From bridgeinindia at gmail.com Thu May 4 20:30:02 2017 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (BridgeinIndia) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 00:00:02 +0530 Subject: [BLML] 2017Laws of Duplicate bridge Message-ID: *Dear friends, * *Our greetings to you all. * *We have already submitted to this BLML group, the E Book format of Bridge laws 2017 by WBF Law committee. ( Easy to carry and to read)* *We have made some changes in our E Book and have reproduced the E Book.* *We have mentioned a disclaimer that this E Book is only a copy of 2017 bridge Laws and that it has no legal sanction. The E Book is meant for all players to come to know of the laws.* *This e Book is FREE for all.* *The scoring table has been made as desirable as possible. * *The foot notes numbering 1 to 28 are mentioned in colour and clicking on the number would prop up the foot note - 28 in all* *We need your suggestions to improve the book .* *With RegardsDr Raghavan.P.S.BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph =+91-044-23761038Mobile = 9940273749* Sent with Mailtrack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170504/a63d0a5f/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge - WBF LAW COMMITTEE.epub Type: application/epub+zip Size: 181794 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170504/a63d0a5f/attachment-0001.bin From geller at nifty.com Fri May 19 09:03:49 2017 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:03:49 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: request for delay of deadline for implementing new Laws In-Reply-To: <8cff51ae-211a-4354-f9c0-08a631df7411@nifty.com> References: <8cff51ae-211a-4354-f9c0-08a631df7411@nifty.com> Message-ID: ??? ????? ??????Anna Gudge?????????? ????? -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: request for delay of deadline for implementing new Laws Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:01:16 +0900 From: Robert Geller To: Anna Gudge Dear Anna, We are still waiting to hear from you regarding our question regarding the possibility of a delay beyond Sept 30 for the swi?chover date to the 2017 laws. . In our case we will have the changes in the 2017 laws (with respect to the 2007 laws) translated in time to comply with the Sept. 30 deadline in the event that remains in effect. However, we won't have time to go through our entire lawbook and check all the minor infelicities and inconsistencies that have built up over the years. And, human psychology being what it is, once we print a few hundred or a thousand copies of the new lawbook we won't look at again till 2027.... If we had, say, until 1 Jan. 2018 or (even better) 1 April 2018 then we could get the whole lawbook cleaned up. So I am still hoping to receive a positive reply to our request. Thanks. Best, Bob On 2017/04/01 3:28, Anna Gudge wrote: > I have asked the president about this - I will let you know as soon as I hear from him Bob > > All the best > Anna > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Geller [mailto:geller at nifty.com] > Sent: 31 March 2017 02:43 > To: Anna Gudge > Subject: request for delay of deadline for implementing new Laws > > Hi Anna, > > Please see the attached. Could you please transmit our request to the appropriate person(s). > > Thanks. > > Best, > Bob > From geller at nifty.com Fri May 19 10:18:00 2017 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:18:00 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: request for delay of deadline for implementing new Laws In-Reply-To: References: <8cff51ae-211a-4354-f9c0-08a631df7411@nifty.com> Message-ID: Dear BLMLers, Sorry, I sent this to the wrong mailing list! Please ignore it. Best, Bob On 2017/05/19 16:03, Robert Geller wrote: > ??? > ????? > > ??????Anna Gudge?????????? > > ????? > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: request for delay of deadline for implementing new Laws > Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:01:16 +0900 > From: Robert Geller > To: Anna Gudge > > Dear Anna, > > We are still waiting to hear from you regarding our question regarding > the possibility of a delay beyond Sept 30 for the swi?chover date to the > 2017 laws. . > > In our case we will have the changes in the 2017 laws (with respect to > the 2007 laws) translated in time to comply with the Sept. 30 deadline > in the event that remains in effect. > > However, we won't have time to go through our entire lawbook and check > all the minor infelicities and inconsistencies that have built up over > the years. And, human psychology being what it is, once we print a few > hundred or a thousand copies of the new lawbook we won't look at again > till 2027.... If we had, say, until 1 Jan. 2018 or (even better) 1 > April 2018 then we could get the whole lawbook cleaned up. So I am > still hoping to receive a positive reply to our request. Thanks. > > Best, > Bob > > > On 2017/04/01 3:28, Anna Gudge wrote: >> I have asked the president about this - I will let you know as soon as I hear from him Bob >> >> All the best >> Anna >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Geller [mailto:geller at nifty.com] >> Sent: 31 March 2017 02:43 >> To: Anna Gudge >> Subject: request for delay of deadline for implementing new Laws >> >> Hi Anna, >> >> Please see the attached. Could you please transmit our request to the appropriate person(s). >> >> Thanks. >> >> Best, >> Bob >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed May 24 06:01:30 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:01:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Laws 2017: erroneous & mistaken In-Reply-To: <009701d2b421$c12d5620$43880260$@optusnet.com.au> References: <009701d2b421$c12d5620$43880260$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <5E9AB5FB-49B2-4C28-8235-36230C34D9D6@gmail.com> > An error is made by partner, a mistake is > made by me > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) Yes, I am happy that I was given the chance to correct my numerous mistakes in my erroneous 2007 Index by creating the much improved 2017 Index. Two sub-clauses under Partnership Understanding in the Index: Alter method, by partner - 40A4 (One cannot have asymmetrical partnership understandings. For example, an Aussie professional and his sponsor once illegally had an understanding to bid one-way transfers.) Alter style and judgement, by partner - 40A4 (For example, it is legal for one partner to be excellent at squeezes, and also legal for the other partner to frequently and successfully jump to small slams.) Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 13 Apr 2017, at 4:47 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > An error is made by partner, a mistake is > made by me > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hills > Sent: Thursday, 13 April 2017 1:46 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws 2017: erroneous & mistaken > > Hi all, > > Are the words erroneous and mistaken used as synonyms in the laws or are there > some nuances between those two? Erroneus appears in Law 20 F and in index > pointing to Law 46B. > > Best regards, > Pekka Viitasalo > > Hi Pekka > > The Index is NOT officially part of the Laws (on the other hand, the Introduction is officially part of the Laws). > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills, compiler of the unofficial Index > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Pekka Viitasalo wrote: > Hi all, > > Are the words erroneous and mistaken used as synonyms in the laws or are there > some nuances between those two? Erroneus appears in Law 20 F and in index > pointing to Law 46B. > > Best regards, > Pekka Viitasalo > > > -- > http://www.iki.fi/~piv > > "It is more complicated than you think." - RFC1925 > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170524/2edb43bb/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed May 24 08:56:44 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:56:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Dummy Message-ID: <95CAAACA-EAD0-42FE-A45E-21F977B01A22@gmail.com> This phrase was added to the Definition of Dummy in the 2017 Lawbook: "... and ceases to be dummy when play ends." This concept was already implicit in Laws 9A4 and 42B3, but it is helpful for the Definitions to unambiguously spell out what's what. Best wishes, Richard Hills PS In the ABF Newsletter Laurie Kelso has observed that the 2017 Laws 9A3 and 42B2 now give dummy expanded power to prevent any irregularity; under the 2007 Lawbook dummy was merely entitled to prevent declarer's irregularities. Sent from my iPad From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Wed May 24 23:31:28 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 07:31:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Dummy In-Reply-To: <95CAAACA-EAD0-42FE-A45E-21F977B01A22@gmail.com> References: <95CAAACA-EAD0-42FE-A45E-21F977B01A22@gmail.com> Message-ID: <118FEDB981C545ACAD9B64AAC263D054@PeachPC> Sure, but what does being subject to Law 43 mean in 9A3 and 42B2? Is it that dummy can?t participate in the play, by trying to stop an irregularity that harms declarer while doing nothing if the irregularity may help declarer? Is it just after violation of dummy?s 43A limitations when declarer looks to be leading from the wrong hand? Presumably warning a defender about to lead from the wrong hand is still ok. Something else? Jan -----Original Message----- From: Richard Hills Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:56 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Definition of Dummy This phrase was added to the Definition of Dummy in the 2017 Lawbook: "... and ceases to be dummy when play ends." This concept was already implicit in Laws 9A4 and 42B3, but it is helpful for the Definitions to unambiguously spell out what's what. Best wishes, Richard Hills PS In the ABF Newsletter Laurie Kelso has observed that the 2017 Laws 9A3 and 42B2 now give dummy expanded power to prevent any irregularity; under the 2007 Lawbook dummy was merely entitled to prevent declarer's irregularities. Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ 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/20170524/9b96e731/attachment.html From sven at svenpran.net Thu May 25 00:51:01 2017 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 00:51:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Dummy In-Reply-To: <118FEDB981C545ACAD9B64AAC263D054@PeachPC> References: <95CAAACA-EAD0-42FE-A45E-21F977B01A22@gmail.com> <118FEDB981C545ACAD9B64AAC263D054@PeachPC> Message-ID: <000801d2d4e0$3a139390$ae3abab0$@svenpran.net> It means that whenever there appears to be a conflict between (Dummy?s right in) Laws 9A3 and/or 42B2, and (Dummy?s limitations in) Law 43 the latter (Law 43) explicitly takes precedence over the former. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jan Peach Sendt: onsdag 24. mai 2017 23.31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Definition of Dummy Sure, but what does being subject to Law 43 mean in 9A3 and 42B2? Is it that dummy can?t participate in the play, by trying to stop an irregularity that harms declarer while doing nothing if the irregularity may help declarer? Is it just after violation of dummy?s 43A limitations when declarer looks to be leading from the wrong hand? Presumably warning a defender about to lead from the wrong hand is still ok. Something else? Jan -----Original Message----- From: Richard Hills Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:56 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Definition of Dummy This phrase was added to the Definition of Dummy in the 2017 Lawbook: "... and ceases to be dummy when play ends." This concept was already implicit in Laws 9A4 and 42B3, but it is helpful for the Definitions to unambiguously spell out what's what. Best wishes, Richard Hills PS In the ABF Newsletter Laurie Kelso has observed that the 2017 Laws 9A3 and 42B2 now give dummy expanded power to prevent any irregularity; under the 2007 Lawbook dummy was merely entitled to prevent declarer's irregularities. Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ 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/20170524/27e80017/attachment.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Thu May 25 01:31:56 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 09:31:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Dummy In-Reply-To: <000801d2d4e0$3a139390$ae3abab0$@svenpran.net> References: <95CAAACA-EAD0-42FE-A45E-21F977B01A22@gmail.com><118FEDB981C545ACAD9B64AAC263D054@PeachPC> <000801d2d4e0$3a139390$ae3abab0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <11CC5840BBC648ACB377E51704701429@PeachPC> Um, I understand ?subject to?. I am looking for situations and examples. Just which parts of 43 might come into play? From: Sven Pran Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:51 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Definition of Dummy It means that whenever there appears to be a conflict between (Dummy?s right in) Laws 9A3 and/or 42B2, and (Dummy?s limitations in) Law 43 the latter (Law 43) explicitly takes precedence over the former. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jan Peach Sendt: onsdag 24. mai 2017 23.31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Definition of Dummy Sure, but what does being subject to Law 43 mean in 9A3 and 42B2? Is it that dummy can?t participate in the play, by trying to stop an irregularity that harms declarer while doing nothing if the irregularity may help declarer? Is it just after violation of dummy?s 43A limitations when declarer looks to be leading from the wrong hand? Presumably warning a defender about to lead from the wrong hand is still ok. Something else? Jan -----Original Message----- From: Richard Hills Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:56 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Definition of Dummy This phrase was added to the Definition of Dummy in the 2017 Lawbook: "... and ceases to be dummy when play ends." This concept was already implicit in Laws 9A4 and 42B3, but it is helpful for the Definitions to unambiguously spell out what's what. Best wishes, Richard Hills PS In the ABF Newsletter Laurie Kelso has observed that the 2017 Laws 9A3 and 42B2 now give dummy expanded power to prevent any irregularity; under the 2007 Lawbook dummy was merely entitled to prevent declarer's irregularities. Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170524/7efca972/attachment-0001.html From sven at svenpran.net Thu May 25 10:32:52 2017 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 10:32:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Dummy In-Reply-To: <11CC5840BBC648ACB377E51704701429@PeachPC> References: <95CAAACA-EAD0-42FE-A45E-21F977B01A22@gmail.com><118FEDB981C545ACAD9B64AAC263D054@PeachPC> <000801d2d4e0$3a139390$ae3abab0$@svenpran.net> <11CC5840BBC648ACB377E51704701429@PeachPC> Message-ID: <000b01d2d531$83e1e8e0$8ba5baa0$@svenpran.net> I think the most relevant is Law 43B (2&3) ? a dummy who has lost his qualified rights. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jan Peach Sendt: torsdag 25. mai 2017 01.32 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Definition of Dummy Um, I understand ?subject to?. I am looking for situations and examples. Just which parts of 43 might come into play? From: Sven Pran Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:51 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Definition of Dummy It means that whenever there appears to be a conflict between (Dummy?s right in) Laws 9A3 and/or 42B2, and (Dummy?s limitations in) Law 43 the latter (Law 43) explicitly takes precedence over the former. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jan Peach Sendt: onsdag 24. mai 2017 23.31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Definition of Dummy Sure, but what does being subject to Law 43 mean in 9A3 and 42B2? Is it that dummy can?t participate in the play, by trying to stop an irregularity that harms declarer while doing nothing if the irregularity may help declarer? Is it just after violation of dummy?s 43A limitations when declarer looks to be leading from the wrong hand? Presumably warning a defender about to lead from the wrong hand is still ok. Something else? Jan -----Original Message----- From: Richard Hills Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:56 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Definition of Dummy This phrase was added to the Definition of Dummy in the 2017 Lawbook: "... and ceases to be dummy when play ends." This concept was already implicit in Laws 9A4 and 42B3, but it is helpful for the Definitions to unambiguously spell out what's what. Best wishes, Richard Hills PS In the ABF Newsletter Laurie Kelso has observed that the 2017 Laws 9A3 and 42B2 now give dummy expanded power to prevent any irregularity; under the 2007 Lawbook dummy was merely entitled to prevent declarer's irregularities. Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _____ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170525/6e0799d5/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri May 26 09:57:39 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 17:57:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Dummy In-Reply-To: <000b01d2d531$83e1e8e0$8ba5baa0$@svenpran.net> References: <95CAAACA-EAD0-42FE-A45E-21F977B01A22@gmail.com> <118FEDB981C545ACAD9B64AAC263D054@PeachPC> <000801d2d4e0$3a139390$ae3abab0$@svenpran.net> <11CC5840BBC648ACB377E51704701429@PeachPC> <000b01d2d531$83e1e8e0$8ba5baa0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <8C312764-4AE3-42AE-8F9A-8658965BCCA1@gmail.com> A 2017 addition to Law 43 (Dummy's Limitations) is Law 43A3: "A defender may not show dummy his hand." Note that an infraction of Law 43A3 does not trigger the consequences of Law 43B - which is fair enough, since it is the defender (not dummy) who is at fault. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 25 May 2017, at 6:32 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > I think the most relevant is Law 43B (2&3) ? a dummy who has lost his qualified rights. > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jan Peach > Sendt: torsdag 25. mai 2017 01.32 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Definition of Dummy > > > Um, I understand ?subject to?. I am looking for situations and examples. > Just which parts of 43 might come into play? > > From: Sven Pran > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:51 AM > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Definition of Dummy > > It means that whenever there appears to be a conflict between (Dummy?s right in) Laws 9A3 and/or 42B2, and (Dummy?s limitations in) Law 43 the latter (Law 43) explicitly takes precedence over the former. > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jan Peach > Sendt: onsdag 24. mai 2017 23.31 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Definition of Dummy > > > Sure, but what does being subject to Law 43 mean in 9A3 and 42B2? > Is it that dummy can?t participate in the play, by trying to stop an irregularity that harms declarer while doing nothing if the irregularity may help declarer? > Is it just after violation of dummy?s 43A limitations when declarer looks to be leading from the wrong hand? Presumably warning a defender about to lead from the wrong hand is still ok. > Something else? > Jan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Hills > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:56 PM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [BLML] Definition of Dummy > > This phrase was added to the Definition of Dummy in the 2017 Lawbook: > > "... and ceases to be dummy when play ends." > > This concept was already implicit in Laws 9A4 and 42B3, but it is helpful for the Definitions to unambiguously spell out what's what. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > PS In the ABF Newsletter Laurie Kelso has observed that the 2017 Laws 9A3 and 42B2 now give dummy expanded power to prevent any irregularity; under the 2007 Lawbook dummy was merely entitled to prevent declarer's irregularities. > > Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170526/9940cdd9/attachment.html