From rmlmarques at zonmail.pt Wed Sep 2 18:00:37 2015 From: rmlmarques at zonmail.pt (Rui Lopes Marques) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 12:00:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" Message-ID: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> Screens. East dealer. S W N E | 1H 1S 3H | P P 3S P | P P North ?leads?. East opens the curtain. TD! From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Sep 2 18:20:46 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 12:20:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" In-Reply-To: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> References: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> Message-ID: <55E721DE.10608@nhcc.net> On 2015-09-02 12:00 PM, Rui Lopes Marques wrote: > Screens. East dealer. > S W N E > | 1H > 1S 3H | P P > 3S P | P P > North ???leads???. East opens the curtain. TD! Has West seen one card from North (dummy) or that plus 13 cards from East? What do the screen regulations say about who is supposed to open the screen after the opening lead? I am inclined to think L23 applies to East's opening the screen, but there's probably more to this. We also can't neglect that the initial problem was caused by North. From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 2 18:46:33 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 18:46:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" In-Reply-To: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> References: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> Message-ID: <000601d0e59e$ee3ad190$cab074b0$@online.no> > Rui Lopes Marques > Sendt: 2. september 2015 18:01 > Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Emne: [BLML] Opening "lead" > > Screens. > > East dealer. > > > S W N E > > | 1H > 1S 3H | P P > 3S P | P P > > North ?leads?. East opens the curtain. TD! [Sven Pran] East has no business opening the curtain, this is the duty of West. So TD must first of all determine whether this action by East can have damaged North/South. That can hardly be possible here because South may not change his last call (North has subsequently called) even if misinformation by West should be ruled. North leading a card is actually a player exposing a card during the auction period (Law 54E leading to Law 24). As North is the presumed Dummy this error has no other effect than to have West make his opening lead with full knowledge of this exposed card, after which North faces his entire hand as Dummy and play just continues normally. Those who are very happy about imposing PP might find reason to do so on East for failure to follow correct procedure on the handling of screens. From rmlmarques at zonmail.pt Wed Sep 2 18:58:36 2015 From: rmlmarques at zonmail.pt (Rui Lopes Marques) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 12:58:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" In-Reply-To: <55E721DE.10608@nhcc.net> References: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> <55E721DE.10608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000c01d0e5a0$9cde8060$d69b8120$@zonmail.pt> East exposed. a) Regulations say that "declarer side opens" b) Regulations say that "defender side opens" If u ask why did East open the screen it becomes apparent that both North and East thought that the contract was 3H. -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steve Willner Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 12:21 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Opening "lead" On 2015-09-02 12:00 PM, Rui Lopes Marques wrote: > Screens. East dealer. > S W N E > | 1H > 1S 3H | P P > 3S P | P P > North ???leads???. East opens the curtain. TD! Has West seen one card from North (dummy) or that plus 13 cards from East? What do the screen regulations say about who is supposed to open the screen after the opening lead? I am inclined to think L23 applies to East's opening the screen, but there's probably more to this. We also can't neglect that the initial problem was caused by North. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Sep 2 19:13:25 2015 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:13:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" In-Reply-To: <000c01d0e5a0$9cde8060$d69b8120$@zonmail.pt> References: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> <55E721DE.10608@nhcc.net> <000c01d0e5a0$9cde8060$d69b8120$@zonmail.pt> Message-ID: <559621581.934839.1441214005020.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Rui Lopes Marques" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Mercredi 2 Septembre 2015 18:58:36 > Objet: Re: [BLML] Opening "lead" > > East exposed. > > a) Regulations say that "declarer side opens" > b) Regulations say that "defender side opens" > > If u ask why did East open the screen it becomes apparent that both North and > East thought that the contract was 3H. and they passed over 3S, as described in your bidding diagram? how is it possible? they would both need to have seen 3S then forgotten it had been bid. jpr > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Steve Willner > Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 12:21 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Opening "lead" > > On 2015-09-02 12:00 PM, Rui Lopes Marques wrote: > > Screens. East dealer. > > S W N E > > | 1H > > 1S 3H | P P > > 3S P | P P > > North leads. East opens the curtain. TD! > > Has West seen one card from North (dummy) or that plus 13 cards from East? > > What do the screen regulations say about who is supposed to open the screen > after the opening lead? > > I am inclined to think L23 applies to East's opening the screen, but there's > probably more to this. We also can't neglect that the initial problem was > caused by North. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- _______________________________________________ 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 svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 2 21:17:24 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:17:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" In-Reply-To: <000c01d0e5a0$9cde8060$d69b8120$@zonmail.pt> References: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> <55E721DE.10608@nhcc.net> <000c01d0e5a0$9cde8060$d69b8120$@zonmail.pt> Message-ID: <000701d0e5b4$00688c30$0139a490$@online.no> > Rui Lopes Marques > Sendt: 2. september 2015 18:59 > Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Emne: Re: [BLML] Opening "lead" > > East exposed. > > a) Regulations say that "declarer side opens" > b) Regulations say that "defender side opens" > > If u ask why did East open the screen it becomes apparent that both North > and East thought that the contract was 3H. [Sven Pran] WBF regulations state that West opens and closes the gate. (Who is declaring is immaterial.) From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Wed Sep 2 21:31:42 2015 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 21:31:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" In-Reply-To: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> References: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> Message-ID: On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 18:00:37 +0200, Rui Lopes Marques wrote: > Screens. > > East dealer. > > > S W N E > > | 1H > 1S 3H | P P > 3S P | P P > > North ?leads?. East opens the curtain. TD! > > EBL Regulations: c) The screenmate should attempt to prevent an opening lead out of turn. Any opening lead out of turn shall be withdrawn without other rectification if the screen has not been opened. Otherwise: i) when the screen has been opened through no fault of the declaring side (and the other defender has not led face up) Law 54 applies. ii) when the declaring side has opened the screen the lead is accepted. The presumed declarer becomes the actual declarer. Law 23 may apply. iii) when two opening leads are faced by the defending side the incorrect lead is a major penalty card. iv) for a card faced by the declaring side see Law 48. So, if East has exposed his cards, they are all penalty cards. North's "lead" is of no consequence. But while it is just possible for North ans West not to see the 3S call (and instead of actually passing, removing their cards from the tray and sending it back), unless it is a local brand of screen I don't see how East managed to open it while exposing his cards. If he signalled to West to open the screen, West should have noticed that it was his turn to lead. Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Sep 2 21:39:16 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:39:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" In-Reply-To: <000701d0e5b4$00688c30$0139a490$@online.no> References: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> <55E721DE.10608@nhcc.net> <000c01d0e5a0$9cde8060$d69b8120$@zonmail.pt> <000701d0e5b4$00688c30$0139a490$@online.no> Message-ID: <55E75064.9060803@nhcc.net> On 2015-09-02 3:17 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > WBF regulations state that West opens and closes the gate. (Who is > declaring is immaterial.) How is West supposed to know when to open the screen when North or East is on lead? From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Sep 2 22:18:03 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 16:18:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" In-Reply-To: References: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> Message-ID: <55E7597B.4060303@nhcc.net> On 2015-09-02 3:31 PM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > EBL Regulations: > > c) The screenmate should attempt to prevent an opening lead out of turn. > Any opening lead out of turn shall be withdrawn without other rectification > if the screen has not been opened. Otherwise: > i) when the screen has been opened through no fault of the declaring side > (and the other defender has not led face up) Law 54 applies. > ii) when the declaring side has opened the screen the lead is accepted. > The presumed declarer becomes the actual declarer. Law 23 may apply. > iii) when two opening leads are faced by the defending side the incorrect > lead is a major penalty card. > iv) for a card faced by the declaring side see Law 48. These are good, but none of them exactly helps, though iv) tells us that North's exposed card is not a penalty card or anything of the sort. No surprise, but good that it's clear. > So, if East has exposed his cards, they are all penalty cards. Yes. We weren't explicitly told, but so far indications are that this didn't happen. > North's "lead" is of no consequence. > But while it is just possible for North ans West not to see the 3S call > (and instead of actually passing, removing their cards from the tray and > sending it back), unless it is a local brand of screen I don't see how > East managed to open it while exposing his cards. If he signalled to West > to open the screen, West should have noticed that it was his turn to lead. The problem is that West, entirely through EW's fault(s), got to see one of North's cards before leading. That advantage has to be taken away. One route is L23, but L16B would be more stringent if it applies. Whether it does or not is what I've been trying to understand. From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 2 22:19:19 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 22:19:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" In-Reply-To: <55E75064.9060803@nhcc.net> References: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> <55E721DE.10608@nhcc.net> <000c01d0e5a0$9cde8060$d69b8120$@zonmail.pt> <000701d0e5b4$00688c30$0139a490$@online.no> <55E75064.9060803@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000801d0e5bc$a68857f0$f39907d0$@online.no> > Steve Willner > Sendt: 2. september 2015 21:39 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Opening "lead" > > On 2015-09-02 3:17 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > WBF regulations state that West opens and closes the gate. (Who is > > declaring is immaterial.) > > How is West supposed to know when to open the screen when North or > East is on lead? [Sven Pran] North or East (as the case may be) makes his opening lead and then knocks on the gate. From gordonr60 at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 09:21:56 2015 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 08:21:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" In-Reply-To: <000701d0e5b4$00688c30$0139a490$@online.no> References: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> <55E721DE.10608@nhcc.net> <000c01d0e5a0$9cde8060$d69b8120$@zonmail.pt> <000701d0e5b4$00688c30$0139a490$@online.no> Message-ID: Not any more they don't! Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 2 Sep 2015, at 20:17, Sven Pran wrote: > > > >> Rui Lopes Marques >> Sendt: 2. september 2015 18:59 >> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Opening "lead" >> >> East exposed. >> >> a) Regulations say that "declarer side opens" >> b) Regulations say that "defender side opens" >> >> If u ask why did East open the screen it becomes apparent that both North >> and East thought that the contract was 3H. > > [Sven Pran] > WBF regulations state that West opens and closes the gate. (Who is declaring is immaterial.) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Sep 3 09:36:55 2015 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:36:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" In-Reply-To: <000c01d0e5a0$9cde8060$d69b8120$@zonmail.pt> References: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> <55E721DE.10608@nhcc.net> <000c01d0e5a0$9cde8060$d69b8120$@zonmail.pt> Message-ID: <000c01d0e61b$4ee9e040$ecbda0c0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> This looks more complicated than it is. North's causes an exposed card during the auction and L54E applies (yes, the Law Committee is prepared for these cases). Formally spoken East caused an irregularity during the auction which could be penalized, but I wouldn't give it. Up to you to finalize this. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Rui Lopes Marques Verzonden: woensdag 2 september 2015 18:59 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Opening "lead" East exposed. a) Regulations say that "declarer side opens" b) Regulations say that "defender side opens" If u ask why did East open the screen it becomes apparent that both North and East thought that the contract was 3H. -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steve Willner Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 12:21 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Opening "lead" On 2015-09-02 12:00 PM, Rui Lopes Marques wrote: > Screens. East dealer. > S W N E > | 1H > 1S 3H | P P > 3S P | P P > North ???leads???. East opens the curtain. TD! Has West seen one card from North (dummy) or that plus 13 cards from East? What do the screen regulations say about who is supposed to open the screen after the opening lead? I am inclined to think L23 applies to East's opening the screen, but there's probably more to this. We also can't neglect that the initial problem was caused by North. _______________________________________________ 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 Sep 3 10:05:21 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 10:05:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" In-Reply-To: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> References: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> Message-ID: <55E7FF41.1020100@skynet.be> Rui Lopes Marques schreef: > Screens. > > East dealer. > > > S W N E > > | 1H > 1S 3H | P P > 3S P | P P > > North ?leads?. East opens the curtain. TD! > I would suggest that the lead has been accepted, East becomes dummy and West will play 3S. :) of course. No, good problem actually. Basically, there has been nothing problematic. Since it is West who's on lead, all he has seen one of dummy's cards. Of course this should be UI for him, but it was North himself who did this. I don't think we should punish East for giving West a pieve of Information that North has given them. So let's play on. It would be different of course if East exposes his dummy before opening the screen. Then we're in 13PenatlyCard territory! Herman. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Sep 3 17:03:30 2015 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 17:03:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" In-Reply-To: <000801d0e5bc$a68857f0$f39907d0$@online.no> References: <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt> <55E721DE.10608@nhcc.net> <000c01d0e5a0$9cde8060$d69b8120$@zonmail.pt> <000701d0e5b4$00688c30$0139a490$@online.no> <55E75064.9060803@nhcc.net> <000801d0e5bc$a68857f0$f39907d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <004201d0e659$b1e7a310$15b6e930$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> This is probably not true anymore. As far as I know the declaring side opens the screen. But knocking on the aperture is still done. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: woensdag 2 september 2015 22:19 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Opening "lead" > Steve Willner > Sendt: 2. september 2015 21:39 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Opening "lead" > > On 2015-09-02 3:17 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > WBF regulations state that West opens and closes the gate. (Who is > > declaring is immaterial.) > > How is West supposed to know when to open the screen when North or > East is on lead? [Sven Pran] North or East (as the case may be) makes his opening lead and then knocks on the gate. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 3 17:42:48 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 17:42:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Opening "lead" In-Reply-To: <000c01d0e61b$4ee9e040$ecbda0c0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: " <00b201d0e598$8366b380$8a341a80$@zonmail.pt>" <55E721DE.10608@nhcc.net> <000c01d0e5a0$9cde8060$d69b8120$@zonmail.pt> <000c01d0e61b$4ee9e040$ecbda0c0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <6a3d48d308f5408f5478b0222aebe4b5@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 03.09.2015 09:36, ton a ?crit?: > This looks more complicated than it is. > > North's causes an exposed card during the auction and L54E applies > (yes, the Law Committee is prepared for these cases). > Formally spoken East caused an irregularity during the auction which > could be penalized, but I wouldn't give it. > Up to you to finalize this. Some screens can hardly be opened from both sides with equal ease ; but it would be logical that the player who made the opening lead be in charge of opening the screen, or signalling that it be opened. In that way, only the player who erred in leading could be penalized. And if the player on the same side than the LOOTer opened the screen, he would be deemed to "possibly have known it would be profitable to him", which might lead to forfeit the penalty effect. Similar to having said "your lead" to the wrong person. Best regards Alain > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Rui > Lopes Marques > Verzonden: woensdag 2 september 2015 18:59 > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Opening "lead" > > East exposed. > > a) Regulations say that "declarer side opens" > b) Regulations say that "defender side opens" > > If u ask why did East open the screen it becomes apparent that both > North and East thought that the contract was 3H. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Steve Willner > Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 12:21 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Opening "lead" > > On 2015-09-02 12:00 PM, Rui Lopes Marques wrote: >> Screens. East dealer. >> S W N E >> | 1H >> 1S 3H | P P >> 3S P | P P >> North ???leads???. East opens the curtain. TD! > > Has West seen one card from North (dummy) or that plus 13 cards from > East? > > What do the screen regulations say about who is supposed to open the > screen after the opening lead? > > I am inclined to think L23 applies to East's opening the screen, but > there's probably more to this. We also can't neglect that the initial > problem was caused by North. > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- A. From bridge at vwalther.de Mon Sep 7 14:38:22 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 14:38:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EBU Bidding Box Rule Message-ID: <55ED853E.20904@vwalther.de> Recently some English friends visited our Club, and so I learned something about the English bidding box regulations. "At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the opening lead has been faced and all explanations have been obtained, after which they should be returned to their boxes." I found this regulation really useful, cause on first guess it seemed to allow RHO asking for explanations while the bidding is still visible. But the way it was practised by our guests has been in conflict with LAW 20F. Their procedure was: 1.) End of the auction 2.) LHO may ask a about the bidding 3.) LHO makes a face down lead. 4.) RHO may ask about the bidding. 5.) The opening lead is turned face up 6.) The bidding cards are returned to the box. Obviously step 4.) is in conflict with 20F2 "After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction." And I did not realize at which point declarer usually asks for explanations. Could someone from EBU-land explain the proper EBU procedure? Greetings, Volker From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 7 15:16:42 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:16:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EBU Bidding Box Rule In-Reply-To: <55ED853E.20904@vwalther.de> References: <55ED853E.20904@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <001a01d0e96f$719cd690$54d683b0$@online.no> You are overlooking Law 41B ("Before the opening lead is faced, the leader?s partner and the presumed declarer ....") Regards Sven > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Volker Walther > Sendt: 7. september 2015 14:38 > Til: blml > Emne: [BLML] EBU Bidding Box Rule > > Recently some English friends visited our Club, and so I learned something > about the English bidding box regulations. > > "At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the > opening lead has been faced and all explanations have been obtained, after > which they should be returned to their boxes." > > I found this regulation really useful, cause on first guess it seemed to allow > RHO asking for explanations while the bidding is still visible. > > But the way it was practised by our guests has been in conflict with LAW > 20F. > > Their procedure was: > 1.) End of the auction > 2.) LHO may ask a about the bidding > 3.) LHO makes a face down lead. > 4.) RHO may ask about the bidding. > 5.) The opening lead is turned face up > 6.) The bidding cards are returned to the box. > > Obviously step 4.) is in conflict with 20F2 "After the final pass and > throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may > request an explanation of the opposing auction." > And I did not realize at which point declarer usually asks for explanations. > > Could someone from EBU-land explain the proper EBU procedure? > > > Greetings, Volker > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 7 17:11:21 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 17:11:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EBU Bidding Box Rule In-Reply-To: <55ED853E.20904@vwalther.de> References: <55ED853E.20904@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <9dcc75295a12efef3efe8222f0cc8caa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 07.09.2015 14:38, Volker Walther a ?crit?: > Recently some English friends visited our Club, and so I learned > something about the English bidding box regulations. > > "At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the > opening lead has been faced and all explanations have been obtained, > after which they should be returned to their boxes." > > I found this regulation really useful, cause on first guess it seemed > to > allow RHO asking for explanations while the bidding is still visible. > > But the way it was practised by our guests has been in conflict with > LAW 20F. > > Their procedure was: > 1.) End of the auction > 2.) LHO may ask a about the bidding > 3.) LHO makes a face down lead. > 4.) RHO may ask about the bidding. > 5.) The opening lead is turned face up > 6.) The bidding cards are returned to the box. > > Obviously step 4.) is in conflict with 20F2 > "After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender > at > his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing > auction." > And I did not realize at which point declarer usually asks for > explanations. > > Could someone from EBU-land explain the proper EBU procedure? AG : the procedure is the same in Belgium, and I don't see any contradiction. This is not 'asking at one's turm to play', because play hasn't begun (the lead hasn't been faced) ; it's just part of 'enquiring during the bidding period'. It is made in that way to avoid : 1- untimely questions at one's last turn to bid, which would create UI 2 - being forced to wait until declarer played from dummy, which would void the posibility of planning the play during the time declarer spends to do the same. Of course, you may ask after declarer played from dummy too. Best regards Alain From nistler at bridgehands.com Mon Sep 7 21:14:56 2015 From: nistler at bridgehands.com (Nistler@BridgeHands.com) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 12:14:56 -0700 Subject: [BLML] EBU Bidding Box Rule In-Reply-To: <9dcc75295a12efef3efe8222f0cc8caa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <55ED853E.20904@vwalther.de> <9dcc75295a12efef3efe8222f0cc8caa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Sep 7, 2015, at 8:11 AM, agot wrote: > > Le 07.09.2015 14:38, Volker Walther a ?crit : >> Recently some English friends visited our Club, and so I learned >> something about the English bidding box regulations. >> >> "At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the >> opening lead has been faced and all explanations have been obtained, >> after which they should be returned to their boxes." >> >> I found this regulation really useful, cause on first guess it seemed >> to >> allow RHO asking for explanations while the bidding is still visible. >> >> But the way it was practised by our guests has been in conflict with >> LAW 20F. >> >> Their procedure was: >> 1.) End of the auction >> 2.) LHO may ask a about the bidding >> 3.) LHO makes a face down lead. >> 4.) RHO may ask about the bidding. >> 5.) The opening lead is turned face up >> 6.) The bidding cards are returned to the box. >> >> Obviously step 4.) is in conflict with 20F2 >> "After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender >> at >> his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing >> auction." >> And I did not realize at which point declarer usually asks for >> explanations. >> >> Could someone from EBU-land explain the proper EBU procedure? > > > AG : the procedure is the same in Belgium, and I don't see any > contradiction. > > This is not 'asking at one's turm to play', because play hasn't begun > (the lead hasn't been faced) ; it's just part of 'enquiring during the > bidding period'. It is made in that way to avoid : > 1- untimely questions at one's last turn to bid, which would create UI > 2 - being forced to wait until declarer played from dummy, which would > void the posibility of planning the play during the time declarer spends > to do the same. Of course, you may ask after declarer played from dummy > too. > > Best regards > > Alain > ___________________________ And potentially even more importantly, since we are still in the bidding phase the partner of the presumed opening leader may uncover misinformation during the bidding phase by the opponents. Upon calling the director the auction may be rolled back and the bidding continued. Obviously, once the opening lead is faced, this right by the NOS is lost. Happy trails, Michael From bridge at vwalther.de Mon Sep 7 21:57:58 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 21:57:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EBU Bidding Box Rule In-Reply-To: <001a01d0e96f$719cd690$54d683b0$@online.no> References: <55ED853E.20904@vwalther.de> <001a01d0e96f$719cd690$54d683b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <55EDEC46.4000405@vwalther.de> Am 07.09.2015 um 15:16 schrieb Sven Pran: > You are overlooking Law 41B ("Before the opening lead is faced, the leader?s > partner and the presumed declarer ....") > > Regards Sven In fact I overlooked that, so no problem anymore. Many thanks, Volker > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Volker Walther >> Sendt: 7. september 2015 14:38 >> Til: blml >> Emne: [BLML] EBU Bidding Box Rule >> >> Recently some English friends visited our Club, and so I learned something >> about the English bidding box regulations. >> >> "At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the >> opening lead has been faced and all explanations have been obtained, after >> which they should be returned to their boxes." >> >> I found this regulation really useful, cause on first guess it seemed to > allow >> RHO asking for explanations while the bidding is still visible. >> >> But the way it was practised by our guests has been in conflict with LAW >> 20F. >> >> Their procedure was: >> 1.) End of the auction >> 2.) LHO may ask a about the bidding >> 3.) LHO makes a face down lead. >> 4.) RHO may ask about the bidding. >> 5.) The opening lead is turned face up >> 6.) The bidding cards are returned to the box. >> >> Obviously step 4.) is in conflict with 20F2 "After the final pass and >> throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may >> request an explanation of the opposing auction." >> And I did not realize at which point declarer usually asks for > explanations. >> >> Could someone from EBU-land explain the proper EBU procedure? >> >> >> Greetings, Volker >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 9 02:30:09 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 20:30:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? Message-ID: This hand has caused some controversy here. A player opened 1S in first seat,vul versus not, with AK8753 K43 10 742 The opponents were upset, roughly, that their card did not say that this hand would be opened 1 Spade. As an expert pointed out to me today, he would open this hand 1 Spade. As I pointed out to him, he plays weak twos as having a range of 6 to 10. The players involved had 5 to 11 on their card. These players seem to bid the same way as everyone who plays 5 to 10 -- a bad 11 point hand could get a weak two; a really good 10 point could get an opening one bid; any 12 point hand with a six card suit gets opened on the one level. The complaining opponents said there would be no problem if the card was marked 5 to 10. One of the players involved has agreed they should put 5 to 10 on their card. Do players have to say on their card what they play? And if they do, then (unless we are wimps), they have to play what's on their card. Yes, there are a lot of reasons why a player might not have what it says on their card. But there has to be SOME reason. To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he wants to play 1NT as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce that, but I have already decided I am going to open all 15 point hands 1NT. Is this legal? From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 03:03:48 2015 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 20:03:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > This hand has caused some controversy here. A player opened 1S in first > seat,vul versus not, with > > AK8753 > K43 > 10 > 742 > > The opponents were upset, roughly, that their card did not say that this > hand would be opened 1 Spade. > > As an expert pointed out to me today, he would open this hand 1 Spade. As > I pointed out to him, he plays weak twos as having a range of 6 to 10. The > players involved had 5 to 11 on their card. > > These players seem to bid the same way as everyone who plays 5 to 10 -- a > bad 11 point hand could get a weak two; a really good 10 point could get an > opening one bid; any 12 point hand with a six card suit gets opened on the > one level. > > The complaining opponents said there would be no problem if the card was > marked 5 to 10. One of the players involved has agreed they should put 5 to > 10 on their card. > > Do players have to say on their card what they play? > > And if they do, then (unless we are wimps), they have to play what's on > their card. Yes, there are a lot of reasons why a player might not have > what it says on their card. But there has to be SOME reason. > > To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he wants > to play 1NT as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce that, but I > have already decided I am going to open all 15 point hands 1NT. Is this > legal? > > Are we bridge players or HCP accountants? > As dealer, the 10 HCP hand AKxxxx Kxx x xxx has trick-taking potential almost exactly one trick more than this 12 HCP hand QJxxx QJx Kx QJx Under their methods, 1S is the clearly standout for the first hand, and pass is standout for the second. Dealer's 10 HCP hand is better than most 11 HCP hands with five or more spades, so it should open 1S. The 12 HCP hand is much worse than most 11 HCP hands with five or more spades, so it should pass. I thought all good players knew this. The only thing to disclose is that you play bridge, not HCP accounting, and you go by hand strength whenever the governing body allows it. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150909/efa4c0c0/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Sep 9 03:28:41 2015 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:28:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Robert Frick" writes: > This hand has caused some controversy here. A player opened 1S in first > seat,vul versus not, with > > AK8753 > K43 > 10 > 742 > > The opponents were upset, roughly, that their card did not say that this hand > would be opened 1 Spade. > > As an expert pointed out to me today, he would open this hand 1 Spade. > As I pointed out to him, he plays weak twos as having a > range of 6 to 10. The players involved had 5 to 11 on their card. I don't have a problem here. The range is 5 to 11, which means that a hand appropriate for a weak 2-bid would be opened with 5-11 point. However, it is reasonable to say that this hand is not appropriate for a weak 2-bid regardless of the point range, as it has 2.5 quick tricks, and preempts are unattractive with support for the other major. When they say "5 to 11", they imply that they would open 2S on a typical 11-count, say KQJxxx x AJx xxx. This is the right hand-type for a weak 2-bid if it is in the agreed range. > Do players have to say on their card what they play? > > And if they do, then (unless we are wimps), they have to play what's on their > card. > Yes, there are a lot of reasons why a player might not have what it says on > their card. > But there has to be SOME reason. > To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he wants to > play 1NT > as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce that, but I have already > decided I am > going to open all 15 point hands 1NT. Is this legal? This is not legal. If you write, "16 to 18", you have an agreement to open all hands which you judge to be worth 16 to 18. If you judge almost all 15-counts to be worth 16, you have an undisclosed agreement. A better analogy would be that you can say "15 to 17, 5-card major common" and then choose to open KQJxx Axx xx KQx with 1S, not because it is outside the NT range, but because you decide the suit bid is a better description. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 9 03:51:00 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:51:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:03:48 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> This hand has caused some controversy here. A player opened 1S in first >> seat,vul versus not, with >> >> AK8753 >> K43 >> 10 >> 742 >> >> The opponents were upset, roughly, that their card did not say that this >> hand would be opened 1 Spade. >> >> As an expert pointed out to me today, he would open this hand 1 Spade. As >> I pointed out to him, he plays weak twos as having a range of 6 to 10. The >> players involved had 5 to 11 on their card. >> >> These players seem to bid the same way as everyone who plays 5 to 10 -- a >> bad 11 point hand could get a weak two; a really good 10 point could get an >> opening one bid; any 12 point hand with a six card suit gets opened on the >> one level. >> >> The complaining opponents said there would be no problem if the card was >> marked 5 to 10. One of the players involved has agreed they should put 5 to >> 10 on their card. >> >> Do players have to say on their card what they play? >> >> And if they do, then (unless we are wimps), they have to play what's on >> their card. Yes, there are a lot of reasons why a player might not have >> what it says on their card. But there has to be SOME reason. >> >> To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he wants >> to play 1NT as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce that, but I >> have already decided I am going to open all 15 point hands 1NT. Is this >> legal? >> > > > >> Are we bridge players or HCP accountants? >> > > As dealer, the 10 HCP hand > > AKxxxx > Kxx > x > xxx > > has trick-taking potential almost exactly one trick more than this 12 HCP > hand > > QJxxx > QJx > Kx > QJx Hi Jerry. Everyone here pretty much holds to a six-card suit, so we should stick to that. (That will ruin your example.) You have given here a hand that I would count as 10 1/2. The point ranges on the ACBL card, as far as I remember, do not specify HCP. > > Under their methods, 1S is the clearly standout for the first hand, and > pass is standout for the second. > > Dealer's 10 HCP hand is better than most 11 HCP hands with five or more > spades, so it should open 1S. The 12 HCP hand is much worse than most 11 > HCP hands with five or more spades, so it should pass. I thought all good > players knew this. The only thing to disclose is that you play bridge, not > HCP accounting, and you go by hand strength whenever the governing body > allows it. > > Jerry Fusselman From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 9 03:55:54 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:55:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:28:41 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > > A better analogy would be that you can say "15 to 17, 5-card major common" and > then choose to open KQJxx Axx xx KQx with 1S, not because it is outside the NT > range, but because you decide the suit bid is a better description. I don't want to change the topic. If a player, for example, is playing overcalls as 10 to 16, I have no problem with him overcalling 9 HCP WITH ANY GOOD REASON. The problem is when he overcalls with an ordinary 9 HCP hand. With no reason. None. He apparently just likes to overcall with 9 HCP hands. If you allow this, then you are allowing players to fill out their card inaccurately. From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 9 07:13:49 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 07:13:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> > Robert Frick {....} > To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he wants > to play 1NT as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce that, but I > have already decided I am going to open all 15 point hands 1NT. Is this > legal? [Sven Pran] Yes, it is legal until your new partner becomes aware that you might more or less frequently deviate from what you have declared on the card. Your declaration is illegal from the very moment he realizes that your declaration is inaccurate. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Sep 9 09:55:37 2015 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:55:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> Message-ID: <002701d0ead4$ee1452a0$ca3cf7e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> This looks like a wrong answer to me. It is similar to the guy who proofs to the TD that he reacted completely normally on the psyche from partner. The opponents have the right to know what you are doing and always opening with 15 when the cc shows 16-18 is a severe infraction. I am almost sure that Sven knows this but overlooked the 'all hands' in the question. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: woensdag 9 september 2015 7:14 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? > Robert Frick {....} > To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he > wants to play 1NT as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce > that, but I have already decided I am going to open all 15 point hands > 1NT. Is this legal? [Sven Pran] Yes, it is legal until your new partner becomes aware that you might more or less frequently deviate from what you have declared on the card. Your declaration is illegal from the very moment he realizes that your declaration is inaccurate. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 9 11:16:05 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 11:16:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Do_players_have_to_describe_what_they_play=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <401993504d17e0c4ff0af0f5f675f7c3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 09.09.2015 03:28, David Grabiner a ?crit?: > "Robert Frick" writes: > >> This hand has caused some controversy here. A player opened 1S in >> first >> seat,vul versus not, with >> >> AK8753 >> K43 >> 10 >> 742 >> >> The opponents were upset, roughly, that their card did not say that >> this hand >> would be opened 1 Spade. >> >> As an expert pointed out to me today, he would open this hand 1 Spade. >> As I pointed out to him, he plays weak twos as having a >> range of 6 to 10. The players involved had 5 to 11 on their card. > > I don't have a problem here. The range is 5 to 11, which means that a > hand > appropriate for a weak 2-bid would be opened with 5-11 point. However, > it is > reasonable to say that this hand is not appropriate for a weak 2-bid > regardless > of the point range, as it has 2.5 quick tricks, and preempts are > unattractive > with support for the other major. To cut it short, the implication is one-way : if you open 2S you have between 5 and 11 HCP, and a 6-card spade suit. But the reciprocal isn't necessarily true. BUT ... Did the pair in question write under 1S openings : 10-20 HCP (or whatever) ? Because if they wrote 12-20, then there is a problem. > > When they say "5 to 11", they imply that they would open 2S on a > typical > 11-count, say KQJxxx x AJx xxx. This is the right hand-type for a > weak 2-bid if > it is in the agreed range. AG : not in my opinion. The hand is still a bit strong. But if I held AKJxxx - x - Qxx - Jxx I would. Anyway the point is the same. > > A better analogy would be that you can say "15 to 17, 5-card major > common" and > then choose to open KQJxx Axx xx KQx with 1S, not because it is outside > the NT > range, but because you decide the suit bid is a better description. AG : indeed. "common" doesn't mean "automatic". It means that (WAG) 50-70% of 5M-332 hands within range are opened 1NT. Another example : writing, as I do, that 1NT-2C shows "54+ majors, light", doesn't mean that I'll bid 2C on xxxxx - xxxx - QJ - KQ. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 9 11:18:18 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 11:18:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Do_players_have_to_describe_what_they_play=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21d3a5641f3ed0cb4f4ccb8d933c3937@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 09.09.2015 03:55, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:28:41 -0400, David Grabiner > wrote: > > >> >> A better analogy would be that you can say "15 to 17, 5-card major >> common" and >> then choose to open KQJxx Axx xx KQx with 1S, not because it is >> outside the NT >> range, but because you decide the suit bid is a better description. > > I don't want to change the topic. If a player, for example, is playing > overcalls as 10 to 16, I have no problem with him overcalling 9 HCP > WITH ANY GOOD REASON. The problem is when he overcalls with an > ordinary 9 HCP hand. With no reason. None. He apparently just likes to > overcall with 9 HCP hands. > > If you allow this, then you are allowing players to fill out their > card inaccurately. But describing ranges for overcalls in HCP is plain wrong. Descriptions like "quite aggressive" ; or "opening values", or similar, would be more helpful. Do you describe your Multi-opening as having range 5-24 ? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- A. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 14:11:14 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 22:11:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Pre-2007 there were a lot of unproductive arguments due to loose use of the word "psyche". Since 2007 the new Law 40C1 sidesteps unproductive "psyche" debates by not using the word. Ton and Sven are discussing a case where the relevant Law 40C1 phrase is: "always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents." Hence Sven is right and Ton is wrong. Even Homer nods. Best wishes, Richard Hills ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *ton* Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? To: Bridge Laws Mailing List This looks like a wrong answer to me. It is similar to the guy who proofs to the TD that he reacted completely normally on the psyche from partner. The opponents have the right to know what you are doing and always opening with 15 when the cc shows 16-18 is a severe infraction. I am almost sure that Sven knows this but overlooked the 'all hands' in the question. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: woensdag 9 september 2015 7:14 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? > Robert Frick {....} > To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he > wants to play 1NT as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce > that, but I have already decided I am going to open all 15 point hands > 1NT. Is this legal? [Sven Pran] Yes, it is legal until your new partner becomes aware that you might more or less frequently deviate from what you have declared on the card. Your declaration is illegal from the very moment he realizes that your declaration is inaccurate. _______________________________________________ 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/20150909/08da1f6a/attachment.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Sep 9 15:23:40 2015 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:23:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <1635777950.2390592.1441805020344.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Richard Hills" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Mercredi 9 Septembre 2015 14:11:14 > Objet: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? > > Pre-2007 there were a lot of unproductive arguments due to loose use of the > word "psyche". Since 2007 the new Law 40C1 sidesteps unproductive "psyche" > debates by not using the word. Ton and Sven are discussing a case where the > relevant Law 40C1 phrase is: > > "always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the > deviation than have the opponents." > > Hence Sven is right and Ton is wrong. Even Homer nods. maybe, but one member of the partnership uses 16-18 and the other one 15-18. there may (hopefully) be some local reglementation that forbids such discrepancy. jpr > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: ton < t.kooyman at worldonline.nl > > Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 > Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List < blml at rtflb.org > > > > This looks like a wrong answer to me. It is similar to the guy who proofs > to the TD that he reacted completely normally on the psyche from partner. > > The opponents have the right to know what you are doing and always opening > with 15 when the cc shows 16-18 is a severe infraction. I am almost sure > that Sven knows this but overlooked the 'all hands' in the question. > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto: blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] Namens Sven > Pran > Verzonden: woensdag 9 september 2015 7:14 > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? > > > Robert Frick > {....} > > To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he > > wants to play 1NT as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce > > that, but I have already decided I am going to open all 15 point hands > > 1NT. Is this legal? > > [Sven Pran] > Yes, it is legal until your new partner becomes aware that you might more or > less frequently deviate from what you have declared on the card. > > Your declaration is illegal from the very moment he realizes that your > declaration is inaccurate. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- _______________________________________________ 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 svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 9 15:40:11 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:40:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> Law 40C1 in 2007 introduced no new rule in the laws of Bridge except that it spelt out this all-important principle in plain words not open for any possible misunderstanding. Personally I remember being trained during my first TD course back in 1980 to understand and apply this principle. (And I am not aware of any disharmony between Ton and me in this respect.) Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 9. september 2015 14:11 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? Pre-2007 there were a lot of unproductive arguments due to loose use of the word "psyche". Since 2007 the new Law 40C1 sidesteps unproductive "psyche" debates by not using the word. Ton and Sven are discussing a case where the relevant Law 40C1 phrase is: "always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents." Hence Sven is right and Ton is wrong. Even Homer nods. Best wishes, Richard Hills ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ton Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? To: Bridge Laws Mailing List This looks like a wrong answer to me. It is similar to the guy who proofs to the TD that he reacted completely normally on the psyche from partner. The opponents have the right to know what you are doing and always opening with 15 when the cc shows 16-18 is a severe infraction. I am almost sure that Sven knows this but overlooked the 'all hands' in the question. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: woensdag 9 september 2015 7:14 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? > Robert Frick {....} > To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he > wants to play 1NT as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce > that, but I have already decided I am going to open all 15 point hands > 1NT. Is this legal? [Sven Pran] Yes, it is legal until your new partner becomes aware that you might more or less frequently deviate from what you have declared on the card. Your declaration is illegal from the very moment he realizes that your declaration is inaccurate. _______________________________________________ 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/20150909/6a7167c2/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Wed Sep 9 19:05:46 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:05:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> Message-ID: <030B6E34F8CD4DEA85A6912D68131FF6@G3> Do players have to describe what they play? It seems strange that a player is allowed to play an asymmetric system, completely different from what he describes on his card, until his partner becomes aware of the details of those deviations (eventually if ever). For example, if partner tends to be oblivious of your signals. a cunning ploy is to include elaborate carding-methods on your card. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 9 20:24:17 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:24:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:28:41 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > "Robert Frick" writes: > >> This hand has caused some controversy here. A player opened 1S in first >> seat,vul versus not, with >> >> AK8753 >> K43 >> 10 >> 742 >> >> The opponents were upset, roughly, that their card did not say that this hand >> would be opened 1 Spade. >> >> As an expert pointed out to me today, he would open this hand 1 Spade. >> As I pointed out to him, he plays weak twos as having a >> range of 6 to 10. The players involved had 5 to 11 on their card. > > I don't have a problem here. The range is 5 to 11, which means that a hand > appropriate for a weak 2-bid would be opened with 5-11 point. However, it is > reasonable to say that this hand is not appropriate for a weak 2-bid regardless > of the point range, as it has 2.5 quick tricks, and preempts are unattractive > with support for the other major. > > When they say "5 to 11", they imply that they would open 2S on a typical > 11-count, say KQJxxx x AJx xxx. This is the right hand-type for a weak 2-bid if > it is in the agreed range. Exactly! But they don't -- they put 5 to 11 on their card and would never open than hand 2 Spades. That's a great 11 point hand. I was told they open 1 Spade with most 11 HCP hand and it would take a relatively bad 11 HCP hand for them to open with a weak two. > >> Do players have to say on their card what they play? >> >> And if they do, then (unless we are wimps), they have to play what's on their >> card. >> Yes, there are a lot of reasons why a player might not have what it says on >> their card. >> But there has to be SOME reason. > >> To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he wants to >> play 1NT >> as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce that, but I have already >> decided I am >> going to open all 15 point hands 1NT. Is this legal? > > This is not legal. If you write, "16 to 18", you have an agreement to open all > hands which you judge to be worth 16 to 18. If you judge almost all 15-counts > to be worth 16, you have an undisclosed agreement. > > A better analogy would be that you can say "15 to 17, 5-card major common" and > then choose to open KQJxx Axx xx KQx with 1S, not because it is outside the NT > range, but because you decide the suit bid is a better description. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 9 20:26:26 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:26:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <030B6E34F8CD4DEA85A6912D68131FF6@G3> References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> <030B6E34F8CD4DEA85A6912D68131FF6@G3> Message-ID: <003201d0eb2d$0a726830$1f573890$@online.no> > Nigel Guthrie > It seems strange that a player is allowed to play an asymmetric system, > completely different from what he describes on his card, until his partner > becomes aware of the details of those deviations (eventually if ever). For > example, if partner tends to be oblivious of your signals. a cunning ploy is > to include elaborate carding-methods on your card. [Sven Pran] This would be a serious violation of Law 40C1 because partner (implicitly) has "more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" simply because of his ignorance/oblivion! And the only applicable word describing a player who declares an understanding from which he deliberately deviates knowing that partner will hardly ever remember the understanding anyway is "cheat". From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 10 02:07:19 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 20:07:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <003201d0eb2d$0a726830$1f573890$@online.no> References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> <030B6E34F8CD4DEA85A6912D68131FF6@G3> <003201d0eb2d$0a726830$1f573890$@online.no> Message-ID: On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:26:26 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Nigel Guthrie >> It seems strange that a player is allowed to play an asymmetric system, >> completely different from what he describes on his card, until his partner >> becomes aware of the details of those deviations (eventually if ever). > For >> example, if partner tends to be oblivious of your signals. a cunning ploy > is >> to include elaborate carding-methods on your card. > > [Sven Pran] > This would be a serious violation of Law 40C1 because partner (implicitly) > has "more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" > simply because of his ignorance/oblivion! > > And the only applicable word describing a player who declares an > understanding from which he deliberately deviates knowing that partner will > hardly ever remember the understanding anyway is "cheat". Would they be breaking any law or regulation? From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 10 07:20:42 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 07:20:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> <030B6E34F8CD4DEA85A6912D68131FF6@G3> <003201d0eb2d$0a726830$1f573890$@online.no> Message-ID: <000101d0eb88$744e42f0$5ceac8d0$@online.no> Law 40 of course > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 10. september 2015 02:07 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? > > On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:26:26 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > > >> Nigel Guthrie > >> It seems strange that a player is allowed to play an asymmetric > >> system, completely different from what he describes on his card, > >> until his partner becomes aware of the details of those deviations > (eventually if ever). > > For > >> example, if partner tends to be oblivious of your signals. a cunning > >> ploy > > is > >> to include elaborate carding-methods on your card. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > This would be a serious violation of Law 40C1 because partner > > (implicitly) has "more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the > opponents" > > simply because of his ignorance/oblivion! > > > > And the only applicable word describing a player who declares an > > understanding from which he deliberately deviates knowing that partner > > will hardly ever remember the understanding anyway is "cheat". > > Would they be breaking any law or regulation? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 10 08:36:14 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 02:36:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <000101d0eb88$744e42f0$5ceac8d0$@online.no> References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> <030B6E34F8CD4DEA85A6912D68131FF6@G3> <003201d0eb2d$0a726830$1f573890$@online.no> <000101d0eb88$744e42f0$5ceac8d0$@online.no> Message-ID: >> > And the only applicable word describing a player who declares an >> > understanding from which he deliberately deviates knowing that partner >> > will hardly ever remember the understanding anyway is "cheat". >> >> Would they be breaking any law or regulation? > Law 40 of course In my experience, player use L40A3 as defense for not following their declared system. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Sep 10 09:03:45 2015 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:03:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <000f01d0eb96$d5b958a0$812c09e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> I am still quite willing to learn from my mistakes, but then I need to know what mistake I made. May I ask Richard what I did wrong? ton Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Richard Hills Verzonden: woensdag 9 september 2015 14:11 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? Pre-2007 there were a lot of unproductive arguments due to loose use of the word "psyche". Since 2007 the new Law 40C1 sidesteps unproductive "psyche" debates by not using the word. Ton and Sven are discussing a case where the relevant Law 40C1 phrase is: "always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents." Hence Sven is right and Ton is wrong. Even Homer nods. Best wishes, Richard Hills ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ton Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? To: Bridge Laws Mailing List This looks like a wrong answer to me. It is similar to the guy who proofs to the TD that he reacted completely normally on the psyche from partner. The opponents have the right to know what you are doing and always opening with 15 when the cc shows 16-18 is a severe infraction. I am almost sure that Sven knows this but overlooked the 'all hands' in the question. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: woensdag 9 september 2015 7:14 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? > Robert Frick {....} > To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he > wants to play 1NT as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce > that, but I have already decided I am going to open all 15 point hands > 1NT. Is this legal? [Sven Pran] Yes, it is legal until your new partner becomes aware that you might more or less frequently deviate from what you have declared on the card. Your declaration is illegal from the very moment he realizes that your declaration is inaccurate. _______________________________________________ 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/20150910/dcb804cd/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Sep 10 09:11:58 2015 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:11:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <030B6E34F8CD4DEA85A6912D68131FF6@G3> References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> <030B6E34F8CD4DEA85A6912D68131FF6@G3> Message-ID: <001a01d0eb97$fb9465a0$f2bd30e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Of course that is not allowed. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Nigel Guthrie Verzonden: woensdag 9 september 2015 19:06 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? Do players have to describe what they play? It seems strange that a player is allowed to play an asymmetric system, completely different from what he describes on his card, until his partner becomes aware of the details of those deviations (eventually if ever). For example, if partner tends to be oblivious of your signals. a cunning ploy is to include elaborate carding-methods on your card. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 10 16:26:11 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:26:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A__Do_players_have_to_describe_what_they_pl?= =?utf-8?b?YXk/?= In-Reply-To: <003201d0eb2d$0a726830$1f573890$@online.no> References: "\" <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no>" <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>" <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> <030B6E34F8CD4DEA85A6912D68131FF6@G3> <003201d0eb2d$0a726830$1f573890$@online.no> Message-ID: <2ca7e9685d01db5904586858e6d65228@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 09.09.2015 20:26, Sven Pran a ?crit?: >> Nigel Guthrie >> It seems strange that a player is allowed to play an asymmetric >> system, >> completely different from what he describes on his card, until his >> partner >> becomes aware of the details of those deviations (eventually if >> ever). > For >> example, if partner tends to be oblivious of your signals. a cunning >> ploy > is >> to include elaborate carding-methods on your card. > > [Sven Pran] > This would be a serious violation of Law 40C1 because partner > (implicitly) > has "more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" > simply because of his ignorance/oblivion! > > And the only applicable word describing a player who declares an > understanding from which he deliberately deviates knowing that partner > will > hardly ever remember the understanding anyway is "cheat". Nigel didn't say the intent was to deviate from the announcement. If it was the case, it would indeed be a problem, because it counts as creating a new agreement, of which partner might be aware ... except that he isn't. Most probably, those who write TFLB didn't address the case of the dumb partner. There is a linked problem : what if a pair has agreed on a delicate gadget, which one player never remembers to use ? Are they playing different systems ? No. Is the player allowed not to use the gadget at the time it woudl be useful ? Of course. Is his partner still allowed to use it (provided that partner will remember it when it happens) ? I hope so. Best regards Alain Best reegards Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 16:23:43 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:23:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <55f12ee5.ca09c20a.4440b.ffffde76SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> <030B6E34F8CD4DEA85A6912D68131FF6@G3> <55f12ee5.ca09c20a.4440b.ffffde76SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman: I am still quite willing to learn from my mistakes, but then I need to know what mistake I made. May I ask Richard what I did wrong? Richard Hills: In my opinion Ton' analysis was consistent with a section on page 8 of the WBF Code of Practice. For example, suppose Herman De Wael opens 1H in third seat at favourable vulnerability. Herman's partner carefully bids on the assumption that Herman holds values with five or more hearts. Alas, Herman's partner is well aware that Herman has perpetrated a two-way bid, with the other option being a lack of values and exactly three hearts. The Code of Practice emphasises a timely disclosure of such a two-way partnership understanding. (And in almost all Regulating Authorities the Herman 1H is an illegal partnership understanding.) However, where Sven and I differ from Ton is that the very first time a player chooses to deviate from system such deviation is necessarily permissible. Law 40A3: "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." Best wishes, Richard Hills PS Homer wrote the epic poems The Iliad and The Odyssey. The old-fashioned idiom "Even Homer nods" means that a genius may still make an occasional error. On Thursday, September 10, 2015, ton > wrote: > I am still quite willing to learn from my mistakes, but then I need to > know what mistake I made. May I ask Richard what I did wrong? > > > > ton > > > > *Van:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *Namens *Richard > Hills > *Verzonden:* woensdag 9 september 2015 14:11 > *Aan:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Onderwerp:* [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? > > > > Pre-2007 there were a lot of unproductive arguments due to loose use of > the word "psyche". Since 2007 the new Law 40C1 sidesteps unproductive > "psyche" debates by not using the word. Ton and Sven are discussing a case > where the relevant Law 40C1 phrase is: > > > > "always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the > deviation than have the opponents." > > > > Hence Sven is right and Ton is wrong. Even Homer nods. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *ton* > Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 > Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > This looks like a wrong answer to me. It is similar to the guy who proofs > to the TD that he reacted completely normally on the psyche from partner. > > The opponents have the right to know what you are doing and always opening > with 15 when the cc shows 16-18 is a severe infraction. I am almost sure > that Sven knows this but overlooked the 'all hands' in the question. > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven > Pran > Verzonden: woensdag 9 september 2015 7:14 > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? > > > Robert Frick > {....} > > To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he > > wants to play 1NT as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce > > that, but I have already decided I am going to open all 15 point hands > > 1NT. Is this legal? > > [Sven Pran] > Yes, it is legal until your new partner becomes aware that you might more > or > less frequently deviate from what you have declared on the card. > > Your declaration is illegal from the very moment he realizes that your > declaration is inaccurate. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150910/f7e5ce6d/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 10 16:17:27 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:17:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Do_players_have_to_describe_what_they_play=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 09.09.2015 03:28, David Grabiner a ?crit?: > This is not legal. If you write, "16 to 18", you have an agreement to > open all > hands which you judge to be worth 16 to 18. AG : do not agree. Playing 16-18, you'll never make me open 1NT on AQxx - KJX - xx - AKJx (clearly a medium 18-count), even if onr thousand experts did. Anticipation. Furthermore, it is explicitly allowed to have different styles. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 10 16:11:01 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:11:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A__Do_players_have_to_describe_what_they_pl?= =?utf-8?b?YXk/?= In-Reply-To: <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> References: "\"" <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no>" <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> Message-ID: <4f5cccbfec5c055ee56efbedb8413da3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 09.09.2015 15:40, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > Law 40C1 in 2007 introduced no new rule in the laws of Bridge except > that it spelt out this all-important principle in plain words not open > for any possible misunderstanding. > > Personally I remember being trained during my first TD course back in > 1980 to understand and apply this principle. > AG : IMO L40 isn't there to deal with this transitory situation. Soon, partner will become conscious of the player's tendencies, and the "frequent devations" will have created a new agreement. So, what has been described can only happen in an occasional partnership. That being said, I know that both players must use the same system, but I don't see how we can compel the other element of the pair to open 1NT on a plain 15 count even when the agreement will be 15-18. I'm known for not opening balanced hands that my partner would open, or making a lesser opening, e.g. 1C on a so-so 15-count. This surely is within the limits of personal style. (or I might argue that it fits with my mediocre dummy handling). Best regards Alain From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Thu Sep 10 15:04:44 2015 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:04:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 9, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:28:41 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > >> When they say "5 to 11", they imply that they would open 2S on a typical >> 11-count, say KQJxxx x AJx xxx. This is the right hand-type for a weak 2-bid if >> it is in the agreed range. > > Exactly! But they don't -- they put 5 to 11 on their card and would never open than hand 2 Spades. That's a great 11 point hand. I was told they open 1 Spade with most 11 HCP hand and it would take a relatively bad 11 HCP hand for them to open with a weak two. As their actual range really seems to be 5-10, one could imagine that their card used to be sensibly marked 5-10, until the day they chose to open 2S on AKJxxx/xxx/Qx/Jxx, the director was called, and they were instructed to change their card to 5-11. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From nistler at bridgehands.com Fri Sep 11 00:35:36 2015 From: nistler at bridgehands.com (Nistler@BridgeHands.com) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:35:36 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > This hand has caused some controversy here. A player opened 1S in first seat,vul versus not, with > > AK8753 > K43 > 10 > 742 > > The opponents were upset, roughly, that their card did not say that this hand would be opened 1 Spade. Where is Don Oakey now that we need him? ? within a queen in strength or one card in length. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 11 04:04:29 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:04:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great example. At our club, players are required to announce "could be short" if their 1 club opening could be as few as 2 clubs. There was no warning, the opponents claimed damage, and I asked why she opened 1 Club. Their agreement, explicit, they both knew, recently decided upon, was that it shows at least 3 clubs. However, she was 4-4-3-2, playing 5 card majors and had also just made the agreement that a 1 Diamond opening shows 4 or more diamonds. So she had no opening bid, so she bid 1 Club. Do I just say "People can deviate from their system all they want as long as there is no implicit understanding? You were told their agreement." Then they get to open a short club without warning the opponents, simply because they did not think through their system. Everyone else PLAYING THE EXACT SAME SYSTEM is required to announce that because they understand their system? Not right. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Sep 11 04:22:18 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:22:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F23ADA.8080808@nhcc.net> On 2015-09-10 10:04 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Their agreement, explicit, they both knew, recently decided upon, was > that it shows at least 3 clubs. However, she was 4-4-3-2, playing 5 > card majors and had also just made the agreement that a 1 Diamond > opening shows 4 or more diamonds. This one is easy: because of the other restrictions, they have an implicit agreement to open 1C on this shape. At least that's how you should rule because of L21B1b if nothing else. A more common example is 1H-1NT(forcing), and opener is 4=5=2=2. Even if they haven't talked about it, they have an implicit agreement to do _something_ with this shape. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Sep 11 09:39:55 2015 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:39:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> <030B6E34F8CD4DEA85A6912D68131FF6@G3> <55f12ee5.ca09c20a.4440b.ffffde76SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <000f01d0ec65$0d78ffb0$286aff10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Richard: However, where Sven and I differ from Ton is that the very first time a player chooses to deviate from system such deviation is necessarily permissible. ton: Did I say something different, I hope not because I am willing to agree with this statement. I reacted on the statement below. Player A puts 16-18 on the cc, his partner tells to open all 15 points hands with 1NT. Question: is this legal? Sven: yes, it is until?, calling it a deviation. I am 100% sure that it is not legal, because it is not a deviation, it is part of the system. To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he > wants to play 1NT as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce > that, but I have already decided I am going to open all 15 point hands > 1NT. Is this legal? [Sven Pran] Yes, it is legal until your new partner becomes aware that you might more or less frequently deviate from what you have declared on the card. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150911/dc8e7b11/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 11 13:35:24 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:35:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Do_players_have_to_describe_what_they_play=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 10.09.2015 15:04, Eric Landau a ?crit?: > On Sep 9, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:28:41 -0400, David Grabiner >> wrote: >> >>> When they say "5 to 11", they imply that they would open 2S on a >>> typical >>> 11-count, say KQJxxx x AJx xxx. This is the right hand-type for a >>> weak 2-bid if >>> it is in the agreed range. >> >> Exactly! But they don't -- they put 5 to 11 on their card and would >> never open than hand 2 Spades. That's a great 11 point hand. I was >> told they open 1 Spade with most 11 HCP hand and it would take a >> relatively bad 11 HCP hand for them to open with a weak two. > > As their actual range really seems to be 5-10, one could imagine that > their card used to be sensibly marked 5-10, until the day they chose > to open 2S on AKJxxx/xxx/Qx/Jxx, the director was called, and they > were instructed to change their card to 5-11. > > What about 5-10(11) ? Parentheses mean 'seldom used', don't they ? Anyway, even those who frequently open 2S with 11 wouldn't with the hand as given ... From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 11 13:41:42 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:41:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Do_players_have_to_describe_what_they_play=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 11.09.2015 04:04, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > Great example. At our club, players are required to announce "could be > short" if their 1 club opening could be as few as 2 clubs. > > There was no warning, the opponents claimed damage, and I asked why > she opened 1 Club. Their agreement, explicit, they both knew, recently > decided upon, was that it shows at least 3 clubs. However, she was > 4-4-3-2, playing 5 card majors and had also just made the agreement > that a 1 Diamond opening shows 4 or more diamonds. > > So she had no opening bid, so she bid 1 Club. > > Do I just say "People can deviate from their system all they want as > long as there is no implicit understanding? You were told their > agreement." > > Then they get to open a short club without warning the opponents, > simply because they did not think through their system. Everyone else > PLAYING THE EXACT SAME SYSTEM is required to announce that because > they understand their system? > > Not right. IMO playing a system where there is no possible opening (nor pass) with some common hand shouldn't be legal. In particular, systems where the sum of minimal lengths for all four suits are more than 16. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 11 13:43:17 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:43:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Do_players_have_to_describe_what_they_play=3F?= In-Reply-To: <55F23ADA.8080808@nhcc.net> References: <55F23ADA.8080808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <9e7693d244a4a8404d4238528621fbc9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 11.09.2015 04:22, Steve Willner a ?crit?: > On 2015-09-10 10:04 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Their agreement, explicit, they both knew, recently decided upon, was >> that it shows at least 3 clubs. However, she was 4-4-3-2, playing 5 >> card majors and had also just made the agreement that a 1 Diamond >> opening shows 4 or more diamonds. > > This one is easy: because of the other restrictions, they have an > implicit agreement to open 1C on this shape. At least that's how you > should rule because of L21B1b if nothing else. A more common example > is > 1H-1NT(forcing), and opener is 4=5=2=2. Even if they haven't talked > about it, they have an implicit agreement to do _something_ with this > shape. AG : well, perhaps not. One above-average pair in our club gave different answers when asked what they would do. So, obviously, no agreement. They now have one. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Sep 11 15:11:01 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F2D2E5.7020203@nhcc.net> On 2015-09-11 7:41 AM, agot wrote: > IMO playing a system where there is no possible opening (nor pass) with > some common hand shouldn't be legal. The ACBL agrees with Alain, though I wouldn't go that far myself. At least in casual settings, I think it's fine to have incomplete or nonexistent agreements. The only requirement is that the incompleteness has to be disclosed to opponents, and the way to enforce that is to rule MI if disclosure is insufficient. In the 1H-1NT and opener is 4=5=2=2 case, having no agreement is fine, and having partners handle the problem hand in different ways is fine, but it all has to be disclosed. As an analogy, the Kaplan-Sheinwold bidding system handles this problem distribution in three different ways depending on the respective suit qualities. That's no legal problem as long as opponents get correct explanations of each applicable sequence when it occurs. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 11 16:00:38 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:00:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Do_players_have_to_describe_what_they_play=3F?= In-Reply-To: <55F2D2E5.7020203@nhcc.net> References: <55F2D2E5.7020203@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Le 11.09.2015 15:11, Steve Willner a ?crit?: > On 2015-09-11 7:41 AM, agot wrote: >> IMO playing a system where there is no possible opening (nor pass) >> with >> some common hand shouldn't be legal. > > The ACBL agrees with Alain, though I wouldn't go that far myself. At > least in casual settings, I think it's fine to have incomplete or > nonexistent agreements. The only requirement is that the > incompleteness > has to be disclosed to opponents, and the way to enforce that is to > rule > MI if disclosure is insufficient. > > In the 1H-1NT and opener is 4=5=2=2 case, having no agreement is fine, > and having partners handle the problem hand in different ways is fine, > but it all has to be disclosed. As an analogy, the Kaplan-Sheinwold > bidding system handles this problem distribution in three different > ways > depending on the respective suit qualities. That's no legal problem as > long as opponents get correct explanations of each applicable sequence > when it occurs. The KS rule is of course perfectly legal, but it's not 'no agreement', it's a complex agreement. And I think that, at the moment you both know that your system is incomplete, and you don't want to make it complete, you have an agreement always to lie in some way with 4=4=3=2. Do you think this is allowed ? And of course some (especially in the US) don't open 1H with this pattern and less than reversing values, making it a "did you stop beating your wife" question. Another example : it might be perfectly legal to open strong club, 4-card 1D/1H/1S, 5-card 2C, 13-15 NT. I used to do, and invariably got the psittacic question "what then do you do with 3334 12-count ?" because it didn't happen one single second to them that one might pass a 12-count. It wasn't 'no agreement' of course, it was an old-fashioned agreement to be careful with 3334 (and 3343). Best regards Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- A. From bridgeinindia at gmail.com Fri Sep 11 21:03:32 2015 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (BridgeinIndia) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:33:32 +0530 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Casebooks are back In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *?Dear Mr Adam Wildavsky* *Our greetings to you * *Sorry we are again writing to you.* *Here are 2 Ebooks -* *1 2015 spring recent * *2 All Unauthorised information appeals of all 3 of 2011 NABCs? in one Ebook* *.* *We opened both in Kindle Ebook reader* *With RegardsDr Raghavan.P.S.Editor at BridgeIndia.com BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph =+91-044-23761038Mobile = 9940273749* *?--------------------------------------------------------*? On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Doh! I violated two of my own rules: > > 1. Copy and paste links, don't retype them. > 2. Test links before pressing "Send." > > The correct URL is bridgeindia.com > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >> Thanks for writing! I am familiar with the bridgeinindia.com site. I've >> found it useful in the past. I'm looking forward to visiting Chennai later >> this year. >> >> You replied to the list but I expect you meant to reply to me personally. >> I've moved the list to Bcc, and I will continue the conversation in a >> separate message. >> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:04 PM, BridgeinIndia >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Mr Adam Widavsky, >>> >>> Our greetings to you. >>> >>> I am Dr Raghavan from Chennai of Tamil nadu in India, maintaining a >>> website for the past 15 years, without ant advertisements only for bridge >>> game. View> http://www.bridgeindia.com/ We maintain this as a free >>> service to bridge, spending from our personal savings not expecting any >>> returns. >>> >>> We have published the case books which you mentioned in a mail to BLML ( >>> I am a member of BLML) >>> >>> We offer our voluntary and free service to your work like case books etc >>> since you are a world class player playing tourneys, also work with WBF >>> etc. >>> >>> We suggest You give a trial work pf preparing PDF pages for one case >>> book. We shall do it and send it back to you. Kindly forget my suggestion >>> if you have a better alternative. >>> >>> We are not practicing medicine after our retirement as Chief Medical >>> Officer of Ashok Leyland ( Truck manufacturer) and hence have some time to >>> spare for Bridge. >>> >>> On 15th July, a visitor from Washington DC viewed 44 pages. - details as >>> attachment >>> >>> Half of the visitors to our site are from USA - clicking the map shows. >>> ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *With RegardsDr Raghavan.P.S.Editor at BridgeIndia.com >>> BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com >>> Ph =+91-044-23761038 <%2B91-044-23761038>Mobile >>> = 9940273749? * >>> *------------------------------------------------------------*? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Adam Wildavsky >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The Fall 2011 (Seattle) casebook with comments is posted here: >>>> >>>> http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2011SeattleCasebook.pdf >>>> >>>> We're now working on the Spring 2015 (New Orleans) casebook and hope to >>>> post its comments and those from 2012-2014 over the next few months. >>>> >>>> All the ACBL casebooks published so far are available here: >>>> >>>> http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/nabcs/past-nabcs/nabc-casebooks/ >>>> >>>> Right now commentary is available only through 2011. >>>> >>>> If you want to discuss a particular case from Seattle or any other >>>> casebook please start a separate thread whose subject indicates the >>>> casebook name, the case number, and whether it is an NABC+ case (heard by a >>>> player committee) or a non-NABC+ case (heard by a panel of TDs.) >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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/20150911/d1ba3090/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NABC Spring 2015 New Orleans.mobi Type: application/octet-stream Size: 150725 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150911/d1ba3090/attachment-0002.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Appeals_all_three_2011_NABC_unauthoueided_informat.mobi Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2128065 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150911/d1ba3090/attachment-0003.obj From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 14 00:47:07 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:47:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend Message-ID: 1C P 1H P 1NT P P P The opponents are not happy that he has rebid 1NT (12-14) with 18 HCP. Everyone else is bidding 2NT with that hand and going down in one contract or another; he makes 1NT. If you, director, want to support this shit, L40A3 is on your side. You show the opponents the law: A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding If you want to protect the opponents, who probably deserve protection, you start out asking the player why he rebid 1NT. Both times I have seen this happen, the player said he just felt like bidding it. And he said "I can bid what I want", which is a pretty good layman's version of L40A3. What has almost certainly happened is he saw his partner agonize before bidding 1H. It's the easiest bid to make in Standard American, so a long hesitation pretty much shows a subminimal hand. Do you, director, want to support the use of UI? Second possibility is a wire, but then he probably would have opened 1NT. Do you, director, want to support the use of wires? What's the third possibility? That he downgraded a bad 18 to only 14? The reality is, players have reasons when they deviate from their systems. There's more good reasons than I could successfully list. But when they have a bad reason, they should not be allowed to keep their bid. And if you try to protect the opponents, suddenly L40A3 is not on your side. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 10 11:41:57 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:41:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> Message-ID: <55F15065.1010805@skynet.be> This is the kind of reasoning I abhor. While it is theoretically true, it is practically unusable. If we use Sven's criteria, then, in order to be able to rule against a player who has deviated from system, we must: 1) find out that he has done so previously; 2) with this same partner; 3) who remembers that it has been done before. None of the three can ever be satisfactorily proven: 1) is simply untrue, because the player has never been in the exact same situation, with the exact same hand. 2) is basically unimportant, as the current partner may have heard about the previous deviation in some other way, possibly even unknown to the current deviatee. 3) can only be proven if the partner admits to it, so how are we to believe it when the partner does not admit it? Rather, I believe that we must deal with deviations in exactly the same way as the Law tells us to do with misexplanations: trat them as systemic unless there is written evidence to the contrary (which in these cases is indeed almost impossible to have). I am certainly not saying that any deviation is systemic. If a player opens a 15-17 NT on 14, this does not mean the system is actually 14-17, but it does mean that the system is 15- to 17. The opponents are entitled to know that, while the agreed range is 15-17, there will be certain 14's that will also be opened 1NT. The frequency and type with which this is done must be known to opponents (and a certain small frequency should be understood). We should not need to investigate whether the current partner knows this frequency in order to rule that the opponents are entitled to the same knowledge. The mere fact of the bid tells us that the frequency is not zero, and the actual frequency should be determined from the reasons the player gives us for his deviation. In most cases, when the frequency is low, the knowledge of this frequency will not alter the decision by opponents, and although we should be ruling MI, there will be no damage. But is some cases, mostly involving safety plays, even a small frequency might be enough to warrant a change in opponent's actions, and damage may arise. Don't forget that we can use weighted scores there (at least in Europe and the WBF). We should definitely NOT be ruling that a deviation is only disclosable if partner IS aware that it may happen. The frequency of a deviation is something the opponents are entitled to, even if partner tells us he is not aware of the possibility. And the same is true of psyches, and it does not make then systemic. Herman. Sven Pran schreef: >> Robert Frick > {....} >> To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he wants >> to play 1NT as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce that, but I >> have already decided I am going to open all 15 point hands 1NT. Is this >> legal? > > [Sven Pran] > Yes, it is legal until your new partner becomes aware that you might more or > less frequently deviate from what you have declared on the card. > > Your declaration is illegal from the very moment he realizes that your > declaration is inaccurate. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 10 11:47:53 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:47:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <001a01d0eb97$fb9465a0$f2bd30e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> <030B6E34F8CD4DEA85A6912D68131FF6@G3> <001a01d0eb97$fb9465a0$f2bd30e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <55F151C9.7070502@skynet.be> Of course it's not allowed. But by Sven's standard, it can never be ruled against, since the partner does not know about the deviation. Now of course Sven will say that they've just admitted to this cunning ploy, so he can rule against it. But the cunning part of the ploy is to not admit that this is what they are doing. How is Sven going to rule against them now? Especially if he's being director at a tournament in Croatia and the culprits are Latvian? The mere fact that a player is deviating from his declared system should be enough for the director to be allowed to rule against him. Herman. ton schreef: > Of course that is not allowed. > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Nigel > Guthrie > Verzonden: woensdag 9 september 2015 19:06 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? > > Do players have to describe what they play? > > It seems strange that a player is allowed to play an asymmetric system, > completely different from what he describes on his card, until his partner > becomes aware of the details of those deviations (eventually if ever). For > example, if partner tends to be oblivious of your signals. a cunning ploy is > to include elaborate carding-methods on your card. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 14 12:30:56 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:30:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <197ddf32122627d07f5b201365e1e4aa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 14.09.2015 00:47, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > 1C P 1H P > 1NT P P P > > The opponents are not happy that he has rebid 1NT (12-14) with 18 HCP. > Everyone else is bidding 2NT with that hand and going down in one > contract or another; he makes 1NT. > > If you, director, want to support this shit, L40A3 is on your side. > You show the opponents the law: > > A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided > that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership > understanding > > If you want to protect the opponents, who probably deserve protection, > you start out asking the player why he rebid 1NT. Both times I have > seen this happen, the player said he just felt like bidding it. And he > said "I can bid what I want", which is a pretty good layman's version > of L40A3. > > What has almost certainly happened is he saw his partner agonize > before bidding 1H. It's the easiest bid to make in Standard American, > so a long hesitation pretty much shows a subminimal hand. Do you, > director, want to support the use of UI? > > Second possibility is a wire, but then he probably would have opened > 1NT. Do you, director, want to support the use of wires? > > What's the third possibility? That he downgraded a bad 18 to only 14? That he forgot he didn't play Polish Club anymore ? That he didn't see an Ace ? That he's dumb ? If, and only if, the 1H bid was unexpectedly weak, you're on firm ground. There exists such a thing as fielding an overbid. But is it the case ? "almost certainly" doens't feel right. Last time I saw a player do that, the reason was that he felt he had insufficient spade stopper to bid 2NT. Best regards Alain > > > The reality is, players have reasons when they deviate from their > systems. There's more good reasons than I could successfully list. But > when they have a bad reason, they should not be allowed to keep their > bid. And if you try to protect the opponents, suddenly L40A3 is not on > your side. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- A. From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 14 12:35:14 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:35:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <55F151C9.7070502@skynet.be> References: <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no> <030B6E34F8CD4DEA85A6912D68131FF6@G3> <001a01d0eb97$fb9465a0$f2bd30e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <55F151C9.7070502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301d0eed9$0b31a060$2194e120$@online.no> I think we all agree what is legal and what is not legal in bridge. To get this into proportion I think a study of Boye Brogeland's recent allegations is in order. He has collected a tremendous amount of evidence for his allegation; it remains to be seen whether it is sufficient for a conviction. So discussing using any C... word based on just a few suspicious incidents is in my view completely unfounded, it takes much more than that. Goldfinger said, "Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time it's enemy action.' " Sven > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 10. september 2015 11:48 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? > > Of course it's not allowed. > But by Sven's standard, it can never be ruled against, since the partner does > not know about the deviation. > Now of course Sven will say that they've just admitted to this cunning ploy, > so he can rule against it. But the cunning part of the ploy is to not admit > that this is what they are doing. How is Sven going to rule against them > now? Especially if he's being director at a tournament in Croatia and the > culprits are Latvian? The mere fact that a player is deviating from his > declared system should be enough for the director to be allowed to rule > against him. > Herman. > > ton schreef: > > Of course that is not allowed. > > > > ton > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens > > Nigel Guthrie > > Verzonden: woensdag 9 september 2015 19:06 > > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Do players have to describe what they play? > > > > Do players have to describe what they play? > > > > It seems strange that a player is allowed to play an asymmetric > > system, completely different from what he describes on his card, until > > his partner becomes aware of the details of those deviations > > (eventually if ever). For example, if partner tends to be oblivious > > of your signals. a cunning ploy is to include elaborate carding-methods on > your card. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 14 12:51:33 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:51:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Deviation or Systemic? Message-ID: <55F6A6B5.9000606@skynet.be> An illustration abut how difficult this distinction can be: 2Di Multi 2Sp interested in hearts 2NT 22-23 3Cl Puppet 3NT no 5-or 4-card major pass It turns out opener has five spades : AKJxx Asked why the response had not been 3Sp, the reply was: "I know from the 2Sp bid that partner does not have spades, so I decided to deviate from system". The original director was about to rule in their favor, stating among other things that they were not a ficed partnership. Now in this case I knew differently, having seen them play together only a month before. But even then, they were the regular partners of a regular partnership,, and they travelled to the tournaments four in one car. Who's to say they have not come across this auction before? I want to believe them when they say they haven't, but then I also have to "believe" those who I don't believe for fear of calling those others cheats and liars? So in the end we decided to rule misinformation (correct explanation of 3NT being "no 4 hearts") and we decided not to accept a resulting damage. Interesting afterthought: when I told the bidding to another player, he said "my partner had better not done that to me, because denying spades means showing minors and he'd been playing 6Di in the 3-3 fit a bit later". Just to show that this is not an easy topic, but also that we should not be too quick to rule deviation in cases that are very near to systemic! Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 14 12:53:05 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:53:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cold case In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <694420131d3cf8830474130e2333181e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Hi all Robert's last post remembers me of and old case, mentioned in The Bridge World. My opinion is that the AC was wrong in changing the score, and that TBW, by insisting that one should foresee the most plausible sequences before one bids, said something right but irrelevant. What's your opinion ? South's hand KQxx ATxxx x 9xx p 1C 1H 2NT (slow) 3S 3NT 4C It should be noticed that this pair opens 1D with 44 minors. (this has been used as an argument by the AC, so I mention it) The AC's ruling was that the slow 2NT bid, in a not-unexpected bidding sequence, meant that the 2NT bid wasn't pure (agreed) and that therefore partner was restricted on his next turn to speak. With that last bit I can't agree. TFLB says clearly that, in order to be disallowed, an option must have been unmistakably suggested by partner's tempo or other mannerism. Here, let's see what can have happened. Case 1 : South is a weak player, not able to foresee the second round of bidding. He obviously holds an imperfect hand, which might be any one of the following : - too weak or too strong : doesn't suggest either passing or bidding - long clubs : suggests bidding - 4 spades : doesn't fit with the 3NT bid - no diamond stopper : doesn't fit with the 3NT bid - no spade stopper : suggests passing 3NT - 4 diamonds : difficult to assess : it seems to favor passing, but the reason for not bidding 2D might be a weak suit Case 2 : South has enough experience not to be disconcerted by a simple 1H response. Then one might suspect he realized something at this moment : - too weak or too strong, he miscounted his points and should have opened either 1NT or 2NT : doesn't suggest either - realized he was wrong within the system, e.g. he in fact holds 3244 and should have opened 1D : suggests passing All in all, my feeling is that neither passing nor bidding has been "unmistakably suggested", and therefore neither should be disallowed. Do you agree ? What should we answer if South's defense was : "from partner's reaction, I thought he held 44 minors, which is consistent from the 3NT bid. So, I decided that passing was suggested and decided to 'bend backwards' by making the wrong bid of 4C' " ? In a sense, apart from the similar starting sequence, Robert's case seems similar to me. What the "difficult" 1H bid is unascertainable : very weak hand, very strong hand, 47 reds (with which one might want to forget Walsh and bid 1D), limited 56 in majors, whatever. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 14 16:36:59 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:36:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_Do_players_have_to_describe_what_they_pla?= =?utf-8?q?y=3F?= In-Reply-To: <001301d0eed9$0b31a060$2194e120$@online.no> References: "\" <000601d0eabe$5527c560$ff775020$@online.no> <55efe60a.a195b40a.6d306.2b9fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <001b01d0eb05$0f684580$2e38d080$@online.no>" <030B6E34F8CD4DEA85A6912D68131FF6@G3>" <001a01d0eb97$fb9465a0$f2bd30e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <55F151C9.7070502@skynet.be> <001301d0eed9$0b31a060$2194e120$@online.no> Message-ID: Le 14.09.2015 12:35, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > I think we all agree what is legal and what is not legal in bridge. > > To get this into proportion I think a study of Boye Brogeland's recent > allegations is in order. > He has collected a tremendous amount of evidence for his allegation; it > remains to be seen whether it is sufficient for a conviction. AG : I hope so. I can't help but think that in the 2005 'racecars' incident the decision was taken very lightly, as the main source of information was a statement by one single non-neutral person. The more so as lines of play similar to the incriminated one were applauded by commentators in many other cases as brilliant attempts at swinging. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 15 18:20:55 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 12:20:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: <197ddf32122627d07f5b201365e1e4aa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <197ddf32122627d07f5b201365e1e4aa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:30:56 -0400, agot wrote: > Le 14.09.2015 00:47, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> 1C P 1H P >> 1NT P P P >> >> The opponents are not happy that he has rebid 1NT (12-14) with 18 HCP. >> Everyone else is bidding 2NT with that hand and going down in one >> contract or another; he makes 1NT. >> >> If you, director, want to support this shit, L40A3 is on your side. >> You show the opponents the law: >> >> A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided >> that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership >> understanding >> >> If you want to protect the opponents, who probably deserve protection, >> you start out asking the player why he rebid 1NT. Both times I have >> seen this happen, the player said he just felt like bidding it. And he >> said "I can bid what I want", which is a pretty good layman's version >> of L40A3. >> >> What has almost certainly happened is he saw his partner agonize >> before bidding 1H. It's the easiest bid to make in Standard American, >> so a long hesitation pretty much shows a subminimal hand. Do you, >> director, want to support the use of UI? >> >> Second possibility is a wire, but then he probably would have opened >> 1NT. Do you, director, want to support the use of wires? >> >> What's the third possibility? That he downgraded a bad 18 to only 14? > > That he forgot he didn't play Polish Club anymore ? > That he didn't see an Ace ? > That he's dumb ? > > If, and only if, the 1H bid was unexpectedly weak, you're on firm > ground. There exists such a thing as fielding an overbid. > > But is it the case ? "almost certainly" doens't feel right. > > Last time I saw a player do that, the reason was that he felt he had > insufficient spade stopper to bid 2NT. Yes, both times I saw this the 1H bid was "unexpectedly weak". Your player without a spade stopper was unwilling to open 1NT? Yes, there is such a thing as fielding an overbid. That's what happened both times. What law do we use? From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 12:18:25 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:18:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: <197ddf32122627d07f5b201365e1e4aa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <197ddf32122627d07f5b201365e1e4aa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] If, and only if, the 1H bid was unexpectedly weak, you're on firm ground. There exists such a thing as fielding an overbid. [snip] Richard Hills: Nowhere in The Fine Law Book does the word "fielding" appear. However, sometimes Laws 16B and 73C may apply. If 1H was not only unexpectedly weak, but also out-of-tempo, and the UI demonstrably suggests that opener choose an ultra-conservative rebid, then the Director may adjust the score. The actual Director showed his inexperience when he asked opener an irrelevant question about the reason for the ultra-conservative rebid. Rather, the actual Director should instead have determined whether or not the 1H response was in fact bid out-of-tempo (Law 85 - Rulings on Disputed Facts). Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, September 14, 2015, agot wrote: > Le 14.09.2015 00:47, Robert Frick a ?crit : > > 1C P 1H P > > 1NT P P P > > > > The opponents are not happy that he has rebid 1NT (12-14) with 18 HCP. > > Everyone else is bidding 2NT with that hand and going down in one > > contract or another; he makes 1NT. > > > > If you, director, want to support this shit, L40A3 is on your side. > > You show the opponents the law: > > > > A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided > > that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership > > understanding > > > > If you want to protect the opponents, who probably deserve protection, > > you start out asking the player why he rebid 1NT. Both times I have > > seen this happen, the player said he just felt like bidding it. And he > > said "I can bid what I want", which is a pretty good layman's version > > of L40A3. > > > > What has almost certainly happened is he saw his partner agonize > > before bidding 1H. It's the easiest bid to make in Standard American, > > so a long hesitation pretty much shows a subminimal hand. Do you, > > director, want to support the use of UI? > > > > Second possibility is a wire, but then he probably would have opened > > 1NT. Do you, director, want to support the use of wires? > > > > What's the third possibility? That he downgraded a bad 18 to only 14? > > That he forgot he didn't play Polish Club anymore ? > That he didn't see an Ace ? > That he's dumb ? > > If, and only if, the 1H bid was unexpectedly weak, you're on firm > ground. There exists such a thing as fielding an overbid. > > But is it the case ? "almost certainly" doens't feel right. > > Last time I saw a player do that, the reason was that he felt he had > insufficient spade stopper to bid 2NT. > > > Best regards > > > > Alain > > > > > > > > The reality is, players have reasons when they deviate from their > > systems. There's more good reasons than I could successfully list. But > > when they have a bad reason, they should not be allowed to keep their > > bid. And if you try to protect the opponents, suddenly L40A3 is not on > > your side. > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- > A. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150916/572671f3/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 16 20:23:48 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:23:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <197ddf32122627d07f5b201365e1e4aa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:18:25 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [snip] > > If, and only if, the 1H bid was unexpectedly weak, you're on firm ground. > There exists such a thing as fielding an overbid. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Nowhere in The Fine Law Book does the word "fielding" appear. However, > sometimes Laws 16B and 73C may apply. If 1H was not only unexpectedly weak, > but also out-of-tempo, and the UI demonstrably suggests that opener choose > an ultra-conservative rebid, then the Director may adjust the score. > > The actual Director showed his inexperience when he asked opener an > irrelevant question about the reason for the ultra-conservative rebid. > Rather, the actual Director should instead have determined whether or not > the 1H response was in fact bid out-of-tempo (Law 85 - Rulings on Disputed > Facts). Or a facial gesture. Or, for that matter, any sign that a husband of 40 years could pick up from his wife. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Monday, September 14, 2015, agot wrote: > >> Le 14.09.2015 00:47, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> > 1C P 1H P >> > 1NT P P P >> > >> > The opponents are not happy that he has rebid 1NT (12-14) with 18 HCP. >> > Everyone else is bidding 2NT with that hand and going down in one >> > contract or another; he makes 1NT. >> > >> > If you, director, want to support this shit, L40A3 is on your side. >> > You show the opponents the law: >> > >> > A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided >> > that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership >> > understanding >> > >> > If you want to protect the opponents, who probably deserve protection, >> > you start out asking the player why he rebid 1NT. Both times I have >> > seen this happen, the player said he just felt like bidding it. And he >> > said "I can bid what I want", which is a pretty good layman's version >> > of L40A3. >> > >> > What has almost certainly happened is he saw his partner agonize >> > before bidding 1H. It's the easiest bid to make in Standard American, >> > so a long hesitation pretty much shows a subminimal hand. Do you, >> > director, want to support the use of UI? >> > >> > Second possibility is a wire, but then he probably would have opened >> > 1NT. Do you, director, want to support the use of wires? >> > >> > What's the third possibility? That he downgraded a bad 18 to only 14? >> >> That he forgot he didn't play Polish Club anymore ? >> That he didn't see an Ace ? >> That he's dumb ? >> >> If, and only if, the 1H bid was unexpectedly weak, you're on firm >> ground. There exists such a thing as fielding an overbid. >> >> But is it the case ? "almost certainly" doens't feel right. >> >> Last time I saw a player do that, the reason was that he felt he had >> insufficient spade stopper to bid 2NT. >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> Alain >> >> >> > >> > >> > The reality is, players have reasons when they deviate from their >> > systems. There's more good reasons than I could successfully list. But >> > when they have a bad reason, they should not be allowed to keep their >> > bid. And if you try to protect the opponents, suddenly L40A3 is not on >> > your side. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Blml mailing list >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> -- >> A. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 17 15:36:46 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:36:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <197ddf32122627d07f5b201365e1e4aa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Le 16.09.2015 20:23, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:18:25 -0400, Richard Hills > wrote: > >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >> [snip] >> >> If, and only if, the 1H bid was unexpectedly weak, you're on firm >> ground. >> There exists such a thing as fielding an overbid. >> >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Nowhere in The Fine Law Book does the word "fielding" appear. AG : agreed. However, we all know what it means, and it usually is a consequence of some of the signs Robert describes, which may be quite subtle. Therefore, I think that if the 1NT rebid coincides with a very weak response we may assume that some information went through, unless we get a very good explanation from the bidder. Notice that such a good explanation might be a bridge error, like those newcomers to the tournament world who bid all the way to 1NT with a combined 26 count because they had scored 60 in 2H on the previous deal ;-) From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Sep 18 03:46:44 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:46:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <197ddf32122627d07f5b201365e1e4aa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <55FB6D04.4020104@nhcc.net> On 2015-09-16 6:18 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > The actual Director showed his inexperience when he asked opener an > irrelevant question about the reason for the ultra-conservative rebid. The "in" is unwarranted. > Rather, the actual Director should instead have determined whether or > not the 1H response was in fact bid out-of-tempo (Law 85 - Rulings on > Disputed Facts). Yes. The question asked by _experienced_ Directors is helpful in making that determination. It's surprising how often the answer will confirm that UI was made available. Other times it will illuminate different aspects of the situation. Directors have a responsibility to determine the facts before applying the Laws to those facts. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Sep 18 03:51:43 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:51:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> On 2015-09-13 6:47 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > The reality is, players have reasons when they deviate from their > systems. There's more good reasons than I could successfully list. > But when they have a bad reason, they should not be allowed to keep > their bid. And if you try to protect the opponents, suddenly L40A3 is > not on your side. The reasons aren't directly relevant, but if they have "used UI," there's a problem. Also, if the alleged "deviation" is in fact part of the system, there's a different problem (MI or possibly illegal agreement). L40A3 doesn't protect players who commit those infractions. Nobody said directing is easy. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 18 04:07:21 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 22:07:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: <55FB6D04.4020104@nhcc.net> References: <197ddf32122627d07f5b201365e1e4aa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55FB6D04.4020104@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:46:44 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2015-09-16 6:18 AM, Richard Hills wrote: >> The actual Director showed his inexperience when he asked opener an >> irrelevant question about the reason for the ultra-conservative rebid. > > The "in" is unwarranted. > >> Rather, the actual Director should instead have determined whether or >> not the 1H response was in fact bid out-of-tempo (Law 85 - Rulings on >> Disputed Facts). > > Yes. The question asked by _experienced_ Directors is helpful in making > that determination. It's surprising how often the answer will confirm > that UI was made available. Other times it will illuminate different > aspects of the situation. > > Directors have a responsibility to determine the facts before applying > the Laws to those facts. Experienced directors will also know that it is not pleasant to tell a paying customer that he used UI after he claims there was none -- he just decided to bid 1NT, as per his L40A3 right. In contrast, suppose L40A3 ended something like "Players violating their system agreements should be careful not to give the appearance of having unauthorized information." Then the ruling is much simpler to do, the player was warned in advance, and the director doesn't have to say that the player is basically a cheater just to get to the right ruling. That's how all of our other laws are constructed. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 18 12:35:44 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:35:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <197ddf32122627d07f5b201365e1e4aa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55FB6D04.4020104@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <11c993dffba4857cb4b1bb8248db2f38@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 18.09.2015 04:07, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:46:44 -0400, Steve Willner > wrote: > >> On 2015-09-16 6:18 AM, Richard Hills wrote: >>> The actual Director showed his inexperience when he asked opener an >>> irrelevant question about the reason for the ultra-conservative >>> rebid. >> >> The "in" is unwarranted. >> >>> Rather, the actual Director should instead have determined whether or >>> not the 1H response was in fact bid out-of-tempo (Law 85 - Rulings on >>> Disputed Facts). >> >> Yes. The question asked by _experienced_ Directors is helpful in >> making >> that determination. It's surprising how often the answer will confirm >> that UI was made available. Other times it will illuminate different >> aspects of the situation. >> >> Directors have a responsibility to determine the facts before applying >> the Laws to those facts. > > > Experienced directors will also know that it is not pleasant to tell a > paying customer that he used UI after he claims there was none -- he > just decided to bid 1NT, as per his L40A3 right. > > > In contrast, suppose L40A3 ended something like "Players violating > their system agreements should be careful not to give the appearance > of having unauthorized information." This would greatly change the game, and to the worse side. Because whenever you decide to 'do something', you expect to be right in some way, and whenever you will be, you will fall under L4OA3(new). Yesterday, I eschewed a weak two-bid for marginal reasons ; I guess a majority would have made it. Partner had a misfit, so I was right. Under l40A3(new) I would not keep my shared top. (for the record, the hand was : x - QJ9xxx - KJx - xxx, both vul, and partner was 6133) Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 18 13:31:08 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 07:31:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: <11c993dffba4857cb4b1bb8248db2f38@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <197ddf32122627d07f5b201365e1e4aa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55FB6D04.4020104@nhcc.net> <11c993dffba4857cb4b1bb8248db2f38@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 06:35:44 -0400, agot wrote: > Le 18.09.2015 04:07, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:46:44 -0400, Steve Willner >> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-09-16 6:18 AM, Richard Hills wrote: >>>> The actual Director showed his inexperience when he asked opener an >>>> irrelevant question about the reason for the ultra-conservative >>>> rebid. >>> >>> The "in" is unwarranted. >>> >>>> Rather, the actual Director should instead have determined whether or >>>> not the 1H response was in fact bid out-of-tempo (Law 85 - Rulings on >>>> Disputed Facts). >>> >>> Yes. The question asked by _experienced_ Directors is helpful in >>> making >>> that determination. It's surprising how often the answer will confirm >>> that UI was made available. Other times it will illuminate different >>> aspects of the situation. >>> >>> Directors have a responsibility to determine the facts before applying >>> the Laws to those facts. >> >> >> Experienced directors will also know that it is not pleasant to tell a >> paying customer that he used UI after he claims there was none -- he >> just decided to bid 1NT, as per his L40A3 right. >> >> >> In contrast, suppose L40A3 ended something like "Players violating >> their system agreements should be careful not to give the appearance >> of having unauthorized information." > > This would greatly change the game, and to the worse side. Because > whenever you decide to 'do something', you expect to be right in some > way, and whenever you will be, you will fall under L4OA3(new). > > Yesterday, I eschewed a weak two-bid for marginal reasons ; I guess a > majority would have made it. Partner had a misfit, so I was right. Under > l40A3(new) I would not keep my shared top. > > (for the record, the hand was : x - QJ9xxx - KJx - xxx, both vul, and > partner was 6133) But you have an explanation you can give to the director. I was thinking of more like you open 1 Heart, partner makes a limit major raise, and you decide to play 3 Hearts despite having obvious extra values. There is no reason you can give to declarer except that you decided to bid 3 Hearts and to site L40A3. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 18 13:34:20 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 07:34:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:51:43 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2015-09-13 6:47 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> The reality is, players have reasons when they deviate from their >> systems. There's more good reasons than I could successfully list. >> But when they have a bad reason, they should not be allowed to keep >> their bid. And if you try to protect the opponents, suddenly L40A3 is >> not on your side. > > The reasons aren't directly relevant, but if they have "used UI," > there's a problem. Also, if the alleged "deviation" is in fact part of > the system, there's a different problem (MI or possibly illegal > agreement). L40A3 doesn't protect players who commit those infractions. We would like it if L40A3 didn't protect players from these infractions. We perhaps should ignore L40A3 in those situations, but Alain suggested that being "almost certain" that UI was used was not good enough to ignore L40A3. The reality is, L40A3 is designed to allow players to bid whatever they want with no fear of the director ruling against them. How does that not help the player with UI or who never intended to play the system on their card? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 18 14:51:27 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 14:51:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <197ddf32122627d07f5b201365e1e4aa@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55FB6D04.4020104@nhcc.net> <11c993dffba4857cb4b1bb8248db2f38@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <2d140dbfb189d54d117dab28a4f4dbf3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 18.09.2015 13:31, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 06:35:44 -0400, agot wrote: > >> Le 18.09.2015 04:07, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:46:44 -0400, Steve Willner >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-09-16 6:18 AM, Richard Hills wrote: >>>>> The actual Director showed his inexperience when he asked opener an >>>>> irrelevant question about the reason for the ultra-conservative >>>>> rebid. >>>> >>>> The "in" is unwarranted. >>>> >>>>> Rather, the actual Director should instead have determined whether >>>>> or >>>>> not the 1H response was in fact bid out-of-tempo (Law 85 - Rulings >>>>> on >>>>> Disputed Facts). >>>> >>>> Yes. The question asked by _experienced_ Directors is helpful in >>>> making >>>> that determination. It's surprising how often the answer will >>>> confirm >>>> that UI was made available. Other times it will illuminate >>>> different >>>> aspects of the situation. >>>> >>>> Directors have a responsibility to determine the facts before >>>> applying >>>> the Laws to those facts. >>> >>> >>> Experienced directors will also know that it is not pleasant to tell >>> a >>> paying customer that he used UI after he claims there was none -- he >>> just decided to bid 1NT, as per his L40A3 right. >>> >>> >>> In contrast, suppose L40A3 ended something like "Players violating >>> their system agreements should be careful not to give the appearance >>> of having unauthorized information." >> >> This would greatly change the game, and to the worse side. Because >> whenever you decide to 'do something', you expect to be right in some >> way, and whenever you will be, you will fall under L4OA3(new). >> >> Yesterday, I eschewed a weak two-bid for marginal reasons ; I guess a >> majority would have made it. Partner had a misfit, so I was right. >> Under >> l40A3(new) I would not keep my shared top. >> >> (for the record, the hand was : x - QJ9xxx - KJx - xxx, both vul, and >> partner was 6133) > > But you have an explanation you can give to the director. > > > I was thinking of more like you open 1 Heart, partner makes a limit > major raise, and you decide to play 3 Hearts despite having obvious > extra values. There is no reason you can give to declarer except that > you decided to bid 3 Hearts and to site L40A3. AG : and ... ? Did partner say 3 hearts in a feeble voice ? Really, the TD has nothing to base himself upon. One very good reason, and one which can't be put aside by the TD, is the desire to swing. Also remember that different people have different evaluation schemes. If, 4th in hand, I hold KQ-Jxxx-Kxxx-KJx, I want to be allowed to pass this 13-schmoint hand. If partner has the weakest of the remaining 3 hands, I would not appreciate to be told that I knew it ! From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 18 14:56:37 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 14:56:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Le 18.09.2015 13:34, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:51:43 -0400, Steve Willner > wrote: > >> On 2015-09-13 6:47 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> The reality is, players have reasons when they deviate from their >>> systems. There's more good reasons than I could successfully list. >>> But when they have a bad reason, they should not be allowed to keep >>> their bid. And if you try to protect the opponents, suddenly L40A3 is >>> not on your side. >> >> The reasons aren't directly relevant, but if they have "used UI," >> there's a problem. Also, if the alleged "deviation" is in fact part >> of >> the system, there's a different problem (MI or possibly illegal >> agreement). L40A3 doesn't protect players who commit those >> infractions. > > We would like it if L40A3 didn't protect players from these > infractions. > > We perhaps should ignore L40A3 in those situations, but Alain > suggested that being "almost certain" that UI was used was not good > enough to ignore L40A3. > Not quite. I intended to mean that one person's "almost certain" is not another's. If I don't double their game bid, although partner has opened and I hold some defense, you might be "almost certain" that it is because partner opened light (after seeing that he did), but those who know me will be "totally certain" that it is my style not to double without at least some hope of 3 down. And you know what ? It's mathematically correct. (and to this, you may add that the fact that opponent bid the game is AI that perhaps partner opened light) From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Sep 18 15:55:04 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:55:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <55FC17B8.1000505@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:51:43 -0400, Steve Willner > wrote: > > > The reality is, L40A3 is designed to allow players to bid whatever > they want with no fear of the director ruling against them. How does > that not help the player with UI or who never intended to play the > system on their card? L40A3 does not allow players to bid what they want. Not when you apply the definition of "system" sensibly: anything the partner might know. This includes the frequency of deviation; and when we give this frequency to the opponents (possibly within a ruling after the facts) it is up to the Director to decide whether the frequency is high enough to warrant a different action by that opponent. A deviation which occurs in 5% of the cases will not influence opponent's bidding, but it might be enough to suggest a safety play later on when he's become declarer. That's a sensible way of ruling. And it still allows players to say "I deviated, L40A3 tells me I am allowed to do that", while allowing the Director to rule against him if need be. Herman. > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 18 16:58:39 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 16:58:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: <55FC17B8.1000505@skynet.be> References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> <55FC17B8.1000505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <90451aa724d18c6ddab853113fa0decc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 18.09.2015 15:55, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Robert Frick schreef: >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:51:43 -0400, Steve Willner >> wrote: >> >> >> The reality is, L40A3 is designed to allow players to bid whatever >> they want with no fear of the director ruling against them. How does >> that not help the player with UI or who never intended to play the >> system on their card? > > L40A3 does not allow players to bid what they want. Not when you apply > the definition of "system" sensibly: anything the partner might know. > This includes the frequency of deviation; and when we give this > frequency to the opponents (possibly within a ruling after the facts) > it > is up to the Director to decide whether the frequency is high enough to > warrant a different action by that opponent. > > A deviation which occurs in 5% of the cases will not influence > opponent's bidding, but it might be enough to suggest a safety play > later on when he's become declarer. > > That's a sensible way of ruling. And it still allows players to say "I > deviated, L40A3 tells me I am allowed to do that", while allowing the > Director to rule against him if need be. Agree about he general terms. But the mere concept of deviation is fuzzy, because of differences in evaluation techniques and general style. If a player tells you that he didn't deviate, that his valuation told him to bid such-and-such, you can't do anything against it. As a matter of fact, being asked to write ranges in HCP causes real problems, because that valuation is sometimes very wrong, and players who adjust dodn't violate their system ; they just play sensible bridge and don't count schmoints. Two players might write under 1NT : "balanced 16-18", and one might open 1NT on AKQx - Axx - xx - KQxx because he has 4432 pattern, the other might not because it doesn't play that well in NT. Who has deviated ? None of them. And one might open 1NT on AT9 - Kx - Kxx - AJ9xx and tell you that this hand is worth 16,3 points and you can't do anything about it. No ,it isn't a good 15 ; it is a 16,3-point hand. (at least according to some American experts) One of our country's greatest TDs told me, when I was a beginner, that AKQJxxx - Kx - Kx - xx wasn't an Acol 2-bid, because 7 tricks and two half-tricks aren't the same as 8 sure tricks. So, if I wrote "Acol 2-bids, 8 tricks" on my CC, and didn't open 2S with said hand, many Acolists would tell me that I deviated ; but I wouldn't have. Since it is impossible to write down the exact details of each explicit and implicit agreement, it is impossible to tell small deviations from bids made in accordance with some subtlety of the system. I also remember the LVOL who opened 1C on some 2164 hand, because she played 4-card diamonds, and she didn't have 4 diamonds, but 6. She didn't deviate from *her* system. (of course, forget about asking her to provide a CC) Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 19 02:53:09 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:53:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 08:56:37 -0400, agot wrote: You persist is describing situations where, if I came to your table, you could provide a good explanation why you bid what you bid. What if the player decides not to bid game and has no explanation at all? We once discussed a situation where someone bid 6C (over the opponent's opening of 1S is what I remember, but it could have been in response to his partner's opening). The player had no reason to bid 6C, that the director or anyone else could see. It was simply a bizarre bid that, by tremendous luck, happened to work. (Partner came down with good cards, finesses worked, etc.) One possibility is that the player had a wire. The second possibility is that I give up, I can't think of anything. My memory is that we all sat around with our hands in our pockets wondering what we should do. Is that true? One law that covers this situation very nicely is L40A3 -- he can bid whatever he wants. If you ask the player if he had a wire, you had better be prepared to rule in his favor if he says no. Or else you are asking an irrelevant question just so you can call him a liar. And note that the laws usually allow the director to take action without actually calling someone a liar or a cheat. Don't you usually like that? From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Sep 19 10:57:04 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 10:57:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: <90451aa724d18c6ddab853113fa0decc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> <55FC17B8.1000505@skynet.be> <90451aa724d18c6ddab853113fa0decc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <55FD2360.30207@skynet.be> I agree with what Alain writes, but with one proviso: agot schreef: > > > Agree about he general terms. > But the mere concept of deviation is fuzzy, because of differences in > evaluation techniques and general style. > > If a player tells you that he didn't deviate, that his valuation told > him to bid such-and-such, you can't do anything against it. > As a matter of fact, being asked to write ranges in HCP causes real > problems, because that valuation is sometimes very wrong, and players > who adjust dodn't violate their system ; they just play sensible bridge > and don't count schmoints. > > Two players might write under 1NT : "balanced 16-18", and one might open > 1NT on AKQx - Axx - xx - KQxx because he has 4432 pattern, the other > might not because it doesn't play that well in NT. Who has deviated ? > None of them. And one might open 1NT on AT9 - Kx - Kxx - AJ9xx and tell > you that this hand is worth 16,3 points and you can't do anything about > it. No ,it isn't a good 15 ; it is a 16,3-point hand. (at least > according to some American experts) > > One of our country's greatest TDs told me, when I was a beginner, that > AKQJxxx - Kx - Kx - xx wasn't an Acol 2-bid, because 7 tricks and two > half-tricks aren't the same as 8 sure tricks. So, if I wrote "Acol > 2-bids, 8 tricks" on my CC, and didn't open 2S with said hand, many > Acolists would tell me that I deviated ; but I wouldn't have. > > Since it is impossible to write down the exact details of each explicit > and implicit agreement, it is impossible to tell small deviations from > bids made in accordance with some subtlety of the system. > > I also remember the LVOL who opened 1C on some 2164 hand, because she > played 4-card diamonds, and she didn't have 4 diamonds, but 6. She > didn't deviate from *her* system. (of course, forget about asking her to > provide a CC) > What you are saying, Alain, is that these are not deviations, but just expressions of the system that they are using. Exactly my point. If you don't open the 16,3 point hand with 1NT, it is not because you choose to do so, but because it's a 16,3 point hand. If this does not correspond with the range you are (forced to be) giving in HCP, then that just means that your explanation is incorrect. In Pula, I was called and asked if they were allowed to open on zero points, because that is what the player heard his opponents explain. Instead, they had said "Zara"-points, which is a complicated totalling of points, controls and lengths. They explained it as "we might pass a 13-count on a 4333, but might open a 9-count with a 5431". Correct explanation, which could be expanded if the opponent wished it. OK? Herman. > > > > Best regards > > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 06:07:03 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 14:07:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: <55FD2360.30207@skynet.be> References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> <55FC17B8.1000505@skynet.be> <90451aa724d18c6ddab853113fa0decc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55FD2360.30207@skynet.be> Message-ID: BECAUSE I attended a committee meeting of the Canberra Bridge Club on Monday night THEREFORE Australia gained a new Prime Minister. BECAUSE a bridge player chose an idiosyncratic but successful action THEREFORE that action must have been an infraction. :-) :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills On Saturday, September 19, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > I agree with what Alain writes, but with one proviso: > > agot schreef: > > > > > > Agree about he general terms. > > But the mere concept of deviation is fuzzy, because of differences in > > evaluation techniques and general style. > > > > If a player tells you that he didn't deviate, that his valuation told > > him to bid such-and-such, you can't do anything against it. > > As a matter of fact, being asked to write ranges in HCP causes real > > problems, because that valuation is sometimes very wrong, and players > > who adjust dodn't violate their system ; they just play sensible bridge > > and don't count schmoints. > > > > Two players might write under 1NT : "balanced 16-18", and one might open > > 1NT on AKQx - Axx - xx - KQxx because he has 4432 pattern, the other > > might not because it doesn't play that well in NT. Who has deviated ? > > None of them. And one might open 1NT on AT9 - Kx - Kxx - AJ9xx and tell > > you that this hand is worth 16,3 points and you can't do anything about > > it. No ,it isn't a good 15 ; it is a 16,3-point hand. (at least > > according to some American experts) > > > > One of our country's greatest TDs told me, when I was a beginner, that > > AKQJxxx - Kx - Kx - xx wasn't an Acol 2-bid, because 7 tricks and two > > half-tricks aren't the same as 8 sure tricks. So, if I wrote "Acol > > 2-bids, 8 tricks" on my CC, and didn't open 2S with said hand, many > > Acolists would tell me that I deviated ; but I wouldn't have. > > > > Since it is impossible to write down the exact details of each explicit > > and implicit agreement, it is impossible to tell small deviations from > > bids made in accordance with some subtlety of the system. > > > > I also remember the LVOL who opened 1C on some 2164 hand, because she > > played 4-card diamonds, and she didn't have 4 diamonds, but 6. She > > didn't deviate from *her* system. (of course, forget about asking her to > > provide a CC) > > > > What you are saying, Alain, is that these are not deviations, but just > expressions of the system that they are using. Exactly my point. > If you don't open the 16,3 point hand with 1NT, it is not because you > choose to do so, but because it's a 16,3 point hand. If this does not > correspond with the range you are (forced to be) giving in HCP, then > that just means that your explanation is incorrect. > > In Pula, I was called and asked if they were allowed to open on zero > points, because that is what the player heard his opponents explain. > Instead, they had said "Zara"-points, which is a complicated totalling > of points, controls and lengths. They explained it as "we might pass a > 13-count on a 4333, but might open a 9-count with a 5431". Correct > explanation, which could be expanded if the opponent wished it. > > OK? > > Herman. > > > > > > > > > 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/20150920/37d316cc/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Sep 21 01:15:27 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 19:15:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <55FF3E0F.3030703@nhcc.net> On 2015-09-18 8:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > One possibility is that the player had a wire. > The second possibility is that > I give up, I can't think of anything. You can rule under L16C based on preponderance of the evidence. The explanation for the ruling would go along the lines of "if you do something that a player who had a wire might have done, we rule as if you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." I wish John Probst were still with us. > If you ask the player if he had a wire Of course you don't ask that. You ask for alternative explanations. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 06:08:01 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:08:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: <55FF3E0F.3030703@nhcc.net> References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> <55FF3E0F.3030703@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: You can rule under L16C based on preponderance of the evidence. The explanation for the ruling would go along the lines of "if you do something that a player who had a wire might have done, we rule as if you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." I wish John Probst were still with us. Richard Hills: Before he had his stroke, John (MadDog) Probst was hired by an online bridge organisation to maintain the integrity of their tournaments. When a "wire" (Law 73B2 "gravest possible offence") was suggested, MadDog did NOT base his preponderance of evidence ruling on that solitary deal. Rather, MadDog based his ruling on analysis of 300 deals played by the alleged ch**t. Law 73F ("could have known") and Law 23 ("could have been aware" / "could well damage") only apply AFTER an infraction has been determined. If Steve Willer's recklessly casual approach to a "gravest possible offence" ruling was foolishly adopted by a Director of the Canberra Bridge Club, then our Club would have to pay out thousands of dollars in defamation damages. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, September 21, 2015, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2015-09-18 8:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > One possibility is that the player had a wire. > > The second possibility is that > > I give up, I can't think of anything. > > You can rule under L16C based on preponderance of the evidence. The > explanation for the ruling would go along the lines of "if you do > something that a player who had a wire might have done, we rule as if > you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." > > I wish John Probst were still with us. > > > If you ask the player if he had a wire > > Of course you don't ask that. You ask for alternative explanations. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150921/6ff36934/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Sep 21 06:08:15 2015 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:08:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: <55FF3E0F.3030703@nhcc.net> References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> <55FF3E0F.3030703@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002901d0f423$242658f0$6c730ad0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Steve Willner > Sent: Monday, 21 September 2015 9:15 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend > > On 2015-09-18 8:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > One possibility is that the player had a wire. > > The second possibility is that > > I give up, I can't think of anything. > > You can rule under L16C based on preponderance of the evidence. The > explanation for the ruling would go along the lines of "if you do > something that a player who had a wire might have done, we rule as if > you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." > > I wish John Probst were still with us. > > > If you ask the player if he had a wire > > Of course you don't ask that. You ask for alternative explanations. He probably simply heard the talk at the previous table. If there is a grand slam on, the buzz quite often goes round the room, and only the final couple of pairs bid it. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 07:01:21 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:01:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> <55FF3E0F.3030703@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: You can rule under L16C based on preponderance of the evidence. The explanation for the ruling would go along the lines of "if you do something that a player with a wire might have done, [snip] Richard Hills: West deals and opens 1D, Pass, Pass, South reopens with 2C, Pass, Pass, East jumps to 6H, all pass. 12 tricks, +1430. Has East blatantly infracted Law 16C? Not so, I was East. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, September 21, 2015, Richard Hills wrote: > Steve Willner: > > You can rule under L16C based on preponderance of the evidence. The > explanation for the ruling would go along the lines of "if you do > something that a player who had a wire might have done, we rule as if > you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." > > I wish John Probst were still with us. > > Richard Hills: > > Before he had his stroke, John (MadDog) Probst was hired by an online > bridge organisation to maintain the integrity of their tournaments. When a > "wire" (Law 73B2 "gravest possible offence") was suggested, MadDog did NOT > base his preponderance of evidence ruling on that solitary deal. Rather, > MadDog based his ruling on analysis of 300 deals played by the alleged > ch**t. > > Law 73F ("could have known") and Law 23 ("could have been aware" / "could > well damage") only apply AFTER an infraction has been determined. If Steve > Willer's recklessly casual approach to a "gravest possible offence" ruling > was foolishly adopted by a Director of the Canberra Bridge Club, then our > Club would have to pay out thousands of dollars in defamation damages. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Monday, September 21, 2015, Steve Willner > wrote: > >> On 2015-09-18 8:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> > One possibility is that the player had a wire. >> > The second possibility is that >> > I give up, I can't think of anything. >> >> You can rule under L16C based on preponderance of the evidence. The >> explanation for the ruling would go along the lines of "if you do >> something that a player who had a wire might have done, we rule as if >> you had a wire based on preponderance of the evidence." >> >> I wish John Probst were still with us. >> >> > If you ask the player if he had a wire >> >> Of course you don't ask that. You ask for alternative explanations. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20150921/4197589f/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 21 13:42:13 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:42:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Le 19.09.2015 02:53, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 08:56:37 -0400, agot wrote: > > > > You persist is describing situations where, if I came to your table, > you could provide a good explanation why you bid what you bid. What if > the player decides not to bid game and has no explanation at all? > > We once discussed a situation where someone bid 6C (over the > opponent's opening of 1S is what I remember, but it could have been in > response to his partner's opening). The player had no reason to bid > 6C, that the director or anyone else could see. It was simply a > bizarre bid that, by tremendous luck, happened to work. (Partner came > down with good cards, finesses worked, etc.) > > One possibility is that the player had a wire. > > The second possibility is that ... okay, if there is no explanation at all. But there might be some strange ones, and those are often the most reliable (no player would invent them). For example : "I was angry against partner" (already heard more than once). And of course there always is "I wanted to swing", or "I misunderstood partner's bid". I repeat that you need rather strong evidence to decide that indeed there was a wire. Of course, partner's mannerisms are such an evidence. But the strangeness of the bid, in itself, never will be. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 21 13:51:01 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:51:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: <55FD2360.30207@skynet.be> References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> <55FC17B8.1000505@skynet.be> <90451aa724d18c6ddab853113fa0decc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55FD2360.30207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <97f196eb18b9c42a38bd3514dfbb5114@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 19.09.2015 10:57, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > I agree with what Alain writes, but with one proviso: > > agot schreef: >> >> >> Agree about he general terms. >> But the mere concept of deviation is fuzzy, because of differences in >> evaluation techniques and general style. >> >> If a player tells you that he didn't deviate, that his valuation told >> him to bid such-and-such, you can't do anything against it. >> As a matter of fact, being asked to write ranges in HCP causes real >> problems, because that valuation is sometimes very wrong, and players >> who adjust dodn't violate their system ; they just play sensible >> bridge >> and don't count schmoints. >> >> Two players might write under 1NT : "balanced 16-18", and one might >> open >> 1NT on AKQx - Axx - xx - KQxx because he has 4432 pattern, the other >> might not because it doesn't play that well in NT. Who has deviated ? >> None of them. And one might open 1NT on AT9 - Kx - Kxx - AJ9xx and >> tell >> you that this hand is worth 16,3 points and you can't do anything >> about >> it. No ,it isn't a good 15 ; it is a 16,3-point hand. (at least >> according to some American experts) >> >> One of our country's greatest TDs told me, when I was a beginner, that >> AKQJxxx - Kx - Kx - xx wasn't an Acol 2-bid, because 7 tricks and two >> half-tricks aren't the same as 8 sure tricks. So, if I wrote "Acol >> 2-bids, 8 tricks" on my CC, and didn't open 2S with said hand, many >> Acolists would tell me that I deviated ; but I wouldn't have. >> >> Since it is impossible to write down the exact details of each >> explicit >> and implicit agreement, it is impossible to tell small deviations from >> bids made in accordance with some subtlety of the system. >> >> I also remember the LVOL who opened 1C on some 2164 hand, because she >> played 4-card diamonds, and she didn't have 4 diamonds, but 6. She >> didn't deviate from *her* system. (of course, forget about asking her >> to >> provide a CC) >> > > What you are saying, Alain, is that these are not deviations, but just > expressions of the system that they are using. Exactly my point. > If you don't open the 16,3 point hand with 1NT, it is not because you > choose to do so, but because it's a 16,3 point hand. If this does not > correspond with the range you are (forced to be) giving in HCP, then > that just means that your explanation is incorrect. > > In Pula, I was called and asked if they were allowed to open on zero > points, because that is what the player heard his opponents explain. > Instead, they had said "Zara"-points, which is a complicated totalling > of points, controls and lengths. They explained it as "we might pass a > 13-count on a 4333, but might open a 9-count with a 5431". Correct > explanation, which could be expanded if the opponent wished it. > > OK? > Right. But please tell me, if I'm forced to give information in HCP and I don't believe in HCP, and it is false information if I use my own counting system, does that mean that I'm forced to play badly ? Hope there is a way out of this. As a matter of fact, I'm in favor of stating flexible ranges. Many players would feel more comfortable if they stated as range for their 1-bids : (10)12-20(22), meaning that they will always, or most of the time, open a 1-bid within the 12-20 range, and occasionally do so take or leave 2 points. (obviously more often 1 than 2) It would be both faithful and useful information. Up to now, I solve the problem by stating "point ranges are only indicative" in the "important notes" section. (I guess this wxas the basis for your mentioning Latvian players. In Latvian, as in Russian, O and A might be understood for eachother) Best regards alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 21 13:54:52 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:54:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> <55FF3E0F.3030703@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <769e468ac61a37994d15f58d517b0c7e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 21.09.2015 07:01, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Steve Willner: > > You can rule under L16C based on preponderance of the evidence.? > The?explanation for the ruling would go along the lines of "if you do > something that a player with a wire might have done, > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > West deals and opens 1D, Pass, Pass, South reopens with 2C, Pass, > Pass, East jumps to 6H, all pass. 12 tricks, +1430. Has East blatantly > infracted Law 16C? > > Not so, I was East. Or, less spectacularly, take the story of that guy who passed a forcing club, reaching one of the only makable contracts. Did he have a wire ? His explanation was that he didn't see the bid, and the TD believed him. I would have, too. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Sep 21 16:42:44 2015 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:42:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56001764.2030304@aol.com> Your opinion please. The hand was sent to me by a friend. Do we allow declarer to fulfil the slam? He didn't mention the squeeze when claiming but it is automatic for a technically high-class player. Discovering the 5-0 trump break is automatic as well and taking account of it in the play. Ciao, JE -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: claim Datum: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:34:35 +0200 Von: G?l P?ter An: Jeff Easterson sry, board 26 ! ! 26 --- Pair Contr Ld Result Score ! ! East Q95 3 203 7Dx E -1 S4 200 11,11 -11,11 ! ! All J985 1 201 7D E -1 C10 100 9,22 -9,22 ! ! QJ9632 101 301 6S E -1 H8 100 9,22 -9,22 ! ! KQ9 AJ632 103 303 7D E -1 HJ 100 9,22 -9,22 ! ! AK6 2 106 306 7D E -1 H8 100 9,22 -9,22 ! ! AQ106 K432 2 202 6D W = CQ -1370 -7,00 7,00 ! ! 874 AK5 102 302 6D E = HJ -1370 -7,00 7,00 ! ! 108754 104 304 6S E = HJ -1430 -8,33 8,33 ! ! J108743 6 206 6S E +1 HJ -1460 -8,78 8,78 ! ! 7 4 204 7S E = H8 -2210 -16,89 16,89 ! ! 10 -- -- Bye ! ! ! ! 7N E -2220 ! ! C D H S N ! ! NS 4 1 4 0 0 ! ! E 9 12 8 13 13 ! ! W : : 9 : : ! ! ! ! 2015-09-18 17:46 GMT+02:00 Jeff Easterson >: Ciao Peter, Could you please resend this email, attaching a diagram of the hand to it directly? When I access the website you list (it is apparently the site of the Hungarian federation) I get many entries and don't know which one includes the hand; it wasn't included in any I tried. Ciao, JE Am 16.09.2015 um 07:40 schrieb G?l P?ter: Hi Jeff! I ask your decision. Budapest Team championship, the most prestigious event in Hungary. Board 26 http://bridzs.hu/result/1573/15csb1afr12.htm The bidding was: East Soth West North 1sp - p - 2 cl - p 2d- 2h-2sp - 3h p-p - 4 d - p 4 h-p- 6d-p 6 sp - pass out lead: hB. the declarer claim without plan. But after hA, sp K he see the 5-0, and made with "known" spade finesse again sp 10 he made with a "baby" squezze again North after South ruffed the second club. As you see in diagramm the other declarers made it. The declarer Gell?rt J?nos, a member of last year winner team and in this moment 1st in 2015 MP race: http://bridzs.hu/hu/mesterpontok/mesterpontok_eves Please send it some other TD too. thx Peter Gal --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 21 18:14:55 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:14:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: claim In-Reply-To: <56001764.2030304@aol.com> References: <56001764.2030304@aol.com> Message-ID: <654ee2dcc8eb542dd19daea6a7fe8324@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 21.09.2015 16:42, Jeff Easterson a ?crit?: > Your opinion please. The hand was sent to me by a friend. Do we allow > declarer to fulfil the slam? He didn't mention the squeeze when > claiming but it is automatic for a technically high-class player. > Discovering the 5-0 trump break is automatic as well and taking account > of it in the play. AG: the diagram didn't show well, but in principle not seeing that a bad trump break will leave one needing a squeeze, even a simple one, is "quite negligent, but not irrational" for even the best of players. Even if declarer had claimed after seeing the trump break, stating that there is a marked finesse, there would be a presumption that one didn't see the need for the squeeze - else, why not mention it ? The fact that the other declarers weren't negligent isn't enough ; obviously this one had begun to be. So, IMO, contract fails. Best regards Alain From g3 at nige1.com Mon Sep 21 20:52:25 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:52:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: claim In-Reply-To: <654ee2dcc8eb542dd19daea6a7fe8324@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <56001764.2030304@aol.com> <654ee2dcc8eb542dd19daea6a7fe8324@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <0E5EAFFDAE4D410D9EDF127FB4A6AA13@G3> [Alain] The diagram didn't show well, but in principle not seeing that a bad trump break will leave one needing a squeeze, even a simple one, is "quite negligent, but not irrational" for even the best of players. Even if declarer had claimed after seeing the trump break, stating that there is a marked finesse, there would be a presumption that one didn't see the need for the squeeze - else, why not mention it ? The fact that the other declarers weren't negligent isn't enough ; obviously this one had begun to be. [Nige1] IMO Alain correctly interprets the intention of the law-makers, whenever a declarer, however expert he is, has manifestly completely lost the place. Unfortunately, however, nowadays, most directors routinely allow the defenders' rejection of declarer's faulty claim to wake him up to the true situation, to reconsider his options, and eventually, to emerge with a more sensible plan. Directors are proud to attribute to declarer, the cunning squeeze or end-play that they spot, although they know it's likely to be incompatible with declarer's original conception. Duplicate Claim law is in dire need of clarification and simplification perhaps along the lines of Rubber Bridge or On-line protocol. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 22 09:07:29 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:07:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: claim In-Reply-To: <0E5EAFFDAE4D410D9EDF127FB4A6AA13@G3> References: <56001764.2030304@aol.com> <654ee2dcc8eb542dd19daea6a7fe8324@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <0E5EAFFDAE4D410D9EDF127FB4A6AA13@G3> Message-ID: <5600FE31.1040108@skynet.be> Nigel again falls for the same trap. Just because there are some claims that get ruled in favour of claimer, does not mean that all claims are so ruled. Of course when one case a year turns out to need a ruling in favour of the claimer, that is the one case that gets mentioned on blml. None of the billion other claims, of which a million are faulty, and 999,999 get ruled against claimer, will make it to blml. So please stop saying that the claims laws need to be tightened because of the one claim of which YOU don't understand why it needs to be ruled in favour of the claimer. And certainly don't attempt to change the claim laws to make them "easier". Let me give you an example; "When you claim, you automatically lose any trich of which the opponents can show that there is a legal line in which you might lose it". Quite simple, but very unfair towards claimers. OK? Herman. Nigel Guthrie schreef: > [Alain] > The diagram didn't show well, but in principle not seeing that a bad > trump break will leave one needing a squeeze, even a simple one, is > "quite negligent, but not irrational" for even the best of players. Even > if declarer had claimed after seeing the trump break, stating that there > is a marked finesse, there would be a presumption that one didn't see > the need for the squeeze - else, why not mention it ? > The fact that the other declarers weren't negligent isn't enough ; > obviously this one had begun to be. > > [Nige1] > IMO Alain correctly interprets the intention of the law-makers, whenever a > declarer, however expert he is, has manifestly completely lost the place. > Unfortunately, however, nowadays, most directors routinely allow the > defenders' rejection of declarer's faulty claim to wake him up to the true > situation, to reconsider his options, and eventually, to emerge with a more > sensible plan. Directors are proud to attribute to declarer, the cunning > squeeze or end-play that they spot, although they know it's likely to be > incompatible with declarer's original conception. > > Duplicate Claim law is in dire need of clarification and simplification > perhaps along the lines of Rubber Bridge or On-line protocol. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 17:27:37 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 01:27:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: <769e468ac61a37994d15f58d517b0c7e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> <55FF3E0F.3030703@nhcc.net> <769e468ac61a37994d15f58d517b0c7e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: > Richard Hills: > > West deals and opens 1D, Pass, Pass, South reopens with 2C, Pass, > Pass, East jumps to 6H, all pass. 12 tricks, +1430. Has East blatantly > infracted Law 16C? > > Not so, I was East. Alain Gottcheiner: Or, less spectacularly, take the story of that guy who passed a forcing club, reaching one of the only makable contracts. Did he have a wire ? His explanation was that he didn't see the bid, and the TD believed him. I would have, too. Richard Hills: Yesterday at the Canberra Bridge Club was another blatant infraction of Law 16C??? As dealer, vul versus not, East chose a Pass. South opened 1S, West bid 2H and North called a negative double (implying values in both minors). Again East chose a Pass, now South leaped to 6S, all pass. 12 tricks, +980. If an inexperienced American Director believes that a "wire" MUST have occurred on the basis of a single idiosyncratic but successful action, then that inexperienced Director is guilty of "selection bias". Yes, as blmlers may have already guessed, I was yesterday's South. My flamboyant style often causes me to leap to slam BUT a significant percentage of the time my flamboyant slam fails. Adjusting the score against me for a success, due to a hypothetical but non-existent infraction, while ignoring the countervailing evidence of my failures, is a Director's ruling of defamatory incompetence. There has also been a ludicrous suggestion in this thread that good bidding deserves more protection from the Laws than poor bidding. Yesterday (playing Acol) I made the poor??? decision to avoid opening a 2C game-force on the South hand: AKQJT876 A J98 A I opened the poor??? choice of 1S instead to preserve bidding space and, in my poor??? opinion, make it easier to probe slam possibilities. Funnily enough, many of the good bidders who opened a 2C game-force failed to diagnose the 6S slam. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, September 21, 2015, agot > wrote: > Le 21.09.2015 07:01, Richard Hills a ?crit : > > Steve Willner: > > > > You can rule under L16C based on preponderance of the evidence. > > The explanation for the ruling would go along the lines of "if you do > > something that a player with a wire might have done, > > > > [snip] > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > West deals and opens 1D, Pass, Pass, South reopens with 2C, Pass, > > Pass, East jumps to 6H, all pass. 12 tricks, +1430. Has East blatantly > > infracted Law 16C? > > > > Not so, I was East. > > > Or, less spectacularly, take the story of that guy who passed a forcing > club, reaching one of the only makable contracts. Did he have a wire ? > His explanation was that he didn't see the bid, and the TD believed him. > I would have, too. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150922/8f484690/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 23 03:28:26 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:28:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> <55FF3E0F.3030703@nhcc.net> <769e468ac61a37994d15f58d517b0c7e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:27:37 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: >> Richard Hills: >> >> West deals and opens 1D, Pass, Pass, South reopens with 2C, Pass, >> Pass, East jumps to 6H, all pass. 12 tricks, +1430. Has East blatantly >> infracted Law 16C? >> >> Not so, I was East. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > Or, less spectacularly, take the story of that guy who passed a forcing > club, reaching one of the only makable contracts. Did he have a wire ? > His explanation was that he didn't see the bid, and the TD believed him. > I would have, too. > > Richard Hills: > > Yesterday at the Canberra Bridge Club was another blatant infraction of Law > 16C??? As dealer, vul versus not, East chose a Pass. South opened 1S, West > bid 2H and North called a negative double (implying values in both minors). > Again East chose a Pass, now South leaped to 6S, all pass. 12 tricks, +980. > > If an inexperienced American Director believes that a "wire" MUST have > occurred on the basis of a single idiosyncratic but successful action, then > that inexperienced Director is guilty of "selection bias". > > Yes, as blmlers may have already guessed, I was yesterday's South. My > flamboyant style often causes me to leap to slam BUT a significant > percentage of the time my flamboyant slam fails. Adjusting the score > against me for a success, due to a hypothetical but non-existent > infraction, while ignoring the countervailing evidence of my failures, is a > Director's ruling of defamatory incompetence. Again, if people could stay on topic here, it would be appreciated. We have a player at our club who psyches a lot, and just because a few work does not mean he has a wire. > > There has also been a ludicrous suggestion in this thread that good bidding > deserves more protection from the Laws than poor bidding. Yesterday > (playing Acol) I made the poor??? decision to avoid opening a 2C game-force > on the South hand: > > AKQJT876 > A > J98 > A > > I opened the poor??? choice of 1S instead to preserve bidding space and, in > my poor??? opinion, make it easier to probe slam possibilities. Funnily > enough, many of the good bidders who opened a 2C game-force failed to > diagnose the 6S slam. Again, if people could stay on topic, the problem isn't bids that are defendable or reasonable. Does Richard really think that when the director asks him why he bid that, he will have no answer? The problem is the player with 3 HCP (Kxxxxx of spades) who wants to open 2 Spades. No reason, she just wants to. Her card says 5 to 10. She says she has never done this before, her partner backs her up, and I believe her. Can she do that? Of course, we all know the laws. Steve W. perhaps disagrees. If L40A3 had a UI kicker, she would have to worry about my ruling. She might have unconsciously picked up some signal from my partner (her HUSBAND) that he has no points? Will the director From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 23 03:36:32 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:36:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> <55FF3E0F.3030703@nhcc.net> <769e468ac61a37994d15f58d517b0c7e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: (Sorry, truncated version was accidentally sent.) The problem is the player with 3 HCP (Kxxxxx of spades) who wants to open 2 Spades in first seat. No reason, she just wants to. Her card says 5 to 10. She says she has never done this before, her partner backs her up, and I believe her. Can she do that? Of course, we all know L40A3. (Steve W. perhaps disagrees.) If L40A3 had a UI kicker, she would have to worry about my ruling. She might have unconsciously picked up some signal from my partner (her HUSBAND) that he has no points. She might have unconsciously picked up information from the play of the hand 15 minutes prior at a table less than 10 yards away. Yes, if L40A3 had a kicker, it would be easy to rule against her. And if we take away her right to make this bid, all we take away is her ability to make a bad bid that she claims she never made before and never will make again. Where is the big harm in that? (Her husband had almost nothing, her partners bid slam at the other table, and it was impossible for the opponents to find slam once she opened 2S.) From adam at tameware.com Wed Sep 23 06:39:26 2015 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:39:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Kaplan wrote to the effect that the convention card is an understanding with partner, not an undertaking to the opponents. HCP are an approximation of a hand's value. The laws do not mention them. Absent regulation to the contrary players must be allowed to evaluate their hands using their own judgement, promoting and demoting as they deem best. Some such regulations have been passed. While I consider them harmful to the spirit of the game they are lawful. Are you suggesting that any apply in your jurisdiction? Otherwise I do not see any cause for complaint. I suspect that most pairs who write 5-11 on their convention card for a two bid are more likely to open an 11 count with a six card suit at the one level than the two level. I would write 5-10 and consider that the best description, since any 11 count I opened at the two level would be one I had downgraded. 5-11 seems accurate enough, though, and carries no implication that every hand in that range must be opened with that call. I suspect these same opponents would feel put upon if the pair marked their CC 5-10 and opened 2S with KJ8753 K43 Q6 Q2. If you are curious how Edgar would have evaluated these hands his algorithm lives on: K&R (AK8753 K43 T 742) = 13.15 K&R (KJ8753 K43 Q6 Q2) = 9.85 On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > This hand has caused some controversy here. A player opened 1S in first > seat,vul versus not, with > > AK8753 > K43 > 10 > 742 > > The opponents were upset, roughly, that their card did not say that this > hand would be opened 1 Spade. > > As an expert pointed out to me today, he would open this hand 1 Spade. As > I pointed out to him, he plays weak twos as having a range of 6 to 10. The > players involved had 5 to 11 on their card. > > These players seem to bid the same way as everyone who plays 5 to 10 -- a > bad 11 point hand could get a weak two; a really good 10 point could get an > opening one bid; any 12 point hand with a six card suit gets opened on the > one level. > > The complaining opponents said there would be no problem if the card was > marked 5 to 10. One of the players involved has agreed they should put 5 to > 10 on their card. > > Do players have to say on their card what they play? > > And if they do, then (unless we are wimps), they have to play what's on > their card. Yes, there are a lot of reasons why a player might not have > what it says on their card. But there has to be SOME reason. > > To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he wants > to play 1NT as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce that, but I > have already decided I am going to open all 15 point hands 1NT. Is this > legal? > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150923/1a0446fe/attachment-0001.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Sep 23 09:02:08 2015 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:02:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] alert? Message-ID: <56024E70.3070700@aol.com> I'd like to have your opinions about this. Since the alert rules vary from land to land it will be only a general summary but it interests me. 2 hearts is opened showing hearts and spades and less than opening count. Partner bids 3 spades (to play). Should this be alerted in your country? It is natural of course but not invitational. General alert rule is that anything unusual should be alerted. What is usual in this situation? Ciao, JE --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 23 12:34:54 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:34:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: claim In-Reply-To: <5600FE31.1040108@skynet.be> References: <56001764.2030304@aol.com> <654ee2dcc8eb542dd19daea6a7fe8324@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <0E5EAFFDAE4D410D9EDF127FB4A6AA13@G3> <5600FE31.1040108@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 22.09.2015 09:07, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Nigel again falls for the same trap. > > Just because there are some claims that get ruled in favour of claimer, > does not mean that all claims are so ruled. > Of course when one case a year turns out to need a ruling in favour of > the claimer, that is the one case that gets mentioned on blml. None of > the billion other claims, of which a million are faulty, and 999,999 > get > ruled against claimer, will make it to blml. My experience is that this is a vast overbid, at least in our country ; that about 20-25% of the claims which should be rejected are accepted. So I side with Nigel here. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 23 12:42:45 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:42:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When L40A3 is not our friend In-Reply-To: References: <55FB6E2F.6010407@nhcc.net> <55FF3E0F.3030703@nhcc.net> <769e468ac61a37994d15f58d517b0c7e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <2aaf4eb7f9c2f3be5f70d4a90c5e050f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 23.09.2015 03:36, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > (Sorry, truncated version was accidentally sent.) > > The problem is the player with 3 HCP (Kxxxxx of spades) who wants to > open 2 Spades in first seat. No reason, she just wants to. Her card > says 5 to 10. She says she has never done this before, her partner > backs her up, and I believe her. > > Can she do that? Of course, we all know L40A3. (Steve W. perhaps > disagrees.) > > If L40A3 had a UI kicker, she would have to worry about my ruling. She > might have unconsciously picked up some signal from my partner (her > HUSBAND) that he has no points. No danger. Only when UI unmistakably suggests an action does this action become illegal. This is often overlooked. An important percentage of mannerisms (most notably, slow bids, as opposed to calls) do not suggest anything precise, and rulings, which are occasionally seen, based on the fact that "the hesitation might have suggested that ..." are plain wrong. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 23 12:53:48 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:53:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Do_players_have_to_describe_what_they_play=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38f46750c4e6f841bcbd7163af93099a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 23.09.2015 06:39, Adam Wildavsky a ?crit?: > Kaplan wrote to the effect that the convention card is an > understanding with partner, not an undertaking to the opponents. > > HCP are an approximation of a hand's value. The laws do not mention > them. Absent regulation to the contrary players must be allowed to > evaluate their hands using their own judgement, promoting and demoting > as they deem best. Some such regulations have been passed. While I > consider them harmful to the spirit of the game they are lawful. Are > you suggesting that any apply in your jurisdiction? Otherwise I do not > see any cause for complaint. There are many. For example the "law of 18" uses HCP, and any claim that the hand is an opening accordign to your own valuation system will be turned down. One more card in your long suit will mean only +1 "rule point", but -1 losing trick, meaning that LT evaluation, which is easy to understand and exmplain, will get different results. If one opens every unbalanced hand with 7 losers (usual in a strong-club context), there will be less-than-18-total hand which you'll want to open, notwithstanding tha fact that with mundane hands it more or less corresponds to "total 19". And, yes, regulations that strength mentions should use HCPs have been passed by many authorities. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 23 12:56:41 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:56:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?alert=3F?= In-Reply-To: <56024E70.3070700@aol.com> References: <56024E70.3070700@aol.com> Message-ID: Le 23.09.2015 09:02, Jeff Easterson a ?crit?: > I'd like to have your opinions about this. Since the alert rules vary > from land to land it will be only a general summary but it interests > me. > > 2 hearts is opened showing hearts and spades and less than opening > count. Partner bids 3 spades (to play). Should this be alerted in > your > country? It is natural of course but not invitational. General alert > rule is that anything unusual should be alerted. What is usual in this > situation? If the bidding had been 2S (classical weak 2) - 3S (not encouraging), it wouldn't have been alertable. So, I'd say no, because the context is similar. Limit raises are for wide-reange bids like 1-openings (whence 1S-3S preemptive is alertable) From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 23 15:19:51 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:19:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: claim In-Reply-To: References: <56001764.2030304@aol.com> <654ee2dcc8eb542dd19daea6a7fe8324@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <0E5EAFFDAE4D410D9EDF127FB4A6AA13@G3> <5600FE31.1040108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5602A6F7.3060201@skynet.be> agot schreef: > Le 22.09.2015 09:07, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Nigel again falls for the same trap. >> >> Just because there are some claims that get ruled in favour of claimer, >> does not mean that all claims are so ruled. >> Of course when one case a year turns out to need a ruling in favour of >> the claimer, that is the one case that gets mentioned on blml. None of >> the billion other claims, of which a million are faulty, and 999,999 >> get >> ruled against claimer, will make it to blml. > > > My experience is that this is a vast overbid, at least in our country ; > that about 20-25% of the claims which should be rejected are accepted. > So I side with Nigel here. Do your maths, Alain. How many claims are made and rejected by the opponents? How many remain? How many are then rejcted by the TD without any discussion? How many remain? If you really believe that 25% of the faulty claims are accepted, you are way off target. I don't know how many claims you know to have been accepted that should have been rejected, but if that number is lareger than, say, 10, you would have to have only 40 claim cases? Sorry, but that is irrealistic. But this discussion is meaningless. My point remains: there are far more claims that are correctly rejected than there are with discussions. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 23 15:40:03 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:40:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: claim In-Reply-To: <5602A6F7.3060201@skynet.be> References: <56001764.2030304@aol.com> <654ee2dcc8eb542dd19daea6a7fe8324@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <0E5EAFFDAE4D410D9EDF127FB4A6AA13@G3> <5600FE31.1040108@skynet.be> <5602A6F7.3060201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <22e9ee0b36795fac60a51720c0916f3e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 23.09.2015 15:19, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > agot schreef: >> Le 22.09.2015 09:07, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> Nigel again falls for the same trap. >>> >>> Just because there are some claims that get ruled in favour of >>> claimer, >>> does not mean that all claims are so ruled. >>> Of course when one case a year turns out to need a ruling in favour >>> of >>> the claimer, that is the one case that gets mentioned on blml. None >>> of >>> the billion other claims, of which a million are faulty, and 999,999 >>> get >>> ruled against claimer, will make it to blml. >> >> >> My experience is that this is a vast overbid, at least in our country >> ; >> that about 20-25% of the claims which should be rejected are accepted. >> So I side with Nigel here. > > Do your maths, Alain. > > How many claims are made and rejected by the opponents? > How many remain? > How many are then rejcted by the TD without any discussion? > How many remain? > If you really believe that 25% of the faulty claims are accepted, you > are way off target. > I don't know how many claims you know to have been accepted that should > have been rejected, but if that number is lareger than, say, 10, you > would have to have only 40 claim cases? Sorry, but that is > irrealistic. I'm pretty good at maths. About 100 cases which should have been rejected, from which 20 weren't, seems about correct. In a grand total of perhaps 5,000 claims. So, I confirm that AMONG THE CLAIMS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED a substantial part wasn't. Of course, if you take the total number of claims, the proportion is different. But this is a complete transformation of my words, and that's not the first time you try this. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 24 02:29:54 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:29:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:39:26 -0400, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Kaplan wrote to the effect that the convention card is an understanding > with partner, not an undertaking to the opponents. > > HCP are an approximation of a hand's value. The laws do not mention them. > Absent regulation to the contrary players must be allowed to evaluate their > hands using their own judgement, promoting and demoting as they deem best. > Some such regulations have been passed. While I consider them harmful to > the spirit of the game they are lawful. Are you suggesting that any apply > in your jurisdiction? Otherwise I do not see any cause for complaint. > > I suspect that most pairs who write 5-11 on their convention card for a two > bid are more likely to open an 11 count with a six card suit at the one > level than the two level. I would write 5-10 and consider that the best > description, So, are you saying that it is okay to write 5-11 on the card even though 5-10 is the best description? since any 11 count I opened at the two level would be one I > had downgraded. 5-11 seems accurate enough, though, and carries no > implication that every hand in that range must be opened with that call. I > suspect these same opponents would feel put upon if the pair marked their > CC 5-10 and opened 2S with KJ8753 K43 Q6 Q2. > > If you are curious how Edgar would have evaluated these hands his algorithm > lives on: > > K&R (AK8753 K43 T 742) = 13.15 > > K&R (KJ8753 K43 Q6 Q2) = 9.85 > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> This hand has caused some controversy here. A player opened 1S in first >> seat,vul versus not, with >> >> AK8753 >> K43 >> 10 >> 742 >> >> The opponents were upset, roughly, that their card did not say that this >> hand would be opened 1 Spade. >> >> As an expert pointed out to me today, he would open this hand 1 Spade. As >> I pointed out to him, he plays weak twos as having a range of 6 to 10. The >> players involved had 5 to 11 on their card. >> >> These players seem to bid the same way as everyone who plays 5 to 10 -- a >> bad 11 point hand could get a weak two; a really good 10 point could get an >> opening one bid; any 12 point hand with a six card suit gets opened on the >> one level. >> >> The complaining opponents said there would be no problem if the card was >> marked 5 to 10. One of the players involved has agreed they should put 5 to >> 10 on their card. >> >> Do players have to say on their card what they play? >> >> And if they do, then (unless we are wimps), they have to play what's on >> their card. Yes, there are a lot of reasons why a player might not have >> what it says on their card. But there has to be SOME reason. >> >> To put this another way -- I sit down with a new partner, he says he wants >> to play 1NT as 16 to 18, we put that on the card, we announce that, but I >> have already decided I am going to open all 15 point hands 1NT. Is this >> legal? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> From adam at tameware.com Thu Sep 24 04:53:28 2015 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:53:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:39:26 -0400, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > > > Kaplan wrote to the effect that the convention card is an understanding > > with partner, not an undertaking to the opponents. > > > > HCP are an approximation of a hand's value. The laws do not mention them. > > Absent regulation to the contrary players must be allowed to evaluate > their > > hands using their own judgement, promoting and demoting as they deem > best. > > Some such regulations have been passed. While I consider them harmful to > > the spirit of the game they are lawful. Are you suggesting that any apply > > in your jurisdiction? Otherwise I do not see any cause for complaint. > > > > I suspect that most pairs who write 5-11 on their convention card for a > two > > bid are more likely to open an 11 count with a six card suit at the one > > level than the two level. I would write 5-10 and consider that the best > > description, > > So, are you saying that it is okay to write 5-11 on the card even though > 5-10 is the best description? I am not. I'm not even saying that 5-10 is best, just that it's the one I personally consider most accurate. This is a matter for regulation, so I suggest you do as your local bridge officials recommend. As a matter of practice you'll probably do well enough if you abide by local custom, if there is one. Do I think that regulations ought to be more specific regarding situations like this? Perhaps, but trying to encourage such a change is not one of my highest priorities. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150924/5de0652b/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Sep 24 07:24:49 2015 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:24:49 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On my ACOL system card I show 1NT: No singleton or void, 12- to 14- Indicating an occasional (less than 10%) chance that I have opened 1NT on a good 11 count or I have failed to open 1NT on an otherwise suitable hand with a very good 14 count, preferring to rebid 1NT later to show the better hand. life is simple bill kemp From: Adam Wildavsky Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 10:53 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Robert Frick wrote: On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:39:26 -0400, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Kaplan wrote to the effect that the convention card is an understanding > with partner, not an undertaking to the opponents. > > HCP are an approximation of a hand's value. The laws do not mention them. > Absent regulation to the contrary players must be allowed to evaluate their > hands using their own judgement, promoting and demoting as they deem best. > Some such regulations have been passed. While I consider them harmful to > the spirit of the game they are lawful. Are you suggesting that any apply > in your jurisdiction? Otherwise I do not see any cause for complaint. > > I suspect that most pairs who write 5-11 on their convention card for a two > bid are more likely to open an 11 count with a six card suit at the one > level than the two level. I would write 5-10 and consider that the best > description, So, are you saying that it is okay to write 5-11 on the card even though 5-10 is the best description? I am not. I'm not even saying that 5-10 is best, just that it's the one I personally consider most accurate. This is a matter for regulation, so I suggest you do as your local bridge officials recommend. As a matter of practice you'll probably do well enough if you abide by local custom, if there is one. Do I think that regulations ought to be more specific regarding situations like this? Perhaps, but trying to encourage such a change is not one of my highest priorities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/20150924/94690ea5/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 08:36:18 2015 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 02:36:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:24:49 +0800, you wrote: >On my ACOL system card I show >1NT: No singleton or void, 12- to 14- >Indicating an occasional (less than 10%) chance that I have opened 1NT on a good 11 count or I have failed to open 1NT on an otherwise suitable hand with a very good 14 count, preferring to rebid 1NT later to show the better hand. > >life is simple > Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how does your recommended syntax indicate the (presumed) possibility of your passing a bad 12 count, or demoting a bad 15 count into 1NT? Brian. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Sep 24 10:49:46 2015 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:49:46 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <20150924070437.07CAB38EEC368@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <20150924070437.07CAB38EEC368@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: Why on earth would I demote in a system that I am playing for its preemptive benefits. bill -----Original Message----- From: brian Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 2:36 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:24:49 +0800, you wrote: >On my ACOL system card I show >1NT: No singleton or void, 12- to 14- >Indicating an occasional (less than 10%) chance that I have opened 1NT on a >good 11 count or I have failed to open 1NT on an otherwise suitable hand >with a very good 14 count, preferring to rebid 1NT later to show the better >hand. > >life is simple > Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how does your recommended syntax indicate the (presumed) possibility of your passing a bad 12 count, or demoting a bad 15 count into 1NT? Brian. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 11:35:31 2015 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 05:35:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: <20150924070437.07CAB38EEC368@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:49:46 +0800, you wrote: >Why on earth would I demote in a system that I am playing for its preemptive >benefits. > Well, something like Axxx QJ Jxx AKxx I think I might devalue on the basis of the QJ stiff and the Jxx, and open it with a 12-14 1NT, rather than the (less pre-emptive!) 1C and rebid 1NT. However, if you never demote, please note that I did say 'presumed'. You may never demote, but I've seen a hell of a lot of players who do. Brian. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 24 12:50:33 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:50:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <20150924100343.EBDEE789014E@relay4.webreus.nl> References: <20150924070437.07CAB38EEC368@relay1.webreus.nl> <20150924100343.EBDEE789014E@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <5603D579.2050005@skynet.be> presumably this hand could be described as 15-. But that does not solve the problem of a player who promotes some 14's and demotes some 15's. Herman. brian schreef: > On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:49:46 +0800, you wrote: > >> Why on earth would I demote in a system that I am playing for its preemptive >> benefits. >> > > Well, something like > > Axxx > QJ > Jxx > AKxx > > I think I might devalue on the basis of the QJ stiff and the Jxx, and > open it with a 12-14 1NT, rather than the (less pre-emptive!) 1C and > rebid 1NT. > > However, if you never demote, please note that I did say 'presumed'. > You may never demote, but I've seen a hell of a lot of players who do. > Brian. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 13:26:17 2015 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:26:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <5603D579.2050005@skynet.be> References: <20150924070437.07CAB38EEC368@relay1.webreus.nl> <20150924100343.EBDEE789014E@relay4.webreus.nl> <5603D579.2050005@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:50:33 +0200, you wrote: >presumably this hand could be described as 15-. > >But that does not solve the problem of a player who promotes some 14's >and demotes some 15's. > That was the point I was trying to make, Herman. Perhaps ~12 - ~14 is a way to do it? It seems less cumbersome than anything else I can think of. Brian. From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Thu Sep 24 14:58:50 2015 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 08:58:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7BF8361D-0623-4877-8ABB-1FF76C3E6BDC@verizon.net> On Sep 23, 2015, at 8:29 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:39:26 -0400, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >> Kaplan wrote to the effect that the convention card is an understanding >> with partner, not an undertaking to the opponents. >> >> HCP are an approximation of a hand's value. The laws do not mention them. >> Absent regulation to the contrary players must be allowed to evaluate their >> hands using their own judgement, promoting and demoting as they deem best. >> Some such regulations have been passed. While I consider them harmful to >> the spirit of the game they are lawful. Are you suggesting that any apply >> in your jurisdiction? Otherwise I do not see any cause for complaint. >> >> I suspect that most pairs who write 5-11 on their convention card for a two >> bid are more likely to open an 11 count with a six card suit at the one >> level than the two level. I would write 5-10 and consider that the best >> description, > > So, are you saying that it is okay to write 5-11 on the card even though 5-10 is the best description? ?Okay? is subjective, but it does seem to be what the ACBL wants you to do. If the "best description? of your agreement is 5-10, but you aren?t strict HCP-counters, and you choose a two-bid on KJxxxx/Kxx/Qx/Qx, the director is likely to instruct you to change your CC to 5-11. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 24 17:13:41 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:13:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Do_players_have_to_describe_what_they_play=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 24.09.2015 07:24, bill kemp a ?crit?: > On my ACOL system card I show > 1NT: No singleton or void, 12- to 14- > Indicating an occasional (less than 10%) chance that I have opened 1NT > on a good 11 count or I have failed to open 1NT on an otherwise > suitable hand with a very good 14 count, preferring to rebid 1NT later > to show the better hand. I think 11+ to 14- would be a better description of what you explain. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 24 17:15:44 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:15:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Do_players_have_to_describe_what_they_play=3F?= In-Reply-To: <5603D579.2050005@skynet.be> References: <20150924070437.07CAB38EEC368@relay1.webreus.nl> <20150924100343.EBDEE789014E@relay4.webreus.nl> <5603D579.2050005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3cc1146c19f68add62cb8d667558bfea@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 24.09.2015 12:50, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > presumably this hand could be described as 15-. > > But that does not solve the problem of a player who promotes some 14's > and demotes some 15's. > what would solve it(if allowed, which I'm not 100% sure of) would be : under NT : (11)12-14(15) under 1C followed by 1NT : (14)15-17 Meaning, with parentheses used as in carding, a fairly uncommon occurrence. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 24 17:28:50 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:28:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Let's be careful In-Reply-To: <5603D579.2050005@skynet.be> References: <20150924070437.07CAB38EEC368@relay1.webreus.nl> <20150924100343.EBDEE789014E@relay4.webreus.nl> <5603D579.2050005@skynet.be> Message-ID: As everyone here I've heard about players recently making strange things that work and giving moderately (at best) convincing explanations. But I want to urge everybody to be careful before skipping to conclusions. Here is something which happened in our tuesday training session (pretty strong field) and made me think. One of the lesser players held AJxxxx - J9xxx - xx - void, at equal vulnerability. Although he had in his system a Landy 2C, he chose to overcall 2S. By doing this, he escaped the possible penalty (3 down against perfect defense), because opponents didn't use penalty doubles. Had he bid 2C, the 'provisional penalty' double of 2C would have seen him mired in some doubled contract (either 2S or 2D). He explained his action as such : 'first, I want to preempt, not to give a blueprint of my hand ; second, what if partner passes 2C ?' "Of course", he found partner with a singleton heart (and doubleton spade). Did he illegally know parner's heart count, perhaps ? (why cheats often center their informations around the heart suit is a good question) Let's be careful before concluding that way. Because I know there was no such thing. As you might have guessed, that player was Yours Truly. Best regards Alain From g3 at nige1.com Thu Sep 24 22:05:20 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 21:05:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: <20150924063635.08E00798C21B@relay4.webreus.nl> References: <20150924063635.08E00798C21B@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: [Bill] On my ACOL system card I show 1NT: No singleton or void, 12- to 14- Indicating an occasional (less than 10%) chance that I have opened 1NT on a good 11 count or I have failed to open 1NT on an otherwise suitable hand with a very good 14 count, preferring to rebid 1NT later to show the better hand. life is simple [Brian] Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how does your recommended syntax indicate the (presumed) possibility of your passing a bad 12 count, or demoting a bad 15 count into 1NT? [Nigel] I like Bill's solution: divulging the HCP range that you've *actually agreed*, in the spirit of full-disclosure. The rules should treat such a specification as a *necessary* condition. It might not always be *sufficient*. Realistically, Bill's opponents won't assume that he undertakes to open 1N on *all* hands that satisfy his specification. For example, he might open something other than 1N with S: A K Q J x x x H: A x D: x x C: x x (He might toy with 1S rather than 1N). S: Q J x H: Q J x D: Q J x C: Q J x x (Vulnerable at teams, he might chicken out and pass). From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Sep 25 03:01:47 2015 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:01:47 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? In-Reply-To: References: <20150924063635.08E00798C21B@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <2B749D412943417782BCCBD368FB17B5@tosh2> A systems card will never be sufficient but the intent should always be there. Even a note regarding partnership bidding style will help. e.g light overcalls at the one level. bill -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Guthrie Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 4:05 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Do players have to describe what they play? [Bill] On my ACOL system card I show 1NT: No singleton or void, 12- to 14- Indicating an occasional (less than 10%) chance that I have opened 1NT on a good 11 count or I have failed to open 1NT on an otherwise suitable hand with a very good 14 count, preferring to rebid 1NT later to show the better hand. life is simple [Brian] Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how does your recommended syntax indicate the (presumed) possibility of your passing a bad 12 count, or demoting a bad 15 count into 1NT? [Nigel] I like Bill's solution: divulging the HCP range that you've *actually agreed*, in the spirit of full-disclosure. The rules should treat such a specification as a *necessary* condition. It might not always be *sufficient*. Realistically, Bill's opponents won't assume that he undertakes to open 1N on *all* hands that satisfy his specification. For example, he might open something other than 1N with S: A K Q J x x x H: A x D: x x C: x x (He might toy with 1S rather than 1N). S: Q J x H: Q J x D: Q J x C: Q J x x (Vulnerable at teams, he might chicken out and pass). _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml