From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 7 02:54:31 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 20:54:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Adjusted score after penalty card? Message-ID: <554AB7C7.5020501@nhcc.net> Here's another I haven't seen before, though I think I know the answer. At matchpoints, a defender has a penalty card (from an unestablished revoke, if it matters). Declarer thinks of a clever play, which has a 95% chance of working, to take advantage. (Let's say the play fails if a suit breaks 4-0 offside; isn't that about 5%?) If it works, this play will give a cosmic top; in the unlikely event it fails, a cosmic zero. Declarer executes this play, and A: it works, as expected, or B: today is declarer's unlucky day, and the play fails. Is there an adjusted score, possibly split, in either case? Relevant Laws seem to be 12A1, 12B2, and 12C1b, but I may be missing something. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu May 7 04:28:43 2015 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 22:28:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Adjusted score after penalty card? In-Reply-To: <554AB7C7.5020501@nhcc.net> References: <554AB7C7.5020501@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner writes: > Here's another I haven't seen before, though I think I know the answer. > > At matchpoints, a defender has a penalty card (from an unestablished > revoke, if it matters). Declarer thinks of a clever play, which has a > 95% chance of working, to take advantage. (Let's say the play fails if > a suit breaks 4-0 offside; isn't that about 5%?) If it works, this play > will give a cosmic top; in the unlikely event it fails, a cosmic zero. > Declarer executes this play, and > A: it works, as expected, or > > B: today is declarer's unlucky day, and the play fails. > > Is there an adjusted score, possibly split, in either case? Relevant > Laws seem to be 12A1, 12B2, and 12C1b, but I may be missing something. I would not adjust here; the defender gained as an indirect result of the infracton. The old rule book had a similar example of indirect damage. East commits an infraction during the bidding, which allows South to require or forbid a diamond lead from West. South requires a diamond lead. West leads something else, and East wins the trick, and returns a diamond for West to ruff, knowing that West is void in diamonds; this defense would not be found without the infraction. No adjustment is made. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 7 04:33:55 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 22:33:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Adjusted score after penalty card? In-Reply-To: <554AB7C7.5020501@nhcc.net> References: <554AB7C7.5020501@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 06 May 2015 20:54:31 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > Here's another I haven't seen before, though I think I know the answer. > > At matchpoints, a defender has a penalty card (from an unestablished > revoke, if it matters). Declarer thinks of a clever play, which has a > 95% chance of working, to take advantage. (Let's say the play fails if > a suit breaks 4-0 offside; isn't that about 5%?) If it works, this play > will give a cosmic top; in the unlikely event it fails, a cosmic zero. > Declarer executes this play, and > A: it works, as expected, or > > B: today is declarer's unlucky day, and the play fails. > > Is there an adjusted score, possibly split, in either case? Relevant > Laws seem to be 12A1, 12B2, and 12C1b, but I may be missing something. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Pretty obvious that there is no adjustment, or else you have to change how people rule. That happened on Long Island. Declarer with AQ of spades in dummy, needs the king of spades to be onside. LHO pre-empted, making it unlike he has the king; declarer gets a count that LHO has a singleton spade (and RHO has four), making it further unlikely. RHO now revokes, corrects, and has the penalty card of a small spade. So declarer can safely finesse, except declarer is in dummy, and any route to hand forces LHO to pitch his penalty card. Declarer comes up with the clever play of simply leading the queen of spades, losing to the singleton king onside. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu May 7 06:31:35 2015 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 14:31:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Adjusted score after penalty card? In-Reply-To: <554AB7C7.5020501@nhcc.net> References: <554AB7C7.5020501@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002301d0887e$b4f05310$1ed0f930$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Steve Willner > Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:55 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Adjusted score after penalty card? > > Here's another I haven't seen before, though I think I know the answer. > > At matchpoints, a defender has a penalty card (from an unestablished > revoke, if it matters). Declarer thinks of a clever play, which has a > 95% chance of working, to take advantage. (Let's say the play fails if > a suit breaks 4-0 offside; isn't that about 5%?) If it works, this play > will give a cosmic top; in the unlikely event it fails, a cosmic zero. > Declarer executes this play, and > A: it works, as expected, or > > B: today is declarer's unlucky day, and the play fails. > > Is there an adjusted score, possibly split, in either case? Relevant > Laws seem to be 12A1, 12B2, and 12C1b, but I may be missing something. The only thing to consider is the old "could have known" Law 23. Very devious defender who could deliberately create a penalty card that might lead declarer astray! Cheers Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu May 7 09:49:14 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 17:49:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Adjusted score after penalty card? In-Reply-To: <002301d0887e$b4f05310$1ed0f930$@optusnet.com.au> References: <554AB7C7.5020501@nhcc.net> <002301d0887e$b4f05310$1ed0f930$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: I agree with Tony Musgrove that Law 23 would apply to a very rare "devious" defender. But in almost all cases a No Adjustment ruling would be based upon Law 10C4, which gives offenders the conditional right to "appear to profit through their own infraction". Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, May 7, 2015, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto: > blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] On Behalf > > Of Steve Willner > > Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:55 AM > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: [BLML] Adjusted score after penalty card? > > > > Here's another I haven't seen before, though I think I know the > answer. > > > > At matchpoints, a defender has a penalty card (from an unestablished > > revoke, if it matters). Declarer thinks of a clever play, which has a > > 95% chance of working, to take advantage. (Let's say the play fails > if > > a suit breaks 4-0 offside; isn't that about 5%?) If it works, this > play > > will give a cosmic top; in the unlikely event it fails, a cosmic zero. > > Declarer executes this play, and > > A: it works, as expected, or > > > > B: today is declarer's unlucky day, and the play fails. > > > > Is there an adjusted score, possibly split, in either case? Relevant > > Laws seem to be 12A1, 12B2, and 12C1b, but I may be missing something. > > The only thing to consider is the old "could have known" Law 23. Very > devious > defender who could deliberately create a penalty card that might > lead declarer astray! > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150507/61218edf/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu May 7 11:38:55 2015 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 19:38:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Adjusted score after penalty card? In-Reply-To: References: <554AB7C7.5020501@nhcc.net> <002301d0887e$b4f05310$1ed0f930$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <001d01d088a9$a35f0b70$ea1d2250$@optusnet.com.au> I always like to pretend that I make up the more unusual rules on the spot, since the punters think that applies to all my rulings. However, one of my favourites is ?if it turns out that you have deliberately tried to silence your partner there is another rule which I will make up which will make you sorry? Cheers, Tony From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hills Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 5:49 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Adjusted score after penalty card? I agree with Tony Musgrove that Law 23 would apply to a very rare "devious" defender. But in almost all cases a No Adjustment ruling would be based upon Law 10C4, which gives offenders the conditional right to "appear to profit through their own infraction". Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, May 7, 2015, Tony Musgrove wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] On Behalf > Of Steve Willner > Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:55 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Adjusted score after penalty card? > > Here's another I haven't seen before, though I think I know the answer. > > At matchpoints, a defender has a penalty card (from an unestablished > revoke, if it matters). Declarer thinks of a clever play, which has a > 95% chance of working, to take advantage. (Let's say the play fails if > a suit breaks 4-0 offside; isn't that about 5%?) If it works, this play > will give a cosmic top; in the unlikely event it fails, a cosmic zero. > Declarer executes this play, and > A: it works, as expected, or > > B: today is declarer's unlucky day, and the play fails. > > Is there an adjusted score, possibly split, in either case? Relevant > Laws seem to be 12A1, 12B2, and 12C1b, but I may be missing something. The only thing to consider is the old "could have known" Law 23. Very devious defender who could deliberately create a penalty card that might lead declarer astray! 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150507/f15f2023/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun May 17 01:23:57 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 09:23:57 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fourth suit farce Message-ID: A while ago I was partnering an intelligent but inexperienced friend against two expert opponents. Using the Aussie version of the Acol system I opened 1C. Partner correctly announced my call as showing four or more clubs. LHO overcalled 1D, pard responded 1H, RHO passed and I rebid 1S. Now partner incorrectly alerted and explained this as fourth suit forcing. Was this a misexplanation infraction? My expert opponents knew me well and knew Aussie Acol well, so therefore also knew that pard's explanation could not be true. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150516/66343919/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun May 17 06:35:08 2015 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 00:35:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fourth suit farce In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> Experienced players are expected to protect themselves. If they know that the explanation is impossible, they cannot be damaged by MI. I don't know whether this particular explanation is impossible, though; there may be some players who describe a system but play some bids which are non-systemic, or even inconsistent. (For example, in the US, many players play four-suit transfers over 1NT but have the agreement that 1N-2C; 2H-2N shows 8-9 points and four spades, and thus they have no way to invite game in NT without a four-card major.) A more clear example would be a 1NT overcall by a passed hand, explained as 15-17 points, this cannot be MI because the opponents know the explanation is wrong. ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Hills To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 7:23 PM Subject: [BLML] Fourth suit farce A while ago I was partnering an intelligent but inexperienced friend against two expert opponents. Using the Aussie version of the Acol system I opened 1C. Partner correctly announced my call as showing four or more clubs. LHO overcalled 1D, pard responded 1H, RHO passed and I rebid 1S. Now partner incorrectly alerted and explained this as fourth suit forcing. Was this a misexplanation infraction? My expert opponents knew me well and knew Aussie Acol well, so therefore also knew that pard's explanation could not be true. 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/20150517/317666e4/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun May 17 09:10:16 2015 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 17:10:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fourth suit farce In-Reply-To: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> Message-ID: <00eb01d09070$872b6790$958236b0$@optusnet.com.au> David Grabiner: Experienced players are expected to protect themselves. If they know that the explanation is impossible, they cannot be damaged by MI. I don't know whether this particular explanation is impossible, though; there may be some players who describe a system but play some bids which are non-systemic, or even inconsistent. (For example, in the US, many players play four-suit transfers over 1NT but have the agreement that 1N-2C; 2H-2N shows 8-9 points and four spades, and thus they have no way to invite game in NT without a four-card major.) A more clear example would be a 1NT overcall by a passed hand, explained as 15-17 points, this cannot be MI because the opponents know the explanation is wrong. Tony (Sydney): exactly, if both the opponents know the explanation is wrong, there can hardly be any damage. Of course, there may still be UI floating around, but not likely in this case ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Hills To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 7:23 PM Subject: [BLML] Fourth suit farce A while ago I was partnering an intelligent but inexperienced friend against two expert opponents. Using the Aussie version of the Acol system I opened 1C. Partner correctly announced my call as showing four or more clubs. LHO overcalled 1D, pard responded 1H, RHO passed and I rebid 1S. Now partner incorrectly alerted and explained this as fourth suit forcing. Was this a misexplanation infraction? My expert opponents knew me well and knew Aussie Acol well, so therefore also knew that pard's explanation could not be true. 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/20150517/31c61815/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun May 17 09:25:07 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 17:25:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fourth suit farce In-Reply-To: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> Message-ID: David Grabiner suggested: "A more clear example would be a 1NT overcall by a passed hand, explained as 15-17 points, this cannot be MI because the opponents know the explanation is wrong." In my youth I played a Strong Pass system, in which I would pass as dealer with 15+ points. A subsequent 1NT overcall would indeed promise 15-18 points. Best wishes, Richard Hills ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Richard Hills On Sunday, May 17, 2015, David Grabiner wrote: > Experienced players are expected to protect themselves. If they know > that the explanation is impossible, they cannot be damaged by MI. I don't > know whether this particular explanation is impossible, though; there may > be some players who describe a system but play some bids which are > non-systemic, or even inconsistent. (For example, in the US, many players > play four-suit transfers over 1NT but have the agreement that 1N-2C; 2H-2N > shows 8-9 points and four spades, and thus they have no way to invite game > in NT without a four-card major.) > > A more clear example would be a 1NT overcall by a passed hand, explained > as 15-17 points, this cannot be MI because the opponents know the > explanation is wrong. > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Richard Hills > > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > > *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2015 7:23 PM > *Subject:* [BLML] Fourth suit farce > > A while ago I was partnering an intelligent but inexperienced friend > against two expert opponents. Using the Aussie version of the Acol system I > opened 1C. Partner correctly announced my call as showing four or more > clubs. LHO overcalled 1D, pard responded 1H, RHO passed and I rebid 1S. Now > partner incorrectly alerted and explained this as fourth suit forcing. > > Was this a misexplanation infraction? My expert opponents knew me well and > knew Aussie Acol well, so therefore also knew that pard's explanation could > not be true. > > 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/20150517/12f0eb30/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun May 17 16:39:22 2015 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 10:39:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fourth suit farce In-Reply-To: References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> Message-ID: <4596D077BD5548FD9B9EC654927EA062@erdos> If you play a Strong Pass system, you would have pre-alerted the system or alerted the opening pass (according to the rules in your jurisdiction), and thus a 1NT "overcall" showing either 15-17 or 18-20 would be normal; you could be misinformed if 1NT showed 18-20 and were told that it showed 15-17. The MI applies here because your opponents do not know the explanation is wrong; they would know from the basic knowledge of your system that 15-17 is possible. If your convention card is marked "Acol" or "2/1" or "Standard American" or "Precision", then the explanation of 15-17 is impossible (and if you are actually playing a forcing pass, the convention card and failure to alert are the MI). ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Hills To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 3:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fourth suit farce David Grabiner suggested: "A? more clear example would be a 1NT overcall by a passed hand, explained as 15-17 points, this cannot be MI because the opponents know the explanation is wrong." In my youth I played a Strong Pass system, in which I would pass as dealer with 15+ points. A subsequent 1NT overcall would indeed promise 15-18 points. Best wishes, Richard Hills ----- Original Message ----- From:? Richard Hills On Sunday, May 17, 2015, David Grabiner wrote: Experienced players are expected to protect themselves.? If they know that the explanation is impossible, they cannot be damaged by MI.? I don't know whether this particular explanation is impossible, though; there may be some players who describe a system but play some bids which are non-systemic, or even inconsistent.? (For example, in the US, many players play four-suit transfers over 1NT but have the agreement that 1N-2C; 2H-2N shows 8-9 points and four spades, and thus they have no way to invite game in NT without a four-card major.) ? A? more clear example would be a 1NT overcall by a passed hand, explained as 15-17 points, this cannot be MI because the opponents know the explanation is wrong. ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Hills To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 7:23 PM Subject: [BLML] Fourth suit farce A while ago I was partnering an intelligent but inexperienced friend against two expert opponents. Using the Aussie version of the Acol system I opened 1C. Partner correctly announced my call as showing four or more clubs. LHO overcalled 1D, pard responded 1H, RHO passed and I rebid 1S. Now partner incorrectly alerted and explained this as fourth suit forcing. Was this a misexplanation infraction? My expert opponents knew me well and knew Aussie Acol well, so therefore also knew that pard's explanation could not be true. 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/20150517/88020507/attachment.html From rmlmarques at zonmail.pt Sun May 17 20:00:51 2015 From: rmlmarques at zonmail.pt (Rui Lopes Marques) Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 19:00:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fourth suit farce In-Reply-To: <00eb01d09070$872b6790$958236b0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <00eb01d09070$872b6790$958236b0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <002a01d090cb$6a7be650$3f73b2f0$@zonmail.pt> I agree with Tony, it is mistaken explanation (infraction) by the player, but no damage because that misinformation doesn't cause any damage Rui Marques From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 8:10 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Fourth suit farce David Grabiner: Experienced players are expected to protect themselves. If they know that the explanation is impossible, they cannot be damaged by MI. I don't know whether this particular explanation is impossible, though; there may be some players who describe a system but play some bids which are non-systemic, or even inconsistent. (For example, in the US, many players play four-suit transfers over 1NT but have the agreement that 1N-2C; 2H-2N shows 8-9 points and four spades, and thus they have no way to invite game in NT without a four-card major.) A more clear example would be a 1NT overcall by a passed hand, explained as 15-17 points, this cannot be MI because the opponents know the explanation is wrong. Tony (Sydney): exactly, if both the opponents know the explanation is wrong, there can hardly be any damage. Of course, there may still be UI floating around, but not likely in this case ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Hills To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 7:23 PM Subject: [BLML] Fourth suit farce A while ago I was partnering an intelligent but inexperienced friend against two expert opponents. Using the Aussie version of the Acol system I opened 1C. Partner correctly announced my call as showing four or more clubs. LHO overcalled 1D, pard responded 1H, RHO passed and I rebid 1S. Now partner incorrectly alerted and explained this as fourth suit forcing. Was this a misexplanation infraction? My expert opponents knew me well and knew Aussie Acol well, so therefore also knew that pard's explanation could not be true. 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/20150517/ab324f97/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Sun May 17 22:23:12 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 22:23:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fourth suit farce In-Reply-To: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> Message-ID: Le 17.05.2015 06:35, David Grabiner a ?crit?: > Experienced players are expected to protect themselves. If they know > that the explanation is impossible, they cannot be damaged by MI. I > don't know whether this particular explanation is impossible, though; > there may be some players who describe a system but play some bids > which are non-systemic, or even inconsistent. AG : why would it be impossible, for a pair who use 1C-1D-Dbl to show 44+ majors, to use 1S in this sequence as a cheap force ? I've seen worse conventions.? > A more clear example would be a 1NT overcall by a passed hand, > explained as 15-17 points, this cannot be MI because the opponents > know the explanation is wrong. AG : I beg your pardon, sir, this happened at least once ; the LOL has overlooked an Ace. It never happened to her partner that she might have tried an artificial NT bid ; and right he was. Best regards Alain From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun May 17 22:49:59 2015 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 22:49:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fourth suit farce In-Reply-To: References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> Message-ID: <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> Am 17.05.2015 um 22:23 schrieb agot: > AG : I beg your pardon, sir, this happened at least once ; the LOL has > overlooked an Ace. It never happened to her partner that she might > have tried an artificial NT bid ; and right he was. Best regards Alain Reminds me of a story by Eddie Kantar where he opened 2S (weak) third in hand, whereupon his partner bid 3NT. Since he had no idea what pard was doing he decided to pass, as did opps. Making 5. Parter had passed a balaced 23 in first position..... From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 18 07:03:04 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 07:03:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> Message-ID: <55597288.90104@skynet.be> Let me first poll you: You hold a reasonable 5332, 10 points. The bidding starts: you pass 1Di 1Sp pass 4Sp pass ? any thoughts? From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon May 18 07:38:16 2015 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 07:38:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <55597288.90104@skynet.be> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <55597AC8.1080208@t-online.de> Am 18.05.2015 um 07:03 schrieb Herman De Wael: > Let me first poll you: > > You hold a reasonable 5332, 10 points. > > The bidding starts: > you > pass 1Di 1Sp > pass 4Sp pass ? > > any thoughts? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Errr....no? Why should I think here? How much is this going down, maybe? I have to hope that partner knows what he/she is doing. Since I don`t know what that is I am not going to bid again in the unlikely case that opp now bids something and pard passes. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon May 18 10:01:19 2015 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 18:01:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <55597288.90104@skynet.be> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <019001d09140$d356f410$7a04dc30$@optusnet.com.au> I think we have hit the fairway at position A, what do I need, a preferred lie? Cheers Tony (Sydney) who says this list will die if Richard retires? > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, 18 May 2015 3:03 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday > > Let me first poll you: > > You hold a reasonable 5332, 10 points. > > The bidding starts: > you > pass 1Di 1Sp > pass 4Sp pass ? > > any thoughts? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 18 15:04:48 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 15:04:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <55597288.90104@skynet.be> References: "\"" <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos>" <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 18.05.2015 07:03, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Let me first poll you: > > You hold a reasonable 5332, 10 points. > > The bidding starts: > you > pass 1Di 1Sp > pass 4Sp pass ? > > any thoughts? We're probably too high already. Partner's hand might look like mine, as he didn't cue, fit-juimp nor splinter. I might just decide to double the reopening bid, to avoid partner bidding once more ; this isn't a forcing-pass situation, but it might be needed facing some partners. It would have helped to know the vulnerability. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 18 15:50:51 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 15:50:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <55597288.90104@skynet.be> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> Herman De Wael schreef: > Let me first poll you: > > You hold a reasonable 5332, 10 points. > > The bidding starts: > you > pass 1Di 1Sp > pass 4Sp pass ? > > any thoughts? Not many, which confirms my ruling. Actually, something had happened earlier, of course. Partner of this pollster, in first hand, had passed and then called the director "I wanted to do something different". I told him this was not possible, and told his partner not to use that information. When he subsquently laid down a 16-count 3334, all was revealed. The contract was easily made, but I still had to decide whether partner had used the UI. Clearly not in overcalling, which was a normal bid, but passing? I decided against ruling, and I'm glad you all agree that there was nothing to do. Herman. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue May 19 03:40:45 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 11:40:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> Message-ID: Insufficient information as to whether Herman's "no adjustment" ruling was correct. If the scoring was imps, vul versus not, then Pass is a logical alternative to the demonstrably suggested 1S overcall. Of course, the hypothetical adjusted auction would proceed Pass - (1D) - Pass - (Pass) - ??? Holding a balanced 16 points dealer could hypothetically reopen with 3NT, as dealer does not have any hypothetical UI. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, May 18, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > Herman De Wael schreef: > > Let me first poll you: > > > > You hold a reasonable 5332, 10 points. > > > > The bidding starts:a > > you > > pass 1Di 1Sp > > pass 4Sp pass ? > > > > any thoughts? > > Not many, which confirms my ruling. > > Actually, something had happened earlier, of course. > > Partner of this pollster, in first hand, had passed and then called the > director "I wanted to do something different". I told him this was not > possible, and told his partner not to use that information. > When he subsquently laid down a 16-count 3334, all was revealed. The > contract was easily made, but I still had to decide whether partner had > used the UI. Clearly not in overcalling, which was a normal bid, but > passing? I decided against ruling, and I'm glad you all agree that there > was nothing to do. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150519/25e35b9d/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 19 13:00:16 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 13:00:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> References: "\" <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos>" " <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 18.05.2015 15:50, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Herman De Wael schreef: >> Let me first poll you: >> >> You hold a reasonable 5332, 10 points. >> >> The bidding starts: >> you >> pass 1Di 1Sp >> pass 4Sp pass ? >> >> any thoughts? > > Not many, which confirms my ruling. > > Actually, something had happened earlier, of course. > > Partner of this pollster, in first hand, had passed and then called the > director "I wanted to do something different". I told him this was not > possible, and told his partner not to use that information. > When he subsquently laid down a 16-count 3334, all was revealed. The > contract was easily made, but I still had to decide whether partner had > used the UI. Clearly not in overcalling, which was a normal bid, but > passing? I decided against ruling, and I'm glad you all agree that > there > was nothing to do. I beg your pardon ? Did anybody suggest that, having overcalled on a very mundane hand, we should bid again over partner's bid, which, without UI, is preemptive in nature ? Of course, in the case as now revealed, I would not be allowed to double as I said I could do. I mean, it is doing something now which would be blatant use of UI. Also notice that parner didn't keep a stiff upper lip. He might have changed part of the UI into AI by cue-bidding first, then raising to game. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 19 13:05:51 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 13:05:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 19.05.2015 03:40, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Insufficient information as to whether Herman's "no adjustment" ruling > was correct. If the scoring was imps, vul versus not, then Pass is a > logical alternative to the demonstrably suggested 1S overcall. Well, if they wrote down "very constructive overcalls", or the spade suit was weak, you might be right, but I doubt you would fing many peers of that player who would consider a pass on, say, KQxxx - AJx - xxx - xx. > > Of course, the hypothetical adjusted auction would proceed Pass - (1D) > - Pass - (Pass) - ??? Holding a balanced 16 points dealer could > hypothetically reopen with 3NT, as dealer does not have any > hypothetical UI. But we aren't allowed to consider this clever decision by the UIer. However, we have to consider that he would have reopened with a double, got a 2S response, and gone to game one way or another. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Monday, May 18, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Herman De Wael schreef: >>> Let me first poll you: >>> >>> You hold a reasonable 5332, 10 points. >>> >>> The bidding starts:a >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?you >>> ? ? ? ?pass? ? 1Di? ? ?1Sp >>> pass? 4Sp? ? ?pass? ? ? >>> >>> any thoughts? >> >> Not many, which confirms my ruling. >> >> Actually, something had happened earlier, of course. >> >> Partner of this pollster, in first hand, had passed and then called >> the >> director "I wanted to do something different". I told him this was >> not >> possible, and told his partner not to use that information. >> When he subsquently laid down a 16-count 3334, all was revealed. >> The >> contract was easily made, but I still had to decide whether partner >> had >> used the UI. Clearly not in overcalling, which was a normal bid, >> but >> passing? I decided against ruling, and I'm glad you all agree that >> there >> was nothing to do. >> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml [1] > > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- A. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue May 19 16:50:31 2015 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 16:50:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> I don't know if I have correctly understood Herman's description of what happened. But, if partner, after passing, then calls the TD and says that he wanted to do something else (and this is done before his partner bids) (obviously bidding and thus showing (UI) that he has at least opening count (or a pre-empt) that would influence his partner (the third hand) not to pass; so passing seems a LA. The 1 spade bid could easily be influenced by the UI. So, assuming I have correctly understood the situation I think there is reason not to allow the 1 spade bid. But, of course, even if third hand passes, the first hand will have an opportunity to bid and try to legally show what happened. So it is difficult to know what the end contract would be in this situation. (This assumes they were playing without screens.) To judge this we'd have to know more about their system, for instance what a cue bid by the partner (first hand) would mean in the second round of bidding. Have I missed,or misinterpreted, something? Ciao, JE Am 19.05.2015 um 03:40 schrieb Richard Hills: > Insufficient information as to whether Herman's "no adjustment" ruling > was correct. If the scoring was imps, vul versus not, then Pass is a > logical alternative to the demonstrably suggested 1S overcall. > > Of course, the hypothetical adjusted auction would proceed Pass - (1D) > - Pass - (Pass) - ??? Holding a balanced 16 points dealer could > hypothetically reopen with 3NT, as dealer does not have any > hypothetical UI. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Monday, May 18, 2015, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > Herman De Wael schreef: > > Let me first poll you: > > > > You hold a reasonable 5332, 10 points. > > > > The bidding starts:a > > you > > pass 1Di 1Sp > > pass 4Sp pass ? > > > > any thoughts? > > Not many, which confirms my ruling. > > Actually, something had happened earlier, of course. > > Partner of this pollster, in first hand, had passed and then > called the > director "I wanted to do something different". I told him this was not > possible, and told his partner not to use that information. > When he subsquently laid down a 16-count 3334, all was revealed. The > contract was easily made, but I still had to decide whether > partner had > used the UI. Clearly not in overcalling, which was a normal bid, but > passing? I decided against ruling, and I'm glad you all agree that > there > was nothing to do. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. http://www.avast.com From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue May 19 17:31:53 2015 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 17:31:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> Message-ID: <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> Well, I am not so sure that 1S is suggested by what happened. It may well land the partnership in some unmakeable contract when the player in question has a borderline opening hand. Passing, OTOH, may be suggested, as (someone mentioned it already) pard is going to reopen somehow, and then is still time to show some cards, having limited oneself by the failure to overcall 1S. Indeed, _Pass_ may well be the course prohibited by L16, but we lack information to decide that. Am 19.05.2015 um 16:50 schrieb Jeff Easterson: > I don't know if I have correctly understood Herman's description of what > happened. But, if partner, after passing, then calls the TD and says > that he wanted to do something else (and this is done before his partner > bids) (obviously bidding and thus showing (UI) that he has at least > opening count (or a pre-empt) that would influence his partner (the > third hand) not to pass; so passing seems a LA. The 1 spade bid could > easily be influenced by the UI. So, assuming I have correctly > understood the situation I think there is reason not to allow the 1 > spade bid. But, of course, even if third hand passes, the first hand > will have an opportunity to bid and try to legally show what happened. > So it is difficult to know what the end contract would be in this > situation. (This assumes they were playing without screens.) To judge > this we'd have to know more about their system, for instance what a cue > bid by the partner (first hand) would mean in the second round of bidding. > > Have I missed,or misinterpreted, something? > > Ciao, JE > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 19 18:42:46 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 18:42:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> References: "\" <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be>" <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be>" <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> Message-ID: <2e1fb70d37ef39e5b4535a406d01088b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 19.05.2015 17:31, Matthias Berghaus a ?crit?: > Well, I am not so sure that 1S is suggested by what happened. It may > well land the partnership in some unmakeable contract when the player > in > question has a borderline opening hand. Passing, OTOH, may be > suggested, > as (someone mentioned it already) pard is going to reopen somehow, and > then is still time to show some cards, having limited oneself by the > failure to overcall 1S. Indeed, _Pass_ may well be the course > prohibited > by L16, but we lack information to decide that. That settles it, on the usual argument that, if we can't agree on what is suggeted, then nothing is 'unmistakably' suggested. BTW, in Belgium, partner might well have remembered he had at his disposal a weak 2-suited 2H, in which case bidding 1S would have been wrong. As you mention it, passing, to have partner reopen 1H and then bidding 1S, would have been far better. OTOH, if partner has just found another honor and holds a balanced 12-count, we might be better to overcall, just in case responder uses good tactics, bids on a weak hand, and makes our recovery impossible. The long and short of it : nothing is 'obvious', so no restrictions. Remember, it is not 'if they pass UI, shoot them', it is 'restore equity'. Best regards Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed May 20 01:52:23 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 09:52:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <2e1fb70d37ef39e5b4535a406d01088b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> <2e1fb70d37ef39e5b4535a406d01088b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner asserted: ".....But we aren't allowed to consider this clever decision....." In both Australia and Europe an assigned adjusted score (caused by a hypothetical auction or play rectifying an infraction) can be weighted. The Director is allowed to assign appropriate weightings to both clever decisions and also to stupid decisions. What's the problem? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, May 20, 2015, agot wrote: > Le 19.05.2015 17:31, Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > > Well, I am not so sure that 1S is suggested by what happened. It may > > well land the partnership in some unmakeable contract when the player > > in > > question has a borderline opening hand. Passing, OTOH, may be > > suggested, > > as (someone mentioned it already) pard is going to reopen somehow, and > > then is still time to show some cards, having limited oneself by the > > failure to overcall 1S. Indeed, _Pass_ may well be the course > > prohibited > > by L16, but we lack information to decide that. > > That settles it, on the usual argument that, if we can't agree on what > is suggeted, then nothing is 'unmistakably' suggested. > > BTW, in Belgium, partner might well have remembered he had at his > disposal a weak 2-suited 2H, in which case bidding 1S would have been > wrong. As you mention it, passing, to have partner reopen 1H and then > bidding 1S, would have been far better. > OTOH, if partner has just found another honor and holds a balanced > 12-count, we might be better to overcall, just in case responder uses > good tactics, bids on a weak hand, and makes our recovery impossible. > > The long and short of it : nothing is 'obvious', so no restrictions. > Remember, it is not 'if they pass UI, shoot them', it is 'restore > equity'. > > Best regards > > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150519/4fb24e78/attachment-0001.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed May 20 08:45:05 2015 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 08:45:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> Message-ID: <555C2D71.8030309@aol.com> Ciao Matthias, I agree, 1 sp. is not necesarily suggested by the UI but bidding (as opposed to passing) is so passwould seem to be a LA for the third hand. Ciao, JE > Well, I am not so sure that 1S is suggested by what happened. It may > well land the partnership in some unmakeable contract when the player in > question has a borderline opening hand. Passing, OTOH, may be suggested, > as (someone mentioned it already) pard is going to reopen somehow, and > then is still time to show some cards, having limited oneself by the > failure to overcall 1S. Indeed, _Pass_ may well be the course prohibited > by L16, but we lack information to decide that. > > Am 19.05.2015 um 16:50 schrieb Jeff Easterson: >> I don't know if I have correctly understood Herman's description of what >> happened. But, if partner, after passing, then calls the TD and says >> that he wanted to do something else (and this is done before his partner >> bids) (obviously bidding and thus showing (UI) that he has at least >> opening count (or a pre-empt) that would influence his partner (the >> third hand) not to pass; so passing seems a LA. The 1 spade bid could >> easily be influenced by the UI. So, assuming I have correctly >> understood the situation I think there is reason not to allow the 1 >> spade bid. But, of course, even if third hand passes, the first hand >> will have an opportunity to bid and try to legally show what happened. >> So it is difficult to know what the end contract would be in this >> situation. (This assumes they were playing without screens.) To judge >> this we'd have to know more about their system, for instance what a cue >> bid by the partner (first hand) would mean in the second round of bidding. >> >> Have I missed,or misinterpreted, something? >> >> Ciao, JE >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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. http://www.avast.com From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed May 20 10:29:49 2015 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 10:29:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555C2D71.8030309@aol.com> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> <555C2D71.8030309@aol.com> Message-ID: <555C45FD.8030607@t-online.de> Hi Jeff, Am 20.05.2015 um 08:45 schrieb Jeff Easterson: > Ciao Matthias, > > I agree, 1 sp. is not necesarily suggested by the UI but bidding (as > opposed to passing) this is exactly what is not clear to me. Let us, for the sake of the argument, assume that there are no weak bids below the level of 3 in the system, so pard presumably has overlooked opening bid strength. Isn`t he/she more likely to be arund 12/13 HCP, rather than 16? Isn`t it downright dangerous to make a borderline overcall, which pard may well raise to game, when a borderline overcall and a borderline opening just will not make it? With weak one- or two-suiters in the system this would get even more difficult.... Looks like we have to show the hand to a couple of people and ask them what they would do opposite a passed hand. This may rule out pass as a LA. Then again, it may not. If it doesn`t we have some further thinking to do about what the prologue suggested. Since we do not know exactly what has happenend, and are away of the table anyway, I cannot see how we are to determine anything sensible. > is so passwould seem to be a LA for the third hand. > > Ciao, JE >> Well, I am not so sure that 1S is suggested by what happened. It may >> well land the partnership in some unmakeable contract when the player in >> question has a borderline opening hand. Passing, OTOH, may be suggested, >> as (someone mentioned it already) pard is going to reopen somehow, and >> then is still time to show some cards, having limited oneself by the >> failure to overcall 1S. Indeed, _Pass_ may well be the course prohibited >> by L16, but we lack information to decide that. >> >> Am 19.05.2015 um 16:50 schrieb Jeff Easterson: >>> I don't know if I have correctly understood Herman's description of what >>> happened. But, if partner, after passing, then calls the TD and says >>> that he wanted to do something else (and this is done before his partner >>> bids) (obviously bidding and thus showing (UI) that he has at least >>> opening count (or a pre-empt) that would influence his partner (the >>> third hand) not to pass; so passing seems a LA. The 1 spade bid could >>> easily be influenced by the UI. So, assuming I have correctly >>> understood the situation I think there is reason not to allow the 1 >>> spade bid. But, of course, even if third hand passes, the first hand >>> will have an opportunity to bid and try to legally show what happened. >>> So it is difficult to know what the end contract would be in this >>> situation. (This assumes they were playing without screens.) To judge >>> this we'd have to know more about their system, for instance what a cue >>> bid by the partner (first hand) would mean in the second round of bidding. >>> >>> Have I missed,or misinterpreted, something? >>> >>> Ciao, JE >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > http://www.avast.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed May 20 13:11:32 2015 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 07:11:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555C45FD.8030607@t-online.de> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> <555C2D71.8030309@aol.com> <555C45FD.8030607@t-online.de> Message-ID: <555C6BE4.2080504@comcast.net> How is showing the hand to a couple of people going to rule out anything? That's a terribly small sample size. --bp On 5/20/15 4:29 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > Am 20.05.2015 um 08:45 schrieb Jeff Easterson: >> Ciao Matthias, >> >> I agree, 1 sp. is not necesarily suggested by the UI but bidding (as >> opposed to passing) > this is exactly what is not clear to me. Let us, for the sake of the > argument, assume that there are no weak bids below the level of 3 in the > system, so pard presumably has overlooked opening bid strength. Isn`t > he/she more likely to be arund 12/13 HCP, rather than 16? Isn`t it > downright dangerous to make a borderline overcall, which pard may well > raise to game, when a borderline overcall and a borderline opening just > will not make it? > With weak one- or two-suiters in the system this would get even more > difficult.... Looks like we have to show the hand to a couple of people > and ask them what they would do opposite a passed hand. This may rule > out pass as a LA. Then again, it may not. If it doesn`t we have some > further thinking to do about what the prologue suggested. Since we do > not know exactly what has happenend, and are away of the table anyway, I > cannot see how we are to determine anything sensible. > >> is so passwould seem to be a LA for the third hand. >> >> Ciao, JE >>> Well, I am not so sure that 1S is suggested by what happened. It may >>> well land the partnership in some unmakeable contract when the player in >>> question has a borderline opening hand. Passing, OTOH, may be suggested, >>> as (someone mentioned it already) pard is going to reopen somehow, and >>> then is still time to show some cards, having limited oneself by the >>> failure to overcall 1S. Indeed, _Pass_ may well be the course prohibited >>> by L16, but we lack information to decide that. >>> >>> Am 19.05.2015 um 16:50 schrieb Jeff Easterson: >>>> I don't know if I have correctly understood Herman's description of what >>>> happened. But, if partner, after passing, then calls the TD and says >>>> that he wanted to do something else (and this is done before his partner >>>> bids) (obviously bidding and thus showing (UI) that he has at least >>>> opening count (or a pre-empt) that would influence his partner (the >>>> third hand) not to pass; so passing seems a LA. The 1 spade bid could >>>> easily be influenced by the UI. So, assuming I have correctly >>>> understood the situation I think there is reason not to allow the 1 >>>> spade bid. But, of course, even if third hand passes, the first hand >>>> will have an opportunity to bid and try to legally show what happened. >>>> So it is difficult to know what the end contract would be in this >>>> situation. (This assumes they were playing without screens.) To judge >>>> this we'd have to know more about their system, for instance what a cue >>>> bid by the partner (first hand) would mean in the second round of bidding. >>>> >>>> Have I missed,or misinterpreted, something? >>>> >>>> Ciao, JE >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed May 20 13:57:45 2015 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:57:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555C6BE4.2080504@comcast.net> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> <555C2D71.8030309@aol.com> <555C45FD.8030607@t-online.de> <555C6BE4.2080504@comcast.net> Message-ID: <555C76B9.1040009@t-online.de> Well, how many people without knowledge of the hand do you usually have on site? Dozens? Hundreds? I don`t. I ask as many as I can while directing the ongoing event. Mind you, the waiter usually doesn`t count. If he plays Bridge I`ll ask him... Am 20.05.2015 um 13:11 schrieb Robert Park: > How is showing the hand to a couple of people going to rule out > anything? That's a terribly small sample size. > > --bp > > On 5/20/15 4:29 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> Hi Jeff, >> >> Am 20.05.2015 um 08:45 schrieb Jeff Easterson: >>> Ciao Matthias, >>> >>> I agree, 1 sp. is not necesarily suggested by the UI but bidding (as >>> opposed to passing) >> this is exactly what is not clear to me. Let us, for the sake of the >> argument, assume that there are no weak bids below the level of 3 in the >> system, so pard presumably has overlooked opening bid strength. Isn`t >> he/she more likely to be arund 12/13 HCP, rather than 16? Isn`t it >> downright dangerous to make a borderline overcall, which pard may well >> raise to game, when a borderline overcall and a borderline opening just >> will not make it? >> With weak one- or two-suiters in the system this would get even more >> difficult.... Looks like we have to show the hand to a couple of people >> and ask them what they would do opposite a passed hand. This may rule >> out pass as a LA. Then again, it may not. If it doesn`t we have some >> further thinking to do about what the prologue suggested. Since we do >> not know exactly what has happenend, and are away of the table anyway, I >> cannot see how we are to determine anything sensible. >> >>> is so passwould seem to be a LA for the third hand. >>> >>> Ciao, JE >>> From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed May 20 15:17:33 2015 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 09:17:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555C76B9.1040009@t-online.de> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> <555C2D71.8030309@aol.com> <555C45FD.8030607@t-online.de> <555C6BE4.2080504@comcast.net> <555C76B9.1040009@t-online.de> Message-ID: <555C896D.3020705@comcast.net> It does seem that bridge organizations and many directors place an undeserved degree of faith in the reliability of small sample sizes. --bp On 5/20/15 7:57 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Well, how many people without knowledge of the hand do you usually have > on site? Dozens? Hundreds? I don`t. I ask as many as I can while > directing the ongoing event. Mind you, the waiter usually doesn`t count. > If he plays Bridge I`ll ask him... > > Am 20.05.2015 um 13:11 schrieb Robert Park: >> How is showing the hand to a couple of people going to rule out >> anything? That's a terribly small sample size. >> >> --bp >> >> On 5/20/15 4:29 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> Hi Jeff, >>> >>> Am 20.05.2015 um 08:45 schrieb Jeff Easterson: >>>> Ciao Matthias, >>>> >>>> I agree, 1 sp. is not necesarily suggested by the UI but bidding (as >>>> opposed to passing) >>> this is exactly what is not clear to me. Let us, for the sake of the >>> argument, assume that there are no weak bids below the level of 3 in the >>> system, so pard presumably has overlooked opening bid strength. Isn`t >>> he/she more likely to be arund 12/13 HCP, rather than 16? Isn`t it >>> downright dangerous to make a borderline overcall, which pard may well >>> raise to game, when a borderline overcall and a borderline opening just >>> will not make it? >>> With weak one- or two-suiters in the system this would get even more >>> difficult.... Looks like we have to show the hand to a couple of people >>> and ask them what they would do opposite a passed hand. This may rule >>> out pass as a LA. Then again, it may not. If it doesn`t we have some >>> further thinking to do about what the prologue suggested. Since we do >>> not know exactly what has happenend, and are away of the table anyway, I >>> cannot see how we are to determine anything sensible. >>> >>>> is so passwould seem to be a LA for the third hand. >>>> >>>> Ciao, JE >>>> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed May 20 17:52:22 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 01:52:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555C896D.3020705@comcast.net> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> <555C2D71.8030309@aol.com> <555C45FD.8030607@t-online.de> <555C6BE4.2080504@comcast.net> <555C76B9.1040009@t-online.de> <555C896D.3020705@comcast.net> Message-ID: I disagree with both Matthias Berghaus and also with Robert Park. In my opinion the issue is not quantity ~ polling all and sundry, including a bridge-playing waiter ~ but rather quality. For example, on one occasion an expert player and Director was inclined to rule against a non-expert recipient of UI, because the Director expertly observed an obvious non-suggested Logical Alternative. But the Director carefully polled a small number of non-experts. They unanimously voted that there was only one Logical Alternative, the demonstrably suggested one, so therefore the Director did not adjust the score. As the above anecdote demonstrates, Logical Alternative is a misnomer. Perhaps a more apposite term could replace it in the 2017 Lawbook; for example Plausible Choice. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, May 20, 2015, Robert Park wrote: > > It does seem that bridge organizations and many directors place an > undeserved degree of faith in the reliability of small sample sizes. > > --bp > > On 5/20/15 7:57 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > Well, how many people without knowledge of the hand do you usually have > > on site? Dozens? Hundreds? I don`t. I ask as many as I can while > > directing the ongoing event. Mind you, the waiter usually doesn`t count. > > If he plays Bridge I`ll ask him... > > > > Am 20.05.2015 um 13:11 schrieb Robert Park: > >> How is showing the hand to a couple of people going to rule out > >> anything? That's a terribly small sample size. > >> > >> --bp > >> > >> On 5/20/15 4:29 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >>> Hi Jeff, > >>> > >>> Am 20.05.2015 um 08:45 schrieb Jeff Easterson: > >>>> Ciao Matthias, > >>>> > >>>> I agree, 1 sp. is not necesarily suggested by the UI but bidding (as > >>>> opposed to passing) > >>> this is exactly what is not clear to me. Let us, for the sake of the > >>> argument, assume that there are no weak bids below the level of 3 in > the > >>> system, so pard presumably has overlooked opening bid strength. Isn`t > >>> he/she more likely to be arund 12/13 HCP, rather than 16? Isn`t it > >>> downright dangerous to make a borderline overcall, which pard may well > >>> raise to game, when a borderline overcall and a borderline opening just > >>> will not make it? > >>> With weak one- or two-suiters in the system this would get even more > >>> difficult.... Looks like we have to show the hand to a couple of people > >>> and ask them what they would do opposite a passed hand. This may rule > >>> out pass as a LA. Then again, it may not. If it doesn`t we have some > >>> further thinking to do about what the prologue suggested. Since we do > >>> not know exactly what has happenend, and are away of the table anyway, > I > >>> cannot see how we are to determine anything sensible. > >>> > >>>> is so passwould seem to be a LA for the third hand. > >>>> > >>>> Ciao, JE > >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150520/6840368e/attachment-0001.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed May 20 19:35:52 2015 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:35:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> <555C2D71.8030309@aol.com> <555C45FD.8030607@t-online.de> <555C6BE4.2080504@comcast.net> <555C76B9.1040009@t-online.de> <555C896D.3020705@comcast.net> Message-ID: <555CC5F8.5060109@comcast.net> Richard...We are not disagreeing. If you will check my original posting, you will find that I was objecting to using small samples to rule *out* logical alternatives, not to rule them in. Of course, when a small number (even 1?) say they might do something, it becomes a fair candidate for a logical alternative. On 5/20/15 11:52 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > I disagree with both Matthias Berghaus and also with Robert Park. In > my opinion the issue is not quantity ~ polling all and sundry, > including a bridge-playing waiter ~ but rather quality. > > For example, on one occasion an expert player and Director was > inclined to rule against a non-expert recipient of UI, because the > Director expertly observed an obvious non-suggested Logical > Alternative. But the Director carefully polled a small number of > non-experts. They unanimously voted that there was only one Logical > Alternative, the demonstrably suggested one, so therefore the Director > did not adjust the score. > > As the above anecdote demonstrates, Logical Alternative is a misnomer. > Perhaps a more apposite term could replace it in the 2017 Lawbook; for > example Plausible Choice. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015, Robert Park > wrote: > > > It does seem that bridge organizations and many directors place an > undeserved degree of faith in the reliability of small sample sizes. > > --bp > > On 5/20/15 7:57 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > Well, how many people without knowledge of the hand do you > usually have > > on site? Dozens? Hundreds? I don`t. I ask as many as I can while > > directing the ongoing event. Mind you, the waiter usually > doesn`t count. > > If he plays Bridge I`ll ask him... > > > > Am 20.05.2015 um 13:11 schrieb Robert Park: > >> How is showing the hand to a couple of people going to rule out > >> anything? That's a terribly small sample size. > >> > >> --bp > >> > >> On 5/20/15 4:29 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >>> Hi Jeff, > >>> > >>> Am 20.05.2015 um 08:45 schrieb Jeff Easterson: > >>>> Ciao Matthias, > >>>> > >>>> I agree, 1 sp. is not necesarily suggested by the UI but > bidding (as > >>>> opposed to passing) > >>> this is exactly what is not clear to me. Let us, for the sake > of the > >>> argument, assume that there are no weak bids below the level > of 3 in the > >>> system, so pard presumably has overlooked opening bid > strength. Isn`t > >>> he/she more likely to be arund 12/13 HCP, rather than 16? Isn`t it > >>> downright dangerous to make a borderline overcall, which pard > may well > >>> raise to game, when a borderline overcall and a borderline > opening just > >>> will not make it? > >>> With weak one- or two-suiters in the system this would get > even more > >>> difficult.... Looks like we have to show the hand to a couple > of people > >>> and ask them what they would do opposite a passed hand. This > may rule > >>> out pass as a LA. Then again, it may not. If it doesn`t we > have some > >>> further thinking to do about what the prologue suggested. > Since we do > >>> not know exactly what has happenend, and are away of the table > anyway, I > >>> cannot see how we are to determine anything sensible. > >>> > >>>> is so passwould seem to be a LA for the third hand. > >>>> > >>>> Ciao, JE > >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150520/fd75cac8/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed May 20 19:37:16 2015 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:37:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555CC5F8.5060109@comcast.net> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> <555C2D71.8030309@aol.com> <555C45FD.8030607@t-online.de> <555C6BE4.2080504@comcast.net> <555C76B9.1040009@t-online.de> <555C896D.3020705@comcast.net> <555CC5F8.5060109@comcast.net> Message-ID: <555CC64C.2000502@comcast.net> Scrub this...it's wrong. I tried to cancel sending, but it got away form me. --bp On 5/20/15 1:35 PM, Robert Park wrote: > > Richard...We are not disagreeing. If you will check my original > posting, you will find that I was objecting to using small samples to > rule *out* logical alternatives, not to rule them in. Of course, when > a small number (even 1?) say they might do something, it becomes a > fair candidate for a logical alternative. > > On 5/20/15 11:52 AM, Richard Hills wrote: >> I disagree with both Matthias Berghaus and also with Robert Park. In >> my opinion the issue is not quantity ~ polling all and sundry, >> including a bridge-playing waiter ~ but rather quality. >> >> For example, on one occasion an expert player and Director was >> inclined to rule against a non-expert recipient of UI, because the >> Director expertly observed an obvious non-suggested Logical >> Alternative. But the Director carefully polled a small number of >> non-experts. They unanimously voted that there was only one Logical >> Alternative, the demonstrably suggested one, so therefore the >> Director did not adjust the score. >> >> As the above anecdote demonstrates, Logical Alternative is a >> misnomer. Perhaps a more apposite term could replace it in the 2017 >> Lawbook; for example Plausible Choice. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> On Wednesday, May 20, 2015, Robert Park > > wrote: >> >> >> It does seem that bridge organizations and many directors place an >> undeserved degree of faith in the reliability of small sample sizes. >> >> --bp >> >> On 5/20/15 7:57 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> > Well, how many people without knowledge of the hand do you >> usually have >> > on site? Dozens? Hundreds? I don`t. I ask as many as I can while >> > directing the ongoing event. Mind you, the waiter usually >> doesn`t count. >> > If he plays Bridge I`ll ask him... >> > >> > Am 20.05.2015 um 13:11 schrieb Robert Park: >> >> How is showing the hand to a couple of people going to rule out >> >> anything? That's a terribly small sample size. >> >> >> >> --bp >> >> >> >> On 5/20/15 4:29 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> >>> Hi Jeff, >> >>> >> >>> Am 20.05.2015 um 08:45 schrieb Jeff Easterson: >> >>>> Ciao Matthias, >> >>>> >> >>>> I agree, 1 sp. is not necesarily suggested by the UI but >> bidding (as >> >>>> opposed to passing) >> >>> this is exactly what is not clear to me. Let us, for the sake >> of the >> >>> argument, assume that there are no weak bids below the level >> of 3 in the >> >>> system, so pard presumably has overlooked opening bid >> strength. Isn`t >> >>> he/she more likely to be arund 12/13 HCP, rather than 16? >> Isn`t it >> >>> downright dangerous to make a borderline overcall, which pard >> may well >> >>> raise to game, when a borderline overcall and a borderline >> opening just >> >>> will not make it? >> >>> With weak one- or two-suiters in the system this would get >> even more >> >>> difficult.... Looks like we have to show the hand to a couple >> of people >> >>> and ask them what they would do opposite a passed hand. This >> may rule >> >>> out pass as a LA. Then again, it may not. If it doesn`t we >> have some >> >>> further thinking to do about what the prologue suggested. >> Since we do >> >>> not know exactly what has happenend, and are away of the >> table anyway, I >> >>> cannot see how we are to determine anything sensible. >> >>> >> >>>> is so passwould seem to be a LA for the third hand. >> >>>> >> >>>> Ciao, JE >> >>>> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Blml mailing list >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150520/b35985ab/attachment-0001.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed May 20 20:09:07 2015 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 20:09:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555C896D.3020705@comcast.net> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> <555C2D71.8030309@aol.com> <555C45FD.8030607@t-online.de> <555C6BE4.2080504@comcast.net> <555C76B9.1040009@t-online.de> <555C896D.3020705@comcast.net> Message-ID: <555CCDC3.7080901@t-online.de> On the other hand, it seems that you place an undeserved degree of faith in the availability of people to poll, in order to enlarge said sizes. We had an international 3-days team event in Berlin a couple of days ago. Number of kibitzers: nil. Number of people fom 6-man (woman)teams on hand while sitting out: nil in bad rounds, up to six in better rounds. Add in a non-playing captain or two, and that was it. And those players may be completely the wrong ones, as you don`t want to poll world class players about happenings at table 57.... You would be welcome if you came over and helped hunt down people to poll, instead of making snide remarks about directors who are _needed_ for other things than running after people who want a quit break. Get some grip on reality... Am 20.05.2015 um 15:17 schrieb Robert Park: > It does seem that bridge organizations and many directors place an > undeserved degree of faith in the reliability of small sample sizes. > > --bp > > On 5/20/15 7:57 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> Well, how many people without knowledge of the hand do you usually have >> on site? Dozens? Hundreds? I don`t. I ask as many as I can while >> directing the ongoing event. Mind you, the waiter usually doesn`t count. >> If he plays Bridge I`ll ask him... >> >> From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed May 20 23:11:26 2015 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:11:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555CCDC3.7080901@t-online.de> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> <555C2D71.8030309@aol.com> <555C45FD.8030607@t-online.de> <555C6BE4.2080504@comcast.net> <555C76B9.1040009@t-online.de> <555C896D.3020705@comcast.net> <555CCDC3.7080901@t-online.de> Message-ID: <555CF87E.8000404@comcast.net> Matthias...I do agree that some polling can be better than no polling, and I never said otherwise. All I attempted to convey is that two opinions cannot rule out "logical alternatives" with any degree of reliability, and that there are many, including a number of directors, who at times seem to place undeserved faith in the results of small samples. I would certainly tend to believe it if one or more people said a particular action was a logical alternative. However, I would not take that as significant evidence that other actions cease to be logical alternatives. I do think that most directors at our sectional levels and above are cognizant of this. At the club level, though....?? Not sure where you get "snide." It seems to me that my statements were factual, at least as based on my observations. --bp On 5/20/15 2:09 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > On the other hand, it seems that you place an undeserved degree of faith > in the availability of people to poll, in order to enlarge said sizes. > We had an international 3-days team event in Berlin a couple of days > ago. Number of kibitzers: nil. Number of people fom 6-man (woman)teams > on hand while sitting out: nil in bad rounds, up to six in better > rounds. Add in a non-playing captain or two, and that was it. And those > players may be completely the wrong ones, as you don`t want to poll > world class players about happenings at table 57.... > You would be welcome if you came over and helped hunt down people to > poll, instead of making snide remarks about directors who are _needed_ > for other things than running after people who want a quit break. Get > some grip on reality... > > Am 20.05.2015 um 15:17 schrieb Robert Park: >> It does seem that bridge organizations and many directors place an >> undeserved degree of faith in the reliability of small sample sizes. >> >> --bp >> >> On 5/20/15 7:57 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> Well, how many people without knowledge of the hand do you usually have >>> on site? Dozens? Hundreds? I don`t. I ask as many as I can while >>> directing the ongoing event. Mind you, the waiter usually doesn`t count. >>> If he plays Bridge I`ll ask him... >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 21 03:20:31 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 21:20:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> Message-ID: <555D32DF.8000301@nhcc.net> On 2015-05-19 11:31 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Indeed,_Pass_ may well be the course prohibited > by L16, but we lack information to decide that. I think Matthias is right, and I'm not sure what information we lack to decide. I confess I'd have got this wrong at the table, taking the usual view that partner having values suggests acting rather than passing. As to LAs, the original description "a reasonable 5332, 10 points" suggested to me that pass is certainly a LA, and 1S might not be. It depends critically on what methods are in use. Fortunately it doesn't seem to matter. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu May 21 08:43:10 2015 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 16:43:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] FW: Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <55597288.90104@skynet.be> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00e401d09391$676b4a50$3641def0$@optusnet.com.au> Are we so bereft of material for this list?? I had to go back to Herman's original posting to see if I was going mad. See it below. It has already produced about 20 postings. I would ask please that all relevant information be put in place in the first post. This one has next to nothing. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: Monday, 18 May 2015 3:03 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday Let me first poll you: You hold a reasonable 5332, 10 points. The bidding starts: you pass 1Di 1Sp pass 4Sp pass ? any thoughts? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 21 10:39:50 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:39:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555C76B9.1040009@t-online.de> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> <555C2D71.8030309@aol.com> <555C45FD.8030607@t-online.de> <555C6BE4.2080504@comcast.net> <555C76B9.1040009@t-online.de> Message-ID: <555D99D6.3070003@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus schreef: > Well, how many people without knowledge of the hand do you usually have > on site? Dozens? Hundreds? I don`t. I ask as many as I can while > directing the ongoing event. Mind you, the waiter usually doesn`t count. > If he plays Bridge I`ll ask him... > She does, and I did. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 21 10:47:54 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:47:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] FW: Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <00e401d09391$676b4a50$3641def0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <00e401d09391$676b4a50$3641def0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <555D9BBA.9000608@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove schreef: > Are we so bereft of material for this list?? I had to > go back to Herman's original posting to see if I was > going mad. See it below. > > It has already produced about 20 postings. I would > ask please that all relevant information be put in > place in the first post. This one has next to > nothing. > of course not, because I wanted your opinions without telling you what the UI was. The list has got fixated on the first action, which was, IMO, totally OK. Let me remind you that the first action was an overcall. Quite reasonable one. It was the second action I was worried about. If a passed partner raises your overcall to game - what do you do? Nothing, it would seem. But that is one where the UI plays a part, not the first one. We're all able to tell a normal overcall from another one. And yes, with any normal overcall one might also pass. But what does the UI suggest at first? So Tony, do not go back to the first post but to my second one for the relevant information. Herman. > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, 18 May 2015 3:03 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday > > Let me first poll you: > > You hold a reasonable 5332, 10 points. > > The bidding starts: > you > pass 1Di 1Sp > pass 4Sp pass ? > > any thoughts? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 21 11:50:40 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 11:50:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555D32DF.8000301@nhcc.net> References: "\" <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be>" " <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> <555D32DF.8000301@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <9d41c0c518141ce92a81d1669cb14409@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 21.05.2015 03:20, Steve Willner a ?crit?: > On 2015-05-19 11:31 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> Indeed,_Pass_ may well be the course prohibited >> by L16, but we lack information to decide that. > > I think Matthias is right, and I'm not sure what information we lack to > decide. I confess I'd have got this wrong at the table, taking the > usual view that partner having values suggests acting rather than > passing. > > As to LAs, the original description "a reasonable 5332, 10 points" > suggested to me that pass is certainly a LA, and 1S might not be. It > depends critically on what methods are in use. Fortunately it doesn't > seem to matter. In my country, nobody would pass with a 10-count and a decent 5-card *spade* suits ; whence, at the table, I'dbe afraid to pass and hear an imaginative TD/AC tell me that my caution was prompted by UI. Whether this overcall is sound is absolutely irrlevant ; what is is whether it is systemic, and unless the suit was poor, it is. Best regards Alain From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu May 21 11:56:40 2015 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 19:56:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] FW: Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555D9BBA.9000608@skynet.be> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <00e401d09391$676b4a50$3641def0$@optusnet.com.au> <555D9BBA.9000608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001e01d093ac$6fd76730$4f863590$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2015 6:48 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] FW: Ruling last saturday > > Tony Musgrove schreef: > > Are we so bereft of material for this list?? I had to > > go back to Herman's original posting to see if I was > > going mad. See it below. > > > > It has already produced about 20 postings. I would > > ask please that all relevant information be put in > > place in the first post. This one has next to > > nothing. > > > > of course not, because I wanted your opinions without telling you what > the UI was. > The list has got fixated on the first action, which was, IMO, totally > OK. Let me remind you that the first action was an overcall. Quite > reasonable one. It was the second action I was worried about. If a > passed partner raises your overcall to game - what do you do? > Nothing, it would seem. > But that is one where the UI plays a part, not the first one. We're all > able to tell a normal overcall from another one. > And yes, with any normal overcall one might also pass. But what does the > UI suggest at first? > > So Tony, do not go back to the first post but to my second one for the > relevant information. > > Herman. > so I overcall 1S, my passed partner bids 4S, he has 5 of them and may be weak, so wtf would I consider bidding on? even if I had seen the hand records? Tony (Sydney) > > Cheers, > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > > Of Herman De Wael > > Sent: Monday, 18 May 2015 3:03 PM > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday > > > > Let me first poll you: > > > > You hold a reasonable 5332, 10 points. > > > > The bidding starts: > > you > > pass 1Di 1Sp > > pass 4Sp pass ? > > > > any thoughts? > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Thu May 21 11:59:57 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 11:59:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555D99D6.3070003@skynet.be> References: "\" <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <5559EE3B.90809@skynet.be> <555B4DB7.1000702@aol.com> <555B5769.1040005@t-online.de> <555C2D71.8030309@aol.com>" <555C45FD.8030607@t-online.de>" <555C6BE4.2080504@comcast.net> <555C76B9.1040009@t-online.de> <555D99D6.3070003@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 21.05.2015 10:39, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Matthias Berghaus schreef: >> Well, how many people without knowledge of the hand do you usually >> have >> on site? Dozens? Hundreds? I don`t. I ask as many as I can while >> directing the ongoing event. Mind you, the waiter usually doesn`t >> count. >> If he plays Bridge I`ll ask him... >> > > She does, and I did. > One very good Belgian bridge player had his first contact with the game as he served as a waiter in a bridge club as a student's job. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 21 12:17:31 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:17:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] FW: Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <001e01d093ac$6fd76730$4f863590$@optusnet.com.au> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <00e401d09391$676b4a50$3641def0$@optusnet.com.au> <555D9BBA.9000608@skynet.be> <001e01d093ac$6fd76730$4f863590$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <555DB0BB.5020506@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove schreef: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Herman De Wael >> Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2015 6:48 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] FW: Ruling last saturday >> >> Tony Musgrove schreef: >>> Are we so bereft of material for this list?? I had to >>> go back to Herman's original posting to see if I was >>> going mad. See it below. >>> >>> It has already produced about 20 postings. I would >>> ask please that all relevant information be put in >>> place in the first post. This one has next to >>> nothing. >>> >> >> of course not, because I wanted your opinions without telling you what >> the UI was. >> The list has got fixated on the first action, which was, IMO, totally >> OK. Let me remind you that the first action was an overcall. Quite >> reasonable one. It was the second action I was worried about. If a >> passed partner raises your overcall to game - what do you do? >> Nothing, it would seem. >> But that is one where the UI plays a part, not the first one. We're > all >> able to tell a normal overcall from another one. >> And yes, with any normal overcall one might also pass. But what does > the >> UI suggest at first? >> >> So Tony, do not go back to the first post but to my second one for the >> relevant information. >> >> Herman. >> > so I overcall 1S, my passed partner bids 4S, he has 5 of them and > may be weak, so wtf would I consider bidding on? even if I had > seen the hand records? > > Tony (Sydney) > Indeed Tony, but it is sometimes very difficult to see this AFTER one has the UI. Which is precisely why we should poll players who did not see the UI. Which is what I did, and I received the answer that I was expecting - no one would go on. Herman. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu May 21 16:10:25 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 00:10:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Ruling last saturday In-Reply-To: <555DB0BB.5020506@skynet.be> References: <69D515C9926C4757AC5D4D0E02F4B14C@erdos> <5558FEF7.1000904@t-online.de> <55597288.90104@skynet.be> <00e401d09391$676b4a50$3641def0$@optusnet.com.au> <555D9BBA.9000608@skynet.be> <001e01d093ac$6fd76730$4f863590$@optusnet.com.au> <555DB0BB.5020506@skynet.be> Message-ID: In a different context, Alain Gotttcheiner asserted, "We are probably too high already." If we are vulnerable versus not at imps, then after Pass - (1D) -1S we are probably too high already with a boring 5=3=3=2 shape and the opponents most likely holding the majority of high cards. It is all well and good for all Belgian experts to play a system which requires a 1-level overcall with 10 hcp in almost every circumstance. But an American expert would observe that a proposed 1S overcall is in this case in the "sandwich" position; with partner denying many values, but LHO as yet unlimited. So in a USA versus Belgium match the American would choose Pass instead of a 1S overcall, scoring -430 defending 3NT. At the other table the Belgian would declare 1Sx for -800. For what it is worth I would choose a 1S overcall myself; I often take ultra-aggressive actions which I feel in my bones are anti-percentage. :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills, On Thursday, May 21, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > Tony Musgrove schreef: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto: > blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] On Behalf > >> Of Herman De Wael > >> Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2015 6:48 PM > >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Subject: Re: [BLML] FW: Ruling last saturday > >> > >> Tony Musgrove schreef: > >>> Are we so bereft of material for this list?? I had to > >>> go back to Herman's original posting to see if I was > >>> going mad. See it below. > >>> > >>> It has already produced about 20 postings. I would > >>> ask please that all relevant information be put in > >>> place in the first post. This one has next to > >>> nothing. > >>> > >> > >> of course not, because I wanted your opinions without telling you what > >> the UI was. > >> The list has got fixated on the first action, which was, IMO, totally > >> OK. Let me remind you that the first action was an overcall. Quite > >> reasonable one. It was the second action I was worried about. If a > >> passed partner raises your overcall to game - what do you do? > >> Nothing, it would seem. > >> But that is one where the UI plays a part, not the first one. We're > > all > >> able to tell a normal overcall from another one. > >> And yes, with any normal overcall one might also pass. But what does > > the > >> UI suggest at first? > >> > >> So Tony, do not go back to the first post but to my second one for the > >> relevant information. > >> > >> Herman. > >> > > so I overcall 1S, my passed partner bids 4S, he has 5 of them and > > may be weak, so wtf would I consider bidding on? even if I had > > seen the hand records? > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > Indeed Tony, but it is sometimes very difficult to see this AFTER one > has the UI. Which is precisely why we should poll players who did not > see the UI. Which is what I did, and I received the answer that I was > expecting - no one would go on. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150521/9312547d/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun May 24 12:36:13 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 20:36:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The cad! Message-ID: As they say in the movies, this is Based Upon A True Story. All four players are Canberra experts. North-South use Keycard Blackwood to reach 6S, with South declarer. As is his wont, West requests an explanation of every bid in the auction. When it comes to 5H the incomplete explanation "two keycards" is given. West then asks the supplementary question, "Does it deny the queen of spades?" Of course the answer is affirmative, and of course the success of 6S depends on a two-way finesse for the queen of trumps, and of course declarer finesses through East, and of course West wins the setting trick with the queen. Declarer casts aspersions at West, then summons the Director. How would you rule? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150526/370cdbfe/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun May 24 10:00:14 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 18:00:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] screen problem In-Reply-To: <552C08C1.1040206@nhcc.net> References: <55297032.8010704@nhcc.net> <552BC1BD.6000004@nhcc.net> <552BC912.1070101@skynet.be> <552C08C1.1040206@nhcc.net> Message-ID: "South would like to know, one way or the other," does not mean that South is entitled to immediately know. For example, on occasions during the South West Pacific Teams at the early stages of my match, apparent use of UI causes me to summon the Director. I would like to know, one way or the other, about an adjusted score, as this will affect my partnership's tactics for the rest of the match. But the UI ruling is delivered at or near the end of the match. And this is fair enough, since it is a judgement ruling requiring consultation with players and other Directors. Mechanical ruling, for example Penalty Card or non-established revoke = immediate Judgement ruling, for example UI or Law 64C established revoke = delayed Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2015-04-13 9:48 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > The situation is in no way dissimilar to the one without screens. > > It occurred to me later that the analogy is with L16B2: without screens, > EW say that North's call was slow. NS say it was in tempo. Per L16B2, > the Director is called. How should he proceed? In particular, should > he rule immediately on whether North's call was in tempo? Obviously > South would like to know, one way or the other, before choosing his own > call. > > I think the screen case can be seen as an extension of L16B2, whatever > the answer for that may be. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150526/de301d30/attachment.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue May 26 15:15:10 2015 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 15:15:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] The cad! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <193679941.420281.1432646110374.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Richard Hills" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Cc: "Brian Thorp" > Envoy?: Dimanche 24 Mai 2015 12:36:13 > Objet: [BLML] The cad! > > As they say in the movies, this is Based Upon A True Story. > > All four players are Canberra experts. North-South use Keycard Blackwood to > reach 6S, with South declarer. As is his wont, West requests an explanation > of every bid in the auction. When it comes to 5H the incomplete explanation > "two keycards" is given. West then asks the supplementary question, "Does it > deny the queen of spades?" > > Of course the answer is affirmative, and of course the success of 6S depends > on a two-way finesse for the queen of trumps, and of course declarer > finesses through East, and of course West wins the setting trick with the > queen. > > Declarer casts aspersions at West, then summons the Director. > > How would you rule? i would severely admonish declarer for giving incomplete explanations in order to get information to which he is not intitled. jpr > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > -- _______________________________________________ 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 g3 at nige1.com Tue May 26 15:16:24 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 14:16:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The cad! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01C4ED2C87BB45F4AA68A3BDF45EBA41@G3> [Richard Hills] As they say in the movies, this is Based Upon A True Story. All four players are Canberra experts. North-South use Keycard Blackwood to reach 6S, with South declarer. As is his wont, West requests an explanation of every bid in the auction. When it comes to 5H the incomplete explanation "two keycards" is given. West then asks the supplementary question, "Does it deny the queen of spades?" Of course the answer is affirmative, and of course the success of 6S depends on a two-way finesse for the queen of trumps, and of course declarer finesses through East, and of course West wins the setting trick with the queen. Declarer casts aspersions at West, then summons the Director. How would you rule? [Nigel] IMO the director should impose a DP on declarer. Result stands. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue May 26 17:01:18 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 01:01:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The cad! In-Reply-To: <01C4ED2C87BB45F4AA68A3BDF45EBA41@G3> References: <01C4ED2C87BB45F4AA68A3BDF45EBA41@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie's opinion: "IMO the director should impose a DP on declarer. Result stands." Yes and No. Yes, obviously a Disciplinary Penalty to the cad of a declarer for casting aspersions, a blatant infraction of Law 74A2. No, if I was the Director I would adjust the score to 6S making. The incomplete explanation of 5H is a triviality in Canberra expert circles, since all Canberra experts uniformly define a 5H response to Keycard Blackwood as showing two keycards without the queen of trumps. Hence as Director I would apply Law 73F's "could have known" to West. As it happens West is a senior expert of unimpeachable integrity. What occurred at the table was West had had a senior moment. When West asked about the queen of trumps, West temporarily forgot that he held that card himself. But unimpeachable integrity is of zero relevance to a "could have known" ruling. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, May 26, 2015, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Richard Hills] > As they say in the movies, this is Based Upon A True Story. All four > players are Canberra experts. North-South use Keycard Blackwood to reach > 6S, > with South declarer. As is his wont, West requests an explanation of every > bid in the auction. When it comes to 5H the incomplete explanation "two > keycards" is given. West then asks the supplementary question, "Does it > deny > the queen of spades?" Of course the answer is affirmative, and of course > the > success of 6S depends on a two-way finesse for the queen of trumps, and of > course declarer finesses through East, and of course West wins the setting > trick with the queen. Declarer casts aspersions at West, then summons the > Director. How would you rule? > > [Nigel] > IMO the director should impose a DP on declarer. Result stands. > > ____________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/ > I > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150526/2207701b/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue May 26 19:25:33 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 18:25:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The cad! In-Reply-To: References: <01C4ED2C87BB45F4AA68A3BDF45EBA41@G3> Message-ID: <210BAB0B9F9A415E8DCD8BD15297791E@G3> [Richard] Nigel Guthrie's opinion: "IMO the director should impose a DP on declarer. Result stands." Yes and No. Yes, obviously a Disciplinary Penalty to the cad of a declarer for casting aspersions, a blatant infraction of Law 74A2. No, if I was the Director I would adjust the score to 6S making. The incomplete explanation of 5H is a triviality in Canberra expert circles, since all Canberra experts uniformly define a 5H response to Keycard Blackwood as showing two keycards without the queen of trumps. Hence as Director I would apply Law 73F's "could have known" to West. As it happens West is a senior expert of unimpeachable integrity. What occurred at the table was West had had a senior moment. When West asked about the queen of trumps, West temporarily forgot that he held that card himself. But unimpeachable integrity is of zero relevance to a "could have known" ruling. [Nige1] IMO, West is entitled to ask, irrespective of his trump holding, especially if failure to ask would increase the probability that he held the trump queen (the converse of Richard's implication). Whatever is common practice among other pairs in Canberra, North-South are entitled to vary their agreements. Furthermore, West is entitled to know on what assumptions, South predicated his 6S contract. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 27 10:49:46 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 10:49:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The cad! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5565852A.9080305@skynet.be> I have ruled this, and I have been overturned by the Belgian Appeal Committee. I still believe my ruling is the exact one. On the question: what is 5H? there is only one correct answer : 2 KC without the Q of trumps. If that answer is not given, anything the opponents do has a bridge reason. So the possibly misleading action must be allowed, and if one draws a conclusion out of it, that is to his own risk. After all, the incomplete answer leads to the finding of the queen. Whoever asks more, you play the queen on the other side, and you are certain to find her, or get her from the TD. That's too easy. Herman. Richard Hills schreef: > As they say in the movies, this is Based Upon A True Story. > > All four players are Canberra experts. North-South use Keycard Blackwood > to reach 6S, with South declarer. As is his wont, West requests an > explanation of every bid in the auction. When it comes to 5H the > incomplete explanation "two keycards" is given. West then asks the > supplementary question, "Does it deny the queen of spades?" > > Of course the answer is affirmative, and of course the success of 6S > depends on a two-way finesse for the queen of trumps, and of course > declarer finesses through East, and of course West wins the setting > trick with the queen. > > Declarer casts aspersions at West, then summons the Director. > > How would you rule? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed May 27 14:28:14 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 22:28:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The cad! In-Reply-To: <5565852A.9080305@skynet.be> References: <5565852A.9080305@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael suggested: ".....the incomplete answer leads to the finding of the queen. Whoever asks more, you play the queen on the other side....." In my opinion, as discussed in the "Fourth suit farce" thread, players are required to protect themselves after a trivial error by the opponents. So, if Richard Hills was West and Hilda R. Lirsch was East, then neither of us would "ask more". Law 20G1 prohibits asking a question solely for partner's benefit. One cannot dodge the application of this Law with the excuse, "I know that the opponents have been playing EHAA for a decade, but perhaps they have just switched to playing Nottingham Club instead." So to avoid a Law 20G1 infraction again one has to protect oneself. Likewise, to avoid a Law 73F unnecessary and deceptive question infraction, the solution is to avoid asking the deceptive question in the first place. Nigel Guthrie's attractive idea of always asking a question is alas illegal. Law 73F does not encompass a legal question cancelling an illegal question a la positron - electron annihilation. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, May 27, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > I have ruled this, and I have been overturned by the Belgian Appeal > Committee. > I still believe my ruling is the exact one. > > On the question: what is 5H? there is only one correct answer : 2 KC > without the Q of trumps. > > If that answer is not given, anything the opponents do has a bridge reason. > So the possibly misleading action must be allowed, and if one draws a > conclusion out of it, that is to his own risk. > > After all, the incomplete answer leads to the finding of the queen. > Whoever asks more, you play the queen on the other side, and you are > certain to find her, or get her from the TD. That's too easy. > > Herman. > > Richard Hills schreef: > > As they say in the movies, this is Based Upon A True Story. > > > > All four players are Canberra experts. North-South use Keycard Blackwood > > to reach 6S, with South declarer. As is his wont, West requests an > > explanation of every bid in the auction. When it comes to 5H the > > incomplete explanation "two keycards" is given. West then asks the > > supplementary question, "Does it deny the queen of spades?" > > > > Of course the answer is affirmative, and of course the success of 6S > > depends on a two-way finesse for the queen of trumps, and of course > > declarer finesses through East, and of course West wins the setting > > trick with the queen. > > > > Declarer casts aspersions at West, then summons the Director. > > > > 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/20150527/e1c41f75/attachment.html From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Wed May 27 14:33:20 2015 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 14:33:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The cad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150527123332.76AF8E792DF@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> Whether W holds the queen, or whether he has a senior moment, is not relevant. When he gets an answer that deviates from how "all Canberra experts" play it he is entitled to ask further questions. If indeed he aks questions about every bid, it would be suspicious if het didn't. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 27 15:33:39 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 09:33:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The cad! In-Reply-To: <5565852A.9080305@skynet.be> References: <5565852A.9080305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5565C7B3.4070105@nhcc.net> On 2015-05-27 4:49 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > On the question: what is 5H? there is only one correct answer : 2 KC > without the Q of trumps. > > If that answer is not given, anything the opponents do has a bridge reason. > So the possibly misleading action must be allowed, and if one draws a > conclusion out of it, that is to his own risk. > > After all, the incomplete answer leads to the finding of the queen. I agree with Herman and would go further: if giving an incomplete explanation of 5H lets declarer find the queen, I'd adjust the score under L23. Whichever player on the declaring side was giving explanations, why didn't the other one correct the explanation of 5H? From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 27 16:09:54 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 10:09:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] scoring question Message-ID: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> This should be simple. In a Mitchell movement, playing matchpoints, one board is played rotated 90 degrees at one table only. That is to say, EW take the NS hands and vice versa. Otherwise the board is played normally and a result achieved. The players are in no way at fault; the Director instructed them to do this for reasons that seemed good at the time. For illustration, let's say the normal EW, holding the NS cards, achieve a higher score than any other NS pair. How should the board be scored? a) normal EW keep their top, normal NS their bottom? At the end of the session, the EW total matchpoints will exceed the NS total matchpoints by two tops. b) artificial scores, presumably avg+ to both? (Board unplayable, Director's error, or something along those lines.) c) something else? I think I know the answer, but can anyone cite an official regulation in any jurisdiction? ACBL would be ideal, but I'd be glad to see a regulation or official guideline from anywhere. I looked in the EBU White Book and didn't find anything, and I know of nothing in the ACBL. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Wed May 27 21:31:20 2015 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 21:31:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 27 May 2015 16:09:54 +0200, Steve Willner wrote: > This should be simple. In a Mitchell movement, playing matchpoints, one > board is played rotated 90 degrees at one table only. That is to say, > EW take the NS hands and vice versa. Otherwise the board is played > normally and a result achieved. The players are in no way at fault; the > Director instructed them to do this for reasons that seemed good at the > time. For illustration, let's say the normal EW, holding the NS cards, > achieve a higher score than any other NS pair. How should the board be > scored? > > a) normal EW keep their top, normal NS their bottom? At the end of the > session, the EW total matchpoints will exceed the NS total matchpoints > by two tops. > > b) artificial scores, presumably avg+ to both? (Board unplayable, > Director's error, or something along those lines.) > > c) something else? > > I think I know the answer, but can anyone cite an official regulation in > any jurisdiction? ACBL would be ideal, but I'd be glad to see a > regulation or official guideline from anywhere. I looked in the EBU > White Book and didn't find anything, and I know of nothing in the ACBL. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Austria has a regulation to use a) (and in a straight Mitchell, NS and EW are scored seperately, anyway). This is in line with L 15A - when they are playing a wrong board. Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From svenpran at online.no Wed May 27 22:11:56 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 22:11:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> I don't see any problem? If the board was not fouled in any way then EW apparently took NS hands and vice versa, the auction started with the player now holding the hand marked as "dealer" on the board and the board was played out under these conditions then the result on the board stands as if EW were seated NS and NS were seated EW and they receive the corresponding scores (EW the score allocated to NS on the board and NS the score allocated to EW on the board). However if the board was fouled (see Law 87) and was played in that form on one single table only then both affected pairs shall receive Ave+ score on that board. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Steve > Willner > Sendt: 27. mai 2015 16:10 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] scoring question > > This should be simple. In a Mitchell movement, playing matchpoints, one board > is played rotated 90 degrees at one table only. That is to say, EW take the NS > hands and vice versa. Otherwise the board is played normally and a result > achieved. The players are in no way at fault; the Director instructed them to do > this for reasons that seemed good at the time. For illustration, let's say the > normal EW, holding the NS cards, achieve a higher score than any other NS pair. > How should the board be scored? > > a) normal EW keep their top, normal NS their bottom? At the end of the > session, the EW total matchpoints will exceed the NS total matchpoints by two > tops. > > b) artificial scores, presumably avg+ to both? (Board unplayable, Director's > error, or something along those lines.) > > c) something else? > > I think I know the answer, but can anyone cite an official regulation in any > jurisdiction? ACBL would be ideal, but I'd be glad to see a regulation or official > guideline from anywhere. I looked in the EBU White Book and didn't find > anything, and I know of nothing in the ACBL. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu May 28 00:38:03 2015 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 23:38:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> Message-ID: It seems to me that if it is a two-winner movement, ie no other boards are arrow-switched, then any result obtained is invalid. How can a two-winner event have four different fields? > On 27 May 2015, at 21:11, Sven Pran wrote: > > I don't see any problem? > If the board was not fouled in any way then EW apparently took NS hands and > vice versa, the auction started with the player now holding the hand marked > as "dealer" on the board and the board was played out under these conditions > then the result on the board stands as if EW were seated NS and NS were > seated EW and they receive the corresponding scores (EW the score allocated > to NS on the board and NS the score allocated to EW on the board). > > However if the board was fouled (see Law 87) and was played in that form on > one single table only then both affected pairs shall receive Ave+ score on > that board. > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Steve >> Willner >> Sendt: 27. mai 2015 16:10 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: [BLML] scoring question >> >> This should be simple. In a Mitchell movement, playing matchpoints, one > board >> is played rotated 90 degrees at one table only. That is to say, EW take > the NS >> hands and vice versa. Otherwise the board is played normally and a result >> achieved. The players are in no way at fault; the Director instructed > them to do >> this for reasons that seemed good at the time. For illustration, let's > say the >> normal EW, holding the NS cards, achieve a higher score than any other NS > pair. >> How should the board be scored? >> >> a) normal EW keep their top, normal NS their bottom? At the end of the >> session, the EW total matchpoints will exceed the NS total matchpoints by > two >> tops. >> >> b) artificial scores, presumably avg+ to both? (Board unplayable, > Director's >> error, or something along those lines.) >> >> c) something else? >> >> I think I know the answer, but can anyone cite an official regulation in > any >> jurisdiction? ACBL would be ideal, but I'd be glad to see a regulation or > official >> guideline from anywhere. I looked in the EBU White Book and didn't find >> anything, and I know of nothing in the ACBL. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Thu May 28 07:57:56 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 07:57:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> Message-ID: <000601d0990b$3f57c0f0$be0742d0$@online.no> Quite true. Frankly I didn't even think about the stoneage Mitchell system (with or without arrow switching), I don't believe it has been used anywhere here for at least 30 years. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Stefanie Rohan > Sendt: 28. mai 2015 00:38 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] scoring question > > It seems to me that if it is a two-winner movement, ie no other boards are > arrow-switched, then any result obtained is invalid. How can a two-winner > event have four different fields? > > > > On 27 May 2015, at 21:11, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > I don't see any problem? > > If the board was not fouled in any way then EW apparently took NS > > hands and vice versa, the auction started with the player now holding > > the hand marked as "dealer" on the board and the board was played out > > under these conditions then the result on the board stands as if EW > > were seated NS and NS were seated EW and they receive the > > corresponding scores (EW the score allocated to NS on the board and NS the > score allocated to EW on the board). > > > > However if the board was fouled (see Law 87) and was played in that > > form on one single table only then both affected pairs shall receive > > Ave+ score on that board. > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > >> av > > Steve > >> Willner > >> Sendt: 27. mai 2015 16:10 > >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Emne: [BLML] scoring question > >> > >> This should be simple. In a Mitchell movement, playing matchpoints, > >> one > > board > >> is played rotated 90 degrees at one table only. That is to say, EW > >> take > > the NS > >> hands and vice versa. Otherwise the board is played normally and a > >> result achieved. The players are in no way at fault; the Director > >> instructed > > them to do > >> this for reasons that seemed good at the time. For illustration, > >> let's > > say the > >> normal EW, holding the NS cards, achieve a higher score than any > >> other NS > > pair. > >> How should the board be scored? > >> > >> a) normal EW keep their top, normal NS their bottom? At the end of > >> the session, the EW total matchpoints will exceed the NS total > >> matchpoints by > > two > >> tops. > >> > >> b) artificial scores, presumably avg+ to both? (Board unplayable, > > Director's > >> error, or something along those lines.) > >> > >> c) something else? > >> > >> I think I know the answer, but can anyone cite an official regulation > >> in > > any > >> jurisdiction? ACBL would be ideal, but I'd be glad to see a > >> regulation or > > official > >> guideline from anywhere. I looked in the EBU White Book and didn't > >> find anything, and I know of nothing in the ACBL. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 Thu May 28 08:28:58 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 08:28:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The cad! In-Reply-To: References: <5565852A.9080305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5566B5AA.6070104@skynet.be> Richard is turning the thing on his head. It is not the asker of the second question who commits an act of misleading, but rather the answerer of the first one. Not giving a complete answer is an infraction. Any advantage that is the result of this infraction should be taken away. Asking a second question can never be an infraction. There are numerous bridge reasons to be found for this second question, other than "for partner's benefit". And yes, the reason "I knew they were playing X, but when he did not say what I expected, I wanted to check whether he had not, in fact, switched to Y". Richard correctly states that a player is supposed to protect himself. What should he do after an incomplete explanation of which he suspects it is incomplete? Simply follow the answer or protect himself by checking that what he suspects is in fact true? Why do you insist on trying to punish the innocent party and leaving the infractor scot-free? Herman. Richard Hills schreef: > Herman De Wael suggested: > > ".....the incomplete answer leads to the finding of the queen. Whoever > asks more, you play the queen on the other side....." > > In my opinion, as discussed in the "Fourth suit farce" thread, players > are required to protect themselves after a trivial error by the > opponents. So, if Richard Hills was West and Hilda R. Lirsch was East, > then neither of us would "ask more". > > Law 20G1 prohibits asking a question solely for partner's benefit. One > cannot dodge the application of this Law with the excuse, "I know that > the opponents have been playing EHAA for a decade, but perhaps they have > just switched to playing Nottingham Club instead." So to avoid a Law > 20G1 infraction again one has to protect oneself. > > Likewise, to avoid a Law 73F unnecessary and deceptive question > infraction, the solution is to avoid asking the deceptive question in > the first place. Nigel Guthrie's attractive idea of always asking a > question is alas illegal. Law 73F does not encompass a legal > question cancelling an illegal question a la positron - electron > annihilation. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Wednesday, May 27, 2015, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > I have ruled this, and I have been overturned by the Belgian Appeal > Committee. > I still believe my ruling is the exact one. > > On the question: what is 5H? there is only one correct answer : 2 KC > without the Q of trumps. > > If that answer is not given, anything the opponents do has a bridge > reason. > So the possibly misleading action must be allowed, and if one draws a > conclusion out of it, that is to his own risk. > > After all, the incomplete answer leads to the finding of the queen. > Whoever asks more, you play the queen on the other side, and you are > certain to find her, or get her from the TD. That's too easy. > > Herman. > > Richard Hills schreef: > > As they say in the movies, this is Based Upon A True Story. > > > > All four players are Canberra experts. North-South use Keycard > Blackwood > > to reach 6S, with South declarer. As is his wont, West requests an > > explanation of every bid in the auction. When it comes to 5H the > > incomplete explanation "two keycards" is given. West then asks the > > supplementary question, "Does it deny the queen of spades?" > > > > Of course the answer is affirmative, and of course the success of 6S > > depends on a two-way finesse for the queen of trumps, and of course > > declarer finesses through East, and of course West wins the setting > > trick with the queen. > > > > Declarer casts aspersions at West, then summons the Director. > > > > 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 > From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 28 08:31:17 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 08:31:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5566B635.8000607@skynet.be> Steve Willner schreef: > This should be simple. it is. > In a Mitchell movement, playing matchpoints, one > board is played rotated 90 degrees at one table only. That is to say, > EW take the NS hands and vice versa. Otherwise the board is played > normally and a result achieved. The players are in no way at fault; the > Director instructed them to do this for reasons that seemed good at the > time. For illustration, let's say the normal EW, holding the NS cards, > achieve a higher score than any other NS pair. How should the board be > scored? > > a) normal EW keep their top, normal NS their bottom? At the end of the > session, the EW total matchpoints will exceed the NS total matchpoints > by two tops. > This is it. Why do you believe there is anything wrong with this? > b) artificial scores, presumably avg+ to both? (Board unplayable, > Director's error, or something along those lines.) > > c) something else? > > I think I know the answer, but can anyone cite an official regulation in > any jurisdiction? ACBL would be ideal, but I'd be glad to see a > regulation or official guideline from anywhere. I looked in the EBU > White Book and didn't find anything, and I know of nothing in the ACBL. No reasons needed. They earned a top/bottom and should keep it. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 28 08:32:35 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 08:32:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> Message-ID: <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> The idea of a two-winner movement is flawed as it is, so why bother with two extra fields? Herman. Stefanie Rohan schreef: > It seems to me that if it is a two-winner movement, ie no other boards are arrow-switched, then any result obtained is invalid. How can a two-winner event have four different fields? > > >> On 27 May 2015, at 21:11, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> I don't see any problem? >> If the board was not fouled in any way then EW apparently took NS hands and >> vice versa, the auction started with the player now holding the hand marked >> as "dealer" on the board and the board was played out under these conditions >> then the result on the board stands as if EW were seated NS and NS were >> seated EW and they receive the corresponding scores (EW the score allocated >> to NS on the board and NS the score allocated to EW on the board). >> >> However if the board was fouled (see Law 87) and was played in that form on >> one single table only then both affected pairs shall receive Ave+ score on >> that board. >> >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Steve >>> Willner >>> Sendt: 27. mai 2015 16:10 >>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Emne: [BLML] scoring question >>> >>> This should be simple. In a Mitchell movement, playing matchpoints, one >> board >>> is played rotated 90 degrees at one table only. That is to say, EW take >> the NS >>> hands and vice versa. Otherwise the board is played normally and a result >>> achieved. The players are in no way at fault; the Director instructed >> them to do >>> this for reasons that seemed good at the time. For illustration, let's >> say the >>> normal EW, holding the NS cards, achieve a higher score than any other NS >> pair. >>> How should the board be scored? >>> >>> a) normal EW keep their top, normal NS their bottom? At the end of the >>> session, the EW total matchpoints will exceed the NS total matchpoints by >> two >>> tops. >>> >>> b) artificial scores, presumably avg+ to both? (Board unplayable, >> Director's >>> error, or something along those lines.) >>> >>> c) something else? >>> >>> I think I know the answer, but can anyone cite an official regulation in >> any >>> jurisdiction? ACBL would be ideal, but I'd be glad to see a regulation or >> official >>> guideline from anywhere. I looked in the EBU White Book and didn't find >>> anything, and I know of nothing in the ACBL. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu May 28 09:27:21 2015 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:27:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Thursday, 28 May 2015 4:33 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] scoring question > > The idea of a two-winner movement is flawed as it is, so why bother with > two extra fields? > Herman. Thems fighting words Herman, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > Stefanie Rohan schreef: > > It seems to me that if it is a two-winner movement, ie no other boards are > arrow-switched, then any result obtained is invalid. How can a two-winner > event have four different fields? > > > > > >> On 27 May 2015, at 21:11, Sven Pran wrote: > >> > >> I don't see any problem? > >> If the board was not fouled in any way then EW apparently took NS > hands and > >> vice versa, the auction started with the player now holding the hand > marked > >> as "dealer" on the board and the board was played out under these > conditions > >> then the result on the board stands as if EW were seated NS and NS were > >> seated EW and they receive the corresponding scores (EW the score > allocated > >> to NS on the board and NS the score allocated to EW on the board). > >> > >> However if the board was fouled (see Law 87) and was played in that > form on > >> one single table only then both affected pairs shall receive Ave+ score on > >> that board. > >> > >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > av > >> Steve > >>> Willner > >>> Sendt: 27. mai 2015 16:10 > >>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >>> Emne: [BLML] scoring question > >>> > >>> This should be simple. In a Mitchell movement, playing matchpoints, > one > >> board > >>> is played rotated 90 degrees at one table only. That is to say, EW take > >> the NS > >>> hands and vice versa. Otherwise the board is played normally and a > result > >>> achieved. The players are in no way at fault; the Director instructed > >> them to do > >>> this for reasons that seemed good at the time. For illustration, let's > >> say the > >>> normal EW, holding the NS cards, achieve a higher score than any other > NS > >> pair. > >>> How should the board be scored? > >>> > >>> a) normal EW keep their top, normal NS their bottom? At the end of > the > >>> session, the EW total matchpoints will exceed the NS total matchpoints > by > >> two > >>> tops. > >>> > >>> b) artificial scores, presumably avg+ to both? (Board unplayable, > >> Director's > >>> error, or something along those lines.) > >>> > >>> c) something else? > >>> > >>> I think I know the answer, but can anyone cite an official regulation in > >> any > >>> jurisdiction? ACBL would be ideal, but I'd be glad to see a regulation or > >> official > >>> guideline from anywhere. I looked in the EBU White Book and didn't > find > >>> anything, and I know of nothing in the ACBL. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 Thu May 28 10:32:02 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 10:32:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove schreef: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Herman De Wael >> Sent: Thursday, 28 May 2015 4:33 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] scoring question >> >> The idea of a two-winner movement is flawed as it is, so why bother with >> two extra fields? >> Herman. > > Thems fighting words Herman, > Allow me to explain. If you are going to play pairs, your "team" cannot play all the hands since there are only two of you. So you're going to be compared on different hands anyhow. The only way out of this is to play a full Mitchell, non-scrambled. Then you can really compare with the whole part of the field. You have the same opponents and have played the same hands. Anything less than that is unfair. So why should you compound this unfairness by having two winners? Second-placed NS at 65% is better than first-placed EW at 55%, so why not give them second place? I think all tournaments should be scrambled and one-winner. BTW, even the example, which featured a non-scrambled, possibly full, Mitchell, has been flawed because one of the NS pairs did not play one of the NS hands. The tournament is flawed as a result. Why flaw it even worse by not awarding the EW top to the NS pair that happened to play it? (fighting) Herman. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu May 28 14:57:51 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 22:57:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> Message-ID: (fighting) Herman has the merit of consistency. He expressed the same approach to potentially fouled boards when blml was discussing the ramifications of the 1997 Lawbook. And (fighting) Herman is a rare player whose ideas directly influenced the Drafting Committee in its creation of the 2007 Lawbook, with the current Law 87A - Fouled Board, Definition - embodying the DC's rejection of De Wael. The key concluding phrase of Law 87A in this case is: "and the contestants who ++should have had a score comparison++ did not play the board in identical form for such reason." Hence the answer by Stefanie Rohan is the correct one. Under the conditions proposed by Steve Willner (prior Director' Error and vanilla Mitchell movement), the correct Director ruling is to apply Laws 87 and 12C2 for Ave+ to both sides. Now that I have retired from the increasingly unethical Aussie Department of Immigration I have often played daytime bridge. All of these daytime sessions at the Canberra Bridge Club are vanilla Mitchell movements. And all of these sessions give North-South and East-West separate placings and masterpoints (even including the Thursday morning Butler pairs). As Stefanie Rohan also correctly observed, and I concur, the nature of an unscrambled Mitchell necessitates scoring with two fields. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, May 28, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > Tony Musgrove schreef: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > >> Of Herman De Wael > >> Sent: Thursday, 28 May 2015 4:33 PM > >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Subject: Re: [BLML] scoring question > >> > >> The idea of a two-winner movement is flawed as it is, so why bother with > >> two extra fields? > >> Herman. > > > > Thems fighting words Herman, > > > > Allow me to explain. > > If you are going to play pairs, your "team" cannot play all the hands > since there are only two of you. So you're going to be compared on > different hands anyhow. > > The only way out of this is to play a full Mitchell, non-scrambled. Then > .you can really compare with the whole part of the field. You have the > same opponents and have played the same hands. > > Anything less than that is unfair. > > So why should you compound this unfairness by having two winners? > Second-placed NS at 65% is better than first-placed EW at 55%, so why > not give them second place? > > I think all tournaments should be scrambled and one-winner. > > BTW, even the example, which featured a non-scrambled, possibly full, > Mitchell, has been flawed because one of the NS pairs did not play one > of the NS hands. The tournament is flawed as a result. Why flaw it even > worse by not awarding the EW top to the NS pair that happened to play it? > > (fighting) Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150528/458a8b95/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 28 15:17:19 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 15:17:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5567155F.3060506@skynet.be> Richard Hills schreef: > (fighting) Herman has the merit of consistency. He expressed the same > approach to potentially fouled boards when blml was discussing the > ramifications of the 1997 Lawbook. And (fighting) Herman is a rare > player whose ideas directly influenced the Drafting Committee in its > creation of the 2007 Lawbook, with the current Law 87A - Fouled Board, > Definition - embodying the DC's rejection of De Wael. The key concluding > phrase of Law 87A in this case is: "and the contestants who ++should > have had a score comparison++ did not play the board in identical form > for such reason." > Well, they did have a score comparison, even if not with the people they were originally scheduled to do so. Ask yourself the following question. The TD tells the players to play the boards in a different direction - and then the calcultor decides to change the score into 60/60? I believe one of the pairs will object (unless they have an average board, of course) > Hence the answer by Stefanie Rohan is the correct one. Under the Not if the TD directs the players to play the board, as was in the original. And not in any other case either. > conditions proposed by Steve Willner (prior Director' Error and > vanilla Mitchell movement), the correct Director ruling is to apply Laws > 87 and 12C2 for Ave+ to both sides. > > Now that I have retired from the increasingly unethical Aussie > Department of Immigration I have often played daytime bridge. All of > these daytime sessions at the Canberra Bridge Club are vanilla Mitchell > movements. And all of these sessions give North-South and > East-West separate placings and masterpoints (even including the > Thursday morning Butler pairs). As Stefanie Rohan also correctly > observed, and I concur, the nature of an unscrambled Mitchell > necessitates scoring with two fields. > Well, Stefanie observed it, but I don't believe that is correct. It might be correct if you add the word "full" to the Mitchell. But even then, I do not agree with the "necessitates". There is nothing preventing the organisers to decide otherwise. As I did from the very moment I took over as TD in my club (most of our Mitchells were curtailed ones at the time). And the players did not object. (still fighting) Herman. > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 28 15:38:07 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 09:38:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <55671A3F.4050609@nhcc.net> On 2015-05-28 8:57 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > The key concluding phrase of Law 87A in this case is: "and the > contestants who ++should have had a score comparison++ did not play the > board in identical form for such reason." L87A has three conditions: A, or B, and C. (The above is C.) It looks to me as though either A or B is required for the board to be fouled. There's also L16C2a. I would have thought that allows switching EW and NS, but maybe that was a wrong interpretation. From svenpran at online.no Thu May 28 15:51:03 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 15:51:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <5567155F.3060506@skynet.be> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> <5567155F.3060506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01d0994d$57ee9750$07cbc5f0$@online.no> FWIW: I have never questioned the legality of how we has handled this situation in Norway at least since I received my first TD License in 1980: At some table pair A sitting N/S (accidentally) takes the hands for E/W from the board and pair B sitting E/W similarly takes the hands for N/S. They carry out the auction and the play as directed by the notation (dealer and zones) on the board. This board is then scored with pair A actually seated E/W and pair B seated N/S on this particular board. Law 87 does not apply in any way since the board itself was not fouled and Law 15 does not apply since the board was indeed scheduled to be played by these players at that round. When the scores on this board are transferred to the summary sheet pair A keeps the score received as seated E/W and pair B keeps the score received as seated N/S. We couldn't care less about the Mitchell checksums N/S and E/W becoming unbalanced as a result of this. So what is the problem? > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 28. mai 2015 15:17 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] scoring question > > Richard Hills schreef: > > (fighting) Herman has the merit of consistency. He expressed the same > > approach to potentially fouled boards when blml was discussing the > > ramifications of the 1997 Lawbook. And (fighting) Herman is a rare > > player whose ideas directly influenced the Drafting Committee in its > > creation of the 2007 Lawbook, with the current Law 87A - Fouled Board, > > Definition - embodying the DC's rejection of De Wael. The key > > concluding phrase of Law 87A in this case is: "and the contestants who > > ++should have had a score comparison++ did not play the board in > > identical form for such reason." > > > > Well, they did have a score comparison, even if not with the people they were > originally scheduled to do so. > Ask yourself the following question. The TD tells the players to play the boards > in a different direction - and then the calcultor decides to change the score into > 60/60? I believe one of the pairs will object (unless they have an average board, > of course) > > > Hence the answer by Stefanie Rohan is the correct one. Under the > > Not if the TD directs the players to play the board, as was in the original. And > not in any other case either. > > > conditions proposed by Steve Willner (prior Director' Error and > > vanilla Mitchell movement), the correct Director ruling is to apply > > Laws > > 87 and 12C2 for Ave+ to both sides. > > > > Now that I have retired from the increasingly unethical Aussie > > Department of Immigration I have often played daytime bridge. All of > > these daytime sessions at the Canberra Bridge Club are vanilla > > Mitchell movements. And all of these sessions give North-South and > > East-West separate placings and masterpoints (even including the > > Thursday morning Butler pairs). As Stefanie Rohan also correctly > > observed, and I concur, the nature of an unscrambled Mitchell > > necessitates scoring with two fields. > > > > Well, Stefanie observed it, but I don't believe that is correct. It might be correct > if you add the word "full" to the Mitchell. > But even then, I do not agree with the "necessitates". There is nothing > preventing the organisers to decide otherwise. As I did from the very moment I > took over as TD in my club (most of our Mitchells were curtailed ones at the > time). And the players did not object. > > (still fighting) Herman. > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu May 28 16:01:30 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 16:01:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <55671A3F.4050609@nhcc.net> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> <55671A3F.4050609@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000e01d0994e$cc64c7c0$652e5740$@online.no> > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Steve > Willner > Sendt: 28. mai 2015 15:38 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] scoring question > > On 2015-05-28 8:57 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > > The key concluding phrase of Law 87A in this case is: "and the > > contestants who ++should have had a score comparison++ did not play > > the board in identical form for such reason." > > L87A has three conditions: A, or B, and C. (The above is C.) It looks to me as > though either A or B is required for the board to be fouled. > > There's also L16C2a. I would have thought that allows switching EW and NS, > but maybe that was a wrong interpretation. [Sven Pran] On the contrary L16C2a is a carte blanche to "save" the board whenever reseating the players is sufficient to allow a normal play of the board. "Unauthorized information" includes the case where a player has seen cards not destined for him, for instance by taking the wrong hand from the board. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu May 28 16:34:19 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 00:34:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <000e01d0994e$cc64c7c0$652e5740$@online.no> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> <55671A3F.4050609@nhcc.net> <000e01d0994e$cc64c7c0$652e5740$@online.no> Message-ID: Obviously a 90 degree rotation of the board fulfills the "dealer differed" criterion of Law 87A, if one accepts that the North-South and East-West fields are scored separately. Steve Willner suggested (but admitted he might have wrongly interpreted) Law 16C2(a). But this Law contains the important caveat "if the type of contest and scoring permit". In the circumstances under discussion this point is moot; firstly at this time Law 16C3 over-rules Law 16C2(a), secondly Law 16 unauthorized information obviously has zero relevance to a Director's ruling on a fouled board. Earlier in this thread Petrus suggested a regulation based on Law 15 might be applicable. In my opinion, not so. Law 87 is about play of a Fouled Board, but Law 15 is about play of a Wrong Board. That is, Law 15A (Players Have Not Previously Played Board) defines a wrong board as "a board not designated for them in the current round". In Steve Willner's scenario the board was indeed designated for the current round, but instead fouled by the Director. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, May 28, 2015, Steve Willner > wrote: > On 2015-05-28 8:57 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > > The key concluding phrase of Law 87A in this case is: "and the > > contestants who ++should have had a score comparison++ did not play the > > board in identical form for such reason." > > L87A has three conditions: A, or B, and C. (The above is C.) It looks > to me as though either A or B is required for the board to be fouled. > > There's also L16C2a. I would have thought that allows switching EW and > NS, but maybe that was a wrong interpretation. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150528/2da591ef/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu May 28 17:16:38 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:16:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> <55671A3F.4050609@nhcc.net> <000e01d0994e$cc64c7c0$652e5740$@online.no> Message-ID: <001b01d09959$4d34f640$e79ee2c0$@online.no> If you rotate a board 90 degrees at the table you also ?rotate? the dealer and the zones with respect to the players, but you do not change the actual cards held in each of the four directions North, East, South and West, or the designation of dealer or zones to these directions. ?Hands?, ?Dealer? and ?zones? refer to the directions North, East, South and West , not the players (persons) assumed to be seated in these directions. So please forget the misunderstanding that a board is fouled simply by having been rotated at the table without in any way disturbing the contents of, or markings on the board. An example of where "if the type of contest and scoring permit" is relevant is matches for teams of four. Here you cannot rotate a board in one room without also rotating the same board in the same manner in the other room. In events where each ?contestant? is a pair of two players or a single player no such consideration should ever be needed and Law 16C2a is fully applicable so that the Director can allow normal play of a rotated board to be completed and scored. (Why you mention L16C3 at all is incomprehensible. The unauthorized information was received at the very moment a player looked at the wrong hand ? see L16C1) Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 28. mai 2015 16:34 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] scoring question Obviously a 90 degree rotation of the board fulfills the "dealer differed" criterion of Law 87A, if one accepts that the North-South and East-West fields are scored separately. Steve Willner suggested (but admitted he might have wrongly interpreted) Law 16C2(a). But this Law contains the important caveat "if the type of contest and scoring permit". In the circumstances under discussion this point is moot; firstly at this time Law 16C3 over-rules Law 16C2(a), secondly Law 16 unauthorized information obviously has zero relevance to a Director's ruling on a fouled board. Earlier in this thread Petrus suggested a regulation based on Law 15 might be applicable. In my opinion, not so. Law 87 is about play of a Fouled Board, but Law 15 is about play of a Wrong Board. That is, Law 15A (Players Have Not Previously Played Board) defines a wrong board as "a board not designated for them in the current round". In Steve Willner's scenario the board was indeed designated for the current round, but instead fouled by the Director. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, May 28, 2015, Steve Willner > wrote: On 2015-05-28 8:57 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > The key concluding phrase of Law 87A in this case is: "and the > contestants who ++should have had a score comparison++ did not play the > board in identical form for such reason." L87A has three conditions: A, or B, and C. (The above is C.) It looks to me as though either A or B is required for the board to be fouled. There's also L16C2a. I would have thought that allows switching EW and NS, but maybe that was a wrong interpretation. _______________________________________________ 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/20150528/bdeb5bd5/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu May 28 17:38:20 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 01:38:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <000e01d0994e$cc64c7c0$652e5740$@online.no> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> <55671A3F.4050609@nhcc.net> <000e01d0994e$cc64c7c0$652e5740$@online.no> Message-ID: Law 16C2(a) is a useful Law, but I disagree with Sven calling it a "carte blanche" Law. For example, many years ago I played in the Spring National Teams. As I was collecting a board from an adjacent table, LHO's ace of hearts fell face up. I quickly concealed it with my foot, then summoned the Director. As luck would have it, the trainee Director had not come across this obscure situation before, so the Chief Director was summoned. The CTD checked whether the other table had played the board. As they had not, I was rotated into the ace of hearts seat, and the other table was later likewise rotated. But if I had seen LHO's ace of hearts in a two-winner vanilla Mitchell movement, then Law 16C2(a) would not apply. Instead the Director would apply Law 16C2 (c), allowing completion of play pending consideration of a possible adjusted score. Note that it is illegal to apply the so-called "carte blanche" Law 16C2(a) if the UI is received after the first call in the auction. In Steve Willner's case play had been completed before the error was discovered. If, for the sake of argument, one assumes that the Willner scenario was not a fouled board, then nevertheless massive UI occurred during the auction and play, hence no "carte blanche" ruling is permitted. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, May 29, 2015, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto: > blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] P? vegne av > Steve > > Willner > > Sendt: 28. mai 2015 15:38 > > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Emne: Re: [BLML] scoring question > > > > On 2015-05-28 8:57 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > > > The key concluding phrase of Law 87A in this case is: "and the > > > contestants who ++should have had a score comparison++ did not play > > > the board in identical form for such reason." > > > > L87A has three conditions: A, or B, and C. (The above is C.) It looks > to > me as > > though either A or B is required for the board to be fouled. > > > > There's also L16C2a. I would have thought that allows switching EW and > NS, > > but maybe that was a wrong interpretation. > > [Sven Pran] > On the contrary L16C2a is a carte blanche to "save" the board whenever > reseating the players is sufficient to allow a normal play of the board. > > "Unauthorized information" includes the case where a player has seen cards > not destined for him, for instance by taking the wrong hand from the board. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150528/5e251136/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 28 18:32:31 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 12:32:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> <55671A3F.4050609@nhcc.net> <000e01d0994e$cc64c7c0$652e5740$@online.no> Message-ID: <5567431F.7090209@nhcc.net> On 2015-05-28 11:38 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > massive UI occurred during the auction and play I have no idea what that means. Nobody ever saw any cards except their own and those revealed in normal play. From svenpran at online.no Thu May 28 18:58:11 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 18:58:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> <55671A3F.4050609@nhcc.net> <000e01d0994e$cc64c7c0$652e5740$@online.no> Message-ID: <002c01d09967$7b43da70$71cb8f50$@online.no> In Steve Willner?s case the UI was received immediately when they took the hands from the board. The fact that they were unaware of the UI until later is irrelevant. Possible damage to the board existed from the moment they took the wrong hands from the board. Law 16C2a allows the Director to avoid such damage by instructing the players to be seated according to the hands they have already seen. I shall not waste more time on this which is obvious to all my Norwegian fellow directors. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Note that it is illegal to apply the so-called "carte blanche" Law 16C2(a) if the UI is received after the first call in the auction. In Steve Willner's case play had been completed before the error was discovered. If, for the sake of argument, one assumes that the Willner scenario was not a fouled board, then nevertheless massive UI occurred during the auction and play, hence no "carte blanche" ruling is permitted. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150528/f63acb7b/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu May 28 19:06:59 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 03:06:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> <55671A3F.4050609@nhcc.net> <000e01d0994e$cc64c7c0$652e5740$@online.no> Message-ID: Thirty-five years ago I was a trainee Director in Hobart. When I ran the Wednesday walk-in pairs, a two field Mitchell movement, it was traditional for the experts to sit North-South and for the novices to sit East-West. If I had made the Director's Error of rotating a board 90 degrees, and if I had made a second Director's Error of letting the result stand, then I would have hugely advantaged the expert pair and hugely disadvantaged the novice pair. The experts, temporarily East-West, would be comparing their result against the results of the other novices. The novices, temporarily North-South, would be comparing their result against the results of the other experts. Another example was an English congress many years ago. Although there were two sections, open and restricted, they shared the same boards. A restricted pair accidentally wandered into the open section and played a board. How would you rule? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, May 29, 2015, Richard Hills wrote: > Law 16C2(a) is a useful Law, but I disagree with Sven calling it a "carte > blanche" Law. > > For example, many years ago I played in the Spring National Teams. As I > was collecting a board from an adjacent table, LHO's ace of hearts fell > face up. I quickly concealed it with my foot, then summoned the Director. > As luck would have it, the trainee Director had not come across this > obscure situation before, so the Chief Director was summoned. The CTD > checked whether the other table had played the board. As they had not, I > was rotated into the ace of hearts seat, and the other table was later > likewise rotated. > > But if I had seen LHO's ace of hearts in a two-winner vanilla Mitchell > movement, then Law 16C2(a) would not apply. Instead the Director > would apply Law 16C2 (c), allowing completion of play pending consideration > of a possible adjusted score. > > Note that it is illegal to apply the so-called "carte blanche" Law 16C2(a) > if the UI is received after the first call in the auction. In Steve > Willner's case play had been completed before the error was discovered. If, > for the sake of argument, one assumes that the Willner scenario was not a > fouled board, then nevertheless massive UI occurred during the auction and > play, hence no "carte blanche" ruling is permitted. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Friday, May 29, 2015, Sven Pran > wrote: > >> >> >> > -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Steve >> > Willner >> > Sendt: 28. mai 2015 15:38 >> > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> > Emne: Re: [BLML] scoring question >> > >> > On 2015-05-28 8:57 AM, Richard Hills wrote: >> > > The key concluding phrase of Law 87A in this case is: "and the >> > > contestants who ++should have had a score comparison++ did not play >> > > the board in identical form for such reason." >> > >> > L87A has three conditions: A, or B, and C. (The above is C.) It looks >> to >> me as >> > though either A or B is required for the board to be fouled. >> > >> > There's also L16C2a. I would have thought that allows switching EW and >> NS, >> > but maybe that was a wrong interpretation. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> On the contrary L16C2a is a carte blanche to "save" the board whenever >> reseating the players is sufficient to allow a normal play of the board. >> >> "Unauthorized information" includes the case where a player has seen cards >> not destined for him, for instance by taking the wrong hand from the >> board. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20150528/d2edfbd4/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 28 20:37:13 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 20:37:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> <55671A3F.4050609@nhcc.net> <000e01d0994e$cc64c7c0$652e5740$@online.no> Message-ID: <55676059.6090501@skynet.be> Both these cases should not be called compared to normal events. The ruling would of course be different - the boards would not be played. In all normal events, the boards can, and should, be saved. It continues to amaze me how Richard can always find the silliest positions. Is he trolling us? Herman. Richard Hills schreef: > Thirty-five years ago I was a trainee Director in Hobart. When I ran the > Wednesday walk-in pairs, a two field Mitchell movement, it was > traditional for the experts to sit North-South and for the novices to > sit East-West. > > If I had made the Director's Error of rotating a board 90 degrees, and > if I had made a second Director's Error of letting the result stand, > then I would have hugely advantaged the expert pair and hugely > disadvantaged the novice pair. The experts, temporarily East-West, would > be comparing their result against the results of the other novices. The > novices, temporarily North-South, would be comparing their result > against the results of the other experts. > > Another example was an English congress many years ago. Although there > were two sections, open and restricted, they shared the same boards. A > restricted pair accidentally wandered into the open section and played a > board. How would you rule? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Friday, May 29, 2015, Richard Hills > wrote: > > Law 16C2(a) is a useful Law, but I disagree with Sven calling it a > "carte blanche" Law. > > For example, many years ago I played in the Spring National Teams. > As I was collecting a board from an adjacent table, LHO's ace of > hearts fell face up. I quickly concealed it with my foot, then > summoned the Director. As luck would have it, the trainee Director > had not come across this obscure situation before, so the Chief > Director was summoned. The CTD checked whether the other table had > played the board. As they had not, I was rotated into the ace of > hearts seat, and the other table was later likewise rotated. > > But if I had seen LHO's ace of hearts in a two-winner vanilla > Mitchell movement, then Law 16C2(a) would not apply. Instead the > Director would apply Law 16C2 (c), allowing completion of play > pending consideration of a possible adjusted score. > > Note that it is illegal to apply the so-called "carte blanche" Law > 16C2(a) if the UI is received after the first call in the auction. > In Steve Willner's case play had been completed before the error was > discovered. If, for the sake of argument, one assumes that the > Willner scenario was not a fouled board, then nevertheless massive > UI occurred during the auction and play, hence no "carte blanche" > ruling is permitted. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Friday, May 29, 2015, Sven Pran > wrote: > > > > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] > P? vegne av > Steve > > Willner > > Sendt: 28. mai 2015 15:38 > > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Emne: Re: [BLML] scoring question > > > > On 2015-05-28 8:57 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > > > The key concluding phrase of Law 87A in this case is: "and the > > > contestants who ++should have had a score comparison++ did > not play > > > the board in identical form for such reason." > > > > L87A has three conditions: A, or B, and C. (The above is > C.) It looks to > me as > > though either A or B is required for the board to be fouled. > > > > There's also L16C2a. I would have thought that allows > switching EW and > NS, > > but maybe that was a wrong interpretation. > > [Sven Pran] > On the contrary L16C2a is a carte blanche to "save" the board > whenever > reseating the players is sufficient to allow a normal play of > the board. > > "Unauthorized information" includes the case where a player has > seen cards > not destined for him, for instance by taking the wrong hand from > the 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 > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu May 28 21:22:49 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 05:22:49 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future Message-ID: Grattan Endicott had his personal preferences on what the Lawbook should say. For example, he played a key role in the replacement of the ineffective 1997 Law 40. But Grattan's Prime Directive was to minimise ambiguity in the Lawbook. It seems to me that there are still some outstanding ambiguities which should be addressed by the 2017 Drafting Committee. For example, clarification of what seems to me an ambiguous Law 16C. Simplifying a scenario propounded in a parallel thread, let us assume that external UI occurs before the start of the auction and let us also assume that the Director is not summoned until the end of play. Is it legal for the Director to retrospectively apply Law 16C2(a)? Yes, say all Norwegian Directors. No, say I. My contrarian belief is based upon the grammar of Law 16C. Key phrases are written in the present or future tense. Law 16C1 ~ "a board he is playing or has yet to play" Law 16C2 prologue ~ "If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play" Law 16C2(a) ~ "will hold that hand" That is, Law 16C1 does not say "a board he has played". And the Law 16C2 prologue does not say "definitely has interfered". Nor does Law 16C2(a) say "has held that hand". One hopes that in Tomorrowland nuanced ambiguous language in this and other Laws will be replaced by plain English. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150528/03a8bcc0/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu May 28 22:04:35 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 06:04:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <55676059.6090501@skynet.be> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> <55671A3F.4050609@nhcc.net> <000e01d0994e$cc64c7c0$652e5740$@online.no> <55676059.6090501@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael praised with faint damns: "It continues to amaze me how Richard can always find the silliest positions. Is he trolling us?" A silly court case involving a decomposed snail and a ginger beer bottle, Donoghue versus Stevenson, nevertheless established a very important precedent in English law. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, May 29, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > Both these cases should not be called compared to normal events. The > ruling would of course be different - the boards would not be played. > In all normal events, the boards can, and should, be saved. > It continues to amaze me how Richard can always find the silliest > positions. Is he trolling us? > Herman. > > Richard Hills schreef: > > Thirty-five years ago I was a trainee Director in Hobart. When I ran the > > Wednesday walk-in pairs, a two field Mitchell movement, it was > > traditional for the experts to sit North-South and for the novices to > > sit East-West. > > > > If I had made the Director's Error of rotating a board 90 degrees, and > > if I had made a second Director's Error of letting the result stand, > > then I would have hugely advantaged the expert pair and hugely > > disadvantaged the novice pair. The experts, temporarily East-West, would > > be comparing their result against the results of the other novices. The > > novices, temporarily North-South, would be comparing their result > > against the results of the other experts. > > > > Another example was an English congress many years ago. Although there > > were two sections, open and restricted, they shared the same boards. A > > restricted pair accidentally wandered into the open section and played a > > board. How would you rule? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > On Friday, May 29, 2015, Richard Hills > > >> wrote: > > > > Law 16C2(a) is a useful Law, but I disagree with Sven calling it a > > "carte blanche" Law. > > > > For example, many years ago I played in the Spring National Teams. > > As I was collecting a board from an adjacent table, LHO's ace of > > hearts fell face up. I quickly concealed it with my foot, then > > summoned the Director. As luck would have it, the trainee Director > > had not come across this obscure situation before, so the Chief > > Director was summoned. The CTD checked whether the other table had > > played the board. As they had not, I was rotated into the ace of > > hearts seat, and the other table was later likewise rotated. > > > > But if I had seen LHO's ace of hearts in a two-winner vanilla > > Mitchell movement, then Law 16C2(a) would not apply. Instead the > > Director would apply Law 16C2 (c), allowing completion of play > > pending consideration of a possible adjusted score. > > > > Note that it is illegal to apply the so-called "carte blanche" Law > > 16C2(a) if the UI is received after the first call in the auction. > > In Steve Willner's case play had been completed before the error was > > discovered. If, for the sake of argument, one assumes that the > > Willner scenario was not a fouled board, then nevertheless massive > > UI occurred during the auction and play, hence no "carte blanche" > > ruling is permitted. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > On Friday, May 29, 2015, Sven Pran > > ');>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto: > blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] > > P? vegne av > > Steve > > > Willner > > > Sendt: 28. mai 2015 15:38 > > > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > Emne: Re: [BLML] scoring question > > > > > > On 2015-05-28 8:57 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > > > > The key concluding phrase of Law 87A in this case is: "and > the > > > > contestants who ++should have had a score comparison++ did > > not play > > > > the board in identical form for such reason." > > > > > > L87A has three conditions: A, or B, and C. (The above is > > C.) It looks to > > me as > > > though either A or B is required for the board to be fouled. > > > > > > There's also L16C2a. I would have thought that allows > > switching EW and > > NS, > > > but maybe that was a wrong interpretation. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > On the contrary L16C2a is a carte blanche to "save" the board > > whenever > > reseating the players is sufficient to allow a normal play of > > the board. > > > > "Unauthorized information" includes the case where a player has > > seen cards > > not destined for him, for instance by taking the wrong hand from > > the 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150528/f89aa47e/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 28 22:29:04 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 16:29:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55677A90.7080606@nhcc.net> On 2015-05-28 3:22 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > let us assume that external UI occurs before the start of the auction > and let us also assume that the Director is not summoned until the end > of play. Is it legal for the Director to retrospectively apply Law 16C2(a)? I don't think the question even makes sense. How could L16C2a be applied retrospectively? If you want an analogy to the "scoring question" thread, imagine the Director is called in advance and determines that North-to-be has (through no fault of his own) seen East's cards. Can North then take the East seat, South the West seat, etc.? Unless there's some special case, such as the NS and EW fields grossly differing in strength, I don't see why not. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri May 29 01:33:40 2015 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 00:33:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <5567431F.7090209@nhcc.net> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> <55671A3F.4050609@nhcc.net> <000e01d0994e$cc64c7c0$652e5740$@online.no> <5567431F.7090209@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <607B504E-FC05-4255-ACA6-A541CCF02903@btopenworld.com> They saw cart at belonged to a different line than theirs. They were not competing using those cards, nor against that field. > On 28 May 2015, at 17:32, Steve Willner wrote: > >> On 2015-05-28 11:38 AM, Richard Hills wrote: >> massive UI occurred during the auction and play > > I have no idea what that means. Nobody ever saw any cards except their > own and those revealed in normal play. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri May 29 02:43:52 2015 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 01:43:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <607B504E-FC05-4255-ACA6-A541CCF02903@btopenworld.com> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> <000601d098b9$634b5f00$29e21d00$@online.no> <5566B683.1080404@skynet.be> <000601d09917$bc694ee0$353beca0$@optusnet.com.au> <5566D282.1040102@skynet.be> <55671A3F.4050609@nhcc.net> <000e01d0994e$cc64c7c0$652e5740$@online.no> <5567431F.7090209@nhcc.net> <607B504E-FC05-4255-ACA6-A541CCF02903@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: LOL mum auto-correct is working overtime. > On 29 May 2015, at 00:33, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > They saw cart at belonged to a different line than theirs. They were not competing using those cards, nor against that field. > > > >>> On 28 May 2015, at 17:32, Steve Willner wrote: >>> >>> On 2015-05-28 11:38 AM, Richard Hills wrote: >>> massive UI occurred during the auction and play >> >> I have no idea what that means. Nobody ever saw any cards except their >> own and those revealed in normal play. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Fri May 29 07:46:06 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:46:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <55677A90.7080606@nhcc.net> References: <55677A90.7080606@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner asked: "How could L16C2a be applied retrospectively?" Law 16C1, the precondition for Law 16C2(a), states that "the Director should be summoned forthwith". In my opinion "forthwith" is not defined as "after all the auction and all the play". Furthermore , if the Conditions of Contest specify two fields with two winners, then the Director should not arbitrarily amend the CoC midway through the session by creating one field with one winner due to the arrow-switch of one board at one table. But it seems that Steve Willner has an even more radical idea, retaining separate North-South and East-West fields while arrow-switching one board. You cannot eat your cake and have it to. I agree with Stefanie's argument that under such a radical ruling North-South have played the arrow-switched board in a direction zero other North-South have had a chance to. Likewise for the other East-Wests. Hence the radical ruling has zero relevance to the concept of mutually exclusive North-South and East-West fields. Indeed, it seems to me that the radical ruling is not merely a poor ruling, but also an illegal ruling. In addition to Law 87 (Fouled Board) there is Law 78A (Matchpoint Scoring), which requires valid comparison of scores to other scores. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, May 29, 2015, Steve Willner > wrote: > On 2015-05-28 3:22 PM, Richardt Hills wrote: > > let us assume that external UI occurs before the start of the auction > > and let us also assume that the Director is not summoned until the end > > of play. Is it legal for the Director to retrospectively apply Law > 16C2(a)? > > I don't think the question even makes sense. How could L16C2a be > applied retrospectively? > > If you want an analogy to the "scoring question" thread, imagine the > Director is called in advance and determines that North-to-be has > (through no fault of his own) seen East's cards. Can North then take > the East seat, South the West seat, etc.? > > Unless there's some special case, such as the NS and EW fields grossly > differing in strength, I don't see why not. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150529/1add9e2f/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri May 29 08:28:35 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 08:28:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> Why do bridgeplayers meet? The obvious answer is: ?To play bridge?. They are certainly not interested in spending their time discussing law. The prime directive for all Norwegian Directors is to allow boards to be played whenever possible without jeopardizing justice (to both sides). So when a board has been played in an apparently correct way, but it is discovered that the players were seated wrong (or equivalently that the board was rotated 90 degrees) then we simply let the achieved result stand and credit each side the score they in fact obtained. Why disagree with this? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 28. mai 2015 21:23 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Back to the Future Is it legal for the Director to retrospectively apply Law 16C2(a)? Yes, say all Norwegian Directors. No, say I. My contrarian belief is based upon the grammar of Law 16C. Key phrases are written in the present or future tense. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150529/3bd8d22a/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri May 29 09:06:36 2015 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 17:06:36 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> References: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: Friday, 29 May 2015 4:29 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Back to the Future Why do bridgeplayers meet? The obvious answer is: ?To play bridge?. They are certainly not interested in spending their time discussing law. The prime directive for all Norwegian Directors is to allow boards to be played whenever possible without jeopardizing justice (to both sides). So when a board has been played in an apparently correct way, but it is discovered that the players were seated wrong (or equivalently that the board was rotated 90 degrees) then we simply let the achieved result stand and credit each side the score they in fact obtained. Why disagree with this? Because if might be illegal under the terms of the competition? but what would I know? What?s wrong with throwing the board out, awarding whatever penalties are appropriate, and getting on with the next board, played in correct direction, I suppose Cheers, Tony (Sydney) Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 28. mai 2015 21:23 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Back to the Future Is it legal for the Director to retrospectively apply Law 16C2(a)? Yes, say all Norwegian Directors. No, say I. My contrarian belief is based upon the grammar of Law 16C. Key phrases are written in the present or future tense. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150529/2e711ccc/attachment-0001.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri May 29 10:03:08 2015 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 10:03:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004501d099e5$e69db4c0$b3d91e40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Hi Richard, We (LC) of course do our utmost to fulfil your wishes regarding the clarity of the laws. That is why I, sometimes reluctantly, read blml messages, too often discovering that I hardly understand what they mean. Yours is such one. You seems to say that the TD?s in Norway after the board has been played the TD tells the players to change positions and to replay the board ? Or do you base your adjusted score on your estimation of the result had another player been declarer? Please explain. And how can a board that a player has played already create UI for him? I really do not understand what you are saying. ton Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Richard Hills Verzonden: donderdag 28 mei 2015 21:23 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: [BLML] Back to the Future Grattan Endicott had his personal preferences on what the Lawbook should say. For example, he played a key role in the replacement of the ineffective 1997 Law 40. But Grattan's Prime Directive was to minimise ambiguity in the Lawbook. It seems to me that there are still some outstanding ambiguities which should be addressed by the 2017 Drafting Committee. For example, clarification of what seems to me an ambiguous Law 16C. Simplifying a scenario propounded in a parallel thread, let us assume that external UI occurs before the start of the auction and let us also assume that the Director is not summoned until the end of play. Is it legal for the Director to retrospectively apply Law 16C2(a)? Yes, say all Norwegian Directors. No, say I. My contrarian belief is based upon the grammar of Law 16C. Key phrases are written in the present or future tense. Law 16C1 ~ "a board he is playing or has yet to play" Law 16C2 prologue ~ "If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play" Law 16C2(a) ~ "will hold that hand" That is, Law 16C1 does not say "a board he has played". And the Law 16C2 prologue does not say "definitely has interfered". Nor does Law 16C2(a) say "has held that hand". One hopes that in Tomorrowland nuanced ambiguous language in this and other Laws will be replaced by plain English. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150529/9774000e/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 29 10:15:26 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 10:15:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove schreef: > > Why disagree with this? > > */Because if might be illegal under the terms of the competition?but/* > > */what would I know?What?s wrong with throwing the board out,/* > > */awarding whatever penalties are appropriate, and getting on/* > > */with the next board, played in correct direction, I suppose/* > > *//* > Well, what's wrong with it is that the player can play the board, and might even want to? Herman. From bridge at vwalther.de Fri May 29 10:39:11 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 10:39:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] scoring question In-Reply-To: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> References: <5565D032.6010109@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <556825AF.7070706@vwalther.de> Am 27.05.2015 um 16:09 schrieb Steve Willner:x > This should be simple. In a Mitchell movement, playing matchpoints, one > board is played rotated 90 degrees at one table only. That is to say, > EW take the NS hands and vice versa. Otherwise the board is played > normally and a result achieved. The players are in no way at fault; the > Director instructed them to do this for reasons that seemed good at the > time. For illustration, let's say the normal EW, holding the NS cards, > achieve a higher score than any other NS pair. How should the board be > scored? > > a) normal EW keep their top, normal NS their bottom? At the end of the > session, the EW total matchpoints will exceed the NS total matchpoints > by two tops. > > b) artificial scores, presumably avg+ to both? (Board unplayable, > Director's error, or something along those lines.) > > c) something else? > > I think I know the answer, but can anyone cite an official regulation in > any jurisdiction? ACBL would be ideal, but I'd be glad to see a > regulation or official guideline from anywhere. I looked in the EBU > White Book and didn't find anything, and I know of nothing in the ACBL. In Germany we have a rule that players shall play the board if they take out cards from the wrong axis by their own fault. The board is scored accordingly, but there is a PP (from admonishment up to 20% of a top). Of course there will be no penalty if the TD tells them to switch the positions. Volker > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 29 13:02:42 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:02:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3dd4056168db3db93a9c65f10bd81e39@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 28.05.2015 21:22, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Grattan Endicott had his personal preferences on what the Lawbook > should say. For example, he played a key role in the replacement of > the ineffective 1997 Law 40. But Grattan's Prime Directive was to > minimise ambiguity in the Lawbook. > > It seems to me that there are still some outstanding ambiguities which > should be addressed by the 2017 Drafting Committee. For example, > clarification of what seems to me an ambiguous Law 16C. > > Simplifying a scenario propounded in a parallel thread, let us assume > that external UI occurs before the start of the auction and let us > also assume that the Director is not summoned until the end of play. > Is it legal for the Director to retrospectively apply Law 16C2(a)? > > Yes, say all Norwegian Directors. > No, say I. > > My contrarian belief is based upon the grammar of Law 16C. Key phrases > are written in the present or future tense. > > Law 16C1 ~ "a board he is playing or has yet to play" > Law 16C2 prologue ~ "If the Director considers that the information > could interfere with normal play" > Law 16C2(a) ~ "will hold that hand" > > That is, Law 16C1 does not say "a board he has played". And the Law > 16C2 prologue does not say "definitely has interfered". Nor does Law > 16C2(a) say "has held that hand". > There is a bit of a confusion here. Perhaps prompted by the imperfect (forgivde the pun) aspctual structure of the English language. What is meant by "Is playing or has yet to play" is that, of course, it is irrelevant if you get UI after you have played the board, for it can't help you anymore. The matter of when such UI comes to light isn't tackled, and is what you do consider. If UI has been recieved by the player before the board was played, this fact might come to light at that time, or after the board, or anytime in-between ; options b) and d) at least are always available. There are in fact three moments to consider : 1- when one got UI ; 2- when one is in a position to use UI ; 3- when it is revealed that there was UI and a link to the deal ; this might come before or after point 2. Perhaps it might help to change the first verb in 16C1 to "has recieved". Or perhaps it might be better to write this one rule in French or Esperanto, which with their double pasts ("a eu re?u // estis ekhavinta") allow you to say in fact "has had recieved". Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 29 13:06:26 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:06:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> References: " " <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <59e40bf2059fdded8530c6d40d0f1499@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 29.05.2015 10:15, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Tony Musgrove schreef: >> >> Why disagree with this? >> >> */Because if might be illegal under the terms of the competition?but/* >> >> */what would I know?What?s wrong with throwing the board out,/* >> >> */awarding whatever penalties are appropriate, and getting on/* >> >> */with the next board, played in correct direction, I suppose/* >> >> *//* >> > > Well, what's wrong with it is that the player can play the board, and > might even want to? > Remember that there are play canvases where pairs shift positions in the midst of a round. The situation as described has just created such a situation, which will seldom be unfair, except perhaps in parr contests, so "let stand" is verging on the obvious. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri May 29 14:04:31 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 22:04:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> References: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> Message-ID: I agree with Sven Pran that most prefer actually playing cards to the alternative of receiving Ave+ or Ave. Indeed, when the 2007 Drafting Committee was creating Laws 13 and 14 they carefully maximised the Director's legal options to save a board. I also agree with Tony Musgrove that the Director should cease trying to save the board if that would involve crossing the line from legal options to an illegal option. Furthermore I agree with Ton Kooijman that my over-succinct arguments can make it hard to understand what I am saying. From my point of view there are two distinct ambiguities in Law 16C2(a): 1. Is this Law still operative if the UI is received before the auction, but the Director is not summoned forthwith (eg at the end of play)? 2. If this Law is necessarily inoperative, due to incompatible Conditions of Contest and/or scoring method, could the Director legally rule Fouled Board? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, May 29, 2015, ton > wrote: > Hi Richard, > > > > We (LC) of course do our utmost to fulfil your wishes regarding the > clarity of the laws. That is why I, sometimes reluctantly, read blml > messages, too often discovering that I hardly understand what they mean. > > Yours is such one. You seems to say that the TD?s in Norway after the > board has been played the TD tells the players to change positions and to > replay the board ? Or do you base your adjusted score on your estimation of > the result had another player been declarer? Please explain. > > > > And how can a board that a player has played already create UI for him? I > really do not understand what you are saying. > > > > ton > > > > *Van:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *Namens *Richard > Hills > *Verzonden:* donderdag 28 mei 2015 21:23 > *Aan:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Onderwerp:* [BLML] Back to the Future > > > > Grattan Endicott had his personal preferences on what the Lawbook should > say. For example, he played a key role in the replacement of the > ineffective 1997 Law 40. But Grattan's Prime Directive was to minimise > ambiguity in the Lawbook. > > > > It seems to me that there are still some outstanding ambiguities which > should be addressed by the 2017 Drafting Committee. For example, > clarification of what seems to me an ambiguous Law 16C. > > > > Simplifying a scenario propounded in a parallel thread, let us assume that > external UI occurs before the start of the auction and let us also assume > that the Director is not summoned until the end of play. Is it legal for > the Director to retrospectively apply Law 16C2(a)? > > > > Yes, say all Norwegian Directors. > > No, say I. > > > > My contrarian belief is based upon the grammar of Law 16C. Key phrases are > written in the present or future tense. > > > > Law 16C1 ~ "a board he is playing or has yet to play" > > Law 16C2 prologue ~ "If the Director considers that the information could > interfere with normal play" > > Law 16C2(a) ~ "will hold that hand" > > > > That is, Law 16C1 does not say "a board he has played". And the Law 16C2 > prologue does not say "definitely has interfered". Nor does Law 16C2(a) say > "has held that hand". > > > > One hopes that in Tomorrowland nuanced ambiguous language in this and > other Laws will be replaced by plain English. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150529/44e93eda/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 29 14:27:38 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 14:27:38 +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> Message-ID: <23c6ae7d7d5f69f60d01787f078db58a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 29.05.2015 14:04, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > I agree with Sven Pran that most prefer actually playing cards to the > alternative of receiving Ave+ or Ave. Indeed, when the 2007 Drafting > Committee was creating Laws 13 and 14 they carefully maximised the > Director's legal options to save a board. > > I also agree with Tony Musgrove that the Director should cease trying > to save the board if that would involve crossing the line from legal > options to an illegal option. > > Furthermore I agree with Ton Kooijman that my over-succinct arguments > can make it hard to understand what I am saying. From my point of view > there are two distinct ambiguities in Law 16C2(a): > > 1. Is this Law still operative if the UI is received before the > auction, but the Director is not summoned forthwith (eg at the end of > play)? > 2. If this ?Law is necessarily inoperative, due to incompatible > Conditions of Contest and/or scoring method, could the Director > legally rule Fouled Board? > AFAIC : 1. Yes, within the general time limit for TD intervention (L12, L92). The "will play or is playing" part says nothing about when the irregularity is brought to the TD's attention, so general rules are applicable. 2. L12A is so general (especially item b) that IMHO it still applies. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri May 29 14:50:36 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 14:50:36 +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> Message-ID: <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no> Law 16C2a is of course operative whenever the Director is able to secure ?normal play? on a board simply be repositioning the players for that board. It doesn?t matter whether play has yet to begin or has already been completed when the Director is informed of the irregularity. The scores obtained on a board where the Director has ordered or recognized repositioning of players may or may not be relevant for the particular event. For instance if the Director in a match for teams of four finds that the same team has played a board in the same direction in both rooms (the board has been rotated 90 degrees in one room only) then the scores on this board must be cancelled for the teams scoring but are still fully valid for the Butler scoring (if used). The Director should never need to declare a board ?fouled? on the ground that ?normal play? is no longer possible, he has still in his power to simply cancel the board for reason. A fouled board is always subject to certain discrepancies when compared to a reference board (with the same board number) on: A: which cards are given to which directions, B: which direction is designated ?dealer?, C: which direction(s) if any are designated ?vulnerable?. Other criteria are never relevant in a question of ?fouled board?. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 29. mai 2015 14:05 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Back to the Future I agree with Sven Pran that most prefer actually playing cards to the alternative of receiving Ave+ or Ave. Indeed, when the 2007 Drafting Committee was creating Laws 13 and 14 they carefully maximised the Director's legal options to save a board. I also agree with Tony Musgrove that the Director should cease trying to save the board if that would involve crossing the line from legal options to an illegal option. Furthermore I agree with Ton Kooijman that my over-succinct arguments can make it hard to understand what I am saying. From my point of view there are two distinct ambiguities in Law 16C2(a): 1. Is this Law still operative if the UI is received before the auction, but the Director is not summoned forthwith (eg at the end of play)? 2. If this Law is necessarily inoperative, due to incompatible Conditions of Contest and/or scoring method, could the Director legally rule Fouled Board? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, May 29, 2015, ton > wrote: Hi Richard, We (LC) of course do our utmost to fulfil your wishes regarding the clarity of the laws. That is why I, sometimes reluctantly, read blml messages, too often discovering that I hardly understand what they mean. Yours is such one. You seems to say that the TD?s in Norway after the board has been played the TD tells the players to change positions and to replay the board ? Or do you base your adjusted score on your estimation of the result had another player been declarer? Please explain. And how can a board that a player has played already create UI for him? I really do not understand what you are saying. ton Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Richard Hills Verzonden: donderdag 28 mei 2015 21:23 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: [BLML] Back to the Future Grattan Endicott had his personal preferences on what the Lawbook should say. For example, he played a key role in the replacement of the ineffective 1997 Law 40. But Grattan's Prime Directive was to minimise ambiguity in the Lawbook. It seems to me that there are still some outstanding ambiguities which should be addressed by the 2017 Drafting Committee. For example, clarification of what seems to me an ambiguous Law 16C. Simplifying a scenario propounded in a parallel thread, let us assume that external UI occurs before the start of the auction and let us also assume that the Director is not summoned until the end of play. Is it legal for the Director to retrospectively apply Law 16C2(a)? Yes, say all Norwegian Directors. No, say I. My contrarian belief is based upon the grammar of Law 16C. Key phrases are written in the present or future tense. Law 16C1 ~ "a board he is playing or has yet to play" Law 16C2 prologue ~ "If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play" Law 16C2(a) ~ "will hold that hand" That is, Law 16C1 does not say "a board he has played". And the Law 16C2 prologue does not say "definitely has interfered". Nor does Law 16C2(a) say "has held that hand". One hopes that in Tomorrowland nuanced ambiguous language in this and other Laws will be replaced by plain English. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150529/5af7e3fd/attachment-0001.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Fri May 29 14:51:11 2015 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 08:51:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> References: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <99C87B3E-2BA8-4DCE-8C5A-70F1618C933C@verizon.net> On May 29, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Tony Musgrove schreef: > >> Why disagree with this? >> >> */Because if might be illegal under the terms of the competition?but/* >> >> */what would I know?What?s wrong with throwing the board out,/* >> >> */awarding whatever penalties are appropriate, and getting on/* >> >> */with the next board, played in correct direction, I suppose/* > > Well, what's wrong with it is that the player can play the board, and > might even want to? He already has. The question at hand is what goes on the score sheet after the deal has been played. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 29 15:51:31 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:51:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no> References: "\" <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no>" <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au>" <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <001001d09a0e$0f6ebe80$2e4c3b80$@online.no> Message-ID: Le 29.05.2015 14:50, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > Law 16C2a is of course operative whenever the Director is able to > secure ?normal play? on a board? simply be repositioning the > players for that board. It doesn?t matter whether play has yet to > begin or has already been completed when the Director is informed of > the irregularity. > > The scores obtained on a board where the Director has ordered or > recognized repositioning of players may or may not be relevant for the > particular event. For instance if the Director in a match for teams of > four finds that the same team has played a board in the same direction > in both rooms (the board has been rotated 90 degrees in one room only) > then the scores on this board must be cancelled for the teams scoring > but are still fully valid for the Butler scoring (if used). > > The Director should never need to declare a board ?fouled? on the > ground that ?normal play? is no longer possible, he has still in > his power to simply cancel the board for reason. > > A fouled board is always subject to certain discrepancies when > compared to a reference board (with the same board number) on: > > A: which cards are given to which directions, > > B: which direction is designated ?dealer?, > > C: which direction(s) if any are designated ?vulnerable?. > > Other criteria are never relevant in a question of ?fouled board?. > 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. From svenpran at online.no Fri May 29 16:33:49 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 16:33:49 +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> Message-ID: <002401d09a1c$7b68ec60$723ac520$@online.no> > 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. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat May 30 02:21:21 2015 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:21:21 +1000 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: <001c01d09a6e$8f3c2cf0$adb486d0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Sven Pran > Sent: Saturday, 30 May 2015 12:34 AM > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Back to the Future > > > 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. > [tony] I can distinguish at least two different scenarios which have happened to me: a) Playing a straight Mitchell, the cards get put back in the board rotated. The next to play the board detect something funny and checking the hand records sure enough. These players get av+ each, and the perpetrators get the edge of my tongue. When the foul up is not discovered until three or more have played with directions changed, I just divide the board in two, so no problem. b) When playing an arrow switch Mitchell, my announcement will always include : "arrow switch the last round, except at the usual hearing challenged tables, and those that never listen to me anyway" . Thus the conditions of contest explicity allow for the fact that not all tables will remember, and so occasionally one or more boards are played the wrong way. No problem, just score normally. A 3/4 Howell movement often has a stationary pair who are supposed to rotate from NS to EW. This does not always happen, so just score normally as before. I find directing easy, that is why I no longer teach, or play. Next stop administration., Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From hermandw at skynet.be Sat May 30 10:58:17 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:58:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <99C87B3E-2BA8-4DCE-8C5A-70F1618C933C@verizon.net> References: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <99C87B3E-2BA8-4DCE-8C5A-70F1618C933C@verizon.net> Message-ID: <55697BA9.3040708@skynet.be> Eric Landau schreef: > On May 29, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Tony Musgrove schreef: >> >>> Why disagree with this? >>> >>> */Because if might be illegal under the terms of the competition?but/* >>> >>> */what would I know?What?s wrong with throwing the board out,/* >>> >>> */awarding whatever penalties are appropriate, and getting on/* >>> >>> */with the next board, played in correct direction, I suppose/* >> >> Well, what's wrong with it is that the player can play the board, and >> might even want to? > > He already has. The question at hand is what goes on the score sheet after the deal has been played. > Well, that's even easier. One of the pairs now has a good result. Why take that one away? Herman. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat May 30 13:36:01 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 21:36:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <55697BA9.3040708@skynet.be> References: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> <5568201E.1070800@skynet.be> <99C87B3E-2BA8-4DCE-8C5A-70F1618C933C@verizon.net> <55697BA9.3040708@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asked: "One of the pairs now has a good result. Why take that one away?" Two answers to that question. Firstly, a good result is a meaningless result if it is a fouled board played in that direction at only one table. +7600 versus -7600 is merely scored as Ave+ to both sides. Secondly, a good result cannot stand if illegally contrary to the Conditions of Contest. For example, the final of the World Pairs championship at Lille was scheduled to be a Barometer Flower Howell movement, with every pair supposed to play every other pair once and once only. But for one session a junior Director deployed the wrong guide cards. By the time the error was discovered the movement was mangled beyond repair. If you were the Chief Director, what would you have done? Law 81B1 gives the Director in charge retrospective power to amend the CoC in emergencies such as this. So the Chief Director ruled that partnerships meeting for the second time must not play their boards, but would be awarded a bye instead. Suppose at Lille two pairs met for the second time. Also suppose that the lengthy world championship left them both so exhausted that they did not realise that they had met before. Hence they unintentionally commit an infraction by playing a board. One of the pairs now has a good result. Why take that one away? The answer to that question is the Definition of Infraction. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Saturday, May 30, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau schreef: > > On May 29, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > > >> Tony Musgrove schreef: > >> > >>> Why disagree with this? > >>> > >>> */Because if might be illegal under the terms of the competition?but/* > >>> > >>> */what would I know?What?s wrong with throwing the board out,/* > >>> > >>> */awarding whatever penalties are appropriate, and getting on/* > >>> > >>> */with the next board, played in correct direction, I suppose/* > >> > >> Well, what's wrong with it is that the player can play the board, and > >> might even want to? > > > > He already has. The question at hand is what goes on the score sheet > after the deal has been played. > > > > Well, that's even easier. One of the pairs now has a good result. Why > take that one away? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150530/ccec0988/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 30 16:50:24 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:50:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <5569CE30.3050708@nhcc.net> On 2015-05-29 3:06 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > What's wrong with throwing the board out, The pair who got the best score of any holding the NS cards will be disappointed that their score didn't count. In a later message, Tony mentions the situation where one or more tables forget an instructed arrow switch. He keeps the scores for those, and I don't understand why that situation differs from the one I asked about. On 2015-05-29 8:04 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > From my point of view there are two distinct ambiguities in Law > 16C2(a): > 1. Is this Law still operative if the UI is received before the > auction, but the Director is not summoned forthwith (eg at the end of > play)? I don't understand how it could be, but it seems to me the Director could ratify a decision by the players to reseat themselves. > 2. If this Law is necessarily inoperative, due to incompatible > Conditions of Contest and/or scoring method, could the Director > legally rule Fouled Board? Wouldn't it be "board unplayable," not that I see how the difference will affect the result? If no valid play is possible, what other choice does the Director have? The hard part, of course, is deciding whether valid play is possible or not. Nothing in L16 seems directly applicable to the case I initially asked about, but there might be an analogy. From svenpran at online.no Sat May 30 17:02:37 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 17:02:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <5569CE30.3050708@nhcc.net> References: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> <5569CE30.3050708@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000601d09ae9$abfc98e0$03f5caa0$@online.no> Steve Willner [...] > In a later message, Tony mentions the situation where one or more tables > forget an instructed arrow switch. He keeps the scores for those, and I don't > understand why that situation differs from the one I asked about. [Sven Pran] It doesn't. One is a forgotten scheduled arrow-switch the other is an executed non-scheduled arrow-switch. [...] > Nothing in L16 seems directly applicable to the case I initially asked about, but > there might be an analogy. [Sven Pran] The analogy is in the sentence: by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins (Law 16C1) From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 30 17:18:05 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 11:18:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <000601d09ae9$abfc98e0$03f5caa0$@online.no> References: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> <5569CE30.3050708@nhcc.net> <000601d09ae9$abfc98e0$03f5caa0$@online.no> Message-ID: <5569D4AD.5090305@nhcc.net> On 2015-05-30 11:02 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > The analogy is in the sentence: by seeing a card belonging to > another player at his own table before the auction begins (Law 16C1) Still a mystery to me. After the arrow switch, nobody has seen a card belonging to another player. To me, the analogy is whether the Director can order an arrow-switch (with the score counting) to deal with accidental UI. If he can, then scores after any arrow switch should count, regardless of the reason the arrow switch occurred. (There might be PPs, of course, if players were at fault.) From svenpran at online.no Sat May 30 17:59:02 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 17:59:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <5569D4AD.5090305@nhcc.net> References: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> <5569CE30.3050708@nhcc.net> <000601d09ae9$abfc98e0$03f5caa0$@online.no> <5569D4AD.5090305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000701d09af1$8cdfd6e0$a69f84a0$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2015-05-30 11:02 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > The analogy is in the sentence: by seeing a card belonging to another > > player at his own table before the auction begins (Law 16C1) > > Still a mystery to me. After the arrow switch, nobody has seen a card belonging > to another player. [Sven Pran] If a player fails to execute a scheduled arrow-switch or executes a non-scheduled arrow-switch the effect will in both cases be that he takes a hand belonging to an opponent from the board. He then sees "a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins" and Law 16C1 will usually apply. If TD is called immediately his "normal" ruling should be to order a "normal" play of the board according to how the cards were actually taken from the board. If he is called later his "normal" ruling should be to let the result stand as the board is or was actually played (which of course is effectively the same ruling). The legislation for either ruling is of course L16C1 regardless of at what time he was actually called. From jimfox00 at cox.net Sat May 30 18:19:36 2015 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 12:19:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? Message-ID: 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? Mmbridge From svenpran at online.no Sat May 30 20:10:39 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 20:10:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000b01d09b03$f03a3ca0$d0aeb5e0$@online.no> 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. From jimfox00 at cox.net Sun May 31 02:59:18 2015 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 20:59:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun May 31 03:42:40 2015 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 11:42:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Back to the Future In-Reply-To: <5569CE30.3050708@nhcc.net> References: <001301d099d8$b1d953a0$158bfae0$@online.no> <000301d099de$01786040$046920c0$@optusnet.com.au> <5569CE30.3050708@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <003401d09b43$15083d40$3f18b7c0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Steve Willner > Sent: Sunday, 31 May 2015 12:50 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Back to the Future > > On 2015-05-29 3:06 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > What's wrong with throwing the board out, [steve willner:] > The pair who got the best score of any holding the NS cards will be > disappointed that their score didn't count. [tony] I was trying to emphasise the "conditions of the contest" part of the thread. 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, so unless it gets played several times in its switched mode, I just give av+ to each, regardless of how well one or other side did in the play. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From svenpran at online.no Sun May 31 09:41:49 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 09:41:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d09b75$439f80f0$cade82d0$@online.no> 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 From hermandw at skynet.be Sun May 31 10:03:34 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 10:03:34 +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> <99C87B3E-2BA8-4DCE-8C5A-70F1618C933C@verizon.net> <55697BA9.3040708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <556AC056.8010004@skynet.be> Richard Hills schreef: > Herman De Wael asked: > > "One of the pairs now has a good result. Why take that one away?" > > Two answers to that question. > > Firstly, a good result is a meaningless result if it is a fouled board > played in that direction at only one table. +7600 versus -7600 is merely > scored as Ave+ to both sides. > First answer is ridiculous. We are not talking about a fouled board, but about a board which was played in the wrong direction. +7600 in both cases. Only to the other pair than first expected. > Secondly, a good result cannot stand if illegally contrary to the > Conditions of Contest. That just depends on the Conditions of Contest. If the conditions of contest describe that any grand slam will be scored as a small slam, then that is what will be done. Does not make them good conditions of contest, though. And if your conditions of contest describe what you suggest, then my question simply becomes: "why should the conditions of contest take away a good result from one of the two pairs?" > For example, the final of the World Pairs > championship at Lille was scheduled to be a Barometer Flower Howell > movement, with every pair supposed to play every other pair once and > once only. But for one session a junior Director deployed the wrong > guide cards. By the time the error was discovered the movement was > mangled beyond repair. If you were the Chief Director, what would you > have done? > What does this have to do with anything? The boards that were played have to be let stand. Why should you take away the good results that were achieved? Or the bad ones, for that matter! > Law 81B1 gives the Director in charge retrospective power to amend the > CoC in emergencies such as this. So the Chief Director ruled that > partnerships meeting for the second time must not play their boards, but > would be awarded a bye instead. > Seems OK to me - makes the tournament a bit longer but satisfies the premise that you should meet everyone just the once. > Suppose at Lille two pairs met for the second time. Also suppose that > the lengthy world championship left them both so exhausted that they did > not realise that they had met before. Hence they unintentionally commit > an infraction by playing a board. One of the pairs now has a good > result. Why take that one away? > Indeed, why? > The answer to that question is the Definition of Infraction. > Which is? Anything that goes wrong? But some things go wrong and are settled in some other way. Your argument seems to imply that if a player revokes (=infraction), the board has to be scrapped. Again, strange argument. > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun May 31 10:09:22 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 10:09:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: <000001d09b75$439f80f0$cade82d0$@online.no> References: <000001d09b75$439f80f0$cade82d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <556AC1B2.8070507@skynet.be> Well, turn the problem around a bit. 7 boards are placed at both tables (duplicated) one of the boards was misduplicated - and severely so (so that the players do not recognise it if it were played a second time). This is discovered before scoring. Would the TD be correct in exchanging the misduplicated board and effectively change the match into an 8-board one. After all, if he discards one of the boards, which was played once at one table and not at the other, would not one of the teams feel hard done by? This is also the solutiion I would give to the original. Herman. Sven Pran schreef: > 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 > > From jimfox00 at cox.net Sun May 31 16:47:09 2015 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 10:47:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 From svenpran at online.no Sun May 31 17:46:19 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 17:46:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001001d09bb8$f0660550$d1320ff0$@online.no> 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 From jimfox00 at cox.net Sun May 31 19:42:55 2015 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 13:42:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 From svenpran at online.no Sun May 31 22:42:57 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 22:42:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001101d09be2$60bd5780$22380680$@online.no> Were there more tables at the event? Given that the boards played at table 1 was #1-8 - how many and which boards were played at each of the other tables? >From your description so far I guess that all boards were stationary at the (same) tables through all the rounds and that the contestants all moved from table to table at each shift of round? > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jim > Fox > Sendt: 31. mai 2015 19:43 > Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board? > > 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 From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun May 31 23:04:04 2015 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 22:04:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 From ken.johnston at btinternet.com Sun May 31 23:12:33 2015 From: ken.johnston at btinternet.com (Ken Johnston) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 22:12:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 From jimfox00 at cox.net Sun May 31 23:29:02 2015 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 17:29:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Extra Board? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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