From henk at rtflb.org Wed Jul 11 15:23:24 2018 From: henk at rtflb.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:23:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Test. please ignore Message-ID: <68535045-646d-db80-b147-2646c5c36fdb@rtflb.org> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)rtflb.org BLML Moderator http://www.rtflb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 15:20:29 2018 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:20:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Test, please ignore Message-ID: Test -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Website: www.uijterwaal.nl Email: henk at uijterwaal.nl LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/henku Phone: +31.6.55861746 Blog: www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From adam at tameware.com Wed Jul 11 16:22:55 2018 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:22:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ACBL San Diego (Fall 2017) Casebook published with panelist comments Message-ID: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2017SanDiego.pdf (I sent this last month, but the list was out of commission for a while. Apologies if you receive multiple copies.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20180711/cd6d0f55/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 07:48:18 2018 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:48:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL San Diego (Fall 2017) Casebook case R5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54C30123-267E-4376-9032-5694AD972E3A@gmail.com> In this R5 case South perpetrated a Law 73E2 deceptive hesitation against East?s slam, causing declarer to misguess and go one off. According to the DIC not only South did not know the Laws, but also South did not know the proverb ?ignorance of the Law is no excuse?, hence the North-South appeal against the adjusted score of 1430. The panel correctly assigned an Appeal Without Merit Warning to North-South and even more correctly assigned an educative Procedural Penalty to North-South. My only (minor) quibble with the entire process is perhaps the initial Director ruling could also have incorporated the PP. ?What is rewarded is what gets done.? If South was never penalised for treating Bridge like Poker, then South would have a continuing incentive to refuse to learn the Duplicate rules. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 12 Jul 2018, at 12:22 am, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2017SanDiego.pdf > > (I sent this last month, but the list was out of commission for a while. Apologies if you receive multiple copies.) > _______________________________________________ > 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/20180712/12618ceb/attachment.html