From bridge at vwalther.de Thu Oct 15 17:02:54 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:02:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 22B vs. 41C Message-ID: <561FC01E.7030507@vwalther.de> Did we have that before? I can not find it. South became declarer, but there was a wrong explanation so he called the TD. While TD is asking what had happened, West faces his opening lead. Should we apply law 24B? According to 22B facing the opening lead ends the auction period. According to 41C the opening lead has to be faced after the Clarification Period, which is part of the Auction Period. Curious, Volker Walther 22 B. End of Auction Period 1. The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn then see Law 54). The interval between the end of the auction and t the end of the auction period is designated the Clarification Period. 41 C. Opening Lead Faced Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably,... From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 15 18:46:21 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:46:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 22B vs. 41C In-Reply-To: <561FC01E.7030507@vwalther.de> References: <561FC01E.7030507@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <676afdf030c20e16ac27ae1a5b1b736e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 15.10.2015 17:02, Volker Walther a ?crit?: > Did we have that before? I can not find it. > > South became declarer, but there was a wrong explanation so he called > the TD. While TD is asking what had happened, West faces his opening > lead. > > Should we apply law 24B? > > According to 22B facing the opening lead ends the auction period. > > According to 41C the opening lead has to be faced after the > Clarification Period, which is part of the Auction Period. There is no contradiction here. After three consecutive passes in rotation, there is a clarification period, then the lead is placed face down, then there is another clarificaiton period (so that leader's partner may ask in tempore non suspecto), there the opening lead is revealed, and this is the last event in the auction period. So, in facing one's lead before the (first or second) clarification period has ended, West has committed an irregularity. His card becomes a LOOT, and he will have to lead it. But the auction period hasn't ended, because no *legal* lead has been made. Most probably West will not suffer from that. But if the TD decides to walk the cat back because of the wrong explanation, and allows N/S to change their bid, then there is a MPC on the table. We know how to deal with this. Else, the LOOT in placed aside, and South may ask for any clarification he wants. There is a remote possibility of his haste carrying UI that he doesn't want partner to know what he wants to know. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 15 21:30:00 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:30:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 22B vs. 41C In-Reply-To: <676afdf030c20e16ac27ae1a5b1b736e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <561FC01E.7030507@vwalther.de> <676afdf030c20e16ac27ae1a5b1b736e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <002301d1077f$e298a2b0$a7c9e810$@online.no> Yes, the applicable law is Law 24 (B) > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > agot > Sendt: 15. oktober 2015 18:46 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 22B vs. 41C > > Le 15.10.2015 17:02, Volker Walther a ?crit : > > Did we have that before? I can not find it. > > > > South became declarer, but there was a wrong explanation so he called > > the TD. While TD is asking what had happened, West faces his opening > > lead. > > > > Should we apply law 24B? > > > > According to 22B facing the opening lead ends the auction period. > > > > According to 41C the opening lead has to be faced after the > > Clarification Period, which is part of the Auction Period. > > There is no contradiction here. After three consecutive passes in rotation, > there is a clarification period, then the lead is placed face down, then > there is another clarificaiton period (so that leader's partner may ask in > tempore non suspecto), there the opening lead is revealed, and this is the > last event in the auction period. > > So, in facing one's lead before the (first or second) clarification period has > ended, West has committed an irregularity. His card becomes a LOOT, and > he will have to lead it. But the auction period hasn't ended, because no > *legal* lead has been made. > Most probably West will not suffer from that. But if the TD decides to walk > the cat back because of the wrong explanation, and allows N/S to change > their bid, then there is a MPC on the table. We know how to deal with this. > Else, the LOOT in placed aside, and South may ask for any clarification he > wants. > > There is a remote possibility of his haste carrying UI that he doesn't want > partner to know what he wants to know. > > > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bridge at vwalther.de Mon Oct 19 15:23:49 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:23:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 22B vs. 41C In-Reply-To: <676afdf030c20e16ac27ae1a5b1b736e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <561FC01E.7030507@vwalther.de> <676afdf030c20e16ac27ae1a5b1b736e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <5624EEE5.8080102@vwalther.de> Thanks, that was some help. In this special case the wrong explanation was given by South, the declarer, and East had made the final pass. So Wests lead prohibited a redraw of East's pass. (no doubt was about that.) If West led out of time 24B leads to 23. In our discussion someone argued, that a lead of the proper player after the end of auction is, according to 22B, not a LOOT, but finishes the Auction (as well as the Clarification ) Period. Most people read the law the same way you (and I) did, but I think the point is in fact a bit ambiguous. If facing a lead, made by the proper player during the Clarification Period, may be a LOOT we should not define the end of the Clarification Period to be the moment when this lead is faced. This is a kind of circular reference and makes it difficult for LHO (West) to decide whether he is allowed to face his lead. In fact our idea of 22B is "The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, and after all players agree that the auction is clarified, either defender faces an opening lead." Greetings, Volker Am 15.10.2015 um 18:46 schrieb agot: > Le 15.10.2015 17:02, Volker Walther a ?crit : >> Did we have that before? I can not find it. >> >> South became declarer, but there was a wrong explanation so he called >> the TD. While TD is asking what had happened, West faces his opening >> lead. >> >> Should we apply law 24B? >> >> According to 22B facing the opening lead ends the auction period. >> >> According to 41C the opening lead has to be faced after the >> Clarification Period, which is part of the Auction Period. > > There is no contradiction here. After three consecutive passes in > rotation, there is a clarification period, then the lead is placed face > down, then there is another clarificaiton period (so that leader's > partner may ask in tempore non suspecto), there the opening lead is > revealed, and this is the last event in the auction period. > > So, in facing one's lead before the (first or second) clarification > period has ended, West has committed an irregularity. His card becomes a > LOOT, and he will have to lead it. But the auction period hasn't ended, > because no *legal* lead has been made. > Most probably West will not suffer from that. But if the TD decides to > walk the cat back because of the wrong explanation, and allows N/S to > change their bid, then there is a MPC on the table. We know how to deal > with this. > Else, the LOOT in placed aside, and South may ask for any clarification > he wants. > > There is a remote possibility of his haste carrying UI that he doesn't > want partner to know what he wants to know. > > > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 19 18:26:14 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:26:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 22B vs. 41C In-Reply-To: <5624EEE5.8080102@vwalther.de> References: <561FC01E.7030507@vwalther.de> <676afdf030c20e16ac27ae1a5b1b736e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5624EEE5.8080102@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Le 19.10.2015 15:23, Volker Walther a ?crit?: > Thanks, that was some help. > > In this special case the wrong explanation was given by South, the > declarer, and East had made the final pass. > > So Wests lead prohibited a redraw of East's pass. > (no doubt was about that.) > > If West led out of time 24B leads to 23. > > In our discussion someone argued, that a lead of the proper player > after > the end of auction is, according to 22B, not a LOOT, but finishes the > Auction (as well as the Clarification ) Period. > Most people read the law the same way you (and I) did, but I think the > point is in fact a bit ambiguous. > > If facing a lead, made by the proper player during the Clarification > Period, may be a LOOT we should not define the end of the Clarification > Period to be the moment when this lead is faced. > This is a kind of circular reference and makes it difficult for LHO > (West) to decide whether he is allowed to face his lead. No logical problem here. A LOOT isn't a lead, it is an irregularity. Edicts about salmon fishing don't apply to white salmon, which is another species altogether. If you can't blame your mother, you can still blame your mother-by-law (who of course, is blameworthy for all Scrabble players). You can paint a picture of white birds and claim they are albino blackbirds. (French-speaking people may try analyzing "chauve-souris") Laws about leads don't apply to LOOTs. Laws about irregularities do. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 20 04:47:06 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:47:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 22B vs. 41C In-Reply-To: References: <561FC01E.7030507@vwalther.de> <676afdf030c20e16ac27ae1a5b1b736e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5624EEE5.8080102@vwalther.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:26:14 -0400, agot wrote: > Le 19.10.2015 15:23, Volker Walther a ?crit : >> Thanks, that was some help. >> >> In this special case the wrong explanation was given by South, the >> declarer, and East had made the final pass. >> >> So Wests lead prohibited a redraw of East's pass. >> (no doubt was about that.) >> >> If West led out of time 24B leads to 23. >> >> In our discussion someone argued, that a lead of the proper player >> after >> the end of auction is, according to 22B, not a LOOT, but finishes the >> Auction (as well as the Clarification ) Period. >> Most people read the law the same way you (and I) did, but I think the >> point is in fact a bit ambiguous. >> >> If facing a lead, made by the proper player during the Clarification >> Period, may be a LOOT we should not define the end of the Clarification >> Period to be the moment when this lead is faced. >> This is a kind of circular reference and makes it difficult for LHO >> (West) to decide whether he is allowed to face his lead. > > > No logical problem here. A LOOT isn't a lead, it is an irregularity. > > Edicts about salmon fishing don't apply to white salmon, which is > another species altogether. > If you can't blame your mother, you can still blame your mother-by-law > (who of course, is blameworthy for all Scrabble players). > You can paint a picture of white birds and claim they are albino > blackbirds. > > (French-speaking people may try analyzing "chauve-souris") > > Laws about leads don't apply to LOOTs. Laws about irregularities do. It is odd, though not impossible to use language that way. The lawbook probably would not. So you are saying it is impossible to have simultaneous leads? From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 20 09:02:29 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:02:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 22B vs. 41C In-Reply-To: References: <561FC01E.7030507@vwalther.de> <676afdf030c20e16ac27ae1a5b1b736e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5624EEE5.8080102@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <000701d10b05$4a46c8f0$ded45ad0$@online.no> > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick [...] > So you are saying it is impossible to have simultaneous leads? [Sven Pran] Sure (legally) - take a look at Law 58 A which says: A lead or play made simultaneously with another player?s legal lead or play is deemed to be subsequent to it. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 09:18:13 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:18:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 22B vs. 41C In-Reply-To: References: <561FC01E.7030507@vwalther.de> <676afdf030c20e16ac27ae1a5b1b736e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5624EEE5.8080102@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Volker Walther: On Tuesday, October 20, 2015, Volker Walther > wrote: > Thanks, that was some help. > > In this special case the wrong explanation was given by South, the > declarer, and East had made the final pass. > > So Wests lead prohibited a redraw of East's pass. > (no doubt was about that.) > > If West led out of time 24B leads to 23. > > In our discussion someone argued, that a lead of the proper player after > the end of auction is, according to 22B, not a LOOT, but finishes the > Auction (as well as the Clarification ) Period. > Most people read the law the same way you (and I) did, but I think the > point is in fact a bit ambiguous. Richard Hills: In my opinion not ambiguous. The irregularity of a Premature Lead = Law 24B (and possibly Law 23). The irregularity of an Opening Lead Out Of Turn = Law 54 (and possibly Law 23). Best wishes, Richard Hills Volker Walther: > > If facing a lead, made by the proper player during the Clarification > Period, may be a LOOT we should not define the end of the Clarification > Period to be the moment when this lead is faced. > This is a kind of circular reference and makes it difficult for LHO > (West) to decide whether he is allowed to face his lead. > > In fact our idea of 22B is "The auction period ends when, subsequent > to the end of the auction as in A2, and after all players agree that the > auction is clarified, either defender faces an opening lead." > > > Greetings, Volker > > > > > > > Am 15.10.2015 um 18:46 schrieb agot: > > Le 15.10.2015 17:02, Volker Walther a ?crit : > >> Did we have that before? I can not find it. > >> > >> South became declarer, but there was a wrong explanation so he called > >> the TD. While TD is asking what had happened, West faces his opening > >> lead. > >> > >> Should we apply law 24B? > >> > >> According to 22B facing the opening lead ends the auction period. > >> > >> According to 41C the opening lead has to be faced after the > >> Clarification Period, which is part of the Auction Period. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml On Tuesday, October 20, 2015, Volker Walther > wrote: > Thanks, that was some help. > > In this special case the wrong explanation was given by South, the > declarer, and East had made the final pass. > > So Wests lead prohibited a redraw of East's pass. > (no doubt was about that.) > > If West led out of time 24B leads to 23. > > In our discussion someone argued, that a lead of the proper player after > the end of auction is, according to 22B, not a LOOT, but finishes the > Auction (as well as the Clarification ) Period. > Most people read the law the same way you (and I) did, but I think the > point is in fact a bit ambiguous. > > If facing a lead, made by the proper player during the Clarification > Period, may be a LOOT we should not define the end of the Clarification > Period to be the moment when this lead is faced. > This is a kind of circular reference and makes it difficult for LHO > (West) to decide whether he is allowed to face his lead. > > In fact our idea of 22B is "The auction period ends when, subsequent > to the end of the auction as in A2, and after all players agree that the > auction is clarified, either defender faces an opening lead." > > > Greetings, Volker > > > > > > > Am 15.10.2015 um 18:46 schrieb agot: > > Le 15.10.2015 17:02, Volker Walther a ?crit : > >> Did we have that before? I can not find it. > >> > >> South became declarer, but there was a wrong explanation so he called > >> the TD. While TD is asking what had happened, West faces his opening > >> lead. > >> > >> Should we apply law 24B? > >> > >> According to 22B facing the opening lead ends the auction period. > >> > >> According to 41C the opening lead has to be faced after the > >> Clarification Period, which is part of the Auction Period. > > > > There is no contradiction here. After three consecutive passes in > > rotation, there is a clarification period, then the lead is placed face > > down, then there is another clarificaiton period (so that leader's > > partner may ask in tempore non suspecto), there the opening lead is > > revealed, and this is the last event in the auction period. > > > > So, in facing one's lead before the (first or second) clarification > > period has ended, West has committed an irregularity. His card becomes a > > LOOT, and he will have to lead it. But the auction period hasn't ended, > > because no *legal* lead has been made. > > Most probably West will not suffer from that. But if the TD decides to > > walk the cat back because of the wrong explanation, and allows N/S to > > change their bid, then there is a MPC on the table. We know how to deal > > with this. > > Else, the LOOT in placed aside, and South may ask for any clarification > > he wants. > > > > There is a remote possibility of his haste carrying UI that he doesn't > > want partner to know what he wants to know. > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20151020/73551cd1/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 21 16:27:34 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:27:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 22B vs. 41C In-Reply-To: References: <561FC01E.7030507@vwalther.de> <676afdf030c20e16ac27ae1a5b1b736e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5624EEE5.8080102@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <143dacfb0ff5b305631133ccc4bb459d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 20.10.2015 04:47, Robert Frick a ?crit?: >> Laws about leads don't apply to LOOTs. Laws about irregularities do. > > It is odd, though not impossible to use language that way. The lawbook > probably would not. > > So you are saying it is impossible to have simultaneous leads? I'm saying that, if two cards are faced simultaneously, one will be a regular lead and the other an irregularity, so it will be treated as an exposed card, not a lead (i.e. the fact that it was exposed at that very time is irrelevant) ; and we know which is which. This is the purpose of L58A. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 22 20:32:35 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:32:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] played card? Message-ID: The facts are declarer pulled a card out of his hand, realized he had pulled the wrong card, and tried to take it back. In the course of this, the card 1. Touched the edge of the table (the edge between the table top and the side of the table). 2. made it to about 70 degrees, where 90 degrees is parallel to the table. From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 22 21:43:00 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:43:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] played card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000801d10d01$dc6526c0$952f7440$@online.no> Read the laws: The question in your subject line is answered in Law 45C2. It appears to me that your description clearly fails to match any of the requirements in this law, i.e. declarer is free to play a different card. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 22. oktober 2015 20:33 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] played card? > > The facts are declarer pulled a card out of his hand, realized he had pulled > the wrong card, and tried to take it back. In the course of this, the card > > 1. Touched the edge of the table (the edge between the table top and the > side of the table). > > 2. made it to about 70 degrees, where 90 degrees is parallel to the table. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Oct 23 19:55:15 2015 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (diggadog at iinet.net.au) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:55:15 -0700 Subject: [BLML] important message Message-ID: <000043efbe8b$c46c7a80$17e4137c$@iinet.net.au> Hello! New message, please read diggadog at iinet.net.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20151023/67abd18b/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Oct 23 19:56:52 2015 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (diggadog at iinet.net.au) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:56:52 -0700 Subject: [BLML] important message Message-ID: <00005d17b32b$ee73b5e4$c05596d2$@iinet.net.au> Hello! New message, please read diggadog at iinet.net.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20151023/a8e1dfc6/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 25 20:42:13 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 15:42:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] played card? In-Reply-To: <000801d10d01$dc6526c0$952f7440$@online.no> References: <000801d10d01$dc6526c0$952f7440$@online.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:43:00 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > Read the laws: The question in your subject line is answered in Law 45C2. > > It appears to me that your description clearly fails to match any of the > requirements in this law, i.e. declarer is free to play a different card. Great. Other people disagreed, thinking perhaps that a card that touched the edge of the table was touching the table and that a card that was 20 degrees away from face up was actually face up. It's useful to know I was clearly right. Bob > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 22. oktober 2015 20:33 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: [BLML] played card? >> >> The facts are declarer pulled a card out of his hand, realized he had > pulled >> the wrong card, and tried to take it back. In the course of this, the card >> >> 1. Touched the edge of the table (the edge between the table top and the >> side of the table). >> >> 2. made it to about 70 degrees, where 90 degrees is parallel to the table. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 26 13:54:27 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:54:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?played_card=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <000801d10d01$dc6526c0$952f7440$@online.no> Message-ID: <742acf700f135ffc14f091f2618de722@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 25.10.2015 20:42, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:43:00 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > >> Read the laws: The question in your subject line is answered in Law >> 45C2. >> >> It appears to me that your description clearly fails to match any of >> the >> requirements in this law, i.e. declarer is free to play a different >> card. > > Great. Other people disagreed, thinking perhaps that a card that > touched the edge of the table was touching the table and that a card > that was 20 degrees away from face up was actually face up. It's > useful to know I was clearly right. It might be slightly uncautious, but many players tend to detach a card, hold it diagonally such that it touches the table by a corner or an edge, then re-think it. Sometimes the card may be seen by one opponent, but it is not "face up". This isn't a played card either. Best regards Alain From vitoldbr at yandex.ru Mon Oct 26 15:37:37 2015 From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru (vitoldbr) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 18:37:37 +0400 Subject: [BLML] cheating In-Reply-To: <163101307391548@web153.yandex.ru> References: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> <00ae01cc2478$971912a0$c54b37e0$@nl> <163101307391548@web153.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <34108438.20151026183737@yandex.ru> President of World Bridge Federation Mr.Gianarrigo RONA Copies to: President Emeritus of World Bridge Federation Mr. Jose DAMIANI President of European Bridge League Mr. Yves AUBRY Members of Disciplinary Committee of European Bridge League Dear sir, All of us know what happened, so ? will not estimate these obvious illegal actions but I feel a necessity to write my opinion about penalizing them. I am Vitold Brushtunov ? an ordinary bridge player who has been playing bridge during 54 years up to now. And it is my personal opinion ? neither of my Bridge Federation nor of any bridge authorities: 1. All these 6 persons will not play bridge with each other at any level ? for ever 2. All these 6 persons will not take part in any official bridge championships at Zonal and World level ? for ever 3. For the period of five years they may play bridge at club level only* - but only with permission of correspondent club authority 4. For the period of five years they may take part in near-bridge activity (working as coach, captain, journalist etc.)* excluded any official championships at Zonal and World level 5. After five years pass they may take part as players in any bridge tournaments (points 1 and 2 still in forth) ? but only with permission of correspondent bridge authority (Credential Committee, Organizational Committee) 6. After five years pass they may take part in near-bridge activity (working as coach, captain, journalist etc.)* even in official championship at Zonal and World level - but only with permission of correspondent Zonal or World bridge authority (Credential Committee, Organizational Committee) *As they are bridge professionals we rather should not take out their possibility to earn a living. Best regards, Vitold Bruhtunov P.S. I am going to publish this letter in BLML From vitoldbr at yandex.ru Mon Oct 26 15:37:37 2015 From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru (vitoldbr) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 18:37:37 +0400 Subject: [BLML] cheating In-Reply-To: <163101307391548@web153.yandex.ru> References: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> <00ae01cc2478$971912a0$c54b37e0$@nl> <163101307391548@web153.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <34108438.20151026183737@yandex.ru> President of World Bridge Federation Mr.Gianarrigo RONA Copies to: President Emeritus of World Bridge Federation Mr. Jose DAMIANI President of European Bridge League Mr. Yves AUBRY Members of Disciplinary Committee of European Bridge League Dear sir, All of us know what happened, so ? will not estimate these obvious illegal actions but I feel a necessity to write my opinion about penalizing them. I am Vitold Brushtunov ? an ordinary bridge player who has been playing bridge during 54 years up to now. And it is my personal opinion ? neither of my Bridge Federation nor of any bridge authorities: 1. All these 6 persons will not play bridge with each other at any level ? for ever 2. All these 6 persons will not take part in any official bridge championships at Zonal and World level ? for ever 3. For the period of five years they may play bridge at club level only* - but only with permission of correspondent club authority 4. For the period of five years they may take part in near-bridge activity (working as coach, captain, journalist etc.)* excluded any official championships at Zonal and World level 5. After five years pass they may take part as players in any bridge tournaments (points 1 and 2 still in forth) ? but only with permission of correspondent bridge authority (Credential Committee, Organizational Committee) 6. After five years pass they may take part in near-bridge activity (working as coach, captain, journalist etc.)* even in official championship at Zonal and World level - but only with permission of correspondent Zonal or World bridge authority (Credential Committee, Organizational Committee) *As they are bridge professionals we rather should not take out their possibility to earn a living. Best regards, Vitold Bruhtunov P.S. I am going to publish this letter in BLML From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 26 17:58:01 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 17:58:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] cheating In-Reply-To: <34108438.20151026183737@yandex.ru> References: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> <00ae01cc2478$971912a0$c54b37e0$@nl> <163101307391548@web153.yandex.ru> <34108438.20151026183737@yandex.ru> Message-ID: Le 26.10.2015 15:37, vitoldbr a ?crit?: > President of World Bridge Federation > Mr.Gianarrigo RONA > > P.S. I am going to publish this letter in BLML I beg your pardon, Sir, but what has this to do with BLML ? Our concern is how to understand, apply, and if needed, change the rules of the game of bridge. Nothing else. Yours truly, A. Gottcheiner _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- A. From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Oct 26 20:07:41 2015 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:07:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] cheating In-Reply-To: References: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> <00ae01cc2478$971912a0$c54b37e0$@nl> <163101307391548@web153.yandex.ru> <34108438.20151026183737@yandex.ru> Message-ID: <562E79FD.6090200@gmail.com> All, > Our concern is how to understand, apply, and if needed, change the rules > of the game of bridge. Nothing else. I would consider the cheating incidents, and in particular the question how to detect them and how to avoid this in the future, on topic for BLML. Henk (speaking as moderator). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Oct 27 03:05:01 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:05:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] cheating In-Reply-To: <562E79FD.6090200@gmail.com> References: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> <00ae01cc2478$971912a0$c54b37e0$@nl> <163101307391548@web153.yandex.ru> <34108438.20151026183737@yandex.ru> <562E79FD.6090200@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, I agree with Henk that this discussion is on-topic for blml. Two points: 1. The 1997 "gravest possible offence" Law recommended expulsion as the punishment. The 2007 Law 73B2 lacks that recommendation, thus granting Regulating Authorities in their object all sublime, to let the punishment fit the crime. For example, if a player was intimidated by her partner into cheating, then the RA may show her leniency. 2. Vitold's idea of a world-wide multi-level sanction enforced by the WBF President is contrary to the 2007 Law 80A1. The jurisdiction of a WBF Disciplinary Committee extends only to WBF events. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, October 27, 2015, Henk Uijterwaal > wrote: > All, > > > Our concern is how to understand, apply, and if needed, change the rules > > of the game of bridge. Nothing else. > > I would consider the cheating incidents, and in particular the question > how to > detect them and how to avoid this in the future, on topic for BLML. > > Henk (speaking as moderator). > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl > http://www.uijterwaal.nl > Phone: +31.6.55861746 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151027/41ac8820/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Oct 27 03:15:05 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:15:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] cheating In-Reply-To: <562E79FD.6090200@gmail.com> References: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> <00ae01cc2478$971912a0$c54b37e0$@nl> <163101307391548@web153.yandex.ru> <34108438.20151026183737@yandex.ru> <562E79FD.6090200@gmail.com> Message-ID: <562EDE29.3080601@nhcc.net> On 2015-10-26 3:07 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > I would consider the cheating incidents, and in particular the question how to > detect them and how to avoid this in the future, on topic for BLML. "How to avoid" seems quite useful. My suggestion, FWIW, was to ask a stage magician to help design security measures. I don't see that personal opinions on appropriate punishments have much value, but I can always delete those messages. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 28 15:42:42 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:42:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] cheating In-Reply-To: References: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> <00ae01cc2478$971912a0$c54b37e0$@nl> <163101307391548@web153.yandex.ru> <34108438.20151026183737@yandex.ru> <562E79FD.6090200@gmail.com> Message-ID: <785f8be189d685f75d8f18d7d7cf5552@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 27.10.2015 03:05, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Yes, I agree with Henk that this discussion is on-topic for blml. Two > points: > > 1.? The 1997 "gravest possible offence" Law recommended expulsion as > the punishment. The 2007 Law 73B2 lacks that recommendation, thus > granting Regulating Authorities in their object all sublime, to let > the punishment fit the crime. For example, if a player was intimidated > by her partner into cheating, then the RA may show her leniency. > > 2. Vitold's idea of a world-wide multi-level sanction enforced by the > WBF President is contrary to the 2007 Law 80A1. The jurisdiction of a > WBF Disciplinary Committee extends only to WBF events. > Okay, if that's the other contributors' feeling, I admit it. And if this is the case, let me make a statement about finding evidence : We have to be extremely careful when collecting evidence on cheating. Any weakish item would cast a shadow on the whole bunch. In the case against Fisher-Schwartz, the evidence from board positioning is overwhelming. But when trying to find other elements, some errors were made : - a statement that one of them led clubs because "it was partner's suit" was brushed aside, because a 1C opening might be short. It should be known that more than one half of 1C openings in American style are 5+ long (if you want to compute this from pattern probabilities, remember to take off all 1NT openings and take into account that one opens unbalanced hands lighter than balanced ones). Surely the argument can't be said to be of the self-serving variety. - it was found bizarre that, over a 20-22 NT opening, partner didn't raise with a 4-HCP quackery. I conducted a poll, and it was 50-50 whether to raise or not. 20-HCP hands are less uncommon than 22-HCP ones. So here are two weak arguments that the defendants might mention to complain of relentless accusations and weaken the case against them. It would be a pity. Best regards Alain From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Fri Oct 30 16:12:36 2015 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:12:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your ruling Message-ID: <563388E4.4010007@gmx.de> Both sides white. West holds: 1072 K43 108 A10642 His LHO opens 1 heart, partner doubles, RHO says 1NT which is alerted as showing clubs. Wets passed, LHO bid 2 hearts, his partner doubles and RHO passed. What now? What do you call? Ciao, JE --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From vip at centrum.is Fri Oct 30 16:34:13 2015 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:34:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] your ruling In-Reply-To: <563388E4.4010007@gmx.de> References: <563388E4.4010007@gmx.de> Message-ID: <1445735639.10117889.1446219253887.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> 2NT - I do not think 2spades is a good bid. Vigfus Palsson ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Jeff Easterson" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: F?studagur, 30. Okt?ber, 2015 15:12:36 Efni: [BLML] your ruling Both sides white. West holds: 1072 K43 108 A10642 His LHO opens 1 heart, partner doubles, RHO says 1NT which is alerted as showing clubs. Wets passed, LHO bid 2 hearts, his partner doubles and RHO passed. What now? What do you call? Ciao, JE --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 30 17:11:25 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:11:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your ruling In-Reply-To: <563388E4.4010007@gmx.de> References: <563388E4.4010007@gmx.de> Message-ID: <80a2e6f7c3bc7c88492c26ba72d050f3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 30.10.2015 16:12, Jeff Easterson a ?crit?: > Both sides white. West holds: > > 1072 > K43 > 108 > A10642 > > His LHO opens 1 heart, partner doubles, RHO says 1NT which is alerted > as > showing clubs. Wets passed, LHO bid 2 hearts, his partner doubles and > RHO passed. > > What now? What do you call? > "showing clubs" is a bit ambiguous. Playing Cappelletti, I would bid 1NT with xxx-Jxx-xxxx-KQJ, for the lead. If 2C shows genuine clubs, then partner's double is takeout, but convertible, typically 4252 and 16+ HCP, and I'd bid 2NT, which should be constructive. 2S is an underbid and unnecessary, but I wouldn't call it an egregious error, if it comes to this. Neither is passing or bidding 3NT. If 2C could be merely lead-directing, it's more difficult, but I don't think playing in clubs is an option anyway. So, if the question is whether one should have bid clubs despite the (wrong) explanation, the answer is a firm no. Best regards Alain From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Sat Oct 31 06:44:27 2015 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 06:44:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: your ruling In-Reply-To: <563388E4.4010007@gmx.de> References: <563388E4.4010007@gmx.de> Message-ID: <5634553B.2050203@gmx.de> First variation: in the second bid round LHO bids 2 spades instead of 2 hearts. Otherwise the bidding is unchanged. JE -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: [BLML] your ruling Datum: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:12:36 +0100 Von: Jeff Easterson Antwort an: Bridge Laws Mailing List An: Bridge Laws Mailing List Both sides white. West holds: 1072 K43 108 A10642 His LHO opens 1 heart, partner doubles, RHO says 1NT which is alerted as showing clubs. Wets passed, LHO bid 2 hearts, his partner doubles and RHO passed. What now? What do you call? Ciao, JE --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From vip at centrum.is Sat Oct 31 22:08:10 2015 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 21:08:10 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Fwd: your ruling In-Reply-To: <5634553B.2050203@gmx.de> References: <563388E4.4010007@gmx.de> <5634553B.2050203@gmx.de> Message-ID: <1463094217.10688109.1446325690569.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> This sounds like terrible misfit - I have only 1? trick in NT contract. 2NT can not be lebenshol here, so I either bid 3NT or Pass. I rather Pass. ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Jeff Easterson" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Laugardagur, 31. Okt?ber, 2015 05:44:27 Efni: [BLML] Fwd: your ruling First variation: in the second bid round LHO bids 2 spades instead of 2 hearts. Otherwise the bidding is unchanged. JE -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: [BLML] your ruling Datum: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:12:36 +0100 Von: Jeff Easterson Antwort an: Bridge Laws Mailing List An: Bridge Laws Mailing List Both sides white. West holds: 1072 K43 108 A10642 His LHO opens 1 heart, partner doubles, RHO says 1NT which is alerted as showing clubs. Wets passed, LHO bid 2 hearts, his partner doubles and RHO passed. What now? What do you call? Ciao, JE --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml