From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 03:38:46 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:38:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 26 (Call Withdrawn, Lead Restrictions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford's complaint that the Law 26 "effects are sometimes draconian" has perhaps stimulated the WBF Laws Committee into an ex post facto deletion of Law 26B1. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 5 Jun 2017, at 6:16 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > Certainly it is easier to understand and apply, but it's effects are sometimes draconian. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 5 Jun 2017, at 08:15, Richard Hills wrote: >> >> Law 26 was comprehensively rewritten by the 2017 Drafting Committee. >> >> Outcomes - lead a suit specified by declarer / do not lead a suit (while retaining the lead) specified by declarer - are similar. However, in my opinion, the 2017 Law 26 is much easier for a Director to understand than the recondite wording of the 2007 Law 26. >> >> The 2017 Law 26A (No Lead Restrictions) also contains useful cross-references to the new 2017 Law 23 (Comparable Call). >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> Sent from my iPad >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 03:38:46 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:38:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 26 (Call Withdrawn, Lead Restrictions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford's complaint that the Law 26 "effects are sometimes draconian" has perhaps stimulated the WBF Laws Committee into an ex post facto deletion of Law 26B1. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 5 Jun 2017, at 6:16 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > Certainly it is easier to understand and apply, but it's effects are sometimes draconian. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 5 Jun 2017, at 08:15, Richard Hills wrote: >> >> Law 26 was comprehensively rewritten by the 2017 Drafting Committee. >> >> Outcomes - lead a suit specified by declarer / do not lead a suit (while retaining the lead) specified by declarer - are similar. However, in my opinion, the 2017 Law 26 is much easier for a Director to understand than the recondite wording of the 2007 Law 26. >> >> The 2017 Law 26A (No Lead Restrictions) also contains useful cross-references to the new 2017 Law 23 (Comparable Call). >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> Sent from my iPad >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 gordonr60 at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 12:41:01 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:41:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 26 (Call Withdrawn, Lead Restrictions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <598d89c2.08e61c0a.fe0d5.5095@mx.google.com> I don?t take all credit for this ? there were plenty of other similar views expressed at the EBL TD course in Prague. I welcome that they were listened to and acted on so promptly, even if it means we now have to put stickers in our EBU published law books! Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Richard Hills Sent: 11 August 2017 03:08 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] 2017 Law 26 (Call Withdrawn, Lead Restrictions) Gordon Rainsford's complaint that the Law 26 "effects are sometimes draconian" has perhaps stimulated the WBF Laws Committee into an ex post facto deletion of Law 26B1. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 5 Jun 2017, at 6:16 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > Certainly it is easier to understand and apply, but it's effects are sometimes draconian. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 5 Jun 2017, at 08:15, Richard Hills wrote: >> >> Law 26 was comprehensively rewritten by the 2017 Drafting Committee. >> >> Outcomes - lead a suit specified by declarer / do not lead a suit (while retaining the lead) specified by declarer - are similar. However, in my opinion, the 2017 Law 26 is much easier for a Director to understand than the recondite wording of the 2007 Law 26. >> >> The 2017 Law 26A (No Lead Restrictions) also contains useful cross-references to the new 2017 Law 23 (Comparable Call). >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> Sent from my iPad >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20170811/ea6b3e49/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Aug 11 23:24:16 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 17:24:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 26 (Call Withdrawn, Lead Restrictions) In-Reply-To: <598d89c2.08e61c0a.fe0d5.5095@mx.google.com> References: <598d89c2.08e61c0a.fe0d5.5095@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On 8/11/2017 6:41 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > I welcome that they were listened to and acted on so promptly, even if > it means we now have to put stickers in our EBU published law books! A better change in L26B1 would have been to delete the 'not'. When I saw it, I was convinced it was a simple typo. From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Wed Aug 16 17:36:52 2017 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 17:36:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Two questions Message-ID: <4e56bf9c-38d2-5496-18f4-47f2ea76710b@gmx.de> There has been a discussion (and conflicting opinions) among the experienced TDs in our federation of two points. I'd be interested in the opinion of blml members. 1. Law ?81.C.3: This says basically that the TD should rectify any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware. The question is how strictly this should be applied. Let us take three situations of which the TD becomes aware by coincidence (and, when applicable, have not been noticed by any player at the table). 1. The Td sees a card on the floor. 2. The Td sees the declarer (or other player) lead from the wrong hand. 3. The Td notices a revoke. In the first case there is unanimity; the Td must take action, play is not possible with 51 cards. But there is disagreement in the other two cases. The law seems to say that the Td should act but this seems, at least to some Tds, unfair. If it occurs at more than one table but is only noticed at one by the Td, then it will not be rectified at the other tables and coincidence is the determining factor. (The coincidence of at which table the Td happens to be kibitzing.) A secondary question is, if he acts, when he should do so. 2. During a complicated lizit (bidding sequence) a call is made and the partner does not know if it conventional or natural. It has not been discussed by the pair. No matter what he does (if he alerts or does not alert) it will possibly give UI to his partner who now knows if his bid has been understood in the way he intended it. Should he in such a situation alert or not alert? The basis of the problem is obviously that the bid has not been discussed so it seems reasonable that if UI is given and used and affects the result the pair should be prepared to accept an adjusted score. I'd be interested in the opinions of colleagues in both of these cases. Thanks, JE From tciacio at unit547.org Wed Aug 16 17:54:18 2017 From: tciacio at unit547.org (Tom Ciacio) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 08:54:18 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Two questions In-Reply-To: <4e56bf9c-38d2-5496-18f4-47f2ea76710b@gmx.de> References: <4e56bf9c-38d2-5496-18f4-47f2ea76710b@gmx.de> Message-ID: <006501d316a7$ebd57220$c3805660$@unit547.org> The most recent ACBL policy on #3, that I am aware of, is for the TD to keep quiet during the hand. If the players do not notice before the next hand/round (per 64B 4 and 5), then the TD tells them about it and adjusts for equity if needed. Tom -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 8:37 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Two questions There has been a discussion (and conflicting opinions) among the experienced TDs in our federation of two points. I'd be interested in the opinion of blml members. 1. Law ?81.C.3: This says basically that the TD should rectify any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware. The question is how strictly this should be applied. Let us take three situations of which the TD becomes aware by coincidence (and, when applicable, have not been noticed by any player at the table). 1. The Td sees a card on the floor. 2. The Td sees the declarer (or other player) lead from the wrong hand. 3. The Td notices a revoke. In the first case there is unanimity; the Td must take action, play is not possible with 51 cards. But there is disagreement in the other two cases. The law seems to say that the Td should act but this seems, at least to some Tds, unfair. If it occurs at more than one table but is only noticed at one by the Td, then it will not be rectified at the other tables and coincidence is the determining factor. (The coincidence of at which table the Td happens to be kibitzing.) A secondary question is, if he acts, when he should do so. 2. During a complicated lizit (bidding sequence) a call is made and the partner does not know if it conventional or natural. It has not been discussed by the pair. No matter what he does (if he alerts or does not alert) it will possibly give UI to his partner who now knows if his bid has been understood in the way he intended it. Should he in such a situation alert or not alert? The basis of the problem is obviously that the bid has not been discussed so it seems reasonable that if UI is given and used and affects the result the pair should be prepared to accept an adjusted score. I'd be interested in the opinions of colleagues in both of these cases. Thanks, JE _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Aug 16 18:37:09 2017 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:37:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Two questions In-Reply-To: <4e56bf9c-38d2-5496-18f4-47f2ea76710b@gmx.de> References: <4e56bf9c-38d2-5496-18f4-47f2ea76710b@gmx.de> Message-ID: <878493641.37485776.1502901429353.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Jeff Easterson" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Mercredi 16 Ao?t 2017 17:36:52 > Objet: [BLML] Two questions > There has been a discussion (and conflicting opinions) among the > experienced TDs in our federation of two points. I'd be interested in > the opinion of blml members. > 1. Law ?81.C.3: This says basically that the TD should rectify any > error or irregularity of which he becomes aware. The question is how > strictly this should be applied. Let us take three situations of which > the TD becomes aware by coincidence (and, when applicable, have not been > noticed by any player at the table). > 1. The Td sees a card on the floor. > 2. The Td sees the declarer (or other player) lead from the wrong hand. > 3. The Td notices a revoke. > In the first case there is unanimity; the Td must take action, play is > not possible with 51 cards. agreed > But there is disagreement in the other two > cases. The law seems to say that the Td should act but this seems, at > least to some Tds, unfair. in a game the rules tell what is fair, there are no superior ethical principles > If it occurs at more than one table but is > only noticed at one by the Td, then it will not be rectified at the > other tables and coincidence is the determining factor. (The > coincidence of at which table the Td happens to be kibitzing.) it's not because it's not possible to sanction every infraction that one should not sanction anyone. > A secondary question is, if he acts, when he should do so. in 2. i think he should not act because the next player is entitled to accept the play out of turn, be it deliberately or not in 3. the opponent must be given the opportunity they are also entitled, to wait for the revoke to be established. only afterwards he should act. > 2. During a complicated lizit (bidding sequence) a call is made and the > partner does not know if it conventional or natural. It has not been > discussed by the pair. No matter what he does (if he alerts or does not > alert) it will possibly give UI to his partner who now knows if his bid > has been understood in the way he intended it. Should he in such a > situation alert or not alert? alerts are designed to signal partnership understandings; when there is no PU, ther is no basis for alert and partner will not be surprised that his non-discussed bid is not followed by an alert! jpr > The basis of the problem is obviously that the bid has not been > discussed so it seems reasonable that if UI is given and used and > affects the result the pair should be prepared to accept an adjusted score. > I'd be interested in the opinions of colleagues in both of these cases. > Thanks, JE > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170816/52f52c02/attachment.html From sven at svenpran.net Wed Aug 16 20:42:59 2017 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 20:42:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Two questions In-Reply-To: <4e56bf9c-38d2-5496-18f4-47f2ea76710b@gmx.de> References: <4e56bf9c-38d2-5496-18f4-47f2ea76710b@gmx.de> Message-ID: <001401d316bf$7f3969b0$7dac3d10$@svenpran.net> In your case 1: Situation 1 - the Director should immediately take possession of that card, but he should not take any other action whatsoever until some player raises the alarm that a card is missing. Once he has a board containing only 51 cards he should first of all verify that the card found indeed belongs to that board and that all four hands are correct. He should then proceed with the relevant activity on card(s) missing from a board. Situation 2 - the Director should stand ready to take action if attention is drawn to the irregularity in a proper manner, but else remain silent. Situation 3 - the Director should not take any action whatsoever until the time period specified as available for the players to rectify a revoke has expired. After that period he should apply Law 63C. In your case 2 one must remember that it is never an irregularity when correct procedures result in UI given to partner, but it is an infraction of law if partner uses such UI. Aside from that your case is mainly a matter for local regulations. -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jeff Easterson Sendt: Wednesday, 16 August 2017 17:37 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Two questions There has been a discussion (and conflicting opinions) among the experienced TDs in our federation of two points. I'd be interested in the opinion of blml members. 1. Law ?81.C.3: This says basically that the TD should rectify any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware. The question is how strictly this should be applied. Let us take three situations of which the TD becomes aware by coincidence (and, when applicable, have not been noticed by any player at the table). 1. The Td sees a card on the floor. 2. The Td sees the declarer (or other player) lead from the wrong hand. 3. The Td notices a revoke. In the first case there is unanimity; the Td must take action, play is not possible with 51 cards. But there is disagreement in the other two cases. The law seems to say that the Td should act but this seems, at least to some Tds, unfair. If it occurs at more than one table but is only noticed at one by the Td, then it will not be rectified at the other tables and coincidence is the determining factor. (The coincidence of at which table the Td happens to be kibitzing.) A secondary question is, if he acts, when he should do so. 2. During a complicated lizit (bidding sequence) a call is made and the partner does not know if it conventional or natural. It has not been discussed by the pair. No matter what he does (if he alerts or does not alert) it will possibly give UI to his partner who now knows if his bid has been understood in the way he intended it. Should he in such a situation alert or not alert? The basis of the problem is obviously that the bid has not been discussed so it seems reasonable that if UI is given and used and affects the result the pair should be prepared to accept an adjusted score. I'd be interested in the opinions of colleagues in both of these cases. Thanks, JE _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Aug 31 09:46:49 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 17:46:49 +1000 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor Message-ID: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> " ... must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest - with a herring!" Law 81C3: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the periods established in accordance with Laws 79C and 92B." Jeff Easterson, extract from earlier thread: [snip] 1. Law ?81.C.3: This says basically that the TD should rectify any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware. The question is how strictly this should be applied. Let us take three situations of which the TD becomes aware by coincidence (and, when applicable, have not been noticed by any player at the table). [snip first two questions] 3. The Td notices a revoke. [snip first two answers] The law seems to say that the Td should act but this seems, at least to some Tds, unfair. If it occurs at more than one table but is only noticed at one by the Td, then it will not be rectified at the other tables and coincidence is the determining factor. (The coincidence of at which table the Td happens to be kibitzing.) A secondary question is, if he acts, when he should do so. [snip] Richard Hills: One of the key words in Law 81C3 is "rectify". The Definitions state: "Rectification - the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director's attention." Now in Law 64 (Procedure After Establishment of a Revoke) nowhere in Law 64A is there any mention of rectification or remedy / redress of damage. Rather, Law 64A refers to automatic trick adjustment. Hence the Director's intervention should be delayed until the only applicable clause of Law 64 is Law 64C (Redress of Damage). +=+=+=+=+=+ Law 20F5(a): "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. 'Mistaken explanation' here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require." Richard Hills: Recent controversies mean that I am awaiting whether the Australian High Court will promulgate a "black-letter law" interpretation of section 44 of the Aussie Constitution. Likewise, should there be a black-letter law interpretation of Law 20F5(a)'s "in any manner"? Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad