the West hand was: AQ9 108532 xx xxx South had a single heart and long spades. The result in 4he would be -6 South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he. (But he did double 4sp. and with AQ9 in spades and a partner who bid he might well be prepared to double 4sp (with correct info) as well.) Okay, what is your decision as TD? Some possibilities: 4 he without a double, 4 spades without a double, anything else you might feel would be appropriate. Ciao, JE From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Aug 16 17:06:43 2015 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:06:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:46:15 +0200, Jeff Easterson wrote: > > > > -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- > Betreff: curious > Datum: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:40:02 +0200 > Von: Jeff Easterson > An: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > > Team tournament, Swiss. Called to table after the hand was played. > Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players. > > Here the bidding: > > N E S W > 1cl 1di 1he ps > 4he ps ps dbl > ps ps 4sp dbl > all pass > > Result: 4sp+1 > > 1cl = strong, 16+ > 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted > > No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their handbag. > Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference. > > No hand records but the West hand was: AQ9 > 108532 > xx > xxx > > South had a single heart and long spades. > > The result in 4he would be -6 > > South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he. seems reasonable. So: 4H-6 for both sides. Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Aug 16 20:22:33 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:22:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> Message-ID: <55D0D4E9.6040003@nhcc.net> First question is whether South is allowed to pull the double of 4H. I think 4H should be something like 8 solid hearts and a card or so outside, so maybe passing the double is a LA. Pulling is certainly suggested by North's failure to alert 1H. If you decide 4S was legal, then 4H-6, 4S+1, and 4Sx+1 all seem possible if West is given correct information. I'd probably give them weights of about 80%, 0%, and 20% respectively, but others might have different ideas. If you can't give weighted scores, I'm sure 4H-1 is at least "at all probable," and I'm pretty sure it's "likely," so that's what I'd give here in the ACBL. There is, by the way, some possibility that we in the ACBL will be allowed weighted scores starting next year. On 2015-08-16 10:46 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Team tournament, Swiss. Called to table after the hand was played. > Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players. > > Here the bidding: > > N E S W > 1cl 1di 1he ps > 4he ps ps dbl > ps ps 4sp dbl > all pass > > Result: 4sp+1 > > 1cl = strong, 16+ > 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted > > No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their handbag. > Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference. > > No hand records but the West hand was: AQ9 > 108532 > xx > xxx > > South had a single heart and long spades. > > The result in 4he would be -6 > > South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he. > > (But he did double 4sp. and with AQ9 in spades and a partner who bid he > might well be prepared to double 4sp (with correct info) as well.) > > Okay, what is your decision as TD? > > Some possibilities: 4 he without a double, 4 spades without a double, > anything else you might feel would be appropriate. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Aug 16 21:27:03 2015 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:27:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <55D0D4E9.6040003@nhcc.net> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> <55D0D4E9.6040003@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > There is, by the way, some possibility that we in the ACBL will be > allowed weighted scores starting next year. > Can you tell us more? Also, what is your appraisal of this idea? Jerry Fusselman From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Aug 16 21:44:34 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:44:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> <55D0D4E9.6040003@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <55D0E822.1040506@nhcc.net> On 2015-08-16 3:27 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Can you tell us more? Not much. It was (is?) a motion proposed to the Board of Directors. I have no idea what its chances of approval are. > Also, what is your appraisal of this idea? Given the quality of ACBL directing, I'm skeptical but hope to be proved wrong if the motion passes. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Aug 16 22:03:57 2015 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:03:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <55D0E822.1040506@nhcc.net> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> <55D0D4E9.6040003@nhcc.net> <55D0E822.1040506@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2015-08-16 3:27 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> Can you tell us more? > > Not much. It was (is?) a motion proposed to the Board of Directors. I > have no idea what its chances of approval are. > >> Also, what is your appraisal of this idea? > > Given the quality of ACBL directing, I'm skeptical but hope to be proved > wrong if the motion passes. At the risk of offending Grattan and other luminaries in Europe, I hope weighted scores never come to the ACBL. Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 17 09:09:09 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:09:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> Message-ID: <55D18895.2090000@skynet.be> Since it is not common to play transfers after interference (how to transfer to hearts? - double? - how to distinguish between a transfer double and a negative one?) we may well have correct information. South's first pass is ethical, although I might rule that the 4He call is enough of a wake-up. South should not sit for 4HX though. No infractions, then. Herman. Jeff Easterson schreef: > > > > -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- > Betreff: curious > Datum: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:40:02 +0200 > Von: Jeff Easterson > An: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > > Team tournament, Swiss. Called to table after the hand was played. > Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players. > > Here the bidding: > > N E S W > 1cl 1di 1he ps > 4he ps ps dbl > ps ps 4sp dbl > all pass > > Result: 4sp+1 > > 1cl = strong, 16+ > 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted > > No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their handbag. > Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference. > > No hand records but the West hand was: AQ9 > 108532 > xx > xxx > > South had a single heart and long spades. > > The result in 4he would be -6 > > South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he. > > (But he did double 4sp. and with AQ9 in spades and a partner who bid he > might well be prepared to double 4sp (with correct info) as well.) > > Okay, what is your decision as TD? > > Some possibilities: 4 he without a double, 4 spades without a double, > anything else you might feel would be appropriate. > > Ciao, JE > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 17 09:13:14 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:13:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <55D0D4E9.6040003@nhcc.net> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> <55D0D4E9.6040003@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <55D1898A.4010609@skynet.be> Steve Willner schreef: > First question is whether South is allowed to pull the double of 4H. I > think 4H should be something like 8 solid hearts and a card or so Opening 1Club with such a hand? South knows after the 4He bid that his transfer to spades has not gotten through to North. In combination with the likelihood that 1He is not after all a transfer, he should be deemed certain that partner thought 1He was natural. I do not rule UI here. And this even on the first turn. Herman. > outside, so maybe passing the double is a LA. Pulling is certainly > suggested by North's failure to alert 1H. > > If you decide 4S was legal, then 4H-6, 4S+1, and 4Sx+1 all seem possible > if West is given correct information. I'd probably give them weights of > about 80%, 0%, and 20% respectively, but others might have different > ideas. If you can't give weighted scores, I'm sure 4H-1 is at least "at > all probable," and I'm pretty sure it's "likely," so that's what I'd > give here in the ACBL. > > There is, by the way, some possibility that we in the ACBL will be > allowed weighted scores starting next year. > > On 2015-08-16 10:46 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Team tournament, Swiss. Called to table after the hand was played. >> Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players. >> >> Here the bidding: >> >> N E S W >> 1cl 1di 1he ps >> 4he ps ps dbl >> ps ps 4sp dbl >> all pass >> >> Result: 4sp+1 >> >> 1cl = strong, 16+ >> 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted >> >> No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their handbag. >> Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference. >> >> No hand records but the West hand was: AQ9 >> 108532 >> xx >> xxx >> >> South had a single heart and long spades. >> >> The result in 4he would be -6 >> >> South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he. >> >> (But he did double 4sp. and with AQ9 in spades and a partner who bid he >> might well be prepared to double 4sp (with correct info) as well.) >> >> Okay, what is your decision as TD? >> >> Some possibilities: 4 he without a double, 4 spades without a double, >> anything else you might feel would be appropriate. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 09:27:41 2015 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 03:27:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <55D18895.2090000@skynet.be> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> <55D18895.2090000@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:09:09 +0200, you wrote: >Since it is not common to play transfers after interference (how to >transfer to hearts? - double? - how to distinguish between a transfer >double and a negative one?) I disagree with you on this, Herman. If you play transfer responses to a strong 1C, then there is no need whatsoever to switch them off over an overcall of 1D. It doesn't seem at all unusual to me to play pass = 0-4, double = 5-7, otherwise system on as if the 1D overcall hadn't happened. Just substitute pass or double for the 1D negative. Higher overcalls are a different matter. Brian. >we may well have correct information. >South's first pass is ethical, although I might rule that the 4He call >is enough of a wake-up. South should not sit for 4HX though. >No infractions, then. >Herman. > >Jeff Easterson schreef: >> >> >> >> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- >> Betreff: curious >> Datum: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:40:02 +0200 >> Von: Jeff Easterson >> An: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> >> >> >> Team tournament, Swiss. Called to table after the hand was played. >> Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players. >> >> Here the bidding: >> >> N E S W >> 1cl 1di 1he ps >> 4he ps ps dbl >> ps ps 4sp dbl >> all pass >> >> Result: 4sp+1 >> >> 1cl = strong, 16+ >> 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted >> >> No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their handbag. >> Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference. >> >> No hand records but the West hand was: AQ9 >> 108532 >> xx >> xxx >> >> South had a single heart and long spades. >> >> The result in 4he would be -6 >> >> South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he. >> >> (But he did double 4sp. and with AQ9 in spades and a partner who bid he >> might well be prepared to double 4sp (with correct info) as well.) >> >> Okay, what is your decision as TD? >> >> Some possibilities: 4 he without a double, 4 spades without a double, >> anything else you might feel would be appropriate. >> >> Ciao, JE >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Aug 17 09:32:25 2015 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:32:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <55D1898A.4010609@skynet.be> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> <55D0D4E9.6040003@nhcc.net> <55D1898A.4010609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <304815514.60537.1439796745539.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Herman De Wael" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Lundi 17 Ao?t 2015 09:13:14 > Objet: Re: [BLML] Fwd: curious > > Steve Willner schreef: > > First question is whether South is allowed to pull the double of 4H. I > > think 4H should be something like 8 solid hearts and a card or so > > Opening 1Club with such a hand? give it a second look: 1C is described as a strong club system opening jpr > South knows after the 4He bid that his transfer to spades has not gotten > through to North. In combination with the likelihood that 1He is not > after all a transfer, he should be deemed certain that partner thought > 1He was natural. > I do not rule UI here. > And this even on the first turn. > Herman. > > > outside, so maybe passing the double is a LA. Pulling is certainly > > suggested by North's failure to alert 1H. > > > > If you decide 4S was legal, then 4H-6, 4S+1, and 4Sx+1 all seem possible > > if West is given correct information. I'd probably give them weights of > > about 80%, 0%, and 20% respectively, but others might have different > > ideas. If you can't give weighted scores, I'm sure 4H-1 is at least "at > > all probable," and I'm pretty sure it's "likely," so that's what I'd > > give here in the ACBL. > > > > There is, by the way, some possibility that we in the ACBL will be > > allowed weighted scores starting next year. > > > > On 2015-08-16 10:46 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> Team tournament, Swiss. Called to table after the hand was played. > >> Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players. > >> > >> Here the bidding: > >> > >> N E S W > >> 1cl 1di 1he ps > >> 4he ps ps dbl > >> ps ps 4sp dbl > >> all pass > >> > >> Result: 4sp+1 > >> > >> 1cl = strong, 16+ > >> 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted > >> > >> No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their handbag. > >> Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference. > >> > >> No hand records but the West hand was: AQ9 > >> 108532 > >> xx > >> xxx > >> > >> South had a single heart and long spades. > >> > >> The result in 4he would be -6 > >> > >> South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he. > >> > >> (But he did double 4sp. and with AQ9 in spades and a partner who bid he > >> might well be prepared to double 4sp (with correct info) as well.) > >> > >> Okay, what is your decision as TD? > >> > >> Some possibilities: 4 he without a double, 4 spades without a double, > >> anything else you might feel would be appropriate. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- _______________________________________________ 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 hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 17 11:33:33 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:33:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <20150817073520.7410BB6F06E4@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> <55D18895.2090000@skynet.be> <20150817073520.7410BB6F06E4@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <55D1AA6D.6090107@skynet.be> Sorry Brian, but this does not make sense. brian schreef: > On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:09:09 +0200, you wrote: > >> Since it is not common to play transfers after interference (how to >> transfer to hearts? - double? - how to distinguish between a transfer >> double and a negative one?) > > I disagree with you on this, Herman. If you play transfer responses to > a strong 1C, then there is no need whatsoever to switch them off over > an overcall of 1D. It doesn't seem at all unusual to me to play pass = > 0-4, double = 5-7, otherwise system on as if the 1D overcall hadn't > happened. Just substitute pass or double for the 1D negative. > First of all, this was not a strong no club, and secondly, if double shows 5-7, and 1He shows spades, how can you still show hearts? Herman. > Higher overcalls are a different matter. > > Brian. > >> we may well have correct information. >> South's first pass is ethical, although I might rule that the 4He call >> is enough of a wake-up. South should not sit for 4HX though. >> No infractions, then. >> Herman. >> >> Jeff Easterson schreef: >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- >>> Betreff: curious >>> Datum: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:40:02 +0200 >>> Von: Jeff Easterson >>> An: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> >>> >>> >>> Team tournament, Swiss. Called to table after the hand was played. >>> Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players. >>> >>> Here the bidding: >>> >>> N E S W >>> 1cl 1di 1he ps >>> 4he ps ps dbl >>> ps ps 4sp dbl >>> all pass >>> >>> Result: 4sp+1 >>> >>> 1cl = strong, 16+ >>> 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted >>> >>> No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their handbag. >>> Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference. >>> >>> No hand records but the West hand was: AQ9 >>> 108532 >>> xx >>> xxx >>> >>> South had a single heart and long spades. >>> >>> The result in 4he would be -6 >>> >>> South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he. >>> >>> (But he did double 4sp. and with AQ9 in spades and a partner who bid he >>> might well be prepared to double 4sp (with correct info) as well.) >>> >>> Okay, what is your decision as TD? >>> >>> Some possibilities: 4 he without a double, 4 spades without a double, >>> anything else you might feel would be appropriate. >>> >>> Ciao, JE >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Aug 17 11:36:16 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:36:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <304815514.60537.1439796745539.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> <55D0D4E9.6040003@nhcc.net> <55D1898A.4010609@skynet.be> <304815514.60537.1439796745539.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <55D1AB10.2010107@skynet.be> oops, sorry, so it was. I retract my previous ruling. I stand by my ruling over a natural club. To my defence, I have never seen anyone play transfers over a strong club. I cannot see how you can play a 1Di transfer to hearts and still have a negative over the strong club. But of course it may be possible, and if it is, 4He should show an 8-card suit and should be passed, even when doubled. Sorry! Herman. ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre schreef: > > > ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Herman De Wael" >> ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Envoy?: Lundi 17 Ao?t 2015 09:13:14 >> Objet: Re: [BLML] Fwd: curious >> >> Steve Willner schreef: >>> First question is whether South is allowed to pull the double of 4H. I >>> think 4H should be something like 8 solid hearts and a card or so >> >> Opening 1Club with such a hand? > give it a second look: 1C is described as a strong club system opening > jpr > >> South knows after the 4He bid that his transfer to spades has not gotten >> through to North. In combination with the likelihood that 1He is not >> after all a transfer, he should be deemed certain that partner thought >> 1He was natural. >> I do not rule UI here. >> And this even on the first turn. >> Herman. >> >>> outside, so maybe passing the double is a LA. Pulling is certainly >>> suggested by North's failure to alert 1H. >>> >>> If you decide 4S was legal, then 4H-6, 4S+1, and 4Sx+1 all seem possible >>> if West is given correct information. I'd probably give them weights of >>> about 80%, 0%, and 20% respectively, but others might have different >>> ideas. If you can't give weighted scores, I'm sure 4H-1 is at least "at >>> all probable," and I'm pretty sure it's "likely," so that's what I'd >>> give here in the ACBL. >>> >>> There is, by the way, some possibility that we in the ACBL will be >>> allowed weighted scores starting next year. >>> >>> On 2015-08-16 10:46 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: >>>> Team tournament, Swiss. Called to table after the hand was played. >>>> Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players. >>>> >>>> Here the bidding: >>>> >>>> N E S W >>>> 1cl 1di 1he ps >>>> 4he ps ps dbl >>>> ps ps 4sp dbl >>>> all pass >>>> >>>> Result: 4sp+1 >>>> >>>> 1cl = strong, 16+ >>>> 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted >>>> >>>> No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their handbag. >>>> Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference. >>>> >>>> No hand records but the West hand was: AQ9 >>>> 108532 >>>> xx >>>> xxx >>>> >>>> South had a single heart and long spades. >>>> >>>> The result in 4he would be -6 >>>> >>>> South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he. >>>> >>>> (But he did double 4sp. and with AQ9 in spades and a partner who bid he >>>> might well be prepared to double 4sp (with correct info) as well.) >>>> >>>> Okay, what is your decision as TD? >>>> >>>> Some possibilities: 4 he without a double, 4 spades without a double, >>>> anything else you might feel would be appropriate. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Mon Aug 17 14:33:17 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:33:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> Message-ID: <95c2fa062bb12e7e2c1e458739339479@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 16.08.2015 16:46, Jeff Easterson a ?crit?: > -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- > Betreff: curious > Datum: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:40:02 +0200 > Von: Jeff Easterson > An: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > > Team tournament, Swiss. Called to table after the hand was played. > Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players. > > Here the bidding: > > N E S W > 1cl 1di 1he ps > 4he ps ps dbl > ps ps 4sp dbl > all pass > > Result: 4sp+1 > > 1cl = strong, 16+ > 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted > > No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their handbag. > Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference. > > No hand records but the West hand was: AQ9 > 108532 > xx > xxx > > South had a single heart and long spades. > > The result in 4he would be -6 > > South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he. > > (But he did double 4sp. and with AQ9 in spades and a partner who bid he > might well be prepared to double 4sp (with correct info) as well.) > > Okay, what is your decision as TD? Apply the screen test. Screens are in place and the same bidding sequence happens. Opener shows a long, strong heart suit and a relative paucity of top tricks. Perhaps x - AKQJxxx - KJx - Qx. Responder, even with 71 in the majors, has no reason to escape from this contract, even doubled, unless his own suit is very strong (and it isn't). Whence I disallow the takeout. The answer might be different if the CC had explicitly stated that transfers were off after interference ; in this case, a ferocious double might be considered to have an alarmclock effect on responder (rather than the non-alert). Notice that the double is very poor (it might even help declarer make a first-round finesse with AKQJ9x(x) facing x), but this isn't decisive in this case. What remains, and troubles me, is that West's statement that, had he known, he wouldn't have doubled, might deserve him. If I disallow the pullout, I'll have to take it into account. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 17 14:38:40 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:38:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <55D18895.2090000@skynet.be> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> <55D18895.2090000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7611c71ed8f6a4e36d72147703295112@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 17.08.2015 09:09, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Since it is not common to play transfers after interference (how to > transfer to hearts? - double? - how to distinguish between a transfer > double and a negative one?) we may well have correct information. > South's first pass is ethical, although I might rule that the 4He call > is enough of a wake-up. South should not sit for 4HX though. > No infractions, then. Herman, your reasoning, based on the premise that there won't be transfers after interference, is right, but the premise itself is wrong. It is common, among strong clubbers who use transfers (including YT), to keep transfers after an overcall. In this case, the transfer to hearts would be 2D. If nothing is written in the "changes after intervention" column, we must assume "transfers on". Ah, and Meckwell play Dbl or Rdbl as a transfer. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 17 14:40:29 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:40:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <55D1AA6D.6090107@skynet.be> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> " <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de>" <55D18895.2090000@skynet.be> <20150817073520.7410BB6F06E4@relay1.webreus.nl> <55D1AA6D.6090107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4cf913c17ec502984ce87f67d77149bc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 17.08.2015 11:33, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Sorry Brian, but this does not make sense. > > brian schreef: >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:09:09 +0200, you wrote: >> >>> Since it is not common to play transfers after interference (how to >>> transfer to hearts? - double? - how to distinguish between a transfer >>> double and a negative one?) >> >> I disagree with you on this, Herman. If you play transfer responses to >> a strong 1C, then there is no need whatsoever to switch them off over >> an overcall of 1D. It doesn't seem at all unusual to me to play pass = >> 0-4, double = 5-7, otherwise system on as if the 1D overcall hadn't >> happened. Just substitute pass or double for the 1D negative. >> > > First of all, this was not a strong no club IT WAS ! please re-read the presentation : >>>> N E S W >>>> 1cl 1di 1he ps >>>> 4he ps ps dbl >>>> ps ps 4sp dbl >>>> all pass >>>> >>>> Result: 4sp+1 >>>> >>>> 1cl = strong, 16+ >>>> 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 17 14:43:00 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:43:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <55D1AB10.2010107@skynet.be> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> " <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de>" <55D0D4E9.6040003@nhcc.net> <55D1898A.4010609@skynet.be> <304815514.60537.1439796745539.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> <55D1AB10.2010107@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 17.08.2015 11:36, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > oops, sorry, so it was. > I retract my previous ruling. > I stand by my ruling over a natural club. > > To my defence, I have never seen anyone play transfers over a strong > club. I cannot see how you can play a 1Di transfer to hearts and still > have a negative over the strong club. Of course. The transfer to H is 2D. Easy, ain't it ? And your memory is a bit short : you had to rule a case where I bid 2C, transfer to diamonds, over Jean-Claude's strong club. (although the transfer wasn't the cause of the appeal) > But of course it may be possible, and if it is, 4He should show an > 8-card suit and should be passed, even when doubled. > > Sorry! > > Herman. > > ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre schreef: >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "Herman De Wael" >>> ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Envoy?: Lundi 17 Ao?t 2015 09:13:14 >>> Objet: Re: [BLML] Fwd: curious >>> >>> Steve Willner schreef: >>>> First question is whether South is allowed to pull the double of 4H. >>>> I >>>> think 4H should be something like 8 solid hearts and a card or so >>> >>> Opening 1Club with such a hand? >> give it a second look: 1C is described as a strong club system opening >> jpr >> >>> South knows after the 4He bid that his transfer to spades has not >>> gotten >>> through to North. In combination with the likelihood that 1He is not >>> after all a transfer, he should be deemed certain that partner >>> thought >>> 1He was natural. >>> I do not rule UI here. >>> And this even on the first turn. >>> Herman. >>> >>>> outside, so maybe passing the double is a LA. Pulling is certainly >>>> suggested by North's failure to alert 1H. >>>> >>>> If you decide 4S was legal, then 4H-6, 4S+1, and 4Sx+1 all seem >>>> possible >>>> if West is given correct information. I'd probably give them >>>> weights of >>>> about 80%, 0%, and 20% respectively, but others might have different >>>> ideas. If you can't give weighted scores, I'm sure 4H-1 is at least >>>> "at >>>> all probable," and I'm pretty sure it's "likely," so that's what I'd >>>> give here in the ACBL. >>>> >>>> There is, by the way, some possibility that we in the ACBL will be >>>> allowed weighted scores starting next year. >>>> >>>> On 2015-08-16 10:46 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: >>>>> Team tournament, Swiss. Called to table after the hand was played. >>>>> Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players. >>>>> >>>>> Here the bidding: >>>>> >>>>> N E S W >>>>> 1cl 1di 1he ps >>>>> 4he ps ps dbl >>>>> ps ps 4sp dbl >>>>> all pass >>>>> >>>>> Result: 4sp+1 >>>>> >>>>> 1cl = strong, 16+ >>>>> 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted >>>>> >>>>> No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their >>>>> handbag. >>>>> Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference. >>>>> >>>>> No hand records but the West hand was: AQ9 >>>>> 108532 >>>>> xx >>>>> xxx >>>>> >>>>> South had a single heart and long spades. >>>>> >>>>> The result in 4he would be -6 >>>>> >>>>> South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he. >>>>> >>>>> (But he did double 4sp. and with AQ9 in spades and a partner who >>>>> bid he >>>>> might well be prepared to double 4sp (with correct info) as well.) >>>>> >>>>> Okay, what is your decision as TD? >>>>> >>>>> Some possibilities: 4 he without a double, 4 spades without a >>>>> double, >>>>> anything else you might feel would be appropriate. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 -- A. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 15:36:29 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 23:36:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: <20150817072752.40C2678901D9@relay4.webreus.nl> References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> <55D18895.2090000@skynet.be> <20150817072752.40C2678901D9@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: Brian Meadows: I disagree with you on this, Herman. If you play transfer responses to a strong 1C, then there is no need whatsoever to switch them off over an overcall of 1D. It doesn't seem at all unusual to me to play pass = 0-4, double = 5-7, otherwise system on as if the 1D overcall hadn't happened. Just substitute pass or double for the 1D negative. Higher overcalls are a different matter. Richard Hills: I agree with Brian (and disagree with Herman) that it is sensible to play System On after a strong 1C is overcalled with 1D. But is the pair in question sensible? It is possible that they actually have No Agreement about 1C - (1D) - 1H, with opener non-sensibly expecting a heart suit and responder sensibly showing a spade suit. Fortunately the actual partnership understanding does not affect the ruling. Law 73C: "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a ..... failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." Hence as Director I would rule a (possibly weighted) adjusted score in 4Hx. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, August 17, 2015, brian wrote: > On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:09:09 +0200, you wrote: > > >Since it is not common to play transfers after interference (how to > >transfer to hearts? - double? - how to distinguish between a transfer > >double and a negative one?) > > I disagree with you on this, Herman. If you play transfer responses to > a strong 1C, then there is no need whatsoever to switch them off over > an overcall of 1D. It doesn't seem at all unusual to me to play pass = > 0-4, double = 5-7, otherwise system on as if the 1D overcall hadn't > happened. Just substitute pass or double for the 1D negative. > > Higher overcalls are a different matter. > > Brian. > > >we may well have correct information. > >South's first pass is ethical, although I might rule that the 4He call > >is enough of a wake-up. South should not sit for 4HX though. > >No infractions, then. > >Herman. > > > >Jeff Easterson schreef: > >> > >> > >> > >> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- > >> Betreff: curious > >> Datum: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:40:02 +0200 > >> Von: Jeff Easterson > > >> An: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > >> > >> > >> > >> Team tournament, Swiss. Called to table after the hand was played. > >> Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players. > >> > >> Here the bidding: > >> > >> N E S W > >> 1cl 1di 1he ps > >> 4he ps ps dbl > >> ps ps 4sp dbl > >> all pass > >> > >> Result: 4sp+1 > >> > >> 1cl = strong, 16+ > >> 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted > >> > >> No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their handbag. > >> Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference. > >> > >> No hand records but the West hand was: AQ9 > >> 108532 > >> xx > >> xxx > >> > >> South had a single heart and long spades. > >> > >> The result in 4he would be -6 > >> > >> South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he. > >> > >> (But he did double 4sp. and with AQ9 in spades and a partner who bid he > >> might well be prepared to double 4sp (with correct info) as well.) > >> > >> Okay, what is your decision as TD? > >> > >> Some possibilities: 4 he without a double, 4 spades without a double, > >> anything else you might feel would be appropriate. > >> > >> Ciao, JE > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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/20150817/d31a5ce3/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 17 17:38:01 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:38:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> <55D18895.2090000@skynet.be> <20150817072752.40C2678901D9@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: Le 17.08.2015 15:36, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Brian Meadows: > > I?disagree with you on this, Herman. If you play transfer responses > to > a strong 1C, then there is no need whatsoever to switch them off over > an overcall of 1D. It doesn't seem at all unusual to me to play pass = > 0-4, double = 5-7, otherwise system on as if the 1D overcall hadn't > happened. Just substitute pass or double for the 1D negative. > > Higher overcalls are a different matter. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Brian (and disagree with Herman) that it is sensible to > play System On after a strong 1C is overcalled with 1D. But is the > pair in question sensible? It is possible that they actually have No > Agreement about 1C - (1D) - 1H, with opener non-sensibly expecting a > heart suit and responder sensibly showing a spade suit. > AG: I differ slightly on this. "transfer responses" are mentioned on their CC. Nothing is said in the "changes in competition" section about this. Hence, according to the CC, transfers are on ; and this is a nonnegligible piece of evidence (in fact, it should be considered more firm than the players' testimony). Notice that it is easy to play them after a 1H overcall too (replacing 1D with pass, and 1H with double, nothing is lost), and that those who play transfers often have them "on" after 1S too. But of course I agree even more with your ruling. Best regards Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 08:01:20 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:01:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> <55D18895.2090000@skynet.be> <20150817072752.40C2678901D9@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: AG: I differ slightly on this. "transfer responses" are mentioned on their CC. Nothing is said in the "changes in competition" section about this. Hence, according to the CC, transfers are on ; [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion Alain is wrong. Carelessly completed system cards are frequent, so "hence" is too strong a word. In a Bridge World article Larry Cohen gave the example of two American experts agreeing to play Support Doubles, but only one of them believed that that implied a partnership understanding of Support Redoubles. The important point is that a single partner's belief is NOT a mutual partnership understanding. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, agot wrote: > Le 17.08.2015 15:36, Richard Hills a ?crit : > > Brian Meadows: > > > > I disagree with you on this, Herman. If you play transfer responses > > to > > a strong 1C, then there is no need whatsoever to switch them off over > > an overcall of 1D. It doesn't seem at all unusual to me to play pass = > > 0-4, double = 5-7, otherwise system on as if the 1D overcall hadn't > > happened. Just substitute pass or double for the 1D negative. > > > > Higher overcalls are a different matter. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > I agree with Brian (and disagree with Herman) that it is sensible to > > play System On after a strong 1C is overcalled with 1D. But is the > > pair in question sensible? It is possible that they actually have No > > Agreement about 1C - (1D) - 1H, with opener non-sensibly expecting a > > heart suit and responder sensibly showing a spade suit. > > > > AG: I differ slightly on this. > > "transfer responses" are mentioned on their CC. > > Nothing is said in the "changes in competition" section about this. > > Hence, according to the CC, transfers are on ; and this is a > nonnegligible piece of evidence (in fact, it should be considered more > firm than the players' testimony). > > Notice that it is easy to play them after a 1H overcall too (replacing > 1D with pass, and 1H with double, nothing is lost), and that those who > play transfers often have them "on" after 1S too. > > > But of course I agree even more with your ruling. > > > > Best regards > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150818/cf8a0af4/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 18 14:25:47 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:25:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: curious In-Reply-To: References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> <55D18895.2090000@skynet.be> <20150817072752.40C2678901D9@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: Le 18.08.2015 08:01, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Carelessly completed system cards are > frequent, so "hence" is too strong a word. In a Bridge World article > Larry Cohen gave the example of two American experts agreeing to play > Support Doubles, but only one of them believed?that that implied a > partnership understanding of Support Redoubles. AG : this is understandable. A Redouble isn't a double. But I think this isn't the case here. Another example : a pair who didn't mention any specific defense against a strong club is, IMO, deemed to play the same as against a standard club. (don't tell me it would be absurd to play a 1NT overcall as strong. Some pairs don't do this over a standard club either) > The important point is that a single partner's belief is NOT a mutual > partnership understanding. > AG : true, and that's a point worth discussing. In every serious partnership, there are "meta-agreements", that is, agreements which apply whenever others don't. Example : "if we didn't handle a case of doubling in the notes, it is ..." In such a case, if nothing is written about that specific case, there is an agreement. (if only implicit) However, if one player believes the case has been discussed, and the other doesn't, there is no partnership understanding. That means that, because one player believes there is an agreement, there isn't. Can we handle this ? Best regards Alain Partnerships who From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 20 19:30:10 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:30:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] message In-Reply-To: References: <55D0A0C2.209@aol.com> <55D0A237.3070008@gmx.de> <55D18895.2090000@skynet.be> <20150817072752.40C2678901D9@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <7b0c6169a1b0436a60d823ec797bbef3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> I have a message to some blml contributors. Perhaps not 100% P.C., but it constitutes an interesting add to a recent thread. Tuesday evening, small Butler event in Brussels. Playing with a partner and against a pair of players similar to me : experienced, above average. Partner opens 2C, alerted, asked. Me - it could be : a game-force or near-game-force, one-or two-suited, with hearts the main suit ; a near-game-force, one- or two-suited, with spades the main suit ; a near-game-force, one-suited in a minor ; 22-23, balanced or semi-balanced ; or a game-force, long clubs and secondary diamonds. [notice that requirements are different with hearts, spades or a minor, so this can't be shortened. This opening is a good space-saver and avoids playing hearts from the wrong side after a G/F 2D] RHO - Ouch ! I'm lost ... Er, if I heard it well, only strong variants ? Me - indeed. RHO - then, why aren't you simply saying : "always strong, a wide variety of hands ; do you want me to give the details ?" Usually, opponents won't need them. Me - because I've recently been told by several very knowledgeable people that, according to the laws, I must give all detailed information at once. LHO - tell those people that, if so, the laws are absurd, and that excess of information inevitably kills information. Done. Best regards Alain