From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 1 01:19:51 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 19:19:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence Message-ID: One of the joys of not allowing the dummy to point out irregularites involves determining when this starts and stops. I assume dummy is allowed to point out irregularities before the play period is over. Anyway, everyone came down to 1 card except West, who had two. Only the dummy (South) noticed. Everyone then played to the last trick except West. At this point, dummy incorrectly pointed out the irregularity. Ignoring the issue of penalty to dummy, if dummy had wanted to follow the rules and wait until play was over . . . then what? From gordonr60 at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 08:49:50 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 07:49:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 1 Apr 2016, at 00:19, Robert Frick wrote: > > > One of the joys of not allowing the dummy to point out irregularites involves determining when this starts and stops. I assume dummy is allowed to point out irregularities before the play period is over. Surely you didn't mean this last sentence? > > Anyway, everyone came down to 1 card except West, who had two. Only the dummy (South) noticed. Everyone then played to the last trick except West. At this point, dummy incorrectly pointed out the irregularity. > > Ignoring the issue of penalty to dummy, if dummy had wanted to follow the rules and wait until play was over . . . then what? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 16:03:47 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 01:03:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> Message-ID: > One of the joys of not allowing the dummy to point out irregularites involves determining when this starts and stops. I assume dummy is allowed to point out irregularities before the play period is over. Gordon Rainsford: Surely you didn't mean this last sentence? Law 20F5(b)(ii) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is for declarer or ++dummy++, after the final pass of the auction. Best wishes, Richard Hills > > Anyway, everyone came down to 1 card except West, who had two. Only the dummy (South) noticed. Everyone then played On Friday, April 1, 2016, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > > > On 1 Apr 2016, at 00:19, Robert Frick wrote: > > > > > > One of the joys of not allowing the dummy to point out irregularites > involves determining when this starts and stops. I assume dummy is allowed > to point out irregularities before the play period is over. > > Surely you didn't mean this last sentence? > > > > Anyway, everyone came down to 1 card except West, who had two. Only the > dummy (South) noticed. Everyone then played to the last trick except West. > At this point, dummy incorrectly pointed out the irregularity. > > > > Ignoring the issue of penalty to dummy, if dummy had wanted to follow > the rules and wait until play was over . . . then what? > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20160401/3d7098de/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 2 03:29:52 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:29:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 02:49:50 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > >> On 1 Apr 2016, at 00:19, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> >> One of the joys of not allowing the dummy to point out irregularites involves determining when this starts and stops. I assume dummy is allowed to point out irregularities before the play period is over. > > Surely you didn't mean this last sentence? We all agree dummy can point out irregularities before the play period is over. So that part was serious. (I'm getting that right, right?) Or I always assumed dummy could and I have never seen a dummy wait that long. Previous sentence: I was being sarcastic -- I can't see any advantages of not letting dummy point out irregularities; I think there are three or four disadvantages. >> >> Anyway, everyone came down to 1 card except West, who had two. Only the dummy (South) noticed. Everyone then played to the last trick except West. At this point, dummy incorrectly pointed out the irregularity. >> >> Ignoring the issue of penalty to dummy, if dummy had wanted to follow the rules and wait until play was over . . . then what? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Sun Apr 3 21:32:03 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 15:32:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> Message-ID: Okay, that was a distraction. Let's start over. It has come down to the last card for everyone else, one player has two cards, and only dummy notices. Everyone else plays a card to the last trick except the person with two, who does not play to the last trick. For some reason no one has explained to me, dummy is not allowed to point out irregularites until play is over. That presumably is completion of the 13th trick, which presumably has not been completed. So dummy legally can't say anything. Play might never be completed, or his partner might shuffle his cards together before that happens. Right? From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Apr 3 22:02:12 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 22:02:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> Message-ID: <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> Am 03.04.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Robert Frick: > Okay, that was a distraction. Let's start over. It has come down to the last card for everyone else, one player has two cards, and only dummy notices. Everyone else plays a card to the last trick except the person with two, who does not play to the last trick. > > For some reason no one has explained to me, dummy is not allowed to point out irregularites until play is over. That presumably is completion of the 13th trick, which presumably has not been completed. > > So dummy legally can't say anything. Play might never be completed, because noone will call the TD, _ever_ ? Unlikely... > or his partner might shuffle his cards together before that happens. Right? And your point is? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Apr 3 22:29:58 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 16:29:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 16:02:12 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 03.04.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Robert Frick: >> Okay, that was a distraction. Let's start over. It has come down to the last card for everyone else, one player has two cards, and only dummy notices. Everyone else plays a card to the last trick except the person with two, who does not play to the last trick. >> >> For some reason no one has explained to me, dummy is not allowed to point out irregularites until play is over. That presumably is completion of the 13th trick, which presumably has not been completed. >> >> So dummy legally can't say anything. Play might never be completed, > > because noone will call the TD, _ever_ ? Unlikely... I am not sure what you are asking. No one is going to notice except dummy and the player with two cards. And the player with two cards is not going to call the director. If you think someone will call the director... who? when? > >> or his partner might shuffle his cards together before that happens. Right? > > And your point is? We all know that the laws are not always followed, that sometimes the only practical thing is breaking them. Obviously, this is one of them. I thought it might be interesting to think about what dummy could legally do, if the dummy wanted to follow the laws. East complained about the dummy pointing out the irregularity. And he probably asked me what I was going to do about it, or why I did not point out dummy's malfeasance. And as much as I sympathize with dummy, East was right. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Apr 3 23:09:34 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:09:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> Message-ID: <5701868E.2000000@t-online.de> Am 03.04.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Robert Frick: > On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 16:02:12 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> Am 03.04.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Robert Frick: >>> Okay, that was a distraction. Let's start over. It has come down to the last card for everyone else, one player has two cards, and only dummy notices. Everyone else plays a card to the last trick except the person with two, who does not play to the last trick. >>> >>> For some reason no one has explained to me, dummy is not allowed to point out irregularites until play is over. That presumably is completion of the 13th trick, which presumably has not been completed. >>> >>> So dummy legally can't say anything. Play might never be completed, >> because noone will call the TD, _ever_ ? Unlikely... > I am not sure what you are asking. No one is going to notice except dummy and the player with two cards. Eh? Play is finished and one player has a card left. No one is going to notice?? Come again? > And the player with two cards is not going to call the director. If you think someone will call the director... who? when? Surely dummy may call after everyone has played to trick 13? > >>> or his partner might shuffle his cards together before that happens. Right? >> And your point is? > We all know that the laws are not always followed, that sometimes the only practical thing is breaking them. Obviously, this is one of them. I can`t see why... > I thought it might be interesting to think about what dummy could legally do, if the dummy wanted to follow the laws. If we were to follow the line of thought I think you have, dummy would stay dummy for the rest of his/her life, as play has never ended. This seems wrong to me. > > East complained about the dummy pointing out the irregularity. And he probably asked me what I was going to do about it, or why I did not point out dummy's malfeasance. And as much as I sympathize with dummy, East was right. In a way. yes. In another way, no, as dummy _must_ end being dummy or never play a hand of bridge again, and ex-dummy could call when play is finished. So I give him a warning, with a stern tone and serious face. Away from the table I explain why oppo was technically right, but as this is not covered expressis verbis I could care less about him/her calling. I would explain why it usually would be a good idea to wait, and why this may jeorpardize his side`s right. Afterwards I would explain to East that, while he was technically on the right course, _this situation called for unusual measures, and that I would take care to prevent damage from dummy`s actions to his side, but that this situation is not one of them... > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Apr 3 23:17:25 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 17:17:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: <5701868E.2000000@t-online.de> References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> <5701868E.2000000@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 17:09:34 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 03.04.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Robert Frick: >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 16:02:12 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> >>> Am 03.04.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Robert Frick: >>>> Okay, that was a distraction. Let's start over. It has come down to the last card for everyone else, one player has two cards, and only dummy notices. Everyone else plays a card to the last trick except the person with two, who does not play to the last trick. >>>> >>>> For some reason no one has explained to me, dummy is not allowed to point out irregularites until play is over. That presumably is completion of the 13th trick, which presumably has not been completed. >>>> >>>> So dummy legally can't say anything. Play might never be completed, >>> because noone will call the TD, _ever_ ? Unlikely... >> I am not sure what you are asking. No one is going to notice except dummy and the player with two cards. > > Eh? Play is finished and one player has a card left. No one is going to > notice?? Come again? The player who started the trick with two cards, who would be last to play to the trick, has not played to trick 13. Declarer thinks the hand is over and presumably will start agreeing on the result and shuffling his cards. > >> And the player with two cards is not going to call the director. If you think someone will call the director... who? when? > > Surely dummy may call after everyone has played to trick 13? Surely > >> >>>> or his partner might shuffle his cards together before that happens. Right? >>> And your point is? >> We all know that the laws are not always followed, that sometimes the only practical thing is breaking them. Obviously, this is one of them. > > I can`t see why... Because play isn't completed. > >> I thought it might be interesting to think about what dummy could legally do, if the dummy wanted to follow the laws. > > If we were to follow the line of thought I think you have, dummy would > stay dummy for the rest of his/her life, as play has never ended. This > seems wrong to me. Perhaps it should be changed for 2017. > >> >> East complained about the dummy pointing out the irregularity. And he probably asked me what I was going to do about it, or why I did not point out dummy's malfeasance. And as much as I sympathize with dummy, East was right. > > In a way. yes. In another way, no, as dummy _must_ end being dummy or > never play a hand of bridge again, and ex-dummy could call when play is > finished. So I give him a warning, with a stern tone and serious face. > Away from the table I explain why oppo was technically right, but as > this is not covered expressis verbis I could care less about him/her > calling. I would explain why it usually would be a good idea to wait, > and why this may jeorpardize his side`s right. Afterwards I would > explain to East that, while he was technically on the right course, > _this situation called for unusual measures, and that I would take care > to prevent damage from dummy`s actions to his side, but that this > situation is not one of them... East would love this ruling -- he wanted me to give dummy a warning with a stern tone and serious face. You are essentially coming down on East's side in the fight between the two. From sven at svenpran.net Mon Apr 4 00:32:37 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 00:32:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> <5701868E.2000000@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000d01d18df8$bd19de50$374d9af0$@svenpran.net> Please be serious and don't waste time like this! The player with one extra card has either started the board with 14 cards or failed to play to one of the thirteen tricks. Thirteen tricks have been played. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 3. april 2016 23:17 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] dummy silence > > On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 17:09:34 -0400, Matthias Berghaus online.de> wrote: > > > Am 03.04.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Robert Frick: > >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 16:02:12 -0400, Matthias Berghaus online.de> wrote: > >> > >>> Am 03.04.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Robert Frick: > >>>> Okay, that was a distraction. Let's start over. It has come down to the > last card for everyone else, one player has two cards, and only dummy > notices. Everyone else plays a card to the last trick except the person with > two, who does not play to the last trick. > >>>> > >>>> For some reason no one has explained to me, dummy is not allowed > to point out irregularites until play is over. That presumably is completion > of the 13th trick, which presumably has not been completed. > >>>> > >>>> So dummy legally can't say anything. Play might never be completed, > >>> because noone will call the TD, _ever_ ? Unlikely... > >> I am not sure what you are asking. No one is going to notice except > dummy and the player with two cards. > > > > Eh? Play is finished and one player has a card left. No one is going > > to notice?? Come again? > > The player who started the trick with two cards, who would be last to play > to the trick, has not played to trick 13. Declarer thinks the hand is over and > presumably will start agreeing on the result and shuffling his cards. > > > > > > > >> And the player with two cards is not going to call the director. If you > think someone will call the director... who? when? > > > > Surely dummy may call after everyone has played to trick 13? > > Surely > > > > >> > >>>> or his partner might shuffle his cards together before that happens. > Right? > >>> And your point is? > >> We all know that the laws are not always followed, that sometimes the > only practical thing is breaking them. Obviously, this is one of them. > > > > I can`t see why... > > Because play isn't completed. > > > > >> I thought it might be interesting to think about what dummy could > legally do, if the dummy wanted to follow the laws. > > > > If we were to follow the line of thought I think you have, dummy would > > stay dummy for the rest of his/her life, as play has never ended. This > > seems wrong to me. > > Perhaps it should be changed for 2017. > > > > > > >> > >> East complained about the dummy pointing out the irregularity. And he > probably asked me what I was going to do about it, or why I did not point > out dummy's malfeasance. And as much as I sympathize with dummy, East > was right. > > > > In a way. yes. In another way, no, as dummy _must_ end being dummy or > > never play a hand of bridge again, and ex-dummy could call when play > > is finished. So I give him a warning, with a stern tone and serious face. > > Away from the table I explain why oppo was technically right, but as > > this is not covered expressis verbis I could care less about him/her > > calling. I would explain why it usually would be a good idea to wait, > > and why this may jeorpardize his side`s right. Afterwards I would > > explain to East that, while he was technically on the right course, > > _this situation called for unusual measures, and that I would take > > care to prevent damage from dummy`s actions to his side, but that this > > situation is not one of them... > > East would love this ruling -- he wanted me to give dummy a warning with a > stern tone and serious face. You are essentially coming down on East's side > in the fight between the two. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 4 03:02:13 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 21:02:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: <000d01d18df8$bd19de50$374d9af0$@svenpran.net> References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> <5701868E.2000000@t-online.de> <000d01d18df8$bd19de50$374d9af0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 18:32:37 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > Please be serious and don't waste time like this! > > The player with one extra card has either started the board with 14 cards or > failed to play to one of the thirteen tricks. > Thirteen tricks have been played. Only two players have played to the last trick, and you claim it is completed? That is seemingly absurd, at best counter-intuitive. I am sure you have some good explanation and will cite laws to support it. But it would save time if you posted that with your counter-intuitive opinions. > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 3. april 2016 23:17 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] dummy silence >> >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 17:09:34 -0400, Matthias Berghaus > online.de> wrote: >> >> > Am 03.04.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Robert Frick: >> >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 16:02:12 -0400, Matthias Berghaus > online.de> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Am 03.04.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Robert Frick: >> >>>> Okay, that was a distraction. Let's start over. It has come down to > the >> last card for everyone else, one player has two cards, and only dummy >> notices. Everyone else plays a card to the last trick except the person > with >> two, who does not play to the last trick. >> >>>> >> >>>> For some reason no one has explained to me, dummy is not allowed >> to point out irregularites until play is over. That presumably is > completion >> of the 13th trick, which presumably has not been completed. >> >>>> >> >>>> So dummy legally can't say anything. Play might never be completed, >> >>> because noone will call the TD, _ever_ ? Unlikely... >> >> I am not sure what you are asking. No one is going to notice except >> dummy and the player with two cards. >> > >> > Eh? Play is finished and one player has a card left. No one is going >> > to notice?? Come again? >> >> The player who started the trick with two cards, who would be last to play >> to the trick, has not played to trick 13. Declarer thinks the hand is over > and >> presumably will start agreeing on the result and shuffling his cards. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> And the player with two cards is not going to call the director. If you >> think someone will call the director... who? when? >> > >> > Surely dummy may call after everyone has played to trick 13? >> >> Surely >> >> > >> >> >> >>>> or his partner might shuffle his cards together before that happens. >> Right? >> >>> And your point is? >> >> We all know that the laws are not always followed, that sometimes the >> only practical thing is breaking them. Obviously, this is one of them. >> > >> > I can`t see why... >> >> Because play isn't completed. >> >> > >> >> I thought it might be interesting to think about what dummy could >> legally do, if the dummy wanted to follow the laws. >> > >> > If we were to follow the line of thought I think you have, dummy would >> > stay dummy for the rest of his/her life, as play has never ended. This >> > seems wrong to me. >> >> Perhaps it should be changed for 2017. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> East complained about the dummy pointing out the irregularity. And he >> probably asked me what I was going to do about it, or why I did not point >> out dummy's malfeasance. And as much as I sympathize with dummy, East >> was right. >> > >> > In a way. yes. In another way, no, as dummy _must_ end being dummy or >> > never play a hand of bridge again, and ex-dummy could call when play >> > is finished. So I give him a warning, with a stern tone and serious > face. >> > Away from the table I explain why oppo was technically right, but as >> > this is not covered expressis verbis I could care less about him/her >> > calling. I would explain why it usually would be a good idea to wait, >> > and why this may jeorpardize his side`s right. Afterwards I would >> > explain to East that, while he was technically on the right course, >> > _this situation called for unusual measures, and that I would take >> > care to prevent damage from dummy`s actions to his side, but that this >> > situation is not one of them... >> >> East would love this ruling -- he wanted me to give dummy a warning with a >> stern tone and serious face. You are essentially coming down on East's > side >> in the fight between the two. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 sven at svenpran.net Mon Apr 4 11:21:24 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:21:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> <5701868E.2000000@t-online.de> <000d01d18df8$bd19de50$374d9af0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <000301d18e53$5e634990$1b29dcb0$@svenpran.net> The players should call the Director who will apply Law 13 and quite likely Law 67. If they don't call the Director but just restore their cards to the board the play is completed. It isn't any more complicated than that. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 4. april 2016 03:02 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] dummy silence > > On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 18:32:37 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > > > Please be serious and don't waste time like this! > > > > The player with one extra card has either started the board with 14 > > cards or failed to play to one of the thirteen tricks. > > Thirteen tricks have been played. > > Only two players have played to the last trick, and you claim it is > completed? That is seemingly absurd, at best counter-intuitive. I am sure > you have some good explanation and will cite laws to support it. But it > would save time if you posted that with your counter-intuitive opinions. > > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > >> av Robert Frick > >> Sendt: 3. april 2016 23:17 > >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Emne: Re: [BLML] dummy silence > >> > >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 17:09:34 -0400, Matthias Berghaus >> online.de> wrote: > >> > >> > Am 03.04.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Robert Frick: > >> >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 16:02:12 -0400, Matthias Berghaus > >> >> >> online.de> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Am 03.04.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Robert Frick: > >> >>>> Okay, that was a distraction. Let's start over. It has come down > >> >>>> to > > the > >> last card for everyone else, one player has two cards, and only dummy > >> notices. Everyone else plays a card to the last trick except the > >> person > > with > >> two, who does not play to the last trick. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> For some reason no one has explained to me, dummy is not > allowed > >> to point out irregularites until play is over. That presumably is > > completion > >> of the 13th trick, which presumably has not been completed. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> So dummy legally can't say anything. Play might never be > >> >>>> completed, > >> >>> because noone will call the TD, _ever_ ? Unlikely... > >> >> I am not sure what you are asking. No one is going to notice > >> >> except > >> dummy and the player with two cards. > >> > > >> > Eh? Play is finished and one player has a card left. No one is > >> > going to notice?? Come again? > >> > >> The player who started the trick with two cards, who would be last to > >> play to the trick, has not played to trick 13. Declarer thinks the > >> hand is over > > and > >> presumably will start agreeing on the result and shuffling his cards. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> And the player with two cards is not going to call the director. > >> >> If you > >> think someone will call the director... who? when? > >> > > >> > Surely dummy may call after everyone has played to trick 13? > >> > >> Surely > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >>>> or his partner might shuffle his cards together before that > happens. > >> Right? > >> >>> And your point is? > >> >> We all know that the laws are not always followed, that sometimes > >> >> the > >> only practical thing is breaking them. Obviously, this is one of them. > >> > > >> > I can`t see why... > >> > >> Because play isn't completed. > >> > >> > > >> >> I thought it might be interesting to think about what dummy could > >> legally do, if the dummy wanted to follow the laws. > >> > > >> > If we were to follow the line of thought I think you have, dummy > >> > would stay dummy for the rest of his/her life, as play has never > >> > ended. This seems wrong to me. > >> > >> Perhaps it should be changed for 2017. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> East complained about the dummy pointing out the irregularity. And > >> >> he > >> probably asked me what I was going to do about it, or why I did not > >> point out dummy's malfeasance. And as much as I sympathize with > >> dummy, East was right. > >> > > >> > In a way. yes. In another way, no, as dummy _must_ end being dummy > >> > or never play a hand of bridge again, and ex-dummy could call when > >> > play is finished. So I give him a warning, with a stern tone and > >> > serious > > face. > >> > Away from the table I explain why oppo was technically right, but > >> > as this is not covered expressis verbis I could care less about > >> > him/her calling. I would explain why it usually would be a good > >> > idea to wait, and why this may jeorpardize his side`s right. > >> > Afterwards I would explain to East that, while he was technically > >> > on the right course, _this situation called for unusual measures, > >> > and that I would take care to prevent damage from dummy`s actions > >> > to his side, but that this situation is not one of them... > >> > >> East would love this ruling -- he wanted me to give dummy a warning > >> with a stern tone and serious face. You are essentially coming down > >> on East's > > side > >> in the fight between the two. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Mon Apr 4 16:05:09 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:05:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: <5701868E.2000000@t-online.de> References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> <5701868E.2000000@t-online.de> Message-ID: <57027495.2030208@gmx.de> I agree with Matthias (no need to mention that really) but let us take Robert's mis en scene to its absurd conclusion. Dummy, being dummy (says Robert) can't call attention to the problem. But he needn't do anything. He simply sits at the table and does not return his cards to the board or do anything to directly call attention to what has taken place. Eventually (I assume) someone will notice that play has not continued and ask dummy why he has not returned his cards to the board and play the next board. If Robert feels he still can't state the reason he will refuse to answer and someone, I assume, will call the TD. The TD will ask the dummy what is going on and why he doesn't proceed with the game. I venture to dare that Robert will allow him to state the reason (although he is still the dummy according to Robert) and then the TD can make a ruling. Is this a satisfactory solution? Ciao, JE Am 03.04.2016 um 23:09 schrieb Matthias Berghaus: > Am 03.04.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Robert Frick: >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 16:02:12 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> >>> Am 03.04.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Robert Frick: >>>> Okay, that was a distraction. Let's start over. It has come down to the last card for everyone else, one player has two cards, and only dummy notices. Everyone else plays a card to the last trick except the person with two, who does not play to the last trick. >>>> >>>> For some reason no one has explained to me, dummy is not allowed to point out irregularites until play is over. That presumably is completion of the 13th trick, which presumably has not been completed. >>>> >>>> So dummy legally can't say anything. Play might never be completed, >>> because noone will call the TD, _ever_ ? Unlikely... >> I am not sure what you are asking. No one is going to notice except dummy and the player with two cards. > Eh? Play is finished and one player has a card left. No one is going to > notice?? Come again? > >> And the player with two cards is not going to call the director. If you think someone will call the director... who? when? > Surely dummy may call after everyone has played to trick 13? > >>>> or his partner might shuffle his cards together before that happens. Right? >>> And your point is? >> We all know that the laws are not always followed, that sometimes the only practical thing is breaking them. Obviously, this is one of them. > I can`t see why... > >> I thought it might be interesting to think about what dummy could legally do, if the dummy wanted to follow the laws. > If we were to follow the line of thought I think you have, dummy would > stay dummy for the rest of his/her life, as play has never ended. This > seems wrong to me. > >> East complained about the dummy pointing out the irregularity. And he probably asked me what I was going to do about it, or why I did not point out dummy's malfeasance. And as much as I sympathize with dummy, East was right. > In a way. yes. In another way, no, as dummy _must_ end being dummy or > never play a hand of bridge again, and ex-dummy could call when play is > finished. So I give him a warning, with a stern tone and serious face. > Away from the table I explain why oppo was technically right, but as > this is not covered expressis verbis I could care less about him/her > calling. I would explain why it usually would be a good idea to wait, > and why this may jeorpardize his side`s right. Afterwards I would > explain to East that, while he was technically on the right course, > _this situation called for unusual measures, and that I would take care > to prevent damage from dummy`s actions to his side, but that this > situation is not one of them... > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 4 17:06:37 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 11:06:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: <000301d18e53$5e634990$1b29dcb0$@svenpran.net> References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> <5701868E.2000000@t-online.de> <000d01d18df8$bd19de50$374d9af0$@svenpran.net> <000301d18e53$5e634990$1b29dcb0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 05:21:24 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > The players should call the Director who will apply Law 13 and quite likely > Law 67. > > If they don't call the Director but just restore their cards to the board > the play is completed. > > It isn't any more complicated than that. Ah, then you can answer some questions. First, who do you think is going to call the director? The two players who have not noticed anything wrong? No. The player who has the extra card? No. That leaves dummy, who cannot call the director until an irregularity is noted (and play is, even as you describe, not over). Could you site the law for your unique opinion that play is over when the players restore their cards to the boards? I would like to read it (if only to learn how many players must return their cards to the board for play to be over. One? Four?) And lastly, you are saying that dummy can call the director after everyone has shuffled their cards together and returned them to the board. Isn't that an awkward time to discover what trick was missing a card? Or even establish that a trick was missing a card? > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 4. april 2016 03:02 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] dummy silence >> >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 18:32:37 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> > Please be serious and don't waste time like this! >> > >> > The player with one extra card has either started the board with 14 >> > cards or failed to play to one of the thirteen tricks. >> > Thirteen tricks have been played. >> >> Only two players have played to the last trick, and you claim it is >> completed? That is seemingly absurd, at best counter-intuitive. I am sure >> you have some good explanation and will cite laws to support it. But it >> would save time if you posted that with your counter-intuitive opinions. >> >> > >> >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >> >> av Robert Frick >> >> Sendt: 3. april 2016 23:17 >> >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> >> Emne: Re: [BLML] dummy silence >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 17:09:34 -0400, Matthias Berghaus > >> online.de> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Am 03.04.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Robert Frick: >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 16:02:12 -0400, Matthias Berghaus >> >> >> > >> online.de> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Am 03.04.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Robert Frick: >> >> >>>> Okay, that was a distraction. Let's start over. It has come down >> >> >>>> to >> > the >> >> last card for everyone else, one player has two cards, and only dummy >> >> notices. Everyone else plays a card to the last trick except the >> >> person >> > with >> >> two, who does not play to the last trick. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> For some reason no one has explained to me, dummy is not >> allowed >> >> to point out irregularites until play is over. That presumably is >> > completion >> >> of the 13th trick, which presumably has not been completed. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> So dummy legally can't say anything. Play might never be >> >> >>>> completed, >> >> >>> because noone will call the TD, _ever_ ? Unlikely... >> >> >> I am not sure what you are asking. No one is going to notice >> >> >> except >> >> dummy and the player with two cards. >> >> > >> >> > Eh? Play is finished and one player has a card left. No one is >> >> > going to notice?? Come again? >> >> >> >> The player who started the trick with two cards, who would be last to >> >> play to the trick, has not played to trick 13. Declarer thinks the >> >> hand is over >> > and >> >> presumably will start agreeing on the result and shuffling his cards. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> And the player with two cards is not going to call the director. >> >> >> If you >> >> think someone will call the director... who? when? >> >> > >> >> > Surely dummy may call after everyone has played to trick 13? >> >> >> >> Surely >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> or his partner might shuffle his cards together before that >> happens. >> >> Right? >> >> >>> And your point is? >> >> >> We all know that the laws are not always followed, that sometimes >> >> >> the >> >> only practical thing is breaking them. Obviously, this is one of them. >> >> > >> >> > I can`t see why... >> >> >> >> Because play isn't completed. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> I thought it might be interesting to think about what dummy could >> >> legally do, if the dummy wanted to follow the laws. >> >> > >> >> > If we were to follow the line of thought I think you have, dummy >> >> > would stay dummy for the rest of his/her life, as play has never >> >> > ended. This seems wrong to me. >> >> >> >> Perhaps it should be changed for 2017. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> East complained about the dummy pointing out the irregularity. And >> >> >> he >> >> probably asked me what I was going to do about it, or why I did not >> >> point out dummy's malfeasance. And as much as I sympathize with >> >> dummy, East was right. >> >> > >> >> > In a way. yes. In another way, no, as dummy _must_ end being dummy >> >> > or never play a hand of bridge again, and ex-dummy could call when >> >> > play is finished. So I give him a warning, with a stern tone and >> >> > serious >> > face. >> >> > Away from the table I explain why oppo was technically right, but >> >> > as this is not covered expressis verbis I could care less about >> >> > him/her calling. I would explain why it usually would be a good >> >> > idea to wait, and why this may jeorpardize his side`s right. >> >> > Afterwards I would explain to East that, while he was technically >> >> > on the right course, _this situation called for unusual measures, >> >> > and that I would take care to prevent damage from dummy`s actions >> >> > to his side, but that this situation is not one of them... >> >> >> >> East would love this ruling -- he wanted me to give dummy a warning >> >> with a stern tone and serious face. You are essentially coming down >> >> on East's >> > side >> >> in the fight between the two. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Blml mailing list >> >> Blml at rtflb.org >> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Blml mailing list >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 4 17:10:23 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 11:10:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: <57027495.2030208@gmx.de> References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> <5701868E.2000000@t-online.de> <57027495.2030208@gmx.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 10:05:09 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > I agree with Matthias (no need to mention that really) but let us take > Robert's mis en scene to its absurd conclusion. Dummy, being dummy > (says Robert) can't call attention to the problem. But he needn't do > anything. He simply sits at the table and does not return his cards to > the board or do anything to directly call attention to what has taken > place. Eventually (I assume) someone will notice that play has not > continued and ask dummy why he has not returned his cards to the board > and play the next board. If Robert feels he still can't state the > reason he will refuse to answer and someone, I assume, will call the > TD. The TD will ask the dummy what is going on and why he doesn't > proceed with the game. I venture to dare that Robert will allow him to > state the reason (although he is still the dummy according to Robert) > and then the TD can make a ruling. Is this a satisfactory solution? I think perfect. Which is to say, that is how I read the laws. Note that the players might have shuffled their cards and returned them to the board. Did you want that to happen? Dummy might be in a hurry to point out the irregularity before East combines his two remaining cards with his other cards. Did you want to allow that to happen? Or are you hoping dummy doesn't follow the laws? > > Ciao, JE > > Am 03.04.2016 um 23:09 schrieb Matthias Berghaus: >> Am 03.04.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Robert Frick: >>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 16:02:12 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> >>>> Am 03.04.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Robert Frick: >>>>> Okay, that was a distraction. Let's start over. It has come down to the last card for everyone else, one player has two cards, and only dummy notices. Everyone else plays a card to the last trick except the person with two, who does not play to the last trick. >>>>> >>>>> For some reason no one has explained to me, dummy is not allowed to point out irregularites until play is over. That presumably is completion of the 13th trick, which presumably has not been completed. >>>>> >>>>> So dummy legally can't say anything. Play might never be completed, >>>> because noone will call the TD, _ever_ ? Unlikely... >>> I am not sure what you are asking. No one is going to notice except dummy and the player with two cards. >> Eh? Play is finished and one player has a card left. No one is going to >> notice?? Come again? >> >>> And the player with two cards is not going to call the director. If you think someone will call the director... who? when? >> Surely dummy may call after everyone has played to trick 13? >> >>>>> or his partner might shuffle his cards together before that happens. Right? >>>> And your point is? >>> We all know that the laws are not always followed, that sometimes the only practical thing is breaking them. Obviously, this is one of them. >> I can`t see why... >> >>> I thought it might be interesting to think about what dummy could legally do, if the dummy wanted to follow the laws. >> If we were to follow the line of thought I think you have, dummy would >> stay dummy for the rest of his/her life, as play has never ended. This >> seems wrong to me. >> >>> East complained about the dummy pointing out the irregularity. And he probably asked me what I was going to do about it, or why I did not point out dummy's malfeasance. And as much as I sympathize with dummy, East was right. >> In a way. yes. In another way, no, as dummy _must_ end being dummy or >> never play a hand of bridge again, and ex-dummy could call when play is >> finished. So I give him a warning, with a stern tone and serious face. >> Away from the table I explain why oppo was technically right, but as >> this is not covered expressis verbis I could care less about him/her >> calling. I would explain why it usually would be a good idea to wait, >> and why this may jeorpardize his side`s right. Afterwards I would >> explain to East that, while he was technically on the right course, >> _this situation called for unusual measures, and that I would take care >> to prevent damage from dummy`s actions to his side, but that this >> situation is not one of them... >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > --- > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Apr 4 17:46:59 2016 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 10:46:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> <5701868E.2000000@t-online.de> <000d01d18df8$bd19de50$374d9af0$@svenpran.net> <000301d18e53$5e634990$1b29dcb0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: I would like to see Robert Frick's questions answered. Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Apr 4 18:06:43 2016 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 17:06:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> <5701868E.2000000@t-online.de> <000d01d18df8$bd19de50$374d9af0$@svenpran.net> <000301d18e53$5e634990$1b29dcb0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <6DC7E2AB-3BE0-42E2-BA34-660BF2B3EABE@btopenworld.com> I do not understand your assertion that the player who has two cards left will not call the director. Of course he will, and then the problem is solved. > On 4 Apr 2016, at 16:06, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 05:21:24 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> The players should call the Director who will apply Law 13 and quite likely >> Law 67. >> >> If they don't call the Director but just restore their cards to the board >> the play is completed. >> >> It isn't any more complicated than that. > > > Ah, then you can answer some questions. First, who do you think is going to call the director? The two players who have not noticed anything wrong? No. The player who has the extra card? No. That leaves dummy, who cannot call the director until an irregularity is noted (and play is, even as you describe, not over). > > Could you site the law for your unique opinion that play is over when the players restore their cards to the boards? I would like to read it (if only to learn how many players must return their cards to the board for play to be over. One? Four?) > > And lastly, you are saying that dummy can call the director after everyone has shuffled their cards together and returned them to the board. Isn't that an awkward time to discover what trick was missing a card? Or even establish that a trick was missing a card? > > > > > >> >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >>> Robert Frick >>> Sendt: 4. april 2016 03:02 >>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Emne: Re: [BLML] dummy silence >>> >>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 18:32:37 -0400, Sven Pran >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Please be serious and don't waste time like this! >>>> >>>> The player with one extra card has either started the board with 14 >>>> cards or failed to play to one of the thirteen tricks. >>>> Thirteen tricks have been played. >>> >>> Only two players have played to the last trick, and you claim it is >>> completed? That is seemingly absurd, at best counter-intuitive. I am sure >>> you have some good explanation and will cite laws to support it. But it >>> would save time if you posted that with your counter-intuitive opinions. >>> >>>> >>>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>>>> av Robert Frick >>>>> Sendt: 3. april 2016 23:17 >>>>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] dummy silence >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 17:09:34 -0400, Matthias Berghaus >>>> online.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Am 03.04.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Robert Frick: >>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 16:02:12 -0400, Matthias Berghaus >>>>>>> >>>> online.de> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am 03.04.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Robert Frick: >>>>>>>>> Okay, that was a distraction. Let's start over. It has come down >>>>>>>>> to >>>> the >>>>> last card for everyone else, one player has two cards, and only dummy >>>>> notices. Everyone else plays a card to the last trick except the >>>>> person >>>> with >>>>> two, who does not play to the last trick. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For some reason no one has explained to me, dummy is not >>> allowed >>>>> to point out irregularites until play is over. That presumably is >>>> completion >>>>> of the 13th trick, which presumably has not been completed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So dummy legally can't say anything. Play might never be >>>>>>>>> completed, >>>>>>>> because noone will call the TD, _ever_ ? Unlikely... >>>>>>> I am not sure what you are asking. No one is going to notice >>>>>>> except >>>>> dummy and the player with two cards. >>>>>> >>>>>> Eh? Play is finished and one player has a card left. No one is >>>>>> going to notice?? Come again? >>>>> >>>>> The player who started the trick with two cards, who would be last to >>>>> play to the trick, has not played to trick 13. Declarer thinks the >>>>> hand is over >>>> and >>>>> presumably will start agreeing on the result and shuffling his cards. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> And the player with two cards is not going to call the director. >>>>>>> If you >>>>> think someone will call the director... who? when? >>>>>> >>>>>> Surely dummy may call after everyone has played to trick 13? >>>>> >>>>> Surely >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> or his partner might shuffle his cards together before that >>> happens. >>>>> Right? >>>>>>>> And your point is? >>>>>>> We all know that the laws are not always followed, that sometimes >>>>>>> the >>>>> only practical thing is breaking them. Obviously, this is one of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can`t see why... >>>>> >>>>> Because play isn't completed. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I thought it might be interesting to think about what dummy could >>>>> legally do, if the dummy wanted to follow the laws. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we were to follow the line of thought I think you have, dummy >>>>>> would stay dummy for the rest of his/her life, as play has never >>>>>> ended. This seems wrong to me. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps it should be changed for 2017. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> East complained about the dummy pointing out the irregularity. And >>>>>>> he >>>>> probably asked me what I was going to do about it, or why I did not >>>>> point out dummy's malfeasance. And as much as I sympathize with >>>>> dummy, East was right. >>>>>> >>>>>> In a way. yes. In another way, no, as dummy _must_ end being dummy >>>>>> or never play a hand of bridge again, and ex-dummy could call when >>>>>> play is finished. So I give him a warning, with a stern tone and >>>>>> serious >>>> face. >>>>>> Away from the table I explain why oppo was technically right, but >>>>>> as this is not covered expressis verbis I could care less about >>>>>> him/her calling. I would explain why it usually would be a good >>>>>> idea to wait, and why this may jeorpardize his side`s right. >>>>>> Afterwards I would explain to East that, while he was technically >>>>>> on the right course, _this situation called for unusual measures, >>>>>> and that I would take care to prevent damage from dummy`s actions >>>>>> to his side, but that this situation is not one of them... >>>>> >>>>> East would love this ruling -- he wanted me to give dummy a warning >>>>> with a stern tone and serious face. You are essentially coming down >>>>> on East's >>>> side >>>>> in the fight between the two. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 4 23:57:51 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 17:57:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: <6DC7E2AB-3BE0-42E2-BA34-660BF2B3EABE@btopenworld.com> References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> <5701868E.2000000@t-online.de> <000d01d18df8$bd19de50$374d9af0$@svenpran.net> <000301d18e53$5e634990$1b29dcb0$@svenpran.net> <6DC7E2AB-3BE0-42E2-BA34-660BF2B3EABE@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 12:06:43 -0400, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > I do not understand your assertion that the player who has two cards left will not call the director. Of course he will, and then the problem is solved. Why would he call the director? The director is liable to rectify him. He is not required to point out his infractions (l9A4). > >> On 4 Apr 2016, at 16:06, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 05:21:24 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> The players should call the Director who will apply Law 13 and quite likely >>> Law 67. >>> >>> If they don't call the Director but just restore their cards to the board >>> the play is completed. >>> >>> It isn't any more complicated than that. >> >> >> Ah, then you can answer some questions. First, who do you think is going to call the director? The two players who have not noticed anything wrong? No. The player who has the extra card? No. That leaves dummy, who cannot call the director until an irregularity is noted (and play is, even as you describe, not over). >> >> Could you site the law for your unique opinion that play is over when the players restore their cards to the boards? I would like to read it (if only to learn how many players must return their cards to the board for play to be over. One? Four?) >> >> And lastly, you are saying that dummy can call the director after everyone has shuffled their cards together and returned them to the board. Isn't that an awkward time to discover what trick was missing a card? Or even establish that a trick was missing a card? >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >>>> Robert Frick >>>> Sendt: 4. april 2016 03:02 >>>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] dummy silence >>>> >>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 18:32:37 -0400, Sven Pran >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Please be serious and don't waste time like this! >>>>> >>>>> The player with one extra card has either started the board with 14 >>>>> cards or failed to play to one of the thirteen tricks. >>>>> Thirteen tricks have been played. >>>> >>>> Only two players have played to the last trick, and you claim it is >>>> completed? That is seemingly absurd, at best counter-intuitive. I am sure >>>> you have some good explanation and will cite laws to support it. But it >>>> would save time if you posted that with your counter-intuitive opinions. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>>>>> av Robert Frick >>>>>> Sendt: 3. april 2016 23:17 >>>>>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] dummy silence >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 17:09:34 -0400, Matthias Berghaus >>>>> online.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 03.04.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Robert Frick: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 16:02:12 -0400, Matthias Berghaus >>>>>>>> >>>>> online.de> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Am 03.04.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Robert Frick: >>>>>>>>>> Okay, that was a distraction. Let's start over. It has come down >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>> the >>>>>> last card for everyone else, one player has two cards, and only dummy >>>>>> notices. Everyone else plays a card to the last trick except the >>>>>> person >>>>> with >>>>>> two, who does not play to the last trick. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For some reason no one has explained to me, dummy is not >>>> allowed >>>>>> to point out irregularites until play is over. That presumably is >>>>> completion >>>>>> of the 13th trick, which presumably has not been completed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So dummy legally can't say anything. Play might never be >>>>>>>>>> completed, >>>>>>>>> because noone will call the TD, _ever_ ? Unlikely... >>>>>>>> I am not sure what you are asking. No one is going to notice >>>>>>>> except >>>>>> dummy and the player with two cards. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eh? Play is finished and one player has a card left. No one is >>>>>>> going to notice?? Come again? >>>>>> >>>>>> The player who started the trick with two cards, who would be last to >>>>>> play to the trick, has not played to trick 13. Declarer thinks the >>>>>> hand is over >>>>> and >>>>>> presumably will start agreeing on the result and shuffling his cards. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And the player with two cards is not going to call the director. >>>>>>>> If you >>>>>> think someone will call the director... who? when? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Surely dummy may call after everyone has played to trick 13? >>>>>> >>>>>> Surely >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> or his partner might shuffle his cards together before that >>>> happens. >>>>>> Right? >>>>>>>>> And your point is? >>>>>>>> We all know that the laws are not always followed, that sometimes >>>>>>>> the >>>>>> only practical thing is breaking them. Obviously, this is one of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can`t see why... >>>>>> >>>>>> Because play isn't completed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I thought it might be interesting to think about what dummy could >>>>>> legally do, if the dummy wanted to follow the laws. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we were to follow the line of thought I think you have, dummy >>>>>>> would stay dummy for the rest of his/her life, as play has never >>>>>>> ended. This seems wrong to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps it should be changed for 2017. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> East complained about the dummy pointing out the irregularity. And >>>>>>>> he >>>>>> probably asked me what I was going to do about it, or why I did not >>>>>> point out dummy's malfeasance. And as much as I sympathize with >>>>>> dummy, East was right. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In a way. yes. In another way, no, as dummy _must_ end being dummy >>>>>>> or never play a hand of bridge again, and ex-dummy could call when >>>>>>> play is finished. So I give him a warning, with a stern tone and >>>>>>> serious >>>>> face. >>>>>>> Away from the table I explain why oppo was technically right, but >>>>>>> as this is not covered expressis verbis I could care less about >>>>>>> him/her calling. I would explain why it usually would be a good >>>>>>> idea to wait, and why this may jeorpardize his side`s right. >>>>>>> Afterwards I would explain to East that, while he was technically >>>>>>> on the right course, _this situation called for unusual measures, >>>>>>> and that I would take care to prevent damage from dummy`s actions >>>>>>> to his side, but that this situation is not one of them... >>>>>> >>>>>> East would love this ruling -- he wanted me to give dummy a warning >>>>>> with a stern tone and serious face. You are essentially coming down >>>>>> on East's >>>>> side >>>>>> in the fight between the two. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 6 03:46:55 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 21:46:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] dummy silence In-Reply-To: References: <72633ED5-9137-4DFB-94B9-C1BF0B842D39@gmail.com> <570176C4.8030702@t-online.de> <5701868E.2000000@t-online.de> <000d01d18df8$bd19de50$374d9af0$@svenpran.net> <000301d18e53$5e634990$1b29dcb0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 11:46:59 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > I would like to see Robert Frick's questions answered. > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > I think Jeff might be right, Dummy might have to wait until everyone has folded their cards together and shuffled them before being able to claim (now without evidence) that East had an extra card at the 13th trick. One of the disadvantages (has anyone thought of an advantage?) of disallowing the dummy to point out irregularities is saying when this ends. This is an easier one, and I can answer it myself: If there is a revoke and declarer claims, dummy can point out the irregularity as soon as the claim is made and before declarer makes any clarification. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 14:12:14 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:12:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Made by sheep for chimpanzees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Laws 41A and 41B refer to "presumed declarer" and "presumed dummy". But Law 20F5(b)(ii) instead refers to "declarer or dummy". For the sake of consistency "presumed" should be added to Law 20F5(b)(ii) in 2017. Note that "presumed dummy" does not become "actual dummy" unless and until an opening-lead-in-turn is faced. If significant misinformation is revealed during the Clarification Period, then the Director has the option to use Law 21B to restart the auction. If so the "presumed dummy" may become an "actual defender". Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, March 28, 2016, Richard Hills wrote: > David Burn, final stanza of "I claimed it on a double squeeze": > > Prince, all the Laws are pure hot air > And made by sheep for chimpanzees > But that is scarcely my affair - > I claimed it on a double squeeze. > > The claimant (David Burn's team-mate) was asked to continue play by his > opponents. As the claimant was unaware of the Law 68D requirement that play > cease he obeyed the opponents' request. Alas, during the extended play > declarer pulled a wrong card, ruining the timing for the double squeeze. > > Under the 1997 Laws the sheep on the Appeals Committee had no alternative > but to rule the double squeeze claim valid, and hence rule that the > contract made. (Not relevant to the ruling is the unsubstantiated rumour > that an opponent was a chimpanzee, intentionally infracting Law 68D in the > hope that declarer would make a later mistake.) > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160406/0ae7c5dc/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 6 16:35:53 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 16:35:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Made by sheep for chimpanzees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47453b3b82a9fc72fac46eca9fd9fe24@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 06.04.2016 14:12, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Laws 41A and 41B refer to "presumed declarer" and "presumed dummy". > But Law 20F5(b)(ii) instead refers to "declarer or dummy". For the > sake of consistency "presumed" should be added to Law 20F5(b)(ii) in > 2017. > > Note that "presumed dummy" does not become "actual dummy" unless and > until an opening-lead-in-turn is faced. ... or until the process which follows an opening-lead-out-of-turn is through. A similar adventure occurred to a Belgian player in an international championship, and the claim was deemed voided. Inconsistency ? From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 7 00:18:48 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 18:18:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Made by sheep for chimpanzees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 08:12:14 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > Laws 41A and 41B refer to "presumed declarer" and "presumed dummy". But Law > 20F5(b)(ii) instead refers to "declarer or dummy". For the sake of > consistency "presumed" should be added to Law 20F5(b)(ii) in 2017. > > Note that "presumed dummy" does not become "actual dummy" unless and until > an opening-lead-in-turn is faced. If significant misinformation is revealed > during the Clarification Period, then the Director has the option to use > Law 21B to restart the auction. If so the "presumed dummy" may become an > "actual defender". This seems like a lot of work to allow dummy to point out an opening lead out of turn. There is a much easier way to accomplish this, with as far as I know, just other good effects. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Monday, March 28, 2016, Richard Hills wrote: > >> David Burn, final stanza of "I claimed it on a double squeeze": >> >> Prince, all the Laws are pure hot air >> And made by sheep for chimpanzees >> But that is scarcely my affair - >> I claimed it on a double squeeze. >> >> The claimant (David Burn's team-mate) was asked to continue play by his >> opponents. As the claimant was unaware of the Law 68D requirement that play >> cease he obeyed the opponents' request. Alas, during the extended play >> declarer pulled a wrong card, ruining the timing for the double squeeze. >> >> Under the 1997 Laws the sheep on the Appeals Committee had no alternative >> but to rule the double squeeze claim valid, and hence rule that the >> contract made. (Not relevant to the ruling is the unsubstantiated rumour >> that an opponent was a chimpanzee, intentionally infracting Law 68D in the >> hope that declarer would make a later mistake.) >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 7 16:13:48 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 16:13:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Made by sheep for chimpanzees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9d14a5568b56fdd01f0889f2cdf20e6c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 07.04.2016 00:18, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 08:12:14 -0400, Richard Hills > wrote: > >> Laws 41A and 41B refer to "presumed declarer" and "presumed dummy". >> But Law >> 20F5(b)(ii) instead refers to "declarer or dummy". For the sake of >> consistency "presumed" should be added to Law 20F5(b)(ii) in 2017. >> >> Note that "presumed dummy" does not become "actual dummy" unless and >> until >> an opening-lead-in-turn is faced. If significant misinformation is >> revealed >> during the Clarification Period, then the Director has the option to >> use >> Law 21B to restart the auction. If so the "presumed dummy" may become >> an >> "actual defender". > > This seems like a lot of work to allow dummy to point out an opening > lead out of turn. AG : it might feel like this, but it is a logical consequence of the laws, so it is right. - when a LOOT is faced, it might or might not become the actual lead, depending on declarer's choice of penalty ; - hence, when a LOOT is faced, one doesn't know who will be dummy ; - hence restrictions to dummy don't apply. It is not that one must allow dummy, as an exception, to point at the LOOT, it is that there ain't any dummy yet. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 8 01:09:15 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 19:09:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Made by sheep for chimpanzees In-Reply-To: <9d14a5568b56fdd01f0889f2cdf20e6c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <9d14a5568b56fdd01f0889f2cdf20e6c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 10:13:48 -0400, agot wrote: > Le 07.04.2016 00:18, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 08:12:14 -0400, Richard Hills >> wrote: >> >>> Laws 41A and 41B refer to "presumed declarer" and "presumed dummy". >>> But Law >>> 20F5(b)(ii) instead refers to "declarer or dummy". For the sake of >>> consistency "presumed" should be added to Law 20F5(b)(ii) in 2017. >>> >>> Note that "presumed dummy" does not become "actual dummy" unless and >>> until >>> an opening-lead-in-turn is faced. If significant misinformation is >>> revealed >>> during the Clarification Period, then the Director has the option to >>> use >>> Law 21B to restart the auction. If so the "presumed dummy" may become >>> an >>> "actual defender". >> >> This seems like a lot of work to allow dummy to point out an opening >> lead out of turn. > > AG : it might feel like this, but it is a logical consequence of the > laws, so it is right. > > - when a LOOT is faced, it might or might not become the actual lead, > depending on declarer's choice of penalty ; > - hence, when a LOOT is faced, one doesn't know who will be dummy ; > - hence restrictions to dummy don't apply. It is not that one must allow > dummy, as an exception, to point at the LOOT, it is that there ain't any > dummy yet. Yes, but the laws don't exactly read that way, right? That's why Richard suggested a correction. The laws just talk about a lead being faced. If you don't allow dummy to point out a OLOOT, you will get all of the advantages of not having the dummy point out a LOOT. (If any.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 18 16:32:51 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:32:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pointing out irregularities is good Message-ID: Imagine, say, that when declarer led from the wrong hand, only the player to the left of the LOOT could point out the irregularity. That would make directing harder. We would have to ask who pointed out the irregularity when we came to the table. Then we would have to decide how to rule if the wrong player pointed out the irregularity. (Presumably following the same procedure we use when the dummy points out a LOOT. And it would make it easier for declarer to get away with committing an irregularity. So, no one is going to make that law. But if all of that is true -- why do we prevent dummy from pointing out a LOOT? No reason, right? We could change the laws so that no one could point out a revoke until play was over. Would that be a good idea? Apparently not, we allow everyone except the dummy to point out an established revoke. But if it's good to allow this, why not allow the dummy to also point out the revoke as it happens. Is it good if a player notes that everyone has 5 cards left except one player who has 6 or 4? I thought so. Why don't we let dummy perform this valuable function? SUMMARY: When we prevent dummy from pointing out irregularities, we create a problem of when this prohibition starts (which hopefully the new laws will clarify), we create a problem of when this prohibition ends (the error in the current laws MUST be fixed), and for all that it's harmful -- in every example I can think of, we would rather have the dummy pointing out the irregularity. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 19 09:04:26 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 09:04:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Pointing out irregularities is good In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5715D87A.4020303@skynet.be> Robert has a few good arguments, but there are also arguments in the opposite direction. For example, dummy is not allowed to ask a defender about a possible revoke. That is to prevent him from drawing attention to something declarer might have missed. So we must make some distinctions. But I agree, there are a number of irregularities that dummy could be allowed to draw attention to. So it's up to the WBFLC to decide on one of two ways to go: either they don't allow dummy anything, which is a simple law, or they allow him certain things and not certain others, which is a complicated law. it seems to me there is already enough complication to make the second choice the correct one. So, WBFLC, read Robert's post again and see if you cannot give dummy a little bit more leeway. Some of the arguments below are very reasonable. Herman. Robert Frick schreef: > > Imagine, say, that when declarer led from the wrong hand, only the > player to the left of the LOOT could point out the irregularity. > > That would make directing harder. We would have to ask who pointed > out the irregularity when we came to the table. Then we would have to > decide how to rule if the wrong player pointed out the irregularity. > (Presumably following the same procedure we use when the dummy points > out a LOOT. > > And it would make it easier for declarer to get away with committing > an irregularity. > > So, no one is going to make that law. But if all of that is true -- > why do we prevent dummy from pointing out a LOOT? No reason, right? > > > We could change the laws so that no one could point out a revoke > until play was over. Would that be a good idea? Apparently not, we > allow everyone except the dummy to point out an established revoke. > > But if it's good to allow this, why not allow the dummy to also point > out the revoke as it happens. > > > Is it good if a player notes that everyone has 5 cards left except > one player who has 6 or 4? I thought so. Why don't we let dummy > perform this valuable function? > > > SUMMARY: When we prevent dummy from pointing out irregularities, we > create a problem of when this prohibition starts (which hopefully the > new laws will clarify), we create a problem of when this prohibition > ends (the error in the current laws MUST be fixed), and for all that > it's harmful -- in every example I can think of, we would rather have > the dummy pointing out the irregularity. > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 22 01:44:20 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:44:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pointing out irregularities is good In-Reply-To: <5715D87A.4020303@skynet.be> References: <5715D87A.4020303@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 03:04:26 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert has a few good arguments, but there are also arguments in the > opposite direction. For example, dummy is not allowed to ask a defender > about a possible revoke. That is to prevent him from drawing attention > to something declarer might have missed. So we must make some distinctions. Thanks. A defender can also ask about a possible revoke by defender to draw attention to something partner might have missed. So even that is symmetric -- if it's bad, we should take it out of the laws; if it's overall good, we should give that right to the dummy too. > But I agree, there are a number of irregularities that dummy could be > allowed to draw attention to. > So it's up to the WBFLC to decide on one of two ways to go: either they > don't allow dummy anything, which is a simple law, or they allow him > certain things and not certain others, which is a complicated law. it > seems to me there is already enough complication to make the second > choice the correct one. > So, WBFLC, read Robert's post again and see if you cannot give dummy a > little bit more leeway. Some of the arguments below are very reasonable. > > Herman. > > Robert Frick schreef: >> >> Imagine, say, that when declarer led from the wrong hand, only the >> player to the left of the LOOT could point out the irregularity. >> >> That would make directing harder. We would have to ask who pointed >> out the irregularity when we came to the table. Then we would have to >> decide how to rule if the wrong player pointed out the irregularity. >> (Presumably following the same procedure we use when the dummy points >> out a LOOT. >> >> And it would make it easier for declarer to get away with committing >> an irregularity. >> >> So, no one is going to make that law. But if all of that is true -- >> why do we prevent dummy from pointing out a LOOT? No reason, right? >> >> >> We could change the laws so that no one could point out a revoke >> until play was over. Would that be a good idea? Apparently not, we >> allow everyone except the dummy to point out an established revoke. >> >> But if it's good to allow this, why not allow the dummy to also point >> out the revoke as it happens. >> >> >> Is it good if a player notes that everyone has 5 cards left except >> one player who has 6 or 4? I thought so. Why don't we let dummy >> perform this valuable function? >> >> >> SUMMARY: When we prevent dummy from pointing out irregularities, we >> create a problem of when this prohibition starts (which hopefully the >> new laws will clarify), we create a problem of when this prohibition >> ends (the error in the current laws MUST be fixed), and for all that >> it's harmful -- in every example I can think of, we would rather have >> the dummy pointing out the irregularity. >> _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 04:45:49 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:45:49 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 73F? Message-ID: I was emailed this incident by a friend: Last night at the Capital bridge club I opened 1S. The next player looked puzzled and said to my partner is that a 4 or 5 card suit. He held three little S's and had four hcp. I mis-played the hand based on his question. Is he contravening the proprieties, or maybe worse? I think it's almost cheating. Assuming that my friend's description is accurate, is there a prima facie case for the Director to apply Law 73F? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160422/c84d38a0/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 05:01:20 2016 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:01:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 73F? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > I was emailed this incident by a friend: > > Last night at the Capital bridge club I opened 1S. > The next player looked puzzled and said to my partner is that a 4 or 5 > card suit. > He held three little S's and had four hcp. I mis-played the hand based > on his question. > Is he contravening the proprieties, or maybe worse? I think it's almost > cheating. > > Assuming that my friend's description is accurate, is there a prima facie > case for the Director to apply Law 73F? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > This issue has come up repeatedly on BLML. To me, the notion that you are not allowed to understand an auction unless you have certain hand types is laughable. Is your friend saying that this style of questioning is fine only if he has a strong hand, or lots of spades, or both? The idea sounds as if your friend is saying that asking for clarification of your opponents' methods should announce something about the asker's hand---often called "need to know." I think in the USA, we generally laugh at this notion, but I know elsewhere it is endorsed. David Stephenson, for example, endorsed it some years back on BLML. Of course, the style of asking in the example was far from ideal, but your friend was not complaining about asking style, only the content of asker's hand. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160422/d0e84e78/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 08:36:47 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:36:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 73F? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Monaco meeting of the WBF Laws Committee, agenda item 1: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/WBFInformation/Reports_Minutes/LawsCommitteeMinutes/2003Monaco.pdf On Friday, April 22, 2016, Richard Hills wrote: > I was emailed this incident by a friend: > > Last night at the Capital bridge club I opened 1S. > The next player looked puzzled and said to my partner is that a 4 or 5 > card suit. > He held three little S's and had four hcp. I mis-played the hand based > on his question. > Is he contravening the proprieties, or maybe worse? I think it's almost > cheating. > > Assuming that my friend's description is accurate, is there a prima facie > case for the Director to apply Law 73F? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160422/ceb5e330/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 22 09:12:07 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:12:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 73F? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5719CEC7.9060407@skynet.be> Most of the times it is sufficient to explain to the complainer that he has failed to do HIS duty. In most jurisdictions, there is one or other form of pre-alert. Certainly Four-card majors (or five) is something that the opponents should be told at the beginning of the round - or present on some SC lying in front of that opponent. If you fail to fulfil your duty in this regard, and then complain about something that would not have happened if you had done as you should, then you are gaining an unfair advantage out of failing to divulge correctly. And that cannot be right. Herman. Richard Hills schreef: > I was emailed this incident by a friend: > > Last night at the Capital bridge club I opened 1S. > The next player looked puzzled and said to my partner is that a 4 or 5 > card suit. > He held three little S's and had four hcp. I mis-played the hand > based on his question. > Is he contravening the proprieties, or maybe worse? I think it's almost > cheating. > > Assuming that my friend's description is accurate, is there a prima > facie case for the Director to apply Law 73F? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 22 13:58:53 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:58:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_73F=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <765e96e37689168bf70fcec7c9d36505@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 22.04.2016 04:45, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > I was emailed this incident by a friend: > > Last night at the Capital bridge club I opened 1S. > The next player looked puzzled and said to my partner is that a 4 or 5 > card suit. > ?He held three little S's and had four hcp.? I mis-played the hand > based on his question. > Is he contravening the proprieties, or maybe worse?? I think it's > almost cheating. > > Assuming that my friend's description is accurate, is there a prima > facie case for the Director to apply Law 73F? AG : I'm puzzled about the puzzled look ; but occasionally asking questions when the answer doesn't matter to you is IMO similar to the Stop procedure, and in a way to random timing behind screens : it helps avoiding transmitting UI through regular procedure, and as such, is highly recommendable. (always asking would work too, except for slow play penalties) Also, one might well have realized that one forgot to ask about major-opening length, and feel compelled to ask now because partner isn't allowed to ask now. Probably the wrong reasoning, but quite understandable. Only if there was a mannerism strongly suggesting embarrassment could the player be deemed to have tried to decieve. Best regards Alain From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Fri Apr 22 15:29:12 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 15:29:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 73F? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> The essential problem seems to me to b the possibility of UI; depending on when questions are asked. The partner can easily know when his partner asks and why. Asking about every bid/every alert could prolong the auction extremely and slow up the game drastically. Asking only with reason carries the danger of UI for the partner. A solution would be obligatory system cards but that is unusual in many clubs. Does the declarer draw conclusions from questioning at his own risk? Obviously there are situations when an opponent "needs to know". But this could probably be generally solved with system cards. Ciao, JE Am 22.04.2016 um 08:36 schrieb Richard Hills: > Monaco meeting of the WBF Laws Committee, agenda item 1: > > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/WBFInformation/Reports_Minutes/LawsCommitteeMinutes/2003Monaco.pdf > > On Friday, April 22, 2016, Richard Hills > wrote: > > I was emailed this incident by a friend: > > Last night at the Capital bridge club I opened 1S. > The next player looked puzzled and said to my partner is that a 4 > or 5 card suit. > He held three little S's and had four hcp. I mis-played the hand > based on his question. > Is he contravening the proprieties, or maybe worse? I think it's > almost cheating. > > Assuming that my friend's description is accurate, is there a > prima facie case for the Director to apply Law 73F? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 22 16:49:07 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:49:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_73F=3F?= In-Reply-To: <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> References: <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> Message-ID: Le 22.04.2016 15:29, Jeff Easterson a ?crit?: > The essential problem seems to me to b the possibility of UI; depending > on when questions are asked. The partner can easily know when his > partner asks and why. Asking about every bid/every alert could prolong > the auction extremely and slow up the game drastically. Asking only > with reason carries the danger of UI for the partner. AG : Fully agree. A solution would > be obligatory system cards but that is unusual in many clubs. AG : and even then, looking only with reason ... From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Fri Apr 22 16:49:55 2016 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:49:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 73F? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <571A3A13.7020206@verizon.net> On 4/21/16 11:01 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Richard Hills > wrote: > I was emailed this incident by a friend: > > Last night at the Capital bridge club I opened 1S. > The next player looked puzzled and said to my partner is that a 4 > or 5 card suit. > He held three little S's and had four hcp. I mis-played the hand > based on his question. > Is he contravening the proprieties, or maybe worse? I think it's > almost cheating. > > Assuming that my friend's description is accurate, is there a > prima facie case for the Director to apply Law 73F? > > > This issue has come up repeatedly on BLML. To me, the notion that you > are not allowed to understand an auction unless you have certain hand > types is laughable. I agree entirely. It is a critical aspect of the game to be able to follow and understand your opponents' auctions. You have the same interest in building a hypothetical picture of their hands as they do. Even if you have no possible interest in getting your side into the auction, you still have to defend. This has nothing at all to do with the nature of your own holding. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 17:00:28 2016 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:00:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 73F? In-Reply-To: <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> References: <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 15:29:12 +0200, Jeff Easterson wrote: >The essential problem seems to me to b the possibility of UI; depending >on when questions are asked. The partner can easily know when his >partner asks and why. Asking about every bid/every alert could prolong >the auction extremely and slow up the game drastically. Asking only >with reason carries the danger of UI for the partner. A solution would >be obligatory system cards but that is unusual in many clubs. >Does the declarer draw conclusions from questioning at his own risk? >Obviously there are situations when an opponent "needs to know". But >this could probably be generally solved with system cards. > That's provided your RA doesn't ban supplementary sheets, of course. Does anyone still do that? I have memories of blowing a convention card up to A3 size on a photocopier, filling it in with a map pen and then shrinking it back down again to use (this was in the days when printers were dot-matrix or daisywheel). We used to carry a magnifying glass for when opponents complained, pointing out that full disclosure in a fixed space with a complex system left only the one variable. A laser printer would have saved a lot of time... Brian. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Apr 23 13:02:14 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 21:02:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 73F? In-Reply-To: <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> References: <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: ...Asking about every bid/every alert could prolong the auction extremely and... Richard Hills: For example take this typical uncontested Symmetric Relay auction: 1C (announced as 15+ hcp) - 1H (alert) - 1S (alert) - 1NT (alert) - 2C (alert) - 2D (alert) - 2H (alert) - 2S (alert) - 2NT (alert) - 3C (alert) - 3D (alert) - 3S (alert) - 3NT - Pass Eric Landau: ...Even if you have no possible interest in getting your side into the auction, you still have to defend. This has nothing at all to do with the nature of your own holding. Richard Hills: I agree with Jeff and disagree with Eric. In the above game-force / slam-try relay auction it is very time-wasting for each opponent to immediately enquire about the meaning of each and every alerted bid. Rather, if the opponents wish merely to plan their defence against the eventual contract, then opening leader should ask the solitary question, "What is happening in this auction?" If a clone of Jeff Easterson was the opening leader, this is the timely answer he would receive to that question: "Dummy's only natural bid was 3NT, with earlier bids being artificial relay enquiries. Dummy could have bid 3NT one round earlier, therefore creating an inference that dummy had mild slam interest. Declarer holds 4=4=1=4 distribution, 8+ hcp and 3 controls (A = 2, K = 1). Singleton kings are not counted, so if declarer hypothetically holds the king of diamonds that will be a bonus card." On the other hand, if two Eric Landau clones were the opponents, immediately asking questions about each and every bid, they would unearth identical information to the Jeff Easterson clone, for zero net benefit in defending. The only difference between the Jeff table and the Erics table is that the Erics table risks a slow play penalty. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, April 22, 2016, Jeff Easterson > wrote:CSS > The essential problem seems to me to b the possibility of UI; depending > on when questions are asked. The partner can easily know when his > partner asks and why. Asking about every bid/every alert could prolong > the auction extremely and slow up the game drastically. Asking only > with reason carries the danger of UI for the partner. A solution would > be obligatory system cards but that is unusual in many clubs. > Does the declarer draw conclusions from questioning at his own risk? > Obviously there are situations when an opponent "needs to know". But > this could probably be generally solved with system cards. > > Ciao, JE > > Am 22.04.2016 um 08:36 schrieb Richard Hills: > > Monaco meeting of the WBF Laws Committee, agenda item 1: > > > > > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/WBFInformation/Reports_Minutes/LawsCommitteeMinutes/2003Monaco.pdf > > > > On Friday, April 22, 2016, Richard Hills > > wrote: > > > > I was emailed this incident by a friend: > > > > Last night at the Capital bridge club I opened 1S. > > The next player looked puzzled and said to my partner is that a 4 > > or 5 card suit. > > He held three little S's and had four hcp. I mis-played the hand > > based on his question. > > Is he contravening the proprieties, or maybe worse? I think it's > > almost cheating. > > > > Assuming that my friend's description is accurate, is there a > > prima facie case for the Director to apply Law 73F? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > --- > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160423/73cf82c0/attachment.html From sven at svenpran.net Sat Apr 23 16:46:30 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 16:46:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 73F? In-Reply-To: References: <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> Message-ID: <000601d19d6e$eefe6d70$ccfb4850$@svenpran.net> Another perfectly valid question before the opening lead (and in fact also before the closing pass) is: ?What are we entitled to know from this auction?. It is then the declaring side?s responsibility to ensure that defenders get all the information they might possibly need for their defense. (Limited of course to information from the auction.) Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 23. april 2016 13:02 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Law 73F? Jeff Easterson: ...Asking about every bid/every alert could prolong the auction extremely and... Richard Hills: For example take this typical uncontested Symmetric Relay auction: 1C (announced as 15+ hcp) - 1H (alert) - 1S (alert) - 1NT (alert) - 2C (alert) - 2D (alert) - 2H (alert) - 2S (alert) - 2NT (alert) - 3C (alert) - 3D (alert) - 3S (alert) - 3NT - Pass Eric Landau: ...Even if you have no possible interest in getting your side into the auction, you still have to defend. This has nothing at all to do with the nature of your own holding. Richard Hills: I agree with Jeff and disagree with Eric. In the above game-force / slam-try relay auction it is very time-wasting for each opponent to immediately enquire about the meaning of each and every alerted bid. Rather, if the opponents wish merely to plan their defence against the eventual contract, then opening leader should ask the solitary question, "What is happening in this auction?" If a clone of Jeff Easterson was the opening leader, this is the timely answer he would receive to that question: "Dummy's only natural bid was 3NT, with earlier bids being artificial relay enquiries. Dummy could have bid 3NT one round earlier, therefore creating an inference that dummy had mild slam interest. Declarer holds 4=4=1=4 distribution, 8+ hcp and 3 controls (A = 2, K = 1). Singleton kings are not counted, so if declarer hypothetically holds the king of diamonds that will be a bonus card." On the other hand, if two Eric Landau clones were the opponents, immediately asking questions about each and every bid, they would unearth identical information to the Jeff Easterson clone, for zero net benefit in defending. The only difference between the Jeff table and the Erics table is that the Erics table risks a slow play penalty. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, April 22, 2016, Jeff Easterson > wrote:CSS The essential problem seems to me to b the possibility of UI; depending on when questions are asked. The partner can easily know when his partner asks and why. Asking about every bid/every alert could prolong the auction extremely and slow up the game drastically. Asking only with reason carries the danger of UI for the partner. A solution would be obligatory system cards but that is unusual in many clubs. Does the declarer draw conclusions from questioning at his own risk? Obviously there are situations when an opponent "needs to know". But this could probably be generally solved with system cards. Ciao, JE Am 22.04.2016 um 08:36 schrieb Richard Hills: > Monaco meeting of the WBF Laws Committee, agenda item 1: > > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/WBFInformation/Reports_Minutes/LawsCommitteeMinutes/2003Monaco.pdf > > On Friday, April 22, 2016, Richard Hills < hildalirsch at gmail.com > < mailto:hildalirsch at gmail.com>> wrote: > > I was emailed this incident by a friend: > > Last night at the Capital bridge club I opened 1S. > The next player looked puzzled and said to my partner is that a 4 > or 5 card suit. > He held three little S's and had four hcp. I mis-played the hand > based on his question. > Is he contravening the proprieties, or maybe worse? I think it's > almost cheating. > > Assuming that my friend's description is accurate, is there a > prima facie case for the Director to apply Law 73F? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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/20160423/1de43be7/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 23 20:29:27 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 14:29:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 73F? In-Reply-To: References: <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> Message-ID: I am not agreeing or disagreeing with Richard's point or conclusion. I want to note that hesitations are meaningful, and players are usually not good about reporting their meaning when the auction is explained. Explaining a complicated auction after it is over is an information dump. The information is there, but it's not easy to process and the defense has less time. As opposed to giving the defenders time to slowly build a picture of the hands. Yes, it speeds up play if you only ask during the auction when you want to double an artificial bid. > Jeff Easterson: > > ...Asking about every bid/every alert could prolong > the auction extremely and... > > Richard Hills: > > For example take this typical uncontested Symmetric Relay auction: > > 1C (announced as 15+ hcp) - 1H (alert) - 1S (alert) - 1NT (alert) - 2C > (alert) - 2D (alert) - 2H (alert) - 2S (alert) - 2NT (alert) - 3C (alert) - > 3D (alert) - 3S (alert) - 3NT - Pass > > Eric Landau: > > ...Even if you have no possible interest in getting your side into the > auction, you still have to defend. This has nothing at all to do with > the nature of your own holding. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Jeff and disagree with Eric. In the above game-force / > slam-try relay auction it is very time-wasting for each opponent to > immediately enquire about the meaning of each and every alerted bid. > Rather, if the opponents wish merely to plan their defence against the > eventual contract, then opening leader should ask the solitary question, > "What is happening in this auction?" > > If a clone of Jeff Easterson was the opening leader, this is the timely > answer he would receive to that question: > > "Dummy's only natural bid was 3NT, with earlier bids being artificial relay > enquiries. Dummy could have bid 3NT one round earlier, therefore creating > an inference that dummy had mild slam interest. Declarer holds 4=4=1=4 > distribution, 8+ hcp and 3 controls (A = 2, K = 1). Singleton kings are not > counted, so if declarer hypothetically holds the king of diamonds that will > be a bonus card." > > On the other hand, if two Eric Landau clones were the opponents, > immediately asking questions about each and every bid, they would unearth > identical information to the Jeff Easterson clone, for zero net benefit in > defending. The only difference between the Jeff table and the Erics table > is that the Erics table risks a slow play penalty. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Friday, April 22, 2016, Jeff Easterson > wrote:CSS > >> The essential problem seems to me to b the possibility of UI; depending >> on when questions are asked. The partner can easily know when his >> partner asks and why. Asking about every bid/every alert could prolong >> the auction extremely and slow up the game drastically. Asking only >> with reason carries the danger of UI for the partner. A solution would >> be obligatory system cards but that is unusual in many clubs. >> Does the declarer draw conclusions from questioning at his own risk? >> Obviously there are situations when an opponent "needs to know". But >> this could probably be generally solved with system cards. >> >> Ciao, JE >> >> Am 22.04.2016 um 08:36 schrieb Richard Hills: >> > Monaco meeting of the WBF Laws Committee, agenda item 1: >> > >> > >> http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/WBFInformation/Reports_Minutes/LawsCommitteeMinutes/2003Monaco.pdf >> > >> > On Friday, April 22, 2016, Richard Hills > > > wrote: >> > >> > I was emailed this incident by a friend: >> > >> > Last night at the Capital bridge club I opened 1S. >> > The next player looked puzzled and said to my partner is that a 4 >> > or 5 card suit. >> > He held three little S's and had four hcp. I mis-played the hand >> > based on his question. >> > Is he contravening the proprieties, or maybe worse? I think it's >> > almost cheating. >> > >> > Assuming that my friend's description is accurate, is there a >> > prima facie case for the Director to apply Law 73F? >> > >> > Best wishes, >> > >> > Richard Hills >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Blml mailing list >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> --- >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Sun Apr 24 16:40:02 2016 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 10:40:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 73F? In-Reply-To: References: <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> Message-ID: <571CDAC2.4010007@verizon.net> On 4/23/16 7:02 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > Jeff Easterson: > > ...Asking about every bid/every alert could prolong > the auction extremely and... > > Richard Hills: > > For example take this typical uncontested Symmetric Relay auction: > > 1C (announced as 15+ hcp) - 1H (alert) - 1S (alert) - 1NT (alert) - 2C > (alert) - 2D (alert) - 2H (alert) - 2S (alert) - 2NT (alert) - 3C > (alert) - 3D (alert) - 3S (alert) - 3NT - Pass > > Eric Landau: > > ...Even if you have no possible interest in getting your side into the > auction, you still have to defend. This has nothing at all to do with > the nature of your own holding. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Jeff and disagree with Eric. In the above game-force / > slam-try relay auction it is very time-wasting for each opponent to > immediately enquire about the meaning of each and every alerted bid. > Rather, if the opponents wish merely to plan their defence against the > eventual contract, then opening leader should ask the solitary > question, "What is happening in this auction?" > > If a clone of Jeff Easterson was the opening leader, this is the > timely answer he would receive to that question: > > "Dummy's only natural bid was 3NT, with earlier bids being artificial > relay enquiries. Dummy could have bid 3NT one round earlier, therefore > creating an inference that dummy had mild slam interest. Declarer > holds 4=4=1=4 distribution, 8+ hcp and 3 controls (A = 2, K = 1). > Singleton kings are not counted, so if declarer hypothetically holds > the king of diamonds that will be a bonus card." > > On the other hand, if two Eric Landau clones were the opponents, > immediately asking questions about each and every bid, they would > unearth identical information to the Jeff Easterson clone, for zero > net benefit in defending. The only difference between the Jeff table > and the Erics table is that the Erics table risks a slow play penalty. Eric's table will have some insight into the implications of the asker's having chosen, at each point in the relay sequence, not to break the relay chain, while Jeff's table won't have a clue. Richard's proferred explanation describes declarer's hand, but provides no inference as to which aspects of it were relevent to dummy's choice to play in 3NT, whereas a bid-by-bid explanation well might. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Apr 24 17:49:47 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 17:49:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 73F? In-Reply-To: <571CDAC2.4010007@verizon.net> References: <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> <571CDAC2.4010007@verizon.net> Message-ID: <571CEB1B.90708@t-online.de> Am 24.04.2016 um 16:40 schrieb Eric Landau: > On 4/23/16 7:02 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > >> Jeff Easterson: >> >> ...Asking about every bid/every alert could prolong >> the auction extremely and... >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> For example take this typical uncontested Symmetric Relay auction: >> >> 1C (announced as 15+ hcp) - 1H (alert) - 1S (alert) - 1NT (alert) - 2C >> (alert) - 2D (alert) - 2H (alert) - 2S (alert) - 2NT (alert) - 3C >> (alert) - 3D (alert) - 3S (alert) - 3NT - Pass >> >> Eric Landau: >> >> ...Even if you have no possible interest in getting your side into the >> auction, you still have to defend. This has nothing at all to do with >> the nature of your own holding. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> I agree with Jeff and disagree with Eric. In the above game-force / >> slam-try relay auction it is very time-wasting for each opponent to >> immediately enquire about the meaning of each and every alerted bid. >> Rather, if the opponents wish merely to plan their defence against the >> eventual contract, then opening leader should ask the solitary >> question, "What is happening in this auction?" >> >> If a clone of Jeff Easterson was the opening leader, this is the >> timely answer he would receive to that question: >> >> "Dummy's only natural bid was 3NT, with earlier bids being artificial >> relay enquiries. Dummy could have bid 3NT one round earlier, therefore >> creating an inference that dummy had mild slam interest. Declarer >> holds 4=4=1=4 distribution, 8+ hcp and 3 controls (A = 2, K = 1). >> Singleton kings are not counted, so if declarer hypothetically holds >> the king of diamonds that will be a bonus card." >> >> On the other hand, if two Eric Landau clones were the opponents, >> immediately asking questions about each and every bid, they would >> unearth identical information to the Jeff Easterson clone, for zero >> net benefit in defending. The only difference between the Jeff table >> and the Erics table is that the Erics table risks a slow play penalty. > Eric's table will have some insight into the implications of the asker's > having chosen, at each point in the relay sequence, not to break the > relay chain, while Jeff's table won't have a clue. Richard's proferred > explanation describes declarer's hand, but provides no inference as to > which aspects of it were relevent to dummy's choice to play in 3NT, > whereas a bid-by-bid explanation well might. > And nobody is going to ask about that? Having gotten Richard`s explanation doesn`t bar anyone from asking further questions, does it? If those clues are relevant (and I agree that they might well be) you will have to ask that anyway, as such inferences are not likely to be given without question if they are not given at the end of the bidding (the bidding side not being aware that it might be of interest, not kowing when (if at all) pard is going to break the chain of relays). And I disagree that a bid-by-bid explanation is ever going to uncover these inferences, as the two people bidding may well not be aware what partner`s motivation for a certain bid is, not knowing how the auction is going to develop further on, while in retrospect they may have gained some insight. A relay auction is not a good example anyway, as one guy only answers, and the question "why has your partner chosen to bid another relay?" is likely to elicit the response "he thinks it is a good idea". _If_ any inferences are available they have to be explained anyway, but in the middle of an auction such inferences may not yet be available. I can see no advantage in asking for every bid except in hearing one`s voice and irritating opps no end (in a GF auction. In a competitive bidding you may well want to know what is going on in order to choose your next call, but if your partnership could not bid on the level of 1, not at the two-level, suddenly you _need_ to know what leaving out the 5th relay might imply, and you can`t find out before you make your lead?? Come on.... From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 01:24:18 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:24:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 73F? In-Reply-To: <571CDAC2.4010007@verizon.net> References: <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> <571CDAC2.4010007@verizon.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: Eric's table will have some insight into the implications of the asker's having chosen, at each point in the relay sequence, not to break the relay chain, while Jeff's table won't have a clue. Richard's proferred explanation describes declarer's hand, but provides no inference as to which aspects of it were relevent to dummy's choice to play in 3NT, whereas a bid-by-bid explanation well might. Richard Hills: Not so. Jeff's table was told that "Dummy could have bid 3NT one round earlier", which necessaril? implies that a relay break two or three rounds earlier would have been non-systemic. What's the problem? Best wishes, Richard Hillls On Monday, April 25, 2016, Eric Landau wrote: > On 4/23/16 7:02 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > > > Jeff Easterson: > > > > ...Asking about every bid/every alert could prolong > > the auction extremely and... > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > For example take this typical uncontested Symmetric Relay auction: > > > > 1C (announced as 15+ hcp) - 1H (alert) - 1S (alert) - 1NT (alert) - 2C > > (alert) - 2D (alert) - 2H (alert) - 2S (alert) - 2NT (alert) - 3C > > (alert) - 3D (alert) - 3S (alert) - 3NT - Pass > > > > Eric Landau: > > > > ...Even if you have no possible interest in getting your side into the > > auction, you still have to defend. This has nothing at all to do with > > the nature of your own holding. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > I agree with Jeff and disagree with Eric. In the above game-force / > > slam-try relay auction it is very time-wasting for each opponent to > > immediately enquire about the meaning of each and every alerted bid. > > Rather, if the opponents wish merely to plan their defence against the > > eventual contract, then opening leader should ask the solitary > > question, "What is happening in this auction?" > > > > If a clone of Jeff Easterson was the opening leader, this is the > > timely answer he would receive to that question: > > > > "Dummy's only natural bid was 3NT, with earlier bids being artificial > > relay enquiries. Dummy could have bid 3NT one round earlier, therefore > > creating an inference that dummy had mild slam interest. Declarer > > holds 4=4=1=4 distribution, 8+ hcp and 3 controls (A = 2, K = 1). > > Singleton kings are not counted, so if declarer hypothetically holds > > the king of diamonds that will be a bonus card." > > > > On the other hand, if two Eric Landau clones were the opponents, > > immediately asking questions about each and every bid, they would > > unearth identical information to the Jeff Easterson clone, for zero > > net benefit in defending. The only difference between the Jeff table > > and the Erics table is that the Erics table risks a slow play penalty. > > Eric's table will have some insight into the implications of the asker's > having chosen, at each point in the relay sequence, not to break the > relay chain, while Jeff's table won't have a clue. Richard's proferred > explanation describes declarer's hand, but provides no inference as to > which aspects of it were relevent to dummy's choice to play in 3NT, > whereas a bid-by-bid explanation well might. > > -- > Eric Landau > Silver Spring MD > New York NY > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160424/3cdb9647/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 26 13:15:51 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 13:15:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_73F=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> Message-ID: Le 23.04.2016 13:02, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Jeff Easterson: > > ...Asking about every bid/every alert could prolong > the auction extremely and... > > Richard Hills: > > For example take this typical uncontested Symmetric Relay auction: > > 1C (announced as 15+ hcp) - 1H (alert) - 1S (alert) - 1NT (alert) - 2C > (alert) - 2D (alert) - 2H (alert) - 2S (alert) - 2NT (alert) - 3C > (alert) - 3D (alert) - 3S (alert) - 3NT - Pass > > Eric Landau: > > ...Even if you have no possible interest in getting your side into the > auction, you still have to defend.? This has nothing at all to do > with > the nature of your own holding. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Jeff and disagree with Eric. AG : I don't think you two disagree. Once the positive response of 1H has been given, everybody knows we need to know little. So, we'll ask about 1C and 1H, even if not interested, because we might have been ; and then kept mum, because we usually aren't. There is, however, the case when you want to make a lead-directing double, provided there is little risk of a redouble. Not like the guy who doubled 2S on QJ9xxx and *then* learned that the player after him had shown siw spades. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 26 13:17:54 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 13:17:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_73F=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000601d19d6e$eefe6d70$ccfb4850$@svenpran.net> References: "\"" " <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> <000601d19d6e$eefe6d70$ccfb4850$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <32312f78c76b49efe6144e806e1ac9a6@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 23.04.2016 16:46, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > Another perfectly valid question before the opening lead (and in fact > also before the closing pass) is: > > ?_WHAT ARE WE ENTITLED TO KNOW FROM THIS AUCTION_?. > > And some others are, too, as long as there is no risk of UI. Playing against a former partner, using methods which were quite similar but not identical to ours, the questioning was simply : - did I understand the auction ? - you did. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 26 13:21:48 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 13:21:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_73F=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <571A2728.5080007@gmx.de> <571CDAC2.4010007@verizon.net> Message-ID: Le 25.04.2016 01:24, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Eric Landau: > > Eric's table will have some insight into the implications of the > asker's > having chosen, at each point in the relay sequence, not to break the > relay chain, while Jeff's table won't have a clue. Richard's proferred > explanation describes declarer's hand, but provides no inference as to > which aspects of it were relevent to dummy's choice to play in 3NT, > whereas a bid-by-bid explanation well might. > > Richard Hills: > > Not so. Jeff's table was told that "Dummy could have bid 3NT one round > earlier", which necessaril? implies that a relay break two or three > rounds earlier would have been non-systemic. > > What's the problem? > The main problem is that players lesser than Eric may want to give full information about partner's bids, including motivations for them, but not be conscious of some part of it. So, in all good faith, some information might remain hidden.