From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 9 02:46:03 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 20:46:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first Message-ID: I know we talked about it, but was it just hypothetical? Today I got this. Defender asked who was declarer, got a wrong answer, led out of turn, declarer put his hand down as dummy, then the irregularity was noticed and I was called. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Jun 9 03:14:14 2016 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160609/174f0d51/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 10 03:27:17 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 21:27:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:14 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > Law 47E1: > > A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further > rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was > his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this > circumstance. > > Therefore, assuming the wrong answer came from declarer or dummy, declarer > cannot accept this lead by spreading his hand. Declarer picks up his hand, the > correct defender leads, and the defenders can play double-dummy. Declarer picks up his hand? That seems overly kind. Does a retracted OLOOT end the auction period? > > David > > On 6/8/2016 8:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > I know we talked about it, but was it just hypothetical? Today I got this. Defender asked who was declarer, got a wrong answer, led out of turn, declarer put his hand down as dummy, then the irregularity was noticed and I was called. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 10 08:59:39 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:59:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: Am 10.06.2016 um 03:27 schrieb Robert Frick: > On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:14 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > >> Law 47E1: >> >> A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further >> rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was >> his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this >> circumstance. >> >> Therefore, assuming the wrong answer came from declarer or dummy, declarer >> cannot accept this lead by spreading his hand. Declarer picks up his hand, the >> correct defender leads, and the defenders can play double-dummy. > Declarer picks up his hand? That seems overly kind. Does a retracted OLOOT end the auction period? Who cares? A specific law (here 47E1) overrides any general law. "A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this circumstance". So presumed declarer remains declarer since he can`t become dummy. Overly kind? The defenders are going to defend double dummy. If this is kind... If you meant kind to the defenders, well, they are the non-offending side here, having been misinformed about the lead, so why should they have a problem? > > >> David >> From sven at svenpran.net Fri Jun 10 09:39:53 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:39:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: <000301d1c2eb$4ae0e1d0$e0a2a570$@svenpran.net> > Matthias Berghaus > Am 10.06.2016 um 03:27 schrieb Robert Frick: > > On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:14 -0400, David Grabiner > wrote: > > > >> Law 47E1: > >> > >> A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without > >> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an > >> opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not > >> be accepted by his LHO in this circumstance. > >> > >> Therefore, assuming the wrong answer came from declarer or dummy, > >> declarer cannot accept this lead by spreading his hand. Declarer > >> picks up his hand, the correct defender leads, and the defenders can play > double-dummy. > > Declarer picks up his hand? That seems overly kind. Does a retracted OLOOT > end the auction period? > > Who cares? A specific law (here 47E1) overrides any general law. "A lead or play > may not be accepted by his LHO in this circumstance". So presumed declarer > remains declarer since he can`t become dummy. Overly kind? The defenders are > going to defend double dummy. If this is kind... > If you meant kind to the defenders, well, they are the non-offending side here, > having been misinformed about the lead, so why should they have a problem? [Sven Pran] Declarer certainly picks up his hand, so the advantage to defenders depends on how well they noticed and remember declarer's cards. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jun 10 09:40:41 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:40:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: <575A6EF9.9090503@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus schreef: > Am 10.06.2016 um 03:27 schrieb Robert Frick: >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:14 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: >> >>> Law 47E1: >>> >>> A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further >>> rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was >>> his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this >>> circumstance. >>> >>> Therefore, assuming the wrong answer came from declarer or dummy, declarer >>> cannot accept this lead by spreading his hand. Declarer picks up his hand, the >>> correct defender leads, and the defenders can play double-dummy. >> Declarer picks up his hand? That seems overly kind. Does a retracted OLOOT end the auction period? > > Who cares? A specific law (here 47E1) overrides any general law. "A lead > or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this circumstance". So > presumed declarer remains declarer since he can`t become dummy. Overly > kind? The defenders are going to defend double dummy. If this is kind... > If you meant kind to the defenders, well, they are the non-offending > side here, having been misinformed about the lead, so why should they > have a problem? > Well, I can see a problem. Imagine my LH opponent, having just become presumed declarer, says to me "your lead". I know it's my partner's lead, but I say nothing, bang down the first card that comes to hand and wait for him to start putting down dummy, then call director and ask to be allowed to play double dummy. Seems a bit harsh on the innocent small mistake made by my opponent. Herman. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 12:37:14 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 20:37:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <575A6EF9.9090503@skynet.be> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <575A6EF9.9090503@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman's hypothetical: .....Well, I can see a problem. Imagine my LH opponent, having just become presumed declarer, says to me "your lead". I know it's my partner's lead, but I say nothing, bang down the first card that comes to hand and wait for him to start putting down dummy, then call director and ask to be allowed to play double dummy. Seems a bit harsh on the innocent small mistake made by my opponent..... Richard Hills: The key issue is "I know it's my partner's lead". Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." Richard Hills: In this hypothetical scenario Hypothetical Herman is willing to accept the prescribed rectification of defending double-dummy. But that does not excuse Hypothetical Herman from his intentional OLOOT, a "must not" infraction of Law 72B1. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, June 10, 2016, Herman De Wael wrote: > Matthias Berghaus schreef: > > Am 10.06.2016 um 03:27 schrieb Robert Frick: > >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:14 -0400, David Grabiner < > grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu > wrote: > >> > >>> Law 47E1: > >>> > >>> A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further > >>> rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent > that it was > >>> his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his > LHO in this > >>> circumstance. > >>> > >>> Therefore, assuming the wrong answer came from declarer or dummy, > declarer > >>> cannot accept this lead by spreading his hand. Declarer picks up his > hand, the > >>> correct defender leads, and the defenders can play double-dummy. > >> Declarer picks up his hand? That seems overly kind. Does a retracted > OLOOT end the auction period? > > > > Who cares? A specific law (here 47E1) overrides any general law. "A lead > > or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this circumstance". So > > presumed declarer remains declarer since he can`t become dummy. Overly > > kind? The defenders are going to defend double dummy. If this is kind... > > If you meant kind to the defenders, well, they are the non-offending > > side here, having been misinformed about the lead, so why should they > > have a problem? > > > > Well, I can see a problem. Imagine my LH opponent, having just become > presumed declarer, says to me "your lead". I know it's my partner's > lead, but I say nothing, bang down the first card that comes to hand and > wait for him to start putting down dummy, then call director and ask to > be allowed to play double dummy. Seems a bit harsh on the innocent small > mistake made by my opponent. > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160610/bb29e0b6/attachment.html From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Fri Jun 10 12:44:06 2016 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (a.witzen) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:44:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first Message-ID: <6ja34yf66o53au7jamn5ay4b.1465555446071@email.android.com> ThaT is the reason why everybody should leave their biddingcards on the table until the first lead is made.This should be in the biddingbox regulations....Reagards anton Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet.A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- Van: Richard Hills Datum: 10-06-2016 12:37 (GMT+01:00) Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first Herman's hypothetical: .....Well, I can see a problem. Imagine my LH opponent, having just become presumed declarer, says to me "your lead". I know it's my partner's lead, but I say nothing, bang down the first card that comes to hand and wait for him to start putting down dummy, then call director and ask to be allowed to play double dummy. Seems a bit harsh on the innocent small mistake made by my opponent..... Richard Hills: The key issue is "I know it's my partner's lead". Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." Richard Hills: In this hypothetical scenario Hypothetical Herman is willing to accept the prescribed rectification of defending double-dummy. But that does not excuse Hypothetical Herman from his intentional OLOOT, a "must not" infraction of Law 72B1. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, June 10, 2016, Herman De Wael wrote: Matthias Berghaus schreef: > Am 10.06.2016 um 03:27 schrieb Robert Frick: >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:14 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: >> >>> Law 47E1: >>> >>> A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further >>> rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was >>> his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this >>> circumstance. >>> >>> Therefore, assuming the wrong answer came from declarer or dummy, declarer >>> cannot accept this lead by spreading his hand. Declarer picks up his hand, the >>> correct defender leads, and the defenders can play double-dummy. >> Declarer picks up his hand? That seems overly kind. Does a retracted OLOOT end the auction period? > > Who cares? A specific law (here 47E1) overrides any general law. "A lead > or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this circumstance". So > presumed declarer remains declarer since he can`t become dummy. Overly > kind? The defenders are going to defend double dummy. If this is kind... > If you meant kind to the defenders, well, they are the non-offending > side here, having been misinformed about the lead, so why should they > have a problem? > Well, I can see a problem. Imagine my LH opponent, having just become presumed declarer, says to me "your lead". I know it's my partner's lead, but I say nothing, bang down the first card that comes to hand and wait for him to start putting down dummy, then call director and ask to be allowed to play double dummy. Seems a bit harsh on the innocent small mistake made by my opponent. Herman. _______________________________________________ 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/20160610/7dada097/attachment-0001.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 10 13:01:09 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:01:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <575A6EF9.9090503@skynet.be> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <575A6EF9.9090503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <12c6c8fd-d56a-6c92-569a-d877d25153ff@t-online.de> Am 10.06.2016 um 09:40 schrieb Herman De Wael: > Well, I can see a problem. So can I, but other problems... > Imagine my LH opponent, having just become > presumed declarer, says to me "your lead". I know it's my partner's > lead, but I say nothing, bang down the first card that comes to hand and > wait for him to start putting down dummy, then call director and ask to > be allowed to play double dummy. Let us put aside, for the sake of the argument, that probably one of the two others would object strongly. Let us say the mass suggestion works and the others believe my LHO. Still, I know better. So I would have to ignore - on purpose, with malice aforethought, so to speak - the fact that it is _not_ , in fact, my lead, _then_ call the TD and try to sell him that just after making my "lead" I realized that it was not my lead after all. Sure. Got any bridges to sell? Herman, if someone is willing to ignore facts, laws, you name it, then we have a problem, as we would with any other cheat. The laws are (as you know full well) not designed primarily to handle cheaters, but to take care of inadvertant things. Imagine my LHO, having just become presumed declarer, says to me "your lead". He has no stop in a suit of your choice, but partner may, and he does not want a lead through that presumed holding. Now this is no better than what "your" cheat did, but if the law would let him accept the lead (after first lying about whose lead it is...) he would be far more likely to get away with it, since - if no one objects to his statement - no TD would show up at the table. And even if he did, what now? If we change 47E1, then the play period has begun, so partner`s holding _is_ protected, and the TD would be hard pressed to find a law that let`s him give another score. I would like to keep 47E1 as it is.... > Seems a bit harsh on the innocent small > mistake made by my opponent. Mistakes come in different sizes? And that "mistake " may well not be so innocent.... I find it just harsh enough to protect people from the ploy I described above. I would prefer drawing and quartering, but could settle for having the defenders play double dummy. Best regards Matthias > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 13:19:10 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 21:19:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <6ja34yf66o53au7jamn5ay4b.1465555446071@email.android.com> References: <6ja34yf66o53au7jamn5ay4b.1465555446071@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Friday, June 10, 2016, a.witzen wrote: > ThaT is the reason why everybody should leave their biddingcards on the > table until the first lead is made. > This should be in the biddingbox regulations.... > Reagards anton > Footnote to Law 20D: When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is clear to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. On Friday, June 10, 2016, a.witzen wrote: > ThaT is the reason why everybody should leave their biddingcards on the > table until the first lead is made. > This should be in the biddingbox regulations.... > Reagards anton > > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > Van: Richard Hills > > Datum: 10-06-2016 12:37 (GMT+01:00) > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first > > Herman's hypothetical: > > .....Well, I can see a problem. Imagine my LH opponent, having just become > presumed declarer, says to me "your lead". I know it's my partner's > lead, but I say nothing, bang down the first card that comes to hand and > wait for him to start putting down dummy, then call director and ask to > be allowed to play double dummy. Seems a bit harsh on the innocent small > mistake made by my opponent..... > > Richard Hills: > > The key issue is "I know it's my partner's lead". > > Law 72B1: > > "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is > prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." > > Richard Hills: > > In this hypothetical scenario Hypothetical Herman is willing to accept the > prescribed rectification of defending double-dummy. But that does not > excuse Hypothetical Herman from his intentional OLOOT, a "must not" > infraction of Law 72B1. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Friday, June 10, 2016, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Matthias Berghaus schreef: >> > Am 10.06.2016 um 03:27 schrieb Robert Frick: >> >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:14 -0400, David Grabiner < >> grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Law 47E1: >> >>> >> >>> A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without >> further >> >>> rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent >> that it was >> >>> his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his >> LHO in this >> >>> circumstance. >> >>> >> >>> Therefore, assuming the wrong answer came from declarer or dummy, >> declarer >> >>> cannot accept this lead by spreading his hand. Declarer picks up his >> hand, the >> >>> correct defender leads, and the defenders can play double-dummy. >> >> Declarer picks up his hand? That seems overly kind. Does a retracted >> OLOOT end the auction period? >> > >> > Who cares? A specific law (here 47E1) overrides any general law. "A lead >> > or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this circumstance". So >> > presumed declarer remains declarer since he can`t become dummy. Overly >> > kind? The defenders are going to defend double dummy. If this is kind... >> > If you meant kind to the defenders, well, they are the non-offending >> > side here, having been misinformed about the lead, so why should they >> > have a problem? >> > >> >> Well, I can see a problem. Imagine my LH opponent, having just become >> presumed declarer, says to me "your lead". I know it's my partner's >> lead, but I say nothing, bang down the first card that comes to hand and >> wait for him to start putting down dummy, then call director and ask to >> be allowed to play double dummy. Seems a bit harsh on the innocent small >> mistake made by my opponent. >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20160610/6ddacb41/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jun 10 14:51:48 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:51:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <12c6c8fd-d56a-6c92-569a-d877d25153ff@t-online.de> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <575A6EF9.9090503@skynet.be> <12c6c8fd-d56a-6c92-569a-d877d25153ff@t-online.de> Message-ID: <575AB7E4.4070605@skynet.be> Good example, Matthias, and I agree that it is better to keep the law as it is. Herman. Matthias Berghaus schreef: > Am 10.06.2016 um 09:40 schrieb Herman De Wael: >> Well, I can see a problem. > > So can I, but other problems... > >> Imagine my LH opponent, having just become >> presumed declarer, says to me "your lead". I know it's my partner's >> lead, but I say nothing, bang down the first card that comes to hand and >> wait for him to start putting down dummy, then call director and ask to >> be allowed to play double dummy. > > Let us put aside, for the sake of the argument, that probably one of the > two others would object strongly. Let us say the mass suggestion works > and the others believe my LHO. Still, I know better. So I would have to > ignore - on purpose, with malice aforethought, so to speak - the fact > that it is _not_ , in fact, my lead, _then_ call the TD and try to sell > him that just after making my "lead" I realized that it was not my lead > after all. Sure. Got any bridges to sell? Herman, if someone is willing > to ignore facts, laws, you name it, then we have a problem, as we would > with any other cheat. The laws are (as you know full well) not designed > primarily to handle cheaters, but to take care of inadvertant things. > > Imagine my LHO, having just become presumed declarer, says to me "your > lead". He has no stop in a suit of your choice, but partner may, and he > does not want a lead through that presumed holding. Now this is no > better than what "your" cheat did, but if the law would let him accept > the lead (after first lying about whose lead it is...) he would be far > more likely to get away with it, since - if no one objects to his > statement - no TD would show up at the table. And even if he did, what > now? If we change 47E1, then the play period has begun, so partner`s > holding _is_ protected, and the TD would be hard pressed to find a law > that let`s him give another score. > > I would like to keep 47E1 as it is.... > >> Seems a bit harsh on the innocent small >> mistake made by my opponent. > > Mistakes come in different sizes? And that "mistake " may well not be so > innocent.... I find it just harsh enough to protect people from the ploy > I described above. I would prefer drawing and quartering, but could > settle for having the defenders play double dummy. > > Best regards > Matthias > >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 10 21:03:34 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:03:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <000301d1c2eb$4ae0e1d0$e0a2a570$@svenpran.net> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <000301d1c2eb$4ae0e1d0$e0a2a570$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:39:53 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Matthias Berghaus >> Am 10.06.2016 um 03:27 schrieb Robert Frick: >> > On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:14 -0400, David Grabiner >> wrote: >> > >> >> Law 47E1: >> >> >> >> A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without >> >> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an >> >> opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not >> >> be accepted by his LHO in this circumstance. >> >> >> >> Therefore, assuming the wrong answer came from declarer or dummy, >> >> declarer cannot accept this lead by spreading his hand. Declarer >> >> picks up his hand, the correct defender leads, and the defenders can > play >> double-dummy. >> > Declarer picks up his hand? That seems overly kind. Does a retracted > OLOOT >> end the auction period? >> >> Who cares? A specific law (here 47E1) overrides any general law. "A lead > or play >> may not be accepted by his LHO in this circumstance". So presumed declarer >> remains declarer since he can`t become dummy. Overly kind? The defenders > are >> going to defend double dummy. If this is kind... >> If you meant kind to the defenders, well, they are the non-offending side > here, >> having been misinformed about the lead, so why should they have a problem? > > [Sven Pran] > Declarer certainly picks up his hand, so the advantage to defenders depends > on how well they noticed and remember declarer's cards. You may be right, but you usually mention a law. Here all you have to say is that an opening lead out of turn ends the auction period. And cite the law. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jun 10 21:30:14 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:30:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <000301d1c2eb$4ae0e1d0$e0a2a570$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <51997c1e-2853-e1c4-1dd1-9d645fa21265@nhcc.net> Hijacking the thread here with a related question. South is presumed declarer. East puts a card face down and asks, "My lead?" North or South says "yes." East turns his card face up. TD is called. L47E1 says East's card is retracted "without further rectification." But is the card AI or UI to West? What about to South? From sven at svenpran.net Fri Jun 10 21:46:19 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 21:46:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <51997c1e-2853-e1c4-1dd1-9d645fa21265@nhcc.net> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <000301d1c2eb$4ae0e1d0$e0a2a570$@svenpran.net> <51997c1e-2853-e1c4-1dd1-9d645fa21265@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002401d1c350$c4ed48a0$4ec7d9e0$@svenpran.net> Steve Willner > Hijacking the thread here with a related question. > > South is presumed declarer. East puts a card face down and asks, "My lead?" > North or South says "yes." East turns his card face up. TD is called. > > L47E1 says East's card is retracted "without further rectification." > But is the card AI or UI to West? What about to South? [Sven Pran] Law 16D applies with the offending side being the side that gave incorrect information, not the side that committed an irregularity because of this incorrect information. So information from the withdrawn card is AI to East and West, and UI to North and South From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 10 23:16:00 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 23:16:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <51997c1e-2853-e1c4-1dd1-9d645fa21265@nhcc.net> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <000301d1c2eb$4ae0e1d0$e0a2a570$@svenpran.net> <51997c1e-2853-e1c4-1dd1-9d645fa21265@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <8769033f-3e5b-64ba-3db0-d9ede4f9aa07@t-online.de> AI to West, UI to South Am 10.06.2016 um 21:30 schrieb Steve Willner: > Hijacking the thread here with a related question. > > South is presumed declarer. East puts a card face down and asks, "My > lead?" North or South says "yes." East turns his card face up. TD is > called. > > L47E1 says East's card is retracted "without further rectification." > But is the card AI or UI to West? What about to South? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Fri Jun 10 23:20:31 2016 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (a.witzen) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 23:20:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first Message-ID: Sure, ai for ew, ui for ns . Ns are offending side. Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet.A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- Van: Steve Willner Datum: 10-06-2016 21:30 (GMT+01:00) Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first Hijacking the thread here with a related question. South is presumed declarer.? East puts a card face down and asks, "My lead?"? North or South says "yes."? East turns his card face up.? TD is called. L47E1 says East's card is retracted "without further rectification." But is the card AI or UI to West?? What about to South? _______________________________________________ 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/20160610/74dfb9ec/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 11 04:02:51 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 22:02:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <51997c1e-2853-e1c4-1dd1-9d645fa21265@nhcc.net> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <000301d1c2eb$4ae0e1d0$e0a2a570$@svenpran.net> <51997c1e-2853-e1c4-1dd1-9d645fa21265@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:30:14 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > Hijacking the thread here with a related question. > > South is presumed declarer. East puts a card face down and asks, "My > lead?" North or South says "yes." East turns his card face up. TD is > called. > > L47E1 says East's card is retracted "without further rectification." > But is the card AI or UI to West? What about to South? What good does it do to make it UI if there is no further rectification? From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jun 11 20:43:30 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 14:43:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <002401d1c350$c4ed48a0$4ec7d9e0$@svenpran.net> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <000301d1c2eb$4ae0e1d0$e0a2a570$@svenpran.net> <51997c1e-2853-e1c4-1dd1-9d645fa21265@nhcc.net> <002401d1c350$c4ed48a0$4ec7d9e0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On 2016-06-10 3:46 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > So information from the withdrawn card is AI to East and West, and UI to > North and South Several others answered the same, and it's what I would have thought. My problem is I can't find text to justify it. The NS incorrect answer about whose lead it was _ought_ to be an infraction, but I don't see which Law it violates. In contrast, there are specific Laws (21B, 47E2) dealing with incorrect information about partnership understandings. I'm happy, though, with a general principle that when the Laws give someone the right to ask a question, giving an incorrect answer is an infraction. Does "without further rectification" mean the LOOT wasn't an infraction at all? More generally, why doesn't "without further rectification" apply to both sides? From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Jun 11 21:00:09 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 21:00:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <000301d1c2eb$4ae0e1d0$e0a2a570$@svenpran.net> <51997c1e-2853-e1c4-1dd1-9d645fa21265@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <3234963f-0069-7bde-1dc8-7f01ad72db18@t-online.de> Am 11.06.2016 um 04:02 schrieb Robert Frick: > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:30:14 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > >> Hijacking the thread here with a related question. >> >> South is presumed declarer. East puts a card face down and asks, "My >> lead?" North or South says "yes." East turns his card face up. TD is >> called. >> >> L47E1 says East's card is retracted "without further rectification." >> But is the card AI or UI to West? What about to South? > What good does it do to make it UI if there is no further rectification? The _card_ is retracted without rectification. That does not say that will be no rectification for things that have not happened yet. You don`t expect revokes to be without rectification in this deal, do you? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Jun 11 21:06:49 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 21:06:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <000301d1c2eb$4ae0e1d0$e0a2a570$@svenpran.net> <51997c1e-2853-e1c4-1dd1-9d645fa21265@nhcc.net> <002401d1c350$c4ed48a0$4ec7d9e0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <9c03a405-694a-90c9-af5c-02936871589e@t-online.de> If, in similar cases, a card is retracted, (which means that either it was a revoke, or something happened which made the TD allow the player in question to retract it) it is always AI to the non-offenders, and UI to the offenders. For example, in the case of a non-established revoke, the retracted card is UI to the revoking side, and AI to the other side, as it is information gleaned from an action of the opps. On a general basis, if my opps do something without my side having caused any of it I may use any information I can gather. Am 11.06.2016 um 20:43 schrieb Steve Willner: > On 2016-06-10 3:46 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> So information from the withdrawn card is AI to East and West, and UI to >> North and South > Several others answered the same, and it's what I would have thought. > My problem is I can't find text to justify it. > > The NS incorrect answer about whose lead it was _ought_ to be an > infraction, but I don't see which Law it violates. In contrast, there > are specific Laws (21B, 47E2) dealing with incorrect information about > partnership understandings. I'm happy, though, with a general principle > that when the Laws give someone the right to ask a question, giving an > incorrect answer is an infraction. > > Does "without further rectification" mean the LOOT wasn't an infraction > at all? More generally, why doesn't "without further rectification" > apply to both sides? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jun 11 21:11:37 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 15:11:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <9c03a405-694a-90c9-af5c-02936871589e@t-online.de> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <000301d1c2eb$4ae0e1d0$e0a2a570$@svenpran.net> <51997c1e-2853-e1c4-1dd1-9d645fa21265@nhcc.net> <002401d1c350$c4ed48a0$4ec7d9e0$@svenpran.net> <9c03a405-694a-90c9-af5c-02936871589e@t-online.de> Message-ID: On 2016-06-11 3:06 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > If, in similar cases, a card is retracted, (which means that either it > was a revoke, or something happened which made the TD allow the player > in question to retract it) it is always AI to the non-offenders, and UI > to the offenders. As stated in L16D. Which would seem to imply that the card would be UI to West, East being the offender for the LOOT. If "without further rectification" cancels that, why doesn't it also cancel any UI implications for South? You see why I'm having trouble with this? What everyone thinks ought to happen doesn't seem to agree with the written text. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Jun 11 21:40:11 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 21:40:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <000301d1c2eb$4ae0e1d0$e0a2a570$@svenpran.net> <51997c1e-2853-e1c4-1dd1-9d645fa21265@nhcc.net> <002401d1c350$c4ed48a0$4ec7d9e0$@svenpran.net> <9c03a405-694a-90c9-af5c-02936871589e@t-online.de> Message-ID: Am 11.06.2016 um 21:11 schrieb Steve Willner: > On 2016-06-11 3:06 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> If, in similar cases, a card is retracted, (which means that either it >> was a revoke, or something happened which made the TD allow the player >> in question to retract it) it is always AI to the non-offenders, and UI >> to the offenders. > As stated in L16D. Which would seem to imply that the card would be UI > to West, East being the offender for the LOOT. If "without further > rectification" cancels that, why doesn't it also cancel any UI > implications for South? Well, if N/S did something wrong in order to have that card retracted etc, then N/S are the offenders.... > > You see why I'm having trouble with this? What everyone thinks ought to > happen doesn't seem to agree with the written text. I understand that quite well, yes, but have to admit that - on a warm June evening at half past 10 pm with a good wine by my side - I am too lazy to look it up... I am sure I could find it tomorrrow, but am going to play a tournament, so if nobody found it till Monday I promise to search for it. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jun 12 17:59:36 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 11:59:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <000301d1c2eb$4ae0e1d0$e0a2a570$@svenpran.net> <51997c1e-2853-e1c4-1dd1-9d645fa21265@nhcc.net> <002401d1c350$c4ed48a0$4ec7d9e0$@svenpran.net> <9c03a405-694a-90c9-af5c-02936871589e@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 15:40:11 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 11.06.2016 um 21:11 schrieb Steve Willner: >> On 2016-06-11 3:06 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> If, in similar cases, a card is retracted, (which means that either it >>> was a revoke, or something happened which made the TD allow the player >>> in question to retract it) it is always AI to the non-offenders, and UI >>> to the offenders. >> As stated in L16D. Which would seem to imply that the card would be UI >> to West, East being the offender for the LOOT. If "without further >> rectification" cancels that, why doesn't it also cancel any UI >> implications for South? > > Well, if N/S did something wrong in order to have that card retracted > etc, then N/S are the offenders.... > >> >> You see why I'm having trouble with this? What everyone thinks ought to >> happen doesn't seem to agree with the written text. > > I understand that quite well, yes, but have to admit that - on a warm > June evening at half past 10 pm with a good wine by my side - I am too > lazy to look it up... I am sure I could find it tomorrrow, but am going > to play a tournament, so if nobody found it till Monday I promise to > search for it. Richard suggested, I think, that a player cannot intentionally lead out of turn after being given the wrong information, because a player cannot intentionally commit an infraction. But that implies the OLOOT is an infraction. And now you are saying that it isn't an infraction? Can you deal with that issue too? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jun 12 18:07:47 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 12:07:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: This law has no deadline for when the OLOOT can be retracted. Did you want to construct one? Not one hour after the game, right? Really, no deadline. Is anyone going to blindly follow this law where it leads? I don't think so. Really, construct a deadline. The question then is how far you will follow the law. The lawmakers probably didn't think about declarer putting down hand as dummy. Assuming no intentional lawbreaking, the only remotely equitable deadline is before declarer puts down his hand. And that probably matches the lawmakers' intentions. There are other places in the laws where rights change after director is called (or probably an irregularity is noted.) Such as whether a player can make or retract a call over a mispull. The support in BLML for making declarer pick up his cards and remain declarer has assumed that declarer is trying to cheat and yet contradictorily that defenders are impeccably ethical. That's illogical. On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:14 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > Law 47E1: > > A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further > rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was > his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this > circumstance. > > Therefore, assuming the wrong answer came from declarer or dummy, declarer > cannot accept this lead by spreading his hand. Declarer picks up his hand, the > correct defender leads, and the defenders can play double-dummy. > > David > > On 6/8/2016 8:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > I know we talked about it, but was it just hypothetical? Today I got this. Defender asked who was declarer, got a wrong answer, led out of turn, declarer put his hand down as dummy, then the irregularity was noticed and I was called. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jun 12 21:28:21 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 15:28:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: On 2016-06-12 12:07 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > There are other places in the laws where rights change after > director is called L9B1c says otherwise. > (or probably an irregularity is noted.) I'm not sure what you mean here. > Such as whether a player can make or retract a call over a mispull. If you mean that calling the TD "stops all action," that's in L9B2. Any player (except dummy) has the right to do that any time. If that happens to prevent a subsequent irregularity, so be it, but no player ever has a "right" to commit an irregularity. As a practical matter, players may commit irregularities any time -- and villains may do so intentionally -- but the Laws (and L23 in particular for villains) are supposed to protect the NOS. If there are cases the Laws fail, they should be amended. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jun 13 11:23:05 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:23:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> Am 12.06.2016 um 18:07 schrieb Robert Frick: > This law has no deadline for when the OLOOT can be retracted. Did you want to construct one? Not one hour after the game, right? If you should happen to read L47 in it`s entirety, you would find 2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent?s call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card. (b) When it is too late to correct a play under (a) the Director may award an adjusted score. So, if a card would have been played from "dummy" (which, per E1 may not _be_ dummy_) the lead can no longer be retracted, but the Director may (and should, if offenders gained) award an adjusted score. So, nobody needs to construct a deadline, there already is one.... > > Really, no deadline. Is anyone going to blindly follow this law where it leads? I don't think so. Well, where does it lead? It is spelled out, not even in fine print, but clearly readable for anyone caring to look for it. > > Really, construct a deadline. Really, no, there is one. > > The question then is how far you will follow the law. The lawmakers probably didn't think about declarer putting down hand as dummy. Assuming no intentional lawbreaking, the only remotely equitable deadline is before declarer puts down his hand. And that probably matches the lawmakers' intentions. One can`t fail to perceive the intention when one reads the complete law. It is all there, in plain sight. > > There are other places in the laws where rights change after director is called (or probably an irregularity is noted.) Would you care to mention an example? The one below is invalid, as no player has the right to "correct" a card or a call without the TD, ever. > Such as whether a player can make or retract a call over a mispull. > > The support in BLML for making declarer pick up his cards and remain declarer has assumed that declarer is trying to cheat and yet contradictorily that defenders are impeccably ethical. That's illogical. My "assumption" is that the law is clear, for whatever reason. Since the task of writing the 2017 laws is in progress, feel free to contact the WBFLC and explain to them why the law should be changed. If you wait too long, there will (probably) be another ten year wait. > > > > On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:14 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > >> Law 47E1: >> >> A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further >> rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was >> his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this >> circumstance. >> >> Therefore, assuming the wrong answer came from declarer or dummy, declarer >> cannot accept this lead by spreading his hand. Declarer picks up his hand, the >> correct defender leads, and the defenders can play double-dummy. >> >> David >> >> On 6/8/2016 8:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> I know we talked about it, but was it just hypothetical? Today I got this. Defender asked who was declarer, got a wrong answer, led out of turn, declarer put his hand down as dummy, then the irregularity was noticed and I was called. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 13 16:58:23 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 10:58:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:23:05 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> >> There are other places in the laws where rights change after director is called (or probably an irregularity is noted.) > > Would you care to mention an example? The one below is invalid, as no > player has the right to "correct" a card or a call without the TD, ever. Maybe that's not as obvious as I thought. A player makes a mispull, LHO calls, and then the director is called. The mispull is corrected. Can LHO change his call? Without rectification? A player makes a mispull. The director is called. LHO then makes a call. Law 9 applies? If LHO doesn't have the right to call now, did LHO have the right to call before? You are on lead against 3NT with 6 running diamond tricks. Your partner revokes, not following suit. Your best strategy is to play as quickly as possible to the next trick. Same, except director is called and explains the options. You can still lead to the next trick? Or do you lose that right? From sven at svenpran.net Mon Jun 13 19:03:26 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:03:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001601d1c595$83c0e1b0$8b42a510$@svenpran.net> > Robert Frick > Maybe that's not as obvious as I thought. A player makes a mispull, LHO calls, > and then the director is called. The mispull is corrected. Can LHO change his call? > Without rectification? [Sven Pran] Assuming that "mispull" refers to a call and not to a play the answer is "Yes, LHO may change his call without rectification". > A player makes a mispull. The director is called. LHO then makes a call. Law 9 > applies? If LHO doesn't have the right to call now, did LHO have the right to call > before? [Sven Pran] "before" what? > You are on lead against 3NT with 6 running diamond tricks. Your partner revokes, > not following suit. Your best strategy is to play as quickly as possible to the next > trick. [Sven Pran] How can establishing the revoke be a better strategy than avoiding it to become established? Law 64C will eventually be applied resulting in a final result that will certainly be less favourable than had the revoke not been established (instead resulting in a penalty card). I of course assume that the Director knows his job. > Same, except director is called and explains the options. You can still lead to the > next trick? Or do you lose that right? [Sven Pran] You will still have the lead to the next trick but declarer will have three options when instructing you on which denomination to lead. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jun 13 20:00:10 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:00:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> Message-ID: Am 13.06.2016 um 16:58 schrieb Robert Frick: > On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:23:05 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > >>> There are other places in the laws where rights change after director is called (or probably an irregularity is noted.) >> Would you care to mention an example? The one below is invalid, as no >> player has the right to "correct" a card or a call without the TD, ever. > Maybe that's not as obvious as I thought. A player makes a mispull, LHO calls, and then the director is called. The mispull is corrected. Can LHO change his call? Without rectification? The rights did not change. A player just has to call the TD to have them enacted, even if that player knows the law(s). And "without rectification" depends on where you sit. For the mispulling any retracted call by their opps would be UI, for the other side AI, but there are no other consequences if the UI is not acted upon. > > A player makes a mispull. The director is called. LHO then makes a call. Law 9 applies? Sure, but if you are going to argue by way of L9B1c, may I draw your attention to L9B2? > If LHO doesn't have the right to call now, did LHO have the right to call before? His right to call is temporarily suspended, as described in9B2. > > > > You are on lead against 3NT with 6 running diamond tricks. Your partner revokes, not following suit. Your best strategy is to play as quickly as possible to the next trick. This is double-edged at best, as it establishes the revoke. If you want to hide partner`s revoke, my suggestion is to go to a barber next morning, as I would not want to look at myself in a mirror, so shaving could get hazardous. Furthermore, such conduct would be in breach of L73D1 , 74 A3 and 74C7, to name only the most obvious ones. > > Same, except director is called and explains the options. You can still lead to the next trick? Or do you lose that right? If your diamonds are running you have won the previous trick, so as soon as the TD leaves, or instructs the table to continue, it is your turn. If pard has a penalty card you may be prohibited from leading another diamond winner, instead having to lead a [insert suit of partner`s penalty card here] if you own one, but it will still be your turn to play. If you win a trick, you _have_ to lead to the next one. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 15 12:39:43 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:39:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:00:10 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 13.06.2016 um 16:58 schrieb Robert Frick: >> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:23:05 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> >> >>>> There are other places in the laws where rights change after director is called (or probably an irregularity is noted.) >>> Would you care to mention an example? The one below is invalid, as no >>> player has the right to "correct" a card or a call without the TD, ever. >> Maybe that's not as obvious as I thought. A player makes a mispull, LHO calls, and then the director is called. The mispull is corrected. Can LHO change his call? Without rectification? > > The rights did not change. A player just has to call the TD to have them > enacted, even if that player knows the law(s). And "without > rectification" depends on where you sit. For the mispulling any > retracted call by their opps would be UI, for the other side AI, but > there are no other consequences if the UI is not acted upon. Okay, let me get this straight. You go to the table, a player claims a mispull, and you offer LHO the opportunity to make and then retract a call, with the call being UI to the mispulling side? That is really incredible. I mean that literally. > >> >> A player makes a mispull. The director is called. LHO then makes a call. Law 9 applies? > > Sure, but if you are going to argue by way of L9B1c, may I draw your > attention to L9B2? > >> If LHO doesn't have the right to call now, did LHO have the right to call before? > > His right to call is temporarily suspended, as described in9B2. > >> >> >> >> You are on lead against 3NT with 6 running diamond tricks. Your partner revokes, not following suit. Your best strategy is to play as quickly as possible to the next trick. > > This is double-edged at best, as it establishes the revoke. If you want > to hide partner`s revoke, my suggestion is to go to a barber next > morning, as I would not want to look at myself in a mirror, so shaving > could get hazardous. Furthermore, such conduct would be in breach of > L73D1 , 74 A3 and 74C7, to name only the most obvious ones. Those laws are irrelevant. As in, don't have anything to do with things. Okay, I will change the example. A player realizes his partner has revoked. He clearly has the right to play and esttablish that revoke. According to you, the play must be in tempo. Okay, THE PLAY IS IN TEMPO. Instead, the director is called to the table after the trick is completed, but before anyone has played to the next trick. You let the player lead to the next trick, establishing the revoke? Really? If you say yes, I will think you did not understand the question. Really, you would? Law 9B1(c) would be on your side. You could actually follow the rules and let the player lead to the next trick to establish the revoke. > >> >> Same, except director is called and explains the options. You can still lead to the next trick? Or do you lose that right? > > If your diamonds are running you have won the previous trick, so as soon > as the TD leaves, or instructs the table to continue, it is your turn. > If pard has a penalty card you may be prohibited from leading another > diamond winner, instead having to lead a [insert suit of partner`s > penalty card here] if you own one, but it will still be your turn to > play. If you win a trick, you _have_ to lead to the next one. > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 15 12:42:48 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:42:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:23:05 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 12.06.2016 um 18:07 schrieb Robert Frick: >> This law has no deadline for when the OLOOT can be retracted. Did you want to construct one? Not one hour after the game, right? > > If you should happen to read L47 in it`s entirety, you would find > > 2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a > mistaken explanation of an opponent?s call or play and before a > corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no > card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be > retracted after dummy has faced any card. > (b) When it is too late to correct a play under (a) the Director may > award an adjusted score. > > So, if a card would have been played from "dummy" (which, per E1 may not > _be_ dummy_) the lead can no longer be retracted, but the Director may > (and should, if offenders gained) award an adjusted score. So, nobody > needs to construct a deadline, there already is one.... Um, we are taking about L47 E1. You are quoting L47 E2. That applies, I think to "mistaken explanation of an opponent's call or play". We are talking about when the player was "mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to play." > >> >> Really, no deadline. Is anyone going to blindly follow this law where it leads? I don't think so. > > Well, where does it lead? It is spelled out, not even in fine print, but > clearly readable for anyone caring to look for it. > >> >> Really, construct a deadline. > > Really, no, there is one. > >> >> The question then is how far you will follow the law. The lawmakers probably didn't think about declarer putting down hand as dummy. Assuming no intentional lawbreaking, the only remotely equitable deadline is before declarer puts down his hand. And that probably matches the lawmakers' intentions. > > One can`t fail to perceive the intention when one reads the complete > law. It is all there, in plain sight. > >> >> There are other places in the laws where rights change after director is called (or probably an irregularity is noted.) > > Would you care to mention an example? The one below is invalid, as no > player has the right to "correct" a card or a call without the TD, ever. > >> Such as whether a player can make or retract a call over a mispull. >> >> The support in BLML for making declarer pick up his cards and remain declarer has assumed that declarer is trying to cheat and yet contradictorily that defenders are impeccably ethical. That's illogical. > > My "assumption" is that the law is clear, for whatever reason. Since the > task of writing the 2017 laws is in progress, feel free to contact the > WBFLC and explain to them why the law should be changed. If you wait too > long, there will (probably) be another ten year wait. > >> >> >> >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:14 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: >> >>> Law 47E1: >>> >>> A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further >>> rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was >>> his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this >>> circumstance. >>> >>> Therefore, assuming the wrong answer came from declarer or dummy, declarer >>> cannot accept this lead by spreading his hand. Declarer picks up his hand, the >>> correct defender leads, and the defenders can play double-dummy. >>> >>> David >>> >>> On 6/8/2016 8:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>> I know we talked about it, but was it just hypothetical? Today I got this. Defender asked who was declarer, got a wrong answer, led out of turn, declarer put his hand down as dummy, then the irregularity was noticed and I was called. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jun 15 13:54:31 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:54:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> Message-ID: <5e19d32e-944f-bca4-7651-d511de436162@t-online.de> Am 15.06.2016 um 12:39 schrieb Robert Frick: > On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:00:10 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> Am 13.06.2016 um 16:58 schrieb Robert Frick: >>> >>> Maybe that's not as obvious as I thought. A player makes a mispull, LHO calls, and then the director is called. The mispull is corrected. Can LHO change his call? Without rectification? >> The rights did not change. A player just has to call the TD to have them >> enacted, even if that player knows the law(s). And "without >> rectification" depends on where you sit. For the mispulling any >> retracted call by their opps would be UI, for the other side AI, but >> there are no other consequences if the UI is not acted upon. > Okay, let me get this straight. You go to the table, a player claims a mispull, and you offer LHO the opportunity to make and then retract a call, with the call being UI to the mispulling side? > > That is really incredible. I mean that literally. Say, can`t you read or something? L25 says 25D4: If a substitution is allowed the LHO may withdraw any call he made over the first call. Information from the withdrawn call is authorized only to his side. There is no further rectification. From where do you get the notion that I (or any TD who read the laws) would let offender`s LHO make a call over the "new" call, then substitute it ? A call by non-offender can obviously only be retracted and substituted by another if there has been a call over the first call. I did not say I would do otherwise, anywhere. Not in this thread, not in any other. What I find absolutely incredible is that someone has the gall to try and turn my words in my mouth, or my keyboard, as it were. > > You are on lead against 3NT with 6 running diamond tricks. Your partner revokes, not following suit. Your best strategy is to play as quickly as possible to the next trick. >> This is double-edged at best, as it establishes the revoke. If you want >> to hide partner`s revoke, my suggestion is to go to a barber next >> morning, as I would not want to look at myself in a mirror, so shaving >> could get hazardous. Furthermore, such conduct would be in breach of >> L73D1 , 74 A3 and 74C7, to name only the most obvious ones. > > Those laws are irrelevant. As in, don't have anything to do with things. > > Okay, I will change the example. A player realizes his partner has revoked. He clearly has the right to play and esttablish that revoke. According to you, the play must be in tempo. Okay, THE PLAY IS IN TEMPO. According to me, the play should be in an even tempo, like any other play. The laws do not use "must" here (the strongest "demand"), and neither do I. Since Bridge is played by humans, not machines, some plays are out of tempo. That happens, and it is a breach of the laws only if it is on purpose. If you had read 73D1 you would have found It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner.However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. Clear enough, hm? And don`t shout at me, thank you. > > Instead, the director is called to the table after the trick is completed, but before anyone has played to the next trick. > > You let the player lead to the next trick, establishing the revoke? Really? If you say yes, I will think you did not understand the question. Really, you would? Law 9B1(c) would be on your side. You could actually follow the rules and let the player lead to the next trick to establish the revoke. So I am at the table. Why is that so? If someone tells me that player X did not follow suit, then that play has to be corrected, and other cards by the non-offenders (and, under certain conditions, of the offending side) could possibly be retracted and substituted by another if the non-offender(s) so choose(s). This is L62, plain and simple. If no one tells me about that non-established revoke (instead having called for some other reason) why in the world would I not let the player on lead continue? Am I a clairvoyant or something? If I know about the revoke (from the players at the table) there are things to be done, and in that case L9 would certainly _not_ be on my side, since L62 has to be followed. So, no, I could not follow the rules to let them establish the revoke if a player at the table has drawn attention to the fact that there has been a revoke, since following L62 comes first. There even has been a case a couple of years ago where a player summoned the TD (because he had noticed - in time - that he revoked), and his partner led to the next trick before the TD could arrive. Non-established revoke, since the TD call was deemed to stop any "action" at the table. Still, if the TD should become aware - say from observing the play, or whatever - that a player did not follow suit, he has to wait until 64B4 or 5 kicks in, or until a player from the table summons him, before acting. This means letting the revoke become established if need be, yes, because the non-offenders have certain rights (like noticing and having tricks transferred if the law says so) and the TD has to be careful not to act to the advantage of one side or the other. If 64B4/5 kicks in, the TD may award an adjusted score per 64C if the offenders profited from the infraction. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jun 15 13:58:52 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:58:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> Message-ID: <434cfbab-fe41-7628-900d-48e690493d55@t-online.de> Am 15.06.2016 um 12:42 schrieb Robert Frick: > On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:23:05 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> Am 12.06.2016 um 18:07 schrieb Robert Frick: >>> This law has no deadline for when the OLOOT can be retracted. Did you want to construct one? Not one hour after the game, right? >> If you should happen to read L47 in it`s entirety, you would find >> >> 2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a >> mistaken explanation of an opponent?s call or play and before a >> corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no >> card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be >> retracted after dummy has faced any card. >> (b) When it is too late to correct a play under (a) the Director may >> award an adjusted score. >> >> So, if a card would have been played from "dummy" (which, per E1 may not >> _be_ dummy_) the lead can no longer be retracted, but the Director may >> (and should, if offenders gained) award an adjusted score. So, nobody >> needs to construct a deadline, there already is one.... > > Um, we are taking about L47 E1. You are quoting L47 E2. That applies, I think to "mistaken explanation of an opponent's call or play". We are talking about when the player was "mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to play." Heading of L47E E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation If you lead OOT after opp told you to, wouldn`t you say that it was a "play based on misinformation"? From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 15 17:13:03 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:13:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> Message-ID: <9f236a46-5a9b-c5ec-cd40-abbea4423cdf@nhcc.net> On 2016-06-13 10:58 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > A player makes a mispull, LHO calls, and then the director is > called.The mispull is corrected. Can LHO change his call? Without > rectification? L25A4 applies, as Robert knows. The only further rectification is any consequence of LHO's call being UI to the opening side. > A player makes a mispull. The director is called. LHO then makes a > call. Law 9 applies? L9B1a and 9B2 apply, and everything should have stopped when the Director was called. LHO's call subsequent to that was an infraction that will have to be rectified. I suppose the Director would treat LHO's attempted call as an extraneous remark or action, UI to that side, AI to the other. > If LHO doesn't have the right to call now, did > LHO have the right to call before? The event that terminated LHO's right to call was attention being drawn to the mispull, nothing to do with the summoning or arrival of the Director. > You are on lead against 3NT with 6 running diamond tricks. Your > partner revokes, not following suit. Your best strategy is to play as > quickly as possible to the next trick. This was confusing, so let's make it more specific. East, defending 3NT, has six diamond tricks ready to run. South, declarer, leads a heart. East wins his ace while West discards a spade, revoking. If: a) the revoke is noticed and corrected, West will have a major penalty card. Declarer can require a spade lead from East and, let's say, win the rest for making six. Or b) the revoke is not noticed, East will cash his diamonds, establishing the revoke. East takes seven tricks and gives one back at the end for down two. Sven suggested L64C might apply to scenario b), but I don't see how. What might apply, though, is L72B1 plus L23. If _West_ "could have been aware" that failing to correct his revoke in time would be advantageous, the score should be adjusted to the result of a). > Same, except director is called and explains the options. You can > still lead to the next trick? Or do you lose that right? Here we are in scenario a) unless West denies revoking. What's different is not that the Director was called, it's that someone drew attention to or asked about the possible revoke. After that, L12A1 applies: failing to admit a revoke when asked is an irregularity. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 15 19:27:11 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:27:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <9f236a46-5a9b-c5ec-cd40-abbea4423cdf@nhcc.net> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> <9f236a46-5a9b-c5ec-cd40-abbea4423cdf@nhcc.net> Message-ID: QED Two situations where what a player can do after an irregularity changes once the irregularity is noted. If I understand, you are saying that remarking on the irregularity cancels the players rights, not calling the director. So no inconsistency with 9A3. I think that's all that was needed. On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:13:03 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2016-06-13 10:58 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> A player makes a mispull, LHO calls, and then the director is >> called.The mispull is corrected. Can LHO change his call? Without > > rectification? > > L25A4 applies, as Robert knows. The only further rectification is any > consequence of LHO's call being UI to the opening side. > >> A player makes a mispull. The director is called. LHO then makes a >> call. Law 9 applies? > > L9B1a and 9B2 apply, and everything should have stopped when the > Director was called. LHO's call subsequent to that was an infraction > that will have to be rectified. I suppose the Director would treat > LHO's attempted call as an extraneous remark or action, UI to that side, > AI to the other. > >> If LHO doesn't have the right to call now, did >> LHO have the right to call before? > > The event that terminated LHO's right to call was attention being drawn > to the mispull, nothing to do with the summoning or arrival of the Director. > >> You are on lead against 3NT with 6 running diamond tricks. Your >> partner revokes, not following suit. Your best strategy is to play as >> quickly as possible to the next trick. > > This was confusing, so let's make it more specific. East, defending > 3NT, has six diamond tricks ready to run. South, declarer, leads a > heart. East wins his ace while West discards a spade, revoking. If: > a) the revoke is noticed and corrected, West will have a major penalty > card. Declarer can require a spade lead from East and, let's say, win > the rest for making six. Or > b) the revoke is not noticed, East will cash his diamonds, establishing > the revoke. East takes seven tricks and gives one back at the end for > down two. > > Sven suggested L64C might apply to scenario b), but I don't see how. > What might apply, though, is L72B1 plus L23. If _West_ "could have been > aware" that failing to correct his revoke in time would be advantageous, > the score should be adjusted to the result of a). > >> Same, except director is called and explains the options. You can >> still lead to the next trick? Or do you lose that right? > > Here we are in scenario a) unless West denies revoking. What's > different is not that the Director was called, it's that someone drew > attention to or asked about the possible revoke. After that, L12A1 > applies: failing to admit a revoke when asked is an irregularity. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 15 20:18:15 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:18:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> <9f236a46-5a9b-c5ec-cd40-abbea4423cdf@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2e835ca9-7b11-a77b-ce14-5fbd9bc3f041@nhcc.net> On 2016-06-15 1:27 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Two situations where what a player can do after an irregularity > changes once the irregularity is noted. I'd think that's true of all irregularities. If attention is called, everything stops until the Director is called and ruled. (That's what the Laws say, though we all know the practical reality may differ.) If nobody draws attention to the irregularity, play may proceed (and the unlucky Director may have a far worse problem to untangle later). From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 15 20:46:59 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:46:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: <2e835ca9-7b11-a77b-ce14-5fbd9bc3f041@nhcc.net> References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> <9f236a46-5a9b-c5ec-cd40-abbea4423cdf@nhcc.net> <2e835ca9-7b11-a77b-ce14-5fbd9bc3f041@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:18:15 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2016-06-15 1:27 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Two situations where what a player can do after an irregularity >> changes once the irregularity is noted. > > I'd think that's true of all irregularities. No. If my RHO makes an insufficient bid, I may accept it by calling. Once the irregularity is noted, I still have the right to accept it and make a call. Same thing for every lead out of turn (except we are discussing the case of an OLOOT based on being told it was his/her lead by declaring side). If attention is called, > everything stops until the Director is called and ruled. (That's what > the Laws say, though we all know the practical reality may differ.) If > nobody draws attention to the irregularity, play may proceed (and the > unlucky Director may have a far worse problem to untangle later). > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From sven at svenpran.net Wed Jun 15 21:24:37 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:24:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT, asked first In-Reply-To: References: <54fd8440-14a8-0d69-f8b7-51612de61909@alumni.princeton.edu> <52e0006a-a396-8b82-9ffd-b8b89cfb9454@t-online.de> <9f236a46-5a9b-c5ec-cd40-abbea4423cdf@nhcc.net> <2e835ca9-7b11-a77b-ce14-5fbd9bc3f041@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001d1c73b$90f1ab10$b2d50130$@svenpran.net> > Robert Frick > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:18:15 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: [...] > > I'd think that's true of all irregularities. > > > No. If my RHO makes an insufficient bid, I may accept it by calling. Once the > irregularity is noted, I still have the right to accept it and make a call. [Sven Pran] No, you no longer have the right to accept the insufficient bid, you irrevocably have accepted it and the call you made stands. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 07:30:44 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:30:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Marmalade Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: None You, North, hold: S --- H T9765 D AKQT8654 C --- What call do you make? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160616/d9d132a9/attachment-0001.html From sven at svenpran.net Thu Jun 16 08:04:29 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:04:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Marmalade In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601d1c794$f44784b0$dcd68e10$@svenpran.net> 3NT Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 16. juni 2016 07:31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Marmalade Imps Dlr: North Vul: None You, North, hold: S --- H T9765 D AKQT8654 C --- What call do you make? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160616/7f440f43/attachment.html From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Thu Jun 16 10:37:51 2016 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (a.witzen) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:37:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Marmalade Message-ID: Me too, or is that too easy?RegardsAnton Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet.A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- Van: Sven Pran Datum: 16-06-2016 08:04 (GMT+01:00) Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Marmalade 3NT?Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 16. juni 2016 07:31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Marmalade?ImpsDlr: NorthVul: None?You, North, hold:?S?---H?T9765D?AKQT8654C?---?What call do you make? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160616/b200f3dd/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jun 16 13:31:20 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:31:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Marmalade In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57628E08.20504@skynet.be> I don't like 3NT - I don't have 9 tricks and communication with partner is not going to be easy. It's too much of a gamble. I would bid 2Cl (weak diamonds or strong) and then either pass (showing the weak hand - he's going to make that!) or to whatever level (showing nine tricks - I almost got those) if the opponents intervene. But without this system, I have no clue. Possibly a strong diamond after all, but it can create the same problem if partner raises based on his black aces. Herman. a.witzen schreef: > Me too, or is that too easy? > Regards > Anton > > > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > Van: Sven Pran > Datum: 16-06-2016 08:04 (GMT+01:00) > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Marmalade > > 3NT > > *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > av* Richard Hills > *Sendt:* 16. juni 2016 07:31 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* [BLML] Marmalade > > Imps > > Dlr: North > > Vul: None > > You, North, hold: > > S --- > > H T9765 > > D AKQT8654 > > C --- > > What call do you make? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Thu Jun 16 14:14:23 2016 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (Anton Witzen) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:14:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Marmalade In-Reply-To: <57628E08.20504@skynet.be> References: <57628E08.20504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001d1c7c8$9ec089e0$dc419da0$@upcmail.nl> A bigger problem is perhaps that you miss 6 or 7H if your partner holds AKJxx(x) of hearts and nothing else. Perhaps a hand for the hideous Hog Regards anton Anton Witzen (a.k.a. ????) Boniplein 86 1094 SG Amsterdam -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: donderdag 16 juni 2016 13:31 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Marmalade I don't like 3NT - I don't have 9 tricks and communication with partner is not going to be easy. It's too much of a gamble. I would bid 2Cl (weak diamonds or strong) and then either pass (showing the weak hand - he's going to make that!) or to whatever level (showing nine tricks - I almost got those) if the opponents intervene. But without this system, I have no clue. Possibly a strong diamond after all, but it can create the same problem if partner raises based on his black aces. Herman. a.witzen schreef: > Me too, or is that too easy? > Regards > Anton > > > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > Van: Sven Pran > Datum: 16-06-2016 08:04 (GMT+01:00) > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Marmalade > > 3NT > > *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > av* Richard Hills > *Sendt:* 16. juni 2016 07:31 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* [BLML] Marmalade > > Imps > > Dlr: North > > Vul: None > > You, North, hold: > > S --- > > H T9765 > > D AKQT8654 > > C --- > > What call do you make? > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Jun 16 16:11:36 2016 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:11:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Marmalade References: Message-ID: <315656BD652A413D930C3FF4631B5EF7@digitpc> Pass often works well. ----- Original Message ----- From: a.witzen To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Marmalade Me too, or is that too easy? Regards Anton Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- Van: Sven Pran Datum: 16-06-2016 08:04 (GMT+01:00) Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Marmalade 3NT Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 16. juni 2016 07:31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Marmalade Imps Dlr: North Vul: None You, North, hold: S --- H T9765 D AKQT8654 C --- What call do you make? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20160616/e1f7efa1/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 17:15:44 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 01:15:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Marmalade In-Reply-To: <000001d1c7c8$9ec089e0$dc419da0$@upcmail.nl> References: <57628E08.20504@skynet.be> <000001d1c7c8$9ec089e0$dc419da0$@upcmail.nl> Message-ID: Anton Witzen: "A bigger problem is perhaps you miss 6 or 7H....." Richard Hills: Yes, I have the old-fashioned policy to eschew a pre-empt when holding an outside four-card major, as too frequently you pre-empt your own side out of a cold major game. And here you have an outside five-card major with two voids, making a heart slam plausible. Larry: "Pass often works well." Richard Hills: Bingo! Yes, I as North elected to pass. LHO passed, pard opened 1H, RHO passed. Now I jumped to 6H, all pass. In principle I had misbid, as 7H was cold. However none of the other North-Souths in this Butler pairs reached slam, with most declaring 3NT or 5D. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, June 16, 2016, Anton Witzen wrote: > A bigger problem is perhaps that you miss 6 or 7H if your partner holds > AKJxx(x) of hearts and nothing else. > Perhaps a hand for the hideous Hog > Regards > anton > > Anton Witzen (a.k.a. ????) > Boniplein 86 > 1094 SG Amsterdam > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: donderdag 16 juni 2016 13:31 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Marmalade > > I don't like 3NT - I don't have 9 tricks and communication with partner is > not going to be easy. It's too much of a gamble. > I would bid 2Cl (weak diamonds or strong) and then either pass (showing > the weak hand - he's going to make that!) or to whatever level (showing > nine tricks - I almost got those) if the opponents intervene. > But without this system, I have no clue. Possibly a strong diamond after > all, but it can create the same problem if partner raises based on his > black aces. > Herman. > > a.witzen schreef: > > Me too, or is that too easy? > > Regards > > Anton > > > > > > > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. > > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam > > > > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > > Van: Sven Pran > > Datum: 16-06-2016 08:04 (GMT+01:00) > > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Marmalade > > > > 3NT > > > > *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > > av* Richard Hills > > *Sendt:* 16. juni 2016 07:31 > > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > > *Emne:* [BLML] Marmalade > > > > Imps > > > > Dlr: North > > > > Vul: None > > > > You, North, hold: > > > > S --- > > > > H T9765 > > > > D AKQT8654 > > > > C --- > > > > What call do you make? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160616/2acca402/attachment-0001.html From sven at svenpran.net Thu Jun 16 17:28:48 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:28:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Marmalade In-Reply-To: References: <57628E08.20504@skynet.be> <000001d1c7c8$9ec089e0$dc419da0$@upcmail.nl> Message-ID: <001e01d1c7e3$c9de55b0$5d9b0110$@svenpran.net> I must admit that I overlooked the hearts suit to be 5 (minor) cards. Upgrade the hand to satisfy the opening bid of 1H (yes!!!) and then insist on a diamond contract if partner doesn?t accept hearts. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 16. juni 2016 17:16 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Marmalade Anton Witzen: "A bigger problem is perhaps you miss 6 or 7H....." Richard Hills: Yes, I have the old-fashioned policy to eschew a pre-empt when holding an outside four-card major, as too frequently you pre-empt your own side out of a cold major game. And here you have an outside five-card major with two voids, making a heart slam plausible. Larry: "Pass often works well." Richard Hills: Bingo! Yes, I as North elected to pass. LHO passed, pard opened 1H, RHO passed. Now I jumped to 6H, all pass. In principle I had misbid, as 7H was cold. However none of the other North-Souths in this Butler pairs reached slam, with most declaring 3NT or 5D. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, June 16, 2016, Anton Witzen < a.witzen at upcmail.nl> wrote: A bigger problem is perhaps that you miss 6 or 7H if your partner holds AKJxx(x) of hearts and nothing else. Perhaps a hand for the hideous Hog Regards anton Anton Witzen (a.k.a. ????) Boniplein 86 1094 SG Amsterdam -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [ mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: donderdag 16 juni 2016 13:31 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Marmalade I don't like 3NT - I don't have 9 tricks and communication with partner is not going to be easy. It's too much of a gamble. I would bid 2Cl (weak diamonds or strong) and then either pass (showing the weak hand - he's going to make that!) or to whatever level (showing nine tricks - I almost got those) if the opponents intervene. But without this system, I have no clue. Possibly a strong diamond after all, but it can create the same problem if partner raises based on his black aces. Herman. a.witzen schreef: > Me too, or is that too easy? > Regards > Anton > > > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > Van: Sven Pran > Datum: 16-06-2016 08:04 (GMT+01:00) > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Marmalade > > 3NT > > *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > av* Richard Hills > *Sendt:* 16. juni 2016 07:31 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* [BLML] Marmalade > > Imps > > Dlr: North > > Vul: None > > You, North, hold: > > S --- > > H T9765 > > D AKQT8654 > > C --- > > What call do you make? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160616/1c564156/attachment.html From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Thu Jun 16 17:52:59 2016 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (Anton Witzen) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:52:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Marmalade In-Reply-To: References: <57628E08.20504@skynet.be> <000001d1c7c8$9ec089e0$dc419da0$@upcmail.nl> Message-ID: <000001d1c7e7$287ba660$7972f320$@upcmail.nl> Then is is also 7D I presumeJ Then a pass of S is very lazy perhaps? Regards anton Anton Witzen (a.k.a. ????) Boniplein 86 1094 SG Amsterdam From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hills Sent: donderdag 16 juni 2016 17:16 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Marmalade Anton Witzen: "A bigger problem is perhaps you miss 6 or 7H....." Richard Hills: Yes, I have the old-fashioned policy to eschew a pre-empt when holding an outside four-card major, as too frequently you pre-empt your own side out of a cold major game. And here you have an outside five-card major with two voids, making a heart slam plausible. Larry: "Pass often works well." Richard Hills: Bingo! Yes, I as North elected to pass. LHO passed, pard opened 1H, RHO passed. Now I jumped to 6H, all pass. In principle I had misbid, as 7H was cold. However none of the other North-Souths in this Butler pairs reached slam, with most declaring 3NT or 5D. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, June 16, 2016, Anton Witzen < a.witzen at upcmail.nl> wrote: A bigger problem is perhaps that you miss 6 or 7H if your partner holds AKJxx(x) of hearts and nothing else. Perhaps a hand for the hideous Hog Regards anton Anton Witzen (a.k.a. ????) Boniplein 86 1094 SG Amsterdam -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: donderdag 16 juni 2016 13:31 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Marmalade I don't like 3NT - I don't have 9 tricks and communication with partner is not going to be easy. It's too much of a gamble. I would bid 2Cl (weak diamonds or strong) and then either pass (showing the weak hand - he's going to make that!) or to whatever level (showing nine tricks - I almost got those) if the opponents intervene. But without this system, I have no clue. Possibly a strong diamond after all, but it can create the same problem if partner raises based on his black aces. Herman. a.witzen schreef: > Me too, or is that too easy? > Regards > Anton > > > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > Van: Sven Pran > Datum: 16-06-2016 08:04 (GMT+01:00) > Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Marmalade > > 3NT > > *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > av* Richard Hills > *Sendt:* 16. juni 2016 07:31 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* [BLML] Marmalade > > Imps > > Dlr: North > > Vul: None > > You, North, hold: > > S --- > > H T9765 > > D AKQT8654 > > C --- > > What call do you make? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160616/70c57c4e/attachment-0001.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 17 08:36:37 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:36:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Marmalade In-Reply-To: <001e01d1c7e3$c9de55b0$5d9b0110$@svenpran.net> References: <57628E08.20504@skynet.be> <000001d1c7c8$9ec089e0$dc419da0$@upcmail.nl> <001e01d1c7e3$c9de55b0$5d9b0110$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <8ddad2ef-0d1f-47f8-b08b-d0911fdcc078@t-online.de> Am 16.06.2016 um 17:28 schrieb Sven Pran: > > I must admit that I overlooked the hearts suit to be 5 (minor) cards. > > Upgrade the hand to satisfy the opening bid of 1H (yes!!!) > No!!!! A player in my club once said that when he found out that 65432,-,AKQJxxxxx,-, is a 1S opening, the rest of the game became simple.... I do not agree. > and then insist on a diamond contract if partner doesn?t accept hearts. > From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Jun 17 12:13:38 2016 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:13:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Director Call - Rights lost? In-Reply-To: <000601d1c794$f44784b0$dcd68e10$@svenpran.net> References: <000601d1c794$f44784b0$dcd68e10$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: In the previous OLOT thread it was asked whether rights could be lost following a Director call. I offer the following for your consideration:- The auction goes 1C 1N P P 2S P ? After he had called 1C, but before the 1N overcall, opener calls for the Director. After a discussion away from the table, the Director rules at the table, that under L25 the 1C bid may not be changed. Has his partner now lost his ?right? to Pass the 2S bid with say equal length in Clubs and Spades? ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160617/b7259146/attachment.html From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 17 12:28:27 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:28:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Director Call - Rights lost? In-Reply-To: References: <000601d1c794$f44784b0$dcd68e10$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: Am 17.06.2016 um 12:13 schrieb David: > In the previous OLOT thread it was asked whether rights could be lost > following a Director call. > I offer the following for your consideration:- > The auction goes > 1C 1N P P > 2S P ? > After he had called 1C, but before the 1N overcall, opener calls for > the Director. > After a discussion away from the table, the Director rules at the > table, that under L25 the 1C bid may not be changed. Bad idea.... she should have given his ruling away from the table, the rest of the players should not find out why the TD was called in the first place. > Has his partner now lost his ?right? to Pass the 2S bid with say equal > length in Clubs and Spades? Of course not, no one can stop him from passing. _That_ may lead to an adjusted score, if the TD rules that UI was used, but your scenario looks like a split score because of Director`s error to me.... If the TD had done his/her job, no UI would have been there. > ********************************** > david.j.barton at lineone.net > ********************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml