From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 1 03:50:35 2017 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:50:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16A In-Reply-To: <15A40B1C-DF63-46D1-B19C-265656268DE8@btinternet.com> References: <58e1586f-c692-ff2b-da1d-98bde854d138@gmail.com> <58907192.0a081c0a.f5bd4.4f0c@mx.google.com> <15A40B1C-DF63-46D1-B19C-265656268DE8@btinternet.com> Message-ID: A player mumbles "13", telling the whole table his HCP. This is a simple ruling: 1. Everything partner does is UI [except as listed in the laws]. So it's UI to his partner. 2. Everything the opponent does is AI [except as listed in the laws]. So it's AI to the opponents. This is EXACTLY the structure L16A should have. L16A currently has the wrong structure. To actually follow L16A, you would first decide if this is part of the legal procedures of the game, then rule it AI to EVERYONE (if it did) or UI to EVERYONE (if it didn't). In other words, L16A is worthless. It would be like using a London Subway map to get to Times Square -- you better already know how to get there, or have another map. The examples are endless: An opponent shows you a card from his hand. UI. A player tells the director why he made an insufficient bid. AI to everyone, or UI to everyone? Okay. Partner explains your bid. That is part of the procedures of the game, so according to L16A it's AI to everyone, including you. Fortunately, we have a different map, L16B, which gives the right answer. However, L16B DOES NOT APPLY -- it applies only to Extraneous Information from partner. Awkward, right? Then L16B says "For example, ..." Example of what? An example of things that should be UI even if L16A says they are AI? Really, you are supposed to know the general principle that these are examples of. Or how do you expand to the things that are not on the list? If you rewrite the rule with the correct structure, it's really clear and elegant and useful. You will love it. From vip at centrum.is Thu Feb 2 18:49:27 2017 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 17:49:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] L16A In-Reply-To: References: <58e1586f-c692-ff2b-da1d-98bde854d138@gmail.com> <58907192.0a081c0a.f5bd4.4f0c@mx.google.com> <15A40B1C-DF63-46D1-B19C-265656268DE8@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <1000151934.1468269.1486057767665.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> This is not clear case... If the player mumbled any other number than 13, we could assume that could be the number of the HCP's he holds. But here he could be telling the whole table that he holds 13 cards ( I have done that ) Vigfus ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Robert Frick" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Mi?vikudagur, 1. Febr?ar, 2017 02:50:35 Efni: [BLML] L16A A player mumbles "13", telling the whole table his HCP. This is a simple ruling: 1. Everything partner does is UI [except as listed in the laws]. So it's UI to his partner. 2. Everything the opponent does is AI [except as listed in the laws]. So it's AI to the opponents. This is EXACTLY the structure L16A should have. L16A currently has the wrong structure. To actually follow L16A, you would first decide if this is part of the legal procedures of the game, then rule it AI to EVERYONE (if it did) or UI to EVERYONE (if it didn't). In other words, L16A is worthless. It would be like using a London Subway map to get to Times Square -- you better already know how to get there, or have another map. The examples are endless: An opponent shows you a card from his hand. UI. A player tells the director why he made an insufficient bid. AI to everyone, or UI to everyone? Okay. Partner explains your bid. That is part of the procedures of the game, so according to L16A it's AI to everyone, including you. Fortunately, we have a different map, L16B, which gives the right answer. However, L16B DOES NOT APPLY -- it applies only to Extraneous Information from partner. Awkward, right? Then L16B says "For example, ..." Example of what? An example of things that should be UI even if L16A says they are AI? Really, you are supposed to know the general principle that these are examples of. Or how do you expand to the things that are not on the list? If you rewrite the rule with the correct structure, it's really clear and elegant and useful. You will love it. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 3 08:34:02 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 08:34:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Looking for some scoring help In-Reply-To: <58e1586f-c692-ff2b-da1d-98bde854d138@gmail.com> References: <58e1586f-c692-ff2b-da1d-98bde854d138@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7402220f-26ab-94b9-7bf5-aacac14b7723@skynet.be> isn't any ancient DOS-program capable of more than simple calculation? Mine still works, and it communicates only with a printer, if you ask it to. brian wrote: > Given how quiet this list has been of late, I hope you'll all forgive > me a borderline off-topic post, but if what I'm trying to research > exists, I'm absolutely sure that someone on this list will know about > it! I think the chances are remote in the extreme, but just about > worth the e-mail. I know nothing about it given that it's almost 20 > years since I last played offline bridge. > > Some background: I'm a mentor for a version of Precision that's been > taught on Bridge Base Online for a number of years now. Recently a few > of us decided to get together and document the system in some > print-on-demand books which are available via Amazon. You can imagine > that we were a bit surprised to get a mentoring request from the > mother of a guy who's currently doing time in low-security Federal > prison! Anyway, I said I'd take him on, and it's his request for > information that I'm passing on. > > The rules in prison are that they are not allowed computers above a > simple calculator, the only thing they have access to is a closed > e-mail system through which they can exchange simple e-mails with the > outside world. At the moment they are scoring the prison duplicates > the old-fashioned way, with pen and paper. > > Is anyone aware of any aid to scoring duplicates which CANNOT (Bureau > of Prisons rules!) be networkable or capable of being programmed in > any other way? I've told them that I think it highly unlikely, that I > expect scoring programs to run on a computer are many and varied, but > they're not allowed that. It has to be *dedicated* hardware, and of > course still commercially available. > > Thanks for any info... but I'm not holding my breath! :( > > > Brian. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13869 - Release Date: 01/31/17 > > From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 09:28:47 2017 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 03:28:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Looking for some scoring help In-Reply-To: <7402220f-26ab-94b9-7bf5-aacac14b7723@skynet.be> References: <58e1586f-c692-ff2b-da1d-98bde854d138@gmail.com> <7402220f-26ab-94b9-7bf5-aacac14b7723@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8548cf30-2b06-8aea-bef6-f769cdbe29f4@gmail.com> On 02/03/2017 02:34 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > isn't any ancient DOS-program capable of more than simple calculation? > Mine still works, and it communicates only with a printer, if you ask it to. > Unfortunately they're not allowed a computer in prison - it has to be *dedicated* hardware. Brian. > > brian wrote: >> Given how quiet this list has been of late, I hope you'll all forgive >> me a borderline off-topic post, but if what I'm trying to research >> exists, I'm absolutely sure that someone on this list will know about >> it! I think the chances are remote in the extreme, but just about >> worth the e-mail. I know nothing about it given that it's almost 20 >> years since I last played offline bridge. >> >> Some background: I'm a mentor for a version of Precision that's been >> taught on Bridge Base Online for a number of years now. Recently a few >> of us decided to get together and document the system in some >> print-on-demand books which are available via Amazon. You can imagine >> that we were a bit surprised to get a mentoring request from the >> mother of a guy who's currently doing time in low-security Federal >> prison! Anyway, I said I'd take him on, and it's his request for >> information that I'm passing on. >> >> The rules in prison are that they are not allowed computers above a >> simple calculator, the only thing they have access to is a closed >> e-mail system through which they can exchange simple e-mails with the >> outside world. At the moment they are scoring the prison duplicates >> the old-fashioned way, with pen and paper. >> >> Is anyone aware of any aid to scoring duplicates which CANNOT (Bureau >> of Prisons rules!) be networkable or capable of being programmed in >> any other way? I've told them that I think it highly unlikely, that I >> expect scoring programs to run on a computer are many and varied, but >> they're not allowed that. It has to be *dedicated* hardware, and of >> course still commercially available. >> >> Thanks for any info... but I'm not holding my breath! :( >> >> >> Brian. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13869 - Release Date: 01/31/17 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam at tameware.com Mon Feb 6 07:01:43 2017 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 23:01:43 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: A few people pointed out a logical flaw in the "unless there is no logical alternative" text. Here's a new version based on a suggestion by Andy Bowles: A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information unless the other call or play is not a logical alternative. On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Thanks, Tim! I like it. Laurie Kelso and I are now working up a proposal > along these lines. > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Timothy N. Hill > wrote: > >> On 2016 Jul 12, at 12:44, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> >> ? the WBF LC is now considering ? >> >> >> ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have >> been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is >> no logical alternative. >> >> >> Better. Now >> >> - delete ?over another,? >> - change ?could have been? to ?is,? >> - change the preceding clause to a separate paragraph stating that >> extraneous information from partner is unauthorized, and >> - in this clause change ?extraneous? to ?unauthorized.? >> >> >> How ?bout this? >> >> Extraneous information that may suggest a call or play includes remarks, questions, >> replies to questions, unexpected* alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gestures, movements, >> and mannerisms. Extraneous information from partner is unauthorized. >> >> A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested by >> unauthorized information from his partner unless there is no logical >> alternative. >> >> A logical alternative is one that a significant proportion of the class >> of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would >> seriously consider, and some might select. >> >> Tim >> -- >> Timothy N. Hill >> mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 >> 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA >> Duplicate Bridge Director >> American Contract Bridge League: >> Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, >> Newton Bridge Club: >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170206/f71870aa/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Sun Feb 5 22:18:03 2017 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 14:18:03 -0700 Subject: [BLML] ACBL LC soliciting comments on the 2017 Draft Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bcc: BLML I received a subscription request for your account shortly after you posted. I trust you have access now. Please let me know if you still have a problem. On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Jos? J?lio Curado wrote: > Hi Adam! > > I tried to join but I kept receiving a message stating an error had > occurred... > > I will try again later. > > Best Regards > Jose Curado > > On 25 January 2017 at 07:20, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >> The WBF Laws Committee has prepared a draft of the 2017 Laws of Duplicate >> Bridge and sent copies to the world's NBOs. The ACBL Laws Commission is >> soliciting comments on the draft from ACBL members and interested others. >> We will pass those we consider worth further thought to the WBF LC. >> >> To obtain access to the draft laws and to submit comments please visit >> this page and request admission to the Yahoo group formed for this purpose: >> >> https://groups.yahoo.com/bridge-laws-2017 >> >> Alternatively, you can send a message to: >> >> bridge-laws-2017-subscribe at yahoogroups.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20170205/8597653a/attachment.html From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Mon Feb 6 16:05:44 2017 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 16:05:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:00 6-2-2017, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List >To: "Timothy N. Hill" >References: > > <4F31601C.7000700 at vwalther.de> > > > >In-Reply-To: > >Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 23:01:43 -0700 >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Message-ID: > >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137aa56b1d52d0547d65df1 >Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) >Message: 1 > >A few people pointed out a logical flaw in the "unless there is no >logical alternative" text. Here's a new? version? based on a >suggestion by Andy Bowles: > >A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably >suggested over another by unauthorized information unless the other >call or play is not a logical alternative. "unless ... not" : this double negatives is confusing to simple minds like mine. I suggest 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. From davidgrabiner at verizon.net Tue Feb 7 05:05:43 2017 From: davidgrabiner at verizon.net (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 23:05:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <2fe32f18-44a5-eeef-727c-60f41bee1659@verizon.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170207/ceb797e4/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Feb 7 19:20:58 2017 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:20:58 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: <2fe32f18-44a5-eeef-727c-60f41bee1659@verizon.net> References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <2fe32f18-44a5-eeef-727c-60f41bee1659@verizon.net> Message-ID: I like that as well. Or: "A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over a logical alternative by unauthorized information." On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:05 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > The wording I like: "A player may not choose a call or play that is > demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information over a logical > alternative." This connects the "over" directly with "logical > alternative"; when West doubled instead of passing, was passing a logical > alternative? > > > On 2/6/2017 1:01 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > A few people pointed out a logical flaw in the "unless there is no > logical alternative" text. Here's a new version based on a suggestion by > Andy Bowles: > > A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over > another by unauthorized information unless the other call or play is not a > logical alternative. > > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > >> Thanks, Tim! I like it. Laurie Kelso and I are now working up a proposal >> along these lines. >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Timothy N. Hill >> wrote: >> >>> On 2016 Jul 12, at 12:44, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>> >>> ? the WBF LC is now considering ? >>> >>> >>> ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably >>> have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there >>> is no logical alternative. >>> >>> >>> Better. Now >>> >>> - delete ?over another,? >>> - change ?could have been? to ?is,? >>> - change the preceding clause to a separate paragraph stating that >>> extraneous information from partner is unauthorized, and >>> - in this clause change ?extraneous? to ?unauthorized.? >>> >>> >>> How ?bout this? >>> >>> Extraneous information that may suggest a call or play includes >>> remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected* alerts or >>> failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special >>> emphasis, tone, gestures, movements, and mannerisms. Extraneous information >>> from partner is unauthorized. >>> >>> A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested by >>> unauthorized information from his partner unless there is no logical >>> alternative. >>> >>> A logical alternative is one that a significant proportion of the class >>> of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would >>> seriously consider, and some might select. >>> >>> Tim >>> -- >>> Timothy N. Hill >>> mobile: +1 781-929-7673 <%2B1%20781-929-7673>, home: +1 781-235-2902 >>> <%2B1%20781-235-2902> >>> 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA >>> Duplicate Bridge Director >>> American Contract Bridge League: >>> Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476 <%2B1%20781-329-2476>, < >>> http://bridgewebs.com/westwood/> >>> Newton Bridge Club: >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing listBlml at rtflb.orghttp://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > David Grabiner grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (permanent Email; put this in your address book)davidgrabiner at verizon.net (valid as long as I am with Verizon) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170207/8f1446f4/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Feb 7 19:22:49 2017 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:22:49 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <2fe32f18-44a5-eeef-727c-60f41bee1659@verizon.net> Message-ID: I was asked on BridgeWinners.com: Suppose a player chooses a call suggested over another by UI, and neither is a LA? Has anyone come across such a situation? What would we want the laws to say about it? On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > I like that as well. Or: > > "A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested > over a logical alternative by unauthorized information." > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:05 PM, David Grabiner > wrote: > >> The wording I like: "A player may not choose a call or play that is >> demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information over a logical >> alternative." This connects the "over" directly with "logical >> alternative"; when West doubled instead of passing, was passing a logical >> alternative? >> >> >> On 2/6/2017 1:01 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> >> A few people pointed out a logical flaw in the "unless there is no >> logical alternative" text. Here's a new version based on a suggestion by >> Andy Bowles: >> >> A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested >> over another by unauthorized information unless the other call or play is >> not a logical alternative. >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Adam Wildavsky >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks, Tim! I like it. Laurie Kelso and I are now working up a proposal >>> along these lines. >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Timothy N. Hill >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2016 Jul 12, at 12:44, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>>> >>>> ? the WBF LC is now considering ? >>>> >>>> >>>> ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably >>>> have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there >>>> is no logical alternative. >>>> >>>> >>>> Better. Now >>>> >>>> - delete ?over another,? >>>> - change ?could have been? to ?is,? >>>> - change the preceding clause to a separate paragraph stating that >>>> extraneous information from partner is unauthorized, and >>>> - in this clause change ?extraneous? to ?unauthorized.? >>>> >>>> >>>> How ?bout this? >>>> >>>> Extraneous information that may suggest a call or play includes >>>> remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected* alerts or >>>> failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special >>>> emphasis, tone, gestures, movements, and mannerisms. Extraneous information >>>> from partner is unauthorized. >>>> >>>> A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested >>>> by unauthorized information from his partner unless there is no logical >>>> alternative. >>>> >>>> A logical alternative is one that a significant proportion of the >>>> class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would >>>> seriously consider, and some might select. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> -- >>>> Timothy N. Hill >>>> mobile: +1 781-929-7673 <%2B1%20781-929-7673>, home: +1 781-235-2902 >>>> <%2B1%20781-235-2902> >>>> 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA >>>> Duplicate Bridge Director >>>> American Contract Bridge League: >>>> Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476 <%2B1%20781-329-2476>, < >>>> http://bridgewebs.com/westwood/> >>>> Newton Bridge Club: >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing listBlml at rtflb.orghttp://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> -- >> David Grabiner grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (permanent Email; put this in your address book)davidgrabiner at verizon.net (valid as long as I am with Verizon) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20170207/7fa3cfb2/attachment-0001.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Feb 7 23:03:53 2017 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:03:53 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <2fe32f18-44a5-eeef-727c-60f41bee1659@verizon.net> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steven Willner Date: Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:47 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) To: Adam Wildavsky On 2/7/17 1:22 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Suppose a player chooses a call suggested over another by UI, and > neither is a LA? > Sorry, I can't reply to the list just now, but the above is why we have L73A1 and 73C. Example: North makes a forcing bid and then says out loud "Don't pass." Pass was never a LA, and L16 doesn't apply, but the Director is free to apply L12C1, judging the probability that South might have passed absent the remark. For this reason, the new wording of L73 needs to be checked. It should refer to an adjusted score, not a penalty, and not mention L16 except perhaps as "see also." Feel free to quote the above to BLML or the Yahoo group if you like. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170207/2235f0ef/attachment.html From rmlmarques at zonmail.pt Wed Feb 8 00:43:16 2017 From: rmlmarques at zonmail.pt (Rui Lopes Marques) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 23:43:16 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <2fe32f18-44a5-eeef-727c-60f41bee1659@verizon.net> Message-ID: <001701d2819b$f4e41cf0$deac56d0$@zonmail.pt> EBU and Australia, at least, have interpretations of Law 16 where the action of a player is basically defined as LA for the player, period. Does it help? From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Adam Wildavsky Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 6:23 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) I was asked on BridgeWinners.com: Suppose a player chooses a call suggested over another by UI, and neither is a LA? Has anyone come across such a situation? What would we want the laws to say about it? On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: I like that as well. Or: "A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over a logical alternative by unauthorized information." On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:05 PM, David Grabiner > wrote: The wording I like: "A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information over a logical alternative." This connects the "over" directly with "logical alternative"; when West doubled instead of passing, was passing a logical alternative? On 2/6/2017 1:01 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: A few people pointed out a logical flaw in the "unless there is no logical alternative" text. Here's a new version based on a suggestion by Andy Bowles: A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information unless the other call or play is not a logical alternative. On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: Thanks, Tim! I like it. Laurie Kelso and I are now working up a proposal along these lines. On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Timothy N. Hill > wrote: On 2016 Jul 12, at 12:44, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: ? the WBF LC is now considering ? ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is no logical alternative. Better. Now * delete ?over another,? * change ?could have been? to ?is,? * change the preceding clause to a separate paragraph stating that extraneous information from partner is unauthorized, and * in this clause change ?extraneous? to ?unauthorized.? How ?bout this? Extraneous information that may suggest a call or play includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected* alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gestures, movements, and mannerisms. Extraneous information from partner is unauthorized. A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information from his partner unless there is no logical alternative. A logical alternative is one that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select. Tim -- Timothy N. Hill > mobile: +1 781-929-7673 , home: +1 781-235-2902 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA Duplicate Bridge Director American Contract Bridge League: Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476 , Newton Bridge Club: _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- David Grabiner grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (permanent Email; put this in your address book) davidgrabiner at verizon.net (valid as long as I am with Verizon) _______________________________________________ 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/20170207/30f15cbe/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 07:32:08 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 17:32:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <2fe32f18-44a5-eeef-727c-60f41bee1659@verizon.net> Message-ID: On the topic of neither call being an LA, a partnership's explicit system is over-ridden by implicit Law 40C1 frequent forgetfulness. See David Burn's fabulous article on the Ghestem / Guessed 'Em convention: http://blakjak.org/brx_brn0.htm Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, February 8, 2017, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > I was asked on BridgeWinners.com: Suppose a player chooses a call > suggested over another by UI, and neither is a LA? Has anyone come across > such a situation? What would we want the laws to say about it? > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > >> I like that as well. Or: >> >> "A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested >> over a logical alternative by unauthorized information." >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:05 PM, David Grabiner > > wrote: >> >>> The wording I like: "A player may not choose a call or play that is >>> demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information over a logical >>> alternative." This connects the "over" directly with "logical >>> alternative"; when West doubled instead of passing, was passing a logical >>> alternative? >>> >>> >>> On 2/6/2017 1:01 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>> >>> A few people pointed out a logical flaw in the "unless there is no >>> logical alternative" text. Here's a new version based on a suggestion >>> by Andy Bowles: >>> >>> A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested >>> over another by unauthorized information unless the other call or play is >>> not a logical alternative. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Adam Wildavsky >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks, Tim! I like it. Laurie Kelso and I are now working up a >>>> proposal along these lines. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Timothy N. Hill >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2016 Jul 12, at 12:44, Adam Wildavsky >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ? the WBF LC is now considering ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably >>>>> have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there >>>>> is no logical alternative. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Better. Now >>>>> >>>>> - delete ?over another,? >>>>> - change ?could have been? to ?is,? >>>>> - change the preceding clause to a separate paragraph stating that >>>>> extraneous information from partner is unauthorized, and >>>>> - in this clause change ?extraneous? to ?unauthorized.? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How ?bout this? >>>>> >>>>> Extraneous information that may suggest a call or play includes >>>>> remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected* alerts or >>>>> failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special >>>>> emphasis, tone, gestures, movements, and mannerisms. Extraneous information >>>>> from partner is unauthorized. >>>>> >>>>> A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested >>>>> by unauthorized information from his partner unless there is no logical >>>>> alternative. >>>>> >>>>> A logical alternative is one that a significant proportion of the >>>>> class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would >>>>> seriously consider, and some might select. >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> -- >>>>> Timothy N. Hill >>>> > >>>>> mobile: +1 781-929-7673 <%2B1%20781-929-7673>, home: +1 781-235-2902 >>>>> <%2B1%20781-235-2902> >>>>> 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA >>>>> Duplicate Bridge Director >>>>> American Contract Bridge League: >>>>> Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476 <%2B1%20781-329-2476>, < >>>>> http://bridgewebs.com/westwood/> >>>>> Newton Bridge Club: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing listBlml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> -- >>> David Grabiner grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (permanent Email; put this in your address book)davidgrabiner at verizon.net (valid as long as I am with Verizon) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/20170208/fa876dc0/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Wed Feb 8 14:15:21 2017 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 06:15:21 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: <001701d2819b$f4e41cf0$deac56d0$@zonmail.pt> References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <2fe32f18-44a5-eeef-727c-60f41bee1659@verizon.net> <001701d2819b$f4e41cf0$deac56d0$@zonmail.pt> Message-ID: I don't think that would help. A is suggested over B. B is not an LA. So we allow A. But if neither is an LA then the pair may have gained an advantage through the use of UI. The TD could still adjust per 73C, but the two laws might appear to conflict. This must be a rare situation since if A were suggested over some other LA, call it C, then A would clearly be disallowed. No one has yet posted an example. On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Rui Lopes Marques wrote: > EBU and Australia, at least, have interpretations of Law 16 where the > action of a player is basically defined as LA for the player, period. Does > it help? > > > > *From:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On Behalf > Of *Adam Wildavsky > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 7, 2017 6:23 PM > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) > > > > I was asked on BridgeWinners.com: Suppose a player chooses a call > suggested over another by UI, and neither is a LA? Has anyone come across > such a situation? What would we want the laws to say about it? > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > I like that as well. Or: > > > > "A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested > over a logical alternative by unauthorized information." > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:05 PM, David Grabiner > wrote: > > The wording I like: "A player may not choose a call or play that is > demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information over a logical > alternative." This connects the "over" directly with "logical > alternative"; when West doubled instead of passing, was passing a logical > alternative? > > > > On 2/6/2017 1:01 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > A few people pointed out a logical flaw in the "unless there is no > logical alternative" text. Here's a new version based on a suggestion by > Andy Bowles: > > > > A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over > another by unauthorized information unless the other call or play is not a > logical alternative. > > > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > > Thanks, Tim! I like it. Laurie Kelso and I are now working up a proposal > along these lines. > > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Timothy N. Hill > wrote: > > On 2016 Jul 12, at 12:44, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > > > ? the WBF LC is now considering ? > > > > ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have > been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is > no logical alternative. > > > > Better. Now > > - delete ?over another,? > - change ?could have been? to ?is,? > - change the preceding clause to a separate paragraph stating that > extraneous information from partner is unauthorized, and > - in this clause change ?extraneous? to ?unauthorized.? > > > > How ?bout this? > > > > Extraneous information that may suggest a call or play includes remarks, questions, > replies to questions, unexpected* alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable > hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gestures, movements, > and mannerisms. Extraneous information from partner is unauthorized. > > > > A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested by > unauthorized information from his partner unless there is no logical > alternative. > > > > A logical alternative is one that a significant proportion of the class of > players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously > consider, and some might select. > > Tim > > -- > Timothy N. Hill > mobile: +1 781-929-7673, home: +1 781-235-2902 > 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA > Duplicate Bridge Director > American Contract Bridge League: > Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476, > Newton Bridge Club: > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > -- > > David Grabiner > > grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (permanent Email; put this in your address book) > > davidgrabiner at verizon.net (valid as long as I am with Verizon) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170208/fd8ba556/attachment.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Wed Feb 8 16:29:01 2017 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 10:29:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <2fe32f18-44a5-eeef-727c-60f41bee1659@verizon.net> Message-ID: On 02/07/17 1:22 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > I was asked on BridgeWinners.com: Suppose a player chooses a call > suggested over another by UI, and neither is a LA? Has anyone come > across such a situation? What would we want the laws to say about it? "Logical" here modifies "alternative". Whether or not the call actually chosen is "logical" doesn't matter; it is only the "alternatives" to it that are constrained. It's there to limit the adjudicator's choices of presumed alternative actions. If you have UI that partner would prefer you to pass his 3S bid than raise it to game, you also have UI that he would prefer a pass to a 7NT bid, but if you gain by passing we adjust your score to the result in 4S (a logical alternative to pass) rather than in 7NT (not). Note that "gain by passing" is objective; the "logicalness" of the pass doesn't matter. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From adam at tameware.com Fri Feb 10 00:10:01 2017 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:10:01 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <2fe32f18-44a5-eeef-727c-60f41bee1659@verizon.net> Message-ID: Thanks, Eric. I agree completely. May I quote you on BridgeWinners? On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On 02/07/17 1:22 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > > I was asked on BridgeWinners.com: Suppose a player chooses a call > > suggested over another by UI, and neither is a LA? Has anyone come > > across such a situation? What would we want the laws to say about it? > > "Logical" here modifies "alternative". Whether or not the call actually > chosen is "logical" doesn't matter; it is only the "alternatives" to it > that are constrained. It's there to limit the adjudicator's choices of > presumed alternative actions. If you have UI that partner would prefer > you to pass his 3S bid than raise it to game, you also have UI that he > would prefer a pass to a 7NT bid, but if you gain by passing we adjust > your score to the result in 4S (a logical alternative to pass) rather > than in 7NT (not). Note that "gain by passing" is objective; the > "logicalness" of the pass doesn't matter. > > Eric Landau > Silver Spring MD > New York NY > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170209/c7abb26f/attachment.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Fri Feb 10 15:37:52 2017 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:37:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <2fe32f18-44a5-eeef-727c-60f41bee1659@verizon.net> Message-ID: <901d287e-0a1e-4c75-394f-28479e4358d2@verizon.net> On 02/09/17 6:10 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: Thanks, Eric. I agree completely. May I quote you on BridgeWinners? Sure. > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Eric Landau > wrote: > > > "Logical" here modifies "alternative". Whether or not the call > actually > chosen is "logical" doesn't matter; it is only the "alternatives" > to it > that are constrained. It's there to limit the adjudicator's > choices of > presumed alternative actions. If you have UI that partner would > prefer > you to pass his 3S bid than raise it to game, you also have UI that he > would prefer a pass to a 7NT bid, but if you gain by passing we adjust > your score to the result in 4S (a logical alternative to pass) rather > than in 7NT (not). Note that "gain by passing" is objective; the > "logicalness" of the pass doesn't matter > -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From bridgeinindia at gmail.com Sun Feb 12 19:07:38 2017 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (BridgeinIndia) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 23:37:38 +0530 Subject: [BLML] ACBL LC soliciting comments on the 2017 Draft Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *To * *Mr Adam Wildavsky, * ?*Game is defined as > " * *Game ? 100 or more trick points scored on one deal?"?.? Is this definition suitable for duplicate bridge too, apart from Rubber bridge.??* *?Kindly advise me why a score of 140.170.etc, in a duplicate game deal, is called as Part score even though these are greater than 100 as defined in the Law.? ?* Sent with Mailtrack *With RegardsDr Raghavan.P.S.BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph =+91-044-23761038Mobile = 9940273749* *?---------------------------------------------------------------?* On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > The WBF Laws Committee has prepared a draft of the 2017 Laws of Duplicate > Bridge and sent copies to the world's NBOs. The ACBL Laws Commission is > soliciting comments on the draft from ACBL members and interested others. > We will pass those we consider worth further thought to the WBF LC. > > To obtain access to the draft laws and to submit comments please visit > this page and request admission to the Yahoo group formed for this purpose: > > https://groups.yahoo.com/bridge-laws-2017 > > Alternatively, you can send a message to: > > bridge-laws-2017-subscribe at yahoogroups.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170212/abc20900/attachment.html From bridgeinindia at gmail.com Sun Feb 12 19:25:31 2017 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (BridgeinIndia) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 23:55:31 +0530 Subject: [BLML] ACBL LC soliciting comments on the 2017 Draft Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *To* *Mr Adam Wildavsky * *Same for definition of Part score " Partscore ? 90 or fewer trick points scored on one deal"* *Part score definition needs to include 140,170 etc etc too.in duplicate games.*. Sent with Mailtrack With Regards Dr Raghavan.P.S. BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph =+91-044-23761038 Mobile = 9940273749 On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > The WBF Laws Committee has prepared a draft of the 2017 Laws of Duplicate > Bridge and sent copies to the world's NBOs. The ACBL Laws Commission is > soliciting comments on the draft from ACBL members and interested others. > We will pass those we consider worth further thought to the WBF LC. > > To obtain access to the draft laws and to submit comments please visit > this page and request admission to the Yahoo group formed for this purpose: > > https://groups.yahoo.com/bridge-laws-2017 > > Alternatively, you can send a message to: > > bridge-laws-2017-subscribe at yahoogroups.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170212/6dbbba31/attachment.html From sven at svenpran.net Sun Feb 12 19:49:18 2017 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:49:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL LC soliciting comments on the 2017 Draft Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000f01d28560$b9fe2180$2dfa6480$@svenpran.net> The laws of Dupliccate says: Game ? 100 or more trick points scored on one deal. Partscore ? 90 or fewer trick points scored on one deal. In Rubber you reach game when you accumulate at least 100 trick points without your opponents reaching game. The 140 etc. in duplicate are not only trick points, it includes bonus points. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av BridgeinIndia Sendt: s?ndag 12. februar 2017 19.26 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] ACBL LC soliciting comments on the 2017 Draft Laws To Mr Adam Wildavsky Same for definition of Part score " Partscore ? 90 or fewer trick points scored on one deal" Part score definition needs to include 140,170 etc etc too.in duplicate games.. Sent with Mailtrack With Regards Dr Raghavan.P.S. BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph =+91-044-23761038 Mobile = 9940273749 On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: The WBF Laws Committee has prepared a draft of the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge and sent copies to the world's NBOs. The ACBL Laws Commission is soliciting comments on the draft from ACBL members and interested others. We will pass those we consider worth further thought to the WBF LC. To obtain access to the draft laws and to submit comments please visit this page and request admission to the Yahoo group formed for this purpose: https://groups.yahoo.com/bridge-laws-2017 Alternatively, you can send a message to: bridge-laws-2017-subscribe at yahoogroups.com _______________________________________________ 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/20170212/13eecffa/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170212/13eecffa/attachment-0002.jpe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 335 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170212/13eecffa/attachment-0003.jpe From bridgeinindia at gmail.com Sun Feb 12 20:18:09 2017 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (BridgeinIndia) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:48:09 +0530 Subject: [BLML] ACBL LC soliciting comments on the 2017 Draft Laws In-Reply-To: <000f01d28560$b9fe2180$2dfa6480$@svenpran.net> References: <000f01d28560$b9fe2180$2dfa6480$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: *In the definitions of GAME and PART SCORE, it may be preferable to add the words "See Law 77 for details " under each.* Sent with Mailtrack *With RegardsDr Raghavan.P.S.BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph =+91-044-23761038Mobile = 9940273749* *?---------------------------------------------------*? On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > The laws of Dupliccate says: > > *Game ? 100 or more trick points scored on one deal*. > > *Partscore ? 90 or fewer trick points scored on one deal.* > > > > In Rubber you reach game when you *accumulate* at least 100 *trick points* > without your opponents reaching game. > > > > The 140 etc. in duplicate are not only trick points, it includes bonus > points. > > > > *Fra:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > av* BridgeinIndia > *Sendt:* s?ndag 12. februar 2017 19.26 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* Re: [BLML] ACBL LC soliciting comments on the 2017 Draft Laws > > > > *To* > > *Mr Adam Wildavsky * > > > > *Same for definition of Part score " Partscore ? 90 or fewer trick points > scored on one deal"* > > > > *Part score definition needs to include 140,170 etc etc too.in > duplicate games.*. > > > > [image: Bilde er fjernet av sender.] Sent with > Mailtrack > > > [image: Bilde er fjernet av sender.] > > > > > With Regards > Dr Raghavan.P.S. > BridgeinIndia at gmail.com > www.BridgeIndia.com > Ph =+91-044-23761038 > Mobile = 9940273749 > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > > The WBF Laws Committee has prepared a draft of the 2017 Laws of Duplicate > Bridge and sent copies to the world's NBOs. The ACBL Laws Commission is > soliciting comments on the draft from ACBL members and interested others. > We will pass those we consider worth further thought to the WBF LC. > > > > To obtain access to the draft laws and to submit comments please visit > this page and request admission to the Yahoo group formed for this purpose: > > > > https://groups.yahoo.com/bridge-laws-2017 > > > > Alternatively, you can send a message to: > > > > bridge-laws-2017-subscribe at yahoogroups.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170212/c198971d/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170212/c198971d/attachment.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 335 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170212/c198971d/attachment-0001.jpg From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 12 22:55:45 2017 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:55:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Dummy doesn't play two cards Message-ID: One defender led a club. Declarer called for a club. Dummy took the low club from Ax and held it face forward and motionless, close the table. Which doesn't count as played, though it would be must-be-played for declarer. Dummy then pushed the ace of clubs forward. Which is what dummy might do for a singleton, albeit the dummy is more likely pull the card backwards (towards dummy). Apparently that does not count as played either, because the card is never picked up from the table. Defender, thinking that dummy was playing the ace, played small, an irrational play. When he learned that a small club was played, he wanted to play his king (the logical play). Well, interesting situation -- two cards that looked "played" even though technically neither one had been played. As far as I can tell. In retrospect, I think dummy's movement of the ace of clubs is an extraneous movement, akin to an extraneous comment -- no penalty, but rectification if the opponents are damaged. From davidgrabiner at verizon.net Sun Feb 12 23:36:39 2017 From: davidgrabiner at verizon.net (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:36:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Dummy doesn't play two cards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <714eeb54-47db-5979-0b7f-3196ecbd9037@verizon.net> I agree with your ruling (adjust to restore equity), and that is how I would have ruled in a similar case (also cited in BLML in September 2014): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.games.bridge/%22Which$20jack$3F%22/rec.games.bridge/VZX8TxQnv_E The contract was 3S. Declarer (South) had taken six tricks, and had the lead in his hand at trick 11. It was presumably known to all the players that the trumps were out, that dummy's club jack was the only one left, and that the red aces were out. Here is the position at trick 11: - KJ - J - - Q7 5 K Q9 - - - T86 - - Declarer led the six of hearts at trick 11, and played dummy's king. For the next trick, he called "Jack," without specifying a suit. Dummy pushed the jack of clubs forward slightly and removed her hand from the card; West did not notice this. East, assuming the club jack had been the one led (not that it mattered), threw the diamond nine. Declarer played the heart eight. West thought that dummy had led the heart jack, since dummy had won a heart trick and then declarer called "Jack." Dummy no longer had a hand on either card at this point; from the position of the cards, you could tell that she had either pushed the club jack forward or pulled the heart jack back. West thus played the heart queen to (as he believed) follow suit. Declarer then claimed the thirteenth trick, scoring up his contract. At that point, West called the director. Equity would be served by ruling that the CJ was led but that West could retract the HQ because he had been misled by the ambiguous declaration; this could also be ruled as, "dummy plays a card that declarer did not name", which can be retracted since E-W had not played to the thirteenth trick. A strict ruling of the laws gives West either no tricks (if the CJ was played because "jack" incontrovertibly meant the winning jack rather than the losing jack, and West made a legal play to that trick), or two tricks (if the HJ was played because "jack" means the jack of the suit last played). On 2/12/2017 4:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > One defender led a club. Declarer called for a club. Dummy took the low club from Ax and held it face forward and motionless, close the table. Which doesn't count as played, though it would be must-be-played for declarer. > > Dummy then pushed the ace of clubs forward. Which is what dummy might do for a singleton, albeit the dummy is more likely pull the card backwards (towards dummy). Apparently that does not count as played either, because the card is never picked up from the table. > > Defender, thinking that dummy was playing the ace, played small, an irrational play. When he learned that a small club was played, he wanted to play his king (the logical play). > > Well, interesting situation -- two cards that looked "played" even though technically neither one had been played. As far as I can tell. > > In retrospect, I think dummy's movement of the ace of clubs is an extraneous movement, akin to an extraneous comment -- no penalty, but rectification if the opponents are damaged. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- David Grabiner grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (permanent Email; put this in your address book) davidgrabiner at verizon.net (valid as long as I am with Verizon) From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 05:36:21 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:36:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Dummy doesn't play two cards In-Reply-To: <714eeb54-47db-5979-0b7f-3196ecbd9037@verizon.net> References: <714eeb54-47db-5979-0b7f-3196ecbd9037@verizon.net> Message-ID: David Grabiner: [snip] A strict ruling of the laws gives West either no tricks (if the CJ was played because "jack" incontrovertibly meant the winning jack rather than the losing jack, and West made a legal play to that trick), or two tricks (if the HJ was played because "jack" means the jack of the suit last played). Richard Hills: David's cited ambiguity in the Laws will be removed by the forthcoming 2017 version of Law 45C4(b): "Declarer may correct an unintended designation of a card from dummy up until he next plays a card from either his own hand or from dummy. A change of designation may be allowed after a slip of the tongue, but not after a loss of concentration or a reconsideration of action. If an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another (see Laws 47D and 16C1)." Richard Hills: a) There are two jacks clearly visible in dummy. b) Declarer designated the single word "jack". c) The default meaning of a mere "jack" in this particular case is for the losing heart jack to be played from dummy. d) Ergo, declarer obviously had "a loss of concentration" (which dummy - "le mort" - illegally attempted to rectify). Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, February 13, 2017, David Grabiner > wrote: > I agree with your ruling (adjust to restore equity), and that is how I > would have ruled in a similar case (also cited in BLML in September 2014): > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.games. > bridge/%22Which$20jack$3F%22/rec.games.bridge/VZX8TxQnv_E > > The contract was 3S. Declarer (South) had taken six tricks, and had the > lead in his hand at trick 11. It was presumably known to all the > players that the trumps were out, that dummy's club jack was the only > one left, and that the red aces were out. > > Here is the position at trick 11: > > - > KJ > - > J > - - > Q7 5 > K Q9 > - - > - > T86 > - > - > > Declarer led the six of hearts at trick 11, and played dummy's king. > For the next trick, he called "Jack," without specifying a suit. Dummy > pushed the jack of clubs forward slightly and removed her hand from the > card; West did not notice this. East, assuming the club jack had been > the one led (not that it mattered), threw the diamond nine. Declarer > played the heart eight. > > West thought that dummy had led the heart jack, since dummy had won a > heart trick and then declarer called "Jack." Dummy no longer had a hand > on either card at this point; from the position of the cards, you could > tell that she had either pushed the club jack forward or pulled the > heart jack back. West thus played the heart queen to (as he believed) > follow suit. > > Declarer then claimed the thirteenth trick, scoring up his contract. At > that point, West called the director. > > Equity would be served by ruling that the CJ was led but that West could > retract the HQ because he had been misled by the ambiguous declaration; > this could also be ruled as, "dummy plays a card that declarer did not > name", which can be retracted since E-W had not played to the thirteenth > trick. > > A strict ruling of the laws gives West either no tricks (if the CJ was > played because "jack" incontrovertibly meant the winning jack rather > than the losing jack, and West made a legal play to that trick), or two > tricks (if the HJ was played because "jack" means the jack of the suit > last played). > > On 2/12/2017 4:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > One defender led a club. Declarer called for a club. Dummy took the low > club from Ax and held it face forward and motionless, close the table. > Which doesn't count as played, though it would be must-be-played for > declarer. > > > > Dummy then pushed the ace of clubs forward. Which is what dummy might do > for a singleton, albeit the dummy is more likely pull the card backwards > (towards dummy). Apparently that does not count as played either, because > the card is never picked up from the table. > > > > Defender, thinking that dummy was playing the ace, played small, an > irrational play. When he learned that a small club was played, he wanted to > play his king (the logical play). > > > > Well, interesting situation -- two cards that looked "played" even > though technically neither one had been played. As far as I can tell. > > > > In retrospect, I think dummy's movement of the ace of clubs is an > extraneous movement, akin to an extraneous comment -- no penalty, but > rectification if the opponents are damaged. > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > -- > David Grabiner > grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (permanent Email; put this in your address > book) > davidgrabiner at verizon.net (valid as long as I am with Verizon) > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170214/7b14c666/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Feb 14 16:19:56 2017 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 08:19:56 -0700 Subject: [BLML] ACBL LC soliciting comments on the 2017 Draft Laws In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d28560$b9fe2180$2dfa6480$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: Sven has it right. The 2017 definitions section has the cross-reference here -- is this adequate? *Trick Points* ? points scored by declarer?s side for fulfilling the contract (see Law 77). The new definitions have not been posted to BLML, so the bridge-laws-2017 Yahoo group may be the best place to discuss this. On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:18 PM, BridgeinIndia wrote: > *In the definitions of GAME and PART SCORE, it may be preferable to add > the words "See Law 77 for details " under each.* > > Sent with Mailtrack > > > > > > > > > *With RegardsDr Raghavan.P.S.BridgeinIndia at gmail.com > www.BridgeIndia.com Ph > =+91-044-23761038 <+91%2044%202376%201038>Mobile = 9940273749* > *?---------------------------------------------------*? > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> The laws of Dupliccate says: >> >> *Game ? 100 or more trick points scored on one deal*. >> >> *Partscore ? 90 or fewer trick points scored on one deal.* >> >> >> >> In Rubber you reach game when you *accumulate* at least 100 *trick >> points* without your opponents reaching game. >> >> >> >> The 140 etc. in duplicate are not only trick points, it includes bonus >> points. >> >> >> >> *Fra:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne >> av* BridgeinIndia >> *Sendt:* s?ndag 12. februar 2017 19.26 >> *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >> *Emne:* Re: [BLML] ACBL LC soliciting comments on the 2017 Draft Laws >> >> >> >> *To* >> >> *Mr Adam Wildavsky * >> >> >> >> *Same for definition of Part score " Partscore ? 90 or fewer trick points >> scored on one deal"* >> >> >> >> *Part score definition needs to include 140,170 etc etc too.in >> duplicate games.*. >> >> >> >> [image: Bilde er fjernet av sender.] Sent with >> Mailtrack >> >> >> [image: Bilde er fjernet av sender.] >> >> >> >> >> With Regards >> Dr Raghavan.P.S. >> BridgeinIndia at gmail.com >> www.BridgeIndia.com >> Ph =+91-044-23761038 <+91%2044%202376%201038> >> Mobile = 9940273749 >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Adam Wildavsky >> wrote: >> >> The WBF Laws Committee has prepared a draft of the 2017 Laws of Duplicate >> Bridge and sent copies to the world's NBOs. The ACBL Laws Commission is >> soliciting comments on the draft from ACBL members and interested others. >> We will pass those we consider worth further thought to the WBF LC. >> >> >> >> To obtain access to the draft laws and to submit comments please visit >> this page and request admission to the Yahoo group formed for this purpose: >> >> >> >> https://groups.yahoo.com/bridge-laws-2017 >> >> >> >> Alternatively, you can send a message to: >> >> >> >> bridge-laws-2017-subscribe at yahoogroups.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20170214/e820ff11/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 335 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170214/e820ff11/attachment.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170214/e820ff11/attachment-0001.jpg From bridgeinindia at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 19:50:58 2017 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (BridgeinIndia) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:20:58 +0530 Subject: [BLML] ACBL LC soliciting comments on the 2017 Draft Laws In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d28560$b9fe2180$2dfa6480$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: Thank you Game and Part score are mentioned ahead of Trick Points. It would be useful for newer generation of players when they start reading the definitions from top of the list. So here too - Game, Part score - if you think useful - (see law 77 ) could be mentioned. Sent with Mailtrack With Regards Dr Raghavan.P.S. BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph =+91-044-23761038 Mobile = 9940273749 On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Sven has it right. > > The 2017 definitions section has the cross-reference here -- is this > adequate? > > *Trick Points* ? points scored by declarer?s side for fulfilling the > contract (see Law 77). > > > The new definitions have not been posted to BLML, so the bridge-laws-2017 > Yahoo group may > be the best place to discuss this. > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:18 PM, BridgeinIndia > wrote: > >> *In the definitions of GAME and PART SCORE, it may be preferable to add >> the words "See Law 77 for details " under each.* >> >> Sent with Mailtrack >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *With RegardsDr Raghavan.P.S.BridgeinIndia at gmail.com >> www.BridgeIndia.com Ph >> =+91-044-23761038 <+91%2044%202376%201038>Mobile = 9940273749* >> *?---------------------------------------------------*? >> >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> The laws of Dupliccate says: >>> >>> *Game ? 100 or more trick points scored on one deal*. >>> >>> *Partscore ? 90 or fewer trick points scored on one deal.* >>> >>> >>> >>> In Rubber you reach game when you *accumulate* at least 100 *trick >>> points* without your opponents reaching game. >>> >>> >>> >>> The 140 etc. in duplicate are not only trick points, it includes bonus >>> points. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Fra:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne >>> av* BridgeinIndia >>> *Sendt:* s?ndag 12. februar 2017 19.26 >>> *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> *Emne:* Re: [BLML] ACBL LC soliciting comments on the 2017 Draft Laws >>> >>> >>> >>> *To* >>> >>> *Mr Adam Wildavsky * >>> >>> >>> >>> *Same for definition of Part score " Partscore ? 90 or fewer trick >>> points scored on one deal"* >>> >>> >>> >>> *Part score definition needs to include 140,170 etc etc too.in >>> duplicate games.*. >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Bilde er fjernet av sender.] Sent with >>> Mailtrack >>> >>> >>> [image: Bilde er fjernet av sender.] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> With Regards >>> Dr Raghavan.P.S. >>> BridgeinIndia at gmail.com >>> www.BridgeIndia.com >>> Ph =+91-044-23761038 <+91%2044%202376%201038> >>> Mobile = 9940273749 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Adam Wildavsky >>> wrote: >>> >>> The WBF Laws Committee has prepared a draft of the 2017 Laws of >>> Duplicate Bridge and sent copies to the world's NBOs. The ACBL Laws >>> Commission is soliciting comments on the draft from ACBL members and >>> interested others. We will pass those we consider worth further thought to >>> the WBF LC. >>> >>> >>> >>> To obtain access to the draft laws and to submit comments please visit >>> this page and request admission to the Yahoo group formed for this purpose: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://groups.yahoo.com/bridge-laws-2017 >>> >>> >>> >>> Alternatively, you can send a message to: >>> >>> >>> >>> bridge-laws-2017-subscribe at yahoogroups.com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/20170214/d61ad91f/attachment-0001.html From adam at tameware.com Mon Feb 20 22:11:25 2017 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:11:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL New Orleans casebook commentary published Message-ID: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2015NOLACasebook.pdf If you want to discuss an individual case please start a new thread for that case with a descriptive Subject: line., or reply to an existing thread discussing that case if you spot it in the archives. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170220/1eb4fab2/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Feb 21 04:29:10 2017 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 22:29:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Denver is posted -- no commentary yet: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2015Denver.pdf Vegas (2014) and Orlando (2016) are pending. On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Phoenix is posted: > > http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2013Phoenix.pdf > > Three remain in the backlog: Vegas, Denver, and Orlando. > > Panel commentary ought to start appearing soon. > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >> D.C. is posted: >> >> http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2016Washington.pdf >> >> This was the first tournament where NABC+ appeals were heard by a panel >> of TDs. >> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> >>> Reno is posted, and D.C. is on its way. >>> >>> http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Reno2016.pdf >>> >>> Three casebooks remain until we're caught up: Phoenix, Vegas, and >>> Denver. Then we'll continue working on adding panelist comments and move on >>> to Orlando. >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Adam Wildavsky >>> wrote: >>> >>>> St. Louis - http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2013StLouisCasebook.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Providence - http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2014Providence.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> The Providence casebook has a new layout that will be used for future >>>> casebooks. I like it! >>>> >>>> All the casebooks published so far are available here: >>>> >>>> http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/nabcs/past-nabcs/nabc-casebooks/ >>>> >>>> I did not make an announcement for each of these as they were posted, >>>> so some may be new to you. >>>> >>>> For now commentary is available only through 2011. It will be added >>>> for newer casebooks as available. >>>> >>>> Casebook publication is scheduled to continue. Decisions from Summer >>>> 2016 going forward will be made by TD panels for both NABC+ and >>>> non-NABC+ events. >>>> >>>> If you want to discuss a particular case please start a new thread with >>>> the tournament name and case number in the Subject line. >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170221/a937e126/attachment.html From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Feb 21 18:42:43 2017 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:42:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] We never apply 45C4.... Message-ID: A case from a German mailing list National Team contest, all vul. Contract: East 7NT Lead: S T J 8 T 8 6 4 2 Q 7 2 9 8 3 Q 4 A K 6 3 2 K J 9 5 A 7 A J K 9 6 4 A Q J 6 5 K 2 T 9 7 5 Q 3 T 8 5 3 T 7 4 East played 3 rounds of spades. When the suit did not split she played H Ace followed by the seven. South slammed the Queen on the table and slightly irritated East ordered the Ace. Recognising her fault, she tried to correct it and said "Jack, King of cause". South called for the TD -- Volker Walther From gordonr60 at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 19:42:18 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (gordonr60 at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:42:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] We never apply 45C4.... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58ac8a0a.2a91df0a.f1d6.c031@mx.google.com> Declarer?s intention sounds clear to me. This is quite different from leading towards a tenace in dummy and not noticing a high card played on the left. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Volker Walther Sent: 21 February 2017 18:10 To: blml Subject: [BLML] We never apply 45C4.... A case from a German mailing list National Team contest, all vul. Contract: East 7NT Lead: S T J 8 T 8 6 4 2 Q 7 2 9 8 3 Q 4 A K 6 3 2 K J 9 5 A 7 A J K 9 6 4 A Q J 6 5 K 2 T 9 7 5 Q 3 T 8 5 3 T 7 4 East played 3 rounds of spades. When the suit did not split she played H Ace followed by the seven. South slammed the Queen on the table and slightly irritated East ordered the Ace. Recognising her fault, she tried to correct it and said "Jack, King of cause". South called for the TD -- 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/20170221/d23e5867/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Feb 22 15:54:58 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:54:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] We never apply 45C4.... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2017-02-21 12:42 PM, Volker Walther wrote: > East [declarer] ... played H Ace followed by the seven [to KJx in > dummy]. South slammed the Queen on the table and slightly irritated > East ordered the Ace. Recognising her fault, she tried to correct it > and said "Jack, King of cause". King is played for two reasons: 1. on the facts reported, declarer's intent to play the high card seems incontrovertible. (Someone already mentioned this.) 2. South's "slammed" is an infraction of Law 73A2. This is a "should" Law, which means a violation is not often penalized, but if the violation damages the other side, L12C1 applies. Does anyone believe East was about to play the jack if South had played normally? Technically this violation should result in an adjusted score at the end of play, but a practical Director (with the cover of L45C4) will just rule that the K is played and let the players get on with it. On different facts -- where South played normally and East just said "jack" with no confusion -- the jack would be played. From mikedod at frontier.com Fri Feb 24 06:52:30 2017 From: mikedod at frontier.com (mike dodson) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:52:30 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L10c Message-ID: A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient bids made me wonder if I have been cheating. After an opponent?s insufficient bid or lead out of turn, I pause but do not call attention to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference. I assume partner is paying attention and will call attention if he feels it is to our advantage. If it?s a lead out of turn and an opponent calls attention (all too often dummy!) I carefully say nothing unless I have a clear preference. Allowing partner to speak first could be construed to be consultation, even if it seems allowed after a LOoT. If waiting for partner to take action is consulting, calling attention to an irregularity is optional by L9 (may) and mandatory by L10 (without consulting partner). Further as a director, should I rule against a player who didn?t notice a lead or bid from an unexpected source. And what ruling? Bid or play accepted by the pause? PP on general principles or disqualification for deliberate violation of Law 10 (if I am mind reading I?ll know). Mike Dodson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170224/f5bb539c/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Feb 24 07:26:06 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:26:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L10c In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike Dodson: A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient bids made me wonder if I have been cheating. After an opponent?s insufficient bid or lead out of turn, I pause but do not call attention to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference. I assume partner is paying attention and will call attention if he feels it is to our advantage. [snip] Richard Hills: 1) Only the LHO of an insufficient bidder is empowered to decide whether or not to accept the insufficient bid (Law 27A1). 2) If the RHO chooses a significant pause as a hint to the LHO, then in my opinion that is an infraction of Law 16B (Extraneous Information from Partner). Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, February 24, 2017, mike dodson wrote: > A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient bids > made me wonder if I have been cheating. After an opponent?s insufficient > bid or lead out of turn, I pause but do not call attention to the > irregularity unless I have a clear preference. I assume partner is paying > attention and will call attention if he feels it is to our advantage. If > it?s a lead out of turn and an opponent calls attention (all too often > dummy!) I carefully say nothing unless I have a clear preference. Allowing > partner to speak first could be construed to be consultation, even if it > seems allowed after a LOoT. > > If waiting for partner to take action is consulting, calling attention to > an irregularity is optional by L9 (may) and mandatory by L10 (without > consulting partner). Further as a director, should I rule against a player > who didn?t notice a lead or bid from an unexpected source. And what > ruling? Bid or play accepted by the pause? PP on general principles or > disqualification for deliberate violation of Law 10 (if I am mind reading > I?ll know). > > Mike Dodson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170224/6f25c28c/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 24 09:58:01 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:58:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L10c In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <65f19b09-aaa2-09ac-80b9-11a37f9131b5@skynet.be> Richard is correct as to the insufficient bid. Since only you can accept, any agreement by which partner can influence you is illegal communication. However, Richard carefully avoids saying anything about the other part: the lead out of turn by dummy or declarer. Here, both opponents may accept or refuse, so waiting to hear from partner must be allowed. But when partner speaks, he has decided for the partnership. And if this is illegal communication, then there is nothing anyone can do about it. Herman. Richard Hills wrote: > Mike Dodson: > > A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient bids > made me wonder if I have been cheating. After an opponent?s > insufficient bid or lead out of turn, I pause but do not call attention > to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference. I assume partner > is paying attention and will call attention if he feels it is to our > advantage. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > 1) Only the LHO of an insufficient bidder is empowered to decide whether > or not to accept the insufficient bid (Law 27A1). > 2) If the RHO chooses a significant pause as a hint to the LHO, then in > my opinion that is an infraction of Law 16B (Extraneous Information from > Partner). > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Friday, February 24, 2017, mike dodson > wrote: > > A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient > bids made me wonder if I have been cheating. After an opponent?s > insufficient bid or lead out of turn, I pause but do not call > attention to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference. I > assume partner is paying attention and will call attention if he > feels it is to our advantage. If it?s a lead out of turn and an > opponent calls attention (all too often dummy!) I carefully say > nothing unless I have a clear preference. Allowing partner to speak > first could be construed to be consultation, even if it seems > allowed after a LOoT. > > If waiting for partner to take action is consulting, calling > attention to an irregularity is optional by L9 (may) and mandatory > by L10 (without consulting partner). Further as a director, should > I rule against a player who didn?t notice a lead or bid from an > unexpected source. And what ruling? Bid or play accepted by the > pause? PP on general principles or disqualification for deliberate > violation of Law 10 (if I am mind reading I?ll know). > > Mike Dodson > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14006 - Release Date: 02/23/17 > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Feb 26 07:28:11 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 17:28:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L10c In-Reply-To: <65f19b09-aaa2-09ac-80b9-11a37f9131b5@skynet.be> References: <65f19b09-aaa2-09ac-80b9-11a37f9131b5@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] However, Richard carefully avoids saying anything about the other part: the lead out of turn by dummy or declarer. Here, both opponents may accept or refuse, so waiting to hear from partner must be allowed. But when partner speaks, he has decided for the partnership. [snip] Richard Hills: Not so. Herman has slightly misinterpreted the (admittedly ambiguous) 2007 Law 55. The forthcoming unambiguous 2017 Law 55 will reveal that it is not necessarily the defender first to speak who decides for the partnership, but rather: "If the defenders choose differently then the option expressed by the player next in turn to the irregular lead shall prevail". Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, February 24, 2017, Herman De Wael wrote: > Richard is correct as to the insufficient bid. Since only you can > accept, any agreement by which partner can influence you is illegal > communication. > However, Richard carefully avoids saying anything about the other part: > the lead out of turn by dummy or declarer. Here, both opponents may > accept or refuse, so waiting to hear from partner must be allowed. But > when partner speaks, he has decided for the partnership. > And if this is illegal communication, then there is nothing anyone can > do about it. > Herman. > > Richard Hills wrote: > > Mike Dodson: > > > > A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient bids > > made me wonder if I have been cheating. After an opponent?s > > insufficient bid or lead out of turn, I pause but do not call attention > > to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference. I assume partner > > is paying attention and will call attention if he feels it is to our > > advantage. > > [snip] > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > 1) Only the LHO of an insufficient bidder is empowered to decide whether > > or not to accept the insufficient bid (Law 27A1). > > 2) If the RHO chooses a significant pause as a hint to the LHO, then in > > my opinion that is an infraction of Law 16B (Extraneous Information from > > Partner). > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > On Friday, February 24, 2017, mike dodson > > wrote: > > > > A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient > > bids made me wonder if I have been cheating. After an opponent?s > > insufficient bid or lead out of turn, I pause but do not call > > attention to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference. I > > assume partner is paying attention and will call attention if he > > feels it is to our advantage. If it?s a lead out of turn and an > > opponent calls attention (all too often dummy!) I carefully say > > nothing unless I have a clear preference. Allowing partner to speak > > first could be construed to be consultation, even if it seems > > allowed after a LOoT. > > > > If waiting for partner to take action is consulting, calling > > attention to an irregularity is optional by L9 (may) and mandatory > > by L10 (without consulting partner). Further as a director, should > > I rule against a player who didn?t notice a lead or bid from an > > unexpected source. And what ruling? Bid or play accepted by the > > pause? PP on general principles or disqualification for deliberate > > violation of Law 10 (if I am mind reading I?ll know). > > > > Mike Dodson > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14006 - Release Date: > 02/23/17 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170226/cdca5e4d/attachment.html From gordonr60 at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 09:05:01 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (gordonr60 at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:05:01 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L10c In-Reply-To: References: <65f19b09-aaa2-09ac-80b9-11a37f9131b5@skynet.be> Message-ID: <58b3dda8.484a1c0a.6b004.0840@mx.google.com> I think Herman was remembering the 1997 laws. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Richard Hills Sent: 26 February 2017 06:56 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] L10c Herman De Wael: [snip] However, Richard carefully avoids saying anything about the other part: the lead out of turn by dummy or declarer. Here, both opponents may accept or refuse, so waiting to hear from partner must be allowed. But when partner speaks, he has decided for the partnership. [snip] Richard Hills: Not so.?Herman has slightly misinterpreted the (admittedly ambiguous) 2007 Law 55. The forthcoming?unambiguous 2017 Law 55 will?reveal that it is not necessarily?the defender first to speak who decides for the partnership, but rather: "If the defenders choose?differently then the option expressed by the player next in turn to the irregular lead shall prevail". Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, February 24, 2017, Herman De Wael wrote: Richard is correct as to the insufficient bid. Since only you can accept, any agreement by which partner can influence you is illegal communication. However, Richard carefully avoids saying anything about the other part: the lead out of turn by dummy or declarer. Here, both opponents may accept or refuse, so waiting to hear from partner must be allowed. But when partner speaks, he has decided for the partnership. And if this is illegal communication, then there is nothing anyone can do about it. Herman. Richard Hills wrote: > Mike Dodson: > > A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient bids > made me wonder if I have been cheating.? After an opponent?s > insufficient bid or lead out of turn,? I pause but do not call attention > to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference.? I assume partner > is paying attention and will call attention if he feels it is to our > advantage. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > 1) Only the LHO of an insufficient bidder is empowered to decide whether > or not to accept the insufficient bid (Law 27A1). > 2) If the RHO chooses a significant pause as a hint to the LHO, then in > my opinion that is an infraction of Law 16B (Extraneous Information from > Partner). > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Friday, February 24, 2017, mike dodson > wrote: > >? ? ?A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient >? ? ?bids made me wonder if I have been cheating.? After an opponent?s >? ? ?insufficient bid or lead out of turn,? I pause but do not call >? ? ?attention to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference.? I >? ? ?assume partner is paying attention and will call attention if he >? ? ?feels it is to our advantage.? If it?s a lead out of turn and an >? ? ?opponent calls attention (all too often dummy!) I carefully say >? ? ?nothing unless I have a clear preference.? Allowing partner to speak >? ? ?first could be construed to be consultation, even if it seems >? ? ?allowed after a LOoT. > >? ? ?If waiting for partner to take action is consulting, calling >? ? ?attention to an irregularity is optional by L9 (may) and mandatory >? ? ?by L10 (without consulting partner).? Further as a director, should >? ? ?I rule against a player who didn?t notice? a lead or bid from an >? ? ?unexpected source.? And what ruling? Bid or play accepted by the >? ? ?pause? PP on general principles or? disqualification for deliberate >? ? ?violation of Law 10 (if I am mind reading I?ll know). > >? ? ?Mike Dodson > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14006 - Release Date: 02/23/17 > _______________________________________________ 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/20170227/fb412046/attachment.html