From adam at tameware.com Wed Feb 14 06:05:11 2018 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 22:05:11 -0700 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Las Vegas (Summer 2014) Cases Posted Message-ID: *http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2014LV.pdf * For now only the case write-ups are included - there is no commentary yet. As usual, if you'd like to discuss a particular case please start a new thread with the case number in the Subject: line rather than replying to this message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20180214/69eea13e/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Thu Feb 15 00:41:50 2018 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:41:50 -0700 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Las Vegas (Summer 2014) Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And now Kansas City and Toronto, from Spring and Summer 2017 respectively. http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/nabcs/past-nabcs/nabc-casebooks/ On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:05 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > *http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2014LV.pdf > * > > For now only the case write-ups are included - there is no commentary yet. > > As usual, if you'd like to discuss a particular case please start a new > thread with the case number in the Subject: line rather than replying to > this message. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20180214/c3f27499/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Thu Feb 15 00:45:08 2018 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:45:08 -0700 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> Message-ID: Good one, Richard! On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > My opinion about the lack of traffic on this mailing list nowadays is that > there are not any meaningful ambiguities in the 2017 Lawbook. But in the > Good Old Days the 1997 Lawbook was infested with ambiguities, thus > providing fertile ground for interminable discussions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20180214/de5d040e/attachment.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 17 17:07:34 2018 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 16:07:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> , Message-ID: For two decades we have been told that there is nothing worth correcting in TFLB from which is concluded that the only thing now worth discussing are ambiguities. And now it is pointed out that low traffic is a consequence of no ambiguities. My assessment is different: low traffic is actually a consequence of too many ambiguities?so many that it is too overwhelming. Overwhelming? How so? Well, since there is no hope that discussing ambiguities will get them repaired the obvious answer is that thinking people have better things to do. Take 44C for example. This law must be the most clear and concise in the book. Not so. Presumably you believe what it says hook, line, and sinker?... And I will point you to 63B and ask why it is there since 44C is so important? And for those that can't let go, the big question makes me wonder why 64B exists. But since 64B is there- I wonder why a COOT is penalized but the failure to perform the most important obligation is not. And since 64B conveys that it is justice to not penalize the failure to perform the most important obligation: there is merely the smallest utility from the presence of 64C- after all, since justice has already been done via 64B, there is no more justice to be had, is there? regards roger pewick From: Adam Wildavsky Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 6:11 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] ?? Good one, Richard! On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Richard Hills > wrote: My opinion about the lack of traffic on this mailing list nowadays is that there are not any meaningful ambiguities in the 2017 Lawbook. But in the Good Old Days the 1997 Lawbook was infested with ambiguities, thus providing fertile ground for interminable discussions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20180217/f29cbc71/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Sat Feb 17 18:15:27 2018 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:15:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> , Message-ID: <005301d3a812$e80f2260$b82d6720$@t-online.de> Maybe this sort of contributions is the main reason for such low traffic here ... Peter von Roger Pewick For two decades we have been told that there is nothing worth correcting in TFLB from which is concluded that the only thing now worth discussing are ambiguities. And now it is pointed out that low traffic is a consequence of no ambiguities. My assessment is different: low traffic is actually a consequence of too many ambiguities.so many that it is too overwhelming. Overwhelming? How so? Well, since there is no hope that discussing ambiguities will get them repaired the obvious answer is that thinking people have better things to do. Take 44C for example. This law must be the most clear and concise in the book. Not so. Presumably you believe what it says hook, line, and sinker.... And I will point you to 63B and ask why it is there since 44C is so important? And for those that can't let go, the big question makes me wonder why 64B exists. But since 64B is there- I wonder why a COOT is penalized but the failure to perform the most important obligation is not. And since 64B conveys that it is justice to not penalize the failure to perform the most important obligation: there is merely the smallest utility from the presence of 64C- after all, since justice has already been done via 64B, there is no more justice to be had, is there? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20180217/6fc65986/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 17 23:21:44 2018 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 17:21:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: <005301d3a812$e80f2260$b82d6720$@t-online.de> References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> <005301d3a812$e80f2260$b82d6720$@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 12:15:27 -0500, Peter Eidt wrote: > Maybe this sort of contributions is the main reason for such low traffic > here ... > I thought I drove everyone away by pointing out the problems with the laws. Trying to remember how welcome my contributions were . . . everyone pretty much seemed annoyed. Constantly. And Roger is right, I don't care. There was a problem with the previous laws that if a player displayed a care face up and unmoving but not touching the table, it was not yet a played card and a revoke on the previous trick could still be corrected. Some players I think could go the whole hand without playing a card. (Just checked -- the error in the laws on played card is still there.) I hope the laws are now crystal clear. I saw that the revoke by each side law -- which never should have been in the laws and should have been removed -- was clarified. (It now follows the EBU interpretation, not the WBFL interpretation, right?) Now equity is restored -- which is difficult enough that we we have chapters of the laws designed to avoid that as much as possible. Checking . . . 64B2 is much better too! Yay! I'm impressed and thankful. It's still has the same problem I pointed out -- we only want to forgive the second revoke when there is a penalty for the first revoke. But that's more a conceptual error, it would not come up at all. Didn't you enjoy reading that? And I was always sick of people being slandered over a discussion of bridge laws, of all things. Bob > > Peter > > > von Roger Pewick > > > > For two decades we have been told that there is nothing worth correcting in > TFLB from which is concluded that the only thing now worth discussing are > ambiguities. And now it is pointed out that low traffic is a consequence of > no ambiguities. My assessment is different: low traffic is actually a > consequence of too many ambiguities.so many that it is too overwhelming. > Overwhelming? How so? Well, since there is no hope that discussing > ambiguities will get them repaired the obvious answer is that thinking > people have better things to do. > > > Take 44C for example. This law must be the most clear and concise in the > book. Not so. Presumably you believe what it says hook, line, and > sinker.... And I will point you to 63B and ask why it is there since 44C is > so important? And for those that can't let go, the big question makes me > wonder why 64B exists. But since 64B is there- I wonder why a COOT is > penalized but the failure to perform the most important obligation is not. > And since 64B conveys that it is justice to not penalize the failure to > perform the most important obligation: there is merely the smallest utility > from the presence of 64C- after all, since justice has already been done via > 64B, there is no more justice to be had, is there? > > From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Sun Feb 18 01:57:04 2018 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 19:57:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> <005301d3a812$e80f2260$b82d6720$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4746c072-80e4-36b6-8bc1-fedd42fe23dc@gmail.com> On 02/17/2018 05:21 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 12:15:27 -0500, Peter Eidt wrote: > >> Maybe this sort of contributions is the main reason for such low traffic >> here ... >> > > I thought I drove everyone away by pointing out the problems with the laws. Trying to remember how welcome my contributions were . . . everyone pretty much seemed annoyed. Constantly. I think you probably over-estimate your own influence. Annoying folks on a mailing list is usually the short route into their kill files, rather than a means of driving them off the list. Someone, I think Gordon Rainsford, mentioned that other locations had opened for discussing bridge law. I think that's a far more likely explanation for the low traffic here than anything you may have posted. Brian. From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Sun Feb 18 22:15:28 2018 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 22:15:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: <005301d3a812$e80f2260$b82d6720$@t-online.de> References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> <005301d3a812$e80f2260$b82d6720$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <47a089d5-2952-d576-8828-2d7796413218@gmx.de> I think I agree - assuming I have understood, at least vaguely, what Roger is trying to say.? At least I don't see any real problem and hav never had any difficulty applying these laws.? JE Am 17.02.2018 um 18:15 schrieb Peter Eidt: > > Maybe this ?sort of contributions is the main reason for such low > traffic here ... > > Peter > > *von *Roger Pewick > > For two decades we have been told that there is nothing worth > correcting in TFLB from which is concluded that the only thing now > worth discussing are ambiguities.? And now it is pointed out that low > traffic is a consequence of no ambiguities.? My assessment is > different: low traffic is actually a consequence of too many > ambiguities?so many that it is too overwhelming.? Overwhelming?? How > so?? Well, since there is no hope that discussing ambiguities will get > them repaired the obvious answer is that thinking people have better > things to do. > > Take 44C for example. This law must be the most clear and concise in > the book. Not so.? Presumably you believe what it says hook, line, and > sinker?...? And I will point you to 63B and ask why it is there since > 44C is so important?? And for those that can't let go, the big > question makes me wonder why 64B exists.? But since 64B is there- I > wonder why a COOT is penalized but the failure to perform the most > important obligation is not.? And since 64B conveys that it is justice > to not penalize the failure to perform the most important obligation: > there is merely the smallest utility from the presence of 64C- after > all, since justice has already been done via 64B, there is no more > justice to be had, is there? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonr60 at gmail.com Sun Feb 18 23:26:28 2018 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 22:26:28 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> <005301d3a812$e80f2260$b82d6720$@t-online.de> Message-ID: Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 17 Feb 2018, at 22:21, Robert Frick wrote: > >> There was a problem with the previous laws that if a player displayed a care face up and unmoving but not touching the table, it was not yet a played card and a revoke on the previous trick could still be corrected. Some players I think could go the whole hand without playing a card. (Just checked -- the error in the laws on played card is still there.) >> This sounds like a error of interpretation rather than a problem with the law. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 19 01:06:47 2018 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:06:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ?? In-Reply-To: References: <1vi3lm881w1px9ulpbmrb6vn.1513358309507@email.android.com> <005301d3a812$e80f2260$b82d6720$@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:26:28 -0500, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > >> On 17 Feb 2018, at 22:21, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> There was a problem with the previous laws that if a player displayed a care face up and unmoving but not touching the table, it was not yet a played card and a revoke on the previous trick could still be corrected. Some players I think could go the whole hand without playing a card. (Just checked -- the error in the laws on played card is still there.) >>> > > This sounds like a error of interpretation rather than a problem with the law. They fixed it! I only checked two places before posting. I unfortunately do not have any hats or crows to eat, so I must beg off for the usual punishment, but I'm happy and impressed. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Feb 19 06:21:45 2018 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:21:45 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas 2014 case N4 Message-ID: <981753DF-3DB5-49B3-AD85-5B62F47A12AB@gmail.com> In this case the declaring side had misinformed the defending side during the auction. The declaring side corrected their misexplanation at the end of the auction. But neither side summoned the Director (as both sides were obliged to do) until well after the conclusion of play. Hence the Director refused to adjust the score, citing Law 10B. On the other hand, the Appeals Committee ignored Law 10B without giving any reason for doing so, therefore adjusted the score. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 19 11:39:03 2018 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:39:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas 2014 case N4 In-Reply-To: <981753DF-3DB5-49B3-AD85-5B62F47A12AB@gmail.com> References: <981753DF-3DB5-49B3-AD85-5B62F47A12AB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0b011cec-32b8-f7a1-0467-336c340aace8@skynet.be> I don't have time to look it up. But if it was about damage during the bidding, I agree with the appeal committee. There should be no reason to call the TD immediately if you know that he cannot change anything at that precise moment. That should be like "reserving your rights". Herman. Richard Hills wrote: > In this case the declaring side had misinformed the defending side during the auction. The declaring side corrected their misexplanation at the end of the auction. But neither side summoned the Director (as both sides were obliged to do) until well after the conclusion of play. > > Hence the Director refused to adjust the score, citing Law 10B. On the other hand, the Appeals Committee ignored Law 10B without giving any reason for doing so, therefore adjusted the score. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > 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 ken.johnston at btinternet.com Mon Feb 19 12:21:05 2018 From: ken.johnston at btinternet.com (ken.johnston) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:21:05 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas 2014 case N4 Message-ID: <5A5E200C0BED8733@rgout08.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk> (added by postmaster@btinternet.com) Could the Director have allowed the last pass by non-offenders to be changed had they been called? Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -------- Original message --------From: Herman De Wael Date: 19/02/2018 10:39 (GMT+00:00) To: blml Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas 2014 case N4 I don't have time to look it up. But if it was about damage during the bidding, I agree with the appeal committee. There should be no reason to call the TD immediately if you know that he cannot change anything at that precise moment. That should be like "reserving your rights". Herman. Richard Hills wrote: > In this case the declaring side had misinformed the defending side during the auction. The declaring side corrected their misexplanation at the end of the auction. But neither side summoned the Director (as both sides were obliged to do) until well after the conclusion of play. > > Hence the Director refused to adjust the score, citing Law 10B. On the other hand, the Appeals Committee ignored Law 10B without giving any reason for doing so, therefore adjusted the score. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > 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/20180219/f7a50f4d/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Feb 19 16:02:09 2018 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:02:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas 2014 case N4 In-Reply-To: <5a8ab388.5dc6370a.94dec.2532SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <5a8ab388.5dc6370a.94dec.2532SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: If the Director had been called in time, North would have been allowed to change his pass. By failing to call the Director, N-S jeopardized their right to benefit if that had mattered; North cannot now say after the fact that he would have pulled the double to 5D. Law 10B would apply in that case; North declined to call the Director to change his call at the right time, and the Director lets that choice stand. And this is necessary, as North would get the table result after a 5D bid, rather than the most or least favorable likely result. While Law 20F5 says that a player must call the Director when correcting a misexplanation, this doesn't happen in practice, so I would not automatically deny rectification for failure to call the Director. Instead, the relevant law is 11A: the right to rectification may be forfeited if the non-offending side does not summon the director. This law says "may", so the Director should allow rectification if the same result would occur had there been a timely Director call. If the Director had been called at the end of the auction, he would have taken South away from the table. Would South have said, "I would have bid 4S" or "I would have made a forcing pass" (leading to 5D by North and then a 5H save by West)? The Committee ruled that he would, which is a reasonable conclusion. On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 6:21 AM, ken.johnston wrote: > Could the Director have allowed the last pass by non-offenders to be > changed had they been called? > > > > Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Herman De Wael > Date: 19/02/2018 10:39 (GMT+00:00) > To: blml > Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas 2014 case N4 > > I don't have time to look it up. > > But if it was about damage during the bidding, I agree with the appeal > committee. There should be no reason to call the TD immediately if you > know that he cannot change anything at that precise moment. That should > be like "reserving your rights". > > Herman. > > Richard Hills wrote: > > In this case the declaring side had misinformed the defending side > during the auction. The declaring side corrected their misexplanation at > the end of the auction. But neither side summoned the Director (as both > sides were obliged to do) until well after the conclusion of play. > > > > Hence the Director refused to adjust the score, citing Law 10B. On the > other hand, the Appeals Committee ignored Law 10B without giving any reason > for doing so, therefore adjusted the score. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Richard Hills > > > > Sent from my iPad > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20180219/5cb00ce1/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 06:50:45 2018 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 16:50:45 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 Message-ID: In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. The Director ruled: A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken tempo before doubling 7D. B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested removing to 7S. D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. The Appeals Committee ruled: Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose any call. Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Feb 22 17:10:27 2018 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill Kemp) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:10:27 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the auction? Bill Sent from my iPad > On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills wrote: > > In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. > > The Director ruled: > > A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken tempo before doubling 7D. > B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. > C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested removing to 7S. > D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. > > The Appeals Committee ruled: > > Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose any call. > Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Feb 23 02:56:54 2018 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:56:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the score. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp wrote: > > No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the auction? > Bill > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills wrote: >> >> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. >> >> The Director ruled: >> >> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken tempo before doubling 7D. >> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. >> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested removing to 7S. >> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. >> >> The Appeals Committee ruled: >> >> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose any call. >> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> Sent from my iPad >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Feb 23 03:26:33 2018 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 21:26:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> Message-ID: The Director is within his rights to adjust the score. North committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a specific redress for this infraction, the Director should make a ruling which restores equity. On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory Points > to North's side. But the question I am interested in is whether or not the > Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the score. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp wrote: > > > > No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the auction? > > Bill > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills wrote: > >> > >> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has just > bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking tempo, North > forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing that, "I am bidding 7S no > matter what you do." Now relieved of any burden of responsibility, South is > able to double 7D in tempo. As advertised, North converts to 7S, which is > cold for 13 tricks, +2210. > >> > >> The Director ruled: > >> > >> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken tempo > before doubling 7D. > >> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. > >> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested removing to > 7S. > >> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. > >> > >> The Appeals Committee ruled: > >> > >> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not actually hold > any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose any call. > >> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. > >> > >> Best wishes, > >> > >> Richard Hills > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20180223/00e4684b/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Feb 23 09:51:19 2018 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:51:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5dcb969b-c4c5-0613-dd35-08845d2ef488@gmail.com> On 02/22/2018 09:26 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > The Director is within his rights to adjust the score.? North > committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a specific > redress for this infraction, the Director should make a ruling which > restores equity. > I understand that the fact that this is at the seven level makes things a little unusual, but under more normal circumstances, would there not be some logic to treating North's announcement as a bid out of rotation? Brian. > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills > wrote: > > The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory > Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is > whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the > score. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp > wrote: > > > > No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the > auction? > > Bill > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills > wrote: > >> > >> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has > just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking > tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing > that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any > burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As > advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. > >> > >> The Director ruled: > >> > >> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken > tempo before doubling 7D. > >> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. > >> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested > removing to 7S. > >> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. > >> > >> The Appeals Committee ruled: > >> > >> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not > actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose > any call. > >> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. > >> > >> Best wishes, > >> > >> Richard Hills > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 23 13:45:55 2018 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:45:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: <5dcb969b-c4c5-0613-dd35-08845d2ef488@gmail.com> References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> <5dcb969b-c4c5-0613-dd35-08845d2ef488@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0432999d-a90a-2963-3ff7-337b66f0f57b@skynet.be> I consider his mention as "I will be bidding at my turn" not as a bid, but as an extraneous remark. brian wrote: > On 02/22/2018 09:26 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >> The Director is within his rights to adjust the score.? North >> committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a specific >> redress for this infraction, the Director should make a ruling which >> restores equity. >> > > I understand that the fact that this is at the seven level makes > things a little unusual, but under more normal circumstances, would > there not be some logic to treating North's announcement as a bid out > of rotation? > > > Brian. > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills > > wrote: >> >> The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory >> Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is >> whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the >> score. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> > On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp > > wrote: >> > >> > No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the >> auction? >> > Bill >> > >> > Sent from my iPad >> > >> >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills > > wrote: >> >> >> >> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has >> just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking >> tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing >> that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any >> burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As >> advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. >> >> >> >> The Director ruled: >> >> >> >> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken >> tempo before doubling 7D. >> >> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. >> >> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested >> removing to 7S. >> >> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. >> >> >> >> The Appeals Committee ruled: >> >> >> >> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not >> actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose >> any call. >> >> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> Richard Hills >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Blml mailing list >> >> Blml at rtflb.org >> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Blml mailing list >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Feb 23 14:58:55 2018 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:58:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: <0432999d-a90a-2963-3ff7-337b66f0f57b@skynet.be> References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> <5dcb969b-c4c5-0613-dd35-08845d2ef488@gmail.com> <0432999d-a90a-2963-3ff7-337b66f0f57b@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4adc9cf9-3396-fb9e-6c81-729ef89b1f90@gmail.com> On 02/23/2018 07:45 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I consider his mention as "I will be bidding at my turn" not as a bid, > but as an extraneous remark. > If that was what he'd actually said, I couldn't agree more. However, since David said the Laws didn't provide for this particular infraction, I was just suggesting something which there's at least a logical basis for applying *given* that North fully specified a particular bid, albeit with extra baggage. Brian. > brian wrote: >> On 02/22/2018 09:26 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >>> The Director is within his rights to adjust the score.? North >>> committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a specific >>> redress for this infraction, the Director should make a ruling which >>> restores equity. >>> >> >> I understand that the fact that this is at the seven level makes >> things a little unusual, but under more normal circumstances, would >> there not be some logic to treating North's announcement as a bid out >> of rotation? >> >> >> Brian. >> >> >>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills >> > wrote: >>> >>> The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory >>> Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is >>> whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the >>> score. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> > On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp >> > wrote: >>> > >>> > No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the >>> auction? >>> > Bill >>> > >>> > Sent from my iPad >>> > >>> >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills >> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has >>> just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking >>> tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing >>> that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any >>> burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As >>> advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. >>> >> >>> >> The Director ruled: >>> >> >>> >> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken >>> tempo before doubling 7D. >>> >> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. >>> >> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested >>> removing to 7S. >>> >> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. >>> >> >>> >> The Appeals Committee ruled: >>> >> >>> >> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not >>> actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose >>> any call. >>> >> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. >>> >> >>> >> Best wishes, >>> >> >>> >> Richard Hills >>> >> >>> >> Sent from my iPad >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Blml mailing list >>> >> Blml at rtflb.org >>> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Blml mailing list >>> > Blml at rtflb.org >>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> http://www.avg.com >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From sven at svenpran.net Fri Feb 23 15:37:04 2018 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:37:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: <0432999d-a90a-2963-3ff7-337b66f0f57b@skynet.be> References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> <5dcb969b-c4c5-0613-dd35-08845d2ef488@gmail.com> <0432999d-a90a-2963-3ff7-337b66f0f57b@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001d3acb3$c680f560$5382e020$@svenpran.net> It is indeed. And being a deliberate extraneous mark at his partner's turn to call (and which could influence his partner's selection of call) it deserves a hefty PP to say the least. -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Herman De Wael Sendt: fredag 23. februar 2018 13.46 Til: blml Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 I consider his mention as "I will be bidding at my turn" not as a bid, but as an extraneous remark. brian wrote: > On 02/22/2018 09:26 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >> The Director is within his rights to adjust the score. North >> committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a specific >> redress for this infraction, the Director should make a ruling which >> restores equity. >> > > I understand that the fact that this is at the seven level makes > things a little unusual, but under more normal circumstances, would > there not be some logic to treating North's announcement as a bid out > of rotation? > > > Brian. > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills > > wrote: >> >> The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory >> Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is >> whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the >> score. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> > On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp > > wrote: >> > >> > No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the >> auction? >> > Bill >> > >> > Sent from my iPad >> > >> >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills > > wrote: >> >> >> >> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has >> just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking >> tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing >> that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any >> burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As >> advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. >> >> >> >> The Director ruled: >> >> >> >> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken >> tempo before doubling 7D. >> >> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. >> >> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested >> removing to 7S. >> >> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. >> >> >> >> The Appeals Committee ruled: >> >> >> >> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not >> actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose >> any call. >> >> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> Richard Hills >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Blml mailing list >> >> Blml at rtflb.org >> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Blml mailing list >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Feb 24 14:55:32 2018 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 14:55:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: <000001d3acb3$c680f560$5382e020$@svenpran.net> References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> <5dcb969b-c4c5-0613-dd35-08845d2ef488@gmail.com> <0432999d-a90a-2963-3ff7-337b66f0f57b@skynet.be> <000001d3acb3$c680f560$5382e020$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <27c7ca0c-863c-717b-dc29-85017c69c03c@skynet.be> Look, We seem to agree that thanks to his remark, he was allowed to bid 7H. We also agree that the remark did not carry useful UI to partner, or at the very least, any use of such UI would be superseded by his bid of 7H. So why do we need to give a PP for an action which carried no ill effect? Herman. Sven Pran wrote: > It is indeed. > And being a deliberate extraneous mark at his partner's turn to call (and which could influence his partner's selection of call) it deserves a hefty PP to say the least. > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Herman De Wael > Sendt: fredag 23. februar 2018 13.46 > Til: blml > Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 > > I consider his mention as "I will be bidding at my turn" not as a bid, but as an extraneous remark. > > brian wrote: >> On 02/22/2018 09:26 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >>> The Director is within his rights to adjust the score. North >>> committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a specific >>> redress for this infraction, the Director should make a ruling which >>> restores equity. >>> >> >> I understand that the fact that this is at the seven level makes >> things a little unusual, but under more normal circumstances, would >> there not be some logic to treating North's announcement as a bid out >> of rotation? >> >> >> Brian. >> >> >>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills >> > wrote: >>> >>> The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory >>> Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is >>> whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the >>> score. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> > On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp >> > wrote: >>> > >>> > No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the >>> auction? >>> > Bill >>> > >>> > Sent from my iPad >>> > >>> >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills >> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has >>> just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking >>> tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing >>> that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any >>> burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As >>> advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. >>> >> >>> >> The Director ruled: >>> >> >>> >> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken >>> tempo before doubling 7D. >>> >> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. >>> >> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested >>> removing to 7S. >>> >> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. >>> >> >>> >> The Appeals Committee ruled: >>> >> >>> >> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not >>> actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose >>> any call. >>> >> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. >>> >> >>> >> Best wishes, >>> >> >>> >> Richard Hills >>> >> >>> >> Sent from my iPad >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Blml mailing list >>> >> Blml at rtflb.org >>> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Blml mailing list >>> > Blml at rtflb.org >>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> http://www.avg.com >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 24 15:23:14 2018 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 09:23:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: <27c7ca0c-863c-717b-dc29-85017c69c03c@skynet.be> References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> <5dcb969b-c4c5-0613-dd35-08845d2ef488@gmail.com> <0432999d-a90a-2963-3ff7-337b66f0f57b@skynet.be> <000001d3acb3$c680f560$5382e020$@svenpran.net> <27c7ca0c-863c-717b-dc29-85017c69c03c@skynet.be> Message-ID: Players should be taught to just bid 7S out of turn. (And of course players are not allowed to break the law for their own gain, but we already crossed that line.) On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 08:55:32 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Look, > > We seem to agree that thanks to his remark, he was allowed to bid 7H. > We also agree that the remark did not carry useful UI to partner, or at > the very least, any use of such UI would be superseded by his bid of 7H. > > So why do we need to give a PP for an action which carried no ill effect? > > Herman. > > Sven Pran wrote: >> It is indeed. >> And being a deliberate extraneous mark at his partner's turn to call (and which could influence his partner's selection of call) it deserves a hefty PP to say the least. >> >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Herman De Wael >> Sendt: fredag 23. februar 2018 13.46 >> Til: blml >> Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 >> >> I consider his mention as "I will be bidding at my turn" not as a bid, but as an extraneous remark. >> >> brian wrote: >>> On 02/22/2018 09:26 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >>>> The Director is within his rights to adjust the score. North >>>> committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a specific >>>> redress for this infraction, the Director should make a ruling which >>>> restores equity. >>>> >>> >>> I understand that the fact that this is at the seven level makes >>> things a little unusual, but under more normal circumstances, would >>> there not be some logic to treating North's announcement as a bid out >>> of rotation? >>> >>> >>> Brian. >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory >>>> Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is >>>> whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the >>>> score. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Richard Hills >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> > On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp >>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the >>>> auction? >>>> > Bill >>>> > >>>> > Sent from my iPad >>>> > >>>> >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills >>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has >>>> just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking >>>> tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing >>>> that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any >>>> burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As >>>> advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. >>>> >> >>>> >> The Director ruled: >>>> >> >>>> >> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken >>>> tempo before doubling 7D. >>>> >> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. >>>> >> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested >>>> removing to 7S. >>>> >> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. >>>> >> >>>> >> The Appeals Committee ruled: >>>> >> >>>> >> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not >>>> actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose >>>> any call. >>>> >> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. >>>> >> >>>> >> Best wishes, >>>> >> >>>> >> Richard Hills >>>> >> >>>> >> Sent from my iPad >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> Blml mailing list >>>> >> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Blml mailing list >>>> > Blml at rtflb.org >>>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>> http://www.avg.com >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From bridge at vwalther.de Sun Feb 25 12:05:17 2018 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 12:05:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: <27c7ca0c-863c-717b-dc29-85017c69c03c@skynet.be> References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> <5dcb969b-c4c5-0613-dd35-08845d2ef488@gmail.com> <0432999d-a90a-2963-3ff7-337b66f0f57b@skynet.be> <000001d3acb3$c680f560$5382e020$@svenpran.net> <27c7ca0c-863c-717b-dc29-85017c69c03c@skynet.be> Message-ID: <84eb5480-1449-51b7-2896-b50f3f52dbe3@vwalther.de> Am 24.02.2018 um 14:55 schrieb Herman De Wael: > Look, > > We seem to agree that thanks to his remark, he was allowed to bid 7H. > We also agree that the remark did not carry useful UI to partner, or at > the very least, any use of such UI would be superseded by his bid of 7H. > > So why do we need to give a PP for an action which carried no ill effect? Because there was no ill effect and therefore no adjustment! The purpose of a procedure penalty is to stress that there was an intolerable infraction. If the infraction caused an ill effect, there will be an adjusted score, making the culprit feeling penalized. An adjustment should take away any advantage that may be caused by the infraction. In many cases this leads to an indirect penalty. Because attempting to take away any advantage gained by the infraction the adjustment takes away more than the actual benefit. (After receiving UI the score is changed from N3NT to W3H undoubled, despite the fact that W3H doubled is an LA as well) In these common cases there is no need for a PP. But we should ensure that they offending side will not do this infraction again, especially if they did not benefit from the infraction. And therefore we need PPs. I think any infraction should be covered by a PP, at least a warning. But after a severe rectification a PP can be omitted. By the way: Norths action may have caused damage! When North said that he will convert to 7S anyway, everybody knows that South's bid is becoming completely meaningless. So E/W can take no conclusion from the call S actually chooses. This may not have caused damage in the actual case, but if is a structural benefit form North's infraction. Volker > > Herman. > > Sven Pran wrote: >> It is indeed. >> And being a deliberate extraneous mark at his partner's turn to call (and which could influence his partner's selection of call) it deserves a hefty PP to say the least. >> >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Herman De Wael >> Sendt: fredag 23. februar 2018 13.46 >> Til: blml >> Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 >> >> I consider his mention as "I will be bidding at my turn" not as a bid, but as an extraneous remark. >> >> brian wrote: >>> On 02/22/2018 09:26 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >>>> The Director is within his rights to adjust the score. North >>>> committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a specific >>>> redress for this infraction, the Director should make a ruling which >>>> restores equity. >>>> >>> >>> I understand that the fact that this is at the seven level makes >>> things a little unusual, but under more normal circumstances, would >>> there not be some logic to treating North's announcement as a bid out >>> of rotation? >>> >>> >>> Brian. >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory >>>> Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is >>>> whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the >>>> score. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Richard Hills >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> > On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp >>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the >>>> auction? >>>> > Bill >>>> > >>>> > Sent from my iPad >>>> > >>>> >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills >>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has >>>> just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking >>>> tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing >>>> that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any >>>> burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As >>>> advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. >>>> >> >>>> >> The Director ruled: >>>> >> >>>> >> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken >>>> tempo before doubling 7D. >>>> >> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. >>>> >> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested >>>> removing to 7S. >>>> >> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. >>>> >> >>>> >> The Appeals Committee ruled: >>>> >> >>>> >> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not >>>> actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose >>>> any call. >>>> >> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. >>>> >> >>>> >> Best wishes, >>>> >> >>>> >> Richard Hills >>>> >> >>>> >> Sent from my iPad >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> Blml mailing list >>>> >> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Blml mailing list >>>> > Blml at rtflb.org >>>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>> http://www.avg.com >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Volker Walther From gordonr60 at gmail.com Sun Feb 25 14:19:30 2018 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 13:19:30 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: <84eb5480-1449-51b7-2896-b50f3f52dbe3@vwalther.de> References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> <5dcb969b-c4c5-0613-dd35-08845d2ef488@gmail.com> <0432999d-a90a-2963-3ff7-337b66f0f57b@skynet.be> <000001d3acb3$c680f560$5382e020$@svenpran.net> <27c7ca0c-863c-717b-dc29-85017c69c03c@skynet.be> <84eb5480-1449-51b7-2896-b50f3f52dbe3@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <7AE6F829-31CE-4833-8F9C-32989E2E10E3@gmail.com> > On 25 Feb 2018, at 11:05, Volker Walther wrote: Lots of sense. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sat Feb 24 03:44:54 2018 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill Kemp) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 10:44:54 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6CF880DC-599B-452E-9FAB-9A50C4129847@iinet.net.au> I would have ruled as per the appeals committee including the disciplinary penalty. I can see no reason for presuming a tank Bill Sent from my iPad > On 23 Feb 2018, at 09:56, Richard Hills wrote: > > The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the score. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp wrote: >> >> No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the auction? >> Bill >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills wrote: >>> >>> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. >>> >>> The Director ruled: >>> >>> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken tempo before doubling 7D. >>> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. >>> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested removing to 7S. >>> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. >>> >>> The Appeals Committee ruled: >>> >>> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose any call. >>> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun Feb 25 06:30:49 2018 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill Kemp) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 13:30:49 +0800 Subject: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: <27c7ca0c-863c-717b-dc29-85017c69c03c@skynet.be> References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> <5dcb969b-c4c5-0613-dd35-08845d2ef488@gmail.com> <0432999d-a90a-2963-3ff7-337b66f0f57b@skynet.be> <000001d3acb3$c680f560$5382e020$@svenpran.net> <27c7ca0c-863c-717b-dc29-85017c69c03c@skynet.be> Message-ID: <553EAB04-47F0-4202-9DBA-9626BB47ADCC@iinet.net.au> We didn't give a pp, (I hope), we gave a DP. Bill Sent from my iPad > On 24 Feb 2018, at 21:55, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Look, > > We seem to agree that thanks to his remark, he was allowed to bid 7H. > We also agree that the remark did not carry useful UI to partner, or at > the very least, any use of such UI would be superseded by his bid of 7H. > > So why do we need to give a PP for an action which carried no ill effect? > > Herman. > > Sven Pran wrote: >> It is indeed. >> And being a deliberate extraneous mark at his partner's turn to call (and which could influence his partner's selection of call) it deserves a hefty PP to say the least. >> >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Herman De Wael >> Sendt: fredag 23. februar 2018 13.46 >> Til: blml >> Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 >> >> I consider his mention as "I will be bidding at my turn" not as a bid, but as an extraneous remark. >> >> brian wrote: >>>> On 02/22/2018 09:26 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >>>> The Director is within his rights to adjust the score. North >>>> committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a specific >>>> redress for this infraction, the Director should make a ruling which >>>> restores equity. >>>> >>> >>> I understand that the fact that this is at the seven level makes >>> things a little unusual, but under more normal circumstances, would >>> there not be some logic to treating North's announcement as a bid out >>> of rotation? >>> >>> >>> Brian. >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory >>>> Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is >>>> whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the >>>> score. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Richard Hills >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>>> On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp >>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the >>>> auction? >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>>> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills >>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has >>>> just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking >>>> tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing >>>> that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any >>>> burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As >>>> advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Director ruled: >>>>>> >>>>>> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken >>>> tempo before doubling 7D. >>>>>> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. >>>>>> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested >>>> removing to 7S. >>>>>> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Appeals Committee ruled: >>>>>> >>>>>> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not >>>> actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose >>>> any call. >>>>>> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard Hills >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>> http://www.avg.com >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 25 14:37:37 2018 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 14:37:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: <84eb5480-1449-51b7-2896-b50f3f52dbe3@vwalther.de> References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> <5dcb969b-c4c5-0613-dd35-08845d2ef488@gmail.com> <0432999d-a90a-2963-3ff7-337b66f0f57b@skynet.be> <000001d3acb3$c680f560$5382e020$@svenpran.net> <27c7ca0c-863c-717b-dc29-85017c69c03c@skynet.be> <84eb5480-1449-51b7-2896-b50f3f52dbe3@vwalther.de> Message-ID: The points Volker made are perfectly correct, and I accept them, so I must have made my point unclearly. What I intended to say is that if we accept the outcome of North's "infraction", then we must also accept that North makes it. And we accept the outcome of North's infraction not becaue by chance it did not cause damage, but because it was impossible to cause damage. We issue PP's over and above adjustments for infractions which a competitor makes, often withoug knowing it will be an infraction. That is not the cause here. North knows very well that he should not tell South what to bid, and he does it anyway. There is no need for a PP in order to educate North. Nor is there any need for a PP because North could have been mistaken in thinking it did not matter. We all agree that it did not. That is why I say there seems to me no need for a PP. And just to recap: I agree with Volker's comment that maybe there was some damage after all! Herman. Volker Walther wrote: > Am 24.02.2018 um 14:55 schrieb Herman De Wael: >> Look, >> >> We seem to agree that thanks to his remark, he was allowed to bid 7H. >> We also agree that the remark did not carry useful UI to partner, or at >> the very least, any use of such UI would be superseded by his bid of 7H. >> >> So why do we need to give a PP for an action which carried no ill effect? > > Because there was no ill effect and therefore no adjustment! > > The purpose of a procedure penalty is to stress that there was an > intolerable infraction. If the infraction caused an ill effect, there > will be an adjusted score, making the culprit feeling penalized. > > An adjustment should take away any advantage that may be caused by the > infraction. In many cases this leads to an indirect penalty. Because > attempting to take away any advantage gained by the infraction the > adjustment takes away more than the actual benefit. > (After receiving UI the score is changed from N3NT to W3H undoubled, > despite the fact that W3H doubled is an LA as well) > > In these common cases there is no need for a PP. > > But we should ensure that they offending side will not do this > infraction again, especially if they did not benefit from the > infraction. And therefore we need PPs. > > I think any infraction should be covered by a PP, at least a warning. > But after a severe rectification a PP can be omitted. > > > By the way: Norths action may have caused damage! When North said that > he will convert to 7S anyway, everybody knows that South's bid is > becoming completely meaningless. So E/W can take no conclusion from the > call S actually chooses. This may not have caused damage in the actual > case, but if is a structural benefit form North's infraction. > > Volker > > > >> >> Herman. >> >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> It is indeed. >>> And being a deliberate extraneous mark at his partner's turn to call (and which could influence his partner's selection of call) it deserves a hefty PP to say the least. >>> >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Herman De Wael >>> Sendt: fredag 23. februar 2018 13.46 >>> Til: blml >>> Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 >>> >>> I consider his mention as "I will be bidding at my turn" not as a bid, but as an extraneous remark. >>> >>> brian wrote: >>>> On 02/22/2018 09:26 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >>>>> The Director is within his rights to adjust the score. North >>>>> committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a specific >>>>> redress for this infraction, the Director should make a ruling which >>>>> restores equity. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I understand that the fact that this is at the seven level makes >>>> things a little unusual, but under more normal circumstances, would >>>> there not be some logic to treating North's announcement as a bid out >>>> of rotation? >>>> >>>> >>>> Brian. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory >>>>> Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is >>>>> whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the >>>>> score. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Richard Hills >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> > On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp >>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the >>>>> auction? >>>>> > Bill >>>>> > >>>>> > Sent from my iPad >>>>> > >>>>> >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has >>>>> just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking >>>>> tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing >>>>> that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any >>>>> burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As >>>>> advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> The Director ruled: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken >>>>> tempo before doubling 7D. >>>>> >> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. >>>>> >> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested >>>>> removing to 7S. >>>>> >> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> The Appeals Committee ruled: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not >>>>> actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose >>>>> any call. >>>>> >> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Best wishes, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Richard Hills >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> Blml mailing list >>>>> >> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > Blml mailing list >>>>> > Blml at rtflb.org >>>>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>>> http://www.avg.com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > From bridge at vwalther.de Sun Feb 25 20:50:38 2018 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:50:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> <5dcb969b-c4c5-0613-dd35-08845d2ef488@gmail.com> <0432999d-a90a-2963-3ff7-337b66f0f57b@skynet.be> <000001d3acb3$c680f560$5382e020$@svenpran.net> <27c7ca0c-863c-717b-dc29-85017c69c03c@skynet.be> <84eb5480-1449-51b7-2896-b50f3f52dbe3@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <7e9bb496-8020-03d7-af9d-3c652a7a1f7b@vwalther.de> Am 25.02.2018 um 14:37 schrieb Herman De Wael: > And we accept the outcome of North's infraction (...) because it was impossible to cause damage. > (...) > And just to recap: I agree with Volker's comment that maybe there was > some damage after all! > > Herman. > These sentences look like a contradiction to me. Volker Am 25.02.2018 um 14:37 schrieb Herman De Wael: > The points Volker made are perfectly correct, and I accept them, so I > must have made my point unclearly. > > What I intended to say is that if we accept the outcome of North's > "infraction", then we must also accept that North makes it. > > And we accept the outcome of North's infraction not becaue by chance it > did not cause damage, but because it was impossible to cause damage. > > We issue PP's over and above adjustments for infractions which a > competitor makes, often withoug knowing it will be an infraction. That > is not the cause here. North knows very well that he should not tell > South what to bid, and he does it anyway. There is no need for a PP in > order to educate North. Nor is there any need for a PP because North > could have been mistaken in thinking it did not matter. We all agree > that it did not. > > That is why I say there seems to me no need for a PP. > > And just to recap: I agree with Volker's comment that maybe there was > some damage after all! > > Herman. > > Volker Walther wrote: >> Am 24.02.2018 um 14:55 schrieb Herman De Wael: >>> Look, >>> >>> We seem to agree that thanks to his remark, he was allowed to bid 7H. >>> We also agree that the remark did not carry useful UI to partner, or at >>> the very least, any use of such UI would be superseded by his bid of 7H. >>> >>> So why do we need to give a PP for an action which carried no ill effect? >> >> Because there was no ill effect and therefore no adjustment! >> >> The purpose of a procedure penalty is to stress that there was an >> intolerable infraction. If the infraction caused an ill effect, there >> will be an adjusted score, making the culprit feeling penalized. >> >> An adjustment should take away any advantage that may be caused by the >> infraction. In many cases this leads to an indirect penalty. Because >> attempting to take away any advantage gained by the infraction the >> adjustment takes away more than the actual benefit. >> (After receiving UI the score is changed from N3NT to W3H undoubled, >> despite the fact that W3H doubled is an LA as well) >> >> In these common cases there is no need for a PP. >> >> But we should ensure that they offending side will not do this >> infraction again, especially if they did not benefit from the >> infraction. And therefore we need PPs. >> >> I think any infraction should be covered by a PP, at least a warning. >> But after a severe rectification a PP can be omitted. >> >> >> By the way: Norths action may have caused damage! When North said that >> he will convert to 7S anyway, everybody knows that South's bid is >> becoming completely meaningless. So E/W can take no conclusion from the >> call S actually chooses. This may not have caused damage in the actual >> case, but if is a structural benefit form North's infraction. >> >> Volker >> >> >> >>> >>> Herman. >>> >>> Sven Pran wrote: >>>> It is indeed. >>>> And being a deliberate extraneous mark at his partner's turn to call (and which could influence his partner's selection of call) it deserves a hefty PP to say the least. >>>> >>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Herman De Wael >>>> Sendt: fredag 23. februar 2018 13.46 >>>> Til: blml >>>> Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 >>>> >>>> I consider his mention as "I will be bidding at my turn" not as a bid, but as an extraneous remark. >>>> >>>> brian wrote: >>>>> On 02/22/2018 09:26 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >>>>>> The Director is within his rights to adjust the score. North >>>>>> committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a specific >>>>>> redress for this infraction, the Director should make a ruling which >>>>>> restores equity. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I understand that the fact that this is at the seven level makes >>>>> things a little unusual, but under more normal circumstances, would >>>>> there not be some logic to treating North's announcement as a bid out >>>>> of rotation? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brian. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory >>>>>> Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is >>>>>> whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the >>>>>> score. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard Hills >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> >>>>>> > On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the >>>>>> auction? >>>>>> > Bill >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Sent from my iPad >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has >>>>>> just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking >>>>>> tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing >>>>>> that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any >>>>>> burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As >>>>>> advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> The Director ruled: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken >>>>>> tempo before doubling 7D. >>>>>> >> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. >>>>>> >> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested >>>>>> removing to 7S. >>>>>> >> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> The Appeals Committee ruled: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not >>>>>> actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose >>>>>> any call. >>>>>> >> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Best wishes, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Richard Hills >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >> Blml mailing list >>>>>> >> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>>> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > Blml mailing list >>>>>> > Blml at rtflb.org >>>>>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>>>> http://www.avg.com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > -- Volker Walther From sven at svenpran.net Sun Feb 25 22:13:49 2018 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 22:13:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: Re: Toronto 2017 case R6 In-Reply-To: <553EAB04-47F0-4202-9DBA-9626BB47ADCC@iinet.net.au> References: <511C7415-A8B5-4D3C-84F4-E381083CC626@iinet.net.au> <15BBAFE2-F9A1-4DD4-9127-BA83210485EC@gmail.com> <5dcb969b-c4c5-0613-dd35-08845d2ef488@gmail.com> <0432999d-a90a-2963-3ff7-337b66f0f57b@skynet.be> <000001d3acb3$c680f560$5382e020$@svenpran.net> <27c7ca0c-863c-717b-dc29-85017c69c03c@skynet.be> <553EAB04-47F0-4202-9DBA-9626BB47ADCC@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <000a01d3ae7d$88113350$983399f0$@svenpran.net> I do indeed hope that you gave a PP, not a DP ! (DP is a far more severe reaction than PP). Law 90 Procedural penalties: Director?s Authority The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score. [...] Law 91 Penalize or suspend: Director?s Powers In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the Director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to suspend a player or contestant for the current session or any part thereof. The Director?s decision under this clause is final (see Law 93B3). [...] -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Bill Kemp Sendt: s?ndag 25. februar 2018 06.31 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] Re: Toronto 2017 case R6 We didn't give a pp, (I hope), we gave a DP. Bill Sent from my iPad > On 24 Feb 2018, at 21:55, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Look, > > We seem to agree that thanks to his remark, he was allowed to bid 7H. > We also agree that the remark did not carry useful UI to partner, or > at the very least, any use of such UI would be superseded by his bid of 7H. > > So why do we need to give a PP for an action which carried no ill effect? > > Herman. > > Sven Pran wrote: >> It is indeed. >> And being a deliberate extraneous mark at his partner's turn to call (and which could influence his partner's selection of call) it deserves a hefty PP to say the least. >> >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >> av Herman De Wael >> Sendt: fredag 23. februar 2018 13.46 >> Til: blml >> Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 >> >> I consider his mention as "I will be bidding at my turn" not as a bid, but as an extraneous remark. >> >> brian wrote: >>>> On 02/22/2018 09:26 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >>>> The Director is within his rights to adjust the score. North >>>> committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a >>>> specific redress for this infraction, the Director should make a >>>> ruling which restores equity. >>>> >>> >>> I understand that the fact that this is at the seven level makes >>> things a little unusual, but under more normal circumstances, would >>> there not be some logic to treating North's announcement as a bid >>> out of rotation? >>> >>> >>> Brian. >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory >>>> Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is >>>> whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the >>>> score. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Richard Hills >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>>> On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp >>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the >>>> auction? >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>>> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills >>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has >>>> just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking >>>> tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing >>>> that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any >>>> burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As >>>> advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Director ruled: >>>>>> >>>>>> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken >>>> tempo before doubling 7D. >>>>>> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. >>>>>> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested >>>> removing to 7S. >>>>>> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Appeals Committee ruled: >>>>>> >>>>>> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not >>>> actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose >>>> any call. >>>>>> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard Hills >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>> http://www.avg.com >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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