From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 2 17:44:31 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:44:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining why I'm so cautious Message-ID: <5fbf43a6a851813d08a442fa0965c6bc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Since I've been criticized for being uncertain about the "racecars" incident, I'll try to explain here how it might be a problem - at least according to my appreciation. 1993 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup semi-finals - so no klutzes around. KJ Qxxx xxx Axx AJxxxx Kxx xx AKx After uneventful bidding -no overcall-, you play 3NT from the East hand. The lead is a Heart royal, encouraging signal from North, small to the Jack, small and you eventually take the third round. It's a virtual certainty that the 13th Heart is in South's hand, even if the other royal was played to the third trick. Diamond king, small from both opponents, small Diamond, small from South, and decision time. Unless I'm badly wrong, it's superior to finesse. If you play the Ace, you win with 22 Diamonds. This, allowing for "slots", is about 55%. If you finesse, you win either with Qxx in South's hand or with Spade Ace in North's, a 70+% chance. Yet, three out of four declarers who were in this situation didn't finesse (another one didn't either, but she was in a slightly different situation, after South's overcall). Now, say you're called by some North player, who claims West saw / looked at one's cards and made a Churchillian sign. East just explains to you that one "felt like not finessing". Or that one's opponent handled one's cards in such a way that one could see them. Or anything unconvincing. Shouldn't you be careful, as the only testimony about a possible information given by dummy is from a person who's far from neutral in the case ? Testis unus, testis nullius. No testimony from anybody else, no video proof, only your strong feeling that something isn't kosher. You know 100% that somebody is a liar -either North or East. Both would get an advantage if they were believed. So, why do you believe North more than East ? That's what the Racecars incident is all about. Until I get a strongly argumented answer to the above question, I'll keep considering the case wasn't properly handled. Best regards, Alain From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Feb 2 21:59:52 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 21:59:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining why I'm so cautious In-Reply-To: <5fbf43a6a851813d08a442fa0965c6bc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <5fbf43a6a851813d08a442fa0965c6bc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <56B118C8.5000500@t-online.de> Am 02.02.2016 um 17:44 schrieb agot: > Dear blmlists, > > Since I've been criticized for being uncertain about the "racecars" > incident, I'll try to explain here how it might be a problem - at least > according to my appreciation. > > 1993 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup semi-finals - so no klutzes around. > > KJ Qxxx > xxx Axx > AJxxxx Kxx > xx AKx > > After uneventful bidding -no overcall-, you play 3NT from the East hand. > The lead is a Heart royal, encouraging signal from North, small to the > Jack, small and you eventually take the third round. It's a virtual > certainty that the 13th Heart is in South's hand, even if the other > royal was played to the third trick. > > Diamond king, small from both opponents, small Diamond, small from > South, and decision time. > Unless I'm badly wrong, it's superior to finesse. > > If you play the Ace, you win with 22 Diamonds. This, allowing for > "slots", is about 55%. > If you finesse, you win either with Qxx in South's hand or with Spade > Ace in North's, a 70+% chance. If the fourth heart is indeed with South, for which I see no proof, even if it seems likely that S did not attack from KQx. Which is the lead which was used to beat my 3NT 2 weeks ago, and the only lead, to boot. > > Yet, three out of four declarers who were in this situation didn't > finesse (another one didn't either, but she was in a slightly different > situation, after South's overcall). > > Now, say you're called by some North player, who claims West saw / > looked at one's cards and made a Churchillian sign. > > East just explains to you that one "felt like not finessing". Or that > one's opponent handled one's cards in such a way that one could see > them. Or anything unconvincing. > > Shouldn't you be careful, as the only testimony about a possible > information given by dummy is from a person who's far from neutral in > the case ? Testis unus, testis nullius. No testimony from anybody else, > no video proof, only your strong feeling that something isn't kosher. > > You know 100% that somebody is a liar -either North or East. Both would > get an advantage if they were believed. Why has anyone got to be a liar? Since when are people unfallible in their observations? Why can`t both tell the truth _as they saw it_? It does not follow that someone is lying from what you list above. There has to be additional proof. > > So, why do you believe North more than East ? > > That's what the Racecars incident is all about. No, surely not, else it would still be in court somewhere. There _has_ to be something else the public is not aware of (and has no need to be). > > Until I get a strongly argumented answer to the above question, I'll > keep considering the case wasn't properly handled. Let`s face it: neither you nor I are in a position where we can lay our hands on all the evidence. So what? The Doctors, with much more "visible" proof, are still in court, even when nearly no one (to my knowledge) thinks them to be innocent. If the case were as obscure as you believe it to be, why are the Racecars not going to court? Best regards Matthias > > Best regards, > > Alain > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 3 08:51:14 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 08:51:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining why I'm so cautious In-Reply-To: <5fbf43a6a851813d08a442fa0965c6bc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <5fbf43a6a851813d08a442fa0965c6bc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <56B1B172.8040108@skynet.be> Well Alain, there is one major difference between your case below and the Tenerife incident. Below was a semi-final, in which dummy has a reason to be lying. Tenerife was the last round in a qualification swiss, with the racecars on the cusp (and indeed not qualifying after the scrapping of this one board - after qualifying with it) while dummy's team either in or out (I don't remember). Also, your case has numerous side issues, all possible sources for declarer to explain his actions by other than UI. And many declarers chose different paths. In Tenerife, there was only one declarer who finessed, and he could give no bridge reason for doing so (other than the known "diamonds ae always breaking badly"). Finally, the Committee heard long testimonies from all four players and realized quite well that they had to be deciding on nothing else than one word against another. They (I could say We) decided in all conscience. Herman. agot schreef: > Dear blmlists, > > Since I've been criticized for being uncertain about the "racecars" > incident, I'll try to explain here how it might be a problem - at least > according to my appreciation. > > 1993 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup semi-finals - so no klutzes around. > > KJ Qxxx > xxx Axx > AJxxxx Kxx > xx AKx > > After uneventful bidding -no overcall-, you play 3NT from the East hand. > The lead is a Heart royal, encouraging signal from North, small to the > Jack, small and you eventually take the third round. It's a virtual > certainty that the 13th Heart is in South's hand, even if the other > royal was played to the third trick. > > Diamond king, small from both opponents, small Diamond, small from > South, and decision time. > Unless I'm badly wrong, it's superior to finesse. > > If you play the Ace, you win with 22 Diamonds. This, allowing for > "slots", is about 55%. > If you finesse, you win either with Qxx in South's hand or with Spade > Ace in North's, a 70+% chance. > > Yet, three out of four declarers who were in this situation didn't > finesse (another one didn't either, but she was in a slightly different > situation, after South's overcall). > > Now, say you're called by some North player, who claims West saw / > looked at one's cards and made a Churchillian sign. > > East just explains to you that one "felt like not finessing". Or that > one's opponent handled one's cards in such a way that one could see > them. Or anything unconvincing. > > Shouldn't you be careful, as the only testimony about a possible > information given by dummy is from a person who's far from neutral in > the case ? Testis unus, testis nullius. No testimony from anybody else, > no video proof, only your strong feeling that something isn't kosher. > > You know 100% that somebody is a liar -either North or East. Both would > get an advantage if they were believed. > > So, why do you believe North more than East ? > > That's what the Racecars incident is all about. > > Until I get a strongly argumented answer to the above question, I'll > keep considering the case wasn't properly handled. > > Best regards, > > Alain > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Feb 3 12:00:41 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 22:00:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining why I'm so cautious In-Reply-To: <56B1B172.8040108@skynet.be> References: <5fbf43a6a851813d08a442fa0965c6bc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56B1B172.8040108@skynet.be> Message-ID: ..... Finally, the Committee heard long testimonies from all four players and realized quite well that they had to be deciding on nothing else than one word against another. They (I could say We) decided in all conscience. Herman. I agree with Herman. For the Tenerife board the Disciplinary Committee would fail a pons asinorum if it chose a wishy-washy compromise ruling of both partnerships being as-pure-as-the-driven-snow. Either the Racecars were pure, with their opponents being outrageous cheats intentionally perpetrating false allegations. Or their opponents were pure, with the Racecars being outrageous cheats intentionally perpetrating finger signals. And each and every piece of other evidence incriminated (and/or self-incriminated) the Racecars. So therefore I am sure that Herman would join me in asking: What's the problem? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, February 3, 2016, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well Alain, there is one major difference between your case below and > the Tenerife incident. Below was a semi-final, in which dummy has a > reason to be lying. > Tenerife was the last round in a qualification swiss, with the racecars > on the cusp (and indeed not qualifying after the scrapping of this one > board - after qualifying with it) while dummy's team either in or out (I > don't remember). > > Also, your case has numerous side issues, all possible sources for > declarer to explain his actions by other than UI. And many declarers > chose different paths. In Tenerife, there was only one declarer who > finessed, and he could give no bridge reason for doing so (other than > the known "diamonds ae always breaking badly"). > > Finally, the Committee heard long testimonies from all four players and > realized quite well that they had to be deciding on nothing else than > one word against another. They (I could say We) decided in all conscience. > > Herman. > > agot schreef: > > Dear blmlists, > > > > Since I've been criticized for being uncertain about the "racecars" > > incident, I'll try to explain here how it might be a problem - at least > > according to my appreciation. > > > > 1993 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup semi-finals - so no klutzes around. > > > > KJ Qxxx > > xxx Axx > > AJxxxx Kxx > > xx AKx > > > > After uneventful bidding -no overcall-, you play 3NT from the East hand. > > The lead is a Heart royal, encouraging signal from North, small to the > > Jack, small and you eventually take the third round. It's a virtual > > certainty that the 13th Heart is in South's hand, even if the other > > royal was played to the third trick. > > > > Diamond king, small from both opponents, small Diamond, small from > > South, and decision time. > > Unless I'm badly wrong, it's superior to finesse. > > > > If you play the Ace, you win with 22 Diamonds. This, allowing for > > "slots", is about 55%. > > If you finesse, you win either with Qxx in South's hand or with Spade > > Ace in North's, a 70+% chance. > > > > Yet, three out of four declarers who were in this situation didn't > > finesse (another one didn't either, but she was in a slightly different > > situation, after South's overcall). > > > > Now, say you're called by some North player, who claims West saw / > > looked at one's cards and made a Churchillian sign. > > > > East just explains to you that one "felt like not finessing". Or that > > one's opponent handled one's cards in such a way that one could see > > them. Or anything unconvincing. > > > > Shouldn't you be careful, as the only testimony about a possible > > information given by dummy is from a person who's far from neutral in > > the case ? Testis unus, testis nullius. No testimony from anybody else, > > no video proof, only your strong feeling that something isn't kosher. > > > > You know 100% that somebody is a liar -either North or East. Both would > > get an advantage if they were believed. > > > > So, why do you believe North more than East ? > > > > That's what the Racecars incident is all about. > > > > Until I get a strongly argumented answer to the above question, I'll > > keep considering the case wasn't properly handled. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160203/b1d1a93b/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 4 04:32:27 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 22:32:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Explaining why I'm so cautious In-Reply-To: <5fbf43a6a851813d08a442fa0965c6bc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <5fbf43a6a851813d08a442fa0965c6bc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <56B2C64B.9060909@nhcc.net> On 2016-02-02 11:44 AM, agot wrote: > Unless I'm badly wrong, it's superior to finesse. ... > Yet, three out of four declarers who were in this situation didn't > finesse Are you sure about that? For _score adjustment_, all you need is "balance of probabilities." Neither cheating nor a false accusation of cheating is very likely, but it seems to me the former is far more likely than the latter. Based on your analysis, the evidence of failing to finesse would be strong, but you'd want to question those three innocent non-finessers to see whether your analysis is correct or not. For _discipline_, the standard of evidence depends on jurisdiction. I don't know what the WBF requires, but I think "clear and convincing evidence" is fairly common. Regardless of the exact standard, you'd want to question everyone involved and decide whom you believe. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Feb 4 08:33:47 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:33:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mankad Message-ID: Trick question: When is a completely legal action (consistent with the rules as currently written) by a player also a completely unethical action by that player? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160204/63882a31/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Feb 4 09:14:32 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 19:14:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining why I'm so cautious In-Reply-To: <56B2C64B.9060909@nhcc.net> References: <5fbf43a6a851813d08a442fa0965c6bc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56B2C64B.9060909@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: ..... For _score adjustment_, all you need is "balance of probabilities." Neither cheating nor a false accusation of cheating is very likely, but it seems to me the former is far more likely than the latter. ..... Richard Hills: In my opinion the latter is far more likely than the former. During my salad days in Hobart RHO dealt and opened 1H. I selected a takeout double. LHO questioned my partner (the late Bruce Williams) about the meaning of the double. Bruce replied, "Takeout, with 11+ hcp." When my cards were eventually displayed as dummy I held a mere 10 hcp (albeit with a perfect 4=1=4=4 shape). So my LHO called me a cheat. Therefore I summoned the Director (the late and great Roger Penny, founder of the Australian Bridge Directors Association). Roger ordered LHO to withdraw. Grattan Endicott: +=+ From the room? +=+ On Thursday, February 4, 2016, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2016-02-02 11:44 AM, agot wrote: > > Unless I'm badly wrong, it's superior to finesse. > ... > > Yet, three out of four declarers who were in this situation didn't > > finesse > > Are you sure about that? > > For _score adjustment_, all you need is "balance of probabilities." > Neither cheating nor a false accusation of cheating is very likely, but > it seems to me the former is far more likely than the latter. Based on > your analysis, the evidence of failing to finesse would be strong, but > you'd want to question those three innocent non-finessers to see whether > your analysis is correct or not. > > For _discipline_, the standard of evidence depends on jurisdiction. I > don't know what the WBF requires, but I think "clear and convincing > evidence" is fairly common. Regardless of the exact standard, you'd > want to question everyone involved and decide whom you believe. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160204/39056829/attachment-0001.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Feb 4 11:07:00 2016 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 05:07:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mankad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:33:47 +1100, you wrote: >Trick question: When is a completely legal action (consistent with the >rules as currently written) by a player also a completely unethical action >by that player? > Having partnered at least three physically handicapped players over the course of the last 40 years, I would offer demanding a penalty for an infraction caused solely by a physical disability. Of course, that's my personal view of "unethical". Brian. From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Thu Feb 4 11:32:43 2016 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (a.witzen) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:32:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining why I'm so cautious Message-ID: I just read that in pattaya, the sin city of thailand, 32 old expats playing bridge were raidedby 50 policeman and put in prison for 12 hours. They were rekeased after paying 5000 bath each as bail. So be careful when you want to play bridge in thailand, For more, see Www.thailandblig.nl in dutch Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- Van: Richard Hills Datum:04-02-2016 09:14 (GMT+01:00) Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Explaining why I'm so cautious Steve Willner: ..... For _score adjustment_, all you need is "balance of probabilities." Neither cheating nor a false accusation of cheating is very likely, but it seems to me the former is far more likely than the latter. ..... Richard Hills: In my opinion the latter is far more likely than the former. During my salad days in Hobart RHO dealt and opened 1H. I selected a takeout double. LHO questioned my partner (the late Bruce Williams) about the meaning of the double. Bruce replied, "Takeout, with 11+ hcp." When my cards were eventually displayed as dummy I held a mere 10 hcp (albeit with a perfect 4=1=4=4 shape). So my LHO called me a cheat. Therefore I summoned the Director (the late and great Roger Penny, founder of the Australian Bridge Directors Association). Roger ordered LHO to withdraw. Grattan Endicott: +=+ From the room? +=+ On Thursday, February 4, 2016, Steve Willner wrote: On 2016-02-02 11:44 AM, agot wrote: > Unless I'm badly wrong, it's superior to finesse. ... > Yet, three out of four declarers who were in this situation didn't > finesse Are you sure about that? For _score adjustment_, all you need is "balance of probabilities." Neither cheating nor a false accusation of cheating is very likely, but it seems to me the former is far more likely than the latter. Based on your analysis, the evidence of failing to finesse would be strong, but you'd want to question those three innocent non-finessers to see whether your analysis is correct or not. For _discipline_, the standard of evidence depends on jurisdiction. I don't know what the WBF requires, but I think "clear and convincing evidence" is fairly common. Regardless of the exact standard, you'd want to question everyone involved and decide whom you believe. _______________________________________________ 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/20160204/02140ba5/attachment.html From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Thu Feb 4 11:56:16 2016 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (a.witzen) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:56:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining why I'm so cautious Message-ID: Sorry, it is www.thailandblog.nl Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- Van: "a.witzen" Datum:04-02-2016 11:32 (GMT+01:00) Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Explaining why I'm so cautious I just read that in pattaya, the sin city of thailand, 32 old expats playing bridge were raidedby 50 policeman and put in prison for 12 hours. They were rekeased after paying 5000 bath each as bail. So be careful when you want to play bridge in thailand, For more, see Www.thailandblig.nl in dutch Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- Van: Richard Hills Datum:04-02-2016 09:14 (GMT+01:00) Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Explaining why I'm so cautious Steve Willner: ..... For _score adjustment_, all you need is "balance of probabilities." Neither cheating nor a false accusation of cheating is very likely, but it seems to me the former is far more likely than the latter. ..... Richard Hills: In my opinion the latter is far more likely than the former. During my salad days in Hobart RHO dealt and opened 1H. I selected a takeout double. LHO questioned my partner (the late Bruce Williams) about the meaning of the double. Bruce replied, "Takeout, with 11+ hcp." When my cards were eventually displayed as dummy I held a mere 10 hcp (albeit with a perfect 4=1=4=4 shape). So my LHO called me a cheat. Therefore I summoned the Director (the late and great Roger Penny, founder of the Australian Bridge Directors Association). Roger ordered LHO to withdraw. Grattan Endicott: +=+ From the room? +=+ On Thursday, February 4, 2016, Steve Willner wrote: On 2016-02-02 11:44 AM, agot wrote: > Unless I'm badly wrong, it's superior to finesse. ... > Yet, three out of four declarers who were in this situation didn't > finesse Are you sure about that? For _score adjustment_, all you need is "balance of probabilities." Neither cheating nor a false accusation of cheating is very likely, but it seems to me the former is far more likely than the latter. Based on your analysis, the evidence of failing to finesse would be strong, but you'd want to question those three innocent non-finessers to see whether your analysis is correct or not. For _discipline_, the standard of evidence depends on jurisdiction. I don't know what the WBF requires, but I think "clear and convincing evidence" is fairly common. Regardless of the exact standard, you'd want to question everyone involved and decide whom you believe. _______________________________________________ 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/20160204/3882a013/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 4 13:04:07 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:04:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining why I'm so cautious In-Reply-To: <56B118C8.5000500@t-online.de> References: <5fbf43a6a851813d08a442fa0965c6bc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56B118C8.5000500@t-online.de> Message-ID: <1d8f639d8e399f4873fc9a4a24de0676@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 02.02.2016 21:59, Matthias Berghaus a ?crit?: > Am 02.02.2016 um 17:44 schrieb agot: >> Dear blmlists, >> >> Since I've been criticized for being uncertain about the "racecars" >> incident, I'll try to explain here how it might be a problem - at >> least >> according to my appreciation. >> >> 1993 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup semi-finals - so no klutzes around. >> >> KJ Qxxx >> xxx Axx >> AJxxxx Kxx >> xx AKx >> >> After uneventful bidding -no overcall-, you play 3NT from the East >> hand. >> The lead is a Heart royal, encouraging signal from North, small to the >> Jack, small and you eventually take the third round. It's a virtual >> certainty that the 13th Heart is in South's hand, even if the other >> royal was played to the third trick. >> >> Diamond king, small from both opponents, small Diamond, small from >> South, and decision time. >> Unless I'm badly wrong, it's superior to finesse. >> >> If you play the Ace, you win with 22 Diamonds. This, allowing for >> "slots", is about 55%. >> If you finesse, you win either with Qxx in South's hand or with Spade >> Ace in North's, a 70+% chance. > > If the fourth heart is indeed with South, for which I see no proof, > even > if it seems likely that S did not attack from KQx. Which is the lead > which was used to beat my 3NT 2 weeks ago, and the only lead, to boot. Apart from the fact that at some tables South made the "good suit" lead of the King (playing Q from KQx is common), how come North played the Jack from J10xx ? > >> >> So, why do you believe North more than East ? >> >> That's what the Racecars incident is all about. > > No, surely not, else it would still be in court somewhere. There _has_ > to be something else the public is not aware of (and has no need to > be). You might well be right, but that would not be proper in such an important case. >> >> Until I get a strongly argumented answer to the above question, I'll >> keep considering the case wasn't properly handled. > > Let`s face it: neither you nor I are in a position where we can lay our > hands on all the evidence. So what? The Doctors, with much more > "visible" proof, are still in court, even when nearly no one (to my > knowledge) thinks them to be innocent. If the case were as obscure as > you believe it to be, why are the Racecars not going to court? Once again, you're probably right, but this was only known *after* the case was (IMO erroneously) decided, so it's not an argument as far as procedure is concerned. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 4 13:15:03 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:15:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mankad In-Reply-To: <20160204100712.C3702B30406E@relay4.webreus.nl> References: <20160204100712.C3702B30406E@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: Le 04.02.2016 11:07, brian a ?crit?: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:33:47 +1100, you wrote: > >> Trick question: When is a completely legal action (consistent with the >> rules as currently written) by a player also a completely unethical >> action >> by that player? >> > Having partnered at least three physically handicapped players over > the course of the last 40 years, I would offer demanding a penalty for > an infraction caused solely by a physical disability. > Since creating UI (e.g. from tempo) isn't an infraction per se, there are several such possible cases. Perhaps "completely unethical" is a bit strong, but unethical nevertheless. For example, since we all can recognize a weak two-bid when we see one, a player who uses complex two-way two-bids (either a weak 2-bid in the 1-above suit or a variety of strong hands) and hesitates quite a bit before making one gives out UI that he has the strong type and was cheking what the right opening was with that particular type. Since there was a reason for the tempo, this is 100% proper, but ... Best regards Alain From lists at wespowers.com Thu Feb 4 13:53:29 2016 From: lists at wespowers.com (Wes Powers) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:53:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mankad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56B349C9.1050200@wespowers.com> Many players consider it unethical to psych against beginners. Yet it is completely legal. Wes On 2/4/2016 02:33, Richard Hills wrote: > Trick question: When is a completely legal action (consistent with the > rules as currently written) by a player also a completely unethical > action by that player? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Thu Feb 4 15:02:03 2016 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:02:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining why I'm so cautious In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: After all we have a Bridge Laws Mailing List. For those curious about the Bridge Law enforcement in Pattaya: http://pattayaone.net/pattaya-news/221251/british-led-card-room-raided-officials-south-pattaya/ >From: "a.witzen" >Precedence: list >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:32:43 +0100 >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Message-ID: >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="--_com.android.email_96703924454270" >Subject: Re: [BLML] Explaining why I'm so cautious >Message: 2 > >I just read that in pattaya, the sin city of thailand, 32 old expats >playing bridge were raidedby 50 policeman and put in prison for 12 >hours. They were rekeased after paying 5000 bath each as bail. >So be careful when you want to play bridge in thailand, >For more, see >Www.thailandblig.nl in dutch From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 5 02:16:10 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 20:16:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mankad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Someone here once suggested: Looking at a hand record for the previous day, thinking that it was for the current day, and using the information. I don't remember anyone finding any laws that this violated. On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 02:33:47 -0500, Richard Hills wrote: > Trick question: When is a completely legal action (consistent with the > rules as currently written) by a player also a completely unethical action > by that player? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills From bridge at vwalther.de Fri Feb 5 11:06:23 2016 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:06:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Running scores In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56B4741F.3030800@vwalther.de> Am 30.01.2016 um 19:39 schrieb Jos? J?lio Curado: > Hi! > > I would like to know what is your opinion regarding showing running > scores in Bridge Tournaments? > > Does it make any difference if it is Pairs or Teams? > > Does it make any difference if the boards are barometer circulated or not? > > Does it make any difference if is IMPs or Matcpoints? > > Does it make any difference if prizes are involved? > > Thank you very much in advance for your input. > Jose Julio Curado > On barometer circulated boards I can see no problem. But if people are playin different boards at the end some will be lucky to have a swing board. They may try to play against the field if they are not well placed. Someone who has a dull board as last hand does not have this chance. Playing imps increases the problem. Volker From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 5 11:28:11 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:28:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Running scores In-Reply-To: <56B4741F.3030800@vwalther.de> References: <56B4741F.3030800@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <56B4793B.5070305@skynet.be> A common practice in Belgium is to stop publishing results for the barometer in the last few rounds. For example, in the final of the Belgian Pairs championship (15 rounds of 4 boards) we will stop presenting a ranking after 10 rounds, post frequencies for rounds 11 - 12 at normal times but rounds 13 and 14 not until the end. Players understand the reasons for this. Herman. Volker Walther schreef: > > > Am 30.01.2016 um 19:39 schrieb Jos? J?lio Curado: >> Hi! >> >> I would like to know what is your opinion regarding showing running >> scores in Bridge Tournaments? >> >> Does it make any difference if it is Pairs or Teams? >> >> Does it make any difference if the boards are barometer circulated or not? >> >> Does it make any difference if is IMPs or Matcpoints? >> >> Does it make any difference if prizes are involved? >> >> Thank you very much in advance for your input. >> Jose Julio Curado >> > > On barometer circulated boards I can see no problem. > But if people are playin different boards at the end some will be lucky > to have a swing board. > > They may try to play against the field if they are not well placed. > Someone who has a dull board as last hand does not have this chance. > > Playing imps increases the problem. > > Volker > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 10:10:54 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 20:10:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mankad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills: One of the ways to dismiss a batsman in the game of cricket is known as a Mankad. If the batsman at the non-striker's end is backing up too far, the bowler can refuse to deliver the ball and instead use it to break the non-striker's wicket for a Mankad Run Out. In the Second Test of the 1947/48 season in Australia, Vinoo Mankad ran out Aussie batsman Bill Brown via his eponymous method. Some argued that Mankad was unethical. But Mankad had given Brown a first and final warning, hence Aussie cricket legend Sir Donald Bradman believed that Mankad's wicket was both legal and ethical. However, in this year's Under-19 World Cup was a very tight fight in a match between the West Indies and Zimbabwe. With one over to play Zimbabwe needed only three runs to win, but they had lost nine of their ten wickets. WITHOUT giving the Zimbabwe batsman a first and final warning, the West Indies bowler used Mankad to take the winning last wicket. The West Indies under-19 bowler's choice was fully consistent with the Laws of Cricket. However, since the overwhelming preference of players and spectators is for a warning prior to Mankad, the obvious solution is to amend the Laws of Cricket Brian Meadows: Having partnered at least three physically handicapped players over the course of the last 40 years, I would offer demanding a penalty for an infraction caused solely by a physical disability. Of course, that's my personal view of "unethical". Brian. 2007 Law 81C5: The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. Hypothetical 2017 Law 81C5: The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion. On Thursday, February 4, 2016, brian > wrote: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:33:it47 +1100, you wrote: > > >Trick question: When is a completely legal action (consistent with the > >rules as currently written) by a player also a completely unethical action > >by that player? > > > Having partnered at least three physically handicapped players over > the course of the last 40 years, I would offer demanding a penalty for > an infraction caused solely by a physical disability. > > Of course, that's my personal view of "unethical". > > Brian. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160208/a2fcb140/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 11:13:26 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 21:13:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: North-South Playing Dorothy Acol you, North, hold: T6 T AQJ972 A643 Pard (Dorothy) opens 1S, you respond 2D, pard rebids 3C (high reverse). Now you leap to 6C. +1370 for almost all the matchpoints (only one other pair bid and made 6C). Dorothy held: AK973 AJ 6 KQ982 The issue is that North has leapt to numerous slams over the past year-and-a-half, and all have been successful. Is this proof positive that North must have received and used subconscious UI, then unethically failed to summon the Director against himself? Not so. I am Dorothy's partner. Grattan Endicott once observed that mediocre players should be cautious about suspecting the ethics of expert players when the experts are merely deploying their expertise. On the above hand I knew that the unadorned Dorothy Acol system lacked the methods to scientifically investigate the perfect-fit 7C. But my expert hand evaluation skills told me that 6C was odds-on, so I up and bid 6C (shilly-shallying around might help my RHO diagnose a killing opening lead, if there was one). Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, January 28, 2016, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2016-01-26 7:47 AM, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > > Do you have suspicions about that the player had some UI from other > tables ? > > If not, Lucky south > > "Suspicions" are not evidence, though they may factor into your Bayesian > prior. As with any judgment ruling, the Director needs to gather all > available evidence. A good start is to ask the player what happened. > If this is the last day of a long tournament (as it was), the Director > will know that already. The Director should also be aware of how boards > are passed and whether comments are likely or unlikely. > > Tony: passing a balanced 19-count as dealer is a psych I haven't seen > before, but I can imagine it working in the right circumstances. > > > If yes, you have to be very sure there has been some UI to adjust score > > Why "very sure?" Score adjustments are based on balance of probabilities. > > > In fact, If you adjust score, you also have to make PP > > Why? I'd have expected a PP to be based on a higher standard of > evidence than balance of probabilities. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160208/20c26522/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 8 13:38:56 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:38:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mankad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57bc973a882615ddc3d595a6deec64ec@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 05.02.2016 02:16, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > Someone here once suggested: Looking at a hand record for the previous > day, thinking that it was for the current day, and using the > information. > > I don't remember anyone finding any laws that this violated. It might be argued that the intent to use extraneous infomation is in itself an infraction. If you hear a loud double at the next table, and use this information in deciding to underbid when the board comes to yours, that's irregular even if the double had been issued by your line and therefore you're wrong in remaining low. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 8 13:55:56 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:55:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mankad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 08.02.2016 10:10, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Richard Hills: > > One of the ways to dismiss a batsman in the game of cricket is ?known > as a Mankad. If the batsman at the non-striker's end is backing up too > far, the bowler can refuse to deliver the ball and instead use it to > break the non-striker's wicket for a Mankad Run Out. > > In the Second Test of the 1947/48 season in Australia, Vinoo Mankad > ran out Aussie batsman Bill Brown via his eponymous method. Some > argued that Mankad was unethical. But Mankad had given Brown a first > and final warning, hence Aussie cricket legend Sir Donald Bradman > believed that Mankad's wicket was both legal and ethical. > > However, in this year's Under-19 World Cup was a very tight fight in a > match between the West Indies and Zimbabwe. With one over to play > Zimbabwe needed only three runs to win, but they had lost nine of > their ten wickets.?WITHOUT giving the Zimbabwe batsman a first and > final warning, the West Indies bowler?used Mankad to take the winning > last wicket. > > The West Indies under-19 bowler's choice was fully consistent with the > Laws of Cricket. However, since the overwhelming preference of players > and spectators is for a warning prior to Mankad, the obvious solution > is to amend the Laws of Cricket > AG: IMHO Mankading isn't the least unethical. You're fully allowed to take advantage from your opponent's distraction and illegal moves. The problem in this particular case wasn't the WI player's action ; it is that the decision to declare the player out was dubious. Similar situations at bridge include ruffing fairly high when it is unexpected (without undue haste), hoping that declarer will by automatism ruff low , or discarding a black card on a black suit (of course, not masking it). TFLB mentions umpteen times that it is perfectly legal and correct to take advantage of whatever opponents do wrong. So, for example, if your opponent makes an insufficient bid and you extract maximum penalty from it by some tatical manoeuvre, IMO you're not doing anything unethical. Bridge demands a high level of concentration, and lapses of concentration are errors as well as miscounting or not doing what partner instructed you. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 8 14:05:25 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:05:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 08.02.2016 11:13, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > Playing Dorothy Acol you, North, hold: > > T6 > T > AQJ972 > A643 > > Pard (Dorothy)?opens 1S, you respond 2D, pard rebids 3C (high > reverse). Now you leap to 6C. +1370 for almost all the matchpoints > (only one other pair bid and made 6C). > > Dorothy held: > > AK973 > AJ > 6 > KQ982 > > The issue is that North has leapt to numerous slams over the past > year-and-a-half, and all have been successful. Is this proof positive > that North must have received and used subconscious UI, then > unethically failed to summon the Director against himself? > > Not so. I am Dorothy's partner. Grattan Endicott once observed that > mediocre players should be cautious about suspecting the ethics of > expert players when the experts are merely deploying their expertise. > > On the above hand I knew that the unadorned Dorothy Acol system lacked > the methods to scientifically investigate the perfect-fit 7C. But my > expert hand evaluation skills told me that 6C was odds-on, so I up and > bid 6C (shilly-shallying around might help my RHO diagnose a killing > opening lead, if there was one). I'm a leaper in such situations too. And with a good ratio of success. One subtle reason for leaping is to avoid any problems that might arise from partner's tempi in the cue-bidding situation that will ensue from a 4C bid. I would call 6C a mild overbid, but perhaps you know that Dorothy's high-reverses are really sound. And that's legal, of course. In general, leapers will profit from the fact that parner's bids are well-defined. I've had many successes in my partnership with the late Andr? Crucq : we used a form of Blue Team Club, where jumps by opener are very precise, and sequences like 1D-1H-3C-6D were pretty frequent. Best regards Alain From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Feb 8 16:56:32 2016 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 23:56:32 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Mankad In-Reply-To: <57bc973a882615ddc3d595a6deec64ec@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <57bc973a882615ddc3d595a6deec64ec@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <570A03136E6643B38252F391589823A3@tosh2> why don't you just call the director bill kemp -----Original Message----- From: agot Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 8:38 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] Mankad Le 05.02.2016 02:16, Robert Frick a ?crit : > Someone here once suggested: Looking at a hand record for the previous > day, thinking that it was for the current day, and using the > information. > > I don't remember anyone finding any laws that this violated. It might be argued that the intent to use extraneous infomation is in itself an infraction. If you hear a loud double at the next table, and use this information in deciding to underbid when the board comes to yours, that's irregular even if the double had been issued by your line and therefore you're wrong in remaining low. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ 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: 2016.0.7357 / Virus Database: 4522/11580 - Release Date: 02/08/16 From zecurado at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 20:19:08 2016 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Jos=C3=A9_J=C3=BAlio_Curado?=) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:19:08 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Running scores In-Reply-To: <56B4793B.5070305@skynet.be> References: <56B4741F.3030800@vwalther.de> <56B4793B.5070305@skynet.be> Message-ID: Hello again! Thank you for your replies. So, in pairs tournaments, most people agree this to be normal in Barometer contests (even if swiched off for the final few rounds. Does anybody have strong feelings against real-time scores available to players throughout when boards are not Barometer circulated? If so, why? What about teams events? Thank you very much, Jose On 5 February 2016 at 10:28, Herman De Wael wrote: > A common practice in Belgium is to stop publishing results for the > barometer in the last few rounds. > For example, in the final of the Belgian Pairs championship (15 rounds > of 4 boards) we will stop presenting a ranking after 10 rounds, post > frequencies for rounds 11 - 12 at normal times but rounds 13 and 14 not > until the end. > Players understand the reasons for this. > Herman. > > Volker Walther schreef: > > > > > > Am 30.01.2016 um 19:39 schrieb Jos? J?lio Curado: > >> Hi! > >> > >> I would like to know what is your opinion regarding showing running > >> scores in Bridge Tournaments? > >> > >> Does it make any difference if it is Pairs or Teams? > >> > >> Does it make any difference if the boards are barometer circulated or > not? > >> > >> Does it make any difference if is IMPs or Matcpoints? > >> > >> Does it make any difference if prizes are involved? > >> > >> Thank you very much in advance for your input. > >> Jose Julio Curado > >> > > > > On barometer circulated boards I can see no problem. > > But if people are playin different boards at the end some will be lucky > > to have a swing board. > > > > They may try to play against the field if they are not well placed. > > Someone who has a dull board as last hand does not have this chance. > > > > Playing imps increases the problem. > > > > Volker > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160209/3c5865d8/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 10 02:08:14 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:08:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mankad In-Reply-To: <57bc973a882615ddc3d595a6deec64ec@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <57bc973a882615ddc3d595a6deec64ec@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 08 Feb 2016 07:38:56 -0500, agot wrote: > Le 05.02.2016 02:16, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> Someone here once suggested: Looking at a hand record for the previous >> day, thinking that it was for the current day, and using the >> information. >> >> I don't remember anyone finding any laws that this violated. > > It might be argued that the intent to use extraneous infomation is in > itself an infraction. Would you use any law to support this argument? To argue that the information is extraneous, I think you have to show that "the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." > > If you hear a loud double at the next table, and use this information in > deciding to underbid when the board comes to yours, that's irregular > even if the double had been issued by your line and therefore you're > wrong in remaining low. > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 10 02:12:41 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:12:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mankad (Correcting error) In-Reply-To: <57bc973a882615ddc3d595a6deec64ec@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <57bc973a882615ddc3d595a6deec64ec@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: To show information possessed before the player started the hand is extraneous, you have to show that using that information is precluded by the laws. I added (or forgot to take out) a negative. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 10 14:18:13 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:18:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mankad In-Reply-To: References: <57bc973a882615ddc3d595a6deec64ec@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Le 10.02.2016 02:08, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Mon, 08 Feb 2016 07:38:56 -0500, agot wrote: > >> Le 05.02.2016 02:16, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> Someone here once suggested: Looking at a hand record for the >>> previous >>> day, thinking that it was for the current day, and using the >>> information. >>> >>> I don't remember anyone finding any laws that this violated. >> >> It might be argued that the intent to use extraneous infomation is in >> itself an infraction. > > Would you use any law to support this argument? > > To argue that the information is extraneous, I think you have to show > that "the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." > It might be a matter of terminology. I'm referring to information from sources other than bids and plays, whether from your table or another. And TFLB explicitly precludes their use, unless opponents are responsible for the information (e.g. a player who would show you his cards). If at some other table somebody says "3NT always wins on the Spade endplay", and I hear it, I'm not allowed to use that information in order to win that contract (I shouldn't even play the board). There is a well-known Belgian case, when the late Roger Silberwasser stated that there was an unexpected 6D contract to be played, knowing that another player (who shall remain nameless) was in a position to hear this. That player attempted two thin 6D contracts, both of which failed. This is a case of attempting to use information from a non-allowed source, rather than really using it to some avail ; and I claim it is irregular. The player might have been severely penalized for this. (he was foolish enough to ask Roger which bloody deal he was referring to, so there was a proof of the correlation between his hearing the remark and his bidding) Best regards Alain From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 10 16:04:55 2016 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:04:55 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Running scores In-Reply-To: References: <56B4741F.3030800@vwalther.de> <56B4793B.5070305@skynet.be> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Jos? J?lio Curado Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 1:19 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Running scores Hello again! Thank you for your replies. So, in pairs tournaments, most people agree this to be normal in Barometer contests (even if swiched off for the final few rounds. Does anybody have strong feelings against real-time scores available to players throughout when boards are not Barometer circulated? If so, why? What about teams events? Thank you very much, Jose I have observed frequently where dealer glances at his cards and immediately acts (most often a pass) even though others have yet to study their hands. In such cases one or more of the following often occur: a. a player takes a long time to figure out why dealer acted so fast b. dealer goes to the library to work out what the mannerisms mean of second, third, fourth chair This behavior is common amongst every class whether expert and professional through novice- and it adds minutes. The uneven consumption of time unbalances the contest. I have conducted experiments that bear out these observations. The point is that extraneous information has an immense impact upon the fairness of contest. It is horrible enough that players create it on their own; it is unconscionable for administrators to have a policy that forces it upon the players. And that is what providing scores during the session accomplishes. regards roger pewick ps it is better to post in text than in html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 10 20:07:00 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:07:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mankad In-Reply-To: References: <57bc973a882615ddc3d595a6deec64ec@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:18:13 -0500, agot wrote: > Le 10.02.2016 02:08, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Mon, 08 Feb 2016 07:38:56 -0500, agot wrote: >> >>> Le 05.02.2016 02:16, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>>> Someone here once suggested: Looking at a hand record for the >>>> previous >>>> day, thinking that it was for the current day, and using the >>>> information. >>>> >>>> I don't remember anyone finding any laws that this violated. >>> >>> It might be argued that the intent to use extraneous infomation is in >>> itself an infraction. >> >> Would you use any law to support this argument? >> >> To argue that the information is extraneous, I think you have to show >> that "the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." >> > > It might be a matter of terminology. > > I'm referring to information from sources other than bids and plays, > whether from your table or another. And TFLB explicitly precludes their > use, unless opponents are responsible for the information (e.g. a player > who would show you his cards). To the contrary, it explicitly allows all information the player possessed before the hand started (unless the laws preclude use of this information) L16A(d) > > If at some other table somebody says "3NT always wins on the Spade > endplay", and I hear it, I'm not allowed to use that information in > order to win that contract (I shouldn't even play the board). Yes, and there is a law against that -- 16C1. Which does not apply to the case at hand. > > There is a well-known Belgian case, when the late Roger Silberwasser > stated that there was an unexpected 6D contract to be played, knowing > that another player (who shall remain nameless) was in a position to > hear this. That player attempted two thin 6D contracts, both of which > failed. And, the question has been raised: Is there any law against this? So far, I think no one has found one. > > This is a case of attempting to use information from a non-allowed > source, rather than really using it to some avail ; and I claim it is > irregular. No, specifically allowed by the laws 16A(d). Again, information possessed before the hand started is AI (unless precluded by some law, but you have not yet suggested a law that would do this). The player might have been severely penalized for this. (he > was foolish enough to ask Roger which bloody deal he was referring to, > so there was a proof of the correlation between his hearing the remark > and his bidding) From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 12 14:24:13 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:24:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mankad In-Reply-To: References: <57bc973a882615ddc3d595a6deec64ec@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <3db4b8fb4c853897a02fdbf4824ff72f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 10.02.2016 20:07, Robert Frick a ?crit?: >> >> This is a case of attempting to use information from a non-allowed >> source, rather than really using it to some avail ; and I claim it is >> irregular. > > No, specifically allowed by the laws 16A(d). Again, information > possessed before the hand started is AI (unless precluded by some law, > but you have not yet suggested a law that would do this). Sorry, I differ strongly. Read 16C1 (which specifically mentions "overhearing remarks", then 16A3. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 13 02:35:50 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:35:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mankad In-Reply-To: <3db4b8fb4c853897a02fdbf4824ff72f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <57bc973a882615ddc3d595a6deec64ec@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3db4b8fb4c853897a02fdbf4824ff72f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:24:13 -0500, agot wrote: > Le 10.02.2016 20:07, Robert Frick a ?crit : > >>> >>> This is a case of attempting to use information from a non-allowed >>> source, rather than really using it to some avail ; and I claim it is >>> irregular. >> >> No, specifically allowed by the laws 16A(d). Again, information >> possessed before the hand started is AI (unless precluded by some law, >> but you have not yet suggested a law that would do this). > > Sorry, I differ strongly. > > Read 16C1 (which specifically mentions "overhearing remarks", then 16A3. Law 16C1 begins "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, " So 16C1 doesn't apply -- the person read about a board from yesterday or some other time. You would also have to show the information was UI. I am curious how you would do that, that would be enough to make your point. L16A3 only applies when L16A(c) does not. You have not disputed that L16A(c) makes this AI. Really, my memory is that no one could find a law this violated when BLML discussed this. Did you want to try again, or explain something? > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jimfox00 at cox.net Sat Feb 13 17:05:08 2016 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim - Cox) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:05:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Running scores In-Reply-To: <56B4741F.3030800@vwalther.de> References: <56B4741F.3030800@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <023501d16678$4fac0fc0$ef042f40$@cox.net> IMO, "showing running scores" is equivalent in spirit to "selecting interesting deals" for a matchpoint event or giving the human player the best hand in an on-line robot tournament. It makes it a different game. Mmbridge Am 30.01.2016 um 19:39 schrieb Jos? J?lio Curado: > Hi! > > I would like to know what is your opinion regarding showing running > scores in Bridge Tournaments? > > Does it make any difference if it is Pairs or Teams? > > Does it make any difference if the boards are barometer circulated or not? > > Does it make any difference if is IMPs or Matcpoints? > > Does it make any difference if prizes are involved? > > Thank you very much in advance for your input. > Jose Julio Curado > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Feb 14 10:33:49 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 20:33:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: You play an Aussie version of Standard American, 15-18 1NT 5-card majors 4-card 1D short 1C. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: Nil You, North, hold: AKQT52 732 AK2 8 The opponents are silent throughout the auction. Partner opens 1C, you respond 1S, and now pard jumps to 3C. What call do you make? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, February 9, 2016, agot wrote: > Le 08.02.2016 11:13, Richard Hills a ?crit : > > Matchpoint pairs > > Dlr: South > > Vul: North-South > > > > Playing Dorothy Acol you, North, hold: > > > > T6 > > T > > AQJ972 > > A643 > > > > Pard (Dorothy) opens 1S, you respond 2D, pard rebids 3C (high > > reverse). Now you leap to 6C. +1370 for almost all the matchpoints > > (only one other pair bid and made 6C). > > > > Dorothy held: > > > > AK973 > > AJ > > 6 > > KQ982 > > > > The issue is that North has leapt to numerous slams over the past > > year-and-a-half, and all have been successful. Is this proof positive > > that North must have received and used subconscious UI, then > > unethically failed to summon the Director against himself? > > > > Not so. I am Dorothy's partner. Grattan Endicott once observed that > > mediocre players should be cautious about suspecting the ethics of > > expert players when the experts are merely deploying their expertise. > > > > On the above hand I knew that the unadorned Dorothy Acol system lacked > > the methods to scientifically investigate the perfect-fit 7C. But my > > expert hand evaluation skills told me that 6C was odds-on, so I up and > > bid 6C (shilly-shallying around might help my RHO diagnose a killing > > opening lead, if there was one). > > I'm a leaper in such situations too. And with a good ratio of success. > > One subtle reason for leaping is to avoid any problems that might arise > from partner's tempi in the cue-bidding situation that will ensue from a > 4C bid. > > I would call 6C a mild overbid, but perhaps you know that Dorothy's > high-reverses are really sound. And that's legal, of course. In general, > leapers will profit from the fact that parner's bids are well-defined. > I've had many successes in my partnership with the late Andr? Crucq : we > used a form of Blue Team Club, where jumps by opener are very precise, > and sequences like 1D-1H-3C-6D were pretty frequent. > > Best regards > > Alain > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160214/bc9a1c46/attachment.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Feb 14 11:11:17 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:11:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <56C052C5.60306@t-online.de> Am 14.02.2016 um 10:33 schrieb Richard Hills: > You play an Aussie version of Standard American, 15-18 1NT 5-card > majors 4-card 1D short 1C. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: Nil > > You, North, hold: > > AKQT52 > 732 > AK2 > 8 > > The opponents are silent throughout the auction. Partner opens 1C, you > respond 1S, and now pard jumps to 3C. > > What call do you make? If 3S is forcing my choice is easy, if not then 3D, surely _that_ must be forcing. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 14 12:16:52 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 12:16:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What are the weights Message-ID: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> A ruling from yesterday. The bidding: N 1Sp - (E pass) - S 4He all pass South is playing the contract: dummy: Q107542 - KJ82 A87 decl: - KQ10987643 63 102 club lead, taken with the ace. Spade ruff, heart queen, to easts ace. club to west's jack, club king ruffed; heart king and another heart to make certain, all spades Now declarer south leads a diamond. West takes out a card, then thinks for three seconds (timing confirmed by East) before playing it. South plays the King, which loses, and the Diamond Queen (which is in West) is the setting trick. I don't need your confirmation, but I rule that West has misled South, without a bridge reason, and so I shall change the score. But to what? If West plays fluently, South still has a guess to make. What weights do you give the scores of 4H making and 4H down? Just for completeness, the cards that West and East have contributed so far: West (left) East (right) Cl Q Cl 4 Sp 6 Sp 3 He 2 He A Cl J Cl 6 Cl 3 Cl K He J He 5 Sp 9 Sp 8 Di 5 What are your weights? Herman. From sven at svenpran.net Sun Feb 14 12:27:02 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 12:27:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What are the weights In-Reply-To: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> References: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701d1671a$a2910a40$e7b31ec0$@svenpran.net> At least 70% game made (unless West is a beginner). > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 14. februar 2016 12:17 > Til: blml > Emne: [BLML] What are the weights > > A ruling from yesterday. > > The bidding: N 1Sp - (E pass) - S 4He all pass > > South is playing the contract: > > dummy: Q107542 > - > KJ82 > A87 > > decl: - > KQ10987643 > 63 > 102 > > club lead, taken with the ace. Spade ruff, heart queen, to easts ace. > club to west's jack, club king ruffed; heart king and another heart to make > certain, all spades > > Now declarer south leads a diamond. > > West takes out a card, then thinks for three seconds (timing confirmed by > East) before playing it. > South plays the King, which loses, and the Diamond Queen (which is in > West) is the setting trick. > > I don't need your confirmation, but I rule that West has misled South, > without a bridge reason, and so I shall change the score. > > But to what? > > If West plays fluently, South still has a guess to make. > > What weights do you give the scores of 4H making and 4H down? > > Just for completeness, the cards that West and East have contributed so far: > > West (left) East (right) > Cl Q Cl 4 > Sp 6 Sp 3 > He 2 He A > Cl J Cl 6 > Cl 3 Cl K > He J He 5 > Sp 9 Sp 8 > Di 5 > > What are your weights? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petereidt at t-online.de Sun Feb 14 13:26:30 2016 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 13:26:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What are the weights In-Reply-To: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> References: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007201d16722$efbfabc0$cf3f0340$@t-online.de> Hi Herman, it's a complete guess. Declarer is known to have exactly 2 diamonds, so West will "never" raise with the ace. 50/50 plus something to the non-offending side. I would weight 60 / 40 for the right guess. Peter von Herman De Wael > A ruling from yesterday. > > The bidding: N 1Sp - (E pass) - S 4He all pass > > South is playing the contract: > > dummy: Q107542 > - > KJ82 > A87 > > decl: - > KQ10987643 > 63 > 102 > > club lead, taken with the ace. Spade ruff, heart queen, to easts ace. > club to west's jack, club king ruffed; heart king and another heart to make > certain, all spades > > Now declarer south leads a diamond. > > West takes out a card, then thinks for three seconds (timing confirmed by > East) before playing it. > South plays the King, which loses, and the Diamond Queen (which is in > West) is the setting trick. > > I don't need your confirmation, but I rule that West has misled South, > without a bridge reason, and so I shall change the score. > > But to what? > > If West plays fluently, South still has a guess to make. > > What weights do you give the scores of 4H making and 4H down? > > Just for completeness, the cards that West and East have contributed so far: > > West (left) East (right) > Cl Q Cl 4 > Sp 6 Sp 3 > He 2 He A > Cl J Cl 6 > Cl 3 Cl K > He J He 5 > Sp 9 Sp 8 > Di 5 > > What are your weights? From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Feb 14 16:54:11 2016 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:54:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] What are the weights In-Reply-To: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> References: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56C0A323.90007@alumni.princeton.edu> Absent any information from the bidding or play, the diamonds would be a pure guess. West should have a count on the hand and knows that South has two diamonds, so there is no benefit to going up with the ace. I do not give South the benefit of assuming West is a weak player, and thus planning to play the DK if West hesitates and the DJ if he doesn't. So, is there information from the bidding? East appears to have Kxx Ax ?xxx Kxx plus one more card somewhere (less likely to be clubs, could be the SJ). With five diamonds, East would be more likely to overcall 2D over 1S with ATxxx than with QTxxx, so West is more likely to have the ace. With only four diamonds, East might have overcalled 1N over 1S with KJxx Ax ATxx Kxx if that is in their agreed range, so again West is more likely to hold the ace. The only argument against West having the ace is that he might have led from Ax of diamonds but not from Qx, but he has QJ9x(x) of clubs, which is a more natural lead than a doubleton ace. Thus, if there is any adjustment, it would have to be worse than 50% success. I don't want to hurt the non-offender by ruling that he should have taken advantage of a provisional count and adjusted the probabilities; doubts (in this case, whether South had the correct inferential count) are assumed to be in favor of the non-offenders. My ruling is 50/50. On 2/14/2016 6:16 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > A ruling from yesterday. > > The bidding: N 1Sp - (E pass) - S 4He all pass > > South is playing the contract: > > dummy: Q107542 > - > KJ82 > A87 > > decl: - > KQ10987643 > 63 > 102 > > club lead, taken with the ace. Spade ruff, heart queen, to easts ace. > club to west's jack, club king ruffed; heart king and another heart to > make certain, all spades > > Now declarer south leads a diamond. > > West takes out a card, then thinks for three seconds (timing confirmed > by East) before playing it. > South plays the King, which loses, and the Diamond Queen (which is in > West) is the setting trick. > > I don't need your confirmation, but I rule that West has misled South, > without a bridge reason, and so I shall change the score. > > But to what? > > If West plays fluently, South still has a guess to make. > > What weights do you give the scores of 4H making and 4H down? > > Just for completeness, the cards that West and East have contributed so far: > > West (left) East (right) > Cl Q Cl 4 > Sp 6 Sp 3 > He 2 He A > Cl J Cl 6 > Cl 3 Cl K > He J He 5 > Sp 9 Sp 8 > Di 5 > > What are your weights? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 14 17:31:59 2016 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:31:59 -0600 Subject: [BLML] What are the weights In-Reply-To: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> References: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> Message-ID: When it comes to improper deception several elements are necessary. 1. the existence of a variation in manner 2. an assertion by the player as to what bridge inference derives from the variation 3. why that is the only possible legitimate bridge inference 4. .... Herman has given us a variation. He has made a leap that the variation was deceptive without south's evidence nor demonstrating it so. I am not going to 'read South's mind'; and as such am not in a position to suggest a ruling. regards roger pewick -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 5:16 AM To: blml Subject: [BLML] What are the weights A ruling from yesterday. The bidding: N 1Sp - (E pass) - S 4He all pass South is playing the contract: dummy: Q107542 - KJ82 A87 decl: - KQ10987643 63 102 club lead, taken with the ace. Spade ruff, heart queen, to easts ace. club to west's jack, club king ruffed; heart king and another heart to make certain, all spades Now declarer south leads a diamond. West takes out a card, then thinks for three seconds (timing confirmed by East) before playing it. South plays the King, which loses, and the Diamond Queen (which is in West) is the setting trick. I don't need your confirmation, but I rule that West has misled South, without a bridge reason, and so I shall change the score. But to what? If West plays fluently, South still has a guess to make. What weights do you give the scores of 4H making and 4H down? Just for completeness, the cards that West and East have contributed so far: West (left) East (right) Cl Q Cl 4 Sp 6 Sp 3 He 2 He A Cl J Cl 6 Cl 3 Cl K He J He 5 Sp 9 Sp 8 Di 5 What are your weights? Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 15 09:06:41 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 09:06:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What are the weights In-Reply-To: References: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56C18711.6070004@skynet.be> I'm sorry, Roger, but isn't that obvious? When playing towards KJxx (in dummy), and LHO hesitates, is it not logical to assume he has the ace? Not much mind reading needed there ... Anyway, if you insist, I shall tell you that that is exactly what South told me. In as much as he needed to. Herman. r pewick schreef: > When it comes to improper deception several elements are necessary. 1. the > existence of a variation in manner 2. an assertion by the player as to > what bridge inference derives from the variation 3. why that is the only > possible legitimate bridge inference 4. .... > > > Herman has given us a variation. He has made a leap that the variation was > deceptive without south's evidence nor demonstrating it so. > > I am not going to 'read South's mind'; and as such am not in a position to > suggest a ruling. > > > > regards > roger pewick > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 5:16 AM > To: blml > Subject: [BLML] What are the weights > > A ruling from yesterday. > > The bidding: N 1Sp - (E pass) - S 4He all pass > > South is playing the contract: > > dummy: Q107542 > - > KJ82 > A87 > > decl: - > KQ10987643 > 63 > 102 > > club lead, taken with the ace. Spade ruff, heart queen, to easts ace. > club to west's jack, club king ruffed; heart king and another heart to > make certain, all spades > > Now declarer south leads a diamond. > > West takes out a card, then thinks for three seconds (timing confirmed > by East) before playing it. > South plays the King, which loses, and the Diamond Queen (which is in > West) is the setting trick. > > I don't need your confirmation, but I rule that West has misled South, > without a bridge reason, and so I shall change the score. > > But to what? > > If West plays fluently, South still has a guess to make. > > What weights do you give the scores of 4H making and 4H down? > > Just for completeness, the cards that West and East have contributed so far: > > West (left) East (right) > Cl Q Cl 4 > Sp 6 Sp 3 > He 2 He A > Cl J Cl 6 > Cl 3 Cl K > He J He 5 > Sp 9 Sp 8 > Di 5 > > What are your weights? > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Feb 15 17:08:18 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:08:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] What are the weights In-Reply-To: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> References: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56C1F7F2.4090802@nhcc.net> On 2016-02-14 6:16 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > The bidding: N 1Sp - (E pass) - S 4He all pass > dummy: Q107542 > - > KJ82 > A87 > > decl: - > KQ10987643 > 63 > 102 > > club lead, taken with the ace. Spade ruff, heart queen, to easts ace. > club to west's jack, club king ruffed; heart king and another heart to > make certain, all spades > > Now declarer south leads a diamond. As David G. wrote, the computable odds slightly favor playing West for D-A, but declarers have been known to go against the computable odds. The objective ruling is probably 50-50 that South will get it right. I'd tend to give the NOS a little extra, say 60-40 for South, but I don't think anyone could complain about weights in this range. From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 15 20:33:41 2016 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:33:41 -0600 Subject: [BLML] What are the weights In-Reply-To: <56C18711.6070004@skynet.be> References: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> <56C18711.6070004@skynet.be> Message-ID: It is not for others to assume what south believes- he has made an allegation. After a variation is established, where improper deception is concerned what matters first is what south infers. In other words, if south believes the inference is X but actually X is not a valid inference- then if south claims he acted on his inference, he has little leg to stand on in regard to claiming damage since it is apparent that he does know diddly and thus would have been hurt, if any, by not knowing diddly rather than improper deception. Or, maybe south did not realize that there were different valid things for west to have been considering such that the valid inferences are X, Y, and Z which would perhaps lead to various conclusions. For instance, west does not yet know the distribution of the red suits- as south might well be 7-4, 8-3, or 9-2 where west may well have the problem(s) of how many tricks are probable or possible, and what card might make a difference since there are unknown spots in declarer's and pard's hand. I contend that those issues are a valid reason for west's pause. Maybe at the last moment west thought about the odds of finding pard with DAT9 and considered whether it was worth the risk to unblock. The burden of proof (that all valid inferences lead to the action south actually took) rests with south. And that proof must necessarily start with south fixing his facts into the record. On the other hand west is entitled to not deal with a target that moves, but also is entitled to not have a moving target that is hidden from him. While his defense to the charge can succeed if his claim of what he was thinking about is judged to be a valid bridge reason, it must succeed if there existed any a valid bridge reason for his variation. The difference between the two is that in the first case west is on moral ground while the second others probably would not see it that way- if they only knew. regards roger pewick -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 2:06 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the weights I'm sorry, Roger, but isn't that obvious? When playing towards KJxx (in dummy), and LHO hesitates, is it not logical to assume he has the ace? Not much mind reading needed there ... Anyway, if you insist, I shall tell you that that is exactly what South told me. In as much as he needed to. Herman. r pewick schreef: > When it comes to improper deception several elements are necessary. 1. > the > existence of a variation in manner 2. an assertion by the player as to > what bridge inference derives from the variation 3. why that is the only > possible legitimate bridge inference 4. .... > > > Herman has given us a variation. He has made a leap that the variation > was > deceptive without south's evidence nor demonstrating it so. > > I am not going to 'read South's mind'; and as such am not in a position to > suggest a ruling. > > > > regards > roger pewick > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 5:16 AM > To: blml > Subject: [BLML] What are the weights > > A ruling from yesterday. > > The bidding: N 1Sp - (E pass) - S 4He all pass > > South is playing the contract: > > dummy: Q107542 > - > KJ82 > A87 > > decl: - > KQ10987643 > 63 > 102 > > club lead, taken with the ace. Spade ruff, heart queen, to easts ace. > club to west's jack, club king ruffed; heart king and another heart to > make certain, all spades > > Now declarer south leads a diamond. > > West takes out a card, then thinks for three seconds (timing confirmed > by East) before playing it. > South plays the King, which loses, and the Diamond Queen (which is in > West) is the setting trick. > > I don't need your confirmation, but I rule that West has misled South, > without a bridge reason, and so I shall change the score. > > But to what? > > If West plays fluently, South still has a guess to make. > > What weights do you give the scores of 4H making and 4H down? > > Just for completeness, the cards that West and East have contributed so > far: > > West (left) East (right) > Cl Q Cl 4 > Sp 6 Sp 3 > He 2 He A > Cl J Cl 6 > Cl 3 Cl K > He J He 5 > Sp 9 Sp 8 > Di 5 > > What are your weights? > > Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 16 09:29:30 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:29:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What are the weights In-Reply-To: References: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> <56C18711.6070004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56C2DDEA.7040601@skynet.be> r pewick schreef: > > It is not for others to assume what south believes- he has made an > allegation. > > After a variation is established, where improper deception is concerned what > matters first is what south infers. In other words, if south believes the > inference is X but actually X is not a valid inference- then if south > claims he acted on his inference, he has little leg to stand on in regard > to claiming damage since it is apparent that he does know diddly and thus > would have been hurt, if any, by not knowing diddly rather than improper > deception. > > Or, maybe south did not realize that there were different valid things for > west to have been considering such that the valid inferences are X, Y, and Z > which would perhaps lead to various conclusions. > > For instance, west does not yet know the distribution of the red suits- > as south might well be 7-4, 8-3, or 9-2 where west may well have the actually, South played a third round of trumps, to which neither he, nor his partner followed suit. It might of course be so that West needs 3 seconds to count to 13, but he has no reason to start counting if he has no other card to play than the one that describes his signal to East. Only if he has the Ace does he need any time to decide whether to play it now or not. I'm surprised you seriously consider allowing West any leeway here. > problem(s) of how many tricks are probable or possible, and what card might > make a difference since there are unknown spots in declarer's and pard's > hand. I contend that those issues are a valid reason for west's pause. > Maybe at the last moment west thought about the odds of finding pard with > DAT9 and considered whether it was worth the risk to unblock. > > The burden of proof (that all valid inferences lead to the action south > actually took) rests with south. And that proof must necessarily start with > south fixing his facts into the record. On the other hand west is entitled > to not deal with a target that moves, but also is entitled to not have a > moving target that is hidden from him. While his defense to the charge can > succeed if his claim of what he was thinking about is judged to be a valid > bridge reason, it must succeed if there existed any a valid bridge reason > for his variation. The difference between the two is that in the first case > west is on moral ground while the second others probably would not see it > that way- if they only knew. > Now really, Roger, I said I was going to rule and I was not discussing that point but rather a next one: the actual weights to give. So let's stop this discussion and move on to the interesting one, OK? Herman. > > regards > roger pewick > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 2:06 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the weights > > I'm sorry, Roger, but isn't that obvious? > When playing towards KJxx (in dummy), and LHO hesitates, is it not > logical to assume he has the ace? > Not much mind reading needed there ... > Anyway, if you insist, I shall tell you that that is exactly what South > told me. In as much as he needed to. > Herman. > > r pewick schreef: >> When it comes to improper deception several elements are necessary. 1. >> the >> existence of a variation in manner 2. an assertion by the player as to >> what bridge inference derives from the variation 3. why that is the only >> possible legitimate bridge inference 4. .... >> >> >> Herman has given us a variation. He has made a leap that the variation >> was >> deceptive without south's evidence nor demonstrating it so. >> >> I am not going to 'read South's mind'; and as such am not in a position to >> suggest a ruling. >> >> >> >> regards >> roger pewick >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Herman De Wael >> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 5:16 AM >> To: blml >> Subject: [BLML] What are the weights >> >> A ruling from yesterday. >> >> The bidding: N 1Sp - (E pass) - S 4He all pass >> >> South is playing the contract: >> >> dummy: Q107542 >> - >> KJ82 >> A87 >> >> decl: - >> KQ10987643 >> 63 >> 102 >> >> club lead, taken with the ace. Spade ruff, heart queen, to easts ace. >> club to west's jack, club king ruffed; heart king and another heart to >> make certain, all spades >> >> Now declarer south leads a diamond. >> >> West takes out a card, then thinks for three seconds (timing confirmed >> by East) before playing it. >> South plays the King, which loses, and the Diamond Queen (which is in >> West) is the setting trick. >> >> I don't need your confirmation, but I rule that West has misled South, >> without a bridge reason, and so I shall change the score. >> >> But to what? >> >> If West plays fluently, South still has a guess to make. >> >> What weights do you give the scores of 4H making and 4H down? >> >> Just for completeness, the cards that West and East have contributed so >> far: >> >> West (left) East (right) >> Cl Q Cl 4 >> Sp 6 Sp 3 >> He 2 He A >> Cl J Cl 6 >> Cl 3 Cl K >> He J He 5 >> Sp 9 Sp 8 >> Di 5 >> >> What are your weights? >> >> Herman. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 16 14:39:30 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:39:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 14.02.2016 10:33, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > You play an Aussie version of Standard American, 15-18 1NT 5-card > majors 4-card 1D short 1C. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: Nil > > You, North, hold: > > AKQT52 > 732 > AK2 > 8 > > The opponents are silent throughout the auction. Partner opens 1C, you > respond 1S, and now pard jumps to 3C. > > What call do you make? > 3D seems normal. But playing Acol or even American style, I would have bid 2S first. Now it might be a bit difficult to show my hand. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 16 14:49:00 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:49:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What are the weights In-Reply-To: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> References: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 14.02.2016 12:16, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > A ruling from yesterday. > > The bidding: N 1Sp - (E pass) - S 4He all pass > > South is playing the contract: > > dummy: Q107542 > - > KJ82 > A87 > > decl: - > KQ10987643 > 63 > 102 > > club lead, taken with the ace. Spade ruff, heart queen, to easts ace. > club to west's jack, club king ruffed; heart king and another heart to > make certain, all spades > > Now declarer south leads a diamond. > > West takes out a card, then thinks for three seconds (timing confirmed > by East) before playing it. > South plays the King, which loses, and the Diamond Queen (which is in > West) is the setting trick. > > I don't need your confirmation, but I rule that West has misled South, > without a bridge reason, and so I shall change the score. > > But to what? One important element is that West had plenty of time to see the problem coming, and so has no claim to have been surprised (as for example by a declarer who draws two rounds of trumps then quickly changes suit while some trump is still outstanding). So there is more than an irregularity ; there is a rather strong presumtion of intentional act. It is more natural to play the King, given that the Ace would have given RHO a hand with which quite a few would have overcalled (not me, because my 1NT overcall is semi-artificial). In ordinary circumstances, I would rule 70-30 (+ a disciplinary penalty if West is a knowledgeable player), but here 60-40 will do, because I think it slightly more natural to play the King anyway. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 16 15:04:08 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:04:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What are the weights In-Reply-To: References: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be> <56C18711.6070004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <62ee42358289c042ebcf4ca2911919b3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 15.02.2016 20:33, r pewick a ?crit?: > It is not for others to assume what south believes- he has made an > allegation. > > After a variation is established, where improper deception is concerned > what > matters first is what south infers. In other words, if south believes > the > inference is X but actually X is not a valid inference- then if south > claims he acted on his inference, he has little leg to stand on in > regard > to claiming damage since it is apparent that he does know diddly and > thus > would have been hurt, if any, by not knowing diddly rather than > improper > deception. > > Or, maybe south did not realize that there were different valid things > for > west to have been considering such that the valid inferences are X, Y, > and Z > which would perhaps lead to various conclusions. > > For instance, west does not yet know the distribution of the red > suits- > as south might well be 7-4, 8-3, or 9-2 AG : if I read Herman's comment right, declarer pulled trumps and an additional round, so that information is in fact accessible to West. From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 16 16:10:09 2016 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:10:09 -0600 Subject: [BLML] What are the weights In-Reply-To: <62ee42358289c042ebcf4ca2911919b3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <56C06224.5010909@skynet.be><56C18711.6070004@skynet.be> <62ee42358289c042ebcf4ca2911919b3@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: agot Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:04 AM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the weights Le 15.02.2016 20:33, r pewick a ?crit : > It is not for others to assume what south believes- he has made an > allegation. > > After a variation is established, where improper deception is concerned > what > matters first is what south infers. In other words, if south believes > the > inference is X but actually X is not a valid inference- then if south > claims he acted on his inference, he has little leg to stand on in > regard > to claiming damage since it is apparent that he does know diddly and > thus > would have been hurt, if any, by not knowing diddly rather than > improper > deception. > > Or, maybe south did not realize that there were different valid things > for > west to have been considering such that the valid inferences are X, Y, > and Z > which would perhaps lead to various conclusions. > > For instance, west does not yet know the distribution of the red > suits- > as south might well be 7-4, 8-3, or 9-2 AG : if I read Herman's comment right, declarer pulled trumps and an additional round, so that information is in fact accessible to West. I see that I did not read Herman's puzzle as a puzzle, let alone an incoherent one. Mea culpa. He did indeed hide that third round of hearts: West (left) East (right) Cl Q Cl 4 Sp 6 Sp 3 He 2 He A Cl J Cl 6 Cl 3 Cl K He J He 5 Sp 9 Sp 8 Di 5 Which is a different basis than the basis of what I wrote. regards roger pewick From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue Feb 16 16:45:05 2016 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:45:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:39:30 +0100, you wrote: >Le 14.02.2016 10:33, Richard Hills a ?crit?: >> You play an Aussie version of Standard American, 15-18 1NT 5-card >> majors 4-card 1D short 1C. >> >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: East >> Vul: Nil >> >> You, North, hold: >> >> AKQT52 >> 732 >> AK2 >> 8 >> >> The opponents are silent throughout the auction. Partner opens 1C, you >> respond 1S, and now pard jumps to 3C. >> >> What call do you make? >> > >3D seems normal. But playing Acol or even American style, I would have >bid 2S first. Now it might be a bit difficult to show my hand. >___________ At least based on my experience of playing against American opponents on Bridge Base Online, strong jump shifts are a rare occurrence. That's particularly so among the 2/1 players, most of whom seem to prefer weak(ish) jump shifts, or Bergen raises if it's 1M-3m. Brian. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 16 17:02:11 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:02:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> A simple (?) question about L26 (withdrawn call) : how do you classify a natural, competitive NT bid ? - as a bid which gives information about a specific suit (i.e. a stopper in RHO's suit) - apply 26A if same information is given in the legal auction (e.g. you overcal 1H with 1NT, but are told that the opening has been 2H, and change your bid to 3NT, then the opponents so on to 4H) - as a "other" bid - apply 26B From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Feb 16 17:06:46 2016 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:06:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <000901d168d4$0a0a2ed0$1e1e8c70$@xs4all.nl> If you play weak jump shifts 3S is now forcing and I would bid it. If you don?t I have a problem made by the last round, it should then have been 2S. In which case I probably have to improvise with 3D. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hills Sent: zondag 14 februari 2016 10:34 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK You play an Aussie version of Standard American, 15-18 1NT 5-card majors 4-card 1D short 1C. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: Nil You, North, hold: AKQT52 732 AK2 8 The opponents are silent throughout the auction. Partner opens 1C, you respond 1S, and now pard jumps to 3C. What call do you make? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, February 9, 2016, agot wrote: Le 08.02.2016 11:13, Richard Hills a ?crit : > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > Playing Dorothy Acol you, North, hold: > > T6 > T > AQJ972 > A643 > > Pard (Dorothy) opens 1S, you respond 2D, pard rebids 3C (high > reverse). Now you leap to 6C. +1370 for almost all the matchpoints > (only one other pair bid and made 6C). > > Dorothy held: > > AK973 > AJ > 6 > KQ982 > > The issue is that North has leapt to numerous slams over the past > year-and-a-half, and all have been successful. Is this proof positive > that North must have received and used subconscious UI, then > unethically failed to summon the Director against himself? > > Not so. I am Dorothy's partner. Grattan Endicott once observed that > mediocre players should be cautious about suspecting the ethics of > expert players when the experts are merely deploying their expertise. > > On the above hand I knew that the unadorned Dorothy Acol system lacked > the methods to scientifically investigate the perfect-fit 7C. But my > expert hand evaluation skills told me that 6C was odds-on, so I up and > bid 6C (shilly-shallying around might help my RHO diagnose a killing > opening lead, if there was one). I'm a leaper in such situations too. And with a good ratio of success. One subtle reason for leaping is to avoid any problems that might arise from partner's tempi in the cue-bidding situation that will ensue from a 4C bid. I would call 6C a mild overbid, but perhaps you know that Dorothy's high-reverses are really sound. And that's legal, of course. In general, leapers will profit from the fact that parner's bids are well-defined. I've had many successes in my partnership with the late Andr? Crucq : we used a form of Blue Team Club, where jumps by opener are very precise, and sequences like 1D-1H-3C-6D were pretty frequent. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160216/7baa907e/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 16 17:08:51 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:08:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: Le 16.02.2016 16:45, brian a ?crit?: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:39:30 +0100, you wrote: > >> Le 14.02.2016 10:33, Richard Hills a ?crit?: >>> You play an Aussie version of Standard American, 15-18 1NT 5-card >>> majors 4-card 1D short 1C. >>> >>> Matchpoint pairs >>> Dlr: East >>> Vul: Nil >>> >>> You, North, hold: >>> >>> AKQT52 >>> 732 >>> AK2 >>> 8 >>> >>> The opponents are silent throughout the auction. Partner opens 1C, >>> you >>> respond 1S, and now pard jumps to 3C. >>> >>> What call do you make? >>> >> >> 3D seems normal. But playing Acol or even American style, I would have >> bid 2S first. Now it might be a bit difficult to show my hand. >> ___________ > > At least based on my experience of playing against American opponents > on Bridge Base Online, strong jump shifts are a rare occurrence. > That's particularly so among the 2/1 players, most of whom seem to > prefer weak(ish) jump shifts Then change my vote to 3S, which is certainly forcing if playins WJS. As said by a partner of mine (and TD), "strong jump shifts are a mine of good slams", as as said by YT, "the only disadvantage of WJSs is that you can't play SJSs, but it's a big one". Best regards Alain From petereidt at t-online.de Tue Feb 16 17:25:51 2016 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:25:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> 26B, no question (and simple (!)) A natural 1NT overcall is "never ever" related to a suit. Peter von agot > A simple (?) question about L26 (withdrawn call) : > > how do you classify a natural, competitive NT bid ? > > - as a bid which gives information about a specific suit (i.e. a stopper in RHO's > suit) - apply 26A if same information is given in the legal auction (e.g. you > overcal 1H with 1NT, but are told that the opening has been 2H, and change > your bid to 3NT, then the opponents so on to 4H) > - as a "other" bid - apply 26B From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 16 18:14:13 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:14:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> References: "\" <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> " <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> Message-ID: Le 16.02.2016 17:25, Peter Eidt a ?crit?: > 26B, no question (and simple (!)) > A natural 1NT overcall is "never ever" related to a suit. So you mean that guaranteeing a stopper in some suit isn't deemed to relate to that suit, when the bid is some number of NT (it is, when cue-bidding). It might be true (I asked the question because I didn't know, after all), but what's the basis for that strong statement ? BTW, a 1NT overcall of 1D which shows club length, a diamond stopper and no singleton looks to me like a natural 1NT overcall related to a suit, natural in the sense that it shows the desire to play that contract. Isn't it ? Best regards, Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Feb 17 01:03:06 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:03:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: <56C052C5.60306@t-online.de> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56C052C5.60306@t-online.de> Message-ID: Richard Hills: > You play an Aussie version of Standard American, 15-18 1NT 5-card > majors 4-card 1D short 1C. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: Nil > > You, North, hold: > > AKQT52 > 732 > AK2 > 8 > > The opponents are silent throughout the auction. Partner opens 1C, you > respond 1S, and now pard jumps to 3C. > > What call do you make? Matthias Berghaus: If 3S is forcing my choice is easy, if not then 3D, surely _that_ must be forcing. Richard Hills: The original 1930s bridge players meeting at Acol Road did not create a rigid Acol bidding system. Rather they discovered a series of bidding principles. One of these was, "Bid what you think you can make." So, as North, I bid what I think I could make by leaping to 6S, all pass. East had a complete guess as to which red suit to lead and selected a diamond. Partner held: 84 AQ4 5 AK65432 After winning the ace of diamonds at trick one, I ruffed the deuce of diamonds at trick two. Then I drew trumps (fortunately 3-2) and played on clubs (also 3-2) for +1010 and an outright top. But had I chosen a 3D rebid en route to 6S East would have an easy heart lead. With the king of hearts offside I would have scored a mere +980 for an equal second top (one South declared 6NT for +990). The main point is that a player who unusually and successfully repeatedly leaps to slam should NOT be automatically deemed to be illegally using UI. Rather, that player may instead be applying an unusual and successful 1930s bidding philosophy devised in Acol Road. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sunday, February 14, 2016, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 14.02.2016 um 10:33 schrieb Richard Hills: > > You play an Aussie version of Standard American, 15-18 1NT 5-card > > majors 4-card 1D short 1C. > > > > Matchpoint pairs > > Dlr: East > > Vul: Nil > > > > You, North, hold: > > > > AKQT52 > > 732 > > AK2 > > 8 > > > > The opponents are silent throughout the auction. Partner opens 1C, you > > respond 1S, and now pard jumps to 3C. > > > > What call do you make? > > If 3S is forcing my choice is easy, if not then 3D, surely _that_ must > be forcing. > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160217/72c3a3b3/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Feb 17 09:42:23 2016 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:42:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: References: "\" <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> " <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> Extract from the (unofficial) Commentary to the 2007 edition of the Laws by Ton Kooijman, chairman of the WBF LC "When a withdrawn call relates to just (a) known suit(s), Law 26A applies. Calls showing balanced hands, for example NT?openings, or doubles, whether for take out or for penalty, are not considered to relate to suits." _If_ your 1NT overcall (over 1D) always promises a club suit, _then_ this overcall _is_ related to the club suit, and we come to Law 26 A, if necessary. And finally, NT is a denomination, but not a suit (see definitions). Peter von agot > Le 16.02.2016 17:25, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > > 26B, no question (and simple (!)) > > A natural 1NT overcall is "never ever" related to a suit. > > So you mean that guaranteeing a stopper in some suit isn't deemed to relate > to that suit, when the bid is some number of NT (it is, when cue-bidding). > > It might be true (I asked the question because I didn't know, after all), but > what's the basis for that strong statement ? > > BTW, a 1NT overcall of 1D which shows club length, a diamond stopper and > no singleton looks to me like a natural 1NT overcall related to a suit, natural in > the sense that it shows the desire to play that contract. > Isn't it ? From sven at svenpran.net Wed Feb 17 10:01:18 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:01:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> References: "\" <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> " <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> Be careful here, Law 26A says: if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suit)..... Be aware of the word "solely" and the clause "(and no other suit)". Promising a club suit is not necessarily sufficient for the 1NT overcall to be handled under Law 26A! > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Peter Eidt > Sendt: 17. februar 2016 09:42 > Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Emne: Re: [BLML] NT overcall > > Extract from the (unofficial) Commentary to the 2007 edition of the Laws by > Ton Kooijman, chairman of the WBF LC "When a withdrawn call relates to > just (a) known suit(s), Law 26A applies. Calls showing balanced hands, for > example NT?openings, or doubles, whether for take out or for penalty, are > not considered to relate to suits." > > _If_ your 1NT overcall (over 1D) always promises a club suit, _then_ this > overcall _is_ related to the club suit, and we come to Law 26 A, if > necessary. > > And finally, NT is a denomination, but not a suit (see definitions). > > Peter > > > von agot > > Le 16.02.2016 17:25, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > > > 26B, no question (and simple (!)) > > > A natural 1NT overcall is "never ever" related to a suit. > > > > So you mean that guaranteeing a stopper in some suit isn't deemed to > > relate to that suit, when the bid is some number of NT (it is, when cue- > bidding). > > > > It might be true (I asked the question because I didn't know, after > > all), but what's the basis for that strong statement ? > > > > BTW, a 1NT overcall of 1D which shows club length, a diamond stopper > > and no singleton looks to me like a natural 1NT overcall related to a > > suit, natural in the sense that it shows the desire to play that contract. > > Isn't it ? > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 17 13:38:43 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:38:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Coincidence rules OK In-Reply-To: References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56C052C5.60306@t-online.de> Message-ID: Le 17.02.2016 01:03, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Richard Hills: > > So, as North, I bid what I think I could make by leaping to 6S, all > pass. East had a complete guess as to which red suit to lead and > selected a diamond. Partner held: > > 84 > AQ4 > 5 > AK65432 > > After winning the ace of diamonds at trick one, I ruffed the deuce of > diamonds at trick two. Then I drew trumps (fortunately 3-2) and played > on clubs (also 3-2) for +1010 and an outright top. But had I chosen a > 3D rebid en route to 6S?East would have an easy heart lead. With the > king of hearts offside I would have scored a mere +980 for an equal > second top (one South declared 6NT for +990). > > The main point is that a player who unusually and successfully > repeatedly leaps to slam should NOT be automatically deemed to be > illegally using UI. Rather, that player may instead?be applying an > unusual and successful 1930s bidding philosophy devised in Acol Road. Absolutely right. You might help yourself by stating this under "general style". Of course, if partner had held x-Axx-xxx-AKQJxx, you would probably not have scored the same outright top ... I hope that you don't always find the right dummy ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 17 13:42:31 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:42:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> \\\" <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\" <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de>" " <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> Message-ID: Le 17.02.2016 09:42, Peter Eidt a ?crit?: > Extract from the (unofficial) Commentary to the 2007 edition of the > Laws by Ton Kooijman, chairman of the WBF LC > "When a withdrawn call relates to just (a) known suit(s), Law 26A > applies. Calls showing balanced hands, for example NT?openings, or > doubles, whether for take out or for penalty, are not considered to > relate to suits." Point taken. But there is a problem then. A double of an artificial bid, meant to show the suit, would not relate to that suit ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 17 13:45:32 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:45:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> \\\" <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\" <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> " <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de>" <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <810273e9ceda62465eea9b860d89d493@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 17.02.2016 10:01, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > Be careful here, Law 26A says: > if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and > no other suit)..... > > Be aware of the word "solely" and the clause "(and no other suit)". > > Promising a club suit is not necessarily sufficient for the 1NT > overcall to be handled under Law 26A! I think the idea is that if your 2C overcall promises hearts, or promises hearts and spades, 26A is OK, while if it promises "hearts and another" (Astro) it isn't. Because "relating to one or more suits and no other" has no meaning. "one or more suits" would have been enough. From sven at svenpran.net Wed Feb 17 14:47:28 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:47:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <810273e9ceda62465eea9b860d89d493@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> \\\" <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\" <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> " <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de>" <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <810273e9ceda62465eea9b860d89d493@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <001301d16989$c1307730$43916590$@svenpran.net> > agot > Le 17.02.2016 10:01, Sven Pran a ?crit : > > Be careful here, Law 26A says: > > if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and > > no other suit)..... > > > > Be aware of the word "solely" and the clause "(and no other suit)". > > > > Promising a club suit is not necessarily sufficient for the 1NT > > overcall to be handled under Law 26A! > > I think the idea is that if your 2C overcall promises hearts, or promises > hearts and spades, 26A is OK, while if it promises "hearts and another" > (Astro) it isn't. > > Because "relating to one or more suits and no other" has no meaning. > "one or more suits" would have been enough. [Sven Pran] I understand Law 26A as if it had been written: "relating to one or more suits and no other (undefined) suit(s)" From sven at svenpran.net Wed Feb 17 14:50:18 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:50:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> \\\" <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\" <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de>" " <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001401d1698a$25695b40$703c11c0$@svenpran.net> > agot > Le 17.02.2016 09:42, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > > Extract from the (unofficial) Commentary to the 2007 edition of the > > Laws by Ton Kooijman, chairman of the WBF LC "When a withdrawn call > > relates to just (a) known suit(s), Law 26A applies. Calls showing > > balanced hands, for example NT?openings, or doubles, whether for take > > out or for penalty, are not considered to relate to suits." > > Point taken. > > But there is a problem then. A double of an artificial bid, meant to show > the suit, would not relate to that suit ? [Sven Pran] Sure. e.g. 1NT - 2Cl - Double ('I wanted to bid 2Cl myself') From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 17 16:07:42 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:07:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <001401d1698a$25695b40$703c11c0$@svenpran.net> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de>\\\" \\\" <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de>" " <001401d1698a$25695b40$703c11c0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: Le 17.02.2016 14:50, Sven Pran a ?crit?: >> agot >> Le 17.02.2016 09:42, Peter Eidt a ?crit : >> > Extract from the (unofficial) Commentary to the 2007 edition of the >> > Laws by Ton Kooijman, chairman of the WBF LC "When a withdrawn call >> > relates to just (a) known suit(s), Law 26A applies. Calls showing >> > balanced hands, for example NT?openings, or doubles, whether for take >> > out or for penalty, are not considered to relate to suits." >> >> Point taken. >> >> But there is a problem then. A double of an artificial bid, meant to >> show >> the suit, would not relate to that suit ? > > [Sven Pran] Sure. > e.g. 1NT - 2Cl - Double ('I wanted to bid 2Cl myself') > But that's not exactly my scenario, because 2C would have been artificial. If they play 2H as weak in either H or S (as some Italians do) and you decide a double shows hearts, then it is *both* a penalty double in case their suit is hearts, and a double relating to one specific suit (hearts), but that excerpt by Ton says that can't be. Ton ? Help ! From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Feb 17 22:18:54 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:18:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> On 2016-02-17 4:01 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Be aware of the word "solely" and the clause "(and no other suit)". The words are "if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suit), and ..." The more I look at that, the less I understand it. What is "solely" intended to limit? "Solely" means one only, but here it's applied to suits, plural. Furthermore, nearly all calls show some general strength range; does that take them out of L26A? And what does "related to" mean? It _ought_ to be "suggested lead value in" or something to that effect. Maybe "demonstrably suggests a lead in the specified suit over some other suit," obviously borrowing from L16. And what about the case where, say, 2H showing hearts and another suit is withdrawn, but the other suit is later specified in the legal auction? There _should_ be lead penalties in hearts only, but I can't get there from the Laws text. >> Extract from the (unofficial) Commentary to the 2007 edition of the >> Laws by Ton Kooijman, chairman of the WBF LC >> "When a withdrawn call relates to just (a) known suit(s), Law 26A >> applies. Calls showing balanced hands, for example NT openings, or >> doubles, whether for take out or for penalty, are not considered to >> relate to suits." A penalty double doesn't relate to the suit doubled?! I understand that most takeout or "general values" doubles don't relate to specific suits, though an argument could be made for negative doubles that promise specifically the other major. On 2016-02-17 7:42 AM, agot wrote: > But there is a problem then. A double of an artificial bid, meant to > show the suit, would not relate to that suit ? I don't think that sort of double is directly covered in the quoted part of Ton's commentary. It seems clear to treat it under L26A. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Feb 18 04:02:44 2016 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:02:44 +0800 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is><56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net><0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl><4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de><004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de><000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <553B826614434B82AA077F78E4694F96@tosh2> Solely does not mean only one suit (thing) but means only those suit(s) (thing(s) which are specified. "(and no other suit)" is explanatory but superfluous. bill -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 5:18 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] NT overcall On 2016-02-17 4:01 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Be aware of the word "solely" and the clause "(and no other suit)". The words are "if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suit), and ..." The more I look at that, the less I understand it. What is "solely" intended to limit? "Solely" means one only, but here it's applied to suits, plural. Furthermore, nearly all calls show some general strength range; does that take them out of L26A? And what does "related to" mean? It _ought_ to be "suggested lead value in" or something to that effect. Maybe "demonstrably suggests a lead in the specified suit over some other suit," obviously borrowing from L16. And what about the case where, say, 2H showing hearts and another suit is withdrawn, but the other suit is later specified in the legal auction? There _should_ be lead penalties in hearts only, but I can't get there from the Laws text. >> Extract from the (unofficial) Commentary to the 2007 edition of the >> Laws by Ton Kooijman, chairman of the WBF LC >> "When a withdrawn call relates to just (a) known suit(s), Law 26A >> applies. Calls showing balanced hands, for example NT openings, or >> doubles, whether for take out or for penalty, are not considered to >> relate to suits." A penalty double doesn't relate to the suit doubled?! I understand that most takeout or "general values" doubles don't relate to specific suits, though an argument could be made for negative doubles that promise specifically the other major. On 2016-02-17 7:42 AM, agot wrote: > But there is a problem then. A double of an artificial bid, meant to > show the suit, would not relate to that suit ? I don't think that sort of double is directly covered in the quoted part of Ton's commentary. It seems clear to treat it under L26A. _______________________________________________ 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: 2016.0.7442 / Virus Database: 4530/11647 - Release Date: 02/17/16 From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Thu Feb 18 21:07:48 2016 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 06:07:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is><56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net><0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl><4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de><004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de><000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:18 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] NT overcall On 2016-02-17 4:01 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Be aware of the word "solely" and the clause "(and no other suit)". The words are "if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suit), and ..." The more I look at that, the less I understand it. What is "solely" intended to limit? "Solely" means one only, but here it's applied to suits, plural. Furthermore, nearly all calls show some general strength range; does that take them out of L26A? And what does "related to" mean? It _ought_ to be "suggested lead value in" or something to that effect. Maybe "demonstrably suggests a lead in the specified suit over some other suit," obviously borrowing from L16. And what about the case where, say, 2H showing hearts and another suit is withdrawn, but the other suit is later specified in the legal auction? There _should_ be lead penalties in hearts only, but I can't get there from the Laws text. If the offender's ?final call for that turn? does not say ?Hearts and Another? then we are locked into 26B. It doesn?t matter how many suits are named in the later auction. Jan (snip) From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Feb 19 04:18:52 2016 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:18:52 +0800 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is><56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net><0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl><4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de><004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de><000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net><56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> -----Original Message----- From: Jan Peach Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 4:07 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] NT overcall -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:18 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] NT overcall On 2016-02-17 4:01 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Be aware of the word "solely" and the clause "(and no other suit)". The words are "if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suit), and ..." The more I look at that, the less I understand it. What is "solely" intended to limit? "Solely" means one only, but here it's applied to suits, plural. Furthermore, nearly all calls show some general strength range; does that take them out of L26A? And what does "related to" mean? It _ought_ to be "suggested lead value in" or something to that effect. Maybe "demonstrably suggests a lead in the specified suit over some other suit," obviously borrowing from L16. And what about the case where, say, 2H showing hearts and another suit is withdrawn, but the other suit is later specified in the legal auction? There _should_ be lead penalties in hearts only, but I can't get there from the Laws text. If the offender's ?final call for that turn? does not say ?Hearts and Another? then we are locked into 26B. It doesn?t matter how many suits are named in the later auction. Jan I think we need to go to 26A before settling on 26B. Under 26A1. there is no lead restriction for a suit which was as (part of) a withdrawn call if the suit was specified in the legal auction. I am having trouble thinking of a case where a suit specified in any legal part of an auction would be subject to lead restriction, but I am sure someone will find one, (are you there Hilda). bill kemp LAW 26 - CALL WITHDRAWN, LEAD RESTRICTIONS When an offending player?s call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different* final call for that turn, then if he becomes a defender: A. Call Related to Specific Suit if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suit), and 1. if each such suit was specified in the legal auction by the same player there is no lead restriction, but see Law 16D. 2. if any suit specified in the withdrawn call was not specified by the same player in the legal auction then, at offender?s partner?s first turn to lead (which may be the opening lead), declarer may either, (a) require the offender?s partner to lead such a suit (if there are more than one declarer chooses the suit); or (b) prohibit offender?s partner from leading (one) such suit. Such prohibition continues for as long as the offender?s partner retains the lead. B. Other Withdrawn Calls For other withdrawn calls, declarer may prohibit offender?s partner from leading any one suit at his first turn to lead, including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long as offender?s partner retains the lead. * A call repeated with a much different meaning shall be deemed a different call. _______________________________________________ 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: 2016.0.7442 / Virus Database: 4533/11653 - Release Date: 02/18/16 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160219/144cd171/attachment.html From lskelso at ihug.com.au Fri Feb 19 07:57:27 2016 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:57:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> Message-ID: <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160219/5d0cd280/attachment.html From roger-eymard at orange.fr Fri Feb 19 08:56:41 2016 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 08:56:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is><56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net><0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl><4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de><004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de><000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net><56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> Message-ID: Apart from the purpose and meaning of "solely", what is the meaning of "call related solely to a specified suit" ? The definition of "suit" relates to C, D, H or S, without any implied minimum length Nowadays, everybody use calls to indicate various features : a length with or whithout strength, one or more stoppers with or without length (e.g. cue bids), a shortness (e.g. splinters), even a void (e.g. exclusion Blackwood) or only a lead indication. It seems to me that Law 26 A applies implicitly only to calls promising length. Am I right ? If yes, would it not be better to say so in the Law ? If not, would it not be useful to precise that when the suit is precised in the legal auction, it is precised with the same meaning (may be too whith a more precise meaning as in Law 27) ? Thanks for your comments Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: bill kemp To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 4:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] NT overcall -----Original Message----- From: Jan Peach Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 4:07 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] NT overcall -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:18 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] NT overcall On 2016-02-17 4:01 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Be aware of the word "solely" and the clause "(and no other suit)". The words are "if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suit), and ..." The more I look at that, the less I understand it. What is "solely" intended to limit? "Solely" means one only, but here it's applied to suits, plural. Furthermore, nearly all calls show some general strength range; does that take them out of L26A? And what does "related to" mean? It _ought_ to be "suggested lead value in" or something to that effect. Maybe "demonstrably suggests a lead in the specified suit over some other suit," obviously borrowing from L16. And what about the case where, say, 2H showing hearts and another suit is withdrawn, but the other suit is later specified in the legal auction? There _should_ be lead penalties in hearts only, but I can't get there from the Laws text. If the offender's ?final call for that turn? does not say ?Hearts and Another? then we are locked into 26B. It doesn?t matter how many suits are named in the later auction. Jan I think we need to go to 26A before settling on 26B. Under 26A1. there is no lead restriction for a suit which was as (part of) a withdrawn call if the suit was specified in the legal auction. I am having trouble thinking of a case where a suit specified in any legal part of an auction would be subject to lead restriction, but I am sure someone will find one, (are you there Hilda). bill kemp LAW 26 - CALL WITHDRAWN, LEAD RESTRICTIONS When an offending player?s call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different* final call for that turn, then if he becomes a defender: A. Call Related to Specific Suit if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suit), and 1. if each such suit was specified in the legal auction by the same player there is no lead restriction, but see Law 16D. 2. if any suit specified in the withdrawn call was not specified by the same player in the legal auction then, at offender?s partner?s first turn to lead (which may be the opening lead), declarer may either, (a) require the offender?s partner to lead such a suit (if there are more than one declarer chooses the suit); or (b) prohibit offender?s partner from leading (one) such suit. Such prohibition continues for as long as the offender?s partner retains the lead. B. Other Withdrawn Calls For other withdrawn calls, declarer may prohibit offender?s partner from leading any one suit at his first turn to lead, including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long as offender?s partner retains the lead. * A call repeated with a much different meaning shall be deemed a different call. _______________________________________________ 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: 2016.0.7442 / Virus Database: 4533/11653 - Release Date: 02/18/16 _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- L'absence de virus dans ce courrier ?lectronique a ?t? v?rifi?e par le logiciel antivirus Avast. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Feb 19 14:56:58 2016 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 21:56:58 +0800 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is><56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net><0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl><4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be><013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de><004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de><000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net><56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net><5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: <985AF4056FC547E9B478CBF93D4D18B0@tosh2> My apologies to Jan, I did not read the preamble in 26A sufficiently carefully. bill From: Laurie Kelso Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:57 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] NT overcall -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:18 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] NT overcall And what about the case where, say, 2H showing hearts and another suit is withdrawn, but the other suit is later specified in the legal auction? There _should_ be lead penalties in hearts only, but I can't get there from the Laws text. The case where the withdrawn call consists of one specified suit and one unspecified suit does not conform to the conditions required to apply 26A. That means we immediately end up at 26B (irrespective of the nature of the replacement call). Laurie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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: 2016.0.7442 / Virus Database: 4533/11657 - Release Date: 02/19/16 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160219/64372bf9/attachment.html From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Sat Feb 20 14:01:16 2016 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 14:01:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Senior moment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This one is from a Dutch forum. You are called to a table. Declarer still has 3 cards, all other players 2. It turns out that declarer has made a trick with the Q of diamonds, put the card back in her hand, and later on made another trick with the same Q of diamonds. What now? From petereidt at t-online.de Sat Feb 20 14:16:28 2016 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 14:16:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Senior moment In-Reply-To: <20160220130255.D937CB6F0498@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <20160220130255.D937CB6F0498@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <002401d16be0$e8771660$b9654320$@t-online.de> von Peter Smulders > This one is from a Dutch forum. > > You are called to a table. Declarer still has 3 cards, all other players 2. > It turns out that declarer has made a trick with the Q of diamonds, put the > card back in her hand, and later on made another trick with the same Q of > diamonds. What now? The DQ belongs to the "first" trick. Declarer did not play to the "second" trick. Assuming both sides played after the "second" trick, apply Law 67 B1 for the "second" trick. Adjust - if necessary - the ownership of the "second" trick. Stand ready to apply Law 12 A1 if the non-offending side is damaged by the second play of the DQ. Peter From richard.bley at gmx.de Sat Feb 20 14:46:18 2016 From: richard.bley at gmx.de (Dr. Richard Bley) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 14:46:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Senior moment In-Reply-To: <20160220133100.051F9B6F042E@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <20160220133100.051F9B6F042E@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <008d01d16be5$13804030$3a80c090$@gmx.de> Ahh yes... A similar case was discussed in prague at the bar ... :) (without solution...) After thinking about this for two weeks (and just my opinion...): The 2nd time the !dQ was played is an incomplete trick (A played card can only be played once; the 2nd time is a 'non'play). Use L67B1 here Mit besten Gr??en Dr. Richard Bley --- Rheinstr. 21 40822 Mettmann Tel: 0160 / 94709852 richard.bley at gmx.de -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Im Auftrag von Peter Smulders Gesendet: Samstag, 20. Februar 2016 14:01 An: blml at rtflb.org Betreff: [BLML] Senior moment This one is from a Dutch forum. You are called to a table. Declarer still has 3 cards, all other players 2. It turns out that declarer has made a trick with the Q of diamonds, put the card back in her hand, and later on made another trick with the same Q of diamonds. What now? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 20 23:43:26 2016 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:43:26 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Senior moment In-Reply-To: <002401d16be0$e8771660$b9654320$@t-online.de> References: <20160220130255.D937CB6F0498@relay1.webreus.nl> <002401d16be0$e8771660$b9654320$@t-online.de> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Peter Eidt Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 7:16 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Senior moment von Peter Smulders > This one is from a Dutch forum. > > You are called to a table. Declarer still has 3 cards, all other players 2. > It turns out that declarer has made a trick with the Q of diamonds, put the > card back in her hand, and later on made another trick with the same Q of > diamonds. What now? The DQ belongs to the "first" trick. Declarer did not play to the "second" trick. Assuming both sides played after the "second" trick, apply Law 67 B1 for the "second" trick. Adjust - if necessary - the ownership of the "second" trick. Stand ready to apply Law 12 A1 if the non-offending side is damaged by the second play of the DQ. Peter 2/19 I think that the view with regard to playing a card is found in L45; and I suspect that in this case the DQ was played as per L45 the second time around even though it 'was not available for play this second time' because it legitimately belongs to the prior trick (or at least ought to belong). fwiw, I have found L67 to be fraught with danger. regards roger pewick From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 21 10:33:51 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 10:33:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Senior moment In-Reply-To: References: <20160220130255.D937CB6F0498@relay1.webreus.nl> <002401d16be0$e8771660$b9654320$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <56C9847F.8070606@skynet.be> r pewick schreef: > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Eidt > Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 7:16 AM > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Senior moment > > von Peter Smulders >> This one is from a Dutch forum. >> >> You are called to a table. Declarer still has 3 cards, all other players > 2. >> It turns out that declarer has made a trick with the Q of diamonds, put > the >> card back in her hand, and later on made another trick with the same Q of >> diamonds. What now? > > The DQ belongs to the "first" trick. > Declarer did not play to the "second" trick. > Assuming both sides played after the "second" trick, apply Law 67 B1 for the > "second" trick. > Adjust - if necessary - the ownership of the "second" trick. This may be a problem! Suppose - which was not stated, but possible - that the DQ was led to the "second trick". Now suppose that no-one follows, and no-one ruffs. Who does that trick "belong" to? Herman. > Stand ready to apply Law 12 A1 if the non-offending side is damaged by the > second play of the DQ. > > Peter > > > 2/19 > > I think that the view with regard to playing a card is found in L45; and I > suspect that in this case the DQ was played as per L45 the second time > around even though it 'was not available for play this second time' because > it legitimately belongs to the prior trick (or at least ought to belong). > fwiw, I have found L67 to be fraught with danger. > > regards > roger pewick > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 22 15:33:01 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:33:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: <8f724323be5f3ae1cadc03428a4bcd6b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 19.02.2016 07:57, Laurie Kelso a ?crit?: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steve Willner >> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:18 AM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] NT overcall >> >> ? >> And what about the case where, say, 2H showing hearts and another >> suit >> is withdrawn, but the other suit is later specified in the legal >> auction?? There _should_ be lead penalties in hearts only, but I >> can't >> get there from the Laws text. >> ? > > The case where the withdrawn call consists of one specified suit and > one unspecified suit does not conform to the conditions required to > apply 26A.? That means we immediately end up at 26B (irrespective of > the nature of the replacement call). But what if the substituted bid also mentions hearts and another suit, like in : 2S 2H, oops, you opened, did you ? Then 3C (clubs and hearts) ? Don's say this overcall doesn't exist ; I do use it. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 22 15:41:42 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:41:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Senior moment In-Reply-To: References: <20160220130255.D937CB6F0498@relay1.webreus.nl> <002401d16be0$e8771660$b9654320$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <82923c610e8167a9b8541261eee3b99f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 20.02.2016 23:43, r pewick a ?crit?: > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Eidt > Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 7:16 AM > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Senior moment > > von Peter Smulders >> This one is from a Dutch forum. >> >> You are called to a table. Declarer still has 3 cards, all other >> players > 2. >> It turns out that declarer has made a trick with the Q of diamonds, >> put > the >> card back in her hand, and later on made another trick with the same Q >> of >> diamonds. What now? > > The DQ belongs to the "first" trick. > Declarer did not play to the "second" trick. AG : if words are to be taken to their value, he did play to the second trick. Only, his play was not valid (like in the catchphrase "I could have led my left shoe"). The laws should specify what happen in such a case. Is it an incomplete trick, or akin to a revoke, or whatever ? And what if the card he played was a leftover from another board ? Maybe that same card wasn't played yet. Does it change anything ? I think we're in a fuzzy area. Best regards Alain From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Feb 23 04:55:14 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:55:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: <56CBD822.3060904@nhcc.net> On 2016-02-19 1:57 AM, Laurie Kelso wrote: > The case where the withdrawn call consists of one specified suit and > one unspecified suit does not conform to the conditions required to > apply 26A. That means we immediately end up at 26B (irrespective of > the nature of the replacement call). That's what I thought, at least with the interpretation given. (Is there an official source for that interpretation?) And not only the replacement call: even if one or both suits are specified in the later auction, there is still a L26B lead penalty. That's not a sensible result. On 2016-02-22 9:33 AM, agot wrote: > But what if the substituted bid also mentions hearts and another > suit, Doesn't matter, nor does the subsequent auction, according to the Laws text. I suppose a more sensible interpretation is possible, but it's far from obvious. On 2016-02-19 2:56 AM, Roger Eymard wrote: > what is the meaning of "call related ... to a specified suit" ? I wrote about that earlier. There's no way to tell from the Laws text, but it _ought_ to mean something about making a lead in that suit more attractive. That would normally mean honor strength but could mean shortness, but the text gives no guidance. Just for laughs, the ACBL interpretation in _Duplicate Decisions_ is: > If the withdrawn call shows two suits but only one is specified > (opener bids 1H, LHO bids a Michaels 2H, showing spades and > a minor, and changes his call to 1NT), the declarer may require the > lead of a spade or prohibit the lead of a spade, a diamond or a club. I can't see how to get there at all from the Laws text. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Feb 23 10:02:27 2016 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:02:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <56CBD822.3060904@nhcc.net> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> <56CBD822.3060904@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002001d16e18$eb4122c0$c1c36840$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> My morning is spoiled by the remark about the acbl interpretation, which is awfully wrong. What I want to say is that you should not forget the first sentence in L26. There only can be a lead penalty if the legal call that replaces the withdrawn one has a much different meaning. So there is no automatic application of 26B after a withdrawn call showing a known and an unknown suit. N to open and East opens 2H showing hearts and a minor, not accepted. North opens !NT and East bids 2H showing hearts and a minor. I would not apply 26B if the point range overlaps and would apply it if the overcall shows a better hand than the opening 2H. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Steve Willner Verzonden: dinsdag 23 februari 2016 4:55 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] NT overcall On 2016-02-19 1:57 AM, Laurie Kelso wrote: > The case where the withdrawn call consists of one specified suit and > one unspecified suit does not conform to the conditions required to > apply 26A. That means we immediately end up at 26B (irrespective of > the nature of the replacement call). That's what I thought, at least with the interpretation given. (Is there an official source for that interpretation?) And not only the replacement call: even if one or both suits are specified in the later auction, there is still a L26B lead penalty. That's not a sensible result. On 2016-02-22 9:33 AM, agot wrote: > But what if the substituted bid also mentions hearts and another suit, Doesn't matter, nor does the subsequent auction, according to the Laws text. I suppose a more sensible interpretation is possible, but it's far from obvious. On 2016-02-19 2:56 AM, Roger Eymard wrote: > what is the meaning of "call related ... to a specified suit" ? I wrote about that earlier. There's no way to tell from the Laws text, but it _ought_ to mean something about making a lead in that suit more attractive. That would normally mean honor strength but could mean shortness, but the text gives no guidance. Just for laughs, the ACBL interpretation in _Duplicate Decisions_ is: > If the withdrawn call shows two suits but only one is specified > (opener bids 1H, LHO bids a Michaels 2H, showing spades and a minor, > and changes his call to 1NT), the declarer may require the lead of a > spade or prohibit the lead of a spade, a diamond or a club. I can't see how to get there at all from the Laws text. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2016.0.7442 / Virusdatabase: 4537/11682 - datum van uitgifte: 02/22/16 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 24 14:31:05 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:31:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <002001d16e18$eb4122c0$c1c36840$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: "\" <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net>" " <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> <56CBD822.3060904@nhcc.net> <002001d16e18$eb4122c0$c1c36840$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <9312cf30d82122c3563fd293274c472e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 23.02.2016 10:02, ton a ?crit?: > My morning is spoiled by the remark about the acbl interpretation, > which is > awfully wrong. > > What I want to say is that you should not forget the first sentence in > L26. > There only can be a lead penalty if the legal call that replaces the > withdrawn one has a much different meaning. > > So there is no automatic application of 26B after a withdrawn call > showing a > known and an unknown suit. > > N to open and East opens 2H showing hearts and a minor, not accepted. > North > opens !NT and East bids 2H showing hearts and a minor. > > I would not apply 26B if the point range overlaps and would apply it if > the > overcall shows a better hand than the opening 2H. > AG : and that would be perfectly logical. However, a word-by-word interpretation of L26 doesn't lead there. This, I think, is the problem under study. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Feb 24 16:25:01 2016 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:25:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <9312cf30d82122c3563fd293274c472e@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\" <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net>" " <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> <56CBD822.3060904@nhcc.net> <002001d16e18$eb4122c0$c1c36840$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <9312cf30d82122c3563fd293274c472e@imapproxy .vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <000f01d16f17$874a75f0$95df61d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Please clarify: what doesn't lead there? ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens agot Verzonden: woensdag 24 februari 2016 14:31 Aan: blml at rtflb.org Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] NT overcall Le 23.02.2016 10:02, ton a ?crit : > My morning is spoiled by the remark about the acbl interpretation, > which is awfully wrong. > > What I want to say is that you should not forget the first sentence in > L26. > There only can be a lead penalty if the legal call that replaces the > withdrawn one has a much different meaning. > > So there is no automatic application of 26B after a withdrawn call > showing a known and an unknown suit. > > N to open and East opens 2H showing hearts and a minor, not accepted. > North > opens !NT and East bids 2H showing hearts and a minor. > > I would not apply 26B if the point range overlaps and would apply it > if the overcall shows a better hand than the opening 2H. > AG : and that would be perfectly logical. However, a word-by-word interpretation of L26 doesn't lead there. This, I think, is the problem under study. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2016.0.7442 / Virusdatabase: 4537/11686 - datum van uitgifte: 02/23/16 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 24 18:02:52 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:02:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <000f01d16f17$874a75f0$95df61d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: "\"\\\" <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net>\" \" <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> <56CBD822.3060904@nhcc.net> <002001d16e18$eb4122c0$c1c36840$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <9312cf30d82122c3563fd293274c472e@imapproxy .vub.ac.be>" <000f01d16f17$874a75f0$95df61d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4431ebb3195d06a630cc1ad0b9d1d61f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 24.02.2016 16:25, ton a ?crit?: > Please clarify: what doesn't lead there? The first sentence of L26A, which excludes such bids. It would be normal to say that if all important pieces of information given by the cancelled bid are found back in further bidding, then penalties are lifted, and that's what I read in your position, but this isn't IMO the way L26 is built. It excludes a priori bids which specify the existence of an unknown suit (with or without a known suit), and that's imperfect. If you open a "4-level minor" 3NT OOT, L26 says too bad ; but if you're able to introduce your suit (and specify a similar range, most probably via a jump overcall), of course there is no more hidden information, so why be so restrictive ? From gordonr60 at gmail.com Wed Feb 24 18:56:04 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:56:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <4431ebb3195d06a630cc1ad0b9d1d61f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> <56CBD822.3060904@nhcc.net> <002001d16e18$eb4122c0$c1c36840$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <9312cf30d82122c3563fd293274c472e@imapproxy .vub.ac.be> <000f01d16f17$874a75f0$95df61d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4431ebb3195d06a630cc1ad0b9d1d61f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <56CDEEB4.7030200@googlemail.com> On 24/02/2016 17:02, agot wrote: > > The first sentence of L26A, which excludes such bids. > > It would be normal to say that if all important pieces of information > given by the cancelled bid are found back in further bidding, then > penalties are lifted, and that's what I read in your position, but this > isn't IMO the way L26 is built. It excludes a priori bids which specify > the existence of an unknown suit (with or without a known suit), and > that's imperfect. Not when the replacement is the same call. From lskelso at ihug.com.au Wed Feb 24 22:58:38 2016 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:58:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <4431ebb3195d06a630cc1ad0b9d1d61f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> <56CBD822.3060904@nhcc.net> <002001d16e18$eb4122c0$c1c36840$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <9312cf30d82122c3563fd293274c472e@imapproxy .vub.ac.be> <000f01d16f17$874a75f0$95df61d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4431ebb3195d06a630cc1ad0b9d1d61f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <56CE278E.8090705@ihug.com.au> Prior to deciding between 26A or 26B one must first determine if there are any lead penalty restrictions at all. The first sentence of Law 26 (the one before we get to A or B) says that if the replacement call has the same meaning, then we don't need to apply either. In other words, Law 26 only comes into operation when the replacement call has a different meaning to the original call. Laurie On 25/02/2016 4:02 AM, agot wrote: > Le 24.02.2016 16:25, ton a ?crit : >> Please clarify: what doesn't lead there? > The first sentence of L26A, which excludes such bids. > > It would be normal to say that if all important pieces of information > given by the cancelled bid are found back in further bidding, then > penalties are lifted, and that's what I read in your position, but this > isn't IMO the way L26 is built. It excludes a priori bids which specify > the existence of an unknown suit (with or without a known suit), and > that's imperfect. > > If you open a "4-level minor" 3NT OOT, L26 says too bad ; but if you're > able to introduce your suit (and specify a similar range, most probably > via a jump overcall), of course there is no more hidden information, so > why be so restrictive ? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 25 03:46:53 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:46:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <56CE278E.8090705@ihug.com.au> References: <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> <56CBD822.3060904@nhcc.net> <002001d16e18$eb4122c0$c1c36840$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <9312cf30d82122c3563fd293274c472e@imapproxy .vub.ac.be> <000f01d16f17$874a75f0$95df61d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4431ebb3195d06a630cc1ad0b9d1d61f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56CE278E.8090705@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: <56CE6B1D.3070202@nhcc.net> On 2016-02-24 4:58 PM, Laurie Kelso wrote: > The first sentence of Law 26 (the one before we get to A or B) says > that if the replacement call has the same meaning Actually it's more restrictive than that: both the meaning and the actual call have to be the same. We can use Ton's example to show why this matters. South opens out of turn with 2H showing hearts and another. That's not accepted, and East opens 1NT. Now South bids 2C showing hearts and another. (I think this is Brozel or something, but it doesn't matter for the example.) There are still lead penalties, as far as I can tell. Hmmm... that first part of L26 does say "for that turn." In the case of a BOOT, perhaps the replacement call is not at that turn, and L26 doesn't apply at all? This seems far-fetched. As L26 is written, there seems to be a three-step process: 1. is the immediate replacement the same and with the same meaning? If so, no penalties. 2. is the withdrawn call "related solely?" If so, L26A as to any suits not specified in the legal auction. As I read it, "specified in the legal auction" can be either before or after the withdrawn call. 3. otherwise L26B, regardless of what suits are or are not specified in the legal auction. In addition, the withdrawn call is UI to partner, and that may impose additional restrictions. On 2016-02-24 12:02 PM, agot wrote: > It would be normal to say that if all important pieces of > information given by the cancelled bid are found back in further > bidding, then penalties are lifted, and that's what I read in your > position, but this isn't IMO the way L26 is built. It excludes a > priori bids which specify the existence of an unknown suit (with or > without a known suit), and that's imperfect. Also L26 provides lead penalties even in suits that are specified in the legal auction. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 25 03:50:09 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:50:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] quick check Message-ID: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> I'm pretty of the following, but is there anything I've overlooked? At a defender's turn to play, he accidentally drops a card face up. It is an honor and a legal play at this turn but not the card he intended to play. The intended card was not exposed. The exposed card still has to be played immediately, right? From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 08:10:24 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:10:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: I'm pretty of the following, but is there anything I've overlooked? At a defender's turn to play, he accidentally drops a card face up. It is an honor and a legal play at this turn but not the card he intended to play. The intended card was not exposed. The exposed card still has to be played immediately, right? Richard Hills: The one thing that Steve has overlooked is Law 47E2(a). Note that a hint is provided by the title of Law 47, "Retraction of Card Played". Best wishes, Richard Hills PS Very rarely Law 47C could be relevant; for example if the defender was legally blind and Braille cards were not in use. On Thursday, February 25, 2016, Steve Willner wrote: > I'm pretty of the following, but is there anything I've overlooked? > > At a defender's turn to play, he accidentally drops a card face up. It > is an honor and a legal play at this turn but not the card he intended > to play. The intended card was not exposed. The exposed card still has > to be played immediately, right? > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160225/d2ae0322/attachment.html From gordonr60 at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 08:15:35 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 07:15:35 +0000 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> Yes. It would be different (and more interesting) if he had also exposed the card he had intended to play and it had been a small card. On 25/02/2016 02:50, Steve Willner wrote: > I'm pretty of the following, but is there anything I've overlooked? > > At a defender's turn to play, he accidentally drops a card face up. It > is an honor and a legal play at this turn but not the card he intended > to play. The intended card was not exposed. The exposed card still has > to be played immediately, right? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sven at svenpran.net Thu Feb 25 08:29:05 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:29:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> If a defender exposes another card along with the one he intends to play (and both cards may legally be played) he designates which of the two cards he then decides to play. There is no obligation for him to disclose which of the two cards he actually intended to play . (Law 58B2). This possibility is particularly relevant when the card not designated will become a minor penalty card and the other in case a major penalty card. > Gordon Rainsford > Yes. It would be different (and more interesting) if he had also exposed the > card he had intended to play and it had been a small card. > > On 25/02/2016 02:50, Steve Willner wrote: > > I'm pretty of the following, but is there anything I've overlooked? > > > > At a defender's turn to play, he accidentally drops a card face up. > > It is an honor and a legal play at this turn but not the card he > > intended to play. The intended card was not exposed. The exposed > > card still has to be played immediately, right? > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 25 09:05:16 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:05:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <4431ebb3195d06a630cc1ad0b9d1d61f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> <56CBD822.3060904@nhcc.net> <002001d16e18$eb4122c0$c1c36840$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <9312cf30d82122c3563fd293274c472e@imapproxy .vub.ac.be> <000f01d16f17$874a75f0$95df61d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4431ebb3195d06a630cc1ad0b9d1d61f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <56CEB5BC.3020904@skynet.be> Because in constructed cases, the LOOTer psyches his replacement. If L26A applies, the lead restrictions are dropped. But if L26B applies, a clever declarer can prohibit the lead in the real suit. Herman. agot schreef: > Le 24.02.2016 16:25, ton a ?crit : >> Please clarify: what doesn't lead there? > > The first sentence of L26A, which excludes such bids. > > It would be normal to say that if all important pieces of information > given by the cancelled bid are found back in further bidding, then > penalties are lifted, and that's what I read in your position, but this > isn't IMO the way L26 is built. It excludes a priori bids which specify > the existence of an unknown suit (with or without a known suit), and > that's imperfect. > > If you open a "4-level minor" 3NT OOT, L26 says too bad ; but if you're > able to introduce your suit (and specify a similar range, most probably > via a jump overcall), of course there is no more hidden information, so > why be so restrictive ? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Feb 25 09:18:24 2016 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:18:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> I had a simulation ready in Prague (EBL TD course earlier this month) where a defender takes a card out of his hand and when the card almost reaches the table he discovers that it is not be the card he wanted to play. It is a minor card. In my opinion this creates a minor penalty card and the player does not have to play it. But this was a too revolutionary idea. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: donderdag 25 februari 2016 8:29 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] quick check If a defender exposes another card along with the one he intends to play (and both cards may legally be played) he designates which of the two cards he then decides to play. There is no obligation for him to disclose which of the two cards he actually intended to play . (Law 58B2). This possibility is particularly relevant when the card not designated will become a minor penalty card and the other in case a major penalty card. > Gordon Rainsford > Yes. It would be different (and more interesting) if he had also > exposed the > card he had intended to play and it had been a small card. > > On 25/02/2016 02:50, Steve Willner wrote: > > I'm pretty of the following, but is there anything I've overlooked? > > > > At a defender's turn to play, he accidentally drops a card face up. > > It is an honor and a legal play at this turn but not the card he > > intended to play. The intended card was not exposed. The exposed > > card still has to be played immediately, right? > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2016.0.7442 / Virusdatabase: 4537/11686 - datum van uitgifte: 02/23/16 From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 25 09:39:35 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:39:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> Well Ton, that's maybe something for the 2017 laws. You should never forget that before 2007, penalty cards were not subject to UI, so the penalty for actively showing a minor card should be something severe. With UI restrictions in place, showing the card (which you apparently did not want to play) carries enough of a deterrent (UI) that it won't be done actively - so the major penalty card could be dropped. Herman. ton schreef: > I had a simulation ready in Prague (EBL TD course earlier this month) where > a defender takes a card out of his hand and when the card almost reaches the > table he discovers that it is not be the card he wanted to play. It is a > minor card. In my opinion this creates a minor penalty card and the player > does not have to play it. But this was a too revolutionary idea. > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran > Verzonden: donderdag 25 februari 2016 8:29 > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] quick check > > If a defender exposes another card along with the one he intends to play > (and both cards may legally be played) he designates which of the two cards > he then decides to play. > There is no obligation for him to disclose which of the two cards he > actually intended to play . (Law 58B2). > This possibility is particularly relevant when the card not designated will > become a minor penalty card and the other in case a major penalty card. > >> Gordon Rainsford >> Yes. It would be different (and more interesting) if he had also >> exposed > the >> card he had intended to play and it had been a small card. >> >> On 25/02/2016 02:50, Steve Willner wrote: >>> I'm pretty of the following, but is there anything I've overlooked? >>> >>> At a defender's turn to play, he accidentally drops a card face up. >>> It is an honor and a legal play at this turn but not the card he >>> intended to play. The intended card was not exposed. The exposed >>> card still has to be played immediately, right? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > ----- > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com > Versie: 2016.0.7442 / Virusdatabase: 4537/11686 - datum van uitgifte: > 02/23/16 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From sven at svenpran.net Thu Feb 25 09:58:38 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:58:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701d16faa$b9c95d00$2d5c1700$@svenpran.net> Just to make it clear: We are talking about exposing two cards simultaneously in an act of playing a card? Exposing a card (by the same player) in an action separately from that of playing a card is of course a different matter not subject to Law 58. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 25. februar 2016 09:40 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] quick check > > Well Ton, that's maybe something for the 2017 laws. > You should never forget that before 2007, penalty cards were not subject > to UI, so the penalty for actively showing a minor card should be something > severe. > With UI restrictions in place, showing the card (which you apparently did > not want to play) carries enough of a deterrent (UI) that it won't be done > actively - so the major penalty card could be dropped. > > Herman. > > ton schreef: > > I had a simulation ready in Prague (EBL TD course earlier this month) > > where a defender takes a card out of his hand and when the card almost > > reaches the table he discovers that it is not be the card he wanted to > > play. It is a minor card. In my opinion this creates a minor penalty > > card and the player does not have to play it. But this was a too > revolutionary idea. > > > > ton > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens > > Sven Pran > > Verzonden: donderdag 25 februari 2016 8:29 > > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] quick check > > > > If a defender exposes another card along with the one he intends to > > play (and both cards may legally be played) he designates which of the > > two cards he then decides to play. > > There is no obligation for him to disclose which of the two cards he > > actually intended to play . (Law 58B2). > > This possibility is particularly relevant when the card not designated > > will become a minor penalty card and the other in case a major penalty > card. > > > >> Gordon Rainsford > >> Yes. It would be different (and more interesting) if he had also > >> exposed > > the > >> card he had intended to play and it had been a small card. > >> > >> On 25/02/2016 02:50, Steve Willner wrote: > >>> I'm pretty of the following, but is there anything I've overlooked? > >>> > >>> At a defender's turn to play, he accidentally drops a card face up. > >>> It is an honor and a legal play at this turn but not the card he > >>> intended to play. The intended card was not exposed. The exposed > >>> card still has to be played immediately, right? > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > ----- > > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. > > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com > > Versie: 2016.0.7442 / Virusdatabase: 4537/11686 - datum van uitgifte: > > 02/23/16 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Feb 25 10:24:25 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:24:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <56CEC849.4020202@t-online.de> I could very well live with the idea to make a penalty card out of it, but - while Herman is right about the situation before 2007 - I have to disagree with the idea that UI would be enough of a deterrent. I feel that this is wrong on the club level, where you do not have a dozen or so experienced TDs running around. While I think that most TDs in my neck of the woods can handle UI from tempo and so on reasonably competent, they tend to overlook UI from penalty cards. On top of that it would give declarers a chance to convince the TD that they had played _this_ card inadvertantly in order to take it back into their hand, since by now (at least where I direct...) they have learned that declarers have no penalty cards, ever. Well, most of them have understood... I think that a major rewrite would be necessary to implement Ton`s idea without giving a certain kind of people a chance to take unfair advantage. I do not want to talk about cheating here, but certain inattentive players would be even less inclined to pay attention to the card they _really_ want to play.... Best regards Matthias Am 25.02.2016 um 09:39 schrieb Herman De Wael: > Well Ton, that's maybe something for the 2017 laws. > You should never forget that before 2007, penalty cards were not subject > to UI, so the penalty for actively showing a minor card should be > something severe. > With UI restrictions in place, showing the card (which you apparently > did not want to play) carries enough of a deterrent (UI) that it won't > be done actively - so the major penalty card could be dropped. > > Herman. > > ton schreef: >> I had a simulation ready in Prague (EBL TD course earlier this month) where >> a defender takes a card out of his hand and when the card almost reaches the >> table he discovers that it is not be the card he wanted to play. It is a >> minor card. In my opinion this creates a minor penalty card and the player >> does not have to play it. But this was a too revolutionary idea. >> >> ton >> >> From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Feb 25 10:35:51 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:35:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <000701d16faa$b9c95d00$2d5c1700$@svenpran.net> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> <000701d16faa$b9c95d00$2d5c1700$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <56CECAF7.10507@t-online.de> Am 25.02.2016 um 09:58 schrieb Sven Pran: > Just to make it clear: > We are talking about exposing two cards simultaneously in an act of playing > a card? No > Exposing a card (by the same player) in an action separately from that of > playing a card is of course a different matter not subject to Law 58. > > From sven at svenpran.net Thu Feb 25 11:29:53 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:29:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56CECAF7.10507@t-online.de> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> <000701d16faa$b9c95d00$2d5c1700$@svenpran.net> <56CECAF7.10507@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000001d16fb7$79f01310$6dd03930$@svenpran.net> > Matthias Berghaus > Am 25.02.2016 um 09:58 schrieb Sven Pran: > > Just to make it clear: > > We are talking about exposing two cards simultaneously in an act of > > playing a card? > > No [Sven Pran] Then, frankly, I don't see any problem? We go straight to Law 49. > > > Exposing a card (by the same player) in an action separately from that > > of playing a card is of course a different matter not subject to Law 58. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Feb 25 05:20:57 2016 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:20:57 -0600 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <002001d16e18$eb4122c0$c1c36840$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <651607681.3846692.1453812453112.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <56A8EF89.7010704@nhcc.net> <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2><56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> <56CBD822.3060904@nhcc.net> <002001d16e18$eb4122c0$c1c36840$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Maybe there is some indigestion to deal with when there is a withdrawn call but no substitute call at that turn. regards roger pewick -----Original Message----- From: ton Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:02 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] NT overcall My morning is spoiled by the remark about the acbl interpretation, which is awfully wrong. *What I want to say is that you should not forget the first sentence in L26.* There only can be a lead penalty if the legal call that replaces the withdrawn one has a much different meaning. So there is no automatic application of 26B after a withdrawn call showing a known and an unknown suit. N to open and East opens 2H showing hearts and a minor, not accepted. North opens !NT and East bids 2H showing hearts and a minor. I would not apply 26B if the point range overlaps and would apply it if the overcall shows a better hand than the opening 2H. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Steve Willner Verzonden: dinsdag 23 februari 2016 4:55 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] NT overcall On 2016-02-19 1:57 AM, Laurie Kelso wrote: > The case where the withdrawn call consists of one specified suit and > one unspecified suit does not conform to the conditions required to > apply 26A. That means we immediately end up at 26B (irrespective of > the nature of the replacement call). That's what I thought, at least with the interpretation given. (Is there an official source for that interpretation?) And not only the replacement call: even if one or both suits are specified in the later auction, there is still a L26B lead penalty. That's not a sensible result. On 2016-02-22 9:33 AM, agot wrote: > But what if the substituted bid also mentions hearts and another suit, Doesn't matter, nor does the subsequent auction, according to the Laws text. I suppose a more sensible interpretation is possible, but it's far from obvious. On 2016-02-19 2:56 AM, Roger Eymard wrote: > what is the meaning of "call related ... to a specified suit" ? I wrote about that earlier. There's no way to tell from the Laws text, but it _ought_ to mean something about making a lead in that suit more attractive. That would normally mean honor strength but could mean shortness, but the text gives no guidance. Just for laughs, the ACBL interpretation in _Duplicate Decisions_ is: > If the withdrawn call shows two suits but only one is specified > (opener bids 1H, LHO bids a Michaels 2H, showing spades and a minor, > and changes his call to 1NT), the declarer may require the lead of a > spade or prohibit the lead of a spade, a diamond or a club. I can't see how to get there at all from the Laws text. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Feb 25 15:14:30 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:14:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <000001d16fb7$79f01310$6dd03930$@svenpran.net> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> <000701d16faa$b9c95d00$2d5c1700$@svenpran.net> <56CECAF7.10507@t-online.de> <000001d16fb7$79f01310$6dd03930$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <56CF0C46.8000309@t-online.de> Am 25.02.2016 um 11:29 schrieb Sven Pran: >> Matthias Berghaus >> Am 25.02.2016 um 09:58 schrieb Sven Pran: >>> Just to make it clear: >>> We are talking about exposing two cards simultaneously in an act of >>> playing a card? >> No > [Sven Pran] > > Then, frankly, I don't see any problem? > We go straight to Law 49. Sven, there *is* no problem. What Ton proposes, and what Herman`s and my posts refer to is the possibility of having cards _played inadvertantly, and retracted before release, but in a position to make them cards which have to be played under the current rules_ become minor penalty cards if all other preregs for minor PC are satisfied, too. I see quite a number of problems with that approach, especially if declarer is prone to *nearly* playing a card, then doing the same with the next etc., but maybe I ought to relax more often... Ton can surely live with that, but if I understand him correctly his colleagues in the WBFLC seem to have a problem, too..... From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 25 16:23:33 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:23:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <56CF1C75.2030404@nhcc.net> On 2016-02-25 3:18 AM, ton wrote: > I had a simulation ready in Prague (EBL TD course earlier this month) where > a defender takes a card out of his hand and when the card almost reaches the > table he discovers that it is not be the card he wanted to play. It is a > minor card. In my opinion this creates a minor penalty card and the player > does not have to play it. But this was a too revolutionary idea. I think that's what the Laws _ought_ to say, but L45C1 seems to say otherwise. If the Laws were to change, the careless player would still be "punished" by being unable to signal in this suit, the exposed card being UI, and L23 taking care of situations where a player might expose a card intentionally. ("Don't try giving me a ruff in this suit.") However, I understand the argument to the contrary: club Directors (especially in the ACBL, alas) may be ill-equipped to deal with this much complexity. It's certainly simpler to have the card played and be done with it. For LC discussions, I'd prioritize L26 over this one. From sven at svenpran.net Thu Feb 25 16:33:15 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:33:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56CF0C46.8000309@t-online.de> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> <000701d16faa$b9c95d00$2d5c1700$@svenpran.net> <56CECAF7.10507@t-online.de> <000001d16fb7$79f01310$6dd03930$@svenpran.net> <56CF0C46.8000309@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000601d16fe1$da911140$8fb333c0$@svenpran.net> I enforce Law 49 rather strictly that for an exposed card to become a minor penalty card it must have been accidentally exposed, i.e either one of two cards played simultaneously or a card dropped from the hand without any sign of intention to expose it. The cases discussed here appear to me as not qualifying for minor penalty cards and I see no reason for changing the laws in this respect. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Matthias Berghaus > Sendt: 25. februar 2016 15:15 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] quick check > > Am 25.02.2016 um 11:29 schrieb Sven Pran: > >> Matthias Berghaus > >> Am 25.02.2016 um 09:58 schrieb Sven Pran: > >>> Just to make it clear: > >>> We are talking about exposing two cards simultaneously in an act of > >>> playing a card? > >> No > > [Sven Pran] > > > > Then, frankly, I don't see any problem? > > We go straight to Law 49. > > Sven, there *is* no problem. What Ton proposes, and what Herman`s and > my posts refer to is the possibility of having cards _played inadvertantly, > and retracted before release, but in a position to make them cards which > have to be played under the current rules_ become minor penalty cards if > all other preregs for minor PC are satisfied, too. I see quite a number of > problems with that approach, especially if declarer is prone to > *nearly* playing a card, then doing the same with the next etc., but maybe > I ought to relax more often... Ton can surely live with that, but if I > understand him correctly his colleagues in the WBFLC seem to have a > problem, too..... > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Feb 25 17:39:41 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:39:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <000601d16fe1$da911140$8fb333c0$@svenpran.net> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> <000701d16faa$b9c95d00$2d5c1700$@svenpran.net> <56CECAF7.10507@t-online.de> <000001d16fb7$79f01310$6dd03930$@svenpran.net> <56CF0C46.8000309@t-online.de> <000601d16fe1$da911140$8fb333c0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <56CF2E4D.60102@t-online.de> Am 25.02.2016 um 16:33 schrieb Sven Pran: > I enforce Law 49 rather strictly so do I > that for an exposed card to become a minor > penalty card it must have been accidentally exposed, i.e either one of two > cards played simultaneously or a card dropped from the hand without any sign > of intention to expose it. These are my criteria, too. I must say, though, that I can see a point in arguing that by pulling a card I do not want to play one can say that it was accidenally exposed. Happens all the time around here, and in quite a lot of cases I believe those people, not that it matters at the moment. Card is played, period. My concern (with a different wording) would be with the workload for directors, many of them not fully prepared to handle the situation to prevent any damage to the opponents, and my chief concern is about the fact that _declarer_ would have no penalty card, and would not have to worry about UI either... > > The cases discussed here appear to me as not qualifying for minor penalty > cards and I see no reason for changing the laws in this respect. As the law is written, no, certainly not. Reason? In an ideal world it would be nice to act that way, but with people being prepared to believe themselves when they tell the TD about inadvertancy (so they are completely honest, humans being prone to autosuggestion...) I am in the camp of the sceptics, at the moment. > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Matthias Berghaus >> Sendt: 25. februar 2016 15:15 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] quick check >> >> Am 25.02.2016 um 11:29 schrieb Sven Pran: >>>> Matthias Berghaus >>>> Am 25.02.2016 um 09:58 schrieb Sven Pran: >>>>> Just to make it clear: >>>>> We are talking about exposing two cards simultaneously in an act of >>>>> playing a card? >>>> No >>> [Sven Pran] >>> >>> Then, frankly, I don't see any problem? >>> We go straight to Law 49. >> Sven, there *is* no problem. What Ton proposes, and what Herman`s and >> my posts refer to is the possibility of having cards _played > inadvertantly, >> and retracted before release, but in a position to make them cards which >> have to be played under the current rules_ become minor penalty cards if >> all other preregs for minor PC are satisfied, too. I see quite a number of >> problems with that approach, especially if declarer is prone to >> *nearly* playing a card, then doing the same with the next etc., but maybe >> I ought to relax more often... Ton can surely live with that, but if I >> understand him correctly his colleagues in the WBFLC seem to have a >> problem, too..... >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 25 17:56:32 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:56:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56CF2E4D.60102@t-online.de> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> <000701d16faa$b9c95d00$2d5c1700$@svenpran.net> <56CECAF7.10507@t-online.de> <000001d16fb7$79f01310$6dd03930$@svenpran.net> <56CF0C46.8000309@t-online.de> <000601d16fe1$da911140$8fb333c0$@svenpran.net> <56CF2E4D.60102@t-online.de> Message-ID: <56CF3240.1000803@nhcc.net> On 2016-02-25 11:39 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > by pulling a card I do not want to play one can say that > it was accidenally exposed This is directly analogous to pulling a wrong bid card, for which we have L25A. There are reasons the two situations should or should not be handled the same, but the basic causes are equivalent. (If it were up to me, I'd adopt the ACBL rule for when a bid is made and prohibit changing it after that, but that doesn't seem to be a popular opinion.) From sven at svenpran.net Thu Feb 25 18:13:01 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:13:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56CF3240.1000803@nhcc.net> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> <000701d16faa$b9c95d00$2d5c1700$@svenpran.net> <56CECAF7.10507@t-online.de> <000001d16fb7$79f01310$6dd03930$@svenpran.net> <56CF0C46.8000309@t-online.de> <000601d16fe1$da911140$8fb333c0$@svenpran.net> <56CF2E4D.60102@t-online.de> <56CF3240.1000803@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000801d16fef$caf31450$60d93cf0$@svenpran.net> In my opinion a player demonstrates his intention to play a card once he starts pulling it from his hand. He most certainly is entitled to change his intention so long as the card has not become exposed, but once it has reached a position where it could be visible to his partner that door is closed. This does of course not exclude the inadvertency of a card being stuck with the one he pulls from his hand and then drops to the table. If a player argues to me that he didn't intend to play a card he pulled from his hand he will have to answer my question: "Then why did you pull it at all?" The analogue with bid cards fail on one important point: Bid cards are pulled from an open box while playing cards are pulled from a closed hand. While there can be an argument on exactly when a call has been made there is no question about exactly when a card can be visible to a partner. In cases of doubt that is determined by the Director. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Steve Willner > Sendt: 25. februar 2016 17:57 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] quick check > > On 2016-02-25 11:39 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > by pulling a card I do not want to play one can say that it was > > accidenally exposed > > This is directly analogous to pulling a wrong bid card, for which we have > L25A. There are reasons the two situations should or should not be > handled the same, but the basic causes are equivalent. > > (If it were up to me, I'd adopt the ACBL rule for when a bid is made and > prohibit changing it after that, but that doesn't seem to be a popular > opinion.) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 25 18:47:41 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:47:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <000801d16fef$caf31450$60d93cf0$@svenpran.net> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> <000701d16faa$b9c95d00$2d5c1700$@svenpran.net> <56CECAF7.10507@t-online.de> <000001d16fb7$79f01310$6dd03930$@svenpran.net> <56CF0C46.8000309@t-online.de> <000601d16fe1$da911140$8fb333c0$@svenpran.net> <56CF2E4D.60102@t-online.de> <56CF3240.1000803@nhcc.net> <000801d16fef$caf31450$60d93cf0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <56CF3E3D.6010604@nhcc.net> On 2016-02-25 12:13 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > In my opinion a player demonstrates his intention to play a card once > he starts pulling it from his hand. So why not "In my opinion a player demonstrates his intention to make a call once he starts pulling a card from the bid box?" If you are willing to consider inadvertence in one situation, why not the other? > Bid cards are pulled from an open box while playing cards are pulled > from a closed hand. I agree with that. It is one reason I had in mind for why the rules might differ in the two cases. Still, exposing a non-honor from a closed hand isn't usually too important, so one _might consider_ making the rules similar (with the mPC rules still applying, of course). From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 26 02:21:04 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:21:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] handicap, rectification Message-ID: A player with a physical handicap pulled out one card and another came out. I wanted to rule that he could put it back and it was UI to partner, but it was an ACBL event, and fortunately I could contact an ACBL director supervising it and find out that the ACBL makes no accommodations in the rectification rules for handicaps. We can at our club of course, and everyone agreed afterwards that was a great idea for this player (and in general). I am still surprised that the ACBL is that way. It seemed harsh, or old-fashioned, or something. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Feb 26 02:30:29 2016 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:30:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] handicap, rectification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56CFAAB5.7000002@alumni.princeton.edu> The opponents at the table could ask to waive the rectification, and the TD would have cause to do so. On 2/25/2016 8:21 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > A player with a physical handicap pulled out one card and another came out. I wanted to rule that he could put it back and it was UI to partner, but it was an ACBL event, and fortunately I could contact an ACBL director supervising it and find out that the ACBL makes no accommodations in the rectification rules for handicaps. > > We can at our club of course, and everyone agreed afterwards that was a great idea for this player (and in general). > > I am still surprised that the ACBL is that way. It seemed harsh, or old-fashioned, or something. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonr60 at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 09:18:45 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:18:45 +0000 Subject: [BLML] handicap, rectification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The ability of a TD to deem that a card is not a penalty card is not limited in the laws. Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 26 Feb 2016, at 01:21, Robert Frick wrote: > > A player with a physical handicap pulled out one card and another came out. I wanted to rule that he could put it back and it was UI to partner, but it was an ACBL event, and fortunately I could contact an ACBL director supervising it and find out that the ACBL makes no accommodations in the rectification rules for handicaps. > > We can at our club of course, and everyone agreed afterwards that was a great idea for this player (and in general). > > I am still surprised that the ACBL is that way. It seemed harsh, or old-fashioned, or something. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 26 19:32:36 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:32:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> On 2016-02-25 3:18 AM, ton wrote: > I had a simulation ready in Prague (EBL TD course earlier this month) where > a defender takes a card out of his hand and when the card almost reaches the > table he discovers that it is not be the card he wanted to play. It is a > minor card. In my opinion this creates a minor penalty card and the player > does not have to play it. But this was a too revolutionary idea. What if we change Ton's scenario to say that the defender's card was accidentally dropped? L45C begins "A defender?s card held so that...," so this Law doesn't seem to apply because the dropped card wasn't "held." In this case, I think it's just a mPC as Ton wanted. I'm slightly surprised by this conclusion, so I wonder whether it's correct. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 27 03:32:49 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:32:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] handicap, rectification In-Reply-To: <56CFAAB5.7000002@alumni.princeton.edu> References: <56CFAAB5.7000002@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:30:29 -0500, David Grabiner wrote: > The opponents at the table could ask to waive the rectification, and the > TD would have cause to do so. They didn't. They thought it was fair to play by the rules. If the rules had been more charitable to the physical handicap, they wouldn't have been upset. > > On 2/25/2016 8:21 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> A player with a physical handicap pulled out one card and another came out. I wanted to rule that he could put it back and it was UI to partner, but it was an ACBL event, and fortunately I could contact an ACBL director supervising it and find out that the ACBL makes no accommodations in the rectification rules for handicaps. >> >> We can at our club of course, and everyone agreed afterwards that was a great idea for this player (and in general). >> >> I am still surprised that the ACBL is that way. It seemed harsh, or old-fashioned, or something. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Feb 27 13:25:04 2016 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 13:25:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Steve is surprised but he shouldn't. If you read L50B it is clear that such card is a mPC. And just reading that law 'my' unintentionally shown minor card is also one. But some of you want to use L45C1 (I assume) to deny this possibility. And it is somewhat difficult to find strong enough arguments to win that fight. So I need to change the laws to win it. But then some of you don't like that for unclear reasons imo. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Steve Willner Verzonden: vrijdag 26 februari 2016 19:33 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] quick check On 2016-02-25 3:18 AM, ton wrote: > I had a simulation ready in Prague (EBL TD course earlier this month) > where a defender takes a card out of his hand and when the card almost > reaches the table he discovers that it is not be the card he wanted to > play. It is a minor card. In my opinion this creates a minor penalty > card and the player does not have to play it. But this was a too revolutionary idea. What if we change Ton's scenario to say that the defender's card was accidentally dropped? L45C begins "A defender?s card held so that...," so this Law doesn't seem to apply because the dropped card wasn't "held." In this case, I think it's just a mPC as Ton wanted. I'm slightly surprised by this conclusion, so I wonder whether it's correct. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2016.0.7442 / Virusdatabase: 4537/11704 - datum van uitgifte: 02/27/16 From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Feb 27 14:16:10 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 14:16:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net> <001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> Am 27.02.2016 um 13:25 schrieb ton: > Steve is surprised but he shouldn't. If you read L50B it is clear that such card is a mPC. And just reading that law 'my' unintentionally shown minor card is also one. But some of you want to use L45C1 (I assume) to deny this possibility. And it is somewhat difficult to find strong enough arguments to win that fight. So I need to change the laws to win it. But then some of you don't like that for unclear reasons imo. My reason is this: On average I have two cases per session that "this is not the card I wanted to play. Can I take it back?" or even worse "I am declarer, I can take a card back!!" This is on the club level, mind you, and not a strong club(s) at that. Admittedly this more or less goes away if you raise the level of play, and not by very much, but here there are lots of those weak clubs. I could handle that, sure, but I fear for the many TDs who have had the job foisted on them because they did not really resist when the club chairman (or whoever else is responsible) named a couple of candidates for the next basic TD course. About half of these people have that history. They usually try to do their best, and som even become decent directors, but they have neither the experience nor the education (Bridge-wise) of the people at Prague. All of those would manage fine, I have no doubt about that, but they are way above the average (or worse, below average) club TD. Best regards Matthias P.S. Actually I like your idea, I just don`t think that the problems incurred at the lower level would be worth the trouble. Bridge laws already are pretty lax compared to other card games I know. In Skat, the most popular card game in Germany, if you revoke you have lost. Not this trick, not some other trick, you lost, period. Not my kettle of fish either, I like Bridge revoke laws better, but I am also fond of people who play the card they actually intended.... > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Steve Willner > Verzonden: vrijdag 26 februari 2016 19:33 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] quick check > > On 2016-02-25 3:18 AM, ton wrote: >> I had a simulation ready in Prague (EBL TD course earlier this month) >> where a defender takes a card out of his hand and when the card almost >> reaches the table he discovers that it is not be the card he wanted to >> play. It is a minor card. In my opinion this creates a minor penalty >> card and the player does not have to play it. But this was a too revolutionary idea. > What if we change Ton's scenario to say that the defender's card was accidentally dropped? L45C begins "A defender?s card held so that...," > so this Law doesn't seem to apply because the dropped card wasn't "held." In this case, I think it's just a mPC as Ton wanted. > > I'm slightly surprised by this conclusion, so I wonder whether it's correct. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > ----- > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com > Versie: 2016.0.7442 / Virusdatabase: 4537/11704 - datum van uitgifte: 02/27/16 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 27 18:30:39 2016 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:30:39 -0600 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com><000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net><56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com><56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net><001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> Message-ID: I hold as a firm belief that the fundamental principle of one action per turn is best and see no gain from fiddling with it. However, even though I see no gain from fiddling, some people's feelings might be assuaged via fiddling; and under such circumstances where fiddling is demanded- I can see the least harm in those instances only where it is plain that no extra turn is gained to the perpetrator- which is not the case here...far from it. In the Prague instance, apparently the defender exposes his card such that his partner could well have seen it but: it has not yet reached the table, and, the defender realizes it was not the card he wanted to detach from his cards, and would rather contribute the wanted card. To give enabling the defender the right to play the second card to the trick instead in my mind is akin to exposing an extraneous card prior to partner's play and should be subject to a L57 play penalty- so as to do some leveling of the playing field, or at least make it very unlikely that his side might gain (and avoid some judgment remedy). In my mind such a play penalty can be rather brutal and gives players incentive to avoid foolish behavior. My view is that the Prague plan encourages foolish behavior and gains absolutely nothing of value except severe headaches. regards roger pewick -----Original Message----- From: Matthias Berghaus Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 7:16 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] quick check Am 27.02.2016 um 13:25 schrieb ton: > Steve is surprised but he shouldn't. If you read L50B it is clear that > such card is a mPC. And just reading that law 'my' unintentionally shown > minor card is also one. But some of you want to use L45C1 (I assume) to > deny this possibility. And it is somewhat difficult to find strong enough > arguments to win that fight. So I need to change the laws to win it. But > then some of you don't like that for unclear reasons imo. My reason is this: On average I have two cases per session that "this is not the card I wanted to play. Can I take it back?" or even worse "I am declarer, I can take a card back!!" This is on the club level, mind you, and not a strong club(s) at that. Admittedly this more or less goes away if you raise the level of play, and not by very much, but here there are lots of those weak clubs. I could handle that, sure, but I fear for the many TDs who have had the job foisted on them because they did not really resist when the club chairman (or whoever else is responsible) named a couple of candidates for the next basic TD course. About half of these people have that history. They usually try to do their best, and som even become decent directors, but they have neither the experience nor the education (Bridge-wise) of the people at Prague. All of those would manage fine, I have no doubt about that, but they are way above the average (or worse, below average) club TD. Best regards Matthias P.S. Actually I like your idea, I just don`t think that the problems incurred at the lower level would be worth the trouble. Bridge laws already are pretty lax compared to other card games I know. In Skat, the most popular card game in Germany, if you revoke you have lost. Not this trick, not some other trick, you lost, period. Not my kettle of fish either, I like Bridge revoke laws better, but I am also fond of people who play the card they actually intended.... > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Steve > Willner > Verzonden: vrijdag 26 februari 2016 19:33 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] quick check > > On 2016-02-25 3:18 AM, ton wrote: >> I had a simulation ready in Prague (EBL TD course earlier this month) >> where a defender takes a card out of his hand and when the card almost >> reaches the table he discovers that it is not be the card he wanted to >> play. It is a minor card. In my opinion this creates a minor penalty >> card and the player does not have to play it. But this was a too >> revolutionary idea. > What if we change Ton's scenario to say that the defender's card was > accidentally dropped? L45C begins "A defender?s card held so that...," > so this Law doesn't seem to apply because the dropped card wasn't "held." > In this case, I think it's just a mPC as Ton wanted. > > I'm slightly surprised by this conclusion, so I wonder whether it's > correct. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 29 13:46:25 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:46:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NT overcall In-Reply-To: <56CE278E.8090705@ihug.com.au> References: <0de2c1be8bd9d7a1756ba59ea8445044@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <3f64260b315ba20647b2164b93b0c915@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160216155420.F3191B6F05DA@relay1.webreus.nl> <4a7cfaa912bea1235c111db95c27540c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <013001d168d6$b447cef0$1cd76cd0$@t-online.de> <004c01d1695f$1fd09cf0$5f71d6d0$@t-online.de> <000d01d16961$c6158ba0$5240a2e0$@svenpran.net> <56C4E3BE.6010508@nhcc.net> <5153B29436114EC0A98F39DB4FC00659@tosh2> <56C6BCD7.6060309@ihug.com.au> <56CBD822.3060904@nhcc.net> <002001d16e18$eb4122c0$c1c36840$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <9312cf30d82122c3563fd293274c472e@imapproxy .vub.ac.be> <000f01d16f17$874a75f0$95df61d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4431ebb3195d06a630cc1ad0b9d1d61f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <56CE278E.8090705@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: <3c744aae7d3ebb7176a5ab629328f91b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 24.02.2016 22:58, Laurie Kelso a ?crit?: > Prior to deciding between 26A or 26B one must first determine if there > are any lead penalty restrictions at all. > > The first sentence of Law 26 (the one before we get to A or B) says > that > if the replacement call has the same meaning, then we don't need to > apply either. In other words, Law 26 only comes into operation when > the > replacement call has a different meaning to the original call. Right, but "different" might in some case mean "more precise", and in that case at the very least should the penalties be lifted, L25-style. Take for example a Polish 2D (any 55 but minors) replaced by a Michaels which happens to be in the same strength zone. L25 says no problem, the replacement bid's field is a subset of the disallowed bid's. L26 should say the same, but it doesn't, because the criterion is "should have the same meaning", not "shoud include all information from the disallowed bid". I claim that the latter would be better. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 29 13:56:01 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:56:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <56CF3E3D.6010604@nhcc.net> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> <000701d16faa$b9c95d00$2d5c1700$@svenpran.net> <56CECAF7.10507@t-online.de> <000001d16fb7$79f01310$6dd03930$@svenpran.net> <56CF0C46.8000309@t-online.de> <000601d16fe1$da911140$8fb333c0$@svenpran.net> <56CF2E4D.60102@t-online.de> <56CF3240.1000803@nhcc.net> <000801d16fef$caf31450$60d93cf0$@svenpran.net> <56CF3E3D.6010604@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6ea39e98d57497ab674e6f562a04e77c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 25.02.2016 18:47, Steve Willner a ?crit?: > On 2016-02-25 12:13 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> In my opinion a player demonstrates his intention to play a card once >> he starts pulling it from his hand. > Let's invoke grammar. A player demonstrates his intention to play a card once he starts pulling any from his hand. Sometimes it isn't the same one. BTW even that isn't entirely true. There is a sight-impaired player in our club, and often he pulls a card from his hand to see it better. And sometimes I do, too, when playing against him, because the large-numbered cards we use to accomodate him are asymmetric and I'm left-handed. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 29 13:59:45 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:59:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] handicap, rectification In-Reply-To: References: <56CFAAB5.7000002@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: <78345ca991f62b22ebe7c829135135dc@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 27.02.2016 03:32, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:30:29 -0500, David Grabiner > wrote: > >> The opponents at the table could ask to waive the rectification, and >> the >> TD would have cause to do so. > > They didn't. They thought it was fair to play by the rules. I'm in favor of extending the TD's power to waive penalties in circumstances which they judge exceptional, without needing any prompting from the opposing side. After all, he is the pro in that matter. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 29 14:07:42 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:07:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com><000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net><56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com><56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net><001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> Message-ID: Le 27.02.2016 18:30, r pewick a ?crit?: > My view is that the Prague plan encourages foolish behavior Right, but many times has it been said on blml that the biggest chunk of the laws are there mainly to restore equity in the case of accidental errors, not to handle purposely illegal behaviour. Can't this principle be at work here ? It is usually possible to sense that the pulling was unintended. Also, it would seem strange to some, including Yours Truly, that if you unintendedly revoke you can correct your play in time while if you unintendedly play a non-revoke card you can't. Best regards Alain From sven at svenpran.net Mon Feb 29 14:41:20 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:41:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <6ea39e98d57497ab674e6f562a04e77c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> <56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> <000701d16faa$b9c95d00$2d5c1700$@svenpran.net> <56CECAF7.10507@t-online.de> <000001d16fb7$79f01310$6dd03930$@svenpran.net> <56CF0C46.8000309@t-online.de> <000601d16fe1$da911140$8fb333c0$@svenpran.net> <56CF2E4D.60102@t-online.de> <56CF3240.1000803@nhcc.net> <000801d16fef$caf31450$60d93cf0$@svenpran.net> <56CF3E3D.6010604@nhcc.net> <6ea39e98d57497ab674e6f562a04e77c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <000c01d172f6$e1ede2c0$a5c9a840$@svenpran.net> > agot > > On 2016-02-25 12:13 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> In my opinion a player demonstrates his intention to play a card once > >> he starts pulling it from his hand. > > > > Let's invoke grammar. > > A player demonstrates his intention to play a card once he starts pulling any > from his hand. > > Sometimes it isn't the same one. > > BTW even that isn't entirely true. There is a sight-impaired player in our > club, and often he pulls a card from his hand to see it better. And > sometimes I do, too, when playing against him, because the large- > numbered cards we use to accomodate him are asymmetric and I'm left- > handed. > > Best regards > > Alain [Sven Pran] Until the card he started pulling does not become exposed (according to the Laws) his intention is irrelevant. Once it is exposed it is intentionally played unless the Director is convinced that it was exposed by accident. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 29 15:52:56 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:52:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: <000c01d172f6$e1ede2c0$a5c9a840$@svenpran.net> References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net> "\"<56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com> <000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net> <003601d16fa5$190833f0$4b189bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <56CEBDC7.1080500@skynet.be> <000701d16faa$b9c95d00$2d5c1700$@svenpran.net> <56CECAF7.10507@t-online.de> <000001d16fb7$79f01310$6dd03930$@svenpran.net> <56CF0C46.8000309@t-online.de>" <000601d16fe1$da911140$8fb333c0$@svenpran.net>" <56CF2E4D.60102@t-online.de> "\"<56CF3240.1000803@nhcc.net>" <000801d16fef$caf31450$60d93cf0$@svenpran.net>" <56CF3E3D.6010604@nhcc.net> <6ea39e98d57497ab674e6f562a04e77c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <000c01d172f6$e1ede2c0$a5c9a840$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <4fc7aec38ebb57adcf1ab53580b2b480@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 29.02.2016 14:41, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > > [Sven Pran] > Until the card he started pulling does not become exposed (according > to the Laws) his intention is irrelevant. > > Once it is exposed it is intentionally played unless the Director is > convinced that it was exposed by accident. AG : fair enough. (apart perhaps for occasional UI) And, you see ? you didn't mention the opposite side's opinion. Only the Director's conviction is needed, whence he should be empowered to waive penalties in clearcut cases, the opposite side's opinion being irrelevant. BTW, I had to decide a played card case recently, although I don't function as a TD at the moment ; I just happened to be sitting there, playing another match. (don't be shocked ; this often happens in Belgium, where no TDs are appointed for team matches except at the highest level) The main problem was for the players (and no beginners, may I tell you) to state precisely what happened, without any tainted vocabulary. Eventually my conviction was that the card touched the table and that this wasn't the intended card ; according to the present laws I had to make it a played card, but I hated it. Best regards Alain From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 29 21:18:13 2016 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:18:13 -0600 Subject: [BLML] quick check In-Reply-To: References: <56CE6BE1.3070301@nhcc.net><56CEAA17.5000002@googlemail.com><000601d16f9e$38071840$a81548c0$@svenpran.net><56ceb8df.d445620a.92715.2602SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com><56D09A44.5020904@nhcc.net><001501d17159$e3129950$a937cbf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><56D1A19A.9050102@t-online.de> Message-ID: Some years ago I noticed that David Burn claimed that he knew what a defective trick was. I happened to know that he did not, namely because nobody knows what a defective trick is- myself included. And, because it was my nature I claimed he did not. Discourse ensued during which he proved he did not know; and as things go it is very unlikely that we will discourse in the future. The point of the anecdote is that nowhere in the law does it describe or otherwise define exactly what a defective trick is [notably, the law merely speaks to when a defective trick exists]. And, without a concrete definition, no one can recognize a defective trick and tell what basis he knows it is a defective trick. In my view, creating a scheme of crime .....and punishment without describing the crime so that perpetrators can recognize it, and the offended might recognize it, and that the police will recognize it- is a horrid state of affairs. This goes for not only defective tricks, but for a host of ill conceived situations- such as this so-called business of restoring equity. In fact, the closest that the law comes to defining equity is found in L70B-E; and if ever there comes a time that they are applied as written [which by the way they won't, so why put it in the book] there won't be many happy campers. Let me tell you, in the bridge world there are a billion versions of what equity is and it will take 2 billion pages of law book to write them down; and it will take a long, long time to figure out which one to use. It's been pointed out that this restoring equity business is a principle. Yes, it is good to have principles, but it is wise to make sure the principles are good. I see all around me where people notice others breaking the rules and because of this or that technicality they get reduced or no punishment- and then someone comes along that does not break rule X but instead breaks rule Y which is similar to X. And he ruminates therefore rule Y ought to have similar technicalities as X. Well, maybe the technicalities for X were dubious if not totally unfair to begin with. Take the L25A regulations that are so popular where 'pause for thought', rather than beginning within say, a quarter of second from the start of lifting the bidding cards, has been extended to until whenever the player SAYS it begins. That is a license to take more than one action for one turn. Talk about equity; in my opinion it would be a horrible thing if I expressed what I thought about it- and I'll leave it there. regards roger pewick -----Original Message----- From: agot Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:07 AM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] quick check Le 27.02.2016 18:30, r pewick a ?crit : > My view is that the Prague plan encourages foolish behavior Right, but many times has it been said on blml that the biggest chunk of the laws are there mainly to restore equity in the case of accidental errors, not to handle purposely illegal behaviour. Can't this principle be at work here ? It is usually possible to sense that the pulling was unintended. Also, it would seem strange to some, including Yours Truly, that if you unintendedly revoke you can correct your play in time while if you unintendedly play a non-revoke card you can't. Best regards Alain From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Mon Feb 29 22:43:36 2016 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 07:43:36 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Scoring 2 and 3 Fouled Boards Message-ID: Can anyone direct me to learned papers on the above please? I favour 70% 60% 50% to Neuberg for 3 different scores. To me, Neuberg looks over generous/harsh to the Highest/Lowest scores. I would like to read something authorative on the subject. Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160229/f06104d5/attachment.html