From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 00:22:13 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:22:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: <2B07CAF405F04B7E8B4E3022171BD97A@G3> <1855066691.8688181.1419261155419.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: *Follow-up problem: In order for a question to be deemed deceptive under Law 73F, it must lack a demonstrable bridge reason. Is preventing an ++opponent++ converting a non-established revoke into an established revoke a bridge reason?* Yes. Because the 2007 Drafting Committee added this clause to Law 9: "However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player?s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)." Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > Yes, I was declarer and I was indeed surprised by the 6-0 break. > > Follow-up problem: In order for a question to be deemed deceptive under > Law 73F, it must lack a demonstrable bridge reason. Is preventing an > ++opponent++ converting a non-established revoke into an established revoke > a bridge reason? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 9:56 AM, agot wrote: > >> Le 23.12.2014 01:58, Richard Hills a ?crit : >> > Imps >> > Dlr: West >> > Vul: Nil >> > >> > The bidding has gone: >> > >> > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> > 1H(1) Pass 3H(2) All pass >> > >> > (1) 5-card major >> > (2) limit raise, 4-card support >> > >> > You, South, hold: >> > >> > AKJ7 >> > AKT932 >> > A >> > A6 >> > >> > North's opening lead is the ten of clubs (denying the jack) and dummy >> > tracks with: >> > >> > 986 >> > J874 >> > KQ6 >> > KQ8 >> > >> > Declarer calls for the king of clubs, and you win the ace. Now you >> > elect to play three rounds of spades, but declarer ruffs the third >> > round with the five of trumps. Declarer attempts to cash two club >> > winners, but you ruff the second one. Now you elect to lead a low >> > trump in case partner holds the queen. But declarer wins the six of >> > hearts as partner shows out. >> > >> > Declarer asks partner, "No hearts?" Is declarer's question an >> > unethical attempt to deceive partner into thinking that a normal 5-4 >> > heart fit has run into a 4-0 break? >> >> >> AG : quite the contrary. Declarer wouldn't be very surprised if he ran >> into a 4-0 break. But a 6-0 break is a rare bird indeed, and seeing the >> 6 make the trick is wilder still. This is probably an exclamation of >> surprise rather than a standard question. (the inflectio can't be >> reproduced on the appeal form, something which I occasionally regret) >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20150104/4cace3d7/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 5 14:45:26 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 14:45:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Silent Psyche, Holy Psyche In-Reply-To: References: <2B07CAF405F04B7E8B4E3022171BD97A@G3> <1855066691.8688181.1419261155419.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: Le 05.01.2015 00:22, Richard Hills a ?crit : > _Follow-up problem: In order for a question to be deemed deceptive > under Law 73F, it must lack a demonstrable bridge reason. Is > preventing an ++opponent++ converting a non-established revoke into an > established revoke a bridge reason?_ > > Yes. Because the 2007 Drafting Committee added this clause to Law 9: > > "However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another > player?s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws > 42 and 43)." Yes, that's what I said. Anything which TFLB makes provision for (e.g. avoiding a revoke, calling the TD, asking what the contract is, choosing a penalty) becomes part of the game of bridge. If you reach for a card in your BB out of turn and it happens to be the TD card, you aren't bidding out of turn, nor are you attempting to decieve anyone. Asking what the contract is or whether an opponent revoked can't be deemed non-bridge. Furthermore, in order to avoid UI, it is right to occasionally act (especially, ask about a bid's meaning) without any interest for doing so, without it being called non-bridge. Because avoiding to transmit UI is a very good bridge reason. In short : anything that TFLB says may be done may be done, unless deception is the ONLY possible explanation for doing it, and that's rather uncommon. Contrast with mannerisms, which are said should be avoided, and can therefore be deemed non-bridge more often. Best regards, Alain