From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 5 12:02:30 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:02:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand Message-ID: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> A real case from Belgium's competition: QJT98753 643 5 8 it gets better: you're non-vul against vul, third in hand, and the bidding starts : pass - pass over to you. Herman. From vitoldbr at yandex.ru Tue Dec 5 11:57:47 2017 From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru (vitoldbr) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:57:47 +0400 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> References: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1369339508.20171205145747@yandex.ru> Hi all:) I'll bid 5spades:))) Best regards, Vitold HDW> A real case from Belgium's competition: HDW> QJT98753 HDW> 643 HDW> 5 HDW> 8 HDW> it gets better: HDW> you're non-vul against vul, third in hand, HDW> and the bidding starts : HDW> pass - pass HDW> over to you. HDW> Herman. HDW> _______________________________________________ HDW> Blml mailing list HDW> Blml at rtflb.org HDW> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Best regards, vitoldbr mailto:vitoldbr at yandex.ru From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Tue Dec 5 13:16:09 2017 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (Anton Witzen) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 13:16:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> References: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> Message-ID: <60c00bdb-6c60-41d3-a41b-26e061c392f6@upcmail.nl> From a 1th div player: 4 spades Regards anton ?from mobile Verzonden door Blue ? Op 5 dec. 2017 12:30, om 12:30, Herman De Wael schreef: >A real case from Belgium's competition: > >QJT98753 >643 >5 >8 > >it gets better: >you're non-vul against vul, third in hand, >and the bidding starts : > >pass - pass > >over to you. > >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/20171205/55f03087/attachment.html From gordonr60 at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 13:26:40 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:26:40 +0000 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> References: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5a269080.130d1c0a.a93e3.2a47@mx.google.com> Since my name is not Herman, I won?t open the ?obvious? 1H but will instead go for the obscure 4S bid. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Herman De Wael Sent: 05 December 2017 12:02 To: blml Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand A real case from Belgium's competition: QJT98753 643 5 8 it gets better: you're non-vul against vul, third in hand, and the bidding starts : pass - pass over to you. 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/20171205/936f8ba3/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 5 15:47:07 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:47:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <5a269080.130d1c0a.a93e3.2a47@mx.google.com> References: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> <5a269080.130d1c0a.a93e3.2a47@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <73875383-f1d6-4b86-d4d6-3ed5d7e54cd1@skynet.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > Since my name is not Herman, I won?t open the ?obvious? 1H but will > instead go for the obscure 4S bid. > I must admit that I would have thought abut 1H, indeed. But sadly it was not me. What do you think about opening 1Sp? Would you consider that a 'weak opening at the one-level' and thus not permitted (at this level)? The 'rule of 18' is no longer of application in Belgian system regulations. Herman. > > > A real case from Belgium's competition: > > > > QJT98753 > 643 > 5 > 8 > > > > it gets better: > > you're non-vul against vul, third in hand, > > and the bidding starts : > > > > pass - pass > From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Dec 5 15:49:24 2017 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:49:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> References: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> Message-ID: <74f23fde-d79d-40a4-607d-5b9cd17cec6b@vwalther.de> First Idea: 4 spades. Second one: 5 may be a better choice. From an intermediate player. Am 05.12.2017 um 12:02 schrieb Herman De Wael: > A real case from Belgium's competition: > > QJT98753 > 643 > 5 > 8 > > it gets better: > you're non-vul against vul, third in hand, > and the bidding starts : > > pass - pass > > over to you. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Dec 5 15:59:51 2017 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 09:59:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <73875383-f1d6-4b86-d4d6-3ed5d7e54cd1@skynet.be> References: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> <5a269080.130d1c0a.a93e3.2a47@mx.google.com> <73875383-f1d6-4b86-d4d6-3ed5d7e54cd1@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > I must admit that I would have thought abut 1H, indeed. > But sadly it was not me. > > What do you think about opening 1Sp? > Would you consider that a 'weak opening at the one-level' and thus not > permitted (at this level)? > The 'rule of 18' is no longer of application in Belgian system regulations. > > > > QJT98753 > > 643 > > 5 > > 8 > > > > > > > > it gets better: > > > > you're non-vul against vul, third in hand, > > > > and the bidding starts : > > > > > > > > pass - pass > Opening either 1H or 1S is a psyche, as it is a gross distortion of strength. Therefore,either one is legal but is subject to whatever rules apply to psyches. I don't know the rules in Belgium, but in the ACBL, the rule would be that you cannot have an agreement on psyches, and the director will rule against you if you may have fielded the psyche (for example, responder fails to double the final contract when it should go down if opener has a real bid). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171205/0cbb2240/attachment.html From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Tue Dec 5 16:31:09 2017 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (Anton Witzen) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 16:31:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <74f23fde-d79d-40a4-607d-5b9cd17cec6b@vwalther.de> References: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> <74f23fde-d79d-40a4-607d-5b9cd17cec6b@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <2640496f-0f75-4702-abb2-3f35dadeffce@upcmail.nl> That does not help against a cold 6h. Then 6 spades looks better. Perhaps it is a cold 7??? Regards anton ?from mobile Verzonden door Blue ? Op 5 dec. 2017 16:20, om 16:20, Volker Walther schreef: >First Idea: 4 spades. Second one: 5 may be a better choice. From an >intermediate player. > >Am 05.12.2017 um 12:02 schrieb Herman De Wael: >> A real case from Belgium's competition: >> >> QJT98753 >> 643 >> 5 >> 8 >> >> it gets better: >> you're non-vul against vul, third in hand, >> and the bidding starts : >> >> pass - pass >> >> over to you. >> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > >-- >Volker Walther >_______________________________________________ >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/20171205/c38cc098/attachment.html From vip at centrum.is Tue Dec 5 16:33:25 2017 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:33:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> References: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1078613957.6447883.1512488005065.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> 1 NT ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Herman De Wael" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: ?ri?judagur, 5. Desember, 2017 11:02:30 Efni: [BLML] An incredible hand A real case from Belgium's competition: QJT98753 643 5 8 it gets better: you're non-vul against vul, third in hand, and the bidding starts : pass - pass over to you. Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 5 17:31:47 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:31:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: References: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> <5a269080.130d1c0a.a93e3.2a47@mx.google.com> <73875383-f1d6-4b86-d4d6-3ed5d7e54cd1@skynet.be> Message-ID: David Grabiner wrote: > > > > Opening either 1H or 1S is a psyche, as it is a gross distortion of > strength. Therefore,either one is legal but is subject to whatever > rules apply to psyches. I don't know the rules in Belgium, but in the > ACBL, the rule would be that you cannot have an agreement on psyches, > and the director will rule against you if you may have fielded the > psyche (for example, responder fails to double the final contract when > it should go down if opener has a real bid). > A real bid? What is more natural than, "I am certain of making six tricks in this suit, so I'm willing to risk bidding one". Herman. From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Dec 5 21:42:51 2017 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 21:42:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <73875383-f1d6-4b86-d4d6-3ed5d7e54cd1@skynet.be> References: <0d8a53f1-44df-7b93-b726-3c874dab466c@skynet.be> <5a269080.130d1c0a.a93e3.2a47@mx.google.com> <73875383-f1d6-4b86-d4d6-3ed5d7e54cd1@skynet.be> Message-ID: I would consider this a weak hand. But if it is forbidden to open on the one level with a weak hand, there has to be a regulation, where the line between weak and normal hands is drawn. It is the job of the Regulating Authority do decide these things. What do you have instead of the 'rule of 18'? Nothing? Nulla poena sine lege! Volker Am 05.12.2017 um 15:47 schrieb Herman De Wael: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> Since my name is not Herman, I won?t open the ?obvious? 1H but will >> instead go for the obscure 4S bid. >> > > I must admit that I would have thought abut 1H, indeed. > But sadly it was not me. > > What do you think about opening 1Sp? > Would you consider that a 'weak opening at the one-level' and thus not > permitted (at this level)? > The 'rule of 18' is no longer of application in Belgian system regulations. > > Herman. > >> >> >> A real case from Belgium's competition: >> >> >> >> QJT98753 >> 643 >> 5 >> 8 >> >> >> >> it gets better: >> >> you're non-vul against vul, third in hand, >> >> and the bidding starts : >> >> >> >> pass - pass >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Wed Dec 6 12:32:03 2017 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 12:32:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >David Grabiner wrote: >> >>Opening either 1H or 1S is a psyche, as it is a gross distortion of >>strength. Therefore,either one is legal but is subject to whatever >>rules apply to psyches. I don't know the rules in Belgium, but in the >>ACBL, the rule would be that you cannot have an agreement on psyches, >>and the director will rule against you if you may have fielded the >>psyche (for example, responder fails to double the final contract when >>it should go down if opener has a real bid). > >A real bid? What is more natural than, "I am certain of making six >tricks in this suit, so I'm willing to risk bidding one". > >Herman. Right. Bidding 1S is not a gross distortion of what you expect from this hand. If that'is illegal in Belgium the local rules are in conflict with the Laws. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Dec 6 15:34:11 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:34:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <20171206113210.05EB8B6F0ACC@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <20171206113210.05EB8B6F0ACC@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4c277fff-d45b-9179-40c2-26265ea8e58b@nhcc.net> On 2017-12-06 6:32 AM, Peter Smulders wrote: > Bidding 1S is not a gross distortion of what you expect from > this hand [with 3 HCP]. If that'is illegal in Belgium the local rules are in > conflict with the Laws. The ACBL forbids agreeing to open at the one level with less than 8 HCP, and I believe many other jurisdictions have similar regulations. Why aren't those regulations legal under L40B? Psyching a 1S bid is legal, of course, as long as it genuinely is a psych. From sven at svenpran.net Wed Dec 6 16:55:22 2017 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:55:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <4c277fff-d45b-9179-40c2-26265ea8e58b@nhcc.net> References: <20171206113210.05EB8B6F0ACC@relay1.webreus.nl> <4c277fff-d45b-9179-40c2-26265ea8e58b@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net> I don't understand how any jurisdiction may forbid for instance opening bids at the one level with less than 8 HVP. What they can do (and what I assume most have done) is to have restrictions on agreements which implies opening such weak hands at the one level. There is a difference. -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Steve Willner Sendt: onsdag 6. desember 2017 15.34 Til: blml at rtflb.org Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] An incredible hand On 2017-12-06 6:32 AM, Peter Smulders wrote: > Bidding 1S is not a gross distortion of what you expect from this hand > [with 3 HCP]. If that'is illegal in Belgium the local rules are in > conflict with the Laws. The ACBL forbids agreeing to open at the one level with less than 8 HCP, and I believe many other jurisdictions have similar regulations. Why aren't those regulations legal under L40B? Psyching a 1S bid is legal, of course, as long as it genuinely is a psych. _______________________________________________ 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 hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 6 17:14:36 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:14:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net> References: <20171206113210.05EB8B6F0ACC@relay1.webreus.nl> <4c277fff-d45b-9179-40c2-26265ea8e58b@nhcc.net> <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <2e754400-37bc-a54b-334f-e87d4a41c111@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > I don't understand how any jurisdiction may forbid for instance opening bids > at the one level with less than 8 HVP. > > What they can do (and what I assume most have done) is to have restrictions > on agreements which implies opening such weak hands at the one level. > > There is a difference. > There is, a theoretical one. But in practice, when a player opens a particular hand with a paticular bid (or more general, makes any bid with that hand), then the Director will ofte have to assume that the particular bid is systemic. So in many cases the difference is only theoretical. In the current case, the opening bid of 1Sp certainly has the meaning "I think I can make a majority of tricks in this strain, partner, if you have three more tricks, you can bid 4Sp. Certainly a systemic meaning. So under the old "rule of 18", this opening must be prohibited. Which only shows that the rule of 18 is not optimum. Herman. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Steve Willner > Sendt: onsdag 6. desember 2017 15.34 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] An incredible hand > > On 2017-12-06 6:32 AM, Peter Smulders wrote: >> Bidding 1S is not a gross distortion of what you expect from this hand >> [with 3 HCP]. If that'is illegal in Belgium the local rules are in >> conflict with the Laws. > > The ACBL forbids agreeing to open at the one level with less than 8 HCP, and > I believe many other jurisdictions have similar regulations. Why aren't > those regulations legal under L40B? > > Psyching a 1S bid is legal, of course, as long as it genuinely is a psych. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Dec 6 20:01:02 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:01:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net> References: <20171206113210.05EB8B6F0ACC@relay1.webreus.nl> <4c277fff-d45b-9179-40c2-26265ea8e58b@nhcc.net> <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On 2017-12-06 10:55 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > What they can do (and what I assume most have done) is to have restrictions > on agreements Which is what I wrote: "agreeing to open." The message to which I was responding suggested it was contrary to the Laws to regulate such an agreement. I don't think many of us disagree on what can and cannot be regulated, but there does seem to be some confusion on the subject. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Dec 7 01:52:57 2017 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:52:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <20171206113209.291BBB6F0A94@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <20171206113209.291BBB6F0A94@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: >>>Opening either 1H or 1S is a psyche, as it is a gross distortion of >>>strength. Therefore,either one is legal but is subject to whatever >>>rules apply to psyches. I don't know the rules in Belgium, but in the >>>ACBL, the rule would be that you cannot have an agreement on psyches, >>>and the director will rule against you if you may have fielded the >>>psyche (for example, responder fails to double the final contract when >>>it should go down if opener has a real bid). > >>A real bid? What is more natural than, "I am certain of making six >>tricks in this suit, so I'm willing to risk bidding one". > >Herman. > Right. Bidding 1S is not a gross distortion of what you expect from > this hand. If that'is illegal in Belgium the local rules are in > conflict with the Laws. Bidding 1S is presumably a gross distortion from your systemic agreement, which is that an opening bid shows certain high-card values. That is what makes it a psyche. If you have an agreement that hands with values close to this can be opened 1S in third seat, then bidding 1S is not a psyche, and the regulating authority can forbid such an agreement. On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Peter Smulders wrote: > > >David Grabiner wrote: > >> > >>Opening either 1H or 1S is a psyche, as it is a gross distortion of > >>strength. Therefore,either one is legal but is subject to whatever > >>rules apply to psyches. I don't know the rules in Belgium, but in the > >>ACBL, the rule would be that you cannot have an agreement on psyches, > >>and the director will rule against you if you may have fielded the > >>psyche (for example, responder fails to double the final contract when > >>it should go down if opener has a real bid). > > > >A real bid? What is more natural than, "I am certain of making six > >tricks in this suit, so I'm willing to risk bidding one". > > > >Herman. > > > Right. Bidding 1S is not a gross distortion of what you expect from > this hand. If that'is illegal in Belgium the local rules are in > conflict with the Laws. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20171207/c7ea9920/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 7 07:03:09 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 07:03:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: References: <20171206113209.291BBB6F0A94@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <7ba9cb24-d375-7247-4642-56a9d8308cb8@skynet.be> David, the problem with your argument is that you are using a term which is not defined: David Grabiner wrote: > > Bidding 1S is presumably a gross distortion from your systemic > agreement, which is that an opening bid shows certain high-card values. And this is not true. An opening bid does not promise 12 HCP, since it could be less (and still legal). And it does not promise 8 HCP, since there are many hands (the majority) of 8 HCP that no-one would open. An opening bid shows a combination of high-card values and trump length (and usually some concentration of points in the lengths). And that is what this hand shows. > That is what makes it a psyche. > I do not agree. A bid which is made intending to show something, and having that something, is not a psyche. Under a system where any hand below 8 HCP cannot be opened, this would be illegal. But such a rule prohibits opening six on a 12 card suit without the Ace, so it's probably not a good one. > If you have an agreement that hands with values close to this can be > opened 1S in third seat, then bidding 1S is not a psyche, and the > regulating authority can forbid such an agreement. > It can, but it hasn't. And I think it shouldn't. Herman. From gordonr60 at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 08:47:27 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 07:47:27 +0000 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <7ba9cb24-d375-7247-4642-56a9d8308cb8@skynet.be> References: <20171206113209.291BBB6F0A94@relay1.webreus.nl> <7ba9cb24-d375-7247-4642-56a9d8308cb8@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5a28f210.d18d1c0a.ad76b.f3ec@mx.google.com> From: Herman De Wael Sent: 07 December 2017 07:06 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] An incredible hand But such a rule prohibits opening six on a 12 card suit without the Ace, so it's probably not a good one. The rule is about agreements to open at the one level. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171207/6f8da2b5/attachment.html From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Thu Dec 7 09:49:15 2017 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:49:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >From: Herman De Wael >Precedence: list >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >References: > <20171206113210.05EB8B6F0ACC at relay1.webreus.nl> > <4c277fff-d45b-9179-40c2-26265ea8e58b at nhcc.net> > <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net> >In-Reply-To: <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net> >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:14:36 +0100 >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Message-ID: <2e754400-37bc-a54b-334f-e87d4a41c111 at skynet.be> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >Subject: Re: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: An incredible hand >Message: 4 > >Sven Pran wrote: >>I don't understand how any jurisdiction may forbid for instance opening bids >>at the one level with less than 8 HVP. >> >>What they can do (and what I assume most have done) is to have restrictions >>on agreements which implies opening such weak hands at the one level. >> >>There is a difference. > >There is, a theoretical one. > >But in practice, when a player opens a particular hand with a >paticular bid (or more general, makes any bid with that hand), then >the Director will ofte have to assume that the particular bid is systemic. >So in many cases the difference is only theoretical. > >In the current case, the opening bid of 1Sp certainly has the >meaning "I think I can make a majority of tricks in this strain, >partner, if you have three more tricks, you can bid 4Sp. >Certainly a systemic meaning. >So under the old "rule of 18", this opening must be prohibited. >Which only shows that the rule of 18 is not optimum. > >Herman. Most players don't have agreements on freak hands like this. Apparently you consider ideas such as "bid what you think you can make" or "use common sense" a concealed understanding. The hand has 6 solid tricks, and with a partner who is not completely bust but has less than opening values a part score is possible but game is very unlikely. I would not call a call of 1S a psyche, and even if it s, it is certainly not artifcial. Thus it does not meet the condition of Law 40B2: The RA "v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls". From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 01:57:01 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 11:57:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <20171207113923.37F6EB6F05A4@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <20171207113923.37F6EB6F05A4@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding." Law 40B2(a)(i). The Regulating Authority may designate a partnership understanding to open 1S with 3 hcp to be a special partnership understanding if its "meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament." Law 40B1(b). Best wishes, Richard Hills, significant number On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Peter Smulders wrote: > > >From: Herman De Wael > >Precedence: list > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >References: > > <20171206113210.05EB8B6F0ACC at relay1.webreus.nl> > > <4c277fff-d45b-9179-40c2-26265ea8e58b at nhcc.net> > > <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net> > >In-Reply-To: <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net> > >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:14:36 +0100 > >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >Message-ID: <2e754400-37bc-a54b-334f-e87d4a41c111 at skynet.be> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >Subject: Re: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: An incredible hand > >Message: 4 > > > >Sven Pran wrote: > >>I don't understand how any jurisdiction may forbid for instance opening > bids > >>at the one level with less than 8 HVP. > >> > >>What they can do (and what I assume most have done) is to have > restrictions > >>on agreements which implies opening such weak hands at the one level. > >> > >>There is a difference. > > > >There is, a theoretical one. > > > >But in practice, when a player opens a particular hand with a > >paticular bid (or more general, makes any bid with that hand), then > >the Director will ofte have to assume that the particular bid is systemic. > >So in many cases the difference is only theoretical. > > > >In the current case, the opening bid of 1Sp certainly has the > >meaning "I think I can make a majority of tricks in this strain, > >partner, if you have three more tricks, you can bid 4Sp. > >Certainly a systemic meaning. > >So under the old "rule of 18", this opening must be prohibited. > >Which only shows that the rule of 18 is not optimum. > > > >Herman. > > Most players don't have agreements on freak hands like this. > Apparently you consider ideas such as "bid what you think you can > make" or "use common sense" a concealed understanding. > The hand has 6 solid tricks, and with a partner who is not completely > bust but has less than opening values a part score is possible but > game is very unlikely. > I would not call a call of 1S a psyche, and even if it s, it is > certainly not artifcial. Thus it does not meet the condition of Law 40B2: > The RA "v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls". > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20171208/49845dcb/attachment.html From geller at nifty.com Fri Dec 8 03:21:03 2017 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 11:21:03 +0900 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: References: <20171207113923.37F6EB6F05A4@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <5ac4c1fc-3ea3-8105-9e77-e262484c0892@nifty.com> Yes, but nothing in the Laws allows the RA to mandate that players use a 4321 point count (or quick tricks or LTC or anything else) to evaluate their hand. Let's face it, rules like this are of questionable legality in a strict sense, but probably most countries (Japan is one) have some rules like this in ordinary events open to all players. Such rules should be eschewed in top flight events, but are probably an unfortunate necessity to keep the punters coming back. On 2017/12/08 9:57, Richard Hills wrote: > "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, > disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership > understanding."? Law 40B2(a)(i). > > The Regulating Authority may designate a partnership understanding to > open 1S with 3 hcp to be a special partnership understanding if its > "meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily > understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the > tournament." Law 40B1(b). > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills, significant number > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Peter Smulders > wrote: > > > >From: Herman De Wael > > >Precedence: list > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > >References: > > >? ? ? ? ?<20171206113210.05EB8B6F0ACC at relay1.webreus.nl > > > >? ? ? ? ?<4c277fff-d45b-9179-40c2-26265ea8e58b at nhcc.net > > > >? ? ? ? ?<000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net > > > >In-Reply-To: <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net > > > >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:14:36 +0100 > >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > >Message-ID: <2e754400-37bc-a54b-334f-e87d4a41c111 at skynet.be > > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >Subject: Re: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: An incredible hand > >Message: 4 > > > >Sven Pran wrote: > >>I don't understand how any jurisdiction may forbid for instance > opening bids > >>at the one level with less than 8 HVP. > >> > >>What they can do (and what I assume most have done) is to have > restrictions > >>on agreements which implies opening such weak hands at the one level. > >> > >>There is a difference. > > > >There is, a theoretical one. > > > >But in practice, when a player opens a particular hand with a > >paticular bid (or more general, makes any bid with that hand), then > >the Director will ofte have to assume that the particular bid is > systemic. > >So in many cases the difference is only theoretical. > > > >In the current case, the opening bid of 1Sp certainly has the > >meaning "I think I can make a majority of tricks in this strain, > >partner, if you have three more tricks, you can bid 4Sp. > >Certainly a systemic meaning. > >So under the old "rule of 18", this opening must be prohibited. > >Which only shows that the rule of 18 is not optimum. > > > >Herman. > > Most players don't have agreements on freak hands like this. > Apparently you consider ideas such as "bid what you think you can > make" or "use common sense" a concealed understanding. > The hand has 6 solid tricks, and with a partner who is not completely > bust but has less than opening values a part score is possible but > game is very unlikely. > I would not call a call of 1S a psyche, and even if it s, it is > certainly not artifcial. Thus it does not meet the condition of Law > 40B2: > The RA "v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls". > > _______________________________________________ > 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 07:18:02 2017 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 19:18:02 +1300 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <5ac4c1fc-3ea3-8105-9e77-e262484c0892@nifty.com> References: <20171207113923.37F6EB6F05A4@relay1.webreus.nl> <5ac4c1fc-3ea3-8105-9e77-e262484c0892@nifty.com> Message-ID: On 8 December 2017 at 15:21, Robert Geller wrote: > Yes, but nothing in the Laws allows the RA to mandate that players use a > 4321 point count (or quick tricks or LTC or anything else) to evaluate > their hand. > I am not completely sure that is the case. At least explicitly there is nothing stopping the RA writing regulations in terms of the 4321 point count. Nevertheless I have stated for a long time that any rule that restricts judgement is going to be problematic. Rules that use any sort of point count are going to restrict judgement. In one sense bridge is a game of judgement. If you restrict that judgement by decree then you are potentially not only stopping the good player from using expert judgement but also the palooka from using their poor judgement. Neither seems desirable. Moreover if we strive for the optimum methods, and some do, then it is uncontroversial that the optimum will either occur at a point inside the boundary,in which the boundary (regulation) is unimportant or on the boundary. When the optimum is on the boundary or even perceived to be then players will develop methods that are close to that boundary. The latter is especially problematic when the boundary is not well defined, as is so often the case with our regulations. Take for example a regulation that prohibits agreements to open with fewer than 8 hcp. Does this mean strictly 4321 points? Could I add a point for a doubleton or a five card suit or a couple of tens (or even treys)? As Robert suggested if I do not use the 4321 point count do I have to check each time in case in my judgement (whatever it may be) I happen to be violating the 4321 rule? > > Let's face it, rules like this are of questionable legality in a strict > sense, but probably most countries (Japan is one) have some rules like > this in ordinary events open to all players. Such rules should be > eschewed in top flight events, but are probably an unfortunate necessity > to keep the punters coming back. > I wish they were of questionable legality. They certainly are of questionable practicality. Questionable legality is certainly the case when as Richard notes below that the RA denotes something as simple as 3 hcp with 7 spades something that may not be readily understood and anticipated. > > > On 2017/12/08 9:57, Richard Hills wrote: > > "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, > > disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership > > understanding." Law 40B2(a)(i). > > > > The Regulating Authority may designate a partnership understanding to > > open 1S with 3 hcp to be a special partnership understanding if its > > "meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily > > understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the > > tournament." Law 40B1(b). > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills, significant number > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Peter Smulders > > wrote: > > > > > > >From: Herman De Wael hermandw at skynet.be>> > > >Precedence: list > > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > > >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List blml at rtflb.org>> > > >References: > > > > > <20171206113210.05EB8B6F0ACC at relay1.webreus.nl > > > > > > <4c277fff-d45b-9179-40c2-26265ea8e58b at nhcc.net > > > > > > <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net > > > > > >In-Reply-To: <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net > > > > > >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:14:36 +0100 > > >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > > >Message-ID: <2e754400-37bc-a54b-334f-e87d4a41c111 at skynet.be > > > > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > >Subject: Re: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: An incredible hand > > >Message: 4 > > > > > >Sven Pran wrote: > > >>I don't understand how any jurisdiction may forbid for instance > > opening bids > > >>at the one level with less than 8 HVP. > > >> > > >>What they can do (and what I assume most have done) is to have > > restrictions > > >>on agreements which implies opening such weak hands at the one > level. > > >> > > >>There is a difference. > > > > > >There is, a theoretical one. > > > > > >But in practice, when a player opens a particular hand with a > > >paticular bid (or more general, makes any bid with that hand), then > > >the Director will ofte have to assume that the particular bid is > > systemic. > > >So in many cases the difference is only theoretical. > > > > > >In the current case, the opening bid of 1Sp certainly has the > > >meaning "I think I can make a majority of tricks in this strain, > > >partner, if you have three more tricks, you can bid 4Sp. > > >Certainly a systemic meaning. > > >So under the old "rule of 18", this opening must be prohibited. > > >Which only shows that the rule of 18 is not optimum. > > > > > >Herman. > > > > Most players don't have agreements on freak hands like this. > > Apparently you consider ideas such as "bid what you think you can > > make" or "use common sense" a concealed understanding. > > The hand has 6 solid tricks, and with a partner who is not completely > > bust but has less than opening values a part score is possible but > > game is very unlikely. > > I would not call a call of 1S a psyche, and even if it s, it is > > certainly not artifcial. Thus it does not meet the condition of Law > > 40B2: > > The RA "v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls". > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Ng? mihi Wayne Burrows Te Papaioea Aotearoa Palmerston North New Zealand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171208/a515b4f3/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 8 08:41:34 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 08:41:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An incredible hand In-Reply-To: <5ac4c1fc-3ea3-8105-9e77-e262484c0892@nifty.com> References: <20171207113923.37F6EB6F05A4@relay1.webreus.nl> <5ac4c1fc-3ea3-8105-9e77-e262484c0892@nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert Geller wrote: > Yes, but nothing in the Laws allows the RA to mandate that players use a > 4321 point count (or quick tricks or LTC or anything else) to evaluate > their hand. True, but the WBF does not do that. A weak hand is defined as being a king or more below an average hand, with an average hand being one with a 4432 distribution and one card of every rank. So seven points without distribution, basically. The WBF does not prescribe a way of converting length into strength, and the usual (1 in your longest = 1 HCP) is assumed. This would make this hand barely acceptable. But in how far is this conversion true for an 8-card suit. Eight trumps with QJT is a sure six tricks, whereas 6 to QJ8 can never be counted for four. So the conversion does not hold, IMO, and I did not rule illegal system in this case. Herman. > > Let's face it, rules like this are of questionable legality in a strict > sense, but probably most countries (Japan is one) have some rules like > this in ordinary events open to all players. Such rules should be > eschewed in top flight events, but are probably an unfortunate necessity > to keep the punters coming back. > > > > On 2017/12/08 9:57, Richard Hills wrote: >> "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, >> disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership >> understanding." Law 40B2(a)(i). >> >> The Regulating Authority may designate a partnership understanding to >> open 1S with 3 hcp to be a special partnership understanding if its >> "meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily >> understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the >> tournament." Law 40B1(b). >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills, significant number >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Peter Smulders > > wrote: >> >> >> >From: Herman De Wael > >> >Precedence: list >> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >> >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> >References: > > >> > <20171206113210.05EB8B6F0ACC at relay1.webreus.nl >> > >> > <4c277fff-d45b-9179-40c2-26265ea8e58b at nhcc.net >> > >> > <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net >> > >> >In-Reply-To: <000401d36eaa$9fababc0$df030340$@svenpran.net >> > >> >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:14:36 +0100 >> >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > >> >Message-ID: <2e754400-37bc-a54b-334f-e87d4a41c111 at skynet.be >> > >> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >Subject: Re: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: An incredible hand >> >Message: 4 >> > >> >Sven Pran wrote: >> >>I don't understand how any jurisdiction may forbid for instance >> opening bids >> >>at the one level with less than 8 HVP. >> >> >> >>What they can do (and what I assume most have done) is to have >> restrictions >> >>on agreements which implies opening such weak hands at the one level. >> >> >> >>There is a difference. >> > >> >There is, a theoretical one. >> > >> >But in practice, when a player opens a particular hand with a >> >paticular bid (or more general, makes any bid with that hand), then >> >the Director will ofte have to assume that the particular bid is >> systemic. >> >So in many cases the difference is only theoretical. >> > >> >In the current case, the opening bid of 1Sp certainly has the >> >meaning "I think I can make a majority of tricks in this strain, >> >partner, if you have three more tricks, you can bid 4Sp. >> >Certainly a systemic meaning. >> >So under the old "rule of 18", this opening must be prohibited. >> >Which only shows that the rule of 18 is not optimum. >> > >> >Herman. >> >> Most players don't have agreements on freak hands like this. >> Apparently you consider ideas such as "bid what you think you can >> make" or "use common sense" a concealed understanding. >> The hand has 6 solid tricks, and with a partner who is not completely >> bust but has less than opening values a part score is possible but >> game is very unlikely. >> I would not call a call of 1S a psyche, and even if it s, it is >> certainly not artifcial. Thus it does not meet the condition of Law >> 40B2: >> The RA "v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls". >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Fri Dec 15 17:36:52 2017 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:36:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ?? Message-ID: <8081933a-0558-d928-02b7-841e846aed29@gmx.de> I haven't received any notifications from blml for about 10 days.? Is that due to my computer or you?? Ciao,? JE From a.witzen at upcmail.nl Fri Dec 15 18:18:29 2017 From: a.witzen at upcmail.nl (a.witzen) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:18:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ?? Message-ID: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> Nobody posts problemsRegards anton Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet.A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- Van: Jeff Easterson Datum: 15-12-2017 17:36 (GMT+01:00) Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: [BLML] ?? I haven't received any notifications from blml for about 10 days.? Is that due to my computer or you?? Ciao,? JE _______________________________________________ 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/20171215/b9820a1e/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 04:45:14 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:45:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> Message-ID: My opinion about the lack of traffic on this mailing list nowadays is that there are not any meaningful ambiguities in the 2017 Lawbook. But in the Good Old Days the 1997 Lawbook was infested with ambiguities, thus providing fertile ground for interminable discussions. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 16 Dec 2017, at 4:18 AM, a.witzen wrote: > > Nobody posts problems > Regards anton > > > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > Van: Jeff Easterson > Datum: 15-12-2017 17:36 (GMT+01:00) > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: [BLML] ?? > > I haven't received any notifications from blml for about 10 days. Is > that due to my computer or you? Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Dec 16 16:00:01 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 15:00:01 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> Message-ID: <5a3534ef.a99e500a.46337.ffdc@mx.google.com> There?s been plenty of discussion about the new laws in various other forums. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Richard Hills Sent: 16 December 2017 06:42 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] ?? My opinion about the lack of traffic on this mailing list nowadays is that there are not any meaningful ambiguities in the 2017 Lawbook. But in the Good Old Days the 1997 Lawbook was infested with ambiguities, thus providing fertile ground for interminable discussions. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 16 Dec 2017, at 4:18 AM, a.witzen wrote: > > Nobody posts problems > Regards anton > > > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > Van: Jeff Easterson > Datum: 15-12-2017 17:36 (GMT+01:00) > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: [BLML] ?? > > I haven't received any notifications from blml for about 10 days. Is > that due to my computer or you? Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20171216/efdec374/attachment.html From zecurado at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 12:52:30 2017 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Jos=C3=A9_J=C3=BAlio_Curado?=) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 11:52:30 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: <5a3534ef.a99e500a.46337.ffdc@mx.google.com> References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> <5a3534ef.a99e500a.46337.ffdc@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Bring a couple of them here, Gordon, if you find anything interesting On 16 December 2017 at 15:00, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > There?s been plenty of discussion about the new laws in various other > forums. > > > > Sent from Mail for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Richard Hills > *Sent: *16 December 2017 06:42 > *To: *Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject: *Re: [BLML] ?? > > > > My opinion about the lack of traffic on this mailing list nowadays is that > there are not any meaningful ambiguities in the 2017 Lawbook. But in the > Good Old Days the 1997 Lawbook was infested with ambiguities, thus > providing fertile ground for interminable discussions. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > On 16 Dec 2017, at 4:18 AM, a.witzen wrote: > > > > > > Nobody posts problems > > > Regards anton > > > > > > > > > > > > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. > > > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam > > > > > > > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > > > Van: Jeff Easterson > > > Datum: 15-12-2017 17:36 (GMT+01:00) > > > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > Onderwerp: [BLML] ?? > > > > > > I haven't received any notifications from blml for about 10 days. Is > > > that due to my computer or you? Ciao, JE > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Blml mailing list > > > Blml at rtflb.org > > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Blml mailing list > > > Blml at rtflb.org > > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171217/0de23d55/attachment.html From gordonr60 at gmail.com Mon Dec 18 12:44:28 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:44:28 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> <5a3534ef.a99e500a.46337.ffdc@mx.google.com> Message-ID: It might make more sense for those who are interested to go to the discussions that have already taken place. The main ones are https://bridgewinners.com/ and http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/forum/56-international-bridge-laws-forum-iblf/ We also have an EBU forum at https://www.ebu.co.uk/forum/ which, although aimed at EBU club directors, welcomes constructive and practical input from anyone. For those who are EBL directors there is also an EBL TD forum. On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Jos? J?lio Curado wrote: > Bring a couple of them here, Gordon, if you find anything interesting > > On 16 December 2017 at 15:00, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> There?s been plenty of discussion about the new laws in various other >> forums. >> >> >> >> Sent from Mail for >> Windows 10 >> >> >> >> *From: *Richard Hills >> *Sent: *16 December 2017 06:42 >> *To: *Bridge Laws Mailing List >> *Subject: *Re: [BLML] ?? >> >> >> >> My opinion about the lack of traffic on this mailing list nowadays is >> that there are not any meaningful ambiguities in the 2017 Lawbook. But in >> the Good Old Days the 1997 Lawbook was infested with ambiguities, thus >> providing fertile ground for interminable discussions. >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> Richard Hills >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> >> > On 16 Dec 2017, at 4:18 AM, a.witzen wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Nobody posts problems >> >> > Regards anton >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. >> >> > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- >> >> > Van: Jeff Easterson >> >> > Datum: 15-12-2017 17:36 (GMT+01:00) >> >> > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> >> > Onderwerp: [BLML] ?? >> >> > >> >> > I haven't received any notifications from blml for about 10 days. Is >> >> > that due to my computer or you? Ciao, JE >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Blml mailing list >> >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Blml mailing list >> >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Blml mailing list >> >> Blml at rtflb.org >> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171218/b84f4cca/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 01:44:56 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:44:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> <5a3534ef.a99e500a.46337.ffdc@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <94ACA571-7BB0-4AB2-8BBD-5271543CCA3F@gmail.com> As suggested by Gordon Rainsford I had a look at the Bridge Winners webpage. An interesting hypothetical argument was posed there. During an auction one partner bids 3NT. From the other partner's point of view Pass = 40%, Bid 1 = 30% and Bid 2 = 30%. So all three calls are deemed to be logical alternatives. At the table Bid 1 was selected, and it was the only successful call. However, UI altered the odds. After the UI Pass = 0%, Bid 1 = 50% and Bid 2 = 50%. But did the player call illegally, given that the successful Bid 1 was not demonstrably suggested over the unsuccessful Bid 2? Yes, the UI made Pass the only legal call (and if Pass had serendipitously been the only successful call, then for a Law-abiding player virtue would have been rewarded). This is because the Drafters of the 2017 Lawbook carefully reworded Law 16B1(a): "A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative." Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 18 Dec 2017, at 10:44 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > It might make more sense for those who are interested to go to the discussions that have already taken place. > The main ones are https://bridgewinners.com/ and http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/forum/56-international-bridge-laws-forum-iblf/ > We also have an EBU forum at https://www.ebu.co.uk/forum/ which, although aimed at EBU club directors, welcomes constructive and practical input from anyone. For those who are EBL directors there is also an EBL TD forum. > >> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Jos? J?lio Curado wrote: >> Bring a couple of them here, Gordon, if you find anything interesting >> >>> On 16 December 2017 at 15:00, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>> There?s been plenty of discussion about the new laws in various other forums. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Richard Hills >>> Sent: 16 December 2017 06:42 >>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] ?? >>> >>> >>> >>> My opinion about the lack of traffic on this mailing list nowadays is that there are not any meaningful ambiguities in the 2017 Lawbook. But in the Good Old Days the 1997 Lawbook was infested with ambiguities, thus providing fertile ground for interminable discussions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> >>> >>> > On 16 Dec 2017, at 4:18 AM, a.witzen wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Nobody posts problems >>> >>> > Regards anton >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. >>> >>> > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- >>> >>> > Van: Jeff Easterson >>> >>> > Datum: 15-12-2017 17:36 (GMT+01:00) >>> >>> > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> >>> > Onderwerp: [BLML] ?? >>> >>> > >>> >>> > I haven't received any notifications from blml for about 10 days. Is >>> >>> > that due to my computer or you? Ciao, JE >>> >>> > >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >>> > Blml mailing list >>> >>> > Blml at rtflb.org >>> >>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >>> > Blml mailing list >>> >>> > Blml at rtflb.org >>> >>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> Blml mailing list >>> >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171219/0d16acaa/attachment-0001.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 09:01:04 2017 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 03:01:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> <5a3534ef.a99e500a.46337.ffdc@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <515afbda-026f-436f-db7c-2d5c8e5f65cb@gmail.com> On 12/18/2017 06:44 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > It might make more sense for those who are interested to go to the > discussions that have already taken place.? > The main ones are?https://bridgewinners.com/ > and?http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/forum/56-international-bridge-laws-forum-iblf/ > We also have an EBU forum at?https://www.ebu.co.uk/forum/ which, > although aimed at EBU club directors, welcomes constructive and > practical input from anyone. For those who are EBL directors there is > also an EBL TD forum. > Meaning no disrespect to Gordon nor to anybody who chooses to use them, forums are an absolute pain in the arse. I can do no better than to post a common sig file from one of the remaining USENET newsgroups... Forums are like buying ten different magazines from ten different newsstands, while USENET is like having all those magazines delivered to your door. I strongly feel the same about forums and mailing lists. If it doesn't arrive in my copy of Thunderbird, then to hell with it. I have better things to do with my time than to spend it logging on to a bunch of different websites to see whether there are any new messages. Long may BLML continue! Brian. From gordonr60 at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 11:32:44 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:32:44 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: <515afbda-026f-436f-db7c-2d5c8e5f65cb@gmail.com> References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> <5a3534ef.a99e500a.46337.ffdc@mx.google.com> <515afbda-026f-436f-db7c-2d5c8e5f65cb@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:01 AM, brian wrote: > I have better > things to do with my time than to spend it logging on to a bunch of > different websites to see whether there are any new messages. Long may > BLML continue! > > Except that it isn't really continuing, as evidenced by the post that started this thread. I was simply pointing out where the discussions actually are happening. You are welcome to remain here for as long as you like, waiting for them to come to you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171219/214108a6/attachment.html From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 11:32:44 2017 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 23:32:44 +1300 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: <94ACA571-7BB0-4AB2-8BBD-5271543CCA3F@gmail.com> References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> <5a3534ef.a99e500a.46337.ffdc@mx.google.com> <94ACA571-7BB0-4AB2-8BBD-5271543CCA3F@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19 December 2017 at 13:44, Richard Hills wrote: > As suggested by Gordon Rainsford I had a look at the Bridge Winners > webpage. An interesting hypothetical argument was posed there. > > During an auction one partner bids 3NT. From the other partner's point of > view Pass = 40%, Bid 1 = 30% and Bid 2 = 30%. So all three calls are deemed > to be logical alternatives. At the table Bid 1 was selected, and it was the > only successful call. However, UI altered the odds. After the UI Pass = 0%, > Bid 1 = 50% and Bid 2 = 50%. But did the player call illegally, given that > the successful Bid 1 was not demonstrably suggested over the unsuccessful > Bid 2? > > Yes, the UI made Pass the only legal call (and if Pass had serendipitously > been the only successful call, then for a Law-abiding player virtue would > have been rewarded). This is because the Drafters of the 2017 Lawbook > carefully reworded Law 16B1(a): > > "A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested > over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a > logical alternative." > The previous wording was "the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" I do not see how this makes a difference. Under the 2007 laws pass, bid1 and bid2 were logical alternatives, bid1 and bid2 were both suggested over pass by the UI. Therefore neither could be chosen. The 2017 law has become weaker by the use of "is demonstrably suggested" rather than "could demonstrably have been suggested". > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > Sent from my iPad > > On 18 Dec 2017, at 10:44 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > It might make more sense for those who are interested to go to the > discussions that have already taken place. > The main ones are https://bridgewinners.com/ and > http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/forum/56-international- > bridge-laws-forum-iblf/ > We also have an EBU forum at https://www.ebu.co.uk/forum/ which, although > aimed at EBU club directors, welcomes constructive and practical input from > anyone. For those who are EBL directors there is also an EBL TD forum. > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Jos? J?lio Curado > wrote: > >> Bring a couple of them here, Gordon, if you find anything interesting >> >> On 16 December 2017 at 15:00, Gordon Rainsford >> wrote: >> >>> There?s been plenty of discussion about the new laws in various other >>> forums. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from Mail for >>> Windows 10 >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Richard Hills >>> *Sent: *16 December 2017 06:42 >>> *To: *Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> *Subject: *Re: [BLML] ?? >>> >>> >>> >>> My opinion about the lack of traffic on this mailing list nowadays is >>> that there are not any meaningful ambiguities in the 2017 Lawbook. But in >>> the Good Old Days the 1997 Lawbook was infested with ambiguities, thus >>> providing fertile ground for interminable discussions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> >>> >>> > On 16 Dec 2017, at 4:18 AM, a.witzen wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Nobody posts problems >>> >>> > Regards anton >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet. >>> >>> > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- >>> >>> > Van: Jeff Easterson >>> >>> > Datum: 15-12-2017 17:36 (GMT+01:00) >>> >>> > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> >>> > Onderwerp: [BLML] ?? >>> >>> > >>> >>> > I haven't received any notifications from blml for about 10 days. Is >>> >>> > that due to my computer or you? Ciao, JE >>> >>> > >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >>> > Blml mailing list >>> >>> > Blml at rtflb.org >>> >>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >>> > Blml mailing list >>> >>> > Blml at rtflb.org >>> >>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> Blml mailing list >>> >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Ng? mihi Wayne Burrows Te Papaioea Aotearoa Palmerston North New Zealand Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171219/00c24808/attachment-0001.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 14:09:01 2017 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 08:09:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> <5a3534ef.a99e500a.46337.ffdc@mx.google.com> <515afbda-026f-436f-db7c-2d5c8e5f65cb@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8bec2cbf-23b3-531c-1e99-904d5c71cbec@gmail.com> On 12/19/2017 05:32 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:01 AM, brian > wrote: > > ?I have better > things to do with my time than to spend it logging on to a bunch of > different websites to see whether there are any new messages. Long may > BLML continue! > > Except that it isn't really continuing, as evidenced by the post that > started this thread. I was simply pointing out where the discussions > actually are happening. You are welcome to remain here for as long as > you like, waiting for them to come to you.? > If BLML is going to bite the dust, it will be a sad day, but so be it. S**t happens. The point I was making is that the "waiting" here takes neither time nor effort on my part. If you're lucky enough to have a fast, reliable internet connection, interactive web forums are no doubt usable. There are people in these parts who can still only get dial-up - too far from town, no clear view to the south for satellite, shielded by granite from the cellphone masts. Fortunately, only two out of three applied to me, although I wouldn't wish my seven years of satellite internet on my worst enemy. Brian. From vitoldbr at yandex.ru Wed Dec 20 06:24:50 2017 From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru (vitoldbr) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:24:50 +0400 Subject: [BLML] arragement of played cards Message-ID: <1177546002.20171220092450@yandex.ru> Hi all! L42B2: Dummy ?may try to prevent any irregularity?. L43A1(b): ?Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play?. But L65B3: ?A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly" During the play Dummy asked his partner to correct direction of his card from last trick that has already pointed incorrectly Several questions: - is dummy a player under condition of L65B3 or just a mechanical-man? - dummy ?may try to prevent? only but such a situation is correction AFTER irregularity and violates L43A1(b) It seems to me that wording of L65B3 creates possibility to awaken partner and to correct his mistake in calculation of tricks ? which could affect his future play? Of course, it concern defenders also? Where am I wrong? Best regards, Vitold From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 21 19:39:38 2017 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 18:39:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] arragement of played cards In-Reply-To: <1177546002.20171220092450@yandex.ru> References: <1177546002.20171220092450@yandex.ru> Message-ID: 65B3. A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but this right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply. The 65B3 provision to draw attention to an incorrect orientation of quitted card is subject to the L43 restrictions on dummy. 43A1c is compelling: (c) Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. Drawing attention to orientation is such a communication. In order for dummy to satisfy the law there is 43A1c to satisfy as well as 65B3; thus, to satisfy 43A1c dummy is precluded from drawing attention. Imo, a reference to 43A1c would add clarity. Upon reflection, it would be better to forbid drawing attention to orientation during the play. Regards Roger pewick From: vitoldbr Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 12:54 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] arragement of played cards Hi all! L42B2: Dummy ?may try to prevent any irregularity?. L43A1(b): ?Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play?. But L65B3: ?A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly" During the play Dummy asked his partner to correct direction of his card from last trick that has already pointed incorrectly Several questions: - is dummy a player under condition of L65B3 or just a mechanical-man? - dummy ?may try to prevent? only but such a situation is correction AFTER irregularity and violates L43A1(b) It seems to me that wording of L65B3 creates possibility to awaken partner and to correct his mistake in calculation of tricks ? which could affect his future play? Of course, it concern defenders also? Where am I wrong? Best regards, Vitold -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171221/df52c4d1/attachment.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Thu Dec 21 21:06:29 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 06:06:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] arragement of played cards In-Reply-To: <1177546002.20171220092450@yandex.ru> References: <1177546002.20171220092450@yandex.ru> Message-ID: <350547C8B6134162917998FA253B5F22@PeachPC> I?m having my two bits worth on the premise that the lurkers need to do more if blml is to remain viable. I can?t bring to mind anything to suggest that dummy ceases to be a player. Law 68D2(b)(i) refers to all four players even if the preamble needs to say "any player (dummy included)?. Perhaps that was simply to stress that the temporarily suspended dummy (so to speak) had a say. Isn?t dummy a player included in 64A1? Dummy was permitted to draw attention in the 2007 laws and ISTM that using ?player? and giving everyone the same time limit was simply an attempt to simplify things. The authors could easily have excluded dummy here had they wished to. Speaking up straight away seems little more than one of the courtesies of the game. If declarer really thought he?d won the trick and started to lead then dummy could try to stop it happening so there is very little difference. It?s a very small window of opportunity before Law 16B comes into play. Law 65 is a specific situation law, so I?d apply it before 43A1(b). Including this right in 42A would be good. I do see the point about 43A1(b) being dummy specific but there are 4 players at the table, Law 3 says so. I do see some conflict between 65 and 42A2. That dummy "may keep count of tricks won and lost" might suggest he could leave them in messy heap if he wanted to. As a player, he obeys Law 65, and arranges them neatly - but he need not count them? Jan ps Does the old requirement to use Plain Text still apply? -----Original Message----- From: vitoldbr Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 3:24 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] arragement of played cards Hi all! L42B2: Dummy ?may try to prevent any irregularity?. L43A1(b): ?Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play?. But L65B3: ?A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly" During the play Dummy asked his partner to correct direction of his card from last trick that has already pointed incorrectly Several questions: - is dummy a player under condition of L65B3 or just a mechanical-man? - dummy ?may try to prevent? only but such a situation is correction AFTER irregularity and violates L43A1(b) It seems to me that wording of L65B3 creates possibility to awaken partner and to correct his mistake in calculation of tricks ? which could affect his future play? Of course, it concern defenders also? Where am I wrong? Best regards, Vitold _______________________________________________ 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/20171221/695f6f3a/attachment.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Thu Dec 21 21:39:11 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 06:39:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Victory Points for Swiss Matchpoint Pairs Message-ID: <040E7F8043FE4194858CF2088080563A@PeachPC> As a player, I prefer swiss matchpoint events not to be converted to VPs. I?m happy for the luck factor to play its part. It seems that big scores in the final round may be viewed suspiciously. Big scores in earlier rounds are not always noticed. Can anyone help please with why converting matchpoints to VPs may be desirable? Does it produce more deserving winners? Is there mathematical proof of this? Is it so bad to do what players prefer? Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171221/e01a8292/attachment-0001.html From sven at svenpran.net Thu Dec 21 21:42:45 2017 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:42:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: arragement of played cards In-Reply-To: <350547C8B6134162917998FA253B5F22@PeachPC> References: <1177546002.20171220092450@yandex.ru> <350547C8B6134162917998FA253B5F22@PeachPC> Message-ID: <000701d37a9c$41b2cc80$c5186580$@svenpran.net> Dummy is indeed a player, subject to special treatments depending on the actual situation. Definiitions: Dummy 1. Declarer?s partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced and ceases to be dummy when play ends. 2. Declarer?s partner?s cards, once they are spread on the table after the opening lead. Law 64A1: and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player .. observe the footnote! 19 A trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this Law. Aldo notice Laws 9A3 and 4: 3: Any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43). 4:Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity until play of the hand is concluded . . . . . Regards Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jan Peach Sendt: torsdag 21. desember 2017 21.06 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] arragement of played cards I?m having my two bits worth on the premise that the lurkers need to do more if blml is to remain viable. I can?t bring to mind anything to suggest that dummy ceases to be a player. Law 68D2(b)(i) refers to all four players even if the preamble needs to say "any player (dummy included)?. Perhaps that was simply to stress that the temporarily suspended dummy (so to speak) had a say. Isn?t dummy a player included in 64A1? Dummy was permitted to draw attention in the 2007 laws and ISTM that using ?player? and giving everyone the same time limit was simply an attempt to simplify things. The authors could easily have excluded dummy here had they wished to. Speaking up straight away seems little more than one of the courtesies of the game. If declarer really thought he?d won the trick and started to lead then dummy could try to stop it happening so there is very little difference. It?s a very small window of opportunity before Law 16B comes into play. Law 65 is a specific situation law, so I?d apply it before 43A1(b). Including this right in 42A would be good. I do see the point about 43A1(b) being dummy specific but there are 4 players at the table, Law 3 says so. I do see some conflict between 65 and 42A2. That dummy "may keep count of tricks won and lost" might suggest he could leave them in messy heap if he wanted to. As a player, he obeys Law 65, and arranges them neatly - but he need not count them? Jan ps Does the old requirement to use Plain Text still apply? -----Original Message----- From: vitoldbr Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 3:24 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] arragement of played cards Hi all! L42B2: Dummy ?may try to prevent any irregularity?. L43A1(b): ?Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play?. But L65B3: ?A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly" During the play Dummy asked his partner to correct direction of his card from last trick that has already pointed incorrectly Several questions: - is dummy a player under condition of L65B3 or just a mechanical-man? - dummy ?may try to prevent? only but such a situation is correction AFTER irregularity and violates L43A1(b) It seems to me that wording of L65B3 creates possibility to awaken partner and to correct his mistake in calculation of tricks ? which could affect his future play Of course, it concern defenders also Where am I wrong? Best regards, Vitold _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171221/2a3594a8/attachment.html From bridge at vwalther.de Thu Dec 21 22:56:16 2017 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:56:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] arragement of played cards In-Reply-To: <1177546002.20171220092450@yandex.ru> References: <1177546002.20171220092450@yandex.ru> Message-ID: <56498a9b-0761-b9bc-d567-bce7bf448d09@vwalther.de> Dummy is still regarded to be a player. There is no specific rule about that, but the wordings of law 45 A "Each player except dummy plays a card..." or law 9 A3 "Any player, including dummy, may..." would not make sense if it is different. So Law 65B3 does apply to Dummy. It is more specific than law 43A1(b) and therefore overruling it. Volker Am 20.12.2017 um 06:24 schrieb vitoldbr: > Hi all! > L42B2: Dummy ?may try to prevent any irregularity?. > L43A1(b): ?Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play?. > But L65B3: ?A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly" > > During the play Dummy asked his partner to correct direction of his card > from last trick that has already pointed incorrectly > Several questions: > - is dummy a player under condition of L65B3 or just a mechanical-man? > - dummy ?may try to prevent? only but such a situation is correction > AFTER irregularity and violates L43A1(b) > > It seems to me that wording of L65B3 creates possibility to awaken partner > and to correct his mistake in calculation of tricks ? which could affect his > future play? Of course, it concern defenders also? > Where am I wrong? > Best regards, > Vitold > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther From mikedod at frontier.com Fri Dec 22 00:17:05 2017 From: mikedod at frontier.com (mikedod at frontier.com) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 23:17:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [BLML] Victory Points for Swiss Matchpoint Pairs In-Reply-To: <040E7F8043FE4194858CF2088080563A@PeachPC> References: <040E7F8043FE4194858CF2088080563A@PeachPC> Message-ID: <1379068767.2900813.1513898225495@mail.yahoo.com> This is a pet peeve of mine, particularly when hand delt hands are used. It's as ridiculous as pair overalls without duplication.Even with duplicated boards,? VP vs win/loss are different games. I prefer win/loss as a purer contest with the current opponent and brings state of the match into the forefront. In mixed fields bunny bashing early is at a premium, not good for the play and is less pleasant at the table.? The ACBL and perhaps the players seem to prefer VP,? even with hand delt boards. Sigh. Mike Dodson? Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Jan Peach wrote: ?As a player, I prefer swiss matchpoint events not to be converted to VPs. I?m happy for the luck factor to play its part.It seems that big scores in the final round may be viewed suspiciously. Big scores in earlier rounds are not always noticed.?Can anyone help please with why converting matchpoints to VPs may be desirab.Does it produce more deserving winners? Is there mathematical proof of this?Is it so bad to do what players prefer?Jan??_______________________________________________ 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/20171221/ea6b9ce0/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Untitled Url: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171221/ea6b9ce0/attachment.pl From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 02:09:57 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 12:09:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Victory Points for Swiss Matchpoint Pairs In-Reply-To: <040E7F8043FE4194858CF2088080563A@PeachPC> References: <040E7F8043FE4194858CF2088080563A@PeachPC> Message-ID: <205F4930-E07E-46C6-A987-6CD09AE5C067@gmail.com> Is it so bad to do what players prefer? Jan Well, as a semi-official semi-participant in the drafting of the 2007 Lawbook, I know for a fact that players' preferences and players' actions were key to stimulating the introduction of the "card pointed incorrectly" Law 65B3 (which Law has two opposing interpretations in a parallel blml thread, due to a missing cross-reference between it and Laws 9A4 / 42B3). However, the 2017 Introduction, which is "part of the Laws", announced that "attempts have been made to clarify interpretations. The Committee intends to prepare a separate official Commentary, containing examples to help in this respect." Perhaps a Commentary example will confirm that dummy can use Law 65B3? Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 22 Dec 2017, at 7:39 AM, Jan Peach wrote: > > > As a player, I prefer swiss matchpoint events not to be converted to VPs. I?m happy for the luck factor to play its part. > It seems that big scores in the final round may be viewed suspiciously. Big scores in earlier rounds are not always noticed. > > Can anyone help please with why converting matchpoints to VPs may be desirable? > Does it produce more deserving winners? > Is there mathematical proof of this? > Is it so bad to do what players prefer? > Jan > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20171222/b66c730a/attachment.html From gordonr60 at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 08:52:55 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 07:52:55 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Victory Points for Swiss Matchpoint Pairs In-Reply-To: <040E7F8043FE4194858CF2088080563A@PeachPC> References: <040E7F8043FE4194858CF2088080563A@PeachPC> Message-ID: <5a3cb9d7.91b8df0a.5749b.1681@mx.google.com> Here in the EBU where our Swiss Pairs matches are usually 7 or 8 boards long we convert to VPs. When we run an event with shorter rounds (4 boards) we don?t. The purpose of Victory Pointing is to limit the advantage that can be gained in an early poorly-balanced match. I once played such a match where we would have scored 94% had it not been converted to VPs ? a huge amount to carry forward in an event with only six matches. In shorter matches, especially in longer events, I think it?s more desirable for each board to have equal weight, which does not happen with the conversion. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Jan Peach Sent: 22 December 2017 00:43 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Victory Points for Swiss Matchpoint Pairs ? As a player, I prefer swiss matchpoint events not to be converted to VPs. I?m happy for the luck factor to play its part. It seems that big scores in the final round may be viewed suspiciously. Big scores in earlier rounds are not always noticed. ? Can anyone help please with why converting matchpoints to VPs may be desirable? Does it produce more deserving winners? Is there mathematical proof of this? Is it so bad to do what players prefer? Jan ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171222/3eb656d8/attachment.html From gordonr60 at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 08:55:54 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 07:55:54 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Victory Points for Swiss Matchpoint Pairs In-Reply-To: <205F4930-E07E-46C6-A987-6CD09AE5C067@gmail.com> References: <040E7F8043FE4194858CF2088080563A@PeachPC> <205F4930-E07E-46C6-A987-6CD09AE5C067@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5a3cba8a.f285df0a.12099.1568@mx.google.com> I?m struggling to find any connection between Richard?s post and the thread to which it purports to respond. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Richard Hills Sent: 22 December 2017 02:12 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Victory Points for Swiss Matchpoint Pairs Is it so bad to do what players prefer? Jan Well, as a semi-official semi-participant in the drafting of the 2007 Lawbook, I know for a fact that players' preferences and players' actions were key to stimulating the introduction of the "card pointed incorrectly" Law 65B3 (which Law has two opposing interpretations in a parallel blml thread, due to a missing cross-reference between it and Laws 9A4 / 42B3). However, the 2017 Introduction, which is "part of the Laws", announced that "attempts have been made to clarify interpretations. The Committee intends to prepare a separate official Commentary, containing examples to help in this respect." Perhaps a Commentary example will confirm that dummy can use Law 65B3? Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad On 22 Dec 2017, at 7:39 AM, Jan Peach wrote: ? As a player, I prefer swiss matchpoint events not to be converted to VPs. I?m happy for the luck factor to play its part. It seems that big scores in the final round may be viewed suspiciously. Big scores in earlier rounds are not always noticed. ? Can anyone help please with why converting matchpoints to VPs may be desirable? Does it produce more deserving winners? Is there mathematical proof of this? Is it so bad to do what players prefer? Jan ? ? _______________________________________________ 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/20171222/db620c22/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 25 08:58:47 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 08:58:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] illegal deception at Basketball Message-ID: <52bdb00c-6347-8435-bb5d-8862d1e7a598@skynet.be> Let me teel you my final dream of this morning: Apparently I'm Director at the final of the NBA, and it's halftime between tw halves of 60 minutes each. I know that this is longer than a regular match, so I ask one of the players how long a regular match lasts. The answer was 67 minutes but of course my subconscious cannot know hat my conscious doesn't. At this point two players approach me, asking if it is still time to ask a ruling. And they start telling me hich ruling - it's a bridge one. At this point I wake up, but the bridge question haunts me and I construct the following case: During the play of the hand, a declarer needs to find out if a suit is divided 5-2 or 4-3. The opponent who has 5 or 4 is known to also have 5 of a different suit. Declarer has noticed that opponent thinking during the bidding, and he checks the system card - indeed they play something to indicate that particular 5-5 at that point in the auction. So Declarer plays for theplayer to have only four, and it turns out he does have five. The opponent did in fact think at that junction about whether to show his 5-5, and he decided against it because of his point holding. That holding is so low that there should have been no time needed for the decision and so illegal deception kicks in. Declarer has drawn a wrong conclusion from the action of an opponent who had no bridge reason for that action. Can we rule illegal deception if the conclusion is wrong for a different reason? Which I think is a good question. So you see, Basketball can be an interesting game as well. Herman. From sven at svenpran.net Mon Dec 25 10:03:08 2017 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:03:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ***SPAM*** illegal deception at Basketball In-Reply-To: <52bdb00c-6347-8435-bb5d-8862d1e7a598@skynet.be> References: <52bdb00c-6347-8435-bb5d-8862d1e7a598@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001d37d5f$2f32f470$8d98dd50$@svenpran.net> FWIW (and from your description) my clear answer is that you have no acceptable basis for ruling illegal deception. Merry Xmas! Sven -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Herman De Wael Sendt: mandag 25. desember 2017 08.59 Til: blml Emne: ***SPAM*** [BLML] illegal deception at Basketball Let me teel you my final dream of this morning: Apparently I'm Director at the final of the NBA, and it's halftime between tw halves of 60 minutes each. I know that this is longer than a regular match, so I ask one of the players how long a regular match lasts. The answer was 67 minutes but of course my subconscious cannot know hat my conscious doesn't. At this point two players approach me, asking if it is still time to ask a ruling. And they start telling me hich ruling - it's a bridge one. At this point I wake up, but the bridge question haunts me and I construct the following case: During the play of the hand, a declarer needs to find out if a suit is divided 5-2 or 4-3. The opponent who has 5 or 4 is known to also have 5 of a different suit. Declarer has noticed that opponent thinking during the bidding, and he checks the system card - indeed they play something to indicate that particular 5-5 at that point in the auction. So Declarer plays for theplayer to have only four, and it turns out he does have five. The opponent did in fact think at that junction about whether to show his 5-5, and he decided against it because of his point holding. That holding is so low that there should have been no time needed for the decision and so illegal deception kicks in. Declarer has drawn a wrong conclusion from the action of an opponent who had no bridge reason for that action. Can we rule illegal deception if the conclusion is wrong for a different reason? Which I think is a good question. So you see, Basketball can be an interesting game as well. Herman. _______________________________________________ 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 bridge at vwalther.de Wed Dec 27 22:31:31 2017 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 22:31:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] illegal deception at Basketball In-Reply-To: <52bdb00c-6347-8435-bb5d-8862d1e7a598@skynet.be> References: <52bdb00c-6347-8435-bb5d-8862d1e7a598@skynet.be> Message-ID: <694be4f6-052a-e983-42f1-73ecbcac87b2@vwalther.de> "The opponent did in fact think at that junction about whether to show his 5-5, and he decided against it because of his point holding." This sounds like a pretty good bridge reason to me, not like an illegal deception. Volker Walther Am 25.12.2017 um 08:58 schrieb Herman De Wael: > Let me teel you my final dream of this morning: > > Apparently I'm Director at the final of the NBA, and it's halftime > between tw halves of 60 minutes each. I know that this is longer than a > regular match, so I ask one of the players how long a regular match > lasts. The answer was 67 minutes but of course my subconscious cannot > know hat my conscious doesn't. > At this point two players approach me, asking if it is still time to ask > a ruling. And they start telling me hich ruling - it's a bridge one. > At this point I wake up, but the bridge question haunts me and I > construct the following case: > > During the play of the hand, a declarer needs to find out if a suit is > divided 5-2 or 4-3. The opponent who has 5 or 4 is known to also have 5 > of a different suit. Declarer has noticed that opponent thinking during > the bidding, and he checks the system card - indeed they play something > to indicate that particular 5-5 at that point in the auction. So > Declarer plays for theplayer to have only four, and it turns out he does > have five. The opponent did in fact think at that junction about whether > to show his 5-5, and he decided against it because of his point holding. > That holding is so low that there should have been no time needed for > the decision and so illegal deception kicks in. > > Declarer has drawn a wrong conclusion from the action of an opponent who > had no bridge reason for that action. Can we rule illegal deception if > the conclusion is wrong for a different reason? > > Which I think is a good question. > So you see, Basketball can be an interesting game as well. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 28 08:23:11 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 08:23:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] illegal deception at Basketball In-Reply-To: <694be4f6-052a-e983-42f1-73ecbcac87b2@vwalther.de> References: <52bdb00c-6347-8435-bb5d-8862d1e7a598@skynet.be> <694be4f6-052a-e983-42f1-73ecbcac87b2@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Volker Walther wrote: > "The opponent did in fact think at that junction about whether > to show his 5-5, and he decided against it because of his point holding." > > This sounds like a pretty good bridge reason to me, not like an illegal > deception. > > Volker Walther > One could argue that when holding zero points, there is not much to think about and thus the deception might be ruled illegal. But anyhow, this as just a dream. Herman.