From adam at tameware.com Thu Dec 1 11:35:58 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 05:35:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Reno is posted, and D.C. is on its way. http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Reno2016.pdf Three casebooks remain until we're caught up: Phoenix, Vegas, and Denver. Then we'll continue working on adding panelist comments and move on to Orlando. On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > St. Louis - http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2013StLouisCasebook.pdf > > > > Providence - http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2014Providence.pdf > > > The Providence casebook has a new layout that will be used for future > casebooks. I like it! > > All the casebooks published so far are available here: > > http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/nabcs/past-nabcs/nabc-casebooks/ > > I did not make an announcement for each of these as they were posted, so > some may be new to you. > > For now commentary is available only through 2011. It will be added for > newer casebooks as available. > > Casebook publication is scheduled to continue. Decisions from Summer 2016 > going forward will be made by TD panels for both NABC+ and non-NABC+ > events. > > If you want to discuss a particular case please start a new thread with > the tournament name and case number in the Subject line. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161201/e42a7b35/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 00:02:57 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:02:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A grate wall of no-Trump Message-ID: Butler Pairs Dlr: South Vul: Nil You, North, hold: JT2 KJT87 92 AQ9 East-West are playing an Aussie version of Standard American. South passes as dealer, then West opens 1D. You elect to overcall 1H. East responds 2C. West rebids a natural and non-forcing 2NT. East chooses a natural and non-forcing Pass. What is your opening lead? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161201/08435615/attachment.html From davidgrabiner at verizon.net Fri Dec 2 03:04:07 2016 From: davidgrabiner at verizon.net (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 21:04:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A grate wall of no-Trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161202/5c5cf768/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 08:07:35 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 18:07:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: ..... I have written, for myself, a few guidelines that I apply. One of these is that claimers that believe all tricks are theirs, will play long suits, then high cards, only then trumps. And of course within these suits in any order. ..... Richard Hills: I have not written, for everyone, a single guideline that we apply. "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." Law 70A. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, November 30, 2016, Herman De Wael wrote: > We must assume that claimer forgot the outstanding trump, right? > > I have written, for myself, a few guidelines that I apply. > > One of these is that claimers that believe all tricks are theirs, will > play long suits, then high cards, only then trumps. > And of course within these suits in any order. > So the normal plays in this lay-out are > - playing two round of clubs, finishing with two trumps; > - playing the spade and a club; > - playing one club, one ruff and the spade > In all those cases defenders get just one trick. > > That would be my ruling. > > Herman. > > Robert Frick wrote: > > -- > > -- > > -- > > AQJx > > > > -- > > Q > > 98 > > x > > > > 10 > > 32 > > -- > > x > > > > > > Hearts are trump, declarer claims the rest. With no claiming statement, > but he states at the table that he will play a club to the board, come back > to his hand, and his last two cards are good. The spade is good. > > > > So far, an easy ruling. I let him play this out, so he can see how this > plays out for losing two tricks, and when he said he would ruff a club, > with all cards visible, defender said she would overfuff. > > > > "The Director may accept it as evidence of the players' probably lays > subsequent to the claim." Right, there is no way he can lose more than one > trick if she defends that way. > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13499 - Release Date: > 11/29/16 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20161202/274e1761/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 2 08:32:20 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 08:32:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> Message-ID: <58412384.40002@skynet.be> Exactly Richard, you can copy the law perfectly. And how does that help us? What is the doubtful point? If we find that playing a small trump is a normal line, then the doubt as to whether claimer will play that line is resolved against him, and he loses an extra trick. But if we find that this is not a normal line, then there is no doubt that claimer will lose just the top trump. Now if you believe that since there is doubt as to whether it is a normal line or not, we should resolve that doubt against claimer, then you are, IMHO, going too far. Because it would just require any piece of doubt as to rule each and every claim invalid and leading to just top trump tricks. What we need here is a definition of hat normal lines are, and there is nothing in the laws to help us there (well, nothing useful in this discussion, anyway). I find that it is unhelpful to force a player to play a line he would "never" play. This causes aggravation. A claimer will readily accept that you have to assume he forgot a trump, even when he maintains he hasn't. But a claimer will not accept that you make him play a silly line. And playing the three of trumps hen holding high cards is a silly line IMO. Herman. Richard Hills wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > ..... > I have written, for myself, a few guidelines that I apply. > > One of these is that claimers that believe all tricks are theirs, will > play long suits, then high cards, only then trumps. > And of course within these suits in any order. > ..... > > Richard Hills: > > I have not written, for everyone, a single guideline that we apply. > > "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates > the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any > doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." > > Law 70A. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2016, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > We must assume that claimer forgot the outstanding trump, right? > > I have written, for myself, a few guidelines that I apply. > > One of these is that claimers that believe all tricks are theirs, will > play long suits, then high cards, only then trumps. > And of course within these suits in any order. > So the normal plays in this lay-out are > - playing two round of clubs, finishing with two trumps; > - playing the spade and a club; > - playing one club, one ruff and the spade > In all those cases defenders get just one trick. > > That would be my ruling. > > Herman. > > Robert Frick wrote: > > -- > > -- > > -- > > AQJx > > > > -- > > Q > > 98 > > x > > > > 10 > > 32 > > -- > > x > > > > > > Hearts are trump, declarer claims the rest. With no claiming > statement, but he states at the table that he will play a club to > the board, come back to his hand, and his last two cards are good. > The spade is good. > > > > So far, an easy ruling. I let him play this out, so he can see > how this plays out for losing two tricks, and when he said he would > ruff a club, with all cards visible, defender said she would overfuff. > > > > "The Director may accept it as evidence of the players' probably > lays subsequent to the claim." Right, there is no way he can lose > more than one trick if she defends that way. > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13499 - Release Date: > 11/29/16 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13523 - Release Date: 12/02/16 > From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 09:49:35 2016 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 03:49:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: <58412384.40002@skynet.be> References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 08:32:20 +0100, Herman wrote: >Exactly Richard, you can copy the law perfectly. >And how does that help us? >What is the doubtful point? >If we find that playing a small trump is a normal line, then the doubt >as to whether claimer will play that line is resolved against him, and >he loses an extra trick. >But if we find that this is not a normal line, then there is no doubt >that claimer will lose just the top trump. > >Now if you believe that since there is doubt as to whether it is a >normal line or not, we should resolve that doubt against claimer, then >you are, IMHO, going too far. Because it would just require any piece of >doubt as to rule each and every claim invalid and leading to just top >trump tricks. > >What we need here is a definition of hat normal lines are, and there is >nothing in the laws to help us there (well, nothing useful in this >discussion, anyway). > >I find that it is unhelpful to force a player to play a line he would >"never" play. This causes aggravation. >A claimer will readily accept that you have to assume he forgot a trump, >even when he maintains he hasn't. But a claimer will not accept that you >make him play a silly line. > >And playing the three of trumps hen holding high cards is a silly line IMO. > Since the 3 and 2 of trumps *MUST* lose to any outstanding trump if there is one, I think I can understand the response of Herman's hypothetical claimer here - it *IS* a silly line to cash the last small trump first. If the last trump was a possible high trump, it would be a different matter. Brian. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 2 10:33:57 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:33:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> Thank you Brian, for supporting me, already half-way. But consider the next argument: You agree that it would be silly to cash the trump two. And if the last trump is the Ace, it wouldn't matter. So now consider the trump 8: For a claimer who "knows" trumps are gone, it would be silly to cash a trump in order to catch a non-existent one. And for a claimer who is doubtful as to whether trumps have all gone, it would be strange to assume that he does know the possible missing trump is lower than his eight. So playing his eight is again, silly. I really believe that playing trumps when one "knows" they've all gone is not normal. When you next direct a tournament for novices or lower players, do observe them and see what they do. Many refuse to claim and play on and on (or their opponents insist they do). They never play trumps until the end (at which point they reluctantly show their hand). Herman. brian wrote: > On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 08:32:20 +0100, Herman wrote: > >> Exactly Richard, you can copy the law perfectly. >> And how does that help us? >> What is the doubtful point? >> If we find that playing a small trump is a normal line, then the doubt >> as to whether claimer will play that line is resolved against him, and >> he loses an extra trick. >> But if we find that this is not a normal line, then there is no doubt >> that claimer will lose just the top trump. >> >> Now if you believe that since there is doubt as to whether it is a >> normal line or not, we should resolve that doubt against claimer, then >> you are, IMHO, going too far. Because it would just require any piece of >> doubt as to rule each and every claim invalid and leading to just top >> trump tricks. >> >> What we need here is a definition of hat normal lines are, and there is >> nothing in the laws to help us there (well, nothing useful in this >> discussion, anyway). >> >> I find that it is unhelpful to force a player to play a line he would >> "never" play. This causes aggravation. >> A claimer will readily accept that you have to assume he forgot a trump, >> even when he maintains he hasn't. But a claimer will not accept that you >> make him play a silly line. >> >> And playing the three of trumps hen holding high cards is a silly line IMO. >> > > Since the 3 and 2 of trumps *MUST* lose to any outstanding trump if > there is one, I think I can understand the response of Herman's > hypothetical claimer here - it *IS* a silly line to cash the last > small trump first. If the last trump was a possible high trump, it > would be a different matter. > > Brian. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13523 - Release Date: 12/02/16 > > From bridge at vwalther.de Fri Dec 2 17:13:44 2016 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 17:13:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> Am 02.12.2016 um 10:33 schrieb Herman De Wael: > .... > I really believe that playing trumps when one "knows" they've all gone > is not normal. > Yesterday, a player at the local club put his second last trump on the table, saying "I know trumps are all out, but to be sure..." -- Volker Walther From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 2 23:34:11 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 23:34:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <5841F6E3.6030801@skynet.be> Yes, but it wasn't the two of trumps, was it? Volker Walther wrote: > > > Am 02.12.2016 um 10:33 schrieb Herman De Wael: >> .... >> I really believe that playing trumps when one "knows" they've all gone >> is not normal. >> > > > Yesterday, a player at the local club put his second last trump on the > table, saying "I know trumps are all out, but to be sure..." > > From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 2 23:35:09 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 23:35:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <5841F71D.8060103@skynet.be> Please also note that this is not the type of argument that helps us. Because the day before yesterday, a player revoked to me ... Volker Walther wrote: > > > Am 02.12.2016 um 10:33 schrieb Herman De Wael: >> .... >> I really believe that playing trumps when one "knows" they've all gone >> is not normal. >> > > > Yesterday, a player at the local club put his second last trump on the > table, saying "I know trumps are all out, but to be sure..." > > From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 23:39:13 2016 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:39:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:33:57 +0100, Herman wrote: >Thank you Brian, for supporting me, already half-way. >But consider the next argument: >You agree that it would be silly to cash the trump two. >And if the last trump is the Ace, it wouldn't matter. >So now consider the trump 8: >For a claimer who "knows" trumps are gone, it would be silly to cash a >trump in order to catch a non-existent one. >And for a claimer who is doubtful as to whether trumps have all gone, it >would be strange to assume that he does know the possible missing trump >is lower than his eight. So playing his eight is again, silly. > >I really believe that playing trumps when one "knows" they've all gone >is not normal. > >When you next direct a tournament for novices or lower players, do >observe them and see what they do. Many refuse to claim and play on and >on (or their opponents insist they do). They never play trumps until the >end (at which point they reluctantly show their hand). > I'm only siding with you when declarer's remaining trump has to be the lowest one, Herman. If there's any possibility that declarer's last trump could be used to pull an outstanding one, then I think it becomes a doubtful point, and the Law which Richard has quoted comes into play, declarer must be assumed to make the wrong decision. Brian. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 3 01:58:30 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 19:58:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: <5841F71D.8060103@skynet.be> References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> <5841F71D.8060103@skynet.be> Message-ID: If a player has left a trump and winner(s), if the trump is the ace he should play it, and if it is the two he should not. That assumes the player thinks through the position, when in fact we are supposed to consider lines of play that are careless. Anyway, that leaves 3 through King as ambiguous. To allow the player to calculate which trump is likely to be out, even though the player does not think a trump is out. That's allowing very careful, thoughtful play. On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:35:09 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Please also note that this is not the type of argument that helps us. > Because the day before yesterday, a player revoked to me ... > > Volker Walther wrote: >> >> >> Am 02.12.2016 um 10:33 schrieb Herman De Wael: >>> .... >>> I really believe that playing trumps when one "knows" they've all gone >>> is not normal. >>> >> >> >> Yesterday, a player at the local club put his second last trump on the >> table, saying "I know trumps are all out, but to be sure..." >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Dec 3 08:32:08 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 08:32:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> <5841F71D.8060103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <584274F8.3000507@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > If a player has left a trump and winner(s), if the trump is the ace > he should play it, and if it is the two he should not. That assumes > the player thinks through the position, when in fact we are supposed > to consider lines of play that are careless. > > Anyway, that leaves 3 through King as ambiguous. To allow the player > to calculate which trump is likely to be out, even though the player > does not think a trump is out. That's allowing very careful, > thoughtful play. > Which is precisely what we don't want! A player who "knows" that all trumps are out does not pull one. Ever. Regardless of its size. That is a much more simple rule and it caters for all possibilities. And players won't criticize you for it. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's easy. It's ludicrous to be ruling claims on the basis of "claimer coould pull any card out of his hat" That's not what the laws say, and it's not what players accept. They will accept any logical card, in any order, but not things they would "never" do. And making simple rules as to what constitutes normal play is not that difficult. Only problem is, you've already done it, and you now believe that you've done it correctly. I propose alternative simple rules, which, I believe, are closer to what the laws mean and closer to what players will accept. My simple rule for playing the end of a contract with cards that are all high is: "normal play is to play long suits first, high cards after, and trumps last." With all suits played top-down. OK? Herman. > > On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:35:09 -0500, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Please also note that this is not the type of argument that helps >> us. Because the day before yesterday, a player revoked to me ... >> >> Volker Walther wrote: >>> >>> >>> Am 02.12.2016 um 10:33 schrieb Herman De Wael: >>>> .... I really believe that playing trumps when one "knows" >>>> they've all gone is not normal. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Yesterday, a player at the local club put his second last trump >>> on the table, saying "I know trumps are all out, but to be >>> sure..." >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ 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 > > > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13527 - Release Date: > 12/02/16 > > From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Sat Dec 3 09:44:51 2016 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 03:44:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> <5841F71D.8060103@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 19:58:30 -0500, Robert Frick wrote: >If a player has left a trump and winner(s), if the trump is the ace he should play it, and if it is the two he should not. That assumes the player thinks through the position, when in fact we are supposed to consider lines of play that are careless. > >Anyway, that leaves 3 through King as ambiguous. To allow the player to calculate which trump is likely to be out, even though the player does not think a trump is out. That's allowing very careful, thoughtful play. > I agree with you in principle, but IMO you should let the player keep any trump which it is overwhelmingly likely that they know is low. Returning to the original hand, I wouldn't force declarer to play the 3 of trumps when they just ruffed the last trick with the 2 of trumps. That's much worse than careless. Brian. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Dec 3 17:35:21 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 11:35:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: <584274F8.3000507@skynet.be> References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> <5841F71D.8060103@skynet.be> <584274F8.3000507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <163fe7ff-25cd-c9fe-2218-147eddcd58fe@nhcc.net> On 2016-12-03 2:32 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > "normal play is to play long suits first, high cards after, and trumps > last." With all suits played top-down. I quite like this except that I don't see why long suits need to be played before high cards if the opposite is worse for claimer. Either way, I wish authorities (ACBL for me) would make this or something like it official. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 3 18:31:35 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 12:31:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: <584274F8.3000507@skynet.be> References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> <5841F71D.8060103@skynet.be> <584274F8.3000507@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 02:32:08 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> If a player has left a trump and winner(s), if the trump is the ace >> he should play it, and if it is the two he should not. That assumes >> the player thinks through the position, when in fact we are supposed >> to consider lines of play that are careless. >> >> Anyway, that leaves 3 through King as ambiguous. To allow the player >> to calculate which trump is likely to be out, even though the player >> does not think a trump is out. That's allowing very careful, >> thoughtful play. >> > > Which is precisely what we don't want! > A player who "knows" that all trumps are out does not pull one. Ever. > Regardless of its size. > That is a much more simple rule and it caters for all possibilities. > And players won't criticize you for it. > > I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's easy. It's ludicrous to be > ruling claims on the basis of "claimer coould pull any card out of his > hat" That's not what the laws say, and it's not what players accept. > They will accept any logical card, in any order, but not things they > would "never" do. > > And making simple rules as to what constitutes normal play is not that > difficult. Only problem is, you've already done it, and you now believe > that you've done it correctly. I propose alternative simple rules, > which, I believe, are closer to what the laws mean and closer to what > players will accept. > > My simple rule for playing the end of a contract with cards that are all > high is: > "normal play is to play long suits first, high cards after, and trumps > last." With all suits played top-down. > > OK? Halfway. Trying to think back, my impression is that when drawing trumps would have been the correct play, players will often say they were going to draw trumps, but when I say they can't, as angry as they might be, it makes sense to everyone. When withholding a losing trump is the correct play, I can find a way they would lose control of the hand with careless play and lose more tricks than just the high trump. But then I am often finding a line of play that seems odd and the defenders are often not even seeing. So that's a reasonable change in the revoke procedures. I like it. Nice. But it's more important to me to be consistent and right, so I will stick with following the rules for now. To me, if they think every card in their hand is high, they do not care which card they play first. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sat Dec 3 18:47:42 2016 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 17:47:42 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Claim References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be><58412384.40002@skynet.be><20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl><58414005.2010203@skynet.be><8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de><5841F71D.8060103@skynet.be> <584274F8.3000507@skynet.be> Message-ID: I once had a pair (new to my club) that insisted that they played 'random leads'. I stayed at their table as long and often as I could. Each time they were on lead I asked them to turn their hand face down, shuffle it and let me pick a card to lead. They did not return. Similarly here, if dec thinks his hand is absolutely high, one could imagine him shuffling his cards and then playing them in that random order. Then consider any doubt to oppos. Oppos statement of over-ruffing needs to be taken into account though. L ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim > On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 02:32:08 -0500, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> If a player has left a trump and winner(s), if the trump is the ace >>> he should play it, and if it is the two he should not. That assumes >>> the player thinks through the position, when in fact we are supposed >>> to consider lines of play that are careless. >>> >>> Anyway, that leaves 3 through King as ambiguous. To allow the player >>> to calculate which trump is likely to be out, even though the player >>> does not think a trump is out. That's allowing very careful, >>> thoughtful play. >>> >> >> Which is precisely what we don't want! >> A player who "knows" that all trumps are out does not pull one. Ever. >> Regardless of its size. >> That is a much more simple rule and it caters for all possibilities. >> And players won't criticize you for it. >> >> I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's easy. It's ludicrous to be >> ruling claims on the basis of "claimer coould pull any card out of his >> hat" That's not what the laws say, and it's not what players accept. >> They will accept any logical card, in any order, but not things they >> would "never" do. >> >> And making simple rules as to what constitutes normal play is not that >> difficult. Only problem is, you've already done it, and you now believe >> that you've done it correctly. I propose alternative simple rules, >> which, I believe, are closer to what the laws mean and closer to what >> players will accept. >> >> My simple rule for playing the end of a contract with cards that are all >> high is: >> "normal play is to play long suits first, high cards after, and trumps >> last." With all suits played top-down. >> >> OK? > > Halfway. > > Trying to think back, my impression is that when drawing trumps would have > been the correct play, players will often say they were going to draw > trumps, but when I say they can't, as angry as they might be, it makes > sense to everyone. > > When withholding a losing trump is the correct play, I can find a way they > would lose control of the hand with careless play and lose more tricks > than just the high trump. But then I am often finding a line of play that > seems odd and the defenders are often not even seeing. > > So that's a reasonable change in the revoke procedures. I like it. Nice. > > But it's more important to me to be consistent and right, so I will stick > with following the rules for now. To me, if they think every card in their > hand is high, they do not care which card they play first. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Dec 4 17:12:27 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 17:12:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> <5841F71D.8060103@skynet.be> <584274F8.3000507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5844406B.4010106@skynet.be> That is just silly. Claim laws explicitely state that only normal lines need to be folloed. So we need to define what normal lines are. Your suggestion is equivalent to saying that all lines are normal. You are an example of the director whose task it seems to be to antagonize players. That is not what the claim laws are intended for. There is no gain in having claimers play cards that they would "never" play. Herman. Larry wrote: > I once had a pair (new to my club) that insisted that they played 'random > leads'. > > I stayed at their table as long and often as I could. Each time they were on > lead I asked them to turn their hand face down, shuffle it and let me pick a > card to lead. > They did not return. > > Similarly here, if dec thinks his hand is absolutely high, one could imagine > him shuffling his cards and then playing them in that random order. > Then consider any doubt to oppos. > > Oppos statement of over-ruffing needs to be taken into account though. > > > L > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 5:31 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim > > >> On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 02:32:08 -0500, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>> If a player has left a trump and winner(s), if the trump is the ace >>>> he should play it, and if it is the two he should not. That assumes >>>> the player thinks through the position, when in fact we are supposed >>>> to consider lines of play that are careless. >>>> >>>> Anyway, that leaves 3 through King as ambiguous. To allow the player >>>> to calculate which trump is likely to be out, even though the player >>>> does not think a trump is out. That's allowing very careful, >>>> thoughtful play. >>>> >>> >>> Which is precisely what we don't want! >>> A player who "knows" that all trumps are out does not pull one. Ever. >>> Regardless of its size. >>> That is a much more simple rule and it caters for all possibilities. >>> And players won't criticize you for it. >>> >>> I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's easy. It's ludicrous to be >>> ruling claims on the basis of "claimer coould pull any card out of his >>> hat" That's not what the laws say, and it's not what players accept. >>> They will accept any logical card, in any order, but not things they >>> would "never" do. >>> >>> And making simple rules as to what constitutes normal play is not that >>> difficult. Only problem is, you've already done it, and you now believe >>> that you've done it correctly. I propose alternative simple rules, >>> which, I believe, are closer to what the laws mean and closer to what >>> players will accept. >>> >>> My simple rule for playing the end of a contract with cards that are all >>> high is: >>> "normal play is to play long suits first, high cards after, and trumps >>> last." With all suits played top-down. >>> >>> OK? >> >> Halfway. >> >> Trying to think back, my impression is that when drawing trumps would have >> been the correct play, players will often say they were going to draw >> trumps, but when I say they can't, as angry as they might be, it makes >> sense to everyone. >> >> When withholding a losing trump is the correct play, I can find a way they >> would lose control of the hand with careless play and lose more tricks >> than just the high trump. But then I am often finding a line of play that >> seems odd and the defenders are often not even seeing. >> >> So that's a reasonable change in the revoke procedures. I like it. Nice. >> >> But it's more important to me to be consistent and right, so I will stick >> with following the rules for now. To me, if they think every card in their >> hand is high, they do not care which card they play first. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13534 - Release Date: 12/04/16 > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 4 23:10:06 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2016 17:10:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: <5844406B.4010106@skynet.be> References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> <5841F71D.8060103@skynet.be> <584274F8.3000507@skynet.be> <5844406B.4010106@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 11:12:27 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > That is just silly. > Claim laws explicitely state that only normal lines need to be folloed. Actually, they explicitly say that "normal" includes careless and inferior. So they do not mean "normal" as "typical". > So we need to define what normal lines are. And we need to include careless and inferior when we make that "definition". > Your suggestion is equivalent to saying that all lines are normal. You > are an example of the director whose task it seems to be to antagonize > players. That is not what the claim laws are intended for. > There is no gain in having claimers play cards that they would "never" play. Quotes around never? What do you mean by that? Also, should we take quality of player into account? Actually, when players claim, I let them play a suit from the top. Playing the lowest card first isn't careless, it takes thoughtful irrationality. Also, the ACBL supports me. > > Herman. > > Larry wrote: >> I once had a pair (new to my club) that insisted that they played 'random >> leads'. >> >> I stayed at their table as long and often as I could. Each time they were on >> lead I asked them to turn their hand face down, shuffle it and let me pick a >> card to lead. >> They did not return. >> >> Similarly here, if dec thinks his hand is absolutely high, one could imagine >> him shuffling his cards and then playing them in that random order. >> Then consider any doubt to oppos. >> >> Oppos statement of over-ruffing needs to be taken into account though. >> >> >> L >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 5:31 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim >> >> >>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 02:32:08 -0500, Herman De Wael >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>>> If a player has left a trump and winner(s), if the trump is the ace >>>>> he should play it, and if it is the two he should not. That assumes >>>>> the player thinks through the position, when in fact we are supposed >>>>> to consider lines of play that are careless. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, that leaves 3 through King as ambiguous. To allow the player >>>>> to calculate which trump is likely to be out, even though the player >>>>> does not think a trump is out. That's allowing very careful, >>>>> thoughtful play. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which is precisely what we don't want! >>>> A player who "knows" that all trumps are out does not pull one. Ever. >>>> Regardless of its size. >>>> That is a much more simple rule and it caters for all possibilities. >>>> And players won't criticize you for it. >>>> >>>> I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's easy. It's ludicrous to be >>>> ruling claims on the basis of "claimer coould pull any card out of his >>>> hat" That's not what the laws say, and it's not what players accept. >>>> They will accept any logical card, in any order, but not things they >>>> would "never" do. >>>> >>>> And making simple rules as to what constitutes normal play is not that >>>> difficult. Only problem is, you've already done it, and you now believe >>>> that you've done it correctly. I propose alternative simple rules, >>>> which, I believe, are closer to what the laws mean and closer to what >>>> players will accept. >>>> >>>> My simple rule for playing the end of a contract with cards that are all >>>> high is: >>>> "normal play is to play long suits first, high cards after, and trumps >>>> last." With all suits played top-down. >>>> >>>> OK? >>> >>> Halfway. >>> >>> Trying to think back, my impression is that when drawing trumps would have >>> been the correct play, players will often say they were going to draw >>> trumps, but when I say they can't, as angry as they might be, it makes >>> sense to everyone. >>> >>> When withholding a losing trump is the correct play, I can find a way they >>> would lose control of the hand with careless play and lose more tricks >>> than just the high trump. But then I am often finding a line of play that >>> seems odd and the defenders are often not even seeing. >>> >>> So that's a reasonable change in the revoke procedures. I like it. Nice. >>> >>> But it's more important to me to be consistent and right, so I will stick >>> with following the rules for now. To me, if they think every card in their >>> hand is high, they do not care which card they play first. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13534 - Release Date: 12/04/16 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Dec 5 02:58:46 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 20:58:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> <5841F71D.8060103@skynet.be> <584274F8.3000507@skynet.be> <5844406B.4010106@skynet.be> Message-ID: <37a0fc45-f63f-6a4a-a230-b9e64d213d88@nhcc.net> On 2016-12-04 5:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > [Claim Laws] explicitly say that "normal" includes careless and > inferior. So they do not mean "normal" as "typical". If careless and inferior lines are not typical in your club, yours is a much stronger club than any I've ever played in. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 5 09:47:13 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:47:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> <5841F71D.8060103@skynet.be> <584274F8.3000507@skynet.be> <5844406B.4010106@skynet.be> Message-ID: <58452991.80506@skynet.be> All this hinges on definitions. You might call revoking careless. But we all know that revokes are not considered normal lines. You might call it careless to start with the 8 from AKQJ108. But that is certainly not normal. Careless is something you might do without thinking too long. But playing that 8 is not something you can "normally" do. An example: I hold AKQJ2 in hearts and spades, and I need to ruff one to get to my hand. I hold singletons in both so I need to play ace and two of either suit. Now if I think about it for some time, deducing things from the auction, I can conclude which of the suits I am more likely to be overruffed in and so I should select the other one. Not doing that deduction (and failing to realize there might be an overruff) is careless, and so that line must be included in the normal category. But other things, like cashing both aces first, or plaing the deuce first, are just silly. If you call those lines careless and therefore normal, then you are not ruling the way the laws have intended when they stated that careless. Herman. Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 11:12:27 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> That is just silly. >> Claim laws explicitely state that only normal lines need to be folloed. > > Actually, they explicitly say that "normal" includes careless and inferior. So they do not mean "normal" as "typical". > >> So we need to define what normal lines are. > > And we need to include careless and inferior when we make that "definition". > >> Your suggestion is equivalent to saying that all lines are normal. You >> are an example of the director whose task it seems to be to antagonize >> players. That is not what the claim laws are intended for. >> There is no gain in having claimers play cards that they would "never" play. > > Quotes around never? What do you mean by that? Also, should we take quality of player into account? > > Actually, when players claim, I let them play a suit from the top. Playing the lowest card first isn't careless, it takes thoughtful irrationality. Also, the ACBL supports me. > > > >> >> Herman. >> >> Larry wrote: >>> I once had a pair (new to my club) that insisted that they played 'random >>> leads'. >>> >>> I stayed at their table as long and often as I could. Each time they were on >>> lead I asked them to turn their hand face down, shuffle it and let me pick a >>> card to lead. >>> They did not return. >>> >>> Similarly here, if dec thinks his hand is absolutely high, one could imagine >>> him shuffling his cards and then playing them in that random order. >>> Then consider any doubt to oppos. >>> >>> Oppos statement of over-ruffing needs to be taken into account though. >>> >>> >>> L >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 5:31 PM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim >>> >>> >>>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 02:32:08 -0500, Herman De Wael >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>>>> If a player has left a trump and winner(s), if the trump is the ace >>>>>> he should play it, and if it is the two he should not. That assumes >>>>>> the player thinks through the position, when in fact we are supposed >>>>>> to consider lines of play that are careless. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, that leaves 3 through King as ambiguous. To allow the player >>>>>> to calculate which trump is likely to be out, even though the player >>>>>> does not think a trump is out. That's allowing very careful, >>>>>> thoughtful play. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which is precisely what we don't want! >>>>> A player who "knows" that all trumps are out does not pull one. Ever. >>>>> Regardless of its size. >>>>> That is a much more simple rule and it caters for all possibilities. >>>>> And players won't criticize you for it. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's easy. It's ludicrous to be >>>>> ruling claims on the basis of "claimer coould pull any card out of his >>>>> hat" That's not what the laws say, and it's not what players accept. >>>>> They will accept any logical card, in any order, but not things they >>>>> would "never" do. >>>>> >>>>> And making simple rules as to what constitutes normal play is not that >>>>> difficult. Only problem is, you've already done it, and you now believe >>>>> that you've done it correctly. I propose alternative simple rules, >>>>> which, I believe, are closer to what the laws mean and closer to what >>>>> players will accept. >>>>> >>>>> My simple rule for playing the end of a contract with cards that are all >>>>> high is: >>>>> "normal play is to play long suits first, high cards after, and trumps >>>>> last." With all suits played top-down. >>>>> >>>>> OK? >>>> >>>> Halfway. >>>> >>>> Trying to think back, my impression is that when drawing trumps would have >>>> been the correct play, players will often say they were going to draw >>>> trumps, but when I say they can't, as angry as they might be, it makes >>>> sense to everyone. >>>> >>>> When withholding a losing trump is the correct play, I can find a way they >>>> would lose control of the hand with careless play and lose more tricks >>>> than just the high trump. But then I am often finding a line of play that >>>> seems odd and the defenders are often not even seeing. >>>> >>>> So that's a reasonable change in the revoke procedures. I like it. Nice. >>>> >>>> But it's more important to me to be consistent and right, so I will stick >>>> with following the rules for now. To me, if they think every card in their >>>> hand is high, they do not care which card they play first. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13534 - Release Date: 12/04/16 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13535 - Release Date: 12/04/16 > > From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Mon Dec 5 14:33:21 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 14:33:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claim In-Reply-To: References: <583DCFEC.4020400@skynet.be> <58412384.40002@skynet.be> <20161202091752.619C1B304010@relay4.webreus.nl> <58414005.2010203@skynet.be> <8278c369-3884-bddf-83ca-cc8e68736f44@vwalther.de> <5841F71D.8060103@skynet.be> <584274F8.3000507@skynet.be> Message-ID: I agree with the last sentence but fear that we are in the minority. JE Am 03.12.2016 um 18:31 schrieb Robert Frick: > On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 02:32:08 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> If a player has left a trump and winner(s), if the trump is the ace >>> he should play it, and if it is the two he should not. That assumes >>> the player thinks through the position, when in fact we are supposed >>> to consider lines of play that are careless. >>> >>> Anyway, that leaves 3 through King as ambiguous. To allow the player >>> to calculate which trump is likely to be out, even though the player >>> does not think a trump is out. That's allowing very careful, >>> thoughtful play. >>> >> Which is precisely what we don't want! >> A player who "knows" that all trumps are out does not pull one. Ever. >> Regardless of its size. >> That is a much more simple rule and it caters for all possibilities. >> And players won't criticize you for it. >> >> I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's easy. It's ludicrous to be >> ruling claims on the basis of "claimer coould pull any card out of his >> hat" That's not what the laws say, and it's not what players accept. >> They will accept any logical card, in any order, but not things they >> would "never" do. >> >> And making simple rules as to what constitutes normal play is not that >> difficult. Only problem is, you've already done it, and you now believe >> that you've done it correctly. I propose alternative simple rules, >> which, I believe, are closer to what the laws mean and closer to what >> players will accept. >> >> My simple rule for playing the end of a contract with cards that are all >> high is: >> "normal play is to play long suits first, high cards after, and trumps >> last." With all suits played top-down. >> >> OK? > Halfway. > > Trying to think back, my impression is that when drawing trumps would have been the correct play, players will often say they were going to draw trumps, but when I say they can't, as angry as they might be, it makes sense to everyone. > > When withholding a losing trump is the correct play, I can find a way they would lose control of the hand with careless play and lose more tricks than just the high trump. But then I am often finding a line of play that seems odd and the defenders are often not even seeing. > > So that's a reasonable change in the revoke procedures. I like it. Nice. > > But it's more important to me to be consistent and right, so I will stick with following the rules for now. To me, if they think every card in their hand is high, they do not care which card they play first. > _______________________________________________ > 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 adam at tameware.com Tue Dec 6 20:14:18 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 14:14:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] AppealDB - Online database for appeals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I love this site, Sinan. Thanks for putting it together! I've submitted a couple suggestions via Github. On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Sinan Taga wrote: > Hello everyone, > > We have created an online database to store bridge appeals. The > application can be viewed at http://appealdb.com. In order to make it > useful we are trying to convert passed casefiles in PDF from into Database. > I included New Orleans and Chicago (2015) and The European Teams > Championships (2004 and 2010). However I need some help converting other > casefiles as I need some time to work on project. > > So if anybody feels like helping please contact me. There is a form which > makes the entry easy. > > Also all input regarding the project is welcome. If you have something to > add or any suggestions don't hesitate to contact me. > > The source code is open sourced at https://github.com/defiant/appealDB > > Thanks in advance. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20161206/06e3f0bf/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Dec 6 21:57:49 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 15:57:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: D.C. is posted: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2016Washington.pdf This was the first tournament where NABC+ appeals were heard by a panel of TDs. On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Reno is posted, and D.C. is on its way. > > http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Reno2016.pdf > > Three casebooks remain until we're caught up: Phoenix, Vegas, and Denver. > Then we'll continue working on adding panelist comments and move on to > Orlando. > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >> St. Louis - http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2013StLouisCasebook.pdf >> >> >> >> Providence - http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2014Providence.pdf >> >> >> The Providence casebook has a new layout that will be used for future >> casebooks. I like it! >> >> All the casebooks published so far are available here: >> >> http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/nabcs/past-nabcs/nabc-casebooks/ >> >> I did not make an announcement for each of these as they were posted, so >> some may be new to you. >> >> For now commentary is available only through 2011. It will be added for >> newer casebooks as available. >> >> Casebook publication is scheduled to continue. Decisions from Summer >> 2016 going forward will be made by TD panels for both NABC+ and >> non-NABC+ events. >> >> If you want to discuss a particular case please start a new thread with >> the tournament name and case number in the Subject line. >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161206/73a109cb/attachment.html From sinantaga at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 15:30:42 2016 From: sinantaga at gmail.com (Sinan Taga) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 17:30:42 +0300 Subject: [BLML] AppealDB - Online database for appeals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi there Adam, I saw the submissions on Github. The view can be changed as we want it. Thats the beauty of it. I?m working on a project right now. I will get back to it as soon as I have time. By the way if there is still someone around there who wants to help with entering appeals, I welcome it. Thanks. > On 6 Dec 2016, at 22:14, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > I love this site, Sinan. Thanks for putting it together! > > I've submitted a couple suggestions via Github. > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Sinan Taga > wrote: > Hello everyone, > > We have created an online database to store bridge appeals. The application can be viewed at http://appealdb.com . In order to make it useful we are trying to convert passed casefiles in PDF from into Database. I included New Orleans and Chicago (2015) and The European Teams Championships (2004 and 2010). However I need some help converting other casefiles as I need some time to work on project. > > So if anybody feels like helping please contact me. There is a form which makes the entry easy. > > Also all input regarding the project is welcome. If you have something to add or any suggestions don't hesitate to contact me. > > The source code is open sourced at https://github.com/defiant/appealDB > > Thanks in advance. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20161207/d9f3dd8a/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Dec 10 02:05:32 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 12:05:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: A grate wall of no-Trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At the table I chose the illogical alternative opening lead of the king of hearts. If my illogical lead had been successful, due to dummy holding the singleton queen of hearts, would that demonstrably suggest that I had infracted the anti-peeking Law 74C5? No, it demonstrably suggests no such thing. One must always consider the counter-factual. At the table partner held Ax in hearts, with declarer gambling that Qxx in hearts was a stopper. The gamble paid off, 2NT making on my illogical king of hearts lead instead of 2NT one off on any lower heart lead. Best wishes, Richard Hills ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Richard Hills* Date: Friday, December 2, 2016 Subject: A grate wall of no-Trump To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Butler Pairs Dlr: South Vul: Nil You, North, hold: JT2 KJT87 92 AQ9 East-West are playing an Aussie version of Standard American. South passes as dealer, then West opens 1D. You elect to overcall 1H. East responds 2C. West rebids a natural and non-forcing 2NT. East chooses a natural and non-forcing Pass. What is your opening lead? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161210/aca91504/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 10 03:09:14 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 21:09:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: A grate wall of no-Trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You had a reason for your lead. Is there anyone in the world that worries about this issue? North opens 1NT, alerts his partner's 2 Heart response as Jacoby Transfer, then passes with 3-3 in the majors. He catches partner forgetting Jacoby transfer. Worry about that. On Fri, 09 Dec 2016 20:05:32 -0500, Richard Hills wrote: > At the table I chose the illogical alternative opening lead of the king of > hearts. If my illogical lead had been successful, due to dummy holding the > singleton queen of hearts, would that demonstrably suggest that I had > infracted the anti-peeking Law 74C5? > > No, it demonstrably suggests no such thing. One must always consider the > counter-factual. > > At the table partner held Ax in hearts, with declarer gambling that Qxx in > hearts was a stopper. The gamble paid off, 2NT making on my illogical king > of hearts lead instead of 2NT one off on any lower heart lead. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Richard Hills* > Date: Friday, December 2, 2016 > Subject: A grate wall of no-Trump > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > Butler Pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: Nil > > You, North, hold: > > JT2 > KJT87 > 92 > AQ9 > > East-West are playing an Aussie version of Standard American. > > South passes as dealer, then West opens 1D. You elect to overcall 1H. East > responds 2C. West rebids a natural and non-forcing 2NT. East chooses a > natural and non-forcing Pass. > > What is your opening lead? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun Dec 11 09:09:15 2016 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill Kemp) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 16:09:15 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12) Message-ID: <00a001d25385$ddc35ed0$994a1c70$@iinet.net.au> Purely for my education (I was not involved in the event) >From a recent (completed) Western Australian State Championship. A pair was bidding towards a slam in spades. There was no opposition bidding. During the auction, one of the declaring side bid 3C, alerted by his partner and described on request as first or second round control in clubs. The auction ended in 6S. The opening lead was made face down then the 3C bidder corrected his partners explanation to shortage (splinter) in clubs. The opening lead of a spade was faced and 12 tricks duly rolled in. The Director had not been called at this stage. The contract however went off on a club lead... And so the Director was called. Would you adjust? If after consideration of Law 11 you would adjust, Would you consider a failure to call the director a serious error. In the event that this went to appeal, how would your committee rule Best wishes bill kemp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161211/7e8d65cf/attachment.html From sven at svenpran.net Sun Dec 11 19:58:29 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 19:58:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12) In-Reply-To: <00a001d25385$ddc35ed0$994a1c70$@iinet.net.au> References: <00a001d25385$ddc35ed0$994a1c70$@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <001201d253e0$926ecb80$b74c6280$@svenpran.net> The player who bid 3C has acted correctly ? see Law 20F5b{ii] Either defender might feel that the incorrect explanation has affected his choice of call during the auction and must call the Director if that is the case. The Director will then apply Law 21B. Failing to call the Director implies that neither defender would have called differently from what they actually did had they been given correct information at the time. Here the incorrect explanation was corrected before the opening lead was faced. The opening lead may then be withdrawn and a different opening lead be substituted ? see Law 47E2 There is apparently no reason here for the defending side to request an adjusted score nor for the Director to award any adjusted score on this board. An appeals committee would most probably dismiss an appeal and keep the charge. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Bill Kemp Sendt: 11. desember 2016 09:09 Til: blml at rtflb.org Emne: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12) Purely for my education (I was not involved in the event) >From a recent (completed) Western Australian State Championship. A pair was bidding towards a slam in spades. There was no opposition bidding. During the auction, one of the declaring side bid 3C, alerted by his partner and described on request as first or second round control in clubs. The auction ended in 6S. The opening lead was made face down then the 3C bidder corrected his partners explanation to shortage (splinter) in clubs. The opening lead of a spade was faced and 12 tricks duly rolled in. The Director had not been called at this stage. The contract however went off on a club lead .. And so the Director was called. Would you adjust? If after consideration of Law 11 you would adjust, Would you consider a failure to call the director a serious error. In the event that this went to appeal, how would your committee rule Best wishes bill kemp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161211/5881804d/attachment.html From davidgrabiner at verizon.net Sun Dec 11 23:45:04 2016 From: davidgrabiner at verizon.net (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 17:45:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12) In-Reply-To: <00a001d25385$ddc35ed0$994a1c70$@iinet.net.au> References: <00a001d25385$ddc35ed0$994a1c70$@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161211/45781412/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Dec 12 02:40:14 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 12:40:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12) In-Reply-To: <001201d253e0$926ecb80$b74c6280$@svenpran.net> References: <00a001d25385$ddc35ed0$994a1c70$@iinet.net.au> <001201d253e0$926ecb80$b74c6280$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote: The player who bid 3C has acted correctly ? see Law 20F5b{ii] Richard Hills: No, that player has not acted correctly. In addition to fixing partner's faulty explanation, Law 20F5(b) also requires that that player (not an opponent) MUST summon the Director. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, December 12, 2016, Sven Pran wrote: > The player who bid 3C has acted correctly ? see Law 20F5b{ii] > > > > Either defender might feel that the incorrect explanation has affected his > choice of call during the auction and must call the Director if that is the > case. The Director will then apply Law 21B. Failing to call the Director > implies that neither defender would have called differently from what they > actually did had they been given correct information at the time. > > > > Here the incorrect explanation was corrected before the opening lead was > faced. The opening lead may then be withdrawn and a different opening lead > be substituted ? see Law 47E2 > > > > There is apparently no reason here for the defending side to request an > adjusted score nor for the Director to award any adjusted score on this > board. An appeals committee would most probably dismiss an appeal and keep > the charge. > > > > *Fra:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org > [mailto: > blml-bounces at rtflb.org > ] *P? vegne av* > Bill Kemp > *Sendt:* 11. desember 2016 09:09 > *Til:* blml at rtflb.org > *Emne:* [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12) > > > > Purely for my education (I was not involved in the event) > > From a recent (completed) Western Australian State Championship. > > A pair was bidding towards a slam in spades. There was no opposition > bidding. > > During the auction, one of the declaring side bid 3C, alerted by his > partner and described on request as first or second round control in clubs. > > The auction ended in 6S. > > The opening lead was made face down then the 3C bidder corrected his > partners explanation to shortage (splinter) in clubs. > > The opening lead of a spade was faced and 12 tricks duly rolled in. > > The Director had not been called at this stage. > > The contract however went off on a club lead?.. > > And so the Director was called. > > Would you adjust? > > If after consideration of Law 11 you would adjust, > > Would you consider a failure to call the director a serious error. > > In the event that this went to appeal, how would your committee rule > > Best wishes > > bill kemp > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161212/8dced86f/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Dec 12 05:19:51 2016 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 22:19:51 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12) In-Reply-To: References: <00a001d25385$ddc35ed0$994a1c70$@iinet.net.au> <001201d253e0$926ecb80$b74c6280$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > In addition to fixing partner's > faulty explanation, Law 20F5(b) also requires that that player (not an > opponent) MUST summon the Director. > Richard is right, of course. Law 20F5(b): The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. --------------------- I believe that most players and directors are profoundly unaware of this regulation. For those who don't know such a simple, basic, elementary, fundamental regulation, time to go back to school. Even in this thread we see plenty of ignorance on the matter, hopefully successfully corrected by Richard. Do directors and players know about 20F5(b) but ignore it, or are they truly ignorant of it? Any guesses as to the rate that the director is called in these situations? Does a pathetic 3% sound like an accurate estimate? In my limited experience, even world-famous players don't bother calling the director in such situations. Serious question: Is 3% about right? Included in my 3% estimate are instances in which a player thinks the explanation may be wrong but doesn't bother to announce that fact to the opponents. I will guess that such players dominate about five fold players who announce a possible misexplanation but don't summon the director. I do believe we could dramatically improve the situation with a few law changes, but let's see first if there is any agreement that there is a problem. Jerry Fusselman From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Mon Dec 12 06:07:54 2016 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 15:07:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12) In-Reply-To: References: <00a001d25385$ddc35ed0$994a1c70$@iinet.net.au><001201d253e0$926ecb80$b74c6280$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <0B8E6C0979AB40219F659B7B36FF17C6@PeachPC> Perhaps part of the problem is that Law 75 to which 20F5(b) sends us uses in B the milder ?should call the director? and ?calls the Director? for noticing partner?s error while maintaining ?must? when becoming aware of one?s own mistake. ?Must volunteer an explanation? is all one must do when drawing attention to partner?s error, looking at 75B in isolation so contrary to 20F5(b). Not sure about 3% but the figure is certainly low. Jan -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Fusselman Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 2:19 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12) Richard Hills wrote: > In addition to fixing partner's > faulty explanation, Law 20F5(b) also requires that that player (not an > opponent) MUST summon the Director. > Richard is right, of course. Law 20F5(b): 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 (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. --------------------- I believe that most players and directors are profoundly unaware of this regulation. For those who don't know such a simple, basic, elementary, fundamental regulation, time to go back to school. Even in this thread we see plenty of ignorance on the matter, hopefully successfully corrected by Richard. Do directors and players know about 20F5(b) but ignore it, or are they truly ignorant of it? Any guesses as to the rate that the director is called in these situations? Does a pathetic 3% sound like an accurate estimate? In my limited experience, even world-famous players don't bother calling the director in such situations. Serious question: Is 3% about right? Included in my 3% estimate are instances in which a player thinks the explanation may be wrong but doesn't bother to announce that fact to the opponents. I will guess that such players dominate about five fold players who announce a possible misexplanation but don't summon the director. I do believe we could dramatically improve the situation with a few law changes, but let's see first if there is any agreement that there is a problem. Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ 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/20161212/ca3fd3a9/attachment-0001.html From davidgrabiner at verizon.net Mon Dec 12 06:49:27 2016 From: davidgrabiner at verizon.net (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 00:49:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12) In-Reply-To: References: <00a001d25385$ddc35ed0$994a1c70$@iinet.net.au> <001201d253e0$926ecb80$b74c6280$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <483f85a1-de6f-ccb1-3ec4-d8d970181e70@verizon.net> On 12/11/2016 11:19 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Richard Hills wrote: >> In addition to fixing partner's >> faulty explanation, Law 20F5(b) also requires that that player (not an >> opponent) MUST summon the Director. >> > Richard is right, of course. > > Law 20F5(b): 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 (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or > dummy, after the final pass of the auction. > > --------------------- > > I believe that most players and directors are profoundly unaware of > this regulation. For those who don't know such a simple, basic, > elementary, fundamental regulation, time to go back to school. Even > in this thread we see plenty of ignorance on the matter, hopefully > successfully corrected by Richard. > > Do directors and players know about 20F5(b) but ignore it, or are they > truly ignorant of it? Frequently, the rule to call the Director is ignored, particularly when you don't expect there will be an issue. 1N-2C; 2H-2N; 3N. "There was a failure to alert; 2N denies four spades." 1S-3C! (explained as a raise with 10-11); 3S. "3C was a raise with 7-9." If the player adds, "Please call the Director if you think there is a problem", then the Director will be called if needed (the one time in ten that opening leader wants to change a diamond lead to a spade on the first auction, or someone would have overcalled 3H on the second auction), but no time is wasted waiting for a director call when there is no issue. -- David Grabiner grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (permanent Email; put this in your address book) davidgrabiner at verizon.net (valid as long as I am with Verizon) From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Mon Dec 12 08:54:38 2016 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 02:54:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12) In-Reply-To: References: <00a001d25385$ddc35ed0$994a1c70$@iinet.net.au> <001201d253e0$926ecb80$b74c6280$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <0d0d61e9-a015-df5d-4611-b7f33f992cf0@gmail.com> On 12/11/2016 11:19 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Richard Hills wrote: >> In addition to fixing partner's >> faulty explanation, Law 20F5(b) also requires that that player (not an >> opponent) MUST summon the Director. >> > > Richard is right, of course. > > Law 20F5(b): 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 (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or > dummy, after the final pass of the auction. > > --------------------- > > I believe that most players and directors are profoundly unaware of > this regulation. For those who don't know such a simple, basic, > elementary, fundamental regulation, time to go back to school. Even > in this thread we see plenty of ignorance on the matter, hopefully > successfully corrected by Richard. > > Do directors and players know about 20F5(b) but ignore it, or are they > truly ignorant of it? > > Any guesses as to the rate that the director is called in these > situations? Does a pathetic 3% sound like an accurate estimate? In my > limited experience, even world-famous players don't bother calling the > director in such situations. > > Serious question: Is 3% about right? > > Included in my 3% estimate are instances in which a player thinks the > explanation may be wrong but doesn't bother to announce that fact to > the opponents. I will guess that such players dominate about five > fold players who announce a possible misexplanation but don't summon > the director. > > I do believe we could dramatically improve the situation with a few > law changes, but let's see first if there is any agreement that there > is a problem. > IMO, the problem with putting a requirement to call the director in Law 20F5(b) (or anywhere else deep in TFLB) is that most players aren't going to read that far, even if you do send them "back to school". What TFLB needs is a Law ZERO, i.e. right at the front of the book, which states simply "A player MUST call the TD under the following circumstances :", followed by as concise a list as possible, and probably a second list when a player SHOULD call the TD. In an ideal world, the copyright holders for TFLB would give worldwide permission for clubs to copy this list, ideally a single page if possible, and distribute it to their players. Again IMO, you have a chance of the vast majority of players reading that much. Brian. From sven at svenpran.net Mon Dec 12 11:09:49 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:09:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12) In-Reply-To: References: <00a001d25385$ddc35ed0$994a1c70$@iinet.net.au> <001201d253e0$926ecb80$b74c6280$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <001601d2545f$e29fb770$a7df2650$@svenpran.net> I agree that Law 20F5b says ?The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous [...]?, but this is one of the places in the laws where in my opinion the word ?must? is unfortunate (although it looks fine on the paper). What is important is that the player (at the proper time) must call attention to the irregularity of an incorrect explanation and offer the (in his opinion) correct explanation. Any player who feels that the irregularity might disturb (or already has disturbed) ?normal? auction and/or play is then encouraged to call the Director. My experience is that disrupting an auction or play with a call for the Director every single time a player notifies his opponents of a possibly incorrect explanation would be highly undesirable and is simply not done by the players. So let us be practical and accept that calling the Director is compulsory only when players suspect that they might have reason for the Director?s intervention (whether such intervention could be expected to their own or opponents? advantage). Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 12. desember 2016 02:40 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12) Sven Pran wrote: The player who bid 3C has acted correctly ? see Law 20F5b{ii] Richard Hills: No, that player has not acted correctly. In addition to fixing partner's faulty explanation, Law 20F5(b) also requires that that player (not an opponent) MUST summon the Director. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, December 12, 2016, Sven Pran wrote: The player who bid 3C has acted correctly ? see Law 20F5b{ii] Either defender might feel that the incorrect explanation has affected his choice of call during the auction and must call the Director if that is the case. The Director will then apply Law 21B. Failing to call the Director implies that neither defender would have called differently from what they actually did had they been given correct information at the time. Here the incorrect explanation was corrected before the opening lead was faced. The opening lead may then be withdrawn and a different opening lead be substituted ? see Law 47E2 There is apparently no reason here for the defending side to request an adjusted score nor for the Director to award any adjusted score on this board. An appeals committee would most probably dismiss an appeal and keep the charge. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] P? vegne av Bill Kemp Sendt: 11. desember 2016 09:09 Til: blml at rtflb.org Emne: [BLML] Law 11 (and perhaps 12) Purely for my education (I was not involved in the event) >From a recent (completed) Western Australian State Championship. A pair was bidding towards a slam in spades. There was no opposition bidding. During the auction, one of the declaring side bid 3C, alerted by his partner and described on request as first or second round control in clubs. The auction ended in 6S. The opening lead was made face down then the 3C bidder corrected his partners explanation to shortage (splinter) in clubs. The opening lead of a spade was faced and 12 tricks duly rolled in. The Director had not been called at this stage. The contract however went off on a club lead?.. And so the Director was called. Would you adjust? If after consideration of Law 11 you would adjust, Would you consider a failure to call the director a serious error. In the event that this went to appeal, how would your committee rule Best wishes bill kemp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161212/ddd7c9b8/attachment-0001.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Dec 13 22:34:28 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:34:28 -0700 Subject: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Phoenix is posted: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2013Phoenix.pdf Three remain in the backlog: Vegas, Denver, and Orlando. Panel commentary ought to start appearing soon. On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > D.C. is posted: > > http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2016Washington.pdf > > This was the first tournament where NABC+ appeals were heard by a panel of > TDs. > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >> Reno is posted, and D.C. is on its way. >> >> http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Reno2016.pdf >> >> Three casebooks remain until we're caught up: Phoenix, Vegas, and Denver. >> Then we'll continue working on adding panelist comments and move on to >> Orlando. >> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Adam Wildavsky >> wrote: >> >>> St. Louis - http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2013StLouisCasebook.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> Providence - http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2014Providence.pdf >>> >>> >>> The Providence casebook has a new layout that will be used for future >>> casebooks. I like it! >>> >>> All the casebooks published so far are available here: >>> >>> http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/nabcs/past-nabcs/nabc-casebooks/ >>> >>> I did not make an announcement for each of these as they were posted, so >>> some may be new to you. >>> >>> For now commentary is available only through 2011. It will be added for >>> newer casebooks as available. >>> >>> Casebook publication is scheduled to continue. Decisions from Summer >>> 2016 going forward will be made by TD panels for both NABC+ and >>> non-NABC+ events. >>> >>> If you want to discuss a particular case please start a new thread with >>> the tournament name and case number in the Subject line. >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161213/f4b55ca5/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Wed Dec 28 00:57:30 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 00:57:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Proposed new ACBL Convention Chart Message-ID: This discussion will interest some BLMLers: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/feedback-for-convention-chart/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161227/5388dc62/attachment.html From bridgeinindia at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 20:07:17 2016 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (BridgeinIndia) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 00:37:17 +0530 Subject: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *Thanks to A C B L and Mr Adam Wildavsky, we, BridgeIndia .com website have published the NABC appeals in a classified manner. Appeals' Topics like Claim, UI etc etc and also events like Summer 2016, Spring 2016 etc are available for easy reading. The missing events from our page would be soon filled up * *Web site> http://bridgeinindia.homestead.com/AppealSection.html * *?We hope this would be useful ?* Sent with Mailtrack *With RegardsDr Raghavan.P.S.BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph =+91-044-23761038Mobile = 9940273749? * *-----------------------------------------------------------*? On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Phoenix is posted: > > http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2013Phoenix.pdf > > Three remain in the backlog: Vegas, Denver, and Orlando. > > Panel commentary ought to start appearing soon. > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >> D.C. is posted: >> >> http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2016Washington.pdf >> >> This was the first tournament where NABC+ appeals were heard by a panel >> of TDs. >> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> >>> Reno is posted, and D.C. is on its way. >>> >>> http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Reno2016.pdf >>> >>> Three casebooks remain until we're caught up: Phoenix, Vegas, and >>> Denver. Then we'll continue working on adding panelist comments and move on >>> to Orlando. >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Adam Wildavsky >>> wrote: >>> >>>> St. Louis - http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2013StLouisCasebook.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Providence - http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2014Providence.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> The Providence casebook has a new layout that will be used for future >>>> casebooks. I like it! >>>> >>>> All the casebooks published so far are available here: >>>> >>>> http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/nabcs/past-nabcs/nabc-casebooks/ >>>> >>>> I did not make an announcement for each of these as they were posted, >>>> so some may be new to you. >>>> >>>> For now commentary is available only through 2011. It will be added >>>> for newer casebooks as available. >>>> >>>> Casebook publication is scheduled to continue. Decisions from Summer >>>> 2016 going forward will be made by TD panels for both NABC+ and >>>> non-NABC+ events. >>>> >>>> If you want to discuss a particular case please start a new thread with >>>> the tournament name and case number in the Subject line. >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20161229/b3795996/attachment.html