From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Mar 2 20:54:16 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:54:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] self-ruling In-Reply-To: <54E4535E.2060605@skynet.be> References: <54E4535E.2060605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54F4BFE8.4020009@nhcc.net> On 2015-02-18 3:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > My partner asks, and the answer is "we play Walsh, not transfer Walsh". I've no problem with the ruling, but I might have been more lenient because the explanation is what created the problem. Better would have been "shows four or more spades but doesn't deny four (or longer, if applicable) diamonds." That is far less likely to be misunderstood. Yet another example where giving just the name of a convention is likely to cause problems, though in this case in a novel way. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 3 01:26:30 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 01:26:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] self-ruling In-Reply-To: <54F4BFE8.4020009@nhcc.net> References: <54E4535E.2060605@skynet.be> <54F4BFE8.4020009@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Le 02.03.2015 20:54, Steve Willner a ?crit?: > On 2015-02-18 3:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> My partner asks, and the answer is "we play Walsh, not transfer >> Walsh". > > I've no problem with the ruling, but I might have been more lenient > because the explanation is what created the problem. Better would have > been "shows four or more spades but doesn't deny four (or longer, if > applicable) diamonds." That is far less likely to be misunderstood. As a matter of fact, naming conventions isn't a legitimate way to explain, at least in my country. Too many people misunderstand them. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Mar 3 07:03:05 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:03:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Truth or Dare In-Reply-To: <2b8ee4e38734bebcb0819e6bb2d175d7@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <54E4933B.4070505@t-online.de> <54E596CC.30908@skynet.be> <30E5AD46AAEB4D68A50E46B80BBC0BCA@digitpc> <763996d9e0883df80cd66c345b776bd4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54E730E3.30602@skynet.be> <2b8ee4e38734bebcb0819e6bb2d175d7@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Brian Meadows: OK, so IMO it's up to the TD on the spot to decide whether it's a failure to alert or the 1NT opener actually forgot his system, I don't see how it's possible to decide that after the event on a mailing list. A weighted score adjustment would probably be the most equitable result, percentages of 1NT* and whatever would happen after the forced runout, based on your assessment of the 1NT bidder's claim. Richard Hills: The Aussie SW1NE convention is one of many around the world where a Pass forces a Redouble. For those of us who use SW1NE in a weak notrump context, the convention is sufficiently frequent as to be hard to forget. On the other hand, while I consistently Alert an artificial Pass by Hashmat, sometimes Hashmat fails to Alert an artificial Pass by me. But..... In my considered opinion, it is unLawful to immediately award a weighted score pursuant to Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts). The Director must irrevocably decide under Law 85 between EITHER Forgotten Alert AND/OR Forgotten System. (Of course, subsequent to the primary Law 85 decision there may be a secondary Law 12C1(c) weighted score.) Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 7:51 AM, agot wrote: > Le 20.02.2015 14:04, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > agot schreef: > >> > >> I'm uneasy with the idea of ruling that the player would have > >> forgotten > >> his system. > >> > > > > Well, if that is what he might actually have done? > > Remember the case: > > 1NT x p no alert > > We must rule that the opponents had the right to an alert. And then we > > must determine what would have happened subsequently, perhaps even > > weighting some alternatives. Now is it not among the possibilities that > > the guy who forgot to alert actually forgot what his system was, and > > passed? > > > >> We are empowered to rule, in case of doubt, that the OS would have > >> misbid or misplayed. > >> IMO we aren't empowered to take into account other possible errors. > >> > > > > That's true. > > > >> > >> For example, if the need to rule during the auction makes it appear > >> that > >> a player misheard the bidding, we can't rule that, absent our > >> intervention, he would have led out of turn as a consequence. > >> He might well have, but TFLB doesn't empower us too pretend it. > >> > > > > Indeed not, because the LOOT is an infraction of law. But forgetting > > your system is not, and the examples do not equate as a consequence. > > > But neither woud most of us count it as the kind of "normal errors" > which they'll take into account. > > Notice that I'm not against the idea that the possibility of a pass be > taken into account. I just feel unable to do it for now. There could / > shoild be a proviso about 'taking into account all reasonably possible > consequences of the current situation'. The important part being > 'consequences', because other events might happen and be unfavorable to > the OS, e.g. they might turn to the TD and show their cards to hte > opponents, which isn't an infrzction. > > > > > > >> > >> Best regards > >> > > > > See you tomorrow? (National Championship IMP pairs, which Alain has > > previously already won). > > > Sorry, still out of the game for a few more months. > > . > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150303/62bcd5ac/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 3 09:00:18 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 09:00:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] self-ruling In-Reply-To: <54F4BFE8.4020009@nhcc.net> References: <54E4535E.2060605@skynet.be> <54F4BFE8.4020009@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <54F56A12.4020702@skynet.be> Steve Willner schreef: > On 2015-02-18 3:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> My partner asks, and the answer is "we play Walsh, not transfer Walsh". > > I've no problem with the ruling, but I might have been more lenient > because the explanation is what created the problem. Better would have > been "shows four or more spades but doesn't deny four (or longer, if > applicable) diamonds." That is far less likely to be misunderstood. > Considering that everyone in our club plays either Walsh or T-Walsh, and everyone explains it so, this is completely acceptable. > Yet another example where giving just the name of a convention is likely > to cause problems, though in this case in a novel way. A novel way, surely. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 3 12:51:55 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:51:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] self-ruling In-Reply-To: <54F56A12.4020702@skynet.be> References: <54E4535E.2060605@skynet.be> <54F4BFE8.4020009@nhcc.net> <54F56A12.4020702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <18dc3a1e6e71a61c95d690e73c41a119@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 03.03.2015 09:00, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Steve Willner schreef: >> On 2015-02-18 3:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> My partner asks, and the answer is "we play Walsh, not transfer >>> Walsh". >> >> I've no problem with the ruling, but I might have been more lenient >> because the explanation is what created the problem. Better would >> have >> been "shows four or more spades but doesn't deny four (or longer, if >> applicable) diamonds." That is far less likely to be misunderstood. >> > > Considering that everyone in our club plays either Walsh or T-Walsh, > and > everyone explains it so, this is completely acceptable. > I very much doubt that everybody in your club plays Walsh the same way. And that's even more true of T-Walsh. I have already played three rather different versions of T-Walsh. Also, if your claim is true, then plain Walsh shouldn't be alerted. Best regards Alain From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Thu Mar 26 22:38:23 2015 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:38:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unintended but insufficient Message-ID: <55147C4F.1000409@gmail.com> Let consider an example of bidding: 1NT - pass - 2H - pass 2H The opener has the 3244 shape. 2H was an unintended call, but also insufficient. Could his LHO accept this bid? Law 27 says, that each insufficient bid can be accepted by LHO. But the unintended call should not have been made in the "real" auction... There is nothing about this situation in the Ton's Kooijman commentary. ?K --- Ta wiadomo?? zosta?a sprawdzona na obecno?? wirus?w przez oprogramowanie antywirusowe Avast. http://www.avast.com From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 26 22:55:54 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:55:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unintended but insufficient In-Reply-To: <55147C4F.1000409@gmail.com> References: <55147C4F.1000409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001101d0680f$a26a0680$e73e1380$@online.no> I don't remember exactly when and where I learned it, but there is a clear rule that Law 25A takes precedence over all other laws on irregular calls during the auction. Thus, an insufficient bid can never be accepted by the offender's LHO if the bid itself is accepted (by the Director) as being unintended. > Lukasz Kalbarczyk > Sendt: 26. mars 2015 22:38 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] Unintended but insufficient > > Let consider an example of bidding: > > 1NT - pass - 2H - pass > 2H > > The opener has the 3244 shape. > 2H was an unintended call, but also insufficient. > Could his LHO accept this bid? > > Law 27 says, that each insufficient bid can be accepted by LHO. > But the unintended call should not have been made in the "real" auction... > > There is nothing about this situation in the Ton's Kooijman commentary. > > ?K > > --- > Ta wiadomo?? zosta?a sprawdzona na obecno?? wirus?w przez > oprogramowanie antywirusowe Avast. > http://www.avast.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Thu Mar 26 23:00:31 2015 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:00:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unintended but insufficient In-Reply-To: <001101d0680f$a26a0680$e73e1380$@online.no> References: <55147C4F.1000409@gmail.com> <001101d0680f$a26a0680$e73e1380$@online.no> Message-ID: <5514817F.3000705@gmail.com> W dniu 2015-03-26 o 22:55, Sven Pran pisze: > I don't remember exactly when and where I learned it, but there is a clear rule that Law 25A takes precedence over all other laws on irregular calls during the auction. > > Thus, an insufficient bid can never be accepted by the offender's LHO if the bid itself is accepted (by the Director) as being unintended. > I think so, but where we could find it... ?K --- Ta wiadomo?? zosta?a sprawdzona na obecno?? wirus?w przez oprogramowanie antywirusowe Avast. http://www.avast.com From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Thu Mar 26 23:10:07 2015 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:10:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unintended but insufficient In-Reply-To: <001101d0680f$a26a0680$e73e1380$@online.no> References: <55147C4F.1000409@gmail.com> <001101d0680f$a26a0680$e73e1380$@online.no> Message-ID: <551483BF.50600@gmail.com> W dniu 2015-03-26 o 22:55, Sven Pran pisze: > I don't remember exactly when and where I learned it, but there is a clear rule that Law 25A takes precedence over all other laws on irregular calls during the auction. > > Thus, an insufficient bid can never be accepted by the offender's LHO if the bid itself is accepted (by the Director) as being unintended. > Something about this situation: http://bridge.rfrick.info/tdcontradictorylaws.htm ?K --- Ta wiadomo?? zosta?a sprawdzona na obecno?? wirus?w przez oprogramowanie antywirusowe Avast. http://www.avast.com From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 26 23:11:39 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:11:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unintended but insufficient In-Reply-To: <5514817F.3000705@gmail.com> References: <55147C4F.1000409@gmail.com> <001101d0680f$a26a0680$e73e1380$@online.no> <5514817F.3000705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001401d06811$d5ade320$8109a960$@online.no> You might have to go all the way back to the first amalgamated international bridge laws of 1935 (or even before that) to find it. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Lukasz Kalbarczyk > Sendt: 26. mars 2015 23:01 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: Re: [BLML] Unintended but insufficient > > W dniu 2015-03-26 o 22:55, Sven Pran pisze: > > I don't remember exactly when and where I learned it, but there is a clear > rule that Law 25A takes precedence over all other laws on irregular calls during > the auction. > > > > Thus, an insufficient bid can never be accepted by the offender's LHO if the bid > itself is accepted (by the Director) as being unintended. > > > I think so, but where we could find it... > > ?K > > --- > Ta wiadomo?? zosta?a sprawdzona na obecno?? wirus?w przez > oprogramowanie antywirusowe Avast. > http://www.avast.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Mar 27 13:00:46 2015 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:00:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unintended but insufficient In-Reply-To: <55147C4F.1000409@gmail.com> References: <55147C4F.1000409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <009301d06885$a8e51970$faaf4c50$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> There is a lot of stupid things happening not covered in my commentary, I simply lack the necessary creativity. The answer on your question is 'no', LHO should not get the opportunity to accept this bid. The possibility for the unintender (still some creativity) to substitute his call gets priority. Even when he has called over the unintended bid the unintender gets the possibility to substitute his call (and LHO also). ton insufficient Let consider an example of bidding: 1NT - pass - 2H - pass 2H The opener has the 3244 shape. 2H was an unintended call, but also insufficient. Could his LHO accept this bid? Law 27 says, that each insufficient bid can be accepted by LHO. But the unintended call should not have been made in the "real" auction... There is nothing about this situation in the Ton's Kooijman commentary. ?K From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Mar 27 13:07:53 2015 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:07:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unintended but insufficient In-Reply-To: <55147C4F.1000409@gmail.com> References: <55147C4F.1000409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55154819.20204@t-online.de> Am 26.03.2015 um 22:38 schrieb ?ukasz Kalbarczyk: > Let consider an example of bidding: > > 1NT - pass - 2H - pass > 2H > > The opener has the 3244 shape. > 2H was an unintended call, but also insufficient. > Could his LHO accept this bid? Depends... If opening bidder realizes tha his actual bid was unintended, and if he can persuade the director that this is so, then he can change it to his intended bid without further rectification (L25A). If he doesn`t change it, (or doesn`t realize it), then we are in L27 territory. I think this is highly unlikely, as most people want to change an unintended bids (and even some intended ones..). If the TD allows the change, then LHO has no say in this matter. The unintended bid would "vanish", so there no longer is any insufficient bid left... > > Law 27 says, that each insufficient bid can be accepted by LHO. > But the unintended call should not have been made in the "real" auction... > > There is nothing about this situation in the Ton's Kooijman commentary. > > ?K > > --- > Ta wiadomo?? zosta?a sprawdzona na obecno?? wirus?w przez oprogramowanie antywirusowe Avast. > http://www.avast.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Fri Mar 27 15:28:09 2015 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:28:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unintended but insufficient In-Reply-To: <551546e3.0761b40a.6bdc.ffff9922SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <55147C4F.1000409@gmail.com> <551546e3.0761b40a.6bdc.ffff9922SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <551568F9.2080603@gmail.com> W dniu 2015-03-27 o 13:00, ton pisze: > There is a lot of stupid things happening not covered in my commentary, I simply lack the necessary creativity. > > The answer on your question is 'no', LHO should not get the opportunity to accept this bid. The possibility for the unintender (still some creativity) to substitute his call gets priority. Even when he has called over the unintended bid the unintender gets the possibility to substitute his call (and LHO also). > > ton > Big Thanks. ?K --- Ta wiadomo?? zosta?a sprawdzona na obecno?? wirus?w przez oprogramowanie antywirusowe Avast. http://www.avast.com From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Mar 31 05:58:54 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:58:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Unintended but insufficient In-Reply-To: <551568F9.2080603@gmail.com> References: <55147C4F.1000409@gmail.com> <551546e3.0761b40a.6bdc.ffff9922SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <551568F9.2080603@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, the most recent WBF LC interpretation of Law 25A deems that the unintended call is more than voided, it never occurred - therefore the unintended call does not create any UI.* Best wishes, Richard Hills * Of course, the other partner's later call transmogrifies the first partner's "never occurred"" call into a "real" call, which can lead to some interesting auctions and rulings. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 1:28 AM, ?ukasz Kalbarczyk wrote: > W dniu 2015-03-27 o 13:00, ton pisze: > > There is a lot of stupid things happening not covered in my commentary, > I simply lack the necessary creativity. > > > > The answer on your question is 'no', LHO should not get the opportunity > to accept this bid. The possibility for the unintender (still some > creativity) to substitute his call gets priority. Even when he has called > over the unintended bid the unintender gets the possibility to substitute > his call (and LHO also). > > > > ton > > > Big Thanks. > > ?K > > --- > Ta wiadomo?? zosta?a sprawdzona na obecno?? wirus?w przez oprogramowanie > antywirusowe Avast. > http://www.avast.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150331/dc482713/attachment.html