From bridge at vwalther.de Mon Jun 1 00:09:31 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:09:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <556B869B.2050204@vwalther.de> It sounds to me that the TD knows which specific board is the inadvertently left one. Leaving this Board at the table was an error of procedure. (Probably made by the TD or some player at the end of the first round) Apply 81.B.2 to cancel this board. Just my 2c, Volker Am 31.05.2015 um 23:29 schrieb Jim Fox: > I'm going to try to be specific enough in this description, so all understand. Please remove all preconceptions about how Swiss Teams SHOULD be run and try to follow. > > The boards are not duplicated and are shuffled before each round at each table. > > All of the matches in every round were intended to consist of 7 boards (each played at the two tables involved in the match). There were extra boards at various tables in round 1, but players were alerted to only play 7 if there were more than 7 and did so. > > In the second round an extra board was inadvertently left at a table, so that there were 4 boards at each table in the match. They were duly shuffled and played (4 at each table). When the boards were moved simultaneously to the other table (of the match) midway through the match, both tables discovered that there were 8 boards in play. > > At this point, the director was called. How should he proceed (after stating that "mistake(s) were made"). > > This is my last description of what happened. Please respond to what actually happened with the boards, not what you think SHOULD have happened. :) > > Mmbridge > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > Sent: 05/31/2015 5:04 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > > I don't understand. There were extra boards at all the tables, and they weren't collected by the director during the first round? And the director didn't know which boards were to be played in the second round? And how were boards left on the table from one round to the next? Normally the director collects the boards from the first round before distributing the boards for the second round. > > > >> On 31 May 2015, at 18:42, Jim Fox wrote: >> >> One more try. >> >> Each of the 8 boards was played at one table, none of the 8 boards were >> played at both tables. >> >> At that point, the director was summoned. What should the director do at >> that point, IF anything. >> >> Mmbridge >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Sven Pran >> Sent: 05/31/2015 11:46 AM >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >> >> Sounds like Director's error to me. >> >> But: How many boards were actually played at the affected tables in the >> first round? >> >> If 8 boards were played and thus inadvertently 8 boards were also played in >> the second round then let all 8 boards count also for the second round. >> >> If only 7 boards were played in the first round you know which board is >> "extra", it is the board that was not played in the first round and >> unfortunately not removed from the tables. >> >> I would be very surprised if you are unable to figure out a solution that >> will appear "fair" to everyone, if so I would say that you have no choice >> other than the disastrous one to cancel the round at all affected tables. >> >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Jim >>> Fox >>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 16:47 >>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>> >>> The boards were only placed in the first round and were to be used at the >> same >>> original two tables for the rest of the event. That is normal in the type >> of event >>> and venue being discussed. >>> >>> The extra board was INADVERTANTLY left at the two tables in question for >> the >>> second match. Due to the last minute change in the number of boards per >>> round, the director(s) hastily moved boards around from the original >>> configuration. The director did NOT know which boards were scheduled to >> be >>> played and in point of fact, did NOT "overtly" schedule any boards at any >> table >>> for the second match. >>> >>> Mmbridge >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >>> Sven Pran >>> Sent: 05/31/2015 3:42 AM >>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>> >>> Didn't the TD himself know which 7 boards he scheduled to be played and >> didn't >>> he (more or less clearly) announce which boards that were? >>> >>> You now seem to describe a Director who placed (at least?) 8 boards on an >>> exchange table and announced "play seven of these at your own choice"? >>> >>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>>> av >>> Jim >>>> Fox >>>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 02:59 >>>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>>> >>>> Which of the 8 boards is "extra"; all were played once, but not played >>>> yet >>> at the >>>> other table. >>>> >>>> Mmbridge >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Sven Pran >>>> Sent: 05/30/2015 2:11 PM >>>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>>> >>>> Jim Fox >>>>> In a recent Swiss Teams, due to a last-minute change in the number >>>>> of >>>> boards >>>>> per round from 8 to 7, the numbers of the boards placed for each >>>>> match >>>> were >>>>> not the usual sequence of 7 numbers of which the highest was an even >>>> multiple >>>>> of 7, but mismatched boards with an extra board placed in some >> matches. >>>>> >>>>> For the first match of the day, everybody was aware not to play the >>>> "extra" >>>>> board (highest number), but inadvertently, some "extra" boards were >>>>> left >>>> on >>>>> tables for the second round. >>>>> >>>>> In at least one match, four boards were played at each table of the >>>>> match >>>> (for a >>>>> total of eight different boards), which was only discovered when the >>>> boards >>>>> switched tables simultaneously. In all the other matches only seven >>>> boards >>>>> were played. >>>>> >>>>> The director was duly summoned. What is the proper way to handle >>>>> this situation? >>>> >>>> [Sven Pran] >>>> If I understand you correctly the answer is simply: Discard (and >>>> ignore >>> any >>>> results on) the "extra" board. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jun 1 00:27:14 2015 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 18:27:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9CCD088D008348D6A98A5E44F9599E25@erdos> Here is the ACBL's answer, from "Conditions of Contest for Swiss Teams" http://www.acbl.org/acbl-content/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Swiss-Teams.pdf "A board not scheduled for play will not be counted even if played at both tables." Thus, in your situation, if the match is supposed to be boards 1-7 but both tables have played boards 1-8, the score on board 8 does not count. If the situation was caught midway through (after one table had played boards 5-8), board 8 is not played at the first table. The match result will be based on boards 1-7 if the second table finishes them all; if the second table can only play boards 1-3, board 4 is thrown out as well (and presumably no penalty to either team, since the second table played seven boards in the time allotted to play seven boards). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fox" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > I'm going to try to be specific enough in this description, so all understand. > Please remove all preconceptions about how Swiss Teams SHOULD be run and try > to follow. > > The boards are not duplicated and are shuffled before each round at each > table. > > All of the matches in every round were intended to consist of 7 boards (each > played at the two tables involved in the match). There were extra boards at > various tables in round 1, but players were alerted to only play 7 if there > were more than 7 and did so. > > In the second round an extra board was inadvertently left at a table, so that > there were 4 boards at each table in the match. They were duly shuffled and > played (4 at each table). When the boards were moved simultaneously to the > other table (of the match) midway through the match, both tables discovered > that there were 8 boards in play. > > At this point, the director was called. How should he proceed (after stating > that "mistake(s) were made"). > > This is my last description of what happened. Please respond to what actually > happened with the boards, not what you think SHOULD have happened. :) > > Mmbridge > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Stefanie Rohan > Sent: 05/31/2015 5:04 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > > I don't understand. There were extra boards at all the tables, and they > weren't collected by the director during the first round? And the director > didn't know which boards were to be played in the second round? And how were > boards left on the table from one round to the next? Normally the director > collects the boards from the first round before distributing the boards for > the second round. > > > >> On 31 May 2015, at 18:42, Jim Fox wrote: >> >> One more try. >> >> Each of the 8 boards was played at one table, none of the 8 boards were >> played at both tables. >> >> At that point, the director was summoned. What should the director do at >> that point, IF anything. >> >> Mmbridge >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Sven Pran >> Sent: 05/31/2015 11:46 AM >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >> >> Sounds like Director's error to me. >> >> But: How many boards were actually played at the affected tables in the >> first round? >> >> If 8 boards were played and thus inadvertently 8 boards were also played in >> the second round then let all 8 boards count also for the second round. >> >> If only 7 boards were played in the first round you know which board is >> "extra", it is the board that was not played in the first round and >> unfortunately not removed from the tables. >> >> I would be very surprised if you are unable to figure out a solution that >> will appear "fair" to everyone, if so I would say that you have no choice >> other than the disastrous one to cancel the round at all affected tables. >> >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Jim >>> Fox >>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 16:47 >>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>> >>> The boards were only placed in the first round and were to be used at the >> same >>> original two tables for the rest of the event. That is normal in the type >> of event >>> and venue being discussed. >>> >>> The extra board was INADVERTANTLY left at the two tables in question for >> the >>> second match. Due to the last minute change in the number of boards per >>> round, the director(s) hastily moved boards around from the original >>> configuration. The director did NOT know which boards were scheduled to >> be >>> played and in point of fact, did NOT "overtly" schedule any boards at any >> table >>> for the second match. >>> >>> Mmbridge >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >>> Sven Pran >>> Sent: 05/31/2015 3:42 AM >>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>> >>> Didn't the TD himself know which 7 boards he scheduled to be played and >> didn't >>> he (more or less clearly) announce which boards that were? >>> >>> You now seem to describe a Director who placed (at least?) 8 boards on an >>> exchange table and announced "play seven of these at your own choice"? >>> >>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>>> av >>> Jim >>>> Fox >>>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 02:59 >>>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>>> >>>> Which of the 8 boards is "extra"; all were played once, but not played >>>> yet >>> at the >>>> other table. >>>> >>>> Mmbridge >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Sven Pran >>>> Sent: 05/30/2015 2:11 PM >>>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>>> >>>> Jim Fox >>>>> In a recent Swiss Teams, due to a last-minute change in the number >>>>> of >>>> boards >>>>> per round from 8 to 7, the numbers of the boards placed for each >>>>> match >>>> were >>>>> not the usual sequence of 7 numbers of which the highest was an even >>>> multiple >>>>> of 7, but mismatched boards with an extra board placed in some >> matches. >>>>> >>>>> For the first match of the day, everybody was aware not to play the >>>> "extra" >>>>> board (highest number), but inadvertently, some "extra" boards were >>>>> left >>>> on >>>>> tables for the second round. >>>>> >>>>> In at least one match, four boards were played at each table of the >>>>> match >>>> (for a >>>>> total of eight different boards), which was only discovered when the >>>> boards >>>>> switched tables simultaneously. In all the other matches only seven >>>> boards >>>>> were played. >>>>> >>>>> The director was duly summoned. What is the proper way to handle >>>>> this situation? >>>> >>>> [Sven Pran] >>>> If I understand you correctly the answer is simply: Discard (and >>>> ignore >>> any >>>> results on) the "extra" board. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 jimfox00 at cox.net Mon Jun 1 01:21:50 2015 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 19:21:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ok, I guess enough said, but as I stated in an earlier post the numbers of the boards did not make sense. I guess the rule below can be applied easily as long as it CAN be determined what are the "scheduled boards". Let's say the board numbers at the table were 9 -14, and two board 8's. 8,9,10,11 played at one table and boards 8,12,13,14 played at the other table. Do you automatically eliminate board 14 even if one team made a hard-to-bid slam? Mmbridge -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Grabiner Sent: 05/31/2015 6:27 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? Here is the ACBL's answer, from "Conditions of Contest for Swiss Teams" http://www.acbl.org/acbl-content/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Swiss-Teams.pdf "A board not scheduled for play will not be counted even if played at both tables." Thus, in your situation, if the match is supposed to be boards 1-7 but both tables have played boards 1-8, the score on board 8 does not count. If the situation was caught midway through (after one table had played boards 5-8), board 8 is not played at the first table. The match result will be based on boards 1-7 if the second table finishes them all; if the second table can only play boards 1-3, board 4 is thrown out as well (and presumably no penalty to either team, since the second table played seven boards in the time allotted to play seven boards). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fox" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > I'm going to try to be specific enough in this description, so all understand. > Please remove all preconceptions about how Swiss Teams SHOULD be run and try > to follow. > > The boards are not duplicated and are shuffled before each round at each > table. > > All of the matches in every round were intended to consist of 7 boards (each > played at the two tables involved in the match). There were extra boards at > various tables in round 1, but players were alerted to only play 7 if there > were more than 7 and did so. > > In the second round an extra board was inadvertently left at a table, so that > there were 4 boards at each table in the match. They were duly shuffled and > played (4 at each table). When the boards were moved simultaneously to the > other table (of the match) midway through the match, both tables discovered > that there were 8 boards in play. > > At this point, the director was called. How should he proceed (after stating > that "mistake(s) were made"). > > This is my last description of what happened. Please respond to what actually > happened with the boards, not what you think SHOULD have happened. :) > > Mmbridge > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Stefanie Rohan > Sent: 05/31/2015 5:04 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > > I don't understand. There were extra boards at all the tables, and they > weren't collected by the director during the first round? And the director > didn't know which boards were to be played in the second round? And how were > boards left on the table from one round to the next? Normally the director > collects the boards from the first round before distributing the boards for > the second round. > > > >> On 31 May 2015, at 18:42, Jim Fox wrote: >> >> One more try. >> >> Each of the 8 boards was played at one table, none of the 8 boards were >> played at both tables. >> >> At that point, the director was summoned. What should the director do at >> that point, IF anything. >> >> Mmbridge >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Sven Pran >> Sent: 05/31/2015 11:46 AM >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >> >> Sounds like Director's error to me. >> >> But: How many boards were actually played at the affected tables in the >> first round? >> >> If 8 boards were played and thus inadvertently 8 boards were also played in >> the second round then let all 8 boards count also for the second round. >> >> If only 7 boards were played in the first round you know which board is >> "extra", it is the board that was not played in the first round and >> unfortunately not removed from the tables. >> >> I would be very surprised if you are unable to figure out a solution that >> will appear "fair" to everyone, if so I would say that you have no choice >> other than the disastrous one to cancel the round at all affected tables. >> >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Jim >>> Fox >>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 16:47 >>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>> >>> The boards were only placed in the first round and were to be used at the >> same >>> original two tables for the rest of the event. That is normal in the type >> of event >>> and venue being discussed. >>> >>> The extra board was INADVERTANTLY left at the two tables in question for >> the >>> second match. Due to the last minute change in the number of boards per >>> round, the director(s) hastily moved boards around from the original >>> configuration. The director did NOT know which boards were scheduled to >> be >>> played and in point of fact, did NOT "overtly" schedule any boards at any >> table >>> for the second match. >>> >>> Mmbridge >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >>> Sven Pran >>> Sent: 05/31/2015 3:42 AM >>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>> >>> Didn't the TD himself know which 7 boards he scheduled to be played and >> didn't >>> he (more or less clearly) announce which boards that were? >>> >>> You now seem to describe a Director who placed (at least?) 8 boards on an >>> exchange table and announced "play seven of these at your own choice"? >>> >>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>>> av >>> Jim >>>> Fox >>>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 02:59 >>>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>>> >>>> Which of the 8 boards is "extra"; all were played once, but not played >>>> yet >>> at the >>>> other table. >>>> >>>> Mmbridge >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Sven Pran >>>> Sent: 05/30/2015 2:11 PM >>>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>>> >>>> Jim Fox >>>>> In a recent Swiss Teams, due to a last-minute change in the number >>>>> of >>>> boards >>>>> per round from 8 to 7, the numbers of the boards placed for each >>>>> match >>>> were >>>>> not the usual sequence of 7 numbers of which the highest was an even >>>> multiple >>>>> of 7, but mismatched boards with an extra board placed in some >> matches. >>>>> >>>>> For the first match of the day, everybody was aware not to play the >>>> "extra" >>>>> board (highest number), but inadvertently, some "extra" boards were >>>>> left >>>> on >>>>> tables for the second round. >>>>> >>>>> In at least one match, four boards were played at each table of the >>>>> match >>>> (for a >>>>> total of eight different boards), which was only discovered when the >>>> boards >>>>> switched tables simultaneously. In all the other matches only seven >>>> boards >>>>> were played. >>>>> >>>>> The director was duly summoned. What is the proper way to handle >>>>> this situation? >>>> >>>> [Sven Pran] >>>> If I understand you correctly the answer is simply: Discard (and >>>> ignore >>> any >>>> results on) the "extra" board. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jun 1 04:25:21 2015 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 03:25:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <428A42FC-78D3-4663-87A2-5300C625A242@btopenworld.com> I am not sure how the mechanism for exchanging boards worked, but it seems to me that it might be complicated to play Australian Swiss with boards dealt at the table. Ordinarily it does not matter which tables the two teams are playing at, since the same boards will arrive at each table with no need to exchange. Anyway, the ACBL has a regulation that covers this situation. > On 31 May 2015, at 22:12, Ken Johnston wrote: > > Play Australian Swiss next time. Would have been easier to manage the change. Still not clear here why the last board of each set was not removed. > > Ken > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 31 May 2015, at 22:04, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >> I don't understand. There were extra boards at all the tables, and they weren't collected by the director during the first round? And the director didn't know which boards were to be played in the second round? And how were boards left on the table from one round to the next? Normally the director collects the boards from the first round before distributing the boards for the second round. >> >> >> >>> On 31 May 2015, at 18:42, Jim Fox wrote: >>> >>> One more try. >>> >>> Each of the 8 boards was played at one table, none of the 8 boards were >>> played at both tables. >>> >>> At that point, the director was summoned. What should the director do at >>> that point, IF anything. >>> >>> Mmbridge >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >>> Sven Pran >>> Sent: 05/31/2015 11:46 AM >>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>> >>> Sounds like Director's error to me. >>> >>> But: How many boards were actually played at the affected tables in the >>> first round? >>> >>> If 8 boards were played and thus inadvertently 8 boards were also played in >>> the second round then let all 8 boards count also for the second round. >>> >>> If only 7 boards were played in the first round you know which board is >>> "extra", it is the board that was not played in the first round and >>> unfortunately not removed from the tables. >>> >>> I would be very surprised if you are unable to figure out a solution that >>> will appear "fair" to everyone, if so I would say that you have no choice >>> other than the disastrous one to cancel the round at all affected tables. >>> >>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >>> Jim >>>> Fox >>>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 16:47 >>>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>>> >>>> The boards were only placed in the first round and were to be used at the >>> same >>>> original two tables for the rest of the event. That is normal in the type >>> of event >>>> and venue being discussed. >>>> >>>> The extra board was INADVERTANTLY left at the two tables in question for >>> the >>>> second match. Due to the last minute change in the number of boards per >>>> round, the director(s) hastily moved boards around from the original >>>> configuration. The director did NOT know which boards were scheduled to >>> be >>>> played and in point of fact, did NOT "overtly" schedule any boards at any >>> table >>>> for the second match. >>>> >>>> Mmbridge >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >>>> Sven Pran >>>> Sent: 05/31/2015 3:42 AM >>>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>>> >>>> Didn't the TD himself know which 7 boards he scheduled to be played and >>> didn't >>>> he (more or less clearly) announce which boards that were? >>>> >>>> You now seem to describe a Director who placed (at least?) 8 boards on an >>>> exchange table and announced "play seven of these at your own choice"? >>>> >>>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>>>> av >>>> Jim >>>>> Fox >>>>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 02:59 >>>>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>>>> >>>>> Which of the 8 boards is "extra"; all were played once, but not played >>>>> yet >>>> at the >>>>> other table. >>>>> >>>>> Mmbridge >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >>>>> Of Sven Pran >>>>> Sent: 05/30/2015 2:11 PM >>>>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>>>> >>>>> Jim Fox >>>>>> In a recent Swiss Teams, due to a last-minute change in the number >>>>>> of >>>>> boards >>>>>> per round from 8 to 7, the numbers of the boards placed for each >>>>>> match >>>>> were >>>>>> not the usual sequence of 7 numbers of which the highest was an even >>>>> multiple >>>>>> of 7, but mismatched boards with an extra board placed in some >>> matches. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the first match of the day, everybody was aware not to play the >>>>> "extra" >>>>>> board (highest number), but inadvertently, some "extra" boards were >>>>>> left >>>>> on >>>>>> tables for the second round. >>>>>> >>>>>> In at least one match, four boards were played at each table of the >>>>>> match >>>>> (for a >>>>>> total of eight different boards), which was only discovered when the >>>>> boards >>>>>> switched tables simultaneously. In all the other matches only seven >>>>> boards >>>>>> were played. >>>>>> >>>>>> The director was duly summoned. What is the proper way to handle >>>>>> this situation? >>>>> >>>>> [Sven Pran] >>>>> If I understand you correctly the answer is simply: Discard (and >>>>> ignore >>>> any >>>>> results on) the "extra" board. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Jun 1 08:29:43 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 08:29:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <556BFBD7.70800@skynet.be> Since the boards were dealt at the table, the players must have thought the board they were playing was one "intended for them in this round". So all eight boards are equal and there is no way to distinguish one from the others. So all 8 boards should count. Herman. Jim Fox schreef: > I'm going to try to be specific enough in this description, so all understand. Please remove all preconceptions about how Swiss Teams SHOULD be run and try to follow. > > The boards are not duplicated and are shuffled before each round at each table. > > All of the matches in every round were intended to consist of 7 boards (each played at the two tables involved in the match). There were extra boards at various tables in round 1, but players were alerted to only play 7 if there were more than 7 and did so. > > In the second round an extra board was inadvertently left at a table, so that there were 4 boards at each table in the match. They were duly shuffled and played (4 at each table). When the boards were moved simultaneously to the other table (of the match) midway through the match, both tables discovered that there were 8 boards in play. > > At this point, the director was called. How should he proceed (after stating that "mistake(s) were made"). > > This is my last description of what happened. Please respond to what actually happened with the boards, not what you think SHOULD have happened. :) > > Mmbridge > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > Sent: 05/31/2015 5:04 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > > I don't understand. There were extra boards at all the tables, and they weren't collected by the director during the first round? And the director didn't know which boards were to be played in the second round? And how were boards left on the table from one round to the next? Normally the director collects the boards from the first round before distributing the boards for the second round. > > > >> On 31 May 2015, at 18:42, Jim Fox wrote: >> >> One more try. >> >> Each of the 8 boards was played at one table, none of the 8 boards were >> played at both tables. >> >> At that point, the director was summoned. What should the director do at >> that point, IF anything. >> >> Mmbridge >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Sven Pran >> Sent: 05/31/2015 11:46 AM >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >> >> Sounds like Director's error to me. >> >> But: How many boards were actually played at the affected tables in the >> first round? >> >> If 8 boards were played and thus inadvertently 8 boards were also played in >> the second round then let all 8 boards count also for the second round. >> >> If only 7 boards were played in the first round you know which board is >> "extra", it is the board that was not played in the first round and >> unfortunately not removed from the tables. >> >> I would be very surprised if you are unable to figure out a solution that >> will appear "fair" to everyone, if so I would say that you have no choice >> other than the disastrous one to cancel the round at all affected tables. >> >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Jim >>> Fox >>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 16:47 >>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>> >>> The boards were only placed in the first round and were to be used at the >> same >>> original two tables for the rest of the event. That is normal in the type >> of event >>> and venue being discussed. >>> >>> The extra board was INADVERTANTLY left at the two tables in question for >> the >>> second match. Due to the last minute change in the number of boards per >>> round, the director(s) hastily moved boards around from the original >>> configuration. The director did NOT know which boards were scheduled to >> be >>> played and in point of fact, did NOT "overtly" schedule any boards at any >> table >>> for the second match. >>> >>> Mmbridge >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >>> Sven Pran >>> Sent: 05/31/2015 3:42 AM >>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>> >>> Didn't the TD himself know which 7 boards he scheduled to be played and >> didn't >>> he (more or less clearly) announce which boards that were? >>> >>> You now seem to describe a Director who placed (at least?) 8 boards on an >>> exchange table and announced "play seven of these at your own choice"? >>> >>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>>> av >>> Jim >>>> Fox >>>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 02:59 >>>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>>> >>>> Which of the 8 boards is "extra"; all were played once, but not played >>>> yet >>> at the >>>> other table. >>>> >>>> Mmbridge >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Sven Pran >>>> Sent: 05/30/2015 2:11 PM >>>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>>> >>>> Jim Fox >>>>> In a recent Swiss Teams, due to a last-minute change in the number >>>>> of >>>> boards >>>>> per round from 8 to 7, the numbers of the boards placed for each >>>>> match >>>> were >>>>> not the usual sequence of 7 numbers of which the highest was an even >>>> multiple >>>>> of 7, but mismatched boards with an extra board placed in some >> matches. >>>>> >>>>> For the first match of the day, everybody was aware not to play the >>>> "extra" >>>>> board (highest number), but inadvertently, some "extra" boards were >>>>> left >>>> on >>>>> tables for the second round. >>>>> >>>>> In at least one match, four boards were played at each table of the >>>>> match >>>> (for a >>>>> total of eight different boards), which was only discovered when the >>>> boards >>>>> switched tables simultaneously. In all the other matches only seven >>>> boards >>>>> were played. >>>>> >>>>> The director was duly summoned. What is the proper way to handle >>>>> this situation? >>>> >>>> [Sven Pran] >>>> If I understand you correctly the answer is simply: Discard (and >>>> ignore >>> any >>>> results on) the "extra" board. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 1 08:56:08 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 08:56:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000b01d09c38$0afc6880$20f53980$@online.no> Well, well, well. At least that made the situation clear, and it seems to me that you have already received very competent answers. However, I would have let the two tables that had already played 4 boards each in round 2 to complete their match with a total of 8 boards as I understand that the Director had failed to make it clear exactly which of the tables was to shuffle and deal only 3 boards and that no specific board (e.g. board 8) was designated as "extra". > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jim > Fox > Sendt: 31. mai 2015 23:29 > Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > > I'm going to try to be specific enough in this description, so all understand. > Please remove all preconceptions about how Swiss Teams SHOULD be run and > try to follow. > > The boards are not duplicated and are shuffled before each round at each table. > > All of the matches in every round were intended to consist of 7 boards (each > played at the two tables involved in the match). There were extra boards at > various tables in round 1, but players were alerted to only play 7 if there were > more than 7 and did so. > > In the second round an extra board was inadvertently left at a table, so that > there were 4 boards at each table in the match. They were duly shuffled and > played (4 at each table). When the boards were moved simultaneously to the > other table (of the match) midway through the match, both tables discovered > that there were 8 boards in play. > > At this point, the director was called. How should he proceed (after stating > that "mistake(s) were made"). > > This is my last description of what happened. Please respond to what actually > happened with the boards, not what you think SHOULD have happened. :) > > Mmbridge > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Stefanie Rohan > Sent: 05/31/2015 5:04 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > > I don't understand. There were extra boards at all the tables, and they weren't > collected by the director during the first round? And the director didn't know > which boards were to be played in the second round? And how were boards left > on the table from one round to the next? Normally the director collects the > boards from the first round before distributing the boards for the second round. > > > > > On 31 May 2015, at 18:42, Jim Fox wrote: > > > > One more try. > > > > Each of the 8 boards was played at one table, none of the 8 boards > > were played at both tables. > > > > At that point, the director was summoned. What should the director do > > at that point, IF anything. > > > > Mmbridge > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > > Of Sven Pran > > Sent: 05/31/2015 11:46 AM > > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > > > > Sounds like Director's error to me. > > > > But: How many boards were actually played at the affected tables in > > the first round? > > > > If 8 boards were played and thus inadvertently 8 boards were also > > played in the second round then let all 8 boards count also for the second > round. > > > > If only 7 boards were played in the first round you know which board > > is "extra", it is the board that was not played in the first round and > > unfortunately not removed from the tables. > > > > I would be very surprised if you are unable to figure out a solution > > that will appear "fair" to everyone, if so I would say that you have > > no choice other than the disastrous one to cancel the round at all affected > tables. > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > >> av > > Jim > >> Fox > >> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 16:47 > >> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > >> > >> The boards were only placed in the first round and were to be used at > >> the > > same > >> original two tables for the rest of the event. That is normal in the > >> type > > of event > >> and venue being discussed. > >> > >> The extra board was INADVERTANTLY left at the two tables in question > >> for > > the > >> second match. Due to the last minute change in the number of boards > >> per round, the director(s) hastily moved boards around from the > >> original configuration. The director did NOT know which boards were > >> scheduled to > > be > >> played and in point of fact, did NOT "overtly" schedule any boards at > >> any > > table > >> for the second match. > >> > >> Mmbridge > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > >> Behalf Of Sven Pran > >> Sent: 05/31/2015 3:42 AM > >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > >> > >> Didn't the TD himself know which 7 boards he scheduled to be played > >> and > > didn't > >> he (more or less clearly) announce which boards that were? > >> > >> You now seem to describe a Director who placed (at least?) 8 boards > >> on an exchange table and announced "play seven of these at your own > choice"? > >> > >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > >>> av > >> Jim > >>> Fox > >>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 02:59 > >>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > >>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > >>> > >>> Which of the 8 boards is "extra"; all were played once, but not > >>> played yet > >> at the > >>> other table. > >>> > >>> Mmbridge > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > >>> Behalf Of Sven Pran > >>> Sent: 05/30/2015 2:11 PM > >>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > >>> > >>> Jim Fox > >>>> In a recent Swiss Teams, due to a last-minute change in the number > >>>> of > >>> boards > >>>> per round from 8 to 7, the numbers of the boards placed for each > >>>> match > >>> were > >>>> not the usual sequence of 7 numbers of which the highest was an > >>>> even > >>> multiple > >>>> of 7, but mismatched boards with an extra board placed in some > > matches. > >>>> > >>>> For the first match of the day, everybody was aware not to play the > >>> "extra" > >>>> board (highest number), but inadvertently, some "extra" boards were > >>>> left > >>> on > >>>> tables for the second round. > >>>> > >>>> In at least one match, four boards were played at each table of the > >>>> match > >>> (for a > >>>> total of eight different boards), which was only discovered when > >>>> the > >>> boards > >>>> switched tables simultaneously. In all the other matches only > >>>> seven > >>> boards > >>>> were played. > >>>> > >>>> The director was duly summoned. What is the proper way to handle > >>>> this situation? > >>> > >>> [Sven Pran] > >>> If I understand you correctly the answer is simply: Discard (and > >>> ignore > >> any > >>> results on) the "extra" board. > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 1 13:39:46 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:39:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no>\\\" <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au>\\\" <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no>" " <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no> Message-ID: <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 29.05.2015 16:33, Sven Pran a ?crit?: >> agot >> AG : agree, unless I overlooked something uncommon ; but "fouled" is >> simply a >> subset of "unplayable", and the rules for "unplayable" apply. >> Other occurrences of "unplayable" are : >> >> - the board's contents have been spilled by an external source, and >> seen ; >> - the board was played before wigth one pair sitting wrongly (may be >> playable in >> some cases) ; >> - UI to both sides (e.g. by a loud remark at anoither table) rtc. >> >> I don't think rules distinguish fouled boards from otherwise >> unplayable boards. > > [Sven Pran] > Oh, I believe you have indeed overlooked something: > A fouled board is never unplayable but it can only be scored when it > has been played at more than one table (or there are no other results > with which to compare). > > The Director may rule a board unplayable for several reasons but > "fouled board" is not one of them. AG : say that, in a team match, one board is rotated 90? at the second table, and the players realize this after they've taken their cards out, but before auction begins. Not as rare as it should be. If the board can be played, I'd like to know how. If it can't, it is unplayable, even if not "unplayable". From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Jun 1 14:30:57 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 22:30:57 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no> <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no> <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: AG : say that, in a team match, one board is rotated 90? at the second table, and the players realize this after they've taken their cards out, but before auction begins. Not as rare as it should be. If the board can be played, I'd like to know how. If it can't, it is unplayable, even if not "unplayable". Richard Hills: Many years ago, in the first round of the South West Pacific Teams, two teams made a classic error. One team sat North-South at both tables and the other team sat East-West at both tables. When the error was discovered during score up of the 20-board match, the Directors offered the teams two options. The first option was to cancel the match. That would mean that all eight players would miss out on the highly desirable Gold Masterpoints. The second option was to interchange team-mates for this match and the later matches in the tournament. This would retrospectively validate the match, and grant four players (two players from each original team) the highly desirable Gold Masterpoints. The eight players unanimously voted to reorganise into two new teams, and during the remainder of the tournament had a wonderful time with their unexpected team-mates. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, June 1, 2015, agot wrote: > Le 29.05.2015 16:33, Sven Pran a ?crit : > >> agot > >> AG : agree, unless I overlooked something uncommon ; but "fouled" is > >> simply a > >> subset of "unplayable", and the rules for "unplayable" apply. > >> Other occurrences of "unplayable" are : > >> > >> - the board's contents have been spilled by an external source, and > >> seen ; > >> - the board was played before wigth one pair sitting wrongly (may be > >> playable in > >> some cases) ; > >> - UI to both sides (e.g. by a loud remark at anoither table) rtc. > >> > >> I don't think rules distinguish fouled boards from otherwise > >> unplayable boards. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Oh, I believe you have indeed overlooked something: > > A fouled board is never unplayable but it can only be scored when it > > has been played at more than one table (or there are no other results > > with which to compare). > > > > The Director may rule a board unplayable for several reasons but > > "fouled board" is not one of them. > > AG : say that, in a team match, one board is rotated 90? at the second > table, and the players realize this after they've taken their cards out, > but before auction begins. Not as rare as it should be. If the board can > be played, I'd like to know how. If it can't, it is unplayable, even if > not "unplayable". > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150601/30e08477/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 1 15:51:57 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:51:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no>\\\" <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au>\\\" <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no>" " <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no> <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <000c01d09c72$206c07e0$614417a0$@online.no> agot > > [Sven Pran] > > Oh, I believe you have indeed overlooked something: > > A fouled board is never unplayable but it can only be scored when it > > has been played at more than one table (or there are no other results > > with which to compare). > > > > The Director may rule a board unplayable for several reasons but > > "fouled board" is not one of them. > > AG : say that, in a team match, one board is rotated 90? at the second table, > and the players realize this after they've taken their cards out, but before > auction begins. Not as rare as it should be. If the board can be played, I'd like to > know how. If it can't, it is unplayable, even if not "unplayable". [Sven Pran] You will call the Director immediately on noticing that you have taken the cards rotated. He will right away (if he knows his job) investigate if they have not yet started play on that board at the other table and if so order the other table to rotate the board the same way as you have at your table. If they have already started play (or even completed it) at the other table then that board will be void for the team match scoring but it is still playable and can be scored for Butler scoring. And note: This board is not fouled! From jimfox00 at cox.net Mon Jun 1 18:15:52 2015 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:15:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, this in fact is what the director did, although there was some of the usual griping from a couple of players - "What if we don't finish all 8", "Why should I have to play faster", etc from a couple of players. Mmbridge -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: 06/01/2015 2:30 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? Since the boards were dealt at the table, the players must have thought the board they were playing was one "intended for them in this round". So all eight boards are equal and there is no way to distinguish one from the others. So all 8 boards should count. Herman. Jim Fox schreef: > I'm going to try to be specific enough in this description, so all understand. Please remove all preconceptions about how Swiss Teams SHOULD be run and try to follow. > > The boards are not duplicated and are shuffled before each round at each table. > > All of the matches in every round were intended to consist of 7 boards (each played at the two tables involved in the match). There were extra boards at various tables in round 1, but players were alerted to only play 7 if there were more than 7 and did so. > > In the second round an extra board was inadvertently left at a table, so that there were 4 boards at each table in the match. They were duly shuffled and played (4 at each table). When the boards were moved simultaneously to the other table (of the match) midway through the match, both tables discovered that there were 8 boards in play. > > At this point, the director was called. How should he proceed (after stating that "mistake(s) were made"). > > This is my last description of what happened. Please respond to what actually happened with the boards, not what you think SHOULD have happened. :) > > Mmbridge > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > Sent: 05/31/2015 5:04 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > > I don't understand. There were extra boards at all the tables, and they weren't collected by the director during the first round? And the director didn't know which boards were to be played in the second round? And how were boards left on the table from one round to the next? Normally the director collects the boards from the first round before distributing the boards for the second round. > > > >> On 31 May 2015, at 18:42, Jim Fox wrote: >> >> One more try. >> >> Each of the 8 boards was played at one table, none of the 8 boards were >> played at both tables. >> >> At that point, the director was summoned. What should the director do at >> that point, IF anything. >> >> Mmbridge >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Sven Pran >> Sent: 05/31/2015 11:46 AM >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >> >> Sounds like Director's error to me. >> >> But: How many boards were actually played at the affected tables in the >> first round? >> >> If 8 boards were played and thus inadvertently 8 boards were also played in >> the second round then let all 8 boards count also for the second round. >> >> If only 7 boards were played in the first round you know which board is >> "extra", it is the board that was not played in the first round and >> unfortunately not removed from the tables. >> >> I would be very surprised if you are unable to figure out a solution that >> will appear "fair" to everyone, if so I would say that you have no choice >> other than the disastrous one to cancel the round at all affected tables. >> >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Jim >>> Fox >>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 16:47 >>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>> >>> The boards were only placed in the first round and were to be used at the >> same >>> original two tables for the rest of the event. That is normal in the type >> of event >>> and venue being discussed. >>> >>> The extra board was INADVERTANTLY left at the two tables in question for >> the >>> second match. Due to the last minute change in the number of boards per >>> round, the director(s) hastily moved boards around from the original >>> configuration. The director did NOT know which boards were scheduled to >> be >>> played and in point of fact, did NOT "overtly" schedule any boards at any >> table >>> for the second match. >>> >>> Mmbridge >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >>> Sven Pran >>> Sent: 05/31/2015 3:42 AM >>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>> >>> Didn't the TD himself know which 7 boards he scheduled to be played and >> didn't >>> he (more or less clearly) announce which boards that were? >>> >>> You now seem to describe a Director who placed (at least?) 8 boards on an >>> exchange table and announced "play seven of these at your own choice"? >>> >>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>>> av >>> Jim >>>> Fox >>>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 02:59 >>>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>>> >>>> Which of the 8 boards is "extra"; all were played once, but not played >>>> yet >>> at the >>>> other table. >>>> >>>> Mmbridge >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Sven Pran >>>> Sent: 05/30/2015 2:11 PM >>>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? >>>> >>>> Jim Fox >>>>> In a recent Swiss Teams, due to a last-minute change in the number >>>>> of >>>> boards >>>>> per round from 8 to 7, the numbers of the boards placed for each >>>>> match >>>> were >>>>> not the usual sequence of 7 numbers of which the highest was an even >>>> multiple >>>>> of 7, but mismatched boards with an extra board placed in some >> matches. >>>>> >>>>> For the first match of the day, everybody was aware not to play the >>>> "extra" >>>>> board (highest number), but inadvertently, some "extra" boards were >>>>> left >>>> on >>>>> tables for the second round. >>>>> >>>>> In at least one match, four boards were played at each table of the >>>>> match >>>> (for a >>>>> total of eight different boards), which was only discovered when the >>>> boards >>>>> switched tables simultaneously. In all the other matches only seven >>>> boards >>>>> were played. >>>>> >>>>> The director was duly summoned. What is the proper way to handle >>>>> this situation? >>>> >>>> [Sven Pran] >>>> If I understand you correctly the answer is simply: Discard (and >>>> ignore >>> any >>>> results on) the "extra" board. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From olivier.laspada at bluewin.ch Tue Jun 2 00:46:36 2015 From: olivier.laspada at bluewin.ch (Olivier La Spada) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 00:46:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F Message-ID: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> Hello everybody. I am a new member of this mailing list and it is my first experience in writing to it. I do not exactly know how it works but I will try my best.... On a pair tournament last year, I had to face this situation : Board 20, West Dealer, All. N : Q75/A93/AK4/AT64 E : A964/AKJT54/J2/83 S : JT/8762/Q9753/QJ W : K832/Q/T86/K9752 Bidding went : P ? 1NT ? 2H ? all pass Lead was SJ After three tricks, I have been called because when N led the HA, the declarer get confused because she also had it. The fact was that that card belonged to the previous board. I asked the declarer to come with me at my desk and I asked her if she would have bid without that HA. Answer was no. Then Applying L13F, I asked her to put back that card in the previous board and let the play continue. The result was 7 tricks and a 33% for the non offending side. My problem was to deal with two ways of directing this case. Should I use L13A and B and give an adjusted score (due to the fact that the call would not have been made), or should I use L13F with the argument that this law fits exactly with such situations. It is not entirely clear for me which approach has the priority. Thanks for your help. Olivier La Spada --- Ce courrier ?lectronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150601/a01403ee/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jun 2 04:00:28 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 22:00:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <003401d09b43$15083d40$3f18b7c0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> <5569CE30.3050708@nhcc.net> <003401d09b43$15083d40$3f18b7c0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <556D0E3C.7010601@nhcc.net> On 2015-05-30 9:42 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > If we are > playing a two winner, straight Mitchell and the > cards get put in the boards the wrong way round, > a different dealer, and maybe different vulnerabilities > result. It is no longer the same board, I hope everyone will agree with that last, regardless of the type of game we are playing. That wasn't the situation I asked about, though. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jun 2 04:32:43 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 22:32:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> Message-ID: <556D15CB.9040706@nhcc.net> On 2015-06-01 6:46 PM, Olivier La Spada wrote: > Should I use L13A and B and give an adjusted score (due to the fact > that the call would not have been made), or should I use L13F with > the argument that this law fits exactly with such situations. Welcome, Olivier. What a great problem! I've never seen this question before nor seen any official guidance. I checked the EBU White Book -- which isn't official in Switzerland but is very informative -- and found nothing. Therefore, so as far as I can tell, you have discretion to do either. That's a terrible Law because it puts you in position of seeming to favor one side no matter what you do. My own personal inclination would be to let the result stand. In effect, East made a terrible bid that should have resulted in a bad score but this time got lucky. You wouldn't even think of adjusting the score if East had bid 2H because she had a diamond in with her hearts, and this looks closely analogous. Moreover, I think best defense, even after the unlucky opening lead, would have given NS +200, and if they didn't capitalize on that, it's their own fault. And finally, L13F is, as you wrote, specific and exactly on point. However, my opinion is just that, and a good argument might persuade me to change it. You might consider a PP to East for failing to count her cards, but I'd make it a warning unless this player is habitually careless. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Jun 2 05:40:09 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 13:40:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> Message-ID: Hello Olivier, Welcome to blml! Law 13A applies to so-called "14-12" situations. 52 real cards are in play, but are divided incorrectly. Law 13F applies to so-called "53 card pack" situations. One or more unreal / surplus cards are in play. William ("Kojak") Schoder, a member of the 2007 Laws Drafting Commitee, recommends this rule of thumb: "A specific Law over-rides a more general Law." Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, June 2, 2015, Olivier La Spada wrote: > Hello everybody. > > I am a new member of this mailing list and it is my first experience in > writing to it. I do not exactly know how it works but I will try my best.... > > On a pair tournament last year, I had to face this situation : > Board 20, West Dealer, All. > N : Q75/A93/AK4/AT64 > E : A964/*A*KJT54/J2/83 > S : JT/8762/Q9753/QJ > W : K832/Q/T86/K9752 > > Bidding went : P ? 1NT ? 2H ? all pass > Lead was SJ > > After three tricks, I have been called because when N led the HA, the > declarer get confused because she also had it. > The fact was that that card belonged to the previous board. > I asked the declarer to come with me at my desk and I asked her if she > would have bid without that HA. Answer was no. > Then Applying L13F, I asked her to put back that card in the previous > board and let the play continue. > The result was 7 tricks and a 33% for the non offending side. > > My problem was to deal with two ways of directing this case. > Should I use L13A and B and give an adjusted score (due to the fact that > the call would not have been made), > or should I use L13F with the argument that this law fits exactly with > such situations. > It is not entirely clear for me which approach has the priority. > > Thanks for your help. > > Olivier La Spada > > > > ------------------------------ > > > Ce courrier ?lectronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant > parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est > active. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150602/83736421/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 2 13:27:39 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:27:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: References: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no> <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no> <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Le 01.06.2015 14:30, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > AG : say that, in a team match, one board is rotated 90? at the > second > table, and the players realize this after they've taken their cards > out, > but before auction begins. Not as rare as it should be. If the board > can > be played, I'd like to know how. If it can't, it is unplayable, even > if > not "unplayable". > > Richard Hills: > > Many years ago, in the first round of the South West Pacific Teams, > two teams made a classic error. One team sat North-South at both > tables and the other team sat East-West at both tables. When the error > was discovered during score up of the 20-board match, the Directors > offered the teams two options. The first option was to cancel the > match. That would mean that all eight players would miss out on the > highly desirable Gold Masterpoints. > > The second option was to interchange team-mates for this match and the > later matches in the tournament. This would retrospectively validate > the match, and grant four players (two players from each original > team) the highly desirable Gold Masterpoints. The eight players > unanimously voted to reorganise into two new teams, and during the > remainder of the tournament had a wonderful time with their unexpected > team-mates. Clever idea, and I've heard of a similar one in a Belgian tournament. But of course this does not solve the problem of just one misplaced board. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 2 13:31:18 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:31:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <000c01d09c72$206c07e0$614417a0$@online.no> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no>\\\" \\\" <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no>" <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <000c01d09c72$206c07e0$614417a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <42ea7f2a8d85d6fe07e60cbefe657457@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 01.06.2015 15:51, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > agot >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Oh, I believe you have indeed overlooked something: >> > A fouled board is never unplayable but it can only be scored when it >> > has been played at more than one table (or there are no other results >> > with which to compare). >> > >> > The Director may rule a board unplayable for several reasons but >> > "fouled board" is not one of them. >> >> AG : say that, in a team match, one board is rotated 90? at the second >> table, >> and the players realize this after they've taken their cards out, but >> before >> auction begins. Not as rare as it should be. If the board can be >> played, I'd like to >> know how. If it can't, it is unplayable, even if not "unplayable". > > [Sven Pran] > You will call the Director immediately on noticing that you have taken > the cards rotated. > He will right away (if he knows his job) investigate if they have not > yet started play on that board at the other table and if so order the > other table to rotate the board the same way as you have at your > table. > > If they have already started play (or even completed it) at the other > table then that board will be void for the team match scoring but it > is still playable and can be scored for Butler scoring. > > And note: This board is not fouled! > Okay, but it does not correspond to the Belgian system, where, apart from the top tier, there is no Butler scoring, as matches are independent from eachother (think soccer round-robin). So, in my country, there would be no way to use the board. And of course "fouled" is but a name, as is "unplayable". Perhaps the board is not "fouled", perhaps it is not "unplayable" ; but it is obvious that it can't be played. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 2 14:13:26 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 14:13:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <42ea7f2a8d85d6fe07e60cbefe657457@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no>\\\" \\\" <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no>" <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <000c01d09c72$206c07e0$614417a0$@online.no> <42ea7f2a8d85d6fe07e60cbefe657457@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <002701d09d2d$886cb860$99462920$@online.no> agot > > [Sven Pran] > > You will call the Director immediately on noticing that you have taken > > the cards rotated. > > He will right away (if he knows his job) investigate if they have not > > yet started play on that board at the other table and if so order the > > other table to rotate the board the same way as you have at your > > table. > > > > If they have already started play (or even completed it) at the other > > table then that board will be void for the team match scoring but it > > is still playable and can be scored for Butler scoring. > > > > And note: This board is not fouled! > > > > Okay, but it does not correspond to the Belgian system, where, apart from the > top tier, there is no Butler scoring, as matches are independent from eachother > (think soccer round-robin). So, in my country, there would be no way to use the > board. > > And of course "fouled" is but a name, as is "unplayable". Perhaps the board is > not "fouled", perhaps it is not "unplayable" ; but it is obvious that it can't be > played. [Sven Pran] Let us keep Butler out of this discussion, frankly I consider it a foreign element that should never occur in teams matches at all. The fact is that Butler scoring favours thinking in the interest of the pair rather than the interest of the team. The only reason I mentioned Butler is that Butler scoring is independent of rotated boards etc. I have even (many years ago) experienced one of the pairs in a team that had three pairs available asking their captain to have a sitout in the last match, not because they felt that the other two pairs would do a better job but because they had a very good Butler so far and didn't want to risk spoiling that! But I cannot see how your Belgian system (whatever that is) should influence the rectification possibilities when a board has been rotated at one table? It may (if I understand it correct) even make rectification easier in some situations. If the two teams in a match has met correctly it doesn't really matter whether they have both played a particular board correct or rotated (equally) at both tables. So if a rotation is discovered at one table before the players in the other room have looked at their cards you simply rotate the board equivalently in that room. And if the board has been rotated in one room and not in the other there is no alternative to cancelling that board. If time permits the Director should then order a substitute board to be dealt and played (unless {Law 86C} "the final result on the match without this board could be known to a contestant"). "Fouled" is not just a name, it is a term precisely defined in Law 87. And if you look at this definition you will easily see that nothing ever prevents a fouled board from being played, only it can only be scored against other boards that are fouled in exactly the same way. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Jun 2 15:55:06 2015 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:55:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <002701d09d2d$886cb860$99462920$@online.no> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no>\\\" \\\" <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no>" <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <000c01d09c72$206c07e0$614417a0$@online.no> <42ea7f2a8d85d6fe07e60cbefe657457@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <002701d09d2d$886cb860$99462920$@online.no> Message-ID: <001901d09d3b$bbcc63f0$33652bd0$@optusnet.com.au> Frankly, the weeks that went by without a single peep from anyone were more interesting that this conversation. What must our new contributor think? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Sven Pran > Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 10:13 PM > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Back to the Future > > agot > > > [Sven Pran] > > > You will call the Director immediately on noticing that you have taken > > > the cards rotated. > > > He will right away (if he knows his job) investigate if they have not > > > yet started play on that board at the other table and if so order the > > > other table to rotate the board the same way as you have at your > > > table. > > > > > > If they have already started play (or even completed it) at the other > > > table then that board will be void for the team match scoring but it > > > is still playable and can be scored for Butler scoring. > > > > > > And note: This board is not fouled! > > > > > > > Okay, but it does not correspond to the Belgian system, where, apart from > the > > top tier, there is no Butler scoring, as matches are independent from > eachother > > (think soccer round-robin). So, in my country, there would be no way to > use the > > board. > > > > And of course "fouled" is but a name, as is "unplayable". Perhaps the > board is > > not "fouled", perhaps it is not "unplayable" ; but it is obvious that it can't > be > > played. > > [Sven Pran] > Let us keep Butler out of this discussion, frankly I consider it a foreign > element that should never occur in teams matches at all. > The fact is that Butler scoring favours thinking in the interest of the pair > rather than the interest of the team. The only reason I mentioned Butler is > that Butler scoring is independent of rotated boards etc. I have even (many > years ago) experienced one of the pairs in a team that had three pairs > available asking their captain to have a sitout in the last match, not because > they felt that the other two pairs would do a better job but because they > had a very good Butler so far and didn't want to risk spoiling that! > > But I cannot see how your Belgian system (whatever that is) should > influence the rectification possibilities when a board has been rotated at > one table? It may (if I understand it correct) even make rectification easier > in some situations. > > If the two teams in a match has met correctly it doesn't really matter > whether they have both played a particular board correct or rotated > (equally) at both tables. So if a rotation is discovered at one table before the > players in the other room have looked at their cards you simply rotate the > board equivalently in that room. > > And if the board has been rotated in one room and not in the other there is > no alternative to cancelling that board. If time permits the Director should > then order a substitute board to be dealt and played (unless {Law 86C} "the > final result on the match without this board could be known to a > contestant"). > > "Fouled" is not just a name, it is a term precisely defined in Law 87. And if > you look at this definition you will easily see that nothing ever prevents a > fouled board from being played, only it can only be scored against other > boards that are fouled in exactly the same way. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 2 17:00:01 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:00:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <002701d09d2d$886cb860$99462920$@online.no> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no>\\\" <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\" <000c01d09c72$206c07e0$614417a0$@online.no>" <42ea7f2a8d85d6fe07e60cbefe657457@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <002701d09d2d$886cb860$99462920$@online.no> Message-ID: ["Fouled" is not just a name, it is a term precisely defined in Law 87.] But that's precisely what I mean. When a board has such-and-such characteristics, it is called "fouled". It's the name you give to those problematic boards. Would you call them "fished" it wouldn't change their characteristics. The name is just there to be used in further laws, to ensure that we know what we're talking about. Classical way to proceed in Law, Mathematics and other fields of intellectual work. So, a fouled board may or may not be playable. An "unplayable" board is indeed unplayable. But some boards are impossible to play although they do not correspond to the definition of "unplayable". And about the face-to-face matches : there is no way to know what the original board was, because there is no recording of cards as they were dealt - once again with the exception of top tier. Also, no Butler, of course. Best regards Alain From bridge at vwalther.de Wed Jun 3 01:22:01 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 01:22:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <42ea7f2a8d85d6fe07e60cbefe657457@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no>\\\" \\\" <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no>" <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <000c01d09c72$206c07e0$614417a0$@online.no> <42ea7f2a8d85d6fe07e60cbefe657457@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <556E3A99.7040209@vwalther.de> I think we need to be more precise in describing the properties that lead to scoring problems. A.) Some used the word "unplayable": This word cant be found in the rules. I think "unplayable" is something like: The TD decides that "normal play" of the board is no longer possible. See Laws 12-16. If a board can not be played, we can not apply Law 77 to score it. If it is playable we will usually achieve a sore according to L77 or an adjusted score. B.) We have "fouled" Boards as defined in Law 87A. Fouled is a property of the board. Necessary conditions: a.) Displaced card or difference in dealer or vulnerability. b.) The players did play the board. If players are playing the board on wrong positions that does not make the board a fouled board, because a.) is not fulfilled. On a fouled board we still can calculate a score according to L77. But we can not use L78 to calculate an IMP or MP score from the L77-score. In case A) L12A2 can be used to create a MP or IMP score according to L78, despite the fact that we do not have the Score according to 77. In case B) we find some instructions how calculate a L78-score from the L77-score in L87B. Unfortunately A.) and B.) are not the reasons that make it impossible to score according L78. During the discussion we found several examples: A board played on the wrong axis in a team event is neither fouled nor unplayable. We have a L77-score, and a L78-Score for the butler scoring, but no L78-score for the team. An unusual arrowswitch in an unscrambled Mitchell does not make a board unplayable. Again there is a L77-score. If there are systemic differences between the lines, a comparison with other players on the same axis may not lead to an acceptable score under the conditions of the contest. (e.g. in a "meet the masters" or "boys vs. girls" tourney.) We can not calculate a L78-score. If the lines are of equal strength one may decide to calculate a L78-score in the usual way. Summary: Unplayable Boards are not L77-scoraeable, fouled boards are. Both are not L78-scoreable. And there are other reasons that make a board not L78-scoreable. Greetings, Volker Am 02.06.2015 um 13:31 schrieb agot: > Le 01.06.2015 15:51, Sven Pran a ?crit : >> agot >>>> [Sven Pran] >>>> Oh, I believe you have indeed overlooked something: >>>> A fouled board is never unplayable but it can only be scored when it >>>> has been played at more than one table (or there are no other results >>>> with which to compare). >>>> >>>> The Director may rule a board unplayable for several reasons but >>>> "fouled board" is not one of them. >>> >>> AG : say that, in a team match, one board is rotated 90? at the second >>> table, >>> and the players realize this after they've taken their cards out, but >>> before >>> auction begins. Not as rare as it should be. If the board can be >>> played, I'd like to >>> know how. If it can't, it is unplayable, even if not "unplayable". >> >> [Sven Pran] >> You will call the Director immediately on noticing that you have taken >> the cards rotated. >> He will right away (if he knows his job) investigate if they have not >> yet started play on that board at the other table and if so order the >> other table to rotate the board the same way as you have at your >> table. >> >> If they have already started play (or even completed it) at the other >> table then that board will be void for the team match scoring but it >> is still playable and can be scored for Butler scoring. >> >> And note: This board is not fouled! >> > > Okay, but it does not correspond to the Belgian system, where, apart > from the top tier, there is no Butler scoring, as matches are > independent from eachother (think soccer round-robin). So, in my > country, there would be no way to use the board. > > And of course "fouled" is but a name, as is "unplayable". Perhaps the > board is not "fouled", perhaps it is not "unplayable" ; but it is > obvious that it can't be played. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 3 14:04:08 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 14:04:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <556E3A99.7040209@vwalther.de> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no>\\\" <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\" <000c01d09c72$206c07e0$614417a0$@online.no>" <42ea7f2a8d85d6fe07e60cbefe657457@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <556E3A99.7040209@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <864ba54c95721e9dacaee89f1c4f2f52@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 03.06.2015 01:22, Volker Walther a ?crit?: > I think we need to be more precise in describing the properties that > lead to scoring problems. > > A.) Some used the word "unplayable": This word cant be found in the > rules. I think "unplayable" is something like: The TD decides that > "normal play" of the board is no longer possible. See Laws 12-16. If a > board can not be played, we can not apply Law 77 to score it. If it is > playable we will usually achieve a sore according to L77 or an adjusted > score. > > B.) We have "fouled" Boards as defined in Law 87A. Fouled is a property > of the board. > Necessary conditions: a.) Displaced card or difference in dealer or > vulnerability. b.) The players did play the board. > If players are playing the board on wrong positions that does not make > the board a fouled board, because a.) is not fulfilled. > On a fouled board we still can calculate a score according to L77. > But we can not use L78 to calculate an IMP or MP score from the > L77-score. > > In case A) L12A2 can be used to create a MP or IMP score according to > L78, despite the fact that we do not have the Score according to 77. > > In case B) we find some instructions how calculate a L78-score from the > L77-score in L87B. > > > Unfortunately A.) and B.) are not the reasons that make it impossible > to > score according L78. > > During the discussion we found several examples: > > A board played on the wrong axis in a team event is neither fouled nor > unplayable. We have a L77-score, and a L78-Score for the butler > scoring, > but no L78-score for the team. > > An unusual arrowswitch in an unscrambled Mitchell does not make a > board > unplayable. Again there is a L77-score. If there are systemic > differences between the lines, a comparison with other players on the > same axis may not lead to an acceptable score under the conditions of > the contest. (e.g. in a "meet the masters" or "boys vs. girls" > tourney.) We can not calculate a L78-score. If the lines are of equal > strength one may decide to calculate a L78-score in the usual way. > > Summary: Unplayable Boards are not L77-scoraeable, fouled boards are. > Both are not L78-scoreable. And there are other reasons that make a > board not L78-scoreable. Excellent synthesis. Helps very much in explaining the whys of our decision. What exactly is the pigeonhole for a board that can't be played because one of the pairs erroneously played it (or began the play) in a former round ? From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 3 14:39:21 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 14:39:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <864ba54c95721e9dacaee89f1c4f2f52@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no>\\\" <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\" <000c01d09c72$206c07e0$614417a0$@online.no>" <42ea7f2a8d85d6fe07e60cbefe657457@imapproxy.vub.ac! .be>" <556E3A99.7040209 @vwalther.de> <864ba54c95721e9dacaee89f1c4f2f52@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601d09dfa$51640a80$f42c1f80$@online.no> agot > What exactly is the pigeonhole for a board that can't be played because one of > the pairs erroneously played it (or began the play) in a former round ? [Sven Pran] Are you thinking of Laws 15B and (possibly) 15C? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 3 15:18:31 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:18:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <000601d09dfa$51640a80$f42c1f80$@online.no> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no>\\\" <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\" <000c01d09c72$206c07e0$614417a0$@online.no>" <42ea7f2a8d85d6fe07e60cbefe657457@imapproxy.vub.ac! "\".be>\\\" <556E3A99.7040209 @vwalther.de>" <864ba54c95721e9dacaee89f1c4f2f52@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <000601d09dfa$51640a80$f42c1f80$@online.no> Message-ID: Le 03.06.2015 14:39, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > agot >> What exactly is the pigeonhole for a board that can't be played >> because one of >> the pairs erroneously played it (or began the play) in a former round >> ? > > [Sven Pran] > Are you thinking of Laws 15B and (possibly) 15C? I am, and am wondering how you would call the case. Surely not "fouled". From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 3 15:35:36 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:35:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no>\\\" <27196644bb6d60808f1a7a8dd8d2a58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\" <000c01d09c72$206c07e0$614417a0$@online.no>" <42ea7f2a8d85d6fe07e60cbefe657457@imapproxy.vub.a! c! "\".be>\\\" <556E3A9 9.7040209 @vwalther.de>" <864ba54c95721e9dacaee89f1c4f2f52@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <000601d09dfa$51640a80$f42c1f80$@online.no> Message-ID: <000801d09e02$2e2a9450$8a7fbcf0$@online.no> agot > Le 03.06.2015 14:39, Sven Pran a ?crit : > > agot > >> What exactly is the pigeonhole for a board that can't be played > >> because one of the pairs erroneously played it (or began the play) in > >> a former round ? > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Are you thinking of Laws 15B and (possibly) 15C? > > I am, and am wondering how you would call the case. Surely not "fouled". [Sven Pran] No, just "Play of the wrong board" Law 15 is pretty clear and easy to use. From olivier.laspada at bluewin.ch Wed Jun 3 22:34:33 2015 From: olivier.laspada at bluewin.ch (Olivier La Spada) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 22:34:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> Message-ID: Hello Olivier, Welcome to blml! Law 13A applies to so-called "14-12" situations. 52 real cards are in play, but are divided incorrectly. Law 13F applies to so-called "53 card pack" situations. One or more unreal / surplus cards are in play. William ("Kojak") Schoder, a member of the 2007 Laws Drafting Commitee, recommends this rule of thumb: "A specific Law over-rides a more general Law." Best wishes, Richard Hills Hi Richard, First of all, thanks for your reply (works for you too, Steeve). If I look at L13A it specifies [...]that one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards[...] So I can understand that it is also applying for a 53 cards pack. Why should it be only for 52 incorrectly divided? I do not get it. If the assumption is that it applies in any situations, so a possible way to handle with such a case is to see if L13A&B can be applied and, if not, then look at L13F (in the actual case). Which means that in the actual case, I should have cancelled the board a give an Adjusted Score (which I did not). In fact I am very happy with your statement because it means that I did right at the table but I am still not 100% convinced that it was the right way. Could you or anyone else clarifiy why the L13A only apply on a so-called ?14-12? situation. Thanks and ?mes cordiales salutations? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ce courrier ?lectronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. --- Ce courrier ?lectronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150603/bb0e16ef/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jun 4 02:16:43 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:16:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> Message-ID: <556F98EB.60203@nhcc.net> On 2015-06-03 4:34 PM, Olivier La Spada wrote: > a possible way to handle with such a case is to see if L13A&B can be > applied and, if not, then look at L13F Richard suggested the opposite: use the more specific 13F if it applies and only revert to 13AB if 13F can't be used. At least that would get you off the hook about making a choice that might be interpreted as favoritism. P.S. Can everyone please use plain text rather than html when sending to the list? From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 14:38:47 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 22:38:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <556F98EB.60203@nhcc.net> References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> <556F98EB.60203@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Upon checking the 1997 Lawbook I discovered that Law 13F had been created "de novo" for the 2007 Lawbook. Hence, in my opinion, the issue is the omission of a cross-reference from Law 13A to Law 13F. But the Introduction to Laws (which is part of the Lawbook) state that the omission of a cross-reference "do not limit the application of any law". Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, June 4, 2015, Steve Willner > wrote: > On 2015-06-03 4:34 PM, Olivier La Spada wrote: > > a possible way to handle with such a case is to see if L13A&B can be > > applied and, if not, then look at L13F > > Richard suggested the opposite: use the more specific 13F if it applies > and only revert to 13AB if 13F can't be used. At least that would get > you off the hook about making a choice that might be interpreted as > favoritism. > > P.S. Can everyone please use plain text rather than html when sending to > the list? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.Laworg/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150605/2cb3fd68/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 5 15:31:34 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 15:31:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> <556F98EB.60203@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <551f5f3effdc820aabc4b420389bd22d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 05.06.2015 14:38, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Upon checking the 1997 Lawbook I discovered that Law 13F had been > created "de novo" for the 2007 Lawbook. Hence, in my opinion, the > issue is the omission of a cross-reference from Law 13A to Law 13F. > > But the Introduction to Laws (which is part of the Lawbook) state that > the omission of a cross-reference "do not limit the application of any > law". Agree. By the way, something should be said about cases when a board comprises 52 cards, but not one of each. I've seen at least three occurrences of this situation, which might happen e.g. when a player with only 12 cards after the deal erroneously assumes that the one lying on the floor is his 13th and completes his hand to be transferred. In one such case the duplicate card was a King ("partner passed out 1NT redoubled, there seem to be many points in this deck" - "well, in fact there are") and in another the nonexistent card was a King ("why didn't you play the Club King on the lead ?" - "Ain't got no Club King"). Hence I suspect that such situations might be less unfrequent than expected, with the duplicate card a pip card. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 5 16:15:01 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 16:15:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <551f5f3effdc820aabc4b420389bd22d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> <556F98EB.60203@nhcc.net> <551f5f3effdc820aabc4b420389bd22d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <000901d09f9a$04261910$0c724b30$@online.no> agot > By the way, something should be said about cases when a board comprises > 52 cards, but not one of each. I've seen at least three occurrences of this > situation, which might happen e.g. when a player with only 12 cards after the > deal erroneously assumes that the one lying on the floor is his 13th and > completes his hand to be transferred. > > In one such case the duplicate card was a King ("partner passed out 1NT > redoubled, there seem to be many points in this deck" - "well, in fact there > are") and in another the nonexistent card was a King ("why didn't you play the > Club King on the lead ?" - "Ain't got no Club King"). Hence I suspect that such > situations might be less unfrequent than expected, with the duplicate card a > pip card. [Sven Pran] No problem at all, Law 13F applies (unconditionally). Thereafter Law 14 applies to the now incomplete hand. (The rank of the "duplicate" card is entirely immaterial.) From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 18:14:51 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 02:14:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! Message-ID: "Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum!" was one of very many quotable lines from the classic comedy Ghostbusters. (The movie is now being remade, but with a twist of an all-female cast.) A primary infraction of a Deceptive Hesitation With A Singleton is easy for a Director to rule. But what about a secondary ectoplasmic (((( hesitation with a singleton )))) - is that an infraction or a non-infraction? To show what I am driving at, here is an indicative hypothetical example: You are a defender, and at trick three you are due to follow suit with a singleton. Instead of playing the card in tempo, you: (a) place the singleton face down in front of you, (b) announce "I am not thinking about this trick", (c) spend five minutes thinking about trick six, and (d) only then flip your singleton face up so that trick three can be completed. You have not deceived declarer about your singleton, but you have ectoplasmically deceived declarer as to whether or not your real problem is at trick four or alternatively at trick six. Infraction or non-infraction? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150606/b2e2826f/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 6 18:24:10 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 18:24:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601d0a075$396b5e60$ac421b20$@online.no> Richard Hills "Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum!" was one of very many quotable lines from the classic comedy Ghostbusters. (The movie is now being remade, but with a twist of an all-female cast.) A primary infraction of a Deceptive Hesitation With A Singleton is easy for a Director to rule. But what about a secondary ectoplasmic (((( hesitation with a singleton )))) - is that an infraction or a non-infraction? To show what I am driving at, here is an indicative hypothetical example: You are a defender, and at trick three you are due to follow suit with a singleton. Instead of playing the card in tempo, you: (a) place the singleton face down in front of you, (b) announce "I am not thinking about this trick", (c) spend five minutes thinking about trick six, and (d) only then flip your singleton face up so that trick three can be completed. You have not deceived declarer about your singleton, but you have ectoplasmically deceived declarer as to whether or not your real problem is at trick four or alternatively at trick six. Infraction or non-infraction? Sure it is an infraction. Even if you cannot find any other relevant law you certainly have Law 74B4 and deserve a heavy PP. From vip at centrum.is Sat Jun 6 23:15:54 2015 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 21:15:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! In-Reply-To: <000601d0a075$396b5e60$ac421b20$@online.no> References: <000601d0a075$396b5e60$ac421b20$@online.no> Message-ID: <487326524.18686421.1433625354747.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> At first glance, I strongly disagree with you Sven Pran. I have done this myself ( well I did not put my card faced down or 5 minutes thinking ) ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Sven Pran" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Laugardagur, 6. J?n?, 2015 16:24:10 Efni: Re: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! Richard Hills "Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum!" was one of very many quotable lines from the classic comedy Ghostbusters. (The movie is now being remade, but with a twist of an all-female cast.) A primary infraction of a Deceptive Hesitation With A Singleton is easy for a Director to rule. But what about a secondary ectoplasmic (((( hesitation with a singleton )))) - is that an infraction or a non-infraction? To show what I am driving at, here is an indicative hypothetical example: You are a defender, and at trick three you are due to follow suit with a singleton. Instead of playing the card in tempo, you: (a) place the singleton face down in front of you, (b) announce "I am not thinking about this trick", (c) spend five minutes thinking about trick six, and (d) only then flip your singleton face up so that trick three can be completed. You have not deceived declarer about your singleton, but you have ectoplasmically deceived declarer as to whether or not your real problem is at trick four or alternatively at trick six. Infraction or non-infraction? Sure it is an infraction. Even if you cannot find any other relevant law you certainly have Law 74B4 and deserve a heavy PP. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 00:45:40 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 08:45:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! In-Reply-To: <487326524.18686421.1433625354747.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <000601d0a075$396b5e60$ac421b20$@online.no> <487326524.18686421.1433625354747.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: In an article published in a Sydney bridge newsletter, senior Aussie Director Matthew McManus recommended the ectoplasmic strategy. It seems to me that Matthew has forgotten Law 73A1: "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be affected only by means of calls and plays." Hence a defender intentionally hesitating with a singleton at trick three in order to plan the play at trick six cannot be rendered legal by announcing "I am not thinking about this trick." Instead it merely transfers the illegality, giving Law 73A1 UI to the other defender (for example, making it easier for the other defender to give the first defender a ruff in the now-void suit). For what it is worth, if I was the hypothetical defender, I would play with equal celerity and panache at both trick three and trick six. This means my trick six play might be sub-optimal. But many years ago Eric Landau observed that playing with celerity and panache has the countervailing advantage that the other side is not aware that you had a problem. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sunday, June 7, 2015, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > At first glance, I strongly disagree with you Sven Pran. I have done > this myself ( well I did not put my card faced down or 5 minutes thinking ) > > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > Fr?: "Sven Pran" > > Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Laugardagur, 6. J?n?, 2015 16:24:10 > Efni: Re: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! > > Richard Hills > "Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum!" was one of very many quotable lines > from the classic comedy Ghostbusters. (The movie is now being remade, but > with a twist of an all-female cast.) > > A primary infraction of a Deceptive Hesitation With A Singleton is easy > for a Director to rule. But what about a secondary ectoplasmic (((( > hesitation with a singleton )))) - is that an infraction or a > non-infraction? To show what I am driving at, here is an indicative > hypothetical example: > > You are a defender, and at trick three you are due to follow suit with a > singleton. Instead of playing the card in tempo, you: > > (a) place the singleton face down in front of you, > (b) announce "I am not thinking about this trick", > (c) spend five minutes thinking about trick six, and > (d) only then flip your singleton face up so that trick three can be > completed. > > You have not deceived declarer about your singleton, but you have > ectoplasmically deceived declarer as to whether or not your real problem is > at trick four or alternatively at trick six. > > Infraction or non-infraction? > > Sure it is an infraction. Even if you cannot find any other relevant law > you certainly have Law 74B4 and deserve a heavy PP. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150606/8d0eb41c/attachment.html From olivier.laspada at bluewin.ch Sun Jun 7 00:50:41 2015 From: olivier.laspada at bluewin.ch (Olivier La Spada) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 00:50:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The second life of Rachel Message-ID: Several times I get calls from Swiss players asking me to solve directing problems. Most of the time it is very easy to answer but sometimes I am faced with new situations. Here is one I just received. Playing 2C, the declarer starts by ruffing 3 Spades and 3 Diamonds. On the 7th trick, he played a fourth Spade intending to ruff but instead of a trump he played the DQ. He gets a bit confused and let the opponent lead for the 8th trick. At the 13th trick, every player had 1 card left in their hand except the declarer who had 2 (CA and DA). By checking the tricks, they found that DQ has been played on trick 9 (and nobody noticed this!). I already gave my answer but I promised him that I will ask other specialists. Olivier La Spada --- Ce courrier ?lectronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150606/baafd895/attachment-0001.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Jun 7 07:13:53 2015 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 06:13:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The second life of Rachel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: L67B seems pretty straightforward. A card must be added to whichever trick has only three cards (trick7?) and declarer has an established revoke. Either card may be added to the trick as apparently a spade was led to the defective trick and declarer has not got one of those. If the trump is added to the trick, ownership of the trick is not changed. > On 6 Jun 2015, at 23:50, Olivier La Spada wrote: > > Several times I get calls from Swiss players asking me to solve directing problems. > Most of the time it is very easy to answer but sometimes I am faced with new situations. > Here is one I just received. > > Playing 2C, the declarer starts by ruffing 3 Spades and 3 Diamonds. > On the 7th trick, he played a fourth Spade intending to ruff but instead of a trump he played the DQ. > He gets a bit confused and let the opponent lead for the 8th trick. > At the 13th trick, every player had 1 card left in their hand except the declarer who had 2 (CA and DA). > By checking the tricks, they found that DQ has been played on trick 9 (and nobody noticed this!). > > I already gave my answer but I promised him that I will ask other specialists. > > Olivier La Spada > > > > Ce courrier ?lectronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150607/dfb1ea66/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jun 7 07:35:51 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 07:35:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! In-Reply-To: References: <000601d0a075$396b5e60$ac421b20$@online.no> <487326524.18686421.1433625354747.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <5573D837.6020304@skynet.be> Very correct Richard, except for the solution to the problem: After playing to the trick, just announce, "let me think" while keeping the trick open. It is now impolite to start the next trick and I would never rule any kind of deception to a player who keeps thinking even if the next trick is started and he has a singleton there. After all, he can still ask for the previous trick to be re-examined. Herman. Richard Hills schreef: > In an article published in a Sydney bridge newsletter, senior Aussie > Director Matthew McManus recommended the ectoplasmic strategy. It seems > to me that Matthew has forgotten Law 73A1: > > "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be > affected only by means of calls and plays." > > Hence a defender intentionally hesitating with a singleton at trick > three in order to plan the play at trick six cannot be rendered legal by > announcing "I am not thinking about this trick." Instead it merely > transfers the illegality, giving Law 73A1 UI to the other defender (for > example, making it easier for the other defender to give the first > defender a ruff in the now-void suit). > > For what it is worth, if I was the hypothetical defender, I would play > with equal celerity and panache at both trick three and trick six. This > means my trick six play might be sub-optimal. But many years ago Eric > Landau observed that playing with celerity and panache has the > countervailing advantage that the other side is not aware that you had a > problem. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Sunday, June 7, 2015, Vigf?s P?lsson > wrote: > > At first glance, I strongly disagree with you Sven Pran. I have > done this myself ( well I did not put my card faced down or 5 > minutes thinking ) > > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > Fr?: "Sven Pran" > > Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Laugardagur, 6. J?n?, 2015 16:24:10 > Efni: Re: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! > > Richard Hills > "Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum!" was one of very many quotable > lines from the classic comedy Ghostbusters. (The movie is now being > remade, but with a twist of an all-female cast.) > > A primary infraction of a Deceptive Hesitation With A Singleton is > easy for a Director to rule. But what about a secondary ectoplasmic > (((( hesitation with a singleton )))) - is that an infraction or a > non-infraction? To show what I am driving at, here is an indicative > hypothetical example: > > You are a defender, and at trick three you are due to follow suit > with a singleton. Instead of playing the card in tempo, you: > > (a) place the singleton face down in front of you, > (b) announce "I am not thinking about this trick", > (c) spend five minutes thinking about trick six, and > (d) only then flip your singleton face up so that trick three can be > completed. > > You have not deceived declarer about your singleton, but you have > ectoplasmically deceived declarer as to whether or not your real > problem is at trick four or alternatively at trick six. > > Infraction or non-infraction? > > Sure it is an infraction. Even if you cannot find any other relevant > law you certainly have Law 74B4 and deserve a heavy PP. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 7 08:16:58 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 08:16:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! In-Reply-To: <487326524.18686421.1433625354747.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <000601d0a075$396b5e60$ac421b20$@online.no> <487326524.18686421.1433625354747.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <001801d0a0e9$8ff0ee20$afd2ca60$@online.no> I agree with Herman: If you really need some time to consider your play to a later trick at this time then play your singleton but leave it face up, not face down on the table. Remember that until you have faced your card it has not been played so technically there is no difference between hesitating with a singleton before playing it and playing a singleton leaving it face down while you hesitate. And I assume that 5 minutes is an exaggeration, the actual duration is immaterial so long as there is a noticeable hesitation. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Vigf?s P?lsson > Sendt: 6. juni 2015 23:16 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! > > At first glance, I strongly disagree with you Sven Pran. I have done this myself ( > well I did not put my card faced down or 5 minutes thinking ) > > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > Fr?: "Sven Pran" > Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Laugardagur, 6. J?n?, 2015 16:24:10 > Efni: Re: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! > > Richard Hills > "Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum!" was one of very many quotable lines > from the classic comedy Ghostbusters. (The movie is now being remade, but > with a twist of an all-female cast.) > > A primary infraction of a Deceptive Hesitation With A Singleton is easy for a > Director to rule. But what about a secondary ectoplasmic (((( hesitation with a > singleton )))) - is that an infraction or a non-infraction? To show what I am > driving at, here is an indicative hypothetical example: > > You are a defender, and at trick three you are due to follow suit with a > singleton. Instead of playing the card in tempo, you: > > (a) place the singleton face down in front of you, > (b) announce "I am not thinking about this trick", > (c) spend five minutes thinking about trick six, and > (d) only then flip your singleton face up so that trick three can be completed. > > You have not deceived declarer about your singleton, but you have > ectoplasmically deceived declarer as to whether or not your real problem is at > trick four or alternatively at trick six. > > Infraction or non-infraction? > > Sure it is an infraction. Even if you cannot find any other relevant law you > certainly have Law 74B4 and deserve a heavy PP. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Jun 7 08:29:55 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 16:29:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! In-Reply-To: <5573D837.6020304@skynet.be> References: <000601d0a075$396b5e60$ac421b20$@online.no> <487326524.18686421.1433625354747.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <5573D837.6020304@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: Very correct Richard, except for the solution to the problem: After playing to the trick, just announce, "let me think" while keeping the trick open. It is now impolite to start the next trick and I would never rule any kind of deception to a player who keeps thinking even if the next trick is started and he has a singleton there. After all, he can still ask for the previous trick to be re-examined. Richard Hills: The intent of Law 66A (Inspection of Tricks - Current Trick) is "let me observe", not "let me think". As for "now impolite to start the next trick" I instead agree with Sven Pran that an unnecessary request to freeze play on a routine trick three is the impolite action, infracting Law 74B4 (and Law 74A2). Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sunday, June 7, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > Very correct Richard, except for the solution to the problem: After > playing to the trick, just announce, "let me think" while keeping the > trick open. It is now impolite to start the next trick and I would never > rule any kind of deception to a player who keeps thinking even if the > next trick is started and he has a singleton there. After all, he can > still ask for the previous trick to be re-examined. > Herman. > > Richard Hills schreef: > > In an article published in a Sydney bridge newsletter, senior Aussie > > Director Matthew McManus recommended the ectoplasmic strategy. It seems > > to me that Matthew has forgotten Law 73A1: > > > > "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be > > affected only by means of calls and plays." > > > > Hence a defender intentionally hesitating with a singleton at trick > > three in order to plan the play at trick six cannot be rendered legal by > > announcing "I am not thinking about this trick." Instead it merely > > transfers the illegality, giving Law 73A1 UI to the other defender (for > > example, making it easier for the other defender to give the first > > defender a ruff in the now-void suit). > > > > For what it is worth, if I was the hypothetical defender, I would play > > with equal celerity and panache at both trick three and trick six. This > > means my trick six play might be sub-optimal. But many years ago Eric > > Landau observed that playing with celerity and panache has the > > countervailing advantage that the other side is not aware that you had a > > problem. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > On Sunday, June 7, 2015, Vigf?s P?lsson > > >> wrote: > > > > At first glance, I strongly disagree with you Sven Pran. I have > > done this myself ( well I did not put my card faced down or 5 > > minutes thinking ) > > > > > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > > Fr?: "Sven Pran" > > > Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > > > Sent: Laugardagur, 6. J?n?, 2015 16:24:10 > > Efni: Re: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! > > > > Richard Hills > > "Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum!" was one of very many quotable > > lines from the classic comedy Ghostbusters. (The movie is now being > > remade, but with a twist of an all-female cast.) > > > > A primary infraction of a Deceptive Hesitation With A Singleton is > > easy for a Director to rule. But what about a secondary ectoplasmic > > (((( hesitation with a singleton )))) - is that an infraction or a > > non-infraction? To show what I am driving at, here is an indicative > > hypothetical example: > > > > You are a defender, and at trick three you are due to follow suit > > with a singleton. Instead of playing the card in tempo, you: > > > > (a) place the singleton face down in front of you, > > (b) announce "I am not thinking about this trick", > > (c) spend five minutes thinking about trick six, and > > (d) only then flip your singleton face up so that trick three can be > > completed. > > > > You have not deceived declarer about your singleton, but you have > > ectoplasmically deceived declarer as to whether or not your real > > problem is at trick four or alternatively at trick six. > > > > Infraction or non-infraction? > > > > Sure it is an infraction. Even if you cannot find any other relevant > > law you certainly have Law 74B4 and deserve a heavy PP. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150607/a7d1a0f2/attachment-0001.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Sun Jun 7 12:14:54 2015 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 20:14:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> Message-ID: From: Olivier La Spada Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 6:34 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F Hello Olivier, Welcome to blml! Law 13A applies to so-called "14-12" situations. 52 real cards are in play, but are divided incorrectly. Law 13F applies to so-called "53 card pack" situations. One or more unreal / surplus cards are in play. William ("Kojak") Schoder, a member of the 2007 Laws Drafting Commitee, recommends this rule of thumb: "A specific Law over-rides a more general Law." Best wishes, Richard Hills Hi Richard, First of all, thanks for your reply (works for you too, Steeve). If I look at L13A it specifies [...]that one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards[...] So I can understand that it is also applying for a 53 cards pack. Why should it be only for 52 incorrectly divided? I do not get it. If the assumption is that it applies in any situations, so a possible way to handle with such a case is to see if L13A&B can be applied and, if not, then look at L13F (in the actual case). Which means that in the actual case, I should have cancelled the board a give an Adjusted Score (which I did not). In fact I am very happy with your statement because it means that I did right at the table but I am still not 100% convinced that it was the right way. Could you or anyone else clarifiy why the L13A only apply on a so-called ?14-12? situation. Thanks and ?mes cordiales salutations? ... Surely even after applying 13F and removing the extra ace, 13A still needs to be applied to see if the director can deem that normal play is possible, without a change of call. Olivier did find out that East would not have bid 2H without the 14th card, so that?s a great start in thinking we no longer have normal play. Then to 13B. Just doesn?t sound like bridge that the offenders can keep a score for a contract they would not have bid without their infraction/s, because the non-offenders didn?t find the perfect double dummy defence. I read nothing that suggests 13A only applies to 14-12 situations. In fact the opposite. ?One or more hands? suggests only one hand may be faulty eg <14,13,13,13. 13A is not the clearest law in the book. Jan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ce courrier ?lectronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ce courrier ?lectronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/20150607/29f10a37/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jun 7 22:06:16 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 16:06:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! In-Reply-To: <5573D837.6020304@skynet.be> References: <000601d0a075$396b5e60$ac421b20$@online.no> <487326524.18686421.1433625354747.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <5573D837.6020304@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 01:35:51 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Very correct Richard, except for the solution to the problem: After > playing to the trick, just announce, "let me think" while keeping the > trick open. It is now impolite to start the next trick Hopefully in the next law book it will be an infraction to lead to the next trick before all four cards have been turned over. It just creates confusion (at best). and I would never > rule any kind of deception to a player who keeps thinking even if the > next trick is started and he has a singleton there. After all, he can > still ask for the previous trick to be re-examined. Which gets confusing if all of the other players are already on the next trick. Or worse, if the see your face up card as belonging to the next trick and are done with that one too. From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Sun Jun 7 22:53:31 2015 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:53:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! In-Reply-To: References: <000601d0a075$396b5e60$ac421b20$@online.no><487326524.18686421.1433625354747.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is><5573D837.6020304@skynet.be> Message-ID: From: Richard Hills Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2015 4:29 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! Herman De Wael: Very correct Richard, except for the solution to the problem: After playing to the trick, just announce, "let me think" while keeping the trick open. It is now impolite to start the next trick and I would never rule any kind of deception to a player who keeps thinking even if the next trick is started and he has a singleton there. After all, he can still ask for the previous trick to be re-examined. Richard Hills: The intent of Law 66A (Inspection of Tricks - Current Trick) is "let me observe", not "let me think". As for "now impolite to start the next trick" I instead agree with Sven Pran that an unnecessary request to freeze play on a routine trick three is the impolite action, infracting Law 74B4 (and Law 74A2). Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- 65A sets out correct procedure. I cannot think of a law that says that if a player wants time to think he leaves his card face up. I agree with Richard that 66A suggests that when a player has not sighted the cards he may ask for them to be (re)faced. Otherwise 66A is in direct conflict with 65A. But, I have had this strongly refuted by at least one very good Australian director. It is 66A that needs some clarification in the new Laws. It slows down the game so much when one player is controlling the tempo by not turning over his card and everyone else is reluctant to obey 65A. Top posting is so much easier to find. Can anyone tell me why posting at the bottom is the rule or even if it still is the rule? Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150607/c16bf4b0/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 23:23:23 2015 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 17:23:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum! In-Reply-To: References: <000601d0a075$396b5e60$ac421b20$@online.no><487326524.18686421.1433625354747.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is><5573D837.6020304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20150607212412.00636E79050@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:53:31 +1000, you wrote: > >Top posting is so much easier to find. Can anyone tell me why posting at the bottom is the rule or even if it still is the rule? For context. The idea is that you snip parts of the message not relevant to your reply, and then add your text at the appropriate places. The problem with a top-posted message, especially if the preceding message was a long one, is that you have to scroll through yards of text just to find the part to which the reply refers. Brian. From bridge at vwalther.de Mon Jun 8 10:48:24 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:48:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The second life of Rachel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <557556D8.8090100@vwalther.de> Am 07.06.2015 um 00:50 schrieb Olivier La Spada: > Several times I get calls from Swiss players asking me to solve > directing problems. > Most of the time it is very easy to answer but sometimes I am faced with > new situations. > Here is one I just received. > > Playing 2C, the declarer starts by ruffing 3 Spades and 3 Diamonds. > On the 7th trick, he played a fourth Spade intending to ruff but instead > of a trump he played the DQ. > He gets a bit confused and let the opponent lead for the 8th trick. > At the 13th trick, every player had 1 card left in their hand except the > declarer who had 2 (CA and DA). > By checking the tricks, they found that DQ has been played on trick 9 > (and nobody noticed this!). > > I already gave my answer but I promised him that I will ask other > specialists. > > Olivier La Spada > > As the DQ was already played at trick 7, it can not be played at trick 9. One of the remaining cards (probably the DA, but depending on the lead) has to be added to trick 9, without changing the ownership of this trick. And since there will be a Trick for the CA we will have a one trick penalty. See 67B1 and 64A2 The case looks easy to me, because the OS will make one of the last 5 Tricks. So it does not matter if DA is added to trick 7 or 9. Much more difficult, if the OS had won Trick 8, makes a loosing D finesse at trick nine and wins no trick afterwards. In this case it would be important to decide whether the DQ was really played at trick 7 and the DA should be added to trick 7 or 9. Greetings, Volker From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jun 9 04:20:57 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:20:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> Message-ID: <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> On 2015-06-07 6:14 AM, Jan Peach wrote: > Surely even after applying 13F and removing the extra ace, 13A still > needs to be applied to see if the director can deem that normal play is > possible, without a change of call. "Surely" is a bit of an overbid. What in 13A requires _normal_ play to be possible? (Please use plain text rather than HTML when posting to the list. HTML makes it hard for some of us to read your messages.) From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jun 9 04:29:35 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:29:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The second life of Rachel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55764F8F.9070702@nhcc.net> On 2015-06-06 6:50 PM, Olivier La Spada wrote: > Playing 2C, the declarer starts by ruffing 3 Spades and 3 Diamonds. > On the 7th trick, he played a fourth Spade intending to ruff but instead > of a trump he played the DQ. > He gets a bit confused and let the opponent lead for the 8th trick. Should the opponent who won the trick have led to trick 8? No matter even if not, of course; a lead out of turn can be accepted. > At the 13th trick, every player had 1 card left in their hand except the > declarer who had 2 (CA and DA). > By checking the tricks, they found that DQ has been played on trick 9 > (and nobody noticed this!). I agree with Volker that L67B1 is clear and also that trick 9 is likely to be a diamond trick, but before ruling you'd have to check that for sure. From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Tue Jun 9 09:01:54 2015 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:01:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> Message-ID: From: Steve Willner Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:20 PM On 2015-06-07 6:14 AM, Jan Peach wrote: > Surely even after applying 13F and removing the extra ace, 13A still > needs to be applied to see if the director can deem that normal play is > possible, without a change of call. "Surely" is a bit of an overbid. What in 13A requires _normal_ play to be possible? ............. Fair enough. Deeming normal play. The play of the board is never going to reach normal once someone has started with an extra card. If the extra card was the S2, in an otherwise same situation, then deeming normal play looks easier. I still don?t see that 13F means that a player may bid and start the play with an extra ace and that the non-offenders have no protection. Jan .......... From: Steve Willner (Please use plain text rather than HTML when posting to the list. HTML makes it hard for some of us to read your messages.) Sure. I shall try to notice that an email has arrived in HTML and not just hit Reply. Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150609/ca3e18f9/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 9 11:32:20 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:32:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> Message-ID: <000f01d0a297$30037a00$900a6e00$@online.no> Jan Peach [...] Surely even after applying 13F and removing the extra ace, 13A still needs to be applied to see if the director can deem that normal play is possible, without a change of call. Olivier did find out that East would not have bid 2H without the 14th card, so that?s a great start in thinking we no longer have normal play. Then to 13B. Just doesn?t sound like bridge that the offenders can keep a score for a contract they would not have bid without their infraction/s, because the non-offenders didn?t find the perfect double dummy defence. I read nothing that suggests 13A only applies to 14-12 situations. In fact the opposite. ?One or more hands? suggests only one hand may be faulty eg <14,13,13,13. 13A is not the clearest law in the book. Jan [Sven] That is quite true, but it should normally not cause any difficulty for a competent Director. First of all: If the Director finds that the pack of cards used contains 53 (or more) cards then he shall go directly to Law 13F (which is a specific law addressing this particular situation). He will locate the "surplus" card and simply remove it from the deal. Most often that card will be removed from a hand originally holding 14 (or more) cards, and the deal will be "correct" after the removal. Any influence this card may have had on auction and play is simply ignored unless the card had already been played at the time it is removed from the pack. Auction and play continues without any rectification as if the card had never been present in that hand and there is no question of any adjustment. However, if the card is found among cards already played it must be replaced by one of the cards still held but not yet played by the offender, and the Director must judge if an adjusted score should be awarded. So what about Law 13A? This law becomes applicable if the surplus card is found in a hand originally containing 13 cards and thus will contain only 12 cards after the removal of the surplus card. When Law 13A says: " one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 14) " it is actually referring to a mathematical impossibility. A better text would be: " one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 13F or Law 14) " ________________________________________ Ce courrier ?lectronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. ________________________________________ Ce courrier ?lectronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. ________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Tue Jun 9 13:47:00 2015 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 07:47:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> Message-ID: <444B48BD-4D72-477D-B076-E13E325E19A7@wesleyan.edu> On 2015 Jun 1, at 18:46, Olivier La Spada wrote: > ... Should I use L13A and B and give an adjusted score (due to the fact that the call would not have been made), If a player bids on the mistaken belief that he has an extra ace (either because he?s holding an ace from a different pack or because he has a vivid imagination), then the result--good, bad, or indifferent--stands. > or should I use L13F with the argument that this law fits exactly with such situations. It is not entirely clear for me which approach has the priority. ... The next edition of the Laws should be corrected. 13A-E (Incorrect Number of Cards) apply only when more than one player is involved; otherwise see 13F (Surplus Card) or 14 (Missing Card). On 2015 Jun 5, at 09:31, agot wrote: > ... By the way, something should be said about cases when a board comprises 52 cards, but not one of each. ... Fortunately this is rarer in the dealing machine era, but I?d follow the principles of Law 13, treating the hands with duplicate cards as ?incorrect hands.? Tim -- Timothy N. Hill mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA Duplicate Bridge Director American Contract Bridge League: Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, Newton Bridge Club: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3636 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150609/ff55cf45/attachment.bin From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 14:58:18 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 22:58:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Jan Peach: I still don?t see that 13F means that a player may bid and start the play with an extra ace and that the non-offenders have no protection. Richard Hills: Rub of the green. Law 40A3 permits a player to make a non-systemic call, and Law 10C4 permits offenders to "appear to profit through their own infraction". An analogous situation would be the Rueful Rabbit unintentionally causing his ace to be a penalty card. Later RR is required by Law to discard his ace. But this proves to be an unexpected brilliant unblock; the only defence to defeat the contract. :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, Jan Peach wrote: > > From: Steve Willner > Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:20 PM > > On 2015-06-07 6:14 AM, Jan Peach wrote: > > Surely even after applying 13F and removing the extra ace, 13A still > > needs to be applied to see if the director can deem that normal play is > > possible, without a change of call. > > "Surely" is a bit of an overbid. What in 13A requires _normal_ play to > be possible? > ............. > > Fair enough. Deeming normal play. The play of the board is never going to > reach normal once someone has started with an extra card. > If the extra card was the S2, in an otherwise same situation, then deeming > normal play looks easier. > > I still don?t see that 13F means that a player may bid and start the play > with an extra ace and that the non-offenders have no protection. > Jan > .......... > > From: Steve Willner > (Please use plain text rather than HTML when posting to the list. HTML > makes it hard for some of us to read your messages.) > > Sure. I shall try to notice that an email has arrived in HTML and not just > hit Reply. > Jan > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150609/a44ead9f/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 9 15:07:40 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:07:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: " <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC>" <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Le 09.06.2015 09:01, Jan Peach a ?crit?: > From: Steve Willner > Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:20 PM > > On 2015-06-07 6:14 AM, Jan Peach wrote: >> Surely even after applying 13F and removing the extra ace, 13A still > >> needs to be applied to see if the director can deem that normal play > is >> possible, without a change of call. > > "Surely" is a bit of an overbid. What in 13A requires _normal_ play to > > be possible? > ............. > > Fair enough. Deeming normal play. The play of the board is never going > to reach normal once someone has started with an extra card. AG : and don't forget that other elements than just plays might have gone abnormally, e.g. a player's tempo might have influenced the deal when he hesitated to play a honor that in fact he didn't hold. From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Tue Jun 9 15:17:57 2015 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 09:17:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <96A5E28F-4FBB-4EDE-9537-74F6075C2D8E@verizon.net> On Jun 9, 2015, at 3:01 AM, Jan Peach wrote: > From: Steve Willner > Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:20 PM > > On 2015-06-07 6:14 AM, Jan Peach wrote: > > Surely even after applying 13F and removing the extra ace, 13A still > > needs to be applied to see if the director can deem that normal play is > > possible, without a change of call. > > "Surely" is a bit of an overbid. What in 13A requires _normal_ play to > be possible? > ............. > > Fair enough. Deeming normal play. The play of the board is never going to reach normal once someone has started with an extra card. > If the extra card was the S2, in an otherwise same situation, then deeming normal play looks easier. > > I still don?t see that 13F means that a player may bid and start the play with an extra ace and that the non-offenders have no protection. As the player with the extra card may be presumed to have violated L7B2, L12A1 would apply if the presumptive NOS is damaged. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150609/4a3982c6/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 9 15:41:58 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 15:41:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: " <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC>" <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no> agot > Le 09.06.2015 09:01, Jan Peach a ?crit : > > From: Steve Willner > > Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:20 PM > > > > On 2015-06-07 6:14 AM, Jan Peach wrote: > >> Surely even after applying 13F and removing the extra ace, 13A still > > > >> needs to be applied to see if the director can deem that normal play > > is > >> possible, without a change of call. > > > > "Surely" is a bit of an overbid. What in 13A requires _normal_ play to > > > > be possible? > > ............. > > > > Fair enough. Deeming normal play. The play of the board is never going > > to reach normal once someone has started with an extra card. > > AG : and don't forget that other elements than just plays might have gone > abnormally, e.g. a player's tempo might have influenced the deal when he > hesitated to play a honor that in fact he didn't hold. [Sven Pran] The Director may _never_ adjust the result on the board on the ground that a player held a "surplus" card (i.e. a card that did not belong to the pack) when this irregularity is discovered and rectified before the player had played that card to a trick (Law 13F). It is the player's own fault that he started out with more than 13 cards and did not discover it before he looked at his cards. The question of "normal play" is irrelevant here. However, the Director may still award an adjusted score under Law 12A1 if he judges that the non-offending side has been damaged from this irregularity. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 9 15:44:38 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 15:44:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001a01d0a2ba$6f0093f0$4d01bbd0$@online.no> Non-offenders are protected by Law 12A1 if they are damaged. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 9. juni 2015 14:58 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F Jan Peach: I still don?t see that 13F means that a player may bid and start the play with an extra ace and that the non-offenders have no protection. Richard Hills: Rub of the green. Law 40A3 permits a player to make a non-systemic call, and Law 10C4 permits offenders to "appear to profit through their own infraction". An analogous situation would be the Rueful Rabbit unintentionally causing his ace to be a penalty card. Later RR is required by Law to discard his ace. But this proves to be an unexpected brilliant unblock; the only defence to defeat the contract. :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, Jan Peach wrote: From: Steve Willner Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:20 PM On 2015-06-07 6:14 AM, Jan Peach wrote: > Surely even after applying 13F and removing the extra ace, 13A still > needs to be applied to see if the director can deem that normal play is > possible, without a change of call. "Surely" is a bit of an overbid. What in 13A requires _normal_ play to be possible? ............. Fair enough. Deeming normal play. The play of the board is never going to reach normal once someone has started with an extra card. If the extra card was the S2, in an otherwise same situation, then deeming normal play looks easier. I still don?t see that 13F means that a player may bid and start the play with an extra ace and that the non-offenders have no protection. Jan .......... From: Steve Willner (Please use plain text rather than HTML when posting to the list. HTML makes it hard for some of us to read your messages.) Sure. I shall try to notice that an email has arrived in HTML and not just hit Reply. Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150609/2613c515/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Tue Jun 9 15:45:52 2015 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (diggadog at iinet.net.au) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:45:52 +0800 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <96A5E28F-4FBB-4EDE-9537-74F6075C2D8E@verizon.net> Message-ID: <25ea3bd8a7323bdfc7fa6c29798235d0e8296ec0@webmail.iinet.net.au> I believe that it is unlikely that the board ever contained 53 cards, that after she had counted her cards, offender probably scooped the card up off the table believing that she had dropped it. However..........I am not convinced that this changes anything? cheers bill kemp ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" To:"Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent:Tue, 09 Jun 2015 09:17:57 -0400 Subject:Re: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F On Jun 9, 2015, at 3:01 AM, Jan Peach wrote: From: Steve Willner Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:20 PM ? On 2015-06-07 6:14 AM, Jan Peach wrote: > Surely even after applying 13F and removing the extra ace, 13A still > needs to be applied to see if the director can deem that normal play is > possible, without a change of call. ? "Surely" is a bit of an overbid.? What in 13A requires _normal_ play to be possible? ............. ? Fair enough. Deeming normal play. The play of the board is never going to reach normal once someone has started with an extra card. If the extra card was the S2, in an otherwise same situation, then deeming normal play looks easier. ? I still don?t see that 13F means that a player may bid and start the play with an extra ace and that the non-offenders have no protection. As the player with the extra card may be presumed to have violated L7B2, L12A1 would apply if the presumptive NOS is damaged. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY Links: ------ [1] mailto:janpeach8 at bigpond.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150609/a997cd6b/attachment.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Tue Jun 9 16:42:59 2015 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:42:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <000f01d0a297$30037a00$900a6e00$@online.no> References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> <000f01d0a297$30037a00$900a6e00$@online.no> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 7:32 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F Jan Peach [...] Surely even after applying 13F and removing the extra ace, 13A still needs to be applied to see if the director can deem that normal play is possible, without a change of call. Olivier did find out that East would not have bid 2H without the 14th card, so that?s a great start in thinking we no longer have normal play. Then to 13B. Just doesn?t sound like bridge that the offenders can keep a score for a contract they would not have bid without their infraction/s, because the non-offenders didn?t find the perfect double dummy defence. I read nothing that suggests 13A only applies to 14-12 situations. In fact the opposite. ?One or more hands? suggests only one hand may be faulty eg <14,13,13,13. 13A is not the clearest law in the book. Jan [Sven] That is quite true, but it should normally not cause any difficulty for a competent Director. Jan: Ahh. Therein lies my problem. A lack of competency. [Sven] First of all: If the Director finds that the pack of cards used contains 53 (or more) cards then he shall go directly to Law 13F (which is a specific law addressing this particular situation). He will locate the "surplus" card and simply remove it from the deal. Most often that card will be removed from a hand originally holding 14 (or more) cards, and the deal will be "correct" after the removal. Jan: 13A is equally specific for the situation. It covers one hand with more than 13 cards among other possibilities. The Laws Commission minute of 8th September 2009 says, ?The committee was told of experience of a situation where a player discovered at trick ten that he had held 14 cards originally. The Director would have liked to redeal the board. Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a general law, the committee agreed that Law 13 must be applied and, if the board cannot be corrected and played normally, an adjusted score awarded.? Sven: Any influence this card may have had on auction and play is simply ignored unless the card had already been played at the time it is removed from the pack. Auction and play continues without any rectification as if the card had never been present in that hand and there is no question of any adjustment. However, if the card is found among cards already played it must be replaced by one of the cards still held but not yet played by the offender, and the Director must judge if an adjusted score should be awarded. So what about Law 13A? This law becomes applicable if the surplus card is found in a hand originally containing 13 cards and thus will contain only 12 cards after the removal of the surplus card. When Law 13A says: " one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 14) " it is actually referring to a mathematical impossibility. A better text would be: " one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 13F or Law 14) " Jan: I cannot read this into 13A. ?13 cards? is not an incorrect number of cards. A player with 13 cards is not an offender (assuming no other hanky panky) should one or more cards turn out later to be wrong. There?s nothing impossible about one or more hands having an incorrect number of cards. Happens all the time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150609/4a331050/attachment-0001.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Tue Jun 9 16:45:25 2015 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:45:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC><55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> Message-ID: From: Richard Hills Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 10:58 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F Jan Peach: I still don?t see that 13F means that a player may bid and start the play with an extra ace and that the non-offenders have no protection. Richard Hills: Rub of the green. Law 40A3 permits a player to make a non-systemic call, and Law 10C4 permits offenders to "appear to profit through their own infraction". An analogous situation would be the Rueful Rabbit unintentionally causing his ace to be a penalty card. Later RR is required by Law to discard his ace. But this proves to be an unexpected brilliant unblock; the only defence to defeat the contract. :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills Jan: I would have thought ?rub of the green? is when there has been no infraction or when the laws have been correctly applied. I like Eric?s 12A1 suggestion though 13A sounds adequate to me. 7C is possibly a second infraction though we weren?t told where in the set the board was. snip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150609/a7e8cfa7/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 9 17:37:18 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 17:37:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no> References: "\"\\\" <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC>\\\" " <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net>" <001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no> Message-ID: <0c6fd128d3d6328af880fe785498ab03@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 09.06.2015 15:41, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > agot >> Le 09.06.2015 09:01, Jan Peach a ?crit : >> > From: Steve Willner >> > Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:20 PM >> > >> > On 2015-06-07 6:14 AM, Jan Peach wrote: >> >> Surely even after applying 13F and removing the extra ace, 13A still >> > >> >> needs to be applied to see if the director can deem that normal play >> > is >> >> possible, without a change of call. >> > >> > "Surely" is a bit of an overbid. What in 13A requires _normal_ play to >> > >> > be possible? >> > ............. >> > >> > Fair enough. Deeming normal play. The play of the board is never going >> > to reach normal once someone has started with an extra card. >> >> AG : and don't forget that other elements than just plays might have >> gone >> abnormally, e.g. a player's tempo might have influenced the deal when >> he >> hesitated to play a honor that in fact he didn't hold. > > [Sven Pran] The Director may _never_ adjust the result on the board > on the ground that a player held a "surplus" card (i.e. a card that > did not belong to the pack) when this irregularity is discovered and > rectified before the player had played that card to a trick (Law 13F). > It is the player's own fault that he started out with more than 13 > cards and did not discover it before he looked at his cards. The > question of "normal play" is irrelevant here. > > However, the Director may still award an adjusted score under Law 12A1 > if he judges that the non-offending side has been damaged from this > irregularity. Yes, thisz is what I meant. One might need to check for some subtle sources of damage, arising from the extra card before it was played. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 9 17:41:27 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 17:41:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC><55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Le 09.06.2015 16:45, Jan Peach a ?crit?: > FROM: Richard Hills > SENT: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 10:58 PM > TO: Bridge Laws Mailing List > SUBJECT: Re: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F > > Jan Peach: > > I still don?t see that 13F means that a player may bid and start the > play with an extra ace and that the non-offenders have no protection. > > Richard Hills: > > Rub of the green. Law 40A3 permits a player to make a non-systemic > call, and Law 10C4 permits offenders to "appear to profit through > their own infraction". > > An analogous situation would be the Rueful Rabbit unintentionally > causing his ace to be a penalty card. Later RR is required by Law to > discard his ace. But this proves to be an unexpected brilliant > unblock; the only defence to defeat the contract. :-) Not so long ago, I started a deal with 12 cards (the missing one being a Queen), and missed a good, but failing, slam. There were some puzzled looks when the kibitzer ostensibly checked for the length of my ears. Fun stopped there, as the oppositie side managed to miss the slam while seeing all 13 cards. Best regards Alain From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Tue Jun 9 23:56:19 2015 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:56:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <000f01d0a297$30037a00$900a6e00$@online.no> References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> <000f01d0a297$30037a00$900a6e00$@online.no> Message-ID: Snip [Sven] snip So what about Law 13A? This law becomes applicable if the surplus card is found in a hand originally containing 13 cards and thus will contain only 12 cards after the removal of the surplus card. When Law 13A says: " one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 14) " it is actually referring to a mathematical impossibility. A better text would be: " one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 13F or Law 14) " Jan: Both the 2010 and 2013 White Books say that a 13,13,13,13 deal without 52 distinct cards is a defective deal and turns us away from 13.1 to 1.1 Even if the the dud card is removed leaving 13, 13, 13, 12, doesn?t Law 13A send us straight to Law 14? I?d hope 13A has more purpose in life than doing that. The other interesting thing I found in the 2010 White Book was a suggestion that removing the extra card via 13F could apply to a 14 card hand where 2 cards are identical. This I have seen, and yes, I was able to simply remove the second card. This comment (and there was more to it than just what I mentioned) about 14F does not appear in the 2013 White Book. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150609/42c1e53c/attachment.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Tue Jun 9 23:57:41 2015 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:57:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no> References: " <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC>" <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> <001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no> Message-ID: From: Sven Pran Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:41 PM agot > Le 09.06.2015 09:01, Jan Peach a ?crit : > > From: Steve Willner > > Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:20 PM > > > > On 2015-06-07 6:14 AM, Jan Peach wrote: > >> Surely even after applying 13F and removing the extra ace, 13A still > > > >> needs to be applied to see if the director can deem that normal play > > is > >> possible, without a change of call. > > > > "Surely" is a bit of an overbid. What in 13A requires _normal_ play to > > > > be possible? > > ............. > > > > Fair enough. Deeming normal play. The play of the board is never going > > to reach normal once someone has started with an extra card. > > AG : and don't forget that other elements than just plays might have gone > abnormally, e.g. a player's tempo might have influenced the deal when he > hesitated to play a honor that in fact he didn't hold. [Sven Pran] The Director may _never_ adjust the result on the board on the ground that a player held a "surplus" card (i.e. a card that did not belong to the pack) when this irregularity is discovered and rectified before the player had played that card to a trick (Law 13F). It is the player's own fault that he started out with more than 13 cards and did not discover it before he looked at his cards. The question of "normal play" is irrelevant here. However, the Director may still award an adjusted score under Law 12A1 if he judges that the non-offending side has been damaged from this irregularity. Jan: So, we are to ignore the following WBFLC clarification that expressly mentions normal play? Normal play ceases with the 2H bid, does it not? Deeming play to be normal in the situation under discussion seems a bit of a stretch. ?The committee was told of experience of a situation where a player discovered at trick ten that he had held 14 cards originally. The Director would have liked to redeal the board. Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a general law, the committee agreed that Law 13 must be applied and, if the board cannot be corrected and played normally, an adjusted score awarded.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150609/88d591a5/attachment-0001.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Tue Jun 9 23:58:38 2015 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:58:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <0c6fd128d3d6328af880fe785498ab03@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\"\\\" <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC>\\\" "<55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net>"<001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no> <0c6fd128d3d6328af880fe785498ab03@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: From: agot Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:37 AM Le 09.06.2015 15:41, Sven Pran a ?crit snip >> > Fair enough. Deeming normal play. The play of the board is never going >> > to reach normal once someone has started with an extra card. >> >> AG : and don't forget that other elements than just plays might have >> gone >> abnormally, e.g. a player's tempo might have influenced the deal when >> he >> hesitated to play a honor that in fact he didn't hold. > > [Sven Pran] The Director may _never_ adjust the result on the board > on the ground that a player held a "surplus" card (i.e. a card that > did not belong to the pack) when this irregularity is discovered and > rectified before the player had played that card to a trick (Law 13F). > It is the player's own fault that he started out with more than 13 > cards and did not discover it before he looked at his cards. The > question of "normal play" is irrelevant here. > > However, the Director may still award an adjusted score under Law 12A1 > if he judges that the non-offending side has been damaged from this > irregularity. Yes, thisz is what I meant. One might need to check for some subtle sources of damage, arising from the extra card before it was played. Jan: I doubt Olivier?s NS found anything subtle about East bidding 2H holding an ace that no other East held. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150609/28eb4bf2/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 1088 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150609/28eb4bf2/attachment.png From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 10 07:58:17 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:58:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: " <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC>" <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> <001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no> Message-ID: <001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no> No, we are certainly not ignoring that WBFLC clarification, on the contrary we are doing exactly what they write: ?Normal play? does not cease with the 2H bid. According to Law 13F (which is the specific law in this situation) normal play (a term that is not used in this law) ceases when the player plays his surplus card to a trick. You must look at it this way: The surplus card never belonged to the hand. It doesn?t matter if it bears the picture of the Ace of hearts, the Joker or a cartoon with Donald Duck. The player who originally held 14 cards is responsible for this surplus card and whatever he does as a consequence of holding it. He may have made a strong call assuming that he holds 4 HCP more than he actually holds, fine. That is his sorrow. When the player eventually discovers that he has a surplus card that card is simply discarded and ?normal play? just continues. However, this is not so easy if he has already played his Donald Duck card, his Joker or whatever the surplus card might be to a trick. That is the situation where the Director must judge if the deal has been destroyed beyond repair and award an adjusted score. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jan Peach Sendt: 9. juni 2015 23:58 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F [?] [Sven Pran] The Director may _never_ adjust the result on the board on the ground that a player held a "surplus" card (i.e. a card that did not belong to the pack) when this irregularity is discovered and rectified before the player had played that card to a trick (Law 13F). It is the player's own fault that he started out with more than 13 cards and did not discover it before he looked at his cards. The question of "normal play" is irrelevant here. However, the Director may still award an adjusted score under Law 12A1 if he judges that the non-offending side has been damaged from this irregularity. Jan: So, we are to ignore the following WBFLC clarification that expressly mentions normal play? Normal play ceases with the 2H bid, does it not? Deeming play to be normal in the situation under discussion seems a bit of a stretch. ?The committee was told of experience of a situation where a player discovered at trick ten that he had held 14 cards originally. The Director would have liked to redeal the board. Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a general law, the committee agreed that Law 13 must be applied and, if the board cannot be corrected and played normally, an adjusted score awarded.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150610/14a5ad2e/attachment.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Wed Jun 10 09:36:39 2015 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:36:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no> References: " <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC>" <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> <001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no> <001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no> Message-ID: I don?t have difficulty understanding why so many see 13F as the only specific law. It also seems clear to me that 13A and 13F are in conflict and need to be addressed for fairness to the non-offenders if nothing else. The case being discussed is not about the offenders being damaged, but of the non-offenders being damaged. I don?t see that ?rub of the green? means damage caused by an opponent?s infraction. 31A does cater for only one hand being incorrect. That may not have been the intention, but that?s what the words say. 31A does not say that a lone incorrect hand must hold fewer than 13 cards. Again, that may have been the intention, but not what the words say. 31A sends eg 12,13,13,13s to Law 14 but does not send eg 14, 13, 13, 13 to 13F. That may have been the intention and we wouldn?t know if a cross reference was simply omitted or not intended. Seems odd that one would be thought of and not the other not. If 31A was intended to handle only 12 14s, and the like, would it not have been easier to simply say so? If the deal could have been played normally, there is a suggestion from the original post that there would have been a change of call. 31A specifically mentions the possibility of an adjusted score. Seeing as the first part of 13F says the auction and play continue unaffected, are we justified in using 12A1? The WBFLC clarification does not mention when the extra card was discovered. Does anyone know if it had been played? Just one incorrect hand? Is anything to be read into the clarification saying Law 13 and not Law 13F? The best I can hope for here is that the new laws will address these issues. Protecting offenders is not good for the game. Jan From: Sven Pran Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 3:58 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F No, we are certainly not ignoring that WBFLC clarification, on the contrary we are doing exactly what they write: ?Normal play? does not cease with the 2H bid. According to Law 13F (which is the specific law in this situation) normal play (a term that is not used in this law) ceases when the player plays his surplus card to a trick. You must look at it this way: The surplus card never belonged to the hand. It doesn?t matter if it bears the picture of the Ace of hearts, the Joker or a cartoon with Donald Duck. The player who originally held 14 cards is responsible for this surplus card and whatever he does as a consequence of holding it. He may have made a strong call assuming that he holds 4 HCP more than he actually holds, fine. That is his sorrow. When the player eventually discovers that he has a surplus card that card is simply discarded and ?normal play? just continues. However, this is not so easy if he has already played his Donald Duck card, his Joker or whatever the surplus card might be to a trick. That is the situation where the Director must judge if the deal has been destroyed beyond repair and award an adjusted score. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jan Peach Sendt: 9. juni 2015 23:58 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F [?] [Sven Pran] The Director may _never_ adjust the result on the board on the ground that a player held a "surplus" card (i.e. a card that did not belong to the pack) when this irregularity is discovered and rectified before the player had played that card to a trick (Law 13F). It is the player's own fault that he started out with more than 13 cards and did not discover it before he looked at his cards. The question of "normal play" is irrelevant here. However, the Director may still award an adjusted score under Law 12A1 if he judges that the non-offending side has been damaged from this irregularity. Jan: So, we are to ignore the following WBFLC clarification that expressly mentions normal play? Normal play ceases with the 2H bid, does it not? Deeming play to be normal in the situation under discussion seems a bit of a stretch. ?The committee was told of experience of a situation where a player discovered at trick ten that he had held 14 cards originally. The Director would have liked to redeal the board. Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a general law, the committee agreed that Law 13 must be applied and, if the board cannot be corrected and played normally, an adjusted score awarded.? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/20150610/24ad7917/attachment-0001.html From anwalt at bley-strafrecht.de Wed Jun 10 10:39:47 2015 From: anwalt at bley-strafrecht.de (Richard Bley) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:39:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <"> <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> <"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> <001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no> <001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no> Message-ID: <6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> All 13F cases are 13A cases as well. But not all 13F cases are 13A cases as well. In such circumstances there is an old latin rule: Lex specialis derogat legis generalis (I hope I have the endings correct, mit latin is unused for more than 30 years?) Which means that the more special law is to be used, when there is a conflict between two rules. This makes sense in more than one view. Any try to write down such conflict-solving issues will result in even more conflicts. There might be a case to a footnote in 13A, sending the reader to 13F in the special case, but that is sth, every TD can write there by himself (and was in fact, recommended in several TD-courses by the EBL) Richard > Am 10.06.2015 um 09:36 schrieb Jan Peach : > > > I don?t have difficulty understanding why so many see 13F as the only specific law. It also seems clear to me that 13A and 13F are in conflict and need to be addressed for fairness to the non-offenders if nothing else. > > The case being discussed is not about the offenders being damaged, but of the non-offenders being damaged. I don?t see that ?rub of the green? means damage caused by an opponent?s infraction. > > 31A does cater for only one hand being incorrect. That may not have been the intention, but that?s what the words say. > > 31A does not say that a lone incorrect hand must hold fewer than 13 cards. Again, that may have been the intention, but not what the words say. > > 31A sends eg 12,13,13,13s to Law 14 but does not send eg 14, 13, 13, 13 to 13F. That may have been the intention and we wouldn?t know if a cross reference was simply omitted or not intended. Seems odd that one would be thought of and not the other not. > > If 31A was intended to handle only 12 14s, and the like, would it not have been easier to simply say so? > > If the deal could have been played normally, there is a suggestion from the original post that there would have been a change of call. 31A specifically mentions the possibility of an adjusted score. > > > Seeing as the first part of 13F says the auction and play continue unaffected, are we justified in using 12A1? > > The WBFLC clarification does not mention when the extra card was discovered. Does anyone know if it had been played? Just one incorrect hand? Is anything to be read into the clarification saying Law 13 and not Law 13F? > > The best I can hope for here is that the new laws will address these issues. > Protecting offenders is not good for the game. > Jan > > > > From: Sven Pran > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 3:58 PM > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F > > No, we are certainly not ignoring that WBFLC clarification, on the contrary we are doing exactly what they write: > ?Normal play? does not cease with the 2H bid. According to Law 13F (which is the specific law in this situation) normal play (a term that is not used in this law) ceases when the player plays his surplus card to a trick. > > You must look at it this way: The surplus card never belonged to the hand. It doesn?t matter if it bears the picture of the Ace of hearts, the Joker or a cartoon with Donald Duck. > The player who originally held 14 cards is responsible for this surplus card and whatever he does as a consequence of holding it. He may have made a strong call assuming that he holds 4 HCP more than he actually holds, fine. That is his sorrow. > > When the player eventually discovers that he has a surplus card that card is simply discarded and ?normal play? just continues. However, this is not so easy if he has already played his Donald Duck card, his Joker or whatever the surplus card might be to a trick. That is the situation where the Director must judge if the deal has been destroyed beyond repair and award an adjusted score. > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jan Peach > Sendt: 9. juni 2015 23:58 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F > > [?] > [Sven Pran] The Director may _never_ adjust the result on the board on the ground that a player held a "surplus" card (i.e. a card that did not belong to the pack) when this irregularity is discovered and rectified before the player had played that card to a trick (Law 13F). It is the player's own fault that he started out with more than 13 cards and did not discover it before he looked at his cards. The question of "normal play" is irrelevant here. > > However, the Director may still award an adjusted score under Law 12A1 if he judges that the non-offending side has been damaged from this irregularity. > > > Jan: > So, we are to ignore the following WBFLC clarification that expressly mentions normal play? Normal play ceases with the 2H bid, does it not? Deeming play to be normal in the situation under discussion seems a bit of a stretch. > > ?The committee was told of experience of a situation where a player discovered at trick ten that he had held 14 cards originally. > The Director would have liked to redeal the board. Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a general law, the committee agreed that Law 13 must be applied and, if the board cannot be corrected and played normally, an adjusted score awarded.? > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150610/5dcea2a5/attachment.html From bridge at vwalther.de Wed Jun 10 16:29:17 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:29:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <96A5E28F-4FBB-4EDE-9537-74F6075C2D8E@verizon.net> References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> <96A5E28F-4FBB-4EDE-9537-74F6075C2D8E@verizon.net> Message-ID: <557849BD.7030200@vwalther.de> > On Jun 9, 2015, at 3:01 AM, Jan Peach > wrote: > >> I still don?t see that 13F means that a player may bid and start the >> play with an extra ace and that the non-offenders have no protection. I do not think the law should protect you against errors your opps make. Am 09.06.2015 um 15:17 schrieb Eric Landau: > > As the player with the extra card may be presumed to have violated L7B2, > L12A1 would apply if the presumptive NOS is damaged. > I think, if the offending side luckily reaches an unusual, but successful contract after an infraction of 7B2, this is subsequent damage, but not consequent damage. There may be a pp for violating 7B2, but no score adjustment. Furthermore we have the perfectly fitting law 13F that tells us how to deal with the situation. So a score adjustment according to 12A1 is not allowed. See 12B2. Greetings, Volker From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 10 21:27:12 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:27:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] screen problem In-Reply-To: References: <55297032.8010704@nhcc.net> <552BC1BD.6000004@nhcc.net> <552BC912.1070101@skynet.be> <552C08C1.1040206@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <55788F90.3000007@nhcc.net> On 2015-05-24 4:00 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > Mechanical ruling, for example Penalty Card or non-established revoke = > immediate > Judgement ruling, for example UI or Law 64C established revoke = delayed I have no problem with that dichotomy, but I don't see why the existence or not of UI is judgment rather than mechanical. (Obviously logical alternatives and what is suggested are judgment.) What is the point of the last part of L16B2 "summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed" if the Director is not supposed to make an immediate ruling? From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 10 21:55:35 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:55:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] screen problem In-Reply-To: <55788F90.3000007@nhcc.net> References: <55297032.8010704@nhcc.net> <552BC1BD.6000004@nhcc.net> <552BC912.1070101@skynet.be> <552C08C1.1040206@nhcc.net> <55788F90.3000007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000301d0a3b7$6b38c690$41aa53b0$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2015-05-24 4:00 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > > Mechanical ruling, for example Penalty Card or non-established revoke > > = immediate Judgement ruling, for example UI or Law 64C established > > revoke = delayed > > I have no problem with that dichotomy, but I don't see why the existence or not > of UI is judgment rather than mechanical. (Obviously logical alternatives and > what is suggested are judgment.) > > What is the point of the last part of L16B2 "summon the Director immediately if > they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed" > if the Director is not supposed to make an immediate ruling? [Sven Pran] To have the Director immediately settle the question whether or not there was an irregularity (e.g. hesitation) instead of postponing this discussion till after memories have faded. The actual ruling if UI has been conveyed and used should of course be delayed until end of play. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 10 22:08:38 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:08:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] screen problem In-Reply-To: <000301d0a3b7$6b38c690$41aa53b0$@online.no> References: <55297032.8010704@nhcc.net> <552BC1BD.6000004@nhcc.net> <552BC912.1070101@skynet.be> <552C08C1.1040206@nhcc.net> <55788F90.3000007@nhcc.net> <000301d0a3b7$6b38c690$41aa53b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <55789946.3080102@nhcc.net> On 2015-06-10 3:55 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > To have the Director immediately settle the question whether or not there > was an irregularity (e.g. hesitation) instead of postponing this discussion > till after memories have faded. > The actual ruling if UI has been conveyed and used should of course be > delayed until end of play. If the Director has "settle(d) the question," why should the ruling (on the fact of UI available or not) be delayed? And why "of course?" Is there official guidance somewhere? From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 10 22:42:08 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:42:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] screen problem In-Reply-To: <55789946.3080102@nhcc.net> References: <55297032.8010704@nhcc.net> <552BC1BD.6000004@nhcc.net> <552BC912.1070101@skynet.be> <552C08C1.1040206@nhcc.net> <55788F90.3000007@nhcc.net> <000301d0a3b7$6b38c690$41aa53b0$@online.no> <55789946.3080102@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000401d0a3bd$ebaa3010$c2fe9030$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2015-06-10 3:55 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > To have the Director immediately settle the question whether or not > > there was an irregularity (e.g. hesitation) instead of postponing this > > discussion till after memories have faded. > > The actual ruling if UI has been conveyed and used should of course be > > delayed until end of play. > > If the Director has "settle(d) the question," why should the ruling (on the fact of > UI available or not) be delayed? > > And why "of course?" Is there official guidance somewhere? [Sven Pran] Some examples of "immediate" rulings (while memories are fresh): "I find that you hesitated and may have conveyed UI. Call me again when the play is completed and then I can rule if you could have used UI" "You failed to use a required STOP and the hesitation was not excessive so there is no irregular hesitation here" "10 seconds hesitation before playing from Dummy to trick 1 is no irregularity" "Declarer played immediately from dummy to trick 1 so a 10 seconds hesitation by RHO before playing to that trick is no irregularity" I feel pretty sure that you will find guidance in training material for Directors. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 10 22:48:17 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:48:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] screen problem In-Reply-To: <000401d0a3bd$ebaa3010$c2fe9030$@online.no> References: <55297032.8010704@nhcc.net> <552BC1BD.6000004@nhcc.net> <552BC912.1070101@skynet.be> <552C08C1.1040206@nhcc.net> <55788F90.3000007@nhcc.net> <000301d0a3b7$6b38c690$41aa53b0$@online.no> <55789946.3080102@nhcc.net> <000401d0a3bd$ebaa3010$c2fe9030$@online.no> Message-ID: <5578A291.8080106@nhcc.net> On 2015-06-10 4:42 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Some examples of "immediate" rulings (while memories are fresh): > "I find that you hesitated and may have conveyed UI. I'm not sure whether we disagree or not. Your original message said the ruling on "conveyed and used" should be delayed. If you are now saying the ruling on "conveyed" (or more accurately "made available") should be immediate, then we agree after all. I think everyone agrees that the judgment ruling on "used" -- which I take to refer to "logical alternative" and "suggested over another" -- must be delayed. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 11 08:21:59 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:21:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] screen problem In-Reply-To: <5578A291.8080106@nhcc.net> References: <55297032.8010704@nhcc.net> <552BC1BD.6000004@nhcc.net> <552BC912.1070101@skynet.be> <552C08C1.1040206@nhcc.net> <55788F90.3000007@nhcc.net> <000301d0a3b7$6b38c690$41aa53b0$@online.no> <55789946.3080102@nhcc.net> <000401d0a3bd$ebaa3010$c2fe9030$@online.no> <5578A291.8080106@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000901d0a40e$ed8e5590$c8ab00b0$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2015-06-10 4:42 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Some examples of "immediate" rulings (while memories are fresh): > > "I find that you hesitated and may have conveyed UI. > > I'm not sure whether we disagree or not. Your original message said the ruling > on "conveyed and used" should be delayed. If you are now saying the ruling on > "conveyed" (or more accurately "made available") should be immediate, then > we agree after all. > > I think everyone agrees that the judgment ruling on "used" -- which I take to > refer to "logical alternative" and "suggested over another" -- must be delayed. [Sven Pran] You cannot "immediately" rule that UI was in fact conveyed (or made available) but you can (and should) rule if there is an irregularity (e.g. hesitation) from which UI _could_ be conveyed. "could" is the critical difference here. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jun 11 15:37:07 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:37:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] screen problem In-Reply-To: <000901d0a40e$ed8e5590$c8ab00b0$@online.no> References: <55297032.8010704@nhcc.net> <552BC1BD.6000004@nhcc.net> <552BC912.1070101@skynet.be> <552C08C1.1040206@nhcc.net> <55788F90.3000007@nhcc.net> <000301d0a3b7$6b38c690$41aa53b0$@online.no> <55789946.3080102@nhcc.net> <000401d0a3bd$ebaa3010$c2fe9030$@online.no> <5578A291.8080106@nhcc.net> <000901d0a40e$ed8e5590$c8ab00b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <55798F03.3000407@nhcc.net> On 2015-06-11 2:21 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > You cannot "immediately" rule that UI was in fact conveyed (or made > available) but you can (and should) rule if there is an irregularity (e.g. > hesitation) from which UI_could_ be conveyed. > > "could" is the critical difference here. That's an interesting distinction, but I can't tell whether it means the same as what I wrote or not. I'd say a hesitation "conveys UI" (not "could"); the UI is that partner had a problem. Regardless of that, it remains a judgment ruling (and therefore delayed) whether the UI suggests any LAs over others. Is this equivalent, or is there some distinction I'm not seeing? From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 11 16:18:06 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:18:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] screen problem In-Reply-To: <55798F03.3000407@nhcc.net> References: <55297032.8010704@nhcc.net> <552BC1BD.6000004@nhcc.net> <552BC912.1070101@skynet.be> <552C08C1.1040206@nhcc.net> <55788F90.3000007@nhcc.net> <000301d0a3b7$6b38c690$41aa53b0$@online.no> <55789946.3080102@nhcc.net> <000401d0a3bd$ebaa3010$c2fe9030$@online.no> <5578A291.8080106@nhcc.net> <000901d0a40e$ed8e5590$c8ab00b0$@online.no> <55798F03.3000407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001d0a451$70cc2e40$52648ac0$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2015-06-11 2:21 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > You cannot "immediately" rule that UI was in fact conveyed (or made > > available) but you can (and should) rule if there is an irregularity (e.g. > > hesitation) from which UI_could_ be conveyed. > > > > "could" is the critical difference here. > > That's an interesting distinction, but I can't tell whether it means the same as > what I wrote or not. I'd say a hesitation "conveys UI" (not "could"); the UI is > that partner had a problem. Regardless of that, it remains a judgment ruling > (and therefore delayed) whether the UI suggests any LAs over others. Is this > equivalent, or is there some distinction I'm not seeing? [Sven Pran] If TD is first called after play has been completed he faces an impossible situation when one side claims that there was (for instance) hesitation and the other side objects. That is why Law 16B2 states: "the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed". (Note the words: "might have been"). The Director's objective at this time is only to establish whether or not there has been such an irregularity, nothing more. He must not at this time engage himself in the question whether or not there actually was any UI conveyed and/or used, that judgement ruling is to be made if/when he is called again after play has been completed, not earlier. WHY? Because if he makes any such ruling while auction or play is still in progress then the Director destroys the board by passing UI to all four players! From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Thu Jun 11 23:34:08 2015 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:34:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> References: <"> <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC><"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net><001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no><001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no> <6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> Message-ID: Thanks Richard, that?s a useful way of describing more specific laws and I?ll add to my notes. It would be nice to know why 13F was added when 13A already covered 14,13,13,13 hands. I hope the 2017 Laws may be changed so that non-offending sides don?t keep damage caused directly from an opponent?s infraction and not subsequently caused/increased by their own actions. Jan From: Richard Bley Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:39 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F All 13F cases are 13A cases as well. But not all 13F cases are 13A cases as well. In such circumstances there is an old latin rule: Lex specialis derogat legis generalis (I hope I have the endings correct, mit latin is unused for more than 30 years?) Which means that the more special law is to be used, when there is a conflict between two rules. This makes sense in more than one view. Any try to write down such conflict-solving issues will result in even more conflicts. There might be a case to a footnote in 13A, sending the reader to 13F in the special case, but that is sth, every TD can write there by himself (and was in fact, recommended in several TD-courses by the EBL) Richard Am 10.06.2015 um 09:36 schrieb Jan Peach : I don?t have difficulty understanding why so many see 13F as the only specific law. It also seems clear to me that 13A and 13F are in conflict and need to be addressed for fairness to the non-offenders if nothing else. The case being discussed is not about the offenders being damaged, but of the non-offenders being damaged. I don?t see that ?rub of the green? means damage caused by an opponent?s infraction. 31A does cater for only one hand being incorrect. That may not have been the intention, but that?s what the words say. 31A does not say that a lone incorrect hand must hold fewer than 13 cards. Again, that may have been the intention, but not what the words say. 31A sends eg 12,13,13,13s to Law 14 but does not send eg 14, 13, 13, 13 to 13F. That may have been the intention and we wouldn?t know if a cross reference was simply omitted or not intended. Seems odd that one would be thought of and not the other not. If 31A was intended to handle only 12 14s, and the like, would it not have been easier to simply say so? If the deal could have been played normally, there is a suggestion from the original post that there would have been a change of call. 31A specifically mentions the possibility of an adjusted score. Seeing as the first part of 13F says the auction and play continue unaffected, are we justified in using 12A1? The WBFLC clarification does not mention when the extra card was discovered. Does anyone know if it had been played? Just one incorrect hand? Is anything to be read into the clarification saying Law 13 and not Law 13F? The best I can hope for here is that the new laws will address these issues. Protecting offenders is not good for the game. Jan From: Sven Pran Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 3:58 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F No, we are certainly not ignoring that WBFLC clarification, on the contrary we are doing exactly what they write: ?Normal play? does not cease with the 2H bid. According to Law 13F (which is the specific law in this situation) normal play (a term that is not used in this law) ceases when the player plays his surplus card to a trick. You must look at it this way: The surplus card never belonged to the hand. It doesn?t matter if it bears the picture of the Ace of hearts, the Joker or a cartoon with Donald Duck. The player who originally held 14 cards is responsible for this surplus card and whatever he does as a consequence of holding it. He may have made a strong call assuming that he holds 4 HCP more than he actually holds, fine. That is his sorrow. When the player eventually discovers that he has a surplus card that card is simply discarded and ?normal play? just continues. However, this is not so easy if he has already played his Donald Duck card, his Joker or whatever the surplus card might be to a trick. That is the situation where the Director must judge if the deal has been destroyed beyond repair and award an adjusted score. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jan Peach Sendt: 9. juni 2015 23:58 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F [?] [Sven Pran] The Director may _never_ adjust the result on the board on the ground that a player held a "surplus" card (i.e. a card that did not belong to the pack) when this irregularity is discovered and rectified before the player had played that card to a trick (Law 13F). It is the player's own fault that he started out with more than 13 cards and did not discover it before he looked at his cards. The question of "normal play" is irrelevant here. However, the Director may still award an adjusted score under Law 12A1 if he judges that the non-offending side has been damaged from this irregularity. Jan: So, we are to ignore the following WBFLC clarification that expressly mentions normal play? Normal play ceases with the 2H bid, does it not? Deeming play to be normal in the situation under discussion seems a bit of a stretch. ?The committee was told of experience of a situation where a player discovered at trick ten that he had held 14 cards originally. The Director would have liked to redeal the board. Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a general law, the committee agreed that Law 13 must be applied and, if the board cannot be corrected and played normally, an adjusted score awarded.? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20150611/55d06551/attachment-0001.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Thu Jun 11 23:34:32 2015 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:34:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <25ea3bd8a7323bdfc7fa6c29798235d0e8296ec0@webmail.iinet.net.au> References: <25ea3bd8a7323bdfc7fa6c29798235d0e8296ec0@webmail.iinet.net.au> Message-ID: From: diggadog at iinet.net.au Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:45 PM I believe that it is unlikely that the board ever contained 53 cards, that after she had counted her cards, offender probably scooped the card up off the table believing that she had dropped it. However..........I am not convinced that this changes anything cheers bill kemp Perhaps we really do have a situation not covered by the laws and may apply 12A1? East took 13 cards from the board, counted them correctly, and then not unreasonably thought one had been dropped, so the first infraction is not returning the cards to the previous board (if the scenario is that the previous board was just played at this table.) The second irregularity is adding a card to a hand. Are 13A and 13F intended to handle 14, 13, 13, 13 situations where the 53rd card has been added by a player himself? Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150611/e3882e45/attachment.html From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Fri Jun 12 07:07:40 2015 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:07:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <"> <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> <"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> <001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no> <001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no> <6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> Message-ID: On 2015 Jun 11, at 17:34, Jan Peach > wrote: > It would be nice to know why 13F was added when 13A already covered 14,13,13,13 hands. 13F was added to clarify that there must not be a score adjustment in a 14-13-13-13 situation (unless the surplus card was played to a quitted trick). > I hope the 2017 Laws may be changed so that non-offending sides don?t keep damage caused directly from an opponent?s infraction and not subsequently caused/increased by their own actions. Gee, I hope not. If that?s changed, I?ll have to stop telling players that there?s no law against getting fixed. Tim -- Timothy N. Hill > mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA Duplicate Bridge Director American Contract Bridge League: > Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, > Newton Bridge Club: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150612/9c333ca3/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3636 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150612/9c333ca3/attachment.bin From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Fri Jun 12 07:07:21 2015 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:07:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <"> <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> <"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> <001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no> <001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no> <6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> Message-ID: <60406E64-CFA0-486E-A2DE-4672B4B852CF@wesleyan.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150612/4ae81a20/attachment.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Fri Jun 12 11:53:18 2015 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:53:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <60406E64-CFA0-486E-A2DE-4672B4B852CF@wesleyan.edu> References: <"> <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC><"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net><001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no><001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no><6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> <60406E64-CFA0-486E-A2DE-4672B4B852CF@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: From: Timothy N. Hill Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:07 PM On 2015 Jun 11, at 17:34, Jan Peach wrote: snip I hope the 2017 Laws may be changed so that non-offending sides don?t keep damage caused directly from an opponent?s infraction and not subsequently caused/increased by their own actions. Gee, I hope not. If that?s changed, I?ll have to stop telling players that there?s no law against getting fixed. Tim Good one, and not to mention losing the ultimate ruling in one that upsets both sides I?d have to leave town if I?d added an ace to my hand and ended up with 67% - no matter how innocently. Perhaps I could appeal as the offender and cite 23 as a last resort. Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150612/e7baed46/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 1135 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150612/e7baed46/attachment-0001.png From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 12 13:42:27 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:42:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: "<\">" "<2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC><\"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net><001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no><001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no><6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> <60406E64-CFA0-486E-A2DE-4672B4B852CF@wesleyan.edu>" Message-ID: <94d313eb8453b60c93b16cad72d764a5@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 12.06.2015 11:53, Jan Peach a ?crit?: > FROM: Timothy N. Hill > SENT: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:07 PM > > On 2015 Jun 11, at 17:34, Jan Peach wrote: > > snip > > I hope the 2017 Laws may be changed so that non-offending sides > don?t keep damage caused directly from an opponent?s infraction > and not subsequently caused/increased by their own actions. > Gee, I hope not. If that?s changed, I?ll have to stop telling > players that there?s no law against getting fixed. > I understand this point of view. Infractions / irregularities that somehow succeed increase randomness. But then you would have to disallow that bad bids and plays that succeed score their due, and where is the game going ? I am perferctly comfortable with the idea that the strange lead under the Ace (enforced as a PC) happens to set the contract, because nobody can pretend that it would not have been found, for some other reason, absent the infraction. That, IMO, is the principle behind "OK after penalty has been paid". Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jun 12 13:49:51 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:49:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <94d313eb8453b60c93b16cad72d764a5@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "<\">" "<2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC><\"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net><001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no><001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no><6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> <60406E64-CFA0-486E-A2DE-4672B4B852CF@wesleyan.edu>" <94d313eb8453b60c93b16cad72d764a5@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <557AC75F.1090401@skynet.be> agot schreef: > Le 12.06.2015 11:53, Jan Peach a ?crit : >> FROM: Timothy N. Hill >> SENT: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:07 PM >> >> On 2015 Jun 11, at 17:34, Jan Peach wrote: >> >> snip >> >> I hope the 2017 Laws may be changed so that non-offending sides >> don?t keep damage caused directly from an opponent?s infraction >> and not subsequently caused/increased by their own actions. >> Gee, I hope not. If that?s changed, I?ll have to stop telling >> players that there?s no law against getting fixed. >> > > I understand this point of view. Infractions / irregularities that > somehow succeed increase randomness. > > But then you would have to disallow that bad bids and plays that succeed > score their due, and where is the game going ? > Last Tuesday, I opened 1Cl and raised partner's 1NT to 3NT. When putting down the dummy, everybody asked why I hadn't opened 1NT. Because I have 18 points, I said. At the fourth recount, I conceded that KQ is worth only 5 points, not 7, and I held just 16 HCP. Suppose partner made 3NT, would we change the score? Of course not. What 's the difference between couting KQ for 7 and counting a non-existent Ace? This way, madness lies. Bridge is not a fair game, get used to it. Herman. > I am perferctly comfortable with the idea that the strange lead under > the Ace (enforced as a PC) happens to set the contract, because nobody > can pretend that it would not have been found, for some other reason, > absent the infraction. That, IMO, is the principle behind "OK after > penalty has been paid". > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 12 15:37:41 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:37:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <557AC75F.1090401@skynet.be> References: "\"<\\\">\" \"<2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC><\\\"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net><001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no><001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no><6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de>" <60406E64-CFA0-486E-A2DE-4672B4B852CF@wesleyan.edu>" <94d313eb8453b60c93b16cad72d764a5@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <557AC75F.1090401@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 12.06.2015 13:49, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > agot schreef: >> Le 12.06.2015 11:53, Jan Peach a ?crit : >>> FROM: Timothy N. Hill >>> SENT: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:07 PM >>> >>> On 2015 Jun 11, at 17:34, Jan Peach wrote: >>> >>> snip >>> >>> I hope the 2017 Laws may be changed so that non-offending sides >>> don?t keep damage caused directly from an opponent?s infraction >>> and not subsequently caused/increased by their own actions. >>> Gee, I hope not. If that?s changed, I?ll have to stop telling >>> players that there?s no law against getting fixed. >>> >> >> I understand this point of view. Infractions / irregularities that >> somehow succeed increase randomness. >> >> But then you would have to disallow that bad bids and plays that >> succeed >> score their due, and where is the game going ? >> > > Last Tuesday, I opened 1Cl and raised partner's 1NT to 3NT. When > putting > down the dummy, everybody asked why I hadn't opened 1NT. Because I have > 18 points, I said. At the fourth recount, I conceded that KQ is worth > only 5 points, not 7, and I held just 16 HCP. > Suppose partner made 3NT, would we change the score? Of course not. > What 's the difference between couting KQ for 7 and counting a > non-existent Ace? You were a bit inconsistent here. Hogs reevaluate their hands for their splendid card-playing abilities, but then they don't raise partner (nor allow them to bid notrump). The best such explanation was given by a very L, very O, LOL, who opened 1C on a pretty strong 2164. I was ready to credit her for using correctly the old French 'canap?' system (2nd longest suit first if it doesn't interfere with economy of bidding), but she simply stated that she was playing 4-card diamonds. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 12 16:54:16 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:54:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <557AC75F.1090401@skynet.be> References: "<\">" "<2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC><\"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net><001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no><001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no><6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> <60406E64-CFA0-486E-A2DE-4672B4B852CF@wesleyan.edu>" <94d313eb8453b60c93b16cad72d764a5@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <557AC75F.1090401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101d0a51f$a85d4b40$f917e1c0$@online.no> > Herman De Wael [...] > This way, madness lies. Bridge is not a fair game, get used to it. [Sven Pran] I most strongly protest! Any game is played according to its rules, and a game is fair provided its rules apply equally to every contestant. If the rules are changed then the game changes, but that itself doesn't make it neither less nor more fair. A practical example fetched from the game we know as football (and the Americans know as soccer): Before the early thirties (I believe) a player was "offside" unless he had at least 3 defenders (usually including the goalkeeper) between himself and opponents deadline. The consequence was that practically all the play took place near the center line with long solo-raids when a fast player captured the ball. The rule was changed so that 2 defenders were sufficient to avoid offside (today's rule) with the dramatic result that play "spread" across the entire field. This really changed the game, and I believe most fans will say: "To the better". But did this change make football more fair - or less fair? Definitely not. It was exactly as fair later as it had ever been before. So bridge is certainly a fair game (we do not distinguish between royalty, nobility and commoners), but there are rules that could be changed in order to make it a better game (depending of course on what we mean by a "better" game). From bridge at vwalther.de Fri Jun 12 20:17:25 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 20:17:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: References: <"> <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC><"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net><001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no><001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no> <6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> Message-ID: <557B2235.2060601@vwalther.de> Richard Bley wrote: > Lex specialis derogat legis generalis (I hope I have the endings correct, mit latin is unused for more than 30 years?) > > Which means that the more special law is to be used, when there is a conflict between two rules. Am 11.06.2015 um 23:34 schrieb Jan Peach: > > Thanks Richard, that?s a useful way of describing more specific laws and > I?ll add to my notes. > > It would be nice to know why 13F was added when 13A already covered > 14,13,13,13 hands. As Richard tried to tell you: >From the moment on, that 13 F existed, 13 A does not deal with 14,13,13,13 hands any more. Some say, there should be a footnote referring to 13F. It might be useful if the TD usually does not read the complete paragraph, but follows the footnote back to the same paragraph. A TD who reads the relevant Law to the very end would not need the footnote. Law 13A is a general approach, the following 13B-F directions in special cases. Lets have a closer look to 13A and its connections with 16. Suppose we have a N14,E12,S13,W13 hand. If the TD makes an attempt to repair the hand, he usually will create additional information, for North because he will know one of Easts Cards. This information is AI according to 16A1c, but UI according to 13E (again it turns out that you have to read the complete paragraph). Furthermore, if a player made a call with the wrong number of cards it will be UI his partner, that his call might have been different. Unless this information is used, there is no reason to adjust. Quite analogous to Law 16 the TD will have to decide whether this UI makes a board unplayable. If he allows play, he will award an adjusted score in case the UI has affected the play. Eventually this information will make the hand unplayable. But there may be exceptions. a.) The error is recognized before N picks up card 14. If this card is moved to east, there is no gain of information for North, so no problem, the hand can be played. b.) The moved card is the ace of spades. Great important card. But our TD allows play going on. East opens 1NT, West is asking with 4C and East answers 4D, showing 4 or 0 aces. Again no additional information for N, hand is playable. c.) In most cases movement of a small card will only create few information. so the TD should let the board be played. But remember: the decision on the importance of the UI is postponed, TD still may adjust. If we started with N14,E13,S13,W13 and remove this surplus card, there is no gain of information for anybody, apart that S will have the UI that N may have chosen different calls. > > I hope the 2017 Laws may be changed so that non-offending sides don?t > keep damage caused directly from an opponent?s infraction and not > subsequently caused/increased by their own actions. I think you are mistaken. In the actual case the bad result is not damage _directly_ caused by the infraction. The direct consequence of the infraction of 7B is starting the bidding with 14 cards. The erroneous assumption to be in possession of HA could have been avoided by proper procedure, but is not a direct consequence of this infraction. (Having an extra card is consequence of miscounting, but to chose a different call, because of the belief this card belongs to your hand, is not.) The "penalty" for making this type of error is described in 13F: Game and bidding will continue, despite the fact that you made an possibly unintended call. In most cases the unintended call itself will lead to a bad result for the offending side. If it turns out, that the unintended call is successful, there is no redress for the NOS. You may compare this to the following case: You are called to a table where the bidding went: N E S W 1NT (p) 2D (P) 2H At this point N cried out: sorry partner, I just forgot that we are playing strong NT. "TD!" You inform S about his obligations according to 16B. In his attempt, not to chose any bid that might be suggested by the UI South, having only 6 PT immediately bids 3NT. North has only 12 pt, but with 3 working finesses, opps hearts 3-3 and spades 4-4 spade the contract can be made. Again there is no reason to adjust. Unfortunately sometimes the penalties do not pay for the NOS. (See the rueful rabbit story). But the alternative is asking the Red Queen to rule the game. I would rather prefer not to .... Greatings, Volker From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Sat Jun 13 02:15:14 2015 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:15:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <557B2235.2060601@vwalther.de> References: <"> <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC><"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net><001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no><001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no> <6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> <557B2235.2060601@vwalther.de> Message-ID: From: Volker Walther Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 4:17 AM snip > I hope the 2017 Laws may be changed so that non-offending sides don?t > keep damage caused directly from an opponent?s infraction and not > subsequently caused/increased by their own actions. I think you are mistaken. In the actual case the bad result is not damage _directly_ caused by the infraction. Jan: Sorry all, I know I am repeating myself. It seems to me that there are two infractions by East. Not returning her original 13 cards to the previous board (which I gather from the wording, though it has not been confirmed, had just been played at this table) and adding a card to her hand (no matter how innocently done). We are not told, but it is quite possible, that East did count her cards and the deal at that time was correct - as Bill suggested. If the ace was put into the hand at a previous table, then the infraction is not counting. 13F doesn?t say when the surplus card gets into the deal but is 13F really intended to cover adding cards to hands that come out of the board as 13? I?ve played in games where the judicious (perhaps not the best word) adding of a useful spot card wouldn?t even be noticed. ISTM that the call of 2H is a direct result of East?s infractions or infraction. 2H only happens after East has added the HA or after she has failed to count her cards to make sure she has exactly 13. East herself told the director she would not have bid 2H without the extra ace and we are therefore left with 1NT Pass ...... We aren?t told the standard of play but I don?t see a serious error to the NS defence of 2H and 1NT has overtricks available. Perhaps some can see a normal auction not ending at 1NT. I?ve seen comments elsewhere that 13A only applies to problems found during the auction. To my way of thinking, the play period also comes ?after a player with an incorrect hand has made a call?. If 13A does only apply to the auction, then the laws would look to be silent on an incorrect hand (let?s say a 12-14 to avoid argument) found during the play period and before play ends. Perhaps this area could also be made clearer in the new Laws. We?ve started to go around in circles. If the gods don?t get to hear of my grumbles - or ignore them - then so be it. Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150613/ca441846/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Jun 13 02:57:01 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:57:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <000101d0a51f$a85d4b40$f917e1c0$@online.no> References: <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net> <001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no> <001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no> <6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> <60406E64-CFA0-486E-A2DE-4672B4B852CF@wesleyan.edu> <94d313eb8453b60c93b16cad72d764a5@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <557AC75F.1090401@skynet.be> <000101d0a51f$a85d4b40$f917e1c0$@online.no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] So bridge is certainly a fair game (we do not distinguish between royalty, nobility and commoners), but there are rules that could be changed in order to make it a better game (depending of course on what we mean by a "better" game). Richard Hills: I agree with Sven. In the Middle Ages chess was a fair game, not distinguishing between royalty and commoners. Indeed, Ivan the Terrible died while playing a game of chess. But most Middle Ages games of chess ended in a draw, because then the queen could only move one space diagonally. In the Renaissance chess was made a "better" game by giving the queen her current powers, thus making very much easier to achieve checkmate. Likewise, the 1997 version of Law 25B was a fair Law. But an overwhelming consensus viewed it as a silly Law. So now we have the sensible 2007 version of Law 25B (depending of course on what we mean by a "sensible" Law). Best wishes, Richard Hills On Saturday, June 13, 2015, Sven Pran wrote: > > Herman De Wael > [...] > > This way, madness lies. Bridge is not a fair game, get used to it. > > [Sven Pran] > I most strongly protest! > > Any game is played according to its rules, and a game is fair provided its > rules apply equally to every contestant. > > If the rules are changed then the game changes, but that itself doesn't > make it neither less nor more fair. > > A practical example fetched from the game we know as football (and the > Americans know as soccer): > Before the early thirties (I believe) a player was "offside" unless he had > at least 3 defenders (usually including the goalkeeper) between himself and > opponents deadline. The consequence was that practically all the play took > place near the center line with long solo-raids when a fast player captured > the ball. > > The rule was changed so that 2 defenders were sufficient to avoid offside > (today's rule) with the dramatic result that play "spread" across the > entire field. This really changed the game, and I believe most fans will > say: "To the better". But did this change make football more fair - or less > fair? Definitely not. It was exactly as fair later as it had ever been > before. > > So bridge is certainly a fair game (we do not distinguish between royalty, > nobility and commoners), but there are rules that could be changed in order > to make it a better game (depending of course on what we mean by a "better" > game). > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150613/16356829/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jun 13 11:33:17 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:33:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <000101d0a51f$a85d4b40$f917e1c0$@online.no> References: "<\">" "<2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC><\"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net><001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no><001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no><6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> <60406E64-CFA0-486E-A2DE-4672B4B852CF@wesleyan.edu>" <94d313eb8453b60c93b16cad72d764a5@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <557AC75F.1090401@skynet.be> <000101d0a51f$a85d4b40$f917e1c0$@online.no> Message-ID: <557BF8DD.9010208@skynet.be> What I meant with being fair is that quite often, a better contract yields a worse result. Or the correct line of play does not work. Sometimes your opponents mistakes (or their infractions) work in their favour. The point being that while this sometimes happens, more often than not the mistakes work to disadvantage. So when an infraction turns out to be of benefit to the offenders, live with it! Nothing at all about the laws being fair or not. Herman. Sven Pran schreef: >> Herman De Wael > [...] >> This way, madness lies. Bridge is not a fair game, get used to it. > > [Sven Pran] I most strongly protest! > > Any game is played according to its rules, and a game is fair > provided its rules apply equally to every contestant. > > If the rules are changed then the game changes, but that itself > doesn't make it neither less nor more fair. > > A practical example fetched from the game we know as football (and > the Americans know as soccer): Before the early thirties (I believe) > a player was "offside" unless he had at least 3 defenders (usually > including the goalkeeper) between himself and opponents deadline. The > consequence was that practically all the play took place near the > center line with long solo-raids when a fast player captured the > ball. > > The rule was changed so that 2 defenders were sufficient to avoid > offside (today's rule) with the dramatic result that play "spread" > across the entire field. This really changed the game, and I believe > most fans will say: "To the better". But did this change make > football more fair - or less fair? Definitely not. It was exactly as > fair later as it had ever been before. > > So bridge is certainly a fair game (we do not distinguish between > royalty, nobility and commoners), but there are rules that could be > changed in order to make it a better game (depending of course on > what we mean by a "better" game). > > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Jun 13 15:26:46 2015 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:26:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <557B2235.2060601@vwalther.de> References: <"> <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC><"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net><001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no><001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no> <6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> <557B2235.2060601@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <005e01d0a5dc$98df65f0$ca9e31d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Wolter writes: Suppose we have a N14,E12,S13,W13 hand. If the TD makes an attempt to repair the hand, he usually will create additional information, for North because he will know one of Easts Cards. This information is AI according to 16A1c, but UI according to 13E (again it turns out that you have to read the complete paragraph). ton: Why is that information (knowledge of a replaced card) AI according to 16a1c? If your answer is that the card was replaced using a legal procedure then my answer is that an illegal procedure does not become legal after an assessment of a rectification. L16C makes completely clear that such knowledge is UI. ton From bridge at vwalther.de Sun Jun 14 00:25:03 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 00:25:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <005e01d0a5dc$98df65f0$ca9e31d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <"> <2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC><"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net><001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no><001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no> <6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> <557B2235.2060601@vwalther.de> <005e01d0a5dc$98df65f0$ca9e31d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <557CADBF.1060707@vwalther.de> Am 13.06.2015 um 15:26 schrieb ton: > > Wolter writes: > > Suppose we have a N14,E12,S13,W13 hand. > If the TD makes an attempt to repair the hand, he usually will create > additional information, for North because he will know one of Easts Cards. > This information is AI according to 16A1c, but UI according to 13E (again it > turns out that you have to read the complete paragraph). > > ton: > Why is that information (knowledge of a replaced card) AI according to > 16a1c? > > If your answer is that the card was replaced using a legal procedure then my > answer is that an illegal procedure does not become legal after an > assessment of a rectification. L16C makes completely clear that such > knowledge is UI. > > ton You are completely right. (especially since 13E only deals with UI for south.) Volker Walther (aka Wolter) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From bpark56 at comcast.net Sun Jun 14 03:18:27 2015 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:18:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Somewhat strange ruling today Message-ID: <557CD663.4030903@comcast.net> We had a ruling today that I have never seen before, and that seems rather peculiar: The setting is an ACBL 2-winner club game with 8 and a half tables, and we had a late play scheduled for board 15. Prior to the final round, the director informed us that board 15 was being changed to a "no-play," and that it would have no effect on our score. We said that we preferred to play the board, and he restated that it would be a "no-play" and not affect our score. We protested again and said we wanted a score on the board. He said, "OK, you have an average minus." At the end of the game, we learned that the pair we were to play against had the final sit-out, and they wanted to leave early. As it turned out, none of this affected our standing (we were 1st), but it was close (the director actually assigned a "no-play" rather than an average minus). A good or bad score on the board might have affected not only our standing, but that of others. How would you have ruled? From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Jun 14 03:31:24 2015 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:31:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Somewhat strange ruling today In-Reply-To: <557CD663.4030903@comcast.net> References: <557CD663.4030903@comcast.net> Message-ID: Pair the wants to leave early takes a zero on the board and forfeits any masterpoints for the event. None offending side gets an average+ On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Robert Park wrote: > We had a ruling today that I have never seen before, and that seems > rather peculiar: > > The setting is an ACBL 2-winner club game with 8 and a half tables, and > we had a late play scheduled for board 15. Prior to the final round, the > director informed us that board 15 was being changed to a "no-play," and > that it would have no effect on our score. We said that we preferred to > play the board, and he restated that it would be a "no-play" and not > affect our score. We protested again and said we wanted a score on the > board. He said, "OK, you have an average minus." > > At the end of the game, we learned that the pair we were to play against > had the final sit-out, and they wanted to leave early. > > As it turned out, none of this affected our standing (we were 1st), but > it was close (the director actually assigned a "no-play" rather than an > average minus). > > A good or bad score on the board might have affected not only our > standing, but that of others. > > How would you have ruled? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150614/99db6d61/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jun 14 03:55:56 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:55:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Somewhat strange ruling today In-Reply-To: <557CD663.4030903@comcast.net> References: <557CD663.4030903@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:18:27 -0400, Robert Park wrote: > We had a ruling today that I have never seen before, and that seems > rather peculiar: > > The setting is an ACBL 2-winner club game with 8 and a half tables, and > we had a late play scheduled for board 15. Prior to the final round, the > director informed us that board 15 was being changed to a "no-play," and > that it would have no effect on our score. We said that we preferred to > play the board, and he restated that it would be a "no-play" and not > affect our score. We protested again and said we wanted a score on the > board. He said, "OK, you have an average minus." > > At the end of the game, we learned that the pair we were to play against > had the final sit-out, and they wanted to leave early. > > As it turned out, none of this affected our standing (we were 1st), but > it was close (the director actually assigned a "no-play" rather than an > average minus). > > A good or bad score on the board might have affected not only our > standing, but that of others. > > How would you have ruled? He handled that nicely. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Jun 14 07:34:23 2015 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:34:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Somewhat strange ruling today In-Reply-To: <557CD663.4030903@comcast.net> References: <557CD663.4030903@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 03:18:27 +0200, Robert Park wrote: > We had a ruling today that I have never seen before, and that seems > rather peculiar: > > The setting is an ACBL 2-winner club game with 8 and a half tables, and > we had a late play scheduled for board 15. Prior to the final round, the > director informed us that board 15 was being changed to a "no-play," and > that it would have no effect on our score. We said that we preferred to > play the board, and he restated that it would be a "no-play" and not > affect our score. We protested again and said we wanted a score on the > board. He said, "OK, you have an average minus." > > At the end of the game, we learned that the pair we were to play against > had the final sit-out, and they wanted to leave early. > > As it turned out, none of this affected our standing (we were 1st), but > it was close (the director actually assigned a "no-play" rather than an > average minus). > Law 82B To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: 1. award an adjusted score as permitted by these Laws. 2. require, postpone, or cancel the play of a board. Assuming the late play to be caused by some error in procedure (usually, slow play by someone), it is up to the TD to decide whether to cancel the board, assign an Artificial Adjusted Score or order a late play. His decision will be influenced by local custom (here, for example, we never have late plays) and the particular circumstances (e. g. required number of boards to be played by every contestant, time available, ...) Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From gordonr60 at gmail.com Sun Jun 14 09:20:05 2015 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 08:20:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Somewhat strange ruling today In-Reply-To: References: <557CD663.4030903@comcast.net> Message-ID: <0A3C433F-3E30-453F-A8BD-220FBBE6E946@googlemail.com> Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 14 Jun 2015, at 02:55, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:18:27 -0400, Robert Park wrote: >> >> We had a ruling today that I have never seen before, and that seems >> rather peculiar: >> >> The setting is an ACBL 2-winner club game with 8 and a half tables, and >> we had a late play scheduled for board 15. Prior to the final round, the >> director informed us that board 15 was being changed to a "no-play," and >> that it would have no effect on our score. We said that we preferred to >> play the board, and he restated that it would be a "no-play" and not >> affect our score. We protested again and said we wanted a score on the >> board. He said, "OK, you have an average minus." >> >> At the end of the game, we learned that the pair we were to play against >> had the final sit-out, and they wanted to leave early. >> >> As it turned out, none of this affected our standing (we were 1st), but >> it was close (the director actually assigned a "no-play" rather than an >> average minus). >> >> A good or bad score on the board might have affected not only our >> standing, but that of others. >> >> How would you have ruled? > > He handled that nicely. > ____________________________________________ > Giving an illegal ruling is 'handling it nicely'? From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 14 09:57:47 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 09:57:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Somewhat strange ruling today In-Reply-To: <0A3C433F-3E30-453F-A8BD-220FBBE6E946@googlemail.com> References: <557CD663.4030903@comcast.net> <0A3C433F-3E30-453F-A8BD-220FBBE6E946@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <000601d0a677$cec85960$6c590c20$@online.no> > Gordon Rainsford [...] > >> Prior to the final round, the director informed us that board 15 was being changed to a > >> "no-play," and that it would have no effect on our score. We said > >> that we preferred to play the board, and he restated that it would be > >> a "no-play" and not affect our score. We protested again and said we > >> wanted a score on the board. He said, "OK, you have an average minus." > >> > >> At the end of the game, we learned that the pair we were to play > >> against had the final sit-out, and they wanted to leave early. > >> > >> As it turned out, none of this affected our standing (we were 1st), > >> but it was close (the director actually assigned a "no-play" rather > >> than an average minus). > >> > >> A good or bad score on the board might have affected not only our > >> standing, but that of others. > >> > >> How would you have ruled? > > > > He handled that nicely. > > ____________________________________________ > > > > Giving an illegal ruling is 'handling it nicely'? [Sven Pran] Although technically an illegal ruling I agree with Robert. Quote OP: We protested again and said we wanted a score on the board. He said, "OK, you have an average minus." So he gave them a score on the board. What he should have done is to remind the players of Law 74B5 and give them a PP (amounting to an Ave- total) instead of Ave-. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Jun 14 12:44:07 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 20:44:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fantastic Four Message-ID: During last Thursday's walk-in Butler pairs (FYI a two winner Mitchell movement) partner received a not-really-urgent but extended phone call, absenting himself from the playing area to avoid annoying other contestants. Growing impatient my RHO summoned the Director, requesting the TD use the fantastic Law Four to appoint himself as a temporary substitute. The Director agreed. During the auction the TD chose a marginal overcall of 2C, on a hand for which my real partner would have automatically passed. I chose an equally marginal competitive raise to 3C. As a result the opponents stopped in game. Had they had the normal uncontested auction they would have easily reached their cold slam. Should partner have received a procedural penalty? Should the Director have adjusted the score against himself? How would you rule? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150614/5b35acd9/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Jun 14 13:51:17 2015 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:51:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fantastic Four In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003601d0a698$6ceb63b0$46c22b10$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hills Sent: Sunday, 14 June 2015 8:44 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Fantastic Four During last Thursday's walk-in Butler pairs (FYI a two winner Mitchell movement) partner received a not-really-urgent but extended phone call, absenting himself from the playing area to avoid annoying other contestants. Growing impatient my RHO summoned the Director, requesting the TD use the fantastic Law Four to appoint himself as a temporary substitute. The Director agreed. During the auction the TD chose a marginal overcall of 2C, on a hand for which my real partner would have automatically passed. I chose an equally marginal competitive raise to 3C. As a result the opponents stopped in game. Had they had the normal uncontested auction they would have easily reached their cold slam. Should partner have received a procedural penalty? Should the Director have adjusted the score against himself? How would you rule? Best wishes, Richard Hills get rid of your usual partner more often Chees Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150614/fd986122/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 14 14:16:51 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:16:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fantastic Four In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001901d0a69b$ff0cb930$fd262b90$@online.no> What regulations do you have related to cell-phones? We do not allow such conversations during an event. In the case of a player being on-call for possible emergencies etc. he must arrange with the TD to take care of and answer the phone and then relay the message to the player. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 14. juni 2015 12:44 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Fantastic Four During last Thursday's walk-in Butler pairs (FYI a two winner Mitchell movement) partner received a not-really-urgent but extended phone call, absenting himself from the playing area to avoid annoying other contestants. Growing impatient my RHO summoned the Director, requesting the TD use the fantastic Law Four to appoint himself as a temporary substitute. The Director agreed. During the auction the TD chose a marginal overcall of 2C, on a hand for which my real partner would have automatically passed. I chose an equally marginal competitive raise to 3C. As a result the opponents stopped in game. Had they had the normal uncontested auction they would have easily reached their cold slam. Should partner have received a procedural penalty? Should the Director have adjusted the score against himself? How would you rule? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150614/24d8a1b1/attachment.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jun 15 00:25:55 2015 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 23:25:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fantastic Four In-Reply-To: <001901d0a69b$ff0cb930$fd262b90$@online.no> References: <001901d0a69b$ff0cb930$fd262b90$@online.no> Message-ID: <56BEA439-B529-4047-931C-8EB91FF0F8EE@btopenworld.com> I am not sure whether clubs here tend to have specific rules, but there will normally be a penalty for a phone that rings. But people turn their phones off during bridge sessions and it would not occur to anyone to have an extended conversation. I think that a ban would be sensible > On 14 Jun 2015, at 13:16, Sven Pran wrote: > > What regulations do you have related to cell-phones? > > We do not allow such conversations during an event. In the case of a player being on-call for possible emergencies etc. he must arrange with the TD to take care of and answer the phone and then relay the message to the player. > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills > Sendt: 14. juni 2015 12:44 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] Fantastic Four > > During last Thursday's walk-in Butler pairs (FYI a two winner Mitchell movement) partner received a not-really-urgent but extended phone call, absenting himself from the playing area to avoid annoying other contestants. Growing impatient my RHO summoned the Director, requesting the TD use the fantastic Law Four to appoint himself as a temporary substitute. > > The Director agreed. During the auction the TD chose a marginal overcall of 2C, on a hand for which my real partner would have automatically passed. I chose an equally marginal competitive raise to 3C. As a result the opponents stopped in game. Had they had the normal uncontested auction they would have easily reached their cold slam. > > Should partner have received a procedural penalty? Should the Director have adjusted the score against himself? > > How would you rule? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150614/6591258e/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Jun 15 16:15:36 2015 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:15:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fantastic Four In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <557EDE08.7070902@aol.com> If the call was not urgent why could he not say that he'd call back later, after the tournament ended? JE Am 14.06.2015 um 12:44 schrieb Richard Hills: > During last Thursday's walk-in Butler pairs (FYI a two winner Mitchell > movement) partner received a not-really-urgent but extended phone > call, absenting himself from the playing area to avoid annoying other > contestants. Growing impatient my RHO summoned the Director, > requesting the TD use the fantastic Law Four to appoint himself as a > temporary substitute. > > The Director agreed. During the auction the TD chose a marginal > overcall of 2C, on a hand for which my real partner would have > automatically passed. I chose an equally marginal competitive raise to > 3C. As a result the opponents stopped in game. Had they had the normal > uncontested auction they would have easily reached their cold slam. > > Should partner have received a procedural penalty? Should the Director > have adjusted the score against himself? > > How would you rule? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Jun 16 05:41:06 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:41:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fantastic Four In-Reply-To: <56BEA439-B529-4047-931C-8EB91FF0F8EE@btopenworld.com> References: <001901d0a69b$ff0cb930$fd262b90$@online.no> <56BEA439-B529-4047-931C-8EB91FF0F8EE@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: If one is expecting an urgent phone call during an Aussie National Championship, then regulation requires that one's mobile phone is given to a Director. Plus there is a mandatory penalty of 3 victory points if one has forgotten to switch off one's phone and it rings during the session. However, no such regulation has been adopted by the Canberra Bridge Club. Nevertheless the Director could still have applied a Law 90B2 procedural penalty for "unduly slow play". However, unlike the codified PPs in the EBU's White Book, the ABF discourages the application of PPs. Once the Director, at the request of the non-offending side, has appointed himself a temporary substitute under the fantastic Law Four, is it legal for the Director to adjust the score on the basis that the substitution was a Director's Error (due to the Director being an expert). On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > I am not sure whether clubs here tend to have specific rules, but there > will normally be a penalty for a phone that rings. But people turn their > phones off during bridge sessions and it would not occur to anyone to have > an extended conversation. > > I think that a ban would be sensible > > > > On 14 Jun 2015, at 13:16, Sven Pran wrote: > > What regulations do you have related to cell-phones? > > > > We do not allow such conversations during an event. In the case of a > player being on-call for possible emergencies etc. he must arrange with the > TD to take care of and answer the phone and then relay the message to the > player. > > > > *Fra:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org > ] *P? vegne av* Richard Hills > *Sendt:* 14. juni 2015 12:44 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* [BLML] Fantastic Four > > > > During last Thursday's walk-in Butler pairs (FYI a two winner Mitchell > movement) partner received a not-really-urgent but extended phone call, > absenting himself from the playing area to avoid annoying other > contestants. Growing impatient my RHO summoned the Director, requesting the > TD use the fantastic Law Four to appoint himself as a temporary substitute. > > > > The Director agreed. During the auction the TD chose a marginal overcall > of 2C, on a hand for which my real partner would have automatically passed. > I chose an equally marginal competitive raise to 3C. As a result the > opponents stopped in game. Had they had the normal uncontested auction they > would have easily reached their cold slam. > > > > Should partner have received a procedural penalty? Should the Director > have adjusted the score against himself? > > > > How would you rule? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150616/0e398b84/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jun 16 09:21:16 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 03:21:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fantastic Four In-Reply-To: References: <001901d0a69b$ff0cb930$fd262b90$@online.no> <56BEA439-B529-4047-931C-8EB91FF0F8EE@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: Once the opponents have agreed to play the board with the director, they cannot then complain that the director made a good (or successful) bid or play. That would give them two chances to get a good score. When I ask (at regular club games), the opponents almost always want to play the board. On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 23:41:06 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > If one is expecting an urgent phone call during an Aussie National > Championship, then regulation requires that one's mobile phone is given to > a Director. Plus there is a mandatory penalty of 3 victory points if one > has forgotten to switch off one's phone and it rings during the session. > However, no such regulation has been adopted by the Canberra Bridge Club. > > Nevertheless the Director could still have applied a Law 90B2 procedural > penalty for "unduly slow play". However, unlike the codified PPs in the > EBU's White Book, the ABF discourages the application of PPs. > > Once the Director, at the request of the non-offending side, has appointed > himself a temporary substitute under the fantastic Law Four, is it legal > for the Director to adjust the score on the basis that the substitution was > a Director's Error (due to the Director being an expert). > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Stefanie Rohan > wrote: > >> I am not sure whether clubs here tend to have specific rules, but there >> will normally be a penalty for a phone that rings. But people turn their >> phones off during bridge sessions and it would not occur to anyone to have >> an extended conversation. >> >> I think that a ban would be sensible >> >> >> >> On 14 Jun 2015, at 13:16, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> What regulations do you have related to cell-phones? >> >> >> >> We do not allow such conversations during an event. In the case of a >> player being on-call for possible emergencies etc. he must arrange with the >> TD to take care of and answer the phone and then relay the message to the >> player. >> >> >> >> *Fra:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org >> ] *P? vegne av* Richard Hills >> *Sendt:* 14. juni 2015 12:44 >> *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >> *Emne:* [BLML] Fantastic Four >> >> >> >> During last Thursday's walk-in Butler pairs (FYI a two winner Mitchell >> movement) partner received a not-really-urgent but extended phone call, >> absenting himself from the playing area to avoid annoying other >> contestants. Growing impatient my RHO summoned the Director, requesting the >> TD use the fantastic Law Four to appoint himself as a temporary substitute. >> >> >> >> The Director agreed. During the auction the TD chose a marginal overcall >> of 2C, on a hand for which my real partner would have automatically passed. >> I chose an equally marginal competitive raise to 3C. As a result the >> opponents stopped in game. Had they had the normal uncontested auction they >> would have easily reached their cold slam. >> >> >> >> Should partner have received a procedural penalty? Should the Director >> have adjusted the score against himself? >> >> >> >> How would you rule? >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> Richard Hills >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 bridge at vwalther.de Tue Jun 16 12:11:24 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:11:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fantastic Four In-Reply-To: References: <001901d0a69b$ff0cb930$fd262b90$@online.no> <56BEA439-B529-4047-931C-8EB91FF0F8EE@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: <557FF64C.2080101@vwalther.de> Am 16.06.2015 um 05:41 schrieb Richard Hills: > Once the Director, at the request of the non-offending side, has > appointed himself a temporary substitute under the fantastic Law Four, > is it legal for the Director to adjust the score on the basis that the > substitution was a Director's Error (due to the Director being an expert). I see two possible directors errors here 1.) The TD did not inform the NOS that they would get AV+ on the board if nobody substitutes. 2.) There is an Aussi law that forbids substitution by a stronger player and the TD knew that he likely is stronger than the substituted. In case 1) we should use 82C and score the board as AV+/AV+ In Case 2) We probably should let the result stand or replace it by a mixed score. Choosing a margin overcall is rather a matter of style, not a matter of skill. So the fact that this 2C overcall was made, may be no consequence of choosing a too good substitute. If the NOS side knew about the playing skills of the substituted player and the TD, score stands(L11A). Otherwise check the probability that the 2C bid will be made by a legal substitute. By the way: if the TD really is an expert in playing, he must not substitute any player but another expert. And he should know this. Making a phone call during a game is always an infraction of 74A2 an may be penalized. "A player should carefully avoid any (...) action that might cause annoyance (..) to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." Greetings, Volker From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 16 12:34:54 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:34:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Try explaining them In-Reply-To: <557FF64C.2080101@vwalther.de> References: "\"" <001901d0a69b$ff0cb930$fd262b90$@online.no>" <56BEA439-B529-4047-931C-8EB91FF0F8EE@btopenworld.com> <557FF64C.2080101@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <9ef8801116c9419fe97102e8738d069a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Hi all, here is a rather extreme case, which I think might be used as an example for future TDs. But first I'll conduct a poll. Let's try to mention everything relevant. You're fourth in hand, matchpoint event, both pairs are wel--drilled competitors, if not top-level players, you're vulnerable against not, and hold : AQx A Ax AKJxxxxx Of course, they won't let you open. Partner opens 2D, Multi : weak in either major (quite sound at the vulnerability), or 22-24 (semi-)balanced, or any very strong 2-suiter. RHO flies in with 4H. Your turn. Thank you for your help. Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 16 12:52:03 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:52:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13A&B vs L13F In-Reply-To: <000101d0a51f$a85d4b40$f917e1c0$@online.no> References: "\"<\\\">\" \"<2A2FFE880AFC4D0D93E698902EA3665E@OlivierPC><\\\"> <55764D89.7030409@nhcc.net><001901d0a2ba$0efc58e0$2cf50aa0$@online.no><001901d0a342$73866160$5a932420$@online.no><6C8408DA-1DA6-43FF-BF83-2070EE84A3B0@bley-strafrecht.de> <60406E64-CFA0-486E-A2DE-4672B4B852CF@wesleyan.edu>\" " <94d313eb8453b60c93b16cad72d764a5@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <557AC75F.1090401@skynet.be> <000101d0a51f$a85d4b40$f917e1c0$@online.no> Message-ID: <1c570bcb69fd58d7408ed6c6c45c202c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 12.06.2015 16:54, Sven Pran a ?crit?: >> Herman De Wael > [...] >> This way, madness lies. Bridge is not a fair game, get used to it. > > [Sven Pran] > I most strongly protest! > > Any game is played according to its rules, and a game is fair provided > its rules apply equally to every contestant. AG : I beg to differ. For once, a game is fair if it gives all contestants equal opportunity to use their skills and luck to win. The fact that rules apply equally to everybody only fulfills part of this objective. > So bridge is certainly a fair game (we do not distinguish between > royalty, nobility and commoners) But it applies differently to people with warious social levels. For example, some hesitate to lodge an appeal that might cost them 200 $. That IMO is extremely unfair. Also, the 90s controversy about Women events (not completely extinct) showed that the condition "apply equally to every contestant" is not necessarily fulfilled. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 16 14:01:42 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:01:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Try explaining them In-Reply-To: <9ef8801116c9419fe97102e8738d069a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\" " "\"<001901d0a69b$ff0cb930$fd262b90$@online.no>\\\" <56BEA439-B529-4047-931C-8EB91FF0F8EE@btopenworld.com> " <557FF64C.2080101@vwalther.de>" <9ef8801116c9419fe97102e8738d069a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Le 16.06.2015 12:34, agot a ?crit?: > Hi all, > > here is a rather extreme case, which I think might be used as an > example > for future TDs. > > But first I'll conduct a poll. > > Let's try to mention everything relevant. > You're fourth in hand, matchpoint event, both pairs are wel--drilled > competitors, if not top-level players, you're vulnerable against not, > and hold : > > AQx > A > Ax > AKJxxxxx > Er, yes, you have "only" seven clubs. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Jun 16 14:13:23 2015 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:13:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Try explaining them In-Reply-To: <9ef8801116c9419fe97102e8738d069a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <1246585309.577623.1434456803927.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "agot" > ?: blml at rtflb.org > Envoy?: Mardi 16 Juin 2015 12:34:54 > Objet: [BLML] Try explaining them > > Hi all, > > here is a rather extreme case, which I think might be used as an example > for future TDs. > > But first I'll conduct a poll. > > Let's try to mention everything relevant. > You're fourth in hand, matchpoint event, both pairs are wel--drilled > competitors, if not top-level players, you're vulnerable against not, > and hold : > > AQx > A > Ax > AKJxxxxx > > Of course, they won't let you open. Partner opens 2D, Multi : weak in > either major (quite sound at the vulnerability), or 22-24 > (semi-)balanced, or any very strong 2-suiter. RHO flies in with 4H. Your > turn. i apologize not to have counted my cards before looking at them. jpr > > Thank you for your help. > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Jun 16 14:33:56 2015 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:33:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Try explaining them In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <978719220.587269.1434458036923.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "agot" > ?: blml at rtflb.org > Envoy?: Mardi 16 Juin 2015 14:01:42 > Objet: Re: [BLML] Try explaining them > > Le 16.06.2015 12:34, agot a ?crit?: > > Hi all, > > > > here is a rather extreme case, which I think might be used as an > > example > > for future TDs. > > > > But first I'll conduct a poll. > > > > Let's try to mention everything relevant. > > You're fourth in hand, matchpoint event, both pairs are wel--drilled > > competitors, if not top-level players, you're vulnerable against not, > > and hold : > > > > AQx > > A > > Ax > > AKJxxxx > > Er, yes, you have "only" seven clubs. > Of course, they won't let you open. Partner opens 2D, Multi : weak in > either major (quite sound at the vulnerability), or 22-24 > (sembalanced, or any very strong 2-suiter. RHO flies in with 4H. Your > turn. 7S of course, except that when you ask us, i am suspicious and will transit via 5H just to limit damage in case rho would be joking. jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Tue Jun 16 15:16:16 2015 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:16:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Try explaining them In-Reply-To: <9ef8801116c9419fe97102e8738d069a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\"" <001901d0a69b$ff0cb930$fd262b90$@online.no>" <56BEA439-B529-4047-931C-8EB91FF0F8EE@btopenworld.com> <557FF64C.2080101@vwalther.de> <9ef8801116c9419fe97102e8738d069a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <558021A0.3080906@verizon.net> On 6/16/2015 6:34 AM, agot wrote: > Hi all, > > here is a rather extreme case, which I think might be used as an example > for future TDs. > > But first I'll conduct a poll. > > Let's try to mention everything relevant. > You're fourth in hand, matchpoint event, both pairs are wel--drilled > competitors, if not top-level players, you're vulnerable against not, > and hold : > > AQx > A > Ax > AKJxxxxx > > Of course, they won't let you open. Partner opens 2D, Multi : weak in > either major (quite sound at the vulnerability), or 22-24 > (semi-)balanced, or any very strong 2-suiter. RHO flies in with 4H. Your > turn. > > Thank you for your help. I will guess that Alain intended the hand to be 3-1-2-7. If so, 5H, planning to bid 7S over 5S or 6C over 5NT (presumably showing hearts). -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 16 15:41:27 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:41:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Try explaining them In-Reply-To: <9ef8801116c9419fe97102e8738d069a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\"" <001901d0a69b$ff0cb930$fd262b90$@online.no>" <56BEA439-B529-4047-931C-8EB91FF0F8EE@btopenworld.com> <557FF64C.2080101@vwalther.de> <9ef8801116c9419fe97102e8738d069a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <55802787.9050009@skynet.be> 6Sp? Just in case partner does not have those, he can still retreat to 6NT. other choices: 6Cl, 7Cl, 7Sp. Herman. agot schreef: > Hi all, > > here is a rather extreme case, which I think might be used as an example > for future TDs. > > But first I'll conduct a poll. > > Let's try to mention everything relevant. > You're fourth in hand, matchpoint event, both pairs are wel--drilled > competitors, if not top-level players, you're vulnerable against not, > and hold : > > AQx > A > Ax > AKJxxxxx > > Of course, they won't let you open. Partner opens 2D, Multi : weak in > either major (quite sound at the vulnerability), or 22-24 > (semi-)balanced, or any very strong 2-suiter. RHO flies in with 4H. Your > turn. > > Thank you for your help. > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jun 17 09:10:15 2015 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 08:10:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fantastic Four In-Reply-To: References: <001901d0a69b$ff0cb930$fd262b90$@online.no> <56BEA439-B529-4047-931C-8EB91FF0F8EE@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: <3D4D54E2-7410-4EFB-B4E1-B40322BCB205@btopenworld.com> Or he can adjust it simply because the NOS were damaged by the "unduly slow play". But anyway the lack of a PP, or maybe a DP, sends the wrong message. > On 16 Jun 2015, at 04:41, Richard Hills wrote: > > If one is expecting an urgent phone call during an Aussie National Championship, then regulation requires that one's mobile phone is given to a Director. Plus there is a mandatory penalty of 3 victory points if one has forgotten to switch off one's phone and it rings during the session. However, no such regulation has been adopted by the Canberra Bridge Club. > > Nevertheless the Director could still have applied a Law 90B2 procedural penalty for "unduly slow play". However, unlike the codified PPs in the EBU's White Book, the ABF discourages the application of PPs. > > Once the Director, at the request of the non-offending side, has appointed himself a temporary substitute under the fantastic Law Four, is it legal for the Director to adjust the score on the basis that the substitution was a Director's Error (due to the Director being an expert). > >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> I am not sure whether clubs here tend to have specific rules, but there will normally be a penalty for a phone that rings. But people turn their phones off during bridge sessions and it would not occur to anyone to have an extended conversation. >> >> I think that a ban would be sensible >> >> >> >>> On 14 Jun 2015, at 13:16, Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> What regulations do you have related to cell-phones? >>> >>> >>> >>> We do not allow such conversations during an event. In the case of a player being on-call for possible emergencies etc. he must arrange with the TD to take care of and answer the phone and then relay the message to the player. >>> >>> >>> >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills >>> Sendt: 14. juni 2015 12:44 >>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Emne: [BLML] Fantastic Four >>> >>> >>> >>> During last Thursday's walk-in Butler pairs (FYI a two winner Mitchell movement) partner received a not-really-urgent but extended phone call, absenting himself from the playing area to avoid annoying other contestants. Growing impatient my RHO summoned the Director, requesting the TD use the fantastic Law Four to appoint himself as a temporary substitute. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Director agreed. During the auction the TD chose a marginal overcall of 2C, on a hand for which my real partner would have automatically passed. I chose an equally marginal competitive raise to 3C. As a result the opponents stopped in game. Had they had the normal uncontested auction they would have easily reached their cold slam. >>> >>> >>> >>> Should partner have received a procedural penalty? Should the Director have adjusted the score against himself? >>> >>> >>> >>> How would you rule? >>> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/20150617/5b289b21/attachment.html From vip at centrum.is Wed Jun 17 13:22:05 2015 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:22:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Try explaining them In-Reply-To: <9ef8801116c9419fe97102e8738d069a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <434061566.695639.1434540125562.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> I bid 7S If my LHO was fooling around wiht eg... KJT98765-xx-xx-x I will be the first one to congratulate him with a great psyce Vigfus ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "agot" Til: blml at rtflb.org Sent: ?ri?judagur, 16. J?n?, 2015 10:34:54 Efni: [BLML] Try explaining them Hi all, here is a rather extreme case, which I think might be used as an example for future TDs. But first I'll conduct a poll. Let's try to mention everything relevant. You're fourth in hand, matchpoint event, both pairs are wel--drilled competitors, if not top-level players, you're vulnerable against not, and hold : AQx A Ax AKJxxxxx Of course, they won't let you open. Partner opens 2D, Multi : weak in either major (quite sound at the vulnerability), or 22-24 (semi-)balanced, or any very strong 2-suiter. RHO flies in with 4H. Your turn. Thank you for your help. Alain _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 17 16:15:32 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:15:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Try explaining them In-Reply-To: <434061566.695639.1434540125562.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <434061566.695639.1434540125562.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: Le 17.06.2015 13:22, Vigf?s P?lsson a ?crit?: > I bid 7S > > If my LHO was fooling around wiht eg... > KJT98765-xx-xx-x > I will be the first one to congratulate him with a great psyce > > Here is the story. I unearthed this deal from the 90s to illustrate my position about fairness. It was North's hand. Let me first tell you that things are as they seem : - South had a textbook weak 2-bid, and then some ; you may indeed make the grand, although our teammates only reached 6. Also, 6C is makable ; - West had just a very long suit and vulnerability on her side ; - don't even imagine a psyche ; she was chairwoman of the club, on a crusade against a pair from the club who indulged in frivolous psyches, so she couldn't have allowed herself this ; - as Jean-Pierre put it, 7S is obvious in any settings other than this forum. I passed as East, with as dull a hand as is possible. South, a reliable citizen, duly opened his Multi. West somewhat uncharacteristically went full stem ahead on her long suit. North thought a bit, then "obviously" bid 7S. So, what's the problem ? The problem, of course, is that West's hand was very similar to what Vidgus imagined : long *spades* and weak. But West had mispulled. Her eyesight had begun to fade, and bidding box use wasn't perfecdtly mastered at the time. The important part is that West didn't know about BB rules. She didn't know that she was allowed to replace her inadvertent bid. So, upon noticing the problem, she kept a stiff upper lip, which she usually did. Of course, you might suffer an absurd result as a consequence of an opponent's error. This is part of the game, happens day after day, and there is even a rodent's name for that. What happened here, however, is that NS suffered a swing of Berlin Mauer amplitude, simply because their opponent didn't know the rules, and so failed to act to her own best interest. And that, I claim, was totally unfair. By definition, the rules can't cover what to do when they aren't followed to the best of your interests, and this is where the Levisian approach meets its limits. Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Jun 20 00:18:32 2015 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 23:18:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Try explaining them In-Reply-To: <978719220.587269.1434458036923.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> References: <978719220.587269.1434458036923.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <5F0EC8C8-99EB-4ADB-95D3-9C8BC34B110C@btopenworld.com> I am not sure; the opponents were damaged, after all. It was not their fault that some idiot thought he could talk on the phone rather than play a board. In any case the phone jockey MUST receive a DP of at least twice the normal amount. He needs to be taught a lesson. > On 16 Jun 2015, at 13:33, ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre wrote: > > > > ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "agot" >> ?: blml at rtflb.org >> Envoy?: Mardi 16 Juin 2015 14:01:42 >> Objet: Re: [BLML] Try explaining them >> >> Le 16.06.2015 12:34, agot a ?crit : >>> Hi all, >>> >>> here is a rather extreme case, which I think might be used as an >>> example >>> for future TDs. >>> >>> But first I'll conduct a poll. >>> >>> Let's try to mention everything relevant. >>> You're fourth in hand, matchpoint event, both pairs are wel--drilled >>> competitors, if not top-level players, you're vulnerable against not, >>> and hold : >>> >>> AQx >>> A >>> Ax >>> AKJxxxx >> >> Er, yes, you have "only" seven clubs. >> Of course, they won't let you open. Partner opens 2D, Multi : weak in >> either major (quite sound at the vulnerability), or 22-24 >> (sembalanced, or any very strong 2-suiter. RHO flies in with 4H. Your >> turn. > > 7S of course, except that when you ask us, i am suspicious and will transit via 5H just to limit damage in case rho would be joking. > jpr > > -- > _______________________________________________ > 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Jun 20 00:20:57 2015 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 23:20:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fantastic Four In-Reply-To: <557FF64C.2080101@vwalther.de> References: <001901d0a69b$ff0cb930$fd262b90$@online.no> <56BEA439-B529-4047-931C-8EB91FF0F8EE@btopenworld.com> <557FF64C.2080101@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <41FE7364-1022-4E76-A42E-01662FA3859F@btopenworld.com> Oops should have read this; it says it all. > On 16 Jun 2015, at 11:11, Volker Walther wrote: > >> Am 16.06.2015 um 05:41 schrieb Richard Hills: >> Once the Director, at the request of the non-offending side, has >> appointed himself a temporary substitute under the fantastic Law Four, >> is it legal for the Director to adjust the score on the basis that the >> substitution was a Director's Error (due to the Director being an expert). > > > I see two possible directors errors here > > 1.) The TD did not inform the NOS that they would get AV+ on the board > if nobody substitutes. > 2.) There is an Aussi law that forbids substitution by a stronger player > and the TD knew that he likely is stronger than the substituted. > > In case 1) we should use 82C and score the board as AV+/AV+ > > In Case 2) We probably should let the result stand or replace it by a > mixed score. > Choosing a margin overcall is rather a matter of style, not a matter of > skill. So the fact that this 2C overcall was made, may be no consequence > of choosing a too good substitute. > If the NOS side knew about the playing skills of the substituted player > and the TD, score stands(L11A). Otherwise check the probability that the > 2C bid will be made by a legal substitute. > > By the way: if the TD really is an expert in playing, he must not > substitute any player but another expert. And he should know this. > > Making a phone call during a game is always an infraction of 74A2 an may > be penalized. > "A player should carefully avoid any (...) action that might > cause annoyance (..) to another player or might > interfere with the enjoyment of the game." > > > Greetings, Volker > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jun 20 09:52:39 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 09:52:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Try explaining them In-Reply-To: <5F0EC8C8-99EB-4ADB-95D3-9C8BC34B110C@btopenworld.com> References: <978719220.587269.1434458036923.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> <5F0EC8C8-99EB-4ADB-95D3-9C8BC34B110C@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: <55851BC7.2020702@skynet.be> Stefanie, please be real: A player comes to you at the start of the bridge tournament telling you that he is willing to pay the inscription fee, but that he is going to take a break of some 5 minutes half-way through the toutnament in order to make an important phone-call. Do you accept his inscription or do you tell him to leave? And how often do you think he'll come back after you've refused him? The player was (probably) not disturbing the tournament. Why do you insist on treating your customers like little children who must do as they're told? And if it means accepting a substitute for one board, so be it. And of course you are completely wrong in suggesting that if the substitute gets a good score, this score has to be cancelled because the opponents are "damaged". Herman. Stefanie Rohan schreef: > I am not sure; the opponents were damaged, after all. It was not their fault that some idiot thought he could talk on the phone rather than play a board. > > In any case the phone jockey MUST receive a DP of at least twice the normal amount. He needs to be taught a lesson. > > > >> On 16 Jun 2015, at 13:33, ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre wrote: >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "agot" >>> ?: blml at rtflb.org >>> Envoy?: Mardi 16 Juin 2015 14:01:42 >>> Objet: Re: [BLML] Try explaining them >>> >>> Le 16.06.2015 12:34, agot a ?crit : >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> here is a rather extreme case, which I think might be used as an >>>> example >>>> for future TDs. >>>> >>>> But first I'll conduct a poll. >>>> >>>> Let's try to mention everything relevant. >>>> You're fourth in hand, matchpoint event, both pairs are wel--drilled >>>> competitors, if not top-level players, you're vulnerable against not, >>>> and hold : >>>> >>>> AQx >>>> A >>>> Ax >>>> AKJxxxx >>> >>> Er, yes, you have "only" seven clubs. >>> Of course, they won't let you open. Partner opens 2D, Multi : weak in >>> either major (quite sound at the vulnerability), or 22-24 >>> (sembalanced, or any very strong 2-suiter. RHO flies in with 4H. Your >>> turn. >> >> 7S of course, except that when you ask us, i am suspicious and will transit via 5H just to limit damage in case rho would be joking. >> jpr >> >> -- >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Jun 20 14:35:48 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 22:35:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Home Alone Message-ID: Thursday morning Butler pairs, one-winner movement. The opponents are playing the Aussie version of Standard American. Board 18, Dlr: E, Vul: N-S. You, East, hold: AT764 J7 AJ43 43 As dealer you elect to Pass. So now South opens the bidding with 1C, announced by North as, "At least three clubs." Pass from West, followed by 2C from North. This is alerted and explained as Inverted Minor (denying a 4-card major, promising at least 4 clubs, and also promising game-invitation or game-force values). What call do you make now? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150620/4a34b077/attachment.html From vip at centrum.is Sat Jun 20 15:17:05 2015 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 13:17:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Home Alone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1267082410.2214829.1434806225442.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> I am a buisy bidder. 2 spades. I know this is not everyone's choice Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Richard Hills" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Laugardagur, 20. J?n?, 2015 12:35:48 Efni: [BLML] Home Alone Thursday morning Butler pairs, one-winner movement. The opponents are playing the Aussie version of Standard American. Board 18, Dlr: E, Vul: N-S. You, East, hold: AT764 J7 AJ43 43 As dealer you elect to Pass. So now South opens the bidding with 1C, announced by North as, "At least three clubs." Pass from West, followed by 2C from North. This is alerted and explained as Inverted Minor (denying a 4-card major, promising at least 4 clubs, ?and also promising game-invitation or game-force values). What call do you make now? Best wishes, Richard Hills _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jun 20 15:35:34 2015 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 09:35:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Home Alone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40B6CEF98633462A96C683848CDDD243@erdos> I pass. My suit is weak enough that I may not want partner to lead one if he has a better lead of his own; a heart might be the best lead against 3NT. My hand is defensive, so I don't want to encourage partner to sacrifice. I would bid 2S with a slightly better suit, say AJTxx xx AJxx xx. ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Hills To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 8:35 AM Subject: [BLML] Home Alone Thursday morning Butler pairs, one-winner movement. The opponents are playing the Aussie version of Standard American. Board 18, Dlr: E, Vul: N-S. You, East, hold: AT764 J7 AJ43 43 As dealer you elect to Pass. So now South opens the bidding with 1C, announced by North as, "At least three clubs." Pass from West, followed by 2C from North. This is alerted and explained as Inverted Minor (denying a 4-card major, promising at least 4 clubs, ? and also promising game-invitation or game-force values). What call do you make now? Best wishes, Richard Hills ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20150620/263922ad/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Jun 20 15:57:58 2015 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 23:57:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Home Alone In-Reply-To: <1267082410.2214829.1434806225442.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <1267082410.2214829.1434806225442.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <001801d0ab61$1d4ac080$57e04180$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Vigf?s P?lsson > Sent: Saturday, 20 June 2015 11:17 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Home Alone > > I am a buisy bidder. 2 spades. > I know this is not everyone's choice > > Greetings from Iceland > Vigfus Palsson > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > Fr?: "Richard Hills" > Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Laugardagur, 20. J?n?, 2015 12:35:48 > Efni: [BLML] Home Alone > > Thursday morning Butler pairs, one-winner movement. The opponents are > playing the Aussie version of Standard American. Board 18, Dlr: E, Vul: N-S. > > You, East, hold: > > AT764 > J7 > AJ43 > 43 > > As dealer you elect to Pass. So now South opens the bidding with 1C, > announced by North as, "At least three clubs." Pass from West, followed by > 2C from North. This is alerted and explained as Inverted Minor (denying a 4- > card major, promising at least 4 clubs, and also promising game-invitation > or game-force values). > > What call do you make now? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills partner has hesitated mightily after 1C, so now I pass in tempo, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Jun 21 00:53:45 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:53:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Home Alone In-Reply-To: <1267082410.2214829.1434806225442.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <1267082410.2214829.1434806225442.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: Getting busy with a 2S overcall when the opponents hold the balance of power can be counter-productive. On the actual deal 3NT is cold if West leads a spade. But on an uncontested auction West has a natural diamond lead, which defeats 3NT. The plot of the movie Home Alone is a forgotten minor. At the table North's 2C was not alerted because South had forgotten their Inverted Minor convention. On this misinformation East's 2S overcall was attractive, as there was a chance of +110 or +140. Hence the Director adjusted the score from 3NT making to 2C making. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Saturday, June 20, 2015, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > I am a buisy bidder. 2 spades. > I know this is not everyone's choice > > Greetings from Iceland > Vigfus Palsson > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > Fr?: "Richard Hills" > > Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Laugardagur, 20. J?n?, 2015 12:35:48 > Efni: [BLML] Home Alone > > Thursday morning Butler pairs, one-winner movement. The opponents are > playing the Aussie version of Standard American. Board 18, Dlr: E, Vul: N-S. > > You, East, hold: > > AT764 > J7 > AJ43 > 43 > > As dealer you elect to Pass. So now South opens the bidding with 1C, > announced by North as, "At least three clubs." Pass from West, followed by > 2C from North. This is alerted and explained as Inverted Minor (denying a > 4-card major, promising at least 4 clubs, and also promising > game-invitation or game-force values). > > What call do you make now? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150620/23e38197/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jun 21 11:22:26 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 11:22:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Home Alone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55868252.7040809@skynet.be> I would bid 2S, Carine would pass, not wishing to take away the heart lead if partner wants to lead those. Herman. Richard Hills schreef: > Thursday morning Butler pairs, one-winner movement. The opponents are > playing the Aussie version of Standard American. Board 18, Dlr: E, Vul: N-S. > > You, East, hold: > > AT764 > J7 > AJ43 > 43 > > As dealer you elect to Pass. So now South opens the bidding with 1C, > announced by North as, "At least three clubs." Pass from West, followed > by 2C from North. This is alerted and explained as Inverted Minor > (denying a 4-card major, promising at least 4 clubs, and also promising > game-invitation or game-force values). > > What call do you make now? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From bridge at vwalther.de Sun Jun 21 11:53:56 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 11:53:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Home Alone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <558689B4.3000803@vwalther.de> 2Spades. Lead directing and disturbing opps. Volker. Am 20.06.2015 um 14:35 schrieb Richard Hills: > Thursday morning Butler pairs, one-winner movement. The opponents are > playing the Aussie version of Standard American. Board 18, Dlr: E, Vul: N-S. > > You, East, hold: > > AT764 > J7 > AJ43 > 43 > > As dealer you elect to Pass. So now South opens the bidding with 1C, > announced by North as, "At least three clubs." Pass from West, followed > by 2C from North. This is alerted and explained as Inverted Minor > (denying a 4-card major, promising at least 4 clubs, and also promising > game-invitation or game-force values). > > What call do you make now? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 22 15:12:37 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:12:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Try explaining them In-Reply-To: <5F0EC8C8-99EB-4ADB-95D3-9C8BC34B110C@btopenworld.com> References: <978719220.587269.1434458036923.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> <5F0EC8C8-99EB-4ADB-95D3-9C8BC34B110C@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: Le 20.06.2015 00:18, Stefanie Rohan a ?crit?: > I am not sure; the opponents were damaged, after all. It was not their > fault that some idiot thought he could talk on the phone rather than > play a board. I don't understand this at all. Your 'idiot' was a fine player ; only her sight was far from perfect, and BBs were fairly new at that time, so that she didn't know the rules about their use. Yeah, opponents were damaged by her lack of knowledge. But please tell me on which grounds you'll penalize her - and if you called her an idiot you might well be ostracized as a TD by half of Belgium. (ah yes, BTW, cell phones were unknown at that time) From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 22 15:17:31 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:17:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Home Alone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0936d67df389e0f758d3d0a07cf6d290@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 20.06.2015 14:35, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Thursday morning Butler pairs, one-winner movement. The opponents are > playing the Aussie version of Standard American. Board 18, Dlr: E, > Vul: N-S. > > You, East, hold: > > AT764 > J7 > AJ43 > 43 > > As dealer you elect to Pass. So now South opens the bidding with 1C, > announced by North as, "At least three clubs." Pass from West, > followed by 2C from North. This is alerted and explained as Inverted > Minor (denying a 4-card major, promising at least 4 clubs, ?and also > promising game-invitation or game-force values). > > What call do you make now? AG : if my style is not to open such a hand at green (I usually play Dutch 2's, making it an obvious opening), neither is it worth an overcall. Doubling is rather easy after such a start, because responder has said most of it. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 22 15:22:17 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:22:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Home Alone In-Reply-To: References: <1267082410.2214829.1434806225442.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <555249a63dd4e8497d32ef6af5d5a232@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 21.06.2015 00:53, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Getting busy with a 2S overcall when the opponents hold the balance of > power can be counter-productive. On the actual deal 3NT is cold if > West leads a spade. But on an uncontested auction West has a natural > diamond lead, which defeats 3NT. > > The plot of the movie Home Alone is a forgotten minor. At the table > North's 2C was not alerted because South had forgotten their Inverted > Minor convention. On this misinformation East's 2S overcall was > attractive, as there was a chance of +110 or +140. Hence the Director > adjusted the score from 3NT making to 2C making. > AG : seems right to me. Add screens. East knows that 2C is strong, so he passes. South doesn't, so he passes too. There is no way, after this start, for N/S to play 3NT, so don't adjust to 3NT going down. This might prove a subpar result for E/W, other pairs going down in 3NT, but there is nothing you can do about it. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Jun 28 11:49:27 2015 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:49:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] card played from dummy Message-ID: Hello all, National Mixed Championships, Board 9, E ist declarer in 3NT. 92 87 KQ4 J87632 QJ4 A875 Q632 AJ5 A6 T32 Q954 AKT KT63 KT94 J9875 - East is the weakest player in the field and very nervous, North an expert feeling his age, and there is little love lost between the two ladies. After a diamond lead and return, East wins the second trick in dummy and plays a club to his ace (South throwing a spade). Trick 4: Club 10, spade; declarer says "club" and after about one second dummy puts the C5 into the played position. After another 2 or 3 seconds (undisputed) declarer says "queen". North plays the jack. The interesting question is, which club is the card played from dummy. Obviously dummy and opponents thought that declarer had finished his designation "club"; IMO declarer in his own mind had not. 45C4b does not apply as there was a "pause for thought" between "club" and "queen". To me, there appear to be 3 scenarios: 1. Declarer has not yet finished his designation, CQ is played, 45D applies. 2. Declarer has called for the C5, "queen" is an illegal change of play (47F2). 3. Declarer has incontrovertibly intended to play CQ (46B), "queen" was only added as a clarification when dummy played C5, CJ is played. Your opinions? Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Sun Jun 28 15:49:31 2015 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 15:49:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] card played from dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <558FFB6B.400@gmx.de> Ciao Petrus, This is difficult without having been at the table (and perhaps knowing the players). You say East was the weakest player and very nervous. Is there any reason to hesitate, even for a few seconds between saying the suit and then Queen? (Was the 1 second hesitation by dummy noticeable as hesitation?) Does he (declarer) often hesitate in this manner? Is it believable that he always intended to play the queen and the hesitation was caused by nervousness, or a speech defect or something like that? My feeling is negative, the dummy paused before playing low. Normally the declarer would have noticed this and thus realised that he might have a problem reaching the table and thus changed designation. This seems to me likely at this distance. (Incidentally does it make much difference in the result? Has North deblocked diamonds? Still, South has entries for the diamonds. The difference in result would be only one trick (probably). Anyway, this seems most likely at this distance. (Scenario 2) But why did north play the club J? Did he assume that the play from table was small? (Then he should have called the TD when declarer tried to change the designation.) Did he not hear the change of call? Was he coffeehousing to influence a TD decision? Solution 1 seems, prima facie, doubtful for me. There is no logical reason for a declarer to pause between designating suit and card played. Unless there were extenuating circumstances. (Nervousness, tension at the table.) But, again at this distance, this seems unlikely. By the TBR it would seem to be an illegal change of call, influenced by the hesitation of his partner. He may have intended to play the queen (probable, not illogical) but there is no reason not to say so. The question of why North played the Jack remains. Did North play the Jack after declarer called (with delay) for the queen? If so, why? (See above.) This my first impression, ciao, JE Postscriptum: North sounds like Heini B?rger. Am 28.06.2015 um 11:49 schrieb Petrus Schuster OSB: > Hello all, > > National Mixed Championships, Board 9, E ist declarer in 3NT. > > 92 > 87 > KQ4 > J87632 > > QJ4 A875 > Q632 AJ5 > A6 T32 > Q954 AKT > > KT63 > KT94 > J9875 > - > > East is the weakest player in the field and very nervous, North an expert > feeling his age, and there is little love lost between the two ladies. > > After a diamond lead and return, East wins the second trick in dummy and > plays a club to his ace (South throwing a spade). > > Trick 4: > > Club 10, spade; declarer says "club" and after about one second dummy puts > the C5 into the played position. After another 2 or 3 seconds (undisputed) > declarer says "queen". North plays the jack. > > The interesting question is, which club is the card played from dummy. > Obviously dummy and opponents thought that declarer had finished his Szenario 2 > designation "club"; IMO declarer in his own mind had not. > > 45C4b does not apply as there was a "pause for thought" between "club" and > "queen". > > To me, there appear to be 3 scenarios: > > 1. Declarer has not yet finished his designation, CQ is played, 45D > applies. > 2. Declarer has called for the C5, "queen" is an illegal change of play > (47F2). > 3. Declarer has incontrovertibly intended to play CQ (46B), "queen" was > only added as a clarification when dummy played C5, CJ is played. > > Your opinions? > > Regards, > Petrus > > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jun 28 20:47:21 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:47:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] card played from dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55904139.70904@nhcc.net> On 2015-06-28 5:49 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Club 10, spade; declarer says "club" and after about one second dummy puts > the C5 into the played position. After another 2 or 3 seconds (undisputed) > declarer says "queen". North plays the jack. That last is mysterious. How did it happen? Was North already "in motion" when declarer finally emerged with "queen?" Or was it long enough after that North should have had time to react? > To me, there appear to be 3 scenarios: > 1. Declarer has not yet finished his designation, CQ is played, 45D > applies. > 2. Declarer has called for the C5, "queen" is an illegal change of play > (47F2). > 3. Declarer has incontrovertibly intended to play CQ (46B), "queen" was > only added as a clarification when dummy played C5, CJ is played. Those look right to me, but there are two separate issues, both interesting: what card was played from dummy, and if the queen, can North withdraw the jack? On the first question, I don't like 1. There was a distinct pause, and dummy thought the low club had been designated. If you are going to let declarer play CQ, it has to be via 3. What did declarer say when you asked him what had happened? This is far from a classic case of "different intention is incontrovertible," but I suppose I might be convinced. On the second question, we need to know the timing. If C-J was played distinctly after declarer's call for the queen, it has to stand. If not, it can be changed under 45D, even (perhaps especially) in scenario 3. There's a legal question about whether the timing should be judged according to what a normal player in the North seat would do or according to the actual North, who seemingly was slower than most. My view would be the latter -- after all, the problem was entirely caused by the declarer -- but I don't know of any official interpretation. Yet another wrinkle is L23: a villainous declarer might have used the pause in designation to disconcert an infirm opponent. L23 doesn't require us to believe this scenario for the actual player, only to believe it might be possible for some villain. All in all, I'm inclined to scenario 2 unless declarer is very convincing about his intention. L46A uses "should," so declarer's incomplete designation was an infraction, and we should be reluctant to let an offender benefit directly. If we do allow C-Q, I'd be inclined to use L45D unless it was clear that C-J was played well after the change in designation. From hermandw2610 at gmail.com Mon Jun 29 09:25:21 2015 From: hermandw2610 at gmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:25:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] card played from dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Option one seems wrong - for various reasons Option two is the correct legal one, and only L46B can change this to Option three is the right one, if declarer can prove he intended to play the queen. I believe that in this case it should not be hard for declarer to prove this: after all, why ever did he play the Club 10? This is not a trick that started with the opponents. Declarer himself selected to start a club trick (with the 10). Declarer already knows finessing the jack won't work, so the only reason for playing the C10 seems to be to overtake it. It is quite reasonable to assume that, in the eyes of declarer, it is a clear intention, which is why he did not add anything.. If this is what declarer tells me, then I rule that "club" was an incomplete designation, which meant the quens since this is "incontrovertibly intended". As to the club jack, the laws are simple. If the CJ is played before the C5 is (legally, as it turns out) changed into the CQ, then it can be changed. If it is played after the mention of "Queen" then it has to remain played. Herman. 2015-06-28 11:49 GMT+02:00 Petrus Schuster OSB < petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at>: > Hello all, > > National Mixed Championships, Board 9, E ist declarer in 3NT. > > 92 > 87 > KQ4 > J87632 > > QJ4 A875 > Q632 AJ5 > A6 T32 > Q954 AKT > > KT63 > KT94 > J9875 > - > > East is the weakest player in the field and very nervous, North an expert > feeling his age, and there is little love lost between the two ladies. > > After a diamond lead and return, East wins the second trick in dummy and > plays a club to his ace (South throwing a spade). > > Trick 4: > > Club 10, spade; declarer says "club" and after about one second dummy puts > the C5 into the played position. After another 2 or 3 seconds (undisputed) > declarer says "queen". North plays the jack. > > The interesting question is, which club is the card played from dummy. > Obviously dummy and opponents thought that declarer had finished his > designation "club"; IMO declarer in his own mind had not. > > 45C4b does not apply as there was a "pause for thought" between "club" and > "queen". > > To me, there appear to be 3 scenarios: > > 1. Declarer has not yet finished his designation, CQ is played, 45D > applies. > 2. Declarer has called for the C5, "queen" is an illegal change of play > (47F2). > 3. Declarer has incontrovertibly intended to play CQ (46B), "queen" was > only added as a clarification when dummy played C5, CJ is played. > > Your opinions? > > Regards, > Petrus > > > -- > Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- This mail was sent from Tromso, Norway at the European Bridge Championships 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/20150629/56529daa/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 01:45:24 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:45:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] card played from dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Herman De Wael argued: "Decllarer already knows finessing the jack won't work." But declarer is the weakest player at the table. Therefore: a) declarer may have remembered the club void, but had a senior moment and thought RHO was void, or b) intentionally run the ten to the jack in order to establish dummy's nine, realising too late that that was futile. Hence as Director I would rule that the disputed trick was won by the jack. Note that the more expert dummy could have known that their out-of-tempo play of a low club might have alerted declarer to their error. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, June 29, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > Option one seems wrong - for various reasons > Option two is the correct legal one, and only L46B can change this to > Option three is the right one, if declarer can prove he intended to play > the queen. > I believe that in this case it should not be hard for declarer to prove > this: after all, why ever did he play the Club 10? This is not a trick that > started with the opponents. Declarer himself selected to start a club trick > (with the 10). Declarer already knows finessing the jack won't work, so the > only reason for playing the C10 seems to be to overtake it. It is quite > reasonable to assume that, in the eyes of declarer, it is a clear > intention, which is why he did not add anything.. > If this is what declarer tells me, then I rule that "club" was an > incomplete designation, which meant the quens since this is > "incontrovertibly intended". > > As to the club jack, the laws are simple. If the CJ is played before the > C5 is (legally, as it turns out) changed into the CQ, then it can be > changed. If it is played after the mention of "Queen" then it has to remain > played. > > Herman. > > 2015-06-28 11:49 GMT+02:00 Petrus Schuster OSB < > petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at > >: > >> Hello all, >> >> National Mixed Championships, Board 9, E ist declarer in 3NT. >> >> 92 >> 87 >> KQ4 >> J87632 >> >> QJ4 A875 >> Q632 AJ5 >> A6 T32 >> Q954 AKT >> >> KT63 >> KT94 >> J9875 >> - >> >> East is the weakest player in the field and very nervous, North an expert >> feeling his age, and there is little love lost between the two ladies. >> >> After a diamond lead and return, East wins the second trick in dummy and >> plays a club to his ace (South throwing a spade). >> >> Trick 4: >> >> Club 10, spade; declarer says "club" and after about one second dummy puts >> the C5 into the played position. After another 2 or 3 seconds (undisputed) >> declarer says "queen". North plays the jack. >> >> The interesting question is, which club is the card played from dummy. >> Obviously dummy and opponents thought that declarer had finished his >> designation "club"; IMO declarer in his own mind had not. >> >> 45C4b does not apply as there was a "pause for thought" between "club" and >> "queen". >> >> To me, there appear to be 3 scenarios: >> >> 1. Declarer has not yet finished his designation, CQ is played, 45D >> applies. >> 2. Declarer has called for the C5, "queen" is an illegal change of play >> (47F2). >> 3. Declarer has incontrovertibly intended to play CQ (46B), "queen" was >> only added as a clarification when dummy played C5, CJ is played. >> >> Your opinions? >> >> Regards, >> Petrus >> >> >> -- >> Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > -- > This mail was sent from Tromso, Norway at the European Bridge Championships > 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/20150629/990c8468/attachment.html From hermandw2610 at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 11:55:23 2015 From: hermandw2610 at gmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:55:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] card played from dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would please ask Richard to note some things: What I said was that "if declarer can convince me that ..." Richard seems to believe that this declarer is stupid, and he deduces this from ... nothing. Surely a stupid declarer will not be able to convince me. But Richard should not, with the certainty he displays, make seem that my ruling must be wrong. Please also note that Petrus said this was the weakest player at the table. The others were probably Austrian champions, and this was an Austrian Championship. It does not follow thatdeclarer was a ninconpoop who is unable to remember from trick three to four. I stand by my presumed ruling, which was only conditional to start with. Herman. 2015-06-30 1:45 GMT+02:00 Richard Hills : > Herman De Wael argued: > > "Decllarer already knows finessing the jack won't work." > > But declarer is the weakest player at the table. Therefore: > > a) declarer may have remembered the club void, but had a senior moment and > thought RHO was void, or > b) intentionally run the ten to the jack in order to establish dummy's > nine, realising too late that that was futile. > > Hence as Director I would rule that the disputed trick was won by the > jack. Note that the more expert dummy could have known that their > out-of-tempo play of a low club might have alerted declarer to their error. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Monday, June 29, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Option one seems wrong - for various reasons >> Option two is the correct legal one, and only L46B can change this to >> Option three is the right one, if declarer can prove he intended to play >> the queen. >> I believe that in this case it should not be hard for declarer to prove >> this: after all, why ever did he play the Club 10? This is not a trick that >> started with the opponents. Declarer himself selected to start a club trick >> (with the 10). Declarer already knows finessing the jack won't work, so the >> only reason for playing the C10 seems to be to overtake it. It is quite >> reasonable to assume that, in the eyes of declarer, it is a clear >> intention, which is why he did not add anything.. >> If this is what declarer tells me, then I rule that "club" was an >> incomplete designation, which meant the quens since this is >> "incontrovertibly intended". >> >> As to the club jack, the laws are simple. If the CJ is played before the >> C5 is (legally, as it turns out) changed into the CQ, then it can be >> changed. If it is played after the mention of "Queen" then it has to remain >> played. >> >> Herman. >> >> 2015-06-28 11:49 GMT+02:00 Petrus Schuster OSB < >> petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at>: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> National Mixed Championships, Board 9, E ist declarer in 3NT. >>> >>> 92 >>> 87 >>> KQ4 >>> J87632 >>> >>> QJ4 A875 >>> Q632 AJ5 >>> A6 T32 >>> Q954 AKT >>> >>> KT63 >>> KT94 >>> J9875 >>> - >>> >>> East is the weakest player in the field and very nervous, North an expert >>> feeling his age, and there is little love lost between the two ladies. >>> >>> After a diamond lead and return, East wins the second trick in dummy and >>> plays a club to his ace (South throwing a spade). >>> >>> Trick 4: >>> >>> Club 10, spade; declarer says "club" and after about one second dummy >>> puts >>> the C5 into the played position. After another 2 or 3 seconds >>> (undisputed) >>> declarer says "queen". North plays the jack. >>> >>> The interesting question is, which club is the card played from dummy. >>> Obviously dummy and opponents thought that declarer had finished his >>> designation "club"; IMO declarer in his own mind had not. >>> >>> 45C4b does not apply as there was a "pause for thought" between "club" >>> and >>> "queen". >>> >>> To me, there appear to be 3 scenarios: >>> >>> 1. Declarer has not yet finished his designation, CQ is played, 45D >>> applies. >>> 2. Declarer has called for the C5, "queen" is an illegal change of play >>> (47F2). >>> 3. Declarer has incontrovertibly intended to play CQ (46B), "queen" was >>> only added as a clarification when dummy played C5, CJ is played. >>> >>> Your opinions? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Petrus >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> This mail was sent from Tromso, Norway at the European Bridge >> Championships >> 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 > > -- This mail was sent from Tromso, Norway at the European Bridge Championships 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/20150630/566fa258/attachment.html