From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 10:59:02 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:59:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor In-Reply-To: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> References: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> "We want ... a shrubbery!" [dramatic chord] New 2017 Law 75B1: "When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non-offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score." New 2017 Law 75B3 (an apparent restatement / paraphrase of the "in any manner" Law 20F5(a)): "The player's partner must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues and if he subsequently becomes a defender, he must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play ends. If the player's partner is to be declarer or dummy he must, after the final pass, call the Director and then provide a correction." Richard Hills In my opinion, reading the new 75B1 and 75B3 together demonstrates that an accurate explanation to an opponent's later enquiry does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 31 Aug 2017, at 5:46 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > > " ... must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest - with a herring!" > > Law 81C3: > > "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the periods established in accordance with Laws 79C and 92B." > > Jeff Easterson, extract from earlier thread: > > [snip] > > 1. Law ?81.C.3: This says basically that the TD should rectify any > error or irregularity of which he becomes aware. The question is how > strictly this should be applied. Let us take three situations of which > the TD becomes aware by coincidence (and, when applicable, have not been > noticed by any player at the table). > > [snip first two questions] > > 3. The Td notices a revoke. > > [snip first two answers] > > The law seems to say that the Td should act but this seems, at > least to some Tds, unfair. If it occurs at more than one table but is > only noticed at one by the Td, then it will not be rectified at the > other tables and coincidence is the determining factor. (The > coincidence of at which table the Td happens to be kibitzing.) > A secondary question is, if he acts, when he should do so. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > One of the key words in Law 81C3 is "rectify". The Definitions state: > > "Rectification - the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director's attention." > > Now in Law 64 (Procedure After Establishment of a Revoke) nowhere in Law 64A is there any mention of rectification or remedy / redress of damage. Rather, Law 64A refers to automatic trick adjustment. Hence the Director's intervention should be delayed until the only applicable clause of Law 64 is Law 64C (Redress of Damage). > > +=+=+=+=+=+ > > Law 20F5(a): > > "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. 'Mistaken explanation' here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require." > > Richard Hills: > > Recent controversies mean that I am awaiting whether the Australian High Court will promulgate a "black-letter law" interpretation of section 44 of the Aussie Constitution. > > Likewise, should there be a black-letter law interpretation of Law 20F5(a)'s "in any manner"? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > Sent from my iPad From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Sep 1 14:17:32 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:17:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor In-Reply-To: <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> References: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > > In my opinion, reading the new 75B1 and 75B3 together demonstrates that an accurate explanation to an opponent's later enquiry does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation. > I fail to see how you can have this opinion. If it quacks like a duck ... The "accurate explanation" quacks. Although this does not say literally "that was a duck" it clearly implies that it was. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 2 21:23:50 2017 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 15:23:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor In-Reply-To: <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> References: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 04:59:02 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > "We want ... a shrubbery!" > [dramatic chord] > > New 2017 Law 75B1: > > "When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non-offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score." > > New 2017 Law 75B3 (an apparent restatement / paraphrase of the "in any manner" Law 20F5(a)): > > "The player's partner must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues and if he subsequently becomes a defender, he must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play ends. If the player's partner is to be declarer or dummy he must, after the final pass, call the Director and then provide a correction." > > Richard Hills > > In my opinion, reading the new 75B1 and 75B3 together demonstrates that an accurate explanation to an opponent's later enquiry does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation. So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say? Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently? From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 07:47:58 2017 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 01:47:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor In-Reply-To: References: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 09/02/2017 03:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 04:59:02 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > >> "We want ... a shrubbery!" >> [dramatic chord] >> >> New 2017 Law 75B1: >> >> "When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non-offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score." >> >> New 2017 Law 75B3 (an apparent restatement / paraphrase of the "in any manner" Law 20F5(a)): >> >> "The player's partner must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues and if he subsequently becomes a defender, he must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play ends. If the player's partner is to be declarer or dummy he must, after the final pass, call the Director and then provide a correction." >> >> Richard Hills >> >> In my opinion, reading the new 75B1 and 75B3 together demonstrates that an accurate explanation to an opponent's later enquiry does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation. > > So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say? > > Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently? OK, let me pose a question assuming your opinion is the correct one, Robert. My partner plays different systems with different partners, and occasionally gets them confused. I make what I think is a natural bid, he alerts and, on request, tells' opponents that it's a gadget of which I've never heard. He then makes his bid, and it sounds like a forcing response. If you want an example, say that I've opened a natural weak 2D, pard alerts and explains it as Flannery, which I don't know, and pard then bids 2NT. I'm used to that being Ogust over my weak 2D. Now, what do I do over his rebid so as not to correct his misexplanation? It's easy with Richard's interpretation, of course... Brian. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 3 19:53:51 2017 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2017 13:53:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor In-Reply-To: References: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 01:47:58 -0400, brian wrote: > On 09/02/2017 03:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 04:59:02 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: >> >>> "We want ... a shrubbery!" >>> [dramatic chord] >>> >>> New 2017 Law 75B1: >>> >>> "When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non-offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score." >>> >>> New 2017 Law 75B3 (an apparent restatement / paraphrase of the "in any manner" Law 20F5(a)): >>> >>> "The player's partner must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues and if he subsequently becomes a defender, he must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play ends. If the player's partner is to be declarer or dummy he must, after the final pass, call the Director and then provide a correction." >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> >>> In my opinion, reading the new 75B1 and 75B3 together demonstrates that an accurate explanation to an opponent's later enquiry does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation. >> >> So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say? >> >> Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently? > > > OK, let me pose a question assuming your opinion is the correct one, > Robert. > > My partner plays different systems with different partners, and > occasionally gets them confused. I make what I think is a natural bid, > he alerts and, on request, tells' opponents that it's a gadget of > which I've never heard. He then makes his bid, and it sounds like a > forcing response. > > If you want an example, say that I've opened a natural weak 2D, pard > alerts and explains it as Flannery, which I don't know, and pard then > bids 2NT. I'm used to that being Ogust over my weak 2D. > > Now, what do I do over his rebid so as not to correct his > misexplanation? It's easy with Richard's interpretation, of course... Your partner has incorrectly explained your bid as Flannery, the opponents ask for an explanation of his 2NT response, and -- as I understand Richard -- you can say that's asking for a feature if you have 8-10 HCP, telling everyone at the table that your partner has misexplained your bid, but -- according to Richard -- that "does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation." I didn't state an opinion. But if you want one -- sounds to me like I have done something "to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues" Just an opinion. From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Mon Sep 4 08:47:54 2017 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 02:47:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor In-Reply-To: References: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <40fef806-8221-f8fd-2b76-d6b3adf5ea81@gmail.com> On 09/03/2017 01:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 01:47:58 -0400, brian wrote: > >> On 09/02/2017 03:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 04:59:02 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: >>> >>>> "We want ... a shrubbery!" >>>> [dramatic chord] >>>> >>>> New 2017 Law 75B1: >>>> >>>> "When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non-offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score." >>>> >>>> New 2017 Law 75B3 (an apparent restatement / paraphrase of the "in any manner" Law 20F5(a)): >>>> >>>> "The player's partner must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues and if he subsequently becomes a defender, he must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play ends. If the player's partner is to be declarer or dummy he must, after the final pass, call the Director and then provide a correction." >>>> >>>> Richard Hills >>>> >>>> In my opinion, reading the new 75B1 and 75B3 together demonstrates that an accurate explanation to an opponent's later enquiry does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation. >>> >>> So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say? >>> >>> Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently? >> >> >> OK, let me pose a question assuming your opinion is the correct one, >> Robert. >> >> My partner plays different systems with different partners, and >> occasionally gets them confused. I make what I think is a natural bid, >> he alerts and, on request, tells' opponents that it's a gadget of >> which I've never heard. He then makes his bid, and it sounds like a >> forcing response. >> >> If you want an example, say that I've opened a natural weak 2D, pard >> alerts and explains it as Flannery, which I don't know, and pard then >> bids 2NT. I'm used to that being Ogust over my weak 2D. >> >> Now, what do I do over his rebid so as not to correct his >> misexplanation? It's easy with Richard's interpretation, of course... > > Your partner has incorrectly explained your bid as Flannery, the opponents ask for an explanation of his 2NT response, and -- as I understand Richard -- you can say that's asking for a feature if you have 8-10 HCP, telling everyone at the table that your partner has misexplained your bid, but -- according to Richard -- that "does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation." > > I didn't state an opinion. But if you want one -- sounds to me like I have done something "to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues" Just an opinion. > Yes, sorry, I should have said "implied" rather than "stated". But, given the scenario I described above, and if Richard's view is NOT the correct one, then what do you believe is my lawful option when opponents ask me to explain my partner's 2NT response to a convention I don't know? Brian. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Sep 4 09:28:52 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 17:28:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor In-Reply-To: References: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> Message-ID: Fifth paragraph of the 2017 Introduction: "The trend, begun in 2007, to give Tournament Directors more discretion in enforcing the Law has been continued and attempts have been made to clarify interpretations. The Committee intends to prepare a separate official Commentary, containing examples to help in this respect." Richard Hills: Sir Bedevere, in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail, used logic to demonstrably suggest that a witch had exactly the same weight as a duck. Then he used his largest scales to assess a putative witch. Pending the publication of the official Commentary presumably the 2008 minutes of the WBF Laws Committee have lame-duck lingering validity. That is, there is an "overriding requirement" to give an accurate explanation in response to an opponent's enquiry despite Law 20F5(a) [or despite the new 2017 Law 75B3]. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad >> On 3 Sep 2017, at 3:47 PM, brian wrote: >> >>> On 09/02/2017 03:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 04:59:02 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: >>> >>> "We want ... a shrubbery!" >>> [dramatic chord] >>> >>> New 2017 Law 75B1: >>> >>> "When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non-offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score." >>> >>> New 2017 Law 75B3 (an apparent restatement / paraphrase of the "in any manner" Law 20F5(a)): >>> >>> "The player's partner must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues and if he subsequently becomes a defender, he must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play ends. If the player's partner is to be declarer or dummy he must, after the final pass, call the Director and then provide a correction." >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> >>> In my opinion, reading the new 75B1 and 75B3 together demonstrates that an accurate explanation to an opponent's later enquiry does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation. >> >> So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say? >> >> Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently? > > > OK, let me pose a question assuming your opinion is the correct one, > Robert. > > My partner plays different systems with different partners, and > occasionally gets them confused. I make what I think is a natural bid, > he alerts and, on request, tells' opponents that it's a gadget of > which I've never heard. He then makes his bid, and it sounds like a > forcing response. > > If you want an example, say that I've opened a natural weak 2D, pard > alerts and explains it as Flannery, which I don't know, and pard then > bids 2NT. I'm used to that being Ogust over my weak 2D. > > Now, what do I do over his rebid so as not to correct his > misexplanation? It's easy with Richard's interpretation, of course... > > > Brian. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 4 16:45:55 2017 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 10:45:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor In-Reply-To: <40fef806-8221-f8fd-2b76-d6b3adf5ea81@gmail.com> References: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> <40fef806-8221-f8fd-2b76-d6b3adf5ea81@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 04 Sep 2017 02:47:54 -0400, brian wrote: > On 09/03/2017 01:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 01:47:58 -0400, brian wrote: >> >>> On 09/02/2017 03:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 04:59:02 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: >>>> >>>>> "We want ... a shrubbery!" >>>>> [dramatic chord] >>>>> >>>>> New 2017 Law 75B1: >>>>> >>>>> "When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non-offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score." >>>>> >>>>> New 2017 Law 75B3 (an apparent restatement / paraphrase of the "in any manner" Law 20F5(a)): >>>>> >>>>> "The player's partner must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues and if he subsequently becomes a defender, he must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play ends. If the player's partner is to be declarer or dummy he must, after the final pass, call the Director and then provide a correction." >>>>> >>>>> Richard Hills >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion, reading the new 75B1 and 75B3 together demonstrates that an accurate explanation to an opponent's later enquiry does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation. >>>> >>>> So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say? >>>> >>>> Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently? >>> >>> >>> OK, let me pose a question assuming your opinion is the correct one, >>> Robert. >>> >>> My partner plays different systems with different partners, and >>> occasionally gets them confused. I make what I think is a natural bid, >>> he alerts and, on request, tells' opponents that it's a gadget of >>> which I've never heard. He then makes his bid, and it sounds like a >>> forcing response. >>> >>> If you want an example, say that I've opened a natural weak 2D, pard >>> alerts and explains it as Flannery, which I don't know, and pard then >>> bids 2NT. I'm used to that being Ogust over my weak 2D. >>> >>> Now, what do I do over his rebid so as not to correct his >>> misexplanation? It's easy with Richard's interpretation, of course... >> >> Your partner has incorrectly explained your bid as Flannery, the opponents ask for an explanation of his 2NT response, and -- as I understand Richard -- you can say that's asking for a feature if you have 8-10 HCP, telling everyone at the table that your partner has misexplained your bid, but -- according to Richard -- that "does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation." >> >> I didn't state an opinion. But if you want one -- sounds to me like I have done something "to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues" Just an opinion. >> > > Yes, sorry, I should have said "implied" rather than "stated". > > But, given the scenario I described above, and if Richard's view is > NOT the correct one, then what do you believe is my lawful option when > opponents ask me to explain my partner's 2NT response to a convention > I don't know? > Club players do different things. When I come to the table as director, I protect the opponents from the possible use of UI and for possible damage caused by incorrect explanations of the actual partnership agreement. So, to be practical, it's a messy situation. I'm content if you do what you think is best. You could call the director, right? The WBF says you are supposed to give the correct partnership explanation, which in this case would be the meaning of 2NT if 2D was weak. Also, according to the WBF, the opponents are not entitled to know the meaning of 2NT as a response to Flannery if you are not playing Flannery. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 4 16:50:46 2017 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 10:50:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor In-Reply-To: References: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 04 Sep 2017 03:28:52 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > Fifth paragraph of the 2017 Introduction: > > "The trend, begun in 2007, to give Tournament Directors more discretion in enforcing the Law has been continued and attempts have been made to clarify interpretations. The Committee intends to prepare a separate official Commentary, containing examples to help in this respect." > > Richard Hills: > > Sir Bedevere, in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail, used logic to demonstrably suggest that a witch had exactly the same weight as a duck. Then he used his largest scales to assess a putative witch. > > Pending the publication of the official Commentary presumably the 2008 minutes of the WBF Laws Committee have lame-duck lingering validity. That is, there is an "overriding requirement" to give an accurate explanation in response to an opponent's enquiry despite Law 20F5(a) [or despite the new 2017 Law 75B3]. We know. An expert was kibitzing two of his clients, one of them gave an incorrect explanation of the other's bid, and he asked me if he should correct. I happily said yes and was thankful for that minute. Overriding, right? From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Sep 5 06:51:02 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:51:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor In-Reply-To: <40fef806-8221-f8fd-2b76-d6b3adf5ea81@gmail.com> References: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> <40fef806-8221-f8fd-2b76-d6b3adf5ea81@gmail.com> Message-ID: "What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?" Law 81C2: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." Richard Hills: A broad interpretation of Law 20F5(a)'s "in any manner" quickly leads to a reductio ad absurdum. To extend Brian's example: 1. You open a natural weak two in diamonds. 2. Partner alerts and explains your 2D as Flannery, a convention of which you have zero knowledge. 3. Pard responds 2NT, which you alert, but mercifully neither opponent bothers to enquire. 4. Holding AKQxxx in diamonds you give the Ogust rebid of 3NT. But this rebid is non-systemic in pard's version of Flannery, ergo pard has become aware "in any manner" of his misexplanation, so therefore your 3NT rebid was an infraction. Yes, the putative witch did weigh exactly the same as a duck. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 4 Sep 2017, at 4:47 PM, brian wrote: > >> On 09/03/2017 01:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 01:47:58 -0400, brian wrote: >>> >>>> On 09/02/2017 03:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 04:59:02 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "We want ... a shrubbery!" >>>>> [dramatic chord] >>>>> >>>>> New 2017 Law 75B1: >>>>> >>>>> "When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non-offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score." >>>>> >>>>> New 2017 Law 75B3 (an apparent restatement / paraphrase of the "in any manner" Law 20F5(a)): >>>>> >>>>> "The player's partner must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues and if he subsequently becomes a defender, he must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play ends. If the player's partner is to be declarer or dummy he must, after the final pass, call the Director and then provide a correction." >>>>> >>>>> Richard Hills >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion, reading the new 75B1 and 75B3 together demonstrates that an accurate explanation to an opponent's later enquiry does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation. >>>> >>>> So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say? >>>> >>>> Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently? >>> >>> >>> OK, let me pose a question assuming your opinion is the correct one, >>> Robert. >>> >>> My partner plays different systems with different partners, and >>> occasionally gets them confused. I make what I think is a natural bid, >>> he alerts and, on request, tells' opponents that it's a gadget of >>> which I've never heard. He then makes his bid, and it sounds like a >>> forcing response. >>> >>> If you want an example, say that I've opened a natural weak 2D, pard >>> alerts and explains it as Flannery, which I don't know, and pard then >>> bids 2NT. I'm used to that being Ogust over my weak 2D. >>> >>> Now, what do I do over his rebid so as not to correct his >>> misexplanation? It's easy with Richard's interpretation, of course... >> >> Your partner has incorrectly explained your bid as Flannery, the opponents ask for an explanation of his 2NT response, and -- as I understand Richard -- you can say that's asking for a feature if you have 8-10 HCP, telling everyone at the table that your partner has misexplained your bid, but -- according to Richard -- that "does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation." >> >> I didn't state an opinion. But if you want one -- sounds to me like I have done something "to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues" Just an opinion. > > Yes, sorry, I should have said "implied" rather than "stated". > > But, given the scenario I described above, and if Richard's view is > NOT the correct one, then what do you believe is my lawful option when > opponents ask me to explain my partner's 2NT response to a convention > I don't know? > > > Brian. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Sep 5 09:00:33 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:00:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 46 Message-ID: Law 46A (Proper Form for Designating Dummy's Card) uses the word "should". According to the Introduction: " ... 'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor's rights but not often penalised) ... " Technically a declarer saving a few seconds with an incomplete designation is infracting the "must not" Law 72B1; in my opinion this is merely a precious pedantic point of pandiculation. Law 46B (Incomplete or Invalid Designation) now has the word "invalid" replacing the 2007 Lawbook's word "erroneous". I agree that "invalid" is the mot juste, because an error by declarer is properly dealt with in the bracketed clause of the Law 46B preamble: "(except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible)" Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Sep 7 15:49:33 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 09:49:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Dummy's rights Message-ID: <3bf8ab0f-1695-4d52-20f3-aec971361907@nhcc.net> In the 2017 Laws: L43A1(b): Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play. L65A3: A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but this right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply. Which of the above takes priority? That is, when if ever can dummy point out a card turned incorrectly? For a too-late correction, I don't understand how L16B is relevant. The number of tricks won and lost is always AI. It seems to me the relevant Law would be 12A1 (in essence, the Director estimates what would have happened if the infraction had not occurred). Can anyone explain? From petereidt at t-online.de Thu Sep 7 18:02:32 2017 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:02:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: <3bf8ab0f-1695-4d52-20f3-aec971361907@nhcc.net> References: <3bf8ab0f-1695-4d52-20f3-aec971361907@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <004c01d327f2$b6e3fd00$24abf700$@t-online.de> von Steve Willner > In the 2017 Laws: > L43A1(b): Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play. > > L65A3: A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but this > right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. > If done later Law 16B may apply. > > Which of the above takes priority? That is, when if ever can dummy point > out a card turned incorrectly? L65A3 takes priority over L43A1(b) because it is the specific law for this situation. Extract of an early draft of the 2017 Commentary: "Law 9A3 The laws allow any player to try to prevent a player from committing an infraction or irregularity. But once the irregularity has occurred (during the play period) the dummy has no right to draw attention to it. Let us explain a principle when interpreting the laws. They describe procedures to be followed in a general way. But it is possible that others laws specify a procedure in more detail and amending the general procedure. Two examples: Example 1: A defender revokes and dummy trying to prevent this revoke to become established asks him about it. Law 9A3 could be explained to allow this. But Law 61B explicitly tells that dummy is not allowed to do so. Example 2: A defender puts his just played card in the lost position while his side won the trick. Once happened this irregularity cannot be prevented anymore. But Law 65B explicitly tells that dummy is allowed to point to this irregularity as long as no card is played to the next trick. " > For a too-late correction, I don't understand how L16B is relevant. The > number of tricks won and lost is always AI. It seems to me the relevant Law > would be 12A1 (in essence, the Director estimates what would have > happened if the infraction had not occurred). Can anyone explain? Law 16B restrictions are stronger than equity ("had the irregularity not occurred"). When a player has a card wrongly orientated he may be in a wrong assumption of the number of tricks needed to fulfil / defeat the contract. Therefore he may execute / omit to execute a safety play, a finesse or similar. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Sep 7 23:58:49 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:58:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: <004c01d327f2$b6e3fd00$24abf700$@t-online.de> References: <3bf8ab0f-1695-4d52-20f3-aec971361907@nhcc.net> <004c01d327f2$b6e3fd00$24abf700$@t-online.de> Message-ID: On 2017-09-07 12:02 PM, Peter Eidt wrote: > L65A3 takes priority over L43A1(b) because it is the specific law for this > situation. Thanks for the quick and clear response. It wasn't obvious to me which of the two Laws is the more specific for this case. > Extract of an early draft of the 2017 Commentary: > "Law 9A3 > The laws allow any player to try to prevent a player from committing an ... > Example 2: > ... > Law 65B explicitly tells that dummy is allowed to point to this irregularity > as long as no card is played to the next trick. " That's on point, but the Law number should be L65B3, and the time limit is wrong. (The initial "65A3" was my mistake, but the "65B" above is an incompleteness in the draft Commentary.) >> For a too-late correction, I don't understand how L16B is relevant. > Law 16B restrictions are stronger than equity ("had the irregularity not > occurred"). Indeed! > When a player has a card wrongly orientated he may be in a wrong assumption > of the number of tricks needed to fulfil / defeat the contract. Yes, I follow that far. The question is whether what is normally AI can become UI if a player learns about it in an irregular way. There used to be a provision that a player (except dummy) was entitled to know at any time during play the number of tricks won and lost. Now I can't find it. Has it been removed? If so, what makes the number of tricks AI at all? Are players still entitled to ask? From bridge at vwalther.de Fri Sep 8 15:36:34 2017 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 15:36:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: References: <3bf8ab0f-1695-4d52-20f3-aec971361907@nhcc.net> <004c01d327f2$b6e3fd00$24abf700$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <227f5bf9-58e9-012c-c307-4d0bb8dff2ea@vwalther.de> Am 07.09.2017 um 23:58 schrieb Steve Willner: > On 2017-09-07 12:02 PM, Peter Eidt wrote: >> L65A3 takes priority over L43A1(b) because it is the specific law for this >> situation. > > Thanks for the quick and clear response. It wasn't obvious to me which > of the two Laws is the more specific for this case. > >> Extract of an early draft of the 2017 Commentary: >> "Law 9A3 >> The laws allow any player to try to prevent a player from committing an > ... >> Example 2: >> ... >> Law 65B explicitly tells that dummy is allowed to point to this irregularity >> as long as no card is played to the next trick. " > > That's on point, but the Law number should be L65B3, and the time limit > is wrong. (The initial "65A3" was my mistake, but the "65B" above is an > incompleteness in the draft Commentary.) > >>> For a too-late correction, I don't understand how L16B is relevant. > >> Law 16B restrictions are stronger than equity ("had the irregularity not >> occurred"). > > Indeed! > >> When a player has a card wrongly orientated he may be in a wrong assumption >> of the number of tricks needed to fulfil / defeat the contract. > > Yes, I follow that far. The question is whether what is normally AI can > become UI if a player learns about it in an irregular way. The key is 16A1 A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source. Knowing that the ass of clubs has been played is AI until your partner shouts "What are you thinking about, CA is already gone!" > > There used to be a provision that a player (except dummy) was entitled > to know at any time during play the number of tricks won and lost. Now > I can't find it. Has it been removed? If so, what makes the number of > tricks AI at all? Are players still entitled to ask? I think they are not. According to 41C you may ask what the contract is. If it would be allowed to ask how many tricks already have been made, law 74C4 (Drawing attention to the number of tricks required for success is forbidden) would be futile. Volker > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Sep 4 05:26:38 2017 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill Kemp) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 11:26:38 +0800 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor In-Reply-To: References: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001401d3252d$9eda2990$dc8e7cb0$@iinet.net.au> If we include New Law 75A in the post A. Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information Irrespective of whether or not an explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, a player, having heard his partner's explanation, knows that his own call has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is unauthorized information (see Law 16A) and the player must carefully avoid taking any advantage from it (see Law 73C); otherwise the Director shall award an adjusted score. Then I am happy with the remainder of the post. Cheers Bill kemp -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of brian Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 1:48 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] inn err Ni manor On 09/02/2017 03:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 04:59:02 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > >> "We want ... a shrubbery!" >> [dramatic chord] >> >> New 2017 Law 75B1: >> >> "When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non-offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score." >> >> New 2017 Law 75B3 (an apparent restatement / paraphrase of the "in any manner" Law 20F5(a)): >> >> "The player's partner must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues and if he subsequently becomes a defender, he must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play ends. If the player's partner is to be declarer or dummy he must, after the final pass, call the Director and then provide a correction." >> >> Richard Hills >> >> In my opinion, reading the new 75B1 and 75B3 together demonstrates that an accurate explanation to an opponent's later enquiry does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation. > > So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say? > > Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently? OK, let me pose a question assuming your opinion is the correct one, Robert. My partner plays different systems with different partners, and occasionally gets them confused. I make what I think is a natural bid, he alerts and, on request, tells' opponents that it's a gadget of which I've never heard. He then makes his bid, and it sounds like a forcing response. If you want an example, say that I've opened a natural weak 2D, pard alerts and explains it as Flannery, which I don't know, and pard then bids 2NT. I'm used to that being Ogust over my weak 2D. Now, what do I do over his rebid so as not to correct his misexplanation? It's easy with Richard's interpretation, of course... Brian. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Sep 7 18:21:33 2017 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill Kemp) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 00:21:33 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: <3bf8ab0f-1695-4d52-20f3-aec971361907@nhcc.net> References: <3bf8ab0f-1695-4d52-20f3-aec971361907@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <8FD845C0-3FA3-4F6E-A7CD-9F204C349FFC@iinet.net.au> Last Saturday at the club I had a player (dummy) at my table turn one of declarers earlier quitted tricks to point towards him. I mentioned at the end of the hand that this was a beach of the laws. He asked why and I said that declarer may not need to take a losing finesse to try to make his contract if he now realised that he had an extra trick. Bill kemp Sent from my iPad > On 7 Sep 2017, at 21:49, Steve Willner wrote: > > In the 2017 Laws: > L43A1(b): Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play. > > L65A3: A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but > this right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. > If done later Law 16B may apply. > > Which of the above takes priority? That is, when if ever can dummy > point out a card turned incorrectly? > > For a too-late correction, I don't understand how L16B is relevant. The > number of tricks won and lost is always AI. It seems to me the relevant > Law would be 12A1 (in essence, the Director estimates what would have > happened if the infraction had not occurred). Can anyone explain? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 11 11:58:14 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:58:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor In-Reply-To: References: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> Message-ID: brian wrote: > On 09/02/2017 03:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say? >> >> Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently? > > > OK, let me pose a question assuming your opinion is the correct one, > Robert. > > My partner plays different systems with different partners, and > occasionally gets them confused. I make what I think is a natural bid, > he alerts and, on request, tells' opponents that it's a gadget of > which I've never heard. He then makes his bid, and it sounds like a > forcing response. > > If you want an example, say that I've opened a natural weak 2D, pard > alerts and explains it as Flannery, which I don't know, and pard then > bids 2NT. I'm used to that being Ogust over my weak 2D. > > Now, what do I do over his rebid so as not to correct his > misexplanation? It's easy with Richard's interpretation, of course... > There is one extremely MAJOR difference here, Brian. Explaining the convention rightly/wronglycreates UI for partner. Making a bid does not. The bid that you are making is the only one that will compy with the UI regulations concerning the UI you received from partner. If ever there was an excuse to break L20F5, this one is certainly it. You are all so eager to allow the simple breaking, and now you complain about a much more complicated issue? Let me give you a counter-counter example. South misexplains, North does nothing to correct this, and makes a bid which conforms to his UI obligations (like your 3NT example above). This wakes up South, who now corrects his previous explanation and makes a call which returns the auction to a sensible strain. Nothing wrong? OK? But now suppose that in addition to making the call, North also gives some indication (either illegally by saying something or "legally" by explaining South's call "correctly"). Now South has UI. He still makes the same call, but now it can be said to be based on the UI received. Isn't the second situation much more akin to "real" bridge? The second situation almost never occurs in practice, because: a- the players in the NOrth seat "know" that they should not say anything, so the illegal UI never occurs; b- the situation with the "legal" UI also almost never occurs, because follow-up questions are very rare. But if you are going to start ruling that the "legal" UI becomes mandatory, won't people start asking follow-up questions just in case? I don't like that situation, which is why I believe the DWS response ought to be admissible, and even encouraged. Well, to be perfectly clear, I believe the DWS response IS admissible, as there is no law or regulation (yet) which prevents a player from giving it. But such a regulation would be a huge step backwards! Herman. > > Brian. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 06:11:03 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:11:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Dummy's rights In-Reply-To: <3bf8ab0f-1695-4d52-20f3-aec971361907@nhcc.net> References: <3bf8ab0f-1695-4d52-20f3-aec971361907@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner asserted: " ... The number of tricks won and lost is always AI. ... " Richard Hills: Not so. Law 65C refers to "review of the play after its completion". And Law 66D likewise refers to "After play ceases". Thus, as Bill Kemp observed, declarer is not entitled during the play to know that a finesse is unnecessary because of declarer's own error in orienting a trick (unless there has been a timely Law 65B3 correction of the error). Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 7 Sep 2017, at 11:49 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > In the 2017 Laws: > L43A1(b): Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play. > > L65A3: A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but > this right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. > If done later Law 16B may apply. > > Which of the above takes priority? That is, when if ever can dummy > point out a card turned incorrectly? > > For a too-late correction, I don't understand how L16B is relevant. The > number of tricks won and lost is always AI. It seems to me the relevant > Law would be 12A1 (in essence, the Director estimates what would have > happened if the infraction had not occurred). Can anyone explain? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 07:36:10 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 15:36:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor In-Reply-To: References: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> Message-ID: Herman De Wael, attempt at a rhetorical question: > But if you are going to start ruling that the "legal" UI becomes > mandatory, won't people start asking follow-up questions just in case? New 2017 Law 20G2: "A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to elicit an incorrect response from an opponent." Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 11 Sep 2017, at 7:58 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > brian wrote: >>> On 09/02/2017 03:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>> So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say? >>> >>> Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently? >> >> >> OK, let me pose a question assuming your opinion is the correct one, >> Robert. >> >> My partner plays different systems with different partners, and >> occasionally gets them confused. I make what I think is a natural bid, >> he alerts and, on request, tells' opponents that it's a gadget of >> which I've never heard. He then makes his bid, and it sounds like a >> forcing response. >> >> If you want an example, say that I've opened a natural weak 2D, pard >> alerts and explains it as Flannery, which I don't know, and pard then >> bids 2NT. I'm used to that being Ogust over my weak 2D. >> >> Now, what do I do over his rebid so as not to correct his >> misexplanation? It's easy with Richard's interpretation, of course... > > There is one extremely MAJOR difference here, Brian. > Explaining the convention rightly/wronglycreates UI for partner. > Making a bid does not. > The bid that you are making is the only one that will compy with the UI > regulations concerning the UI you received from partner. If ever there > was an excuse to break L20F5, this one is certainly it. You are all so > eager to allow the simple breaking, and now you complain about a much > more complicated issue? > > Let me give you a counter-counter example. > > South misexplains, North does nothing to correct this, and makes a bid > which conforms to his UI obligations (like your 3NT example above). This > wakes up South, who now corrects his previous explanation and makes a > call which returns the auction to a sensible strain. Nothing wrong? OK? > But now suppose that in addition to making the call, North also gives > some indication (either illegally by saying something or "legally" by > explaining South's call "correctly"). Now South has UI. He still makes > the same call, but now it can be said to be based on the UI received. > Isn't the second situation much more akin to "real" bridge? > The second situation almost never occurs in practice, because: > a- the players in the NOrth seat "know" that they should not say > anything, so the illegal UI never occurs; > b- the situation with the "legal" UI also almost never occurs, because > follow-up questions are very rare. > But if you are going to start ruling that the "legal" UI becomes > mandatory, won't people start asking follow-up questions just in case? > I don't like that situation, which is why I believe the DWS response > ought to be admissible, and even encouraged. > Well, to be perfectly clear, I believe the DWS response IS admissible, > as there is no law or regulation (yet) which prevents a player from > giving it. But such a regulation would be a huge step backwards! > > Herman. > >> >> Brian. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> http://www.avg.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170914/db160a05/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 14 09:48:16 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:48:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] inn err Ni manor In-Reply-To: References: <5934E439-AA9F-45EE-847D-01AA615E5C9B@gmail.com> <0A034295-DD31-4E8B-9A79-6F27F7ADFDA3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <59254e2d-eb02-9146-c551-76114edcd554@skynet.be> Richard Hills wrote: > Herman De Wael, attempt at a rhetorical question: > >> But if you are going to start ruling that the "legal" UI becomes >> mandatory, won't people start asking follow-up questions just in case? > > New 2017 Law 20G2: > > "A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to elicit an > incorrect response from an opponent." Good on the WBF! This could solve the problem of the deliberate question. Except that, when such a question is asked nevertheless, what is the responder to do? Answer "you are not allowed to ask that question?" - which tells the asker everything he needs to know. And what if he lies nevertheless? But it would not solve the probem for an innocently asked follow-up. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > Sent from my iPad > > On 11 Sep 2017, at 7:58 PM, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> brian wrote: >>> On 09/02/2017 03:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> >>>> So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I >>>> describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done >>>> nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say? >>>> >>>> Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently? >>> >>> >>> OK, let me pose a question assuming your opinion is the correct one, >>> Robert. >>> >>> My partner plays different systems with different partners, and >>> occasionally gets them confused. I make what I think is a natural bid, >>> he alerts and, on request, tells' opponents that it's a gadget of >>> which I've never heard. He then makes his bid, and it sounds like a >>> forcing response. >>> >>> If you want an example, say that I've opened a natural weak 2D, pard >>> alerts and explains it as Flannery, which I don't know, and pard then >>> bids 2NT. I'm used to that being Ogust over my weak 2D. >>> >>> Now, what do I do over his rebid so as not to correct his >>> misexplanation? It's easy with Richard's interpretation, of course... >>> >> >> There is one extremely MAJOR difference here, Brian. >> Explaining the convention rightly/wronglycreates UI for partner. >> Making a bid does not. >> The bid that you are making is the only one that will compy with the UI >> regulations concerning the UI you received from partner. If ever there >> was an excuse to break L20F5, this one is certainly it. You are all so >> eager to allow the simple breaking, and now you complain about a much >> more complicated issue? >> >> Let me give you a counter-counter example. >> >> South misexplains, North does nothing to correct this, and makes a bid >> which conforms to his UI obligations (like your 3NT example above). This >> wakes up South, who now corrects his previous explanation and makes a >> call which returns the auction to a sensible strain. Nothing wrong? OK? >> But now suppose that in addition to making the call, North also gives >> some indication (either illegally by saying something or "legally" by >> explaining South's call "correctly"). Now South has UI. He still makes >> the same call, but now it can be said to be based on the UI received. >> Isn't the second situation much more akin to "real" bridge? >> The second situation almost never occurs in practice, because: >> a- the players in the NOrth seat "know" that they should not say >> anything, so the illegal UI never occurs; >> b- the situation with the "legal" UI also almost never occurs, because >> follow-up questions are very rare. >> But if you are going to start ruling that the "legal" UI becomes >> mandatory, won't people start asking follow-up questions just in case? >> I don't like that situation, which is why I believe the DWS response >> ought to be admissible, and even encouraged. >> Well, to be perfectly clear, I believe the DWS response IS admissible, >> as there is no law or regulation (yet) which prevents a player from >> giving it. But such a regulation would be a huge step backwards! >> >> Herman. >> >>> >>> Brian. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>> http://www.avg.com >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Sep 29 07:42:12 2017 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 15:42:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] How careless is careless? Message-ID: <002001d338e5$b3aafc70$1b00f550$@optusnet.com.au> Playing 3NT, at the antepenultimate trick, E wins and W immediately tables two established spade tricks, claiming 1 down. E has a club and a spade and knows what is going on, and was always going to lead partners set up suit. And she is a "good" player. A club lead allows contract to make. I think maybe RJH would feel constrained to lead a club to punish partner and himself, but otherwise I can only fall back on "careless" (which I have done myself once when I had two cards of the same colour). Declarer says I am wrong to allow the spade lead from West, so have agreed to ask the great and the good, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From sven at svenpran.net Fri Sep 29 09:36:00 2017 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:36:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] How careless is careless? In-Reply-To: <002001d338e5$b3aafc70$1b00f550$@optusnet.com.au> References: <002001d338e5$b3aafc70$1b00f550$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000201d338f5$9b681930$d2384b90$@svenpran.net> West has no reason for claiming before East has led to the next trick other than to safeguard against East leading a Club. "Normal" play by West is to await East's lead and then claim (provided the lead is the spade). East now has received UI from West and I would rule that the contract makes. Sven -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Tony Musgrove Sendt: fredag 29. september 2017 07.42 Til: BLML Emne: [BLML] How careless is careless? Playing 3NT, at the antepenultimate trick, E wins and W immediately tables two established spade tricks, claiming 1 down. E has a club and a spade and knows what is going on, and was always going to lead partners set up suit. And she is a "good" player. A club lead allows contract to make. I think maybe RJH would feel constrained to lead a club to punish partner and himself, but otherwise I can only fall back on "careless" (which I have done myself once when I had two cards of the same colour). Declarer says I am wrong to allow the spade lead from West, so have agreed to ask the great and the good, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Sep 29 10:43:10 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:43:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] How careless is careless? In-Reply-To: <002001d338e5$b3aafc70$1b00f550$@optusnet.com.au> References: <002001d338e5$b3aafc70$1b00f550$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Impossible to answer off-table. At one end of the spectrum, there will always be people who don't know what is going on, and for whom the club return is a possibility. Made At another end of the spectrum, players should know better and not claim when partner is on lead. Made. But in the middle, there are certainly situations where I would rule that the spade return is the only possibility. One down. This is really up to the table director. Herman. Tony Musgrove wrote: > Playing 3NT, at the antepenultimate > trick, E wins and W immediately tables > two established spade tricks, claiming > 1 down. E has a club and a spade and > knows what is going on, and was always > going to lead partners set up suit. And > she is a "good" player. > > A club lead allows contract to make. > > I think maybe RJH would feel constrained > to lead a club to punish partner and > himself, but otherwise I can only fall > back on "careless" (which I have done > myself once when I had two cards of > the same colour). Declarer says I am > wrong to allow the spade lead from > West, so have agreed to ask the great > and the good, > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Sep 29 23:15:10 2017 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 17:15:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How careless is careless? In-Reply-To: References: <002001d338e5$b3aafc70$1b00f550$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: The question is whether East has a logical alternative, or, equivalently, whether a club lead by East would be irrational. From your facts, it appears that East knows that West has good spades, and that the club may not be good (because dummy has a higher club, or declarer is likely to have one). If that is the case, leading a club is irrational (if you use the claim rule) and not a logical alternative (if you use the UI rule), and the defense gets the last two tricks. On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Impossible to answer off-table. > > At one end of the spectrum, there will always be people who don't know > what is going on, and for whom the club return is a possibility. Made > > At another end of the spectrum, players should know better and not claim > when partner is on lead. Made. > > But in the middle, there are certainly situations where I would rule > that the spade return is the only possibility. One down. > > This is really up to the table director. > > Herman. > > Tony Musgrove wrote: > > Playing 3NT, at the antepenultimate > > trick, E wins and W immediately tables > > two established spade tricks, claiming > > 1 down. E has a club and a spade and > > knows what is going on, and was always > > going to lead partners set up suit. And > > she is a "good" player. > > > > A club lead allows contract to make. > > > > I think maybe RJH would feel constrained > > to lead a club to punish partner and > > himself, but otherwise I can only fall > > back on "careless" (which I have done > > myself once when I had two cards of > > the same colour). Declarer says I am > > wrong to allow the spade lead from > > West, so have agreed to ask the great > > and the good, > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20170929/38695bf9/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Sep 29 23:41:31 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 17:41:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How careless is careless? In-Reply-To: References: <002001d338e5$b3aafc70$1b00f550$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <2f9397e2-584b-c4a4-19a2-827e865fa012@nhcc.net> On 9/29/2017 5:15 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > From your facts, it appears that East knows that West has good spades, > and that the club may not be good (because dummy has a higher club, or > declarer is likely to have one). I agree that the ruling depends on the cards East can see and on the play up to that point. > If that is the case, leading a club is > irrational (if you use the claim rule) and not a logical alternative (if > you use the UI rule), and the defense gets the last two tricks. I don't see any UI. The relevant Law seems to be 70A in general and 70D2 in particular, i.e., is a club from East "normal" or "irrational" based on East's information and state of mind. The OP said "E ... was always going to lead partner[']s set up suit," which suggests a club would have been irrational in the circumstances. If that is not a "doubtful point (L70A)," then the claim should be allowed. I am thinking about a PP to West, probably a warning, but I'm not sure whether one is appropriate or not. Claiming is entirely proper, but here West has claimed at a time that makes it impossible for him to follow L68C, so you could argue it's a violation of procedure. Despite that, West may have thought East had only spades left. I think I wouldn't give a PP unless West often does this sort of thing, but I'd warn him that the ruling could well have gone against him, and that it's better to let East play before claiming. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Sep 30 09:48:33 2017 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 17:48:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] How careless is careless? In-Reply-To: <2f9397e2-584b-c4a4-19a2-827e865fa012@nhcc.net> References: <002001d338e5$b3aafc70$1b00f550$@optusnet.com.au> <2f9397e2-584b-c4a4-19a2-827e865fa012@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <003201d339c0$84b33f00$8e19bd00$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: Saturday, 30 September 2017 7:42 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] How careless is careless? > > On 9/29/2017 5:15 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > > From your facts, it appears that East knows that West has good spades, > > and that the club may not be good (because dummy has a higher club, > or > > declarer is likely to have one). > > I agree that the ruling depends on the cards East can see and on the > play up to that point. > > > If that is the case, leading a club is > > irrational (if you use the claim rule) and not a logical alternative (if > > you use the UI rule), and the defense gets the last two tricks. > > I don't see any UI. The relevant Law seems to be 70A in general and > 70D2 in particular, i.e., is a club from East "normal" or "irrational" > based on East's information and state of mind. The OP said "E ... was > always going to lead partner[']s set up suit," which suggests a club > would have been irrational in the circumstances. If that is not a > "doubtful point (L70A)," then the claim should be allowed. > > I am thinking about a PP to West, probably a warning, but I'm not sure > whether one is appropriate or not. Thanks for your input, all, UI has certainly been given, and a 5 minute sarcasm warning was delivered to West. You or I would have folded cards as declarer and got onto the next disaster, but these two pairs had a history of aggro, so was necessary to be punctilious in my ruling, instead of "stop wasting my time". I was hurt when declarer declared I was wrong, as that has happened twice already this year. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) [] Claiming is entirely proper, but > here West has claimed at a time that makes it impossible for him to > follow L68C, so you could argue it's a violation of procedure. Despite > that, West may have thought East had only spades left. I think I > wouldn't give a PP unless West often does this sort of thing, but I'd > warn him that the ruling could well have gone against him, and that it's > better to let East play before claiming. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml