From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 03:21:35 2018 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 13:21:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 75 "carefully avoid taking any advantage" Message-ID: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> You and your partner play very old-fashioned methods. When pard opens a strong 1NT, you respond with a natural signoff of 2D. Now partner rebids 2NT, promising maximum values with good diamond support. So far, so good. Alas, pard alerts and explains 2D as a different very old-fashioned method: game-forcing Stayman. You now remember that your partnership has agreed to use the very old-fashioned Double-Barrelled Stayman convention (a 2C response would have been game-invitational Stayman). The 2017 Law 75 requires you to "carefully taking any advantage". Is conducting the remainder of the auction in accordance with your actual partnership understanding sufficiently careful? In my opinion, no. The above debacle was the (now deleted) indicative example of the 2007 Law 75, and in 2007 you were specifically required to continue the auction in accordance with your non-existent fantasy methods. In my opinion this point could be usefully clarified in the forthcoming official Commentary. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 21 03:19:16 2018 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:19:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Lost In-Reply-To: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> References: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> Message-ID: I had what would have been, last year, an easy ruling. In the auction, East responded 3C, South bid 4H, and West hesitated, giving unauthorized information to her partner. West was supposed to hesitate (in ACBLland) after a jump bid. So there was no infraction. Except West didn't know that -- her hesitation was real, she had something to think about; if she hadn't had anything to think about, she would have passed quickly. Her partner also didn't realize, so east correctly read her partner's hesitation as showing something to think about it. So it's a little strange to rule no infraction (she appropriately hesitated) when there was flawless communication of UI. The ruling was manageable last year. North puts down a stop card, and everyone's on the right page. If North doesn't put down the stop card, that's the original infraction and I'm comfortable not ruling against EW. But there are no stop cards anymore. The ACBL eliminated them. So, EW managed to communicate information with flawless adherence to proper procedure. (So it's not EI according to the rules. Right? Can we call it UI when partner unexpectedly bids in proper tempo? I have ruled that way before, maybe that's the solution here.) From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 04:18:41 2018 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 14:18:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 75 "carefully avoid taking any advantage" In-Reply-To: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> References: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <28AF650C-E10C-4D36-AE35-95F2DB8552F6@gmail.com> Perhaps the 2027 Law 75A could include a cross-reference to the "...aids to his memory..." Law 40B2(d)? Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 20 Jan 2018, at 1:21 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > > You and your partner play very old-fashioned methods. When pard opens a strong 1NT, you respond with a natural signoff of 2D. Now partner rebids 2NT, promising maximum values with good diamond support. So far, so good. > > Alas, pard alerts and explains 2D as a different very old-fashioned method: game-forcing Stayman. You now remember that your partnership has agreed to use the very old-fashioned Double-Barrelled Stayman convention (a 2C response would have been game-invitational Stayman). > > The 2017 Law 75 requires you to "carefully taking any advantage". Is conducting the remainder of the auction in accordance with your actual partnership understanding sufficiently careful? In my opinion, no. The above debacle was the (now deleted) indicative example of the 2007 Law 75, and in 2007 you were specifically required to continue the auction in accordance with your non-existent fantasy methods. > > In my opinion this point could be usefully clarified in the forthcoming official Commentary. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > Sent from my iPad From gordonr60 at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 08:48:34 2018 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 07:48:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 75 "carefully avoid taking any advantage" In-Reply-To: <28AF650C-E10C-4D36-AE35-95F2DB8552F6@gmail.com> References: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> <28AF650C-E10C-4D36-AE35-95F2DB8552F6@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7335AC84-20FD-4822-9463-682FE25262B0@gmail.com> Sounds like a variation of tempo to me. Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 21 Jan 2018, at 03:18, Richard Hills wrote: > > Perhaps the 2027 Law 75A could include a cross-reference to the "...aids to his memory..." Law 40B2(d)? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 20 Jan 2018, at 1:21 PM, Richard Hills wrote: >> >> You and your partner play very old-fashioned methods. When pard opens a strong 1NT, you respond with a natural signoff of 2D. Now partner rebids 2NT, promising maximum values with good diamond support. So far, so good. >> >> Alas, pard alerts and explains 2D as a different very old-fashioned method: game-forcing Stayman. You now remember that your partnership has agreed to use the very old-fashioned Double-Barrelled Stayman convention (a 2C response would have been game-invitational Stayman). >> >> The 2017 Law 75 requires you to "carefully taking any advantage". Is conducting the remainder of the auction in accordance with your actual partnership understanding sufficiently careful? In my opinion, no. The above debacle was the (now deleted) indicative example of the 2007 Law 75, and in 2007 you were specifically required to continue the auction in accordance with your non-existent fantasy methods. >> >> In my opinion this point could be usefully clarified in the forthcoming official Commentary. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bridge at vwalther.de Sun Jan 21 13:22:22 2018 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 13:22:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lost In-Reply-To: References: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <80ceea1d-be14-1348-f7ca-378bb49f9c55@vwalther.de> Just a little off-topic question: Was it common practice in ACBL-land to impose a procedural penalty or an adjusted score when a player did not wait the proper time after the stop card had been used? Calling during the forced pause is a common fault in German clubs, and it is seldom sanctioned. When doing so the same problem arises: If West this time is thinking until the stop-card is removed, but usually ignoring it and bidding too early, East has the same UI. I think to get rid of the problem you have to penalize players each and every time they are calling to early. But most players are only aware of UI problems, if some positive information is given, not when it is denied by a BOOT. So they will hardly accept these penalties. Lost, too Volker Am 21.01.2018 um 03:19 schrieb Robert Frick: > I had what would have been, last year, an easy ruling. In the auction, East responded 3C, South bid 4H, and West hesitated, giving unauthorized information to her partner. > > West was supposed to hesitate (in ACBLland) after a jump bid. So there was no infraction. > > Except West didn't know that -- her hesitation was real, she had something to think about; if she hadn't had anything to think about, she would have passed quickly. Her partner also didn't realize, so east correctly read her partner's hesitation as showing something to think about it. > > So it's a little strange to rule no infraction (she appropriately hesitated) when there was flawless communication of UI. > > The ruling was manageable last year. North puts down a stop card, and everyone's on the right page. If North doesn't put down the stop card, that's the original infraction and I'm comfortable not ruling against EW. > > But there are no stop cards anymore. The ACBL eliminated them. So, EW managed to communicate information with flawless adherence to proper procedure. (So it's not EI according to the rules. Right? Can we call it UI when partner unexpectedly bids in proper tempo? I have ruled that way before, maybe that's the solution here.) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther From bridge at vwalther.de Sun Jan 21 13:51:09 2018 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 13:51:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 75 "carefully avoid taking any advantage" In-Reply-To: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> References: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> Message-ID: Am 20.01.2018 um 03:21 schrieb Richard Hills: > You and your partner play very old-fashioned methods. When pard opens a strong 1NT, you respond with a natural signoff of 2D. Now partner rebids 2NT, promising maximum values with good diamond support. So far, so good. > > Alas, pard alerts and explains 2D as a different very old-fashioned method: game-forcing Stayman. You now remember that your partnership has agreed to use the very old-fashioned Double-Barrelled Stayman convention (a 2C response would have been game-invitational Stayman). > > The 2017 Law 75 requires you to "carefully taking any advantage". Is conducting the remainder of the auction in accordance with your actual partnership understanding sufficiently careful? In my opinion, no. The above debacle was the (now deleted) indicative example of the 2007 Law 75, and in 2007 you were specifically required to continue the auction in accordance with your non-existent fantasy methods. > > In my opinion this point could be usefully clarified in the forthcoming official Commentary. > I think Law 16 is clear about that: Obviously you did not possess the information about the agreed meaning of 2D when you made the bid. You received intelligence about the meaning from the unexpected alert and the explanation. This is UI, 16B applies. The old 75 A was explaining this, but it was no additional rule. Still the same. -- Volker Walther From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Jan 21 17:37:00 2018 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:37:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Lost In-Reply-To: <80ceea1d-be14-1348-f7ca-378bb49f9c55@vwalther.de> References: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> <80ceea1d-be14-1348-f7ca-378bb49f9c55@vwalther.de> Message-ID: I have called the director occasionally when there was a failure to hesitate over the Stop card in a time-sensitive auction (not 1N-3N, when nobody hesitates). At most, the director has warned the opponents, and I have never seen an adjusted score. One example: 1S-(X)-4S-(P); P-(P) The 4S bidder used the Stop card, and the pass over 4S was fast.. I was opener, and called the director, who warned the opponents. 4S was beatable but made at the table. The doubler had extra values and his partner had a weak balanced hand. I believe a second double was a LA, and if the director agreed, he should have adjusted -420 to -590, but didn't. On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Volker Walther wrote: > Just a little off-topic question: Was it common practice in ACBL-land to > impose a procedural penalty or an adjusted score when a player did not > wait the proper time after the stop card had been used? Calling during > the forced pause is a common fault in German clubs, and it is seldom > sanctioned. > > When doing so the same problem arises: If West this time is thinking > until the stop-card is removed, but usually ignoring it and bidding too > early, East has the same UI. I think to get rid of the problem you have > to penalize players each and every time they are calling to early. > > But most players are only aware of UI problems, if some positive > information is given, not when it is denied by a BOOT. So they will > hardly accept these penalties. > > Lost, too > > Volker > > > > > Am 21.01.2018 um 03:19 schrieb Robert Frick: > > I had what would have been, last year, an easy ruling. In the auction, > East responded 3C, South bid 4H, and West hesitated, giving unauthorized > information to her partner. > > > > West was supposed to hesitate (in ACBLland) after a jump bid. So there > was no infraction. > > > > Except West didn't know that -- her hesitation was real, she had > something to think about; if she hadn't had anything to think about, she > would have passed quickly. Her partner also didn't realize, so east > correctly read her partner's hesitation as showing something to think about > it. > > > > So it's a little strange to rule no infraction (she appropriately > hesitated) when there was flawless communication of UI. > > > > The ruling was manageable last year. North puts down a stop card, and > everyone's on the right page. If North doesn't put down the stop card, > that's the original infraction and I'm comfortable not ruling against EW. > > > > But there are no stop cards anymore. The ACBL eliminated them. So, EW > managed to communicate information with flawless adherence to proper > procedure. (So it's not EI according to the rules. Right? Can we call it UI > when partner unexpectedly bids in proper tempo? I have ruled that way > before, maybe that's the solution here.) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > -- > Volker Walther > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20180121/a449e096/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jan 21 22:00:03 2018 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 16:00:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Lost In-Reply-To: References: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <30041f72-7225-efac-acbd-7f74361d77e2@nhcc.net> On 2018-01-20 9:19 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > In the auction, East responded 3C, South bid 4H, and West hesitated, > giving unauthorized information to her partner. > > West was supposed to hesitate (in ACBLland) after a jump bid. So > there was no infraction. So far. > Except West didn't know that -- her hesitation was real, she had > something to think about; if she hadn't had anything to think about, > she would have passed quickly. Her partner also didn't realize, so > east correctly read her partner's hesitation as showing something to > think about it. So East has UI with the usual consequences. > So it's a little strange to rule no infraction (she appropriately > hesitated) when there was flawless communication of UI. I don't see why L16B doesn't apply. Under your description of the facts, East had extraneous information from partner. It is possession of the information, now how it is conveyed, that triggers L16B. The tricky part is establishing the facts you have determined -- that this West really made UI available rather than merely complied with the mandated procedure. This could be an opportunity to educate about the mandated skip bid procedure, but I don't suppose it will do any good. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 21 22:15:06 2018 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 16:15:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Lost In-Reply-To: References: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> <80ceea1d-be14-1348-f7ca-378bb49f9c55@vwalther.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:37:00 -0500, David Grabiner wrote: > I have called the director occasionally when there was a failure to > hesitate over the Stop card in a time-sensitive auction (not 1N-3N, when > nobody hesitates). At most, the director has warned the opponents, and I > have never seen an adjusted score. I adjust all of the time. Players call to complain about hesitations. Often everything lines up including the results of a poll, and I adjust. Once or twice a week, I think. The better players are, for the most part, sensitive to this problem in their own bidding. They will, say, pass because their partner has hesitated even though they might have bid if their partner had not. So a hesitation that gives partner useful information is cause for further investigation when I direct. But, to put the problem paradoxically, what if the hesitation is not EI but gives partner UI? > > One example: 1S-(X)-4S-(P); P-(P) The 4S bidder used the Stop card, and > the pass over 4S was fast.. I was opener, and called the director, who > warned the opponents. 4S was beatable but made at the table. The doubler > had extra values and his partner had a weak balanced hand. I believe a > second double was a LA, and if the director agreed, he should have adjusted > -420 to -590, but didn't. > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Volker Walther wrote: > >> Just a little off-topic question: Was it common practice in ACBL-land to >> impose a procedural penalty or an adjusted score when a player did not >> wait the proper time after the stop card had been used? Calling during >> the forced pause is a common fault in German clubs, and it is seldom >> sanctioned. >> >> When doing so the same problem arises: If West this time is thinking >> until the stop-card is removed, but usually ignoring it and bidding too >> early, East has the same UI. I think to get rid of the problem you have >> to penalize players each and every time they are calling to early. >> >> But most players are only aware of UI problems, if some positive >> information is given, not when it is denied by a BOOT. So they will >> hardly accept these penalties. >> >> Lost, too >> >> Volker >> >> >> >> >> Am 21.01.2018 um 03:19 schrieb Robert Frick: >> > I had what would have been, last year, an easy ruling. In the auction, >> East responded 3C, South bid 4H, and West hesitated, giving unauthorized >> information to her partner. >> > >> > West was supposed to hesitate (in ACBLland) after a jump bid. So there >> was no infraction. >> > >> > Except West didn't know that -- her hesitation was real, she had >> something to think about; if she hadn't had anything to think about, she >> would have passed quickly. Her partner also didn't realize, so east >> correctly read her partner's hesitation as showing something to think about >> it. >> > >> > So it's a little strange to rule no infraction (she appropriately >> hesitated) when there was flawless communication of UI. >> > >> > The ruling was manageable last year. North puts down a stop card, and >> everyone's on the right page. If North doesn't put down the stop card, >> that's the original infraction and I'm comfortable not ruling against EW. >> > >> > But there are no stop cards anymore. The ACBL eliminated them. So, EW >> managed to communicate information with flawless adherence to proper >> procedure. (So it's not EI according to the rules. Right? Can we call it UI >> when partner unexpectedly bids in proper tempo? I have ruled that way >> before, maybe that's the solution here.) >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Blml mailing list >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > >> >> >> -- >> Volker Walther >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 21 22:35:19 2018 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 16:35:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Lost In-Reply-To: <30041f72-7225-efac-acbd-7f74361d77e2@nhcc.net> References: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> <30041f72-7225-efac-acbd-7f74361d77e2@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 16:00:03 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2018-01-20 9:19 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> In the auction, East responded 3C, South bid 4H, and West hesitated, >> giving unauthorized information to her partner. >> >> West was supposed to hesitate (in ACBLland) after a jump bid. So >> there was no infraction. > > So far. > >> Except West didn't know that -- her hesitation was real, she had >> something to think about; if she hadn't had anything to think about, >> she would have passed quickly. Her partner also didn't realize, so >> east correctly read her partner's hesitation as showing something to >> think about it. > > So East has UI with the usual consequences. > >> So it's a little strange to rule no infraction (she appropriately >> hesitated) when there was flawless communication of UI. > > I don't see why L16B doesn't apply. Under your description of the > facts, East had extraneous information from partner. This is the critical part. EI is defined as occurring when there is a departure from the rules and procedures. But West was supposed to hesitate for ten seconds, and that's what she did. So how is that EI? It is possession > of the information, now how it is conveyed, that triggers L16B. The > tricky part is establishing the facts you have determined -- that this > West really made UI available rather than merely complied with the > mandated procedure. > > This could be an opportunity to educate about the mandated skip bid > procedure, but I don't suppose it will do any good. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jan 21 22:50:20 2018 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 16:50:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Lost In-Reply-To: References: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> <30041f72-7225-efac-acbd-7f74361d77e2@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On 2018-01-21 4:35 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > But West was supposed to hesitate for ten seconds, and that's what > she did. So how is that EI? That's up to the Director to determine. The critical question For L16B is whether East, though West's actions, knows something extraneous about West's hand or not. Compliance with mandated procedure is a PP question, not a score adjustment question. Obviously you wouldn't give a PP on this deal, but you might give one on all the other deals where EW failed to comply with the proper procedure. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 22 02:16:55 2018 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:16:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Lost In-Reply-To: References: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> <30041f72-7225-efac-acbd-7f74361d77e2@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 16:50:20 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2018-01-21 4:35 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> But West was supposed to hesitate for ten seconds, and that's what >> she did. So how is that EI? > > That's up to the Director to determine. The critical question For L16B > is whether East, though West's actions, knows something extraneous about > West's hand or not. Extraneous: Not part of the lawful procedures of the game. West was supposed to hesitate for 10 seconds. She did. How are you going to interpret that as extraneous? .A player may use information in the auction or play if ... (c) it is ... arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations ... So, authorized. > > Compliance with mandated procedure is a PP question, not a score > adjustment question. Obviously you wouldn't give a PP on this deal, but > you might give one on all the other deals where EW failed to comply with > the proper procedure. That would work. But no one at the table would have noticed a lack of hesitation, so I couldn't possibly have been called. And of course no one is going to hesitate over the auction 1NT - P - 3NT. So I have to decide when a hesitation is appropriate over a skip bid and when it is not? Ugh. From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 04:43:32 2018 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:43:32 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Lost In-Reply-To: References: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> <30041f72-7225-efac-acbd-7f74361d77e2@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 21, 2018, Robert Frick wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Jan 2018, Steve Willner wrote: > > > On 2018-01-21 4:35 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> But West was supposed to hesitate for ten seconds, and that's what > >> she did. So how is that EI? > > > > That's up to the Director to determine. The critical question For L16B > > is whether East, though West's actions, knows something extraneous about > > West's hand or not. > > Extraneous: Not part of the lawful procedures of > the game. > > West was supposed to hesitate for 10 seconds. She did. How are you going to interpret that as extraneous? > > .A player may use information in the auction or > play if ... > (c) it is ... arising from the legal > procedures authorized in these laws and in > regulations ... > Concerning ACBL regulation and practice over skip bids: Seems to me that some important issues in this thread have been ignored. When a 10-second pause is authorized by explicit regulation, and a 0-second pause is almost universally risk-free in practice by ACBL directors, then it seems that all pauses from 0 seconds to 10 seconds or so are de facto legal procedures in the ACBL, and therefore cannot cause any EI. Any delay from 0 seconds to about 10 seconds is deemed EI-free in practice. Players can freely take 0 seconds when they already know what they want to do, because "everyone" does it and there is no penalty. Why even call the director? The beauty of the system is that a player can still take 10 seconds when he does have a problem, because that case is explicitly authorized by law. Any length of delay from zero to ten is there de facto EI-free. Ugly result. But it is even worse than that, in my view. If you really take 10 seconds, many opps will say that you took longer than 10 seconds, or even "much longer", so a policy of an automatic 10-second delay is risky. I speak from unfortunate experience. Better to keep your delays from zero to six seconds. A range of 0-7 seconds, freely allowing the higher end when you need it, is probably safer than a range of 9-10 seconds in all cases, supposing one could manage such a tight range. Have I summarized the ACBL way correctly? Would anyone like to support the ACBL on this? Jerry Fusselman From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 00:47:09 2018 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:47:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Lost In-Reply-To: <80ceea1d-be14-1348-f7ca-378bb49f9c55@vwalther.de> References: <6118D53F-045E-4BD2-9C12-69D39DDE2AA0@gmail.com> <80ceea1d-be14-1348-f7ca-378bb49f9c55@vwalther.de> Message-ID: In Australia there is not any compulsory pause regulation. And although use of the Stop! card is currently optional, I believe that it is about to be deleted from the Aussie regulations. However... In an expert Aussie partnership one player had a typically deliberate tempo. This partnership had recently adopted the agreement that after a strong 2NT opening a 3NT response would promise 5 spades and 4 hearts. But after 2NT at the table, the deliberate player bid 3NT in faster than normal tempo. Opener therefore correctly deduced that partner had forgotten the convention, so passed, when rebidding 4S was a logical alternative. Hence the Director and Appeals Committee adjusted the score from 3NT making to 4S failing. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 21 Jan 2018, at 11:22 PM, Volker Walther wrote: > > Just a little off-topic question: Was it common practice in ACBL-land to > impose a procedural penalty or an adjusted score when a player did not > wait the proper time after the stop card had been used? Calling during > the forced pause is a common fault in German clubs, and it is seldom > sanctioned. > > When doing so the same problem arises: If West this time is thinking > until the stop-card is removed, but usually ignoring it and bidding too > early, East has the same UI. I think to get rid of the problem you have > to penalize players each and every time they are calling to early. > > But most players are only aware of UI problems, if some positive > information is given, not when it is denied by a BOOT. So they will > hardly accept these penalties. > > Lost, too > > Volker > > > > >> Am 21.01.2018 um 03:19 schrieb Robert Frick: >> I had what would have been, last year, an easy ruling. In the auction, East responded 3C, South bid 4H, and West hesitated, giving unauthorized information to her partner. >> >> West was supposed to hesitate (in ACBLland) after a jump bid. So there was no infraction. >> >> Except West didn't know that -- her hesitation was real, she had something to think about; if she hadn't had anything to think about, she would have passed quickly. Her partner also didn't realize, so east correctly read her partner's hesitation as showing something to think about it. >> >> So it's a little strange to rule no infraction (she appropriately hesitated) when there was flawless communication of UI. >> >> The ruling was manageable last year. North puts down a stop card, and everyone's on the right page. If North doesn't put down the stop card, that's the original infraction and I'm comfortable not ruling against EW. >> >> But there are no stop cards anymore. The ACBL eliminated them. So, EW managed to communicate information with flawless adherence to proper procedure. (So it's not EI according to the rules. Right? Can we call it UI when partner unexpectedly bids in proper tempo? I have ruled that way before, maybe that's the solution here.) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > Volker Walther > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jan 25 15:48:16 2018 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:48:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] if what Message-ID: Axx KJ1098 Declarer leads the jack from hand towards Axx in dummy in 3NT. LHO, holding xx, tries to remember the proper discard playing Smith Echoes. Declarer plays him for the queen and makes only 3 when the finesse loses and the opponents run hearts. Declarer can cash out for making 4. So I have no desire to punish, but I want to rectify and give the declarer what he would have made if __. But if what? How many he would have made if LHO had given away the position of the queen? (Making 7). Or if LHO had played "normal tempo" and not given away the position of the queen (not risking the finesse, cashing out and making 4). From gordonr60 at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 18:55:01 2018 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 17:55:01 +0000 Subject: [BLML] if what In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8E9671E8-06FA-4A25-8062-5E2390D307EC@gmail.com> That?s what we have weighted scores for. Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 25 Jan 2018, at 14:48, Robert Frick wrote: > > Axx > > KJ1098 > > > Declarer leads the jack from hand towards Axx in dummy in 3NT. LHO, holding xx, tries to remember the proper discard playing Smith Echoes. Declarer plays him for the queen and makes only 3 when the finesse loses and the opponents run hearts. Declarer can cash out for making 4. > > So I have no desire to punish, but I want to rectify and give the declarer what he would have made if __. > > But if what? How many he would have made if LHO had given away the position of the queen? (Making 7). Or if LHO had played "normal tempo" and not given away the position of the queen (not risking the finesse, cashing out and making 4). > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Thu Jan 25 21:29:30 2018 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:29:30 -0000 Subject: [BLML] if what In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001601d3961b$34c95710$9e5c0530$@btinternet.com> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: 25 January 2018 14:48 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] if what Axx KJ1098 Declarer leads the jack from hand towards Axx in dummy in 3NT. LHO, holding xx, tries to remember the proper discard playing Smith Echoes. Declarer plays him for the queen and makes only 3 when the finesse loses and the opponents run hearts. Declarer can cash out for making 4. So I have no desire to punish, but I want to rectify and give the declarer what he would have made if __. But if what? How many he would have made if LHO had given away the position of the queen? (Making 7). Or if LHO had played "normal tempo" and not given away the position of the queen (not risking the finesse, cashing out and making 4). _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Well Robert you just have to make up your mind what you think is right. Talk to declarer's LHO. Read him Law 73D. Explain that deciding which card to play from two small is not a "demonstrable bridge reason". Use the wondrous "Probst test". Ask the player what a cheat would try to do in such a situation. (obviously hesitate with two small). Assure the player that there is no question of treating this hesitation as "cheating", but point out that this is why care must be taken and you intend to consider adjusting the score, namely to consider what was likely if the play of the small card had been in tempo. Ask declarer what his plans were. We all know that everyone will say, "Oh I was going to win the Ace and finesse on the way back - 13 tricks to me", but you don't have to believe that. Their may be a bridge reason for adopting this line based on bidding or previous play. You have to decide. It seems to me that it is very unlikely that any declarer will finesse at this point. Surely if you are going to play for ten tricks you will play Ace. You could a reason why a player might have tried to go down but 3NT+1 seems a reasonable frequent score and 3NT-1 unlikely. A player might advance a reason for the 13 trick line - "11 tricks were laydown in Spades, my only chance of a good score was making more in NTs". I can't imagine a high percentage of 3NT -1 so I'll give that zero. 80% +1 20% +4 might be a possible weighting Though if the answers to our questions suggest declarer was very likely to make 13 tricks you should be brave enough to award that. Any player who knows enough to play Smith, should know Law 73. In addition to adjusting the score, I would make a procedural penalty, probably twice our standard in the EBU so 2*10% or whatever you apply. I would remind the offending player and partner of their right to appeal, but would not expect an appeals committee to give them 3NT-1 back! The key question is "What would declarer's possible scores have been if LHO had played in tempo?". Mike From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jan 26 01:36:37 2018 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:36:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] if what In-Reply-To: <8E9671E8-06FA-4A25-8062-5E2390D307EC@gmail.com> References: <8E9671E8-06FA-4A25-8062-5E2390D307EC@gmail.com> Message-ID: So I weight the score for finding the queen, not finding the queen, and giving up on finding the queen? Look at declarer's ability level (to find the queen) and the opponent's ability level (to play in tempo)? I told the player that he should have said he was thinking about a different problem. So then it would be me deciding how well declarer could read that? On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:55:01 -0500, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > That?s what we have weighted scores for. > > Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > >> On 25 Jan 2018, at 14:48, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> Axx >> >> KJ1098 >> >> >> Declarer leads the jack from hand towards Axx in dummy in 3NT. LHO, holding xx, tries to remember the proper discard playing Smith Echoes. Declarer plays him for the queen and makes only 3 when the finesse loses and the opponents run hearts. Declarer can cash out for making 4. >> >> So I have no desire to punish, but I want to rectify and give the declarer what he would have made if __. >> >> But if what? How many he would have made if LHO had given away the position of the queen? (Making 7). Or if LHO had played "normal tempo" and not given away the position of the queen (not risking the finesse, cashing out and making 4). >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Fri Jan 26 01:46:43 2018 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:46:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] if what In-Reply-To: <001601d3961b$34c95710$9e5c0530$@btinternet.com> References: <001601d3961b$34c95710$9e5c0530$@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:29:30 -0500, Mike Amos wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: 25 January 2018 14:48 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] if what > > Axx > > KJ1098 > > > Declarer leads the jack from hand towards Axx in dummy in 3NT. LHO, holding > xx, tries to remember the proper discard playing Smith Echoes. Declarer > plays him for the queen and makes only 3 when the finesse loses and the > opponents run hearts. Declarer can cash out for making 4. > > So I have no desire to punish, but I want to rectify and give the declarer > what he would have made if __. > > But if what? How many he would have made if LHO had given away the position > of the queen? (Making 7). Or if LHO had played "normal tempo" and not given > away the position of the queen (not risking the finesse, cashing out and > making 4). > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > Well Robert you just have to make up your mind what you think is right. > > Talk to declarer's LHO. Read him Law 73D. Explain that deciding which card > to play from two small is not a "demonstrable bridge reason". Use the > wondrous "Probst test". Ask the player what a cheat would try to do in such > a situation. (obviously hesitate with two small). Assure the player that > there is no question of treating this hesitation as "cheating", but point > out that this is why care must be taken and you intend to consider adjusting > the score, namely to consider what was likely if the play of the small card > had been in tempo. Thanks. As noted, I decided that trying to remember Smith Echo was a bridge reason. At the table, that seemed genuine. I don't know why it would be a non-bridge reason. So there was no infraction there. If the laws wanted me to rule against someone for hesitating even if they had a bridge reason for doing so, I think they would be written differently. > > Ask declarer what his plans were. We all know that everyone will say, "Oh I > was going to win the Ace and finesse on the way back - 13 tricks to me", but > you don't have to believe that. Their may be a bridge reason for adopting > this line based on bidding or previous play. You have to decide. Thanks. Right. Nope, I wouldn't accept that. He was trying to find the queen. If he could, with reasonable confidence (or reasonable chance of getting the director to rule for him), he would finesse. Otherwise he would play for the drop. Or maybe he was never going to finesse, he was hoping the jack would be covered. > > It seems to me that it is very unlikely that any declarer will finesse at > this point. Surely if you are going to play for ten tricks you will play > Ace. You could a reason why a player might have tried to go down but 3NT+1 > seems a reasonable frequent score and 3NT-1 unlikely. A player might > advance a reason for the 13 trick line - "11 tricks were laydown in Spades, > my only chance of a good score was making more in NTs". > > I can't imagine a high percentage of 3NT -1 so I'll give that zero. > 80% +1 > 20% +4 might be a possible weighting > > Though if the answers to our questions suggest declarer was very likely to > make 13 tricks you should be brave enough to award that. > > Any player who knows enough to play Smith, should know Law 73. In addition > to adjusting the score, I would make a procedural penalty, probably twice > our standard in the EBU so 2*10% or whatever you apply. > I would remind the offending player and partner of their right to appeal, > but would not expect an appeals committee to give them 3NT-1 back! Right, I lectured him on hesitating when it could mislead declarer and told him to at least say he's thinking about the hand as a whole. Then presumably declarer would not finesse and would make 4. > > The key question is "What would declarer's possible scores have been if LHO > had played in tempo?". Well, the law's say, I think, that a player takes advantage of a hesitation at his own risk. That leads clearly to not adjusting. I don't have information about how long declarer thought to the first trick. I have less sympathy for him if he deliberately played quickly. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jan 27 03:43:45 2018 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 21:43:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] if what In-Reply-To: References: <001601d3961b$34c95710$9e5c0530$@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <22af2c82-ec98-1741-d811-9a51d7203f5a@nhcc.net> On 2018-01-25 7:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I decided that trying to remember Smith Echo was a bridge reason. The word "demonstrable" that precedes "bridge reason" is significant. It's easy to demonstrate that deciding between a high card and a low one is a bridge reason. Between two low cards... not so much. > I don't have information about how long declarer thought to the first > trick. I have less sympathy for him if he deliberately played > quickly. I agree with that. Also with Mike Amos' cogent answer, though I don't suppose any two people would agree on the exact weightings. The full deal and all the conditions are needed even to make a start on that. The weightings should be based on "had the infraction not occurred" (L12B1). From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jan 27 15:57:05 2018 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 09:57:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] if what In-Reply-To: <22af2c82-ec98-1741-d811-9a51d7203f5a@nhcc.net> References: <001601d3961b$34c95710$9e5c0530$@btinternet.com> <22af2c82-ec98-1741-d811-9a51d7203f5a@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 21:43:45 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > The weightings should be based on "had the infraction not occurred" (L12B1). Thank you! In the past, I had always equated this with "had no infraction occurred." If it's an infraction to play slowly, it's also an infraction to play quickly without concern, showing partner (and all of the table) that you do not have the queen. So, if there is no infraction (the player does nothing to reveal the lack of the queen), the declarer cannot read where the queen is and makes only 4.