From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue May 3 15:30:23 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 23:30:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Uno Message-ID: North-South play an Aussie variant of Standard American. East-West play an Aussie variant of Acol. Imps, dealer East, vulnerable North-South. East and South pass, West opens 1C (Announced as 3+ clubs), North overcalls 1S, East passes again, South responds 1NT, pass, pass. You, East, hold: 8732 JT9732 632 --- What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160503/04397972/attachment.html From vip at centrum.is Tue May 3 17:13:02 2016 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 15:13:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <399937964.168594.1462288382320.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> 1. PASS from Iceland. 2. PASS PASS from Iceland ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Richard Hills" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: ?ri?judagur, 3. Ma?, 2016 13:30:23 Efni: [BLML] Uno North-South play an Aussie variant of Standard American. East-West play an Aussie variant of Acol. Imps, dealer East, vulnerable North-South. East and South pass, West opens 1C (Announced as 3+ clubs), North overcalls 1S, East passes again, South responds 1NT, pass, pass. You, East, hold: 8732 JT9732 632 --- What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 3 18:01:41 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 18:01:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11e8ebfb0eff619b98b97506ead9afdd@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 03.05.2016 15:30, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > North-South play an Aussie variant of Standard American. East-West > play an Aussie variant of Acol. Imps, dealer East, vulnerable > North-South. > > East and South pass, West opens 1C (Announced as 3+ clubs), North > overcalls 1S, East passes again, South responds 1NT, pass, pass. > > You, East, hold: > > 8732 > JT9732 > 632 > --- > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? I think it is close. It seems very natural to call 2H, expecting to have a good chance to make it, especially on a spade lead (you can ruff or overruff the third spade). However, spades seem wonderfully placed for opponents, and I might push them into a thin 3NT, making, after South's 2S, 2NT or 3C bid. The answer might depend on our 1NT range. "Acol" doesn't say everything. If playing 15-17 NT, I expect partner to hold a 18-19 NT type, making 2H safer, but if playing 12-14, partner might hold 15-16. If that's the question, both surely are LA's. Best regards Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed May 4 15:26:58 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 23:26:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: <11e8ebfb0eff619b98b97506ead9afdd@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <11e8ebfb0eff619b98b97506ead9afdd@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: West broke tempo over South's 1NT response, demonstrably suggesting extra values. However, East's uno hcp together with the timid North-South bidding demonstrably suggests that West holds extra values. Hence, is West's UI cancelled by the available AI? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, May 4, 2016, agot wrote: > Le 03.05.2016 15:30, Richard Hills a ?crit : > > North-South play an Aussie variant of Standard American. East-West > > play an Aussie variant of Acol. Imps, dealer East, vulnerable > > North-South. > > > > East and South pass, West opens 1C (Announced as 3+ clubs), North > > overcalls 1S, East passes again, South responds 1NT, pass, pass. > > > > You, East, hold: > > > > 8732 > > JT9732 > > 632 > > --- > > > > What call do you make? > > What other calls do you consider making? > > I think it is close. > > It seems very natural to call 2H, expecting to have a good chance to > make it, especially on a spade lead (you can ruff or overruff the third > spade). > > However, spades seem wonderfully placed for opponents, and I might push > them into a thin 3NT, making, after South's 2S, 2NT or 3C bid. > > The answer might depend on our 1NT range. "Acol" doesn't say everything. > If playing 15-17 NT, I expect partner to hold a 18-19 NT type, making 2H > safer, but if playing 12-14, partner might hold 15-16. > > If that's the question, both surely are LA's. > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160504/d661cb2d/attachment.html From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Thu May 5 07:16:33 2016 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 01:16:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> On 2016 May 3, at 09:30, Richard Hills wrote: > North-South play an Aussie variant of Standard American. East-West play an Aussie variant of Acol. Imps, dealer East, vulnerable North-South. > > East and South pass, West opens 1C (Announced as 3+ clubs), North overcalls 1S, East passes again, South responds 1NT, pass, pass. > > You, East, hold: > > 8732 > JT9732 > 632 > --- > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? On 2016 May 3, at 11:13, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > 1. PASS from Iceland. > 2. PASS PASS from Iceland On 2016 May 3, at 12:01, agot wrote: > I think it is close. > > It seems very natural to call 2H, expecting to have a good chance to > make it, especially on a spade lead (you can ruff or overruff the third > spade). > > However, spades seem wonderfully placed for opponents, and I might push > them into a thin 3NT, making, after South's 2S, 2NT or 3C bid. > > The answer might depend on our 1NT range. "Acol" doesn't say everything. > If playing 15-17 NT, I expect partner to hold a 18-19 NT type, making 2H > safer, but if playing 12-14, partner might hold 15-16. > > If that's the question, both surely are LA?s. On 2016 May 4, at 09:26, Richard Hills wrote: > West broke tempo over South's 1NT response, demonstrably suggesting extra values. However, East's uno hcp together with the timid North-South bidding demonstrably suggests that West holds extra values. > > Hence, is West's UI cancelled by the available AI? No, the UI still exists and still demonstrably suggests competing. The issue is whether, given the AI and without the UI, passing out 1NT is a LA. The definition of LA (Law 16B1b) effectively requires polling. If the two responses to Richard?s poll on BLML are representative of ?the class of players in question,? then Pass is, by definition, a LA, and the score must be adjusted if East gained an advantage by not passing. Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160505/bc9c6e02/attachment.html From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Thu May 5 11:19:43 2016 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 10:19:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> It is a very good 1 count ? I held a 1-1-7-4 nil count recently at red v green and partner called 2C gf and later showed long strong Hearts after LHO had bid Spades over my negative response. RHO bounced to 4S. I figured that if I bid 5D partner was sure to go back to 5H so I decided to bid 6D to show I really did have lots of Diamonds. P had AKQ of Diamonds and all the Aces so I got to play 7D with my nil count (successfully of course or I wouldn?t be telling you this) On the strength of this I think of bidding 2H and briefly consider Pass (joke) - I bid 2H ? (I hate it it when I poll and people don?t answer the question I ask ? but I do accept Pass is a logical alternative :) ) Mike From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Timothy N. Hill Sent: 05 May 2016 06:17 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Uno On 2016 May 3, at 09:30, Richard Hills > wrote: North-South play an Aussie variant of Standard American. East-West play an Aussie variant of Acol. Imps, dealer East, vulnerable North-South. East and South pass, West opens 1C (Announced as 3+ clubs), North overcalls 1S, East passes again, South responds 1NT, pass, pass. You, East, hold: 8732 JT9732 632 --- What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? On 2016 May 3, at 11:13, Vigf?s P?lsson > wrote: 1. PASS from Iceland. 2. PASS PASS from Iceland On 2016 May 3, at 12:01, agot > wrote: I think it is close. It seems very natural to call 2H, expecting to have a good chance to make it, especially on a spade lead (you can ruff or overruff the third spade). However, spades seem wonderfully placed for opponents, and I might push them into a thin 3NT, making, after South's 2S, 2NT or 3C bid. The answer might depend on our 1NT range. "Acol" doesn't say everything. If playing 15-17 NT, I expect partner to hold a 18-19 NT type, making 2H safer, but if playing 12-14, partner might hold 15-16. If that's the question, both surely are LA?s. On 2016 May 4, at 09:26, Richard Hills > wrote: West broke tempo over South's 1NT response, demonstrably suggesting extra values. However, East's uno hcp together with the timid North-South bidding demonstrably suggests that West holds extra values. Hence, is West's UI cancelled by the available AI? No, the UI still exists and still demonstrably suggests competing. The issue is whether, given the AI and without the UI, passing out 1NT is a LA. The definition of LA (Law 16B1b) effectively requires polling. If the two responses to Richard?s poll on BLML are representative of ?the class of players in question,? then Pass is, by definition, a LA, and the score must be adjusted if East gained an advantage by not passing. Tim --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160505/115e13d1/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri May 6 10:21:02 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:21:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: Both In principle North-South play an Aussie variant of Acol. The uncontested North-South auction proceeds: 1C (Announced as 4+ clubs) - 1S - 2S - 6S - all pass You, East, hold: --- 542 8642 K86432 What opening lead do you make? What opening lead(s) would be a Serious Error? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, May 5, 2016, Mike Amos wrote: > It is a very good 1 count ? I held a 1-1-7-4 nil count recently at red v > green and partner called 2C gf and later showed long strong Hearts after > LHO had bid Spades over my negative response. RHO bounced to 4S. I > figured that if I bid 5D partner was sure to go back to 5H so I decided to > bid 6D to show I really did have lots of Diamonds. P had AKQ of Diamonds > and all the Aces so I got to play 7D with my nil count (successfully of > course or I wouldn?t be telling you this) > > > > On the strength of this I think of bidding 2H and briefly consider Pass > (joke) - I bid 2H ? > > > > (I hate it it when I poll and people don?t answer the question I ask ? but > I do accept Pass is a logical alternative J ) > > > > Mike > > > > *From:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org > [mailto: > blml-bounces at rtflb.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Timothy > N. Hill > *Sent:* 05 May 2016 06:17 > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Uno > > > > On 2016 May 3, at 09:30, Richard Hills > wrote: > > > > North-South play an Aussie variant of Standard American. East-West play an > Aussie variant of Acol. Imps, dealer East, vulnerable North-South. > > > > East and South pass, West opens 1C (Announced as 3+ clubs), North > overcalls 1S, East passes again, South responds 1NT, pass, pass. > > > > You, East, hold: > > > > 8732 > > JT9732 > > 632 > > --- > > > > What call do you make? > > What other calls do you consider making? > > > > On 2016 May 3, at 11:13, Vigf?s P?lsson > wrote: > > > > 1. PASS from Iceland. > 2. PASS PASS from Iceland > > > > On 2016 May 3, at 12:01, agot > wrote: > > > I think it is close. > > It seems very natural to call 2H, expecting to have a good chance to > make it, especially on a spade lead (you can ruff or overruff the third > spade). > > However, spades seem wonderfully placed for opponents, and I might push > them into a thin 3NT, making, after South's 2S, 2NT or 3C bid. > > The answer might depend on our 1NT range. "Acol" doesn't say everything. > If playing 15-17 NT, I expect partner to hold a 18-19 NT type, making 2H > safer, but if playing 12-14, partner might hold 15-16. > > If that's the question, both surely are LA?s. > > > > On 2016 May 4, at 09:26, Richard Hills > wrote: > > > > West broke tempo over South's 1NT response, demonstrably suggesting extra > values. However, East's uno hcp together with the timid North-South bidding > demonstrably suggests that West holds extra values. > > > > Hence, is West's UI cancelled by the available AI? > > > > No, the UI still exists and still demonstrably suggests competing. The > issue is whether, given the AI and without the UI, passing out 1NT is a LA. > > > > The definition of LA (Law 16B1b) effectively requires polling. If the two > responses to Richard?s poll on BLML are representative of ?the class of > players in question,? then Pass is, by definition, a LA, and the score must > be adjusted if East gained an advantage by not passing. > > > > Tim > > > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160506/c2fe6afd/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 6 12:11:09 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 12:11:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: Le 05.05.2016 07:16, Timothy N. Hill a ?crit?: > The definition of LA (Law 16B1b) effectively requires polling. If the > two responses to Richard?s poll on BLML are representative of ?the > class of players in question,? then Pass is, by definition, a LA, > and the score must be adjusted if East gained an advantage by not > passing. > AG : agree with Tim. The fact is that AI = UI isn't enough to allow the bid. Because it's only a part of AI. Another part of AI (your spades and the spade bid)is that the cards are placed in such a way that it might be dangerous to tickle opponents. From vip at centrum.is Fri May 6 12:11:14 2016 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 10:11:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Opening lead ? King of clubs Serious error ? Nothing Vigfus ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Richard Hills" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: F?studagur, 6. Ma?, 2016 08:21:02 Efni: Re: [BLML] Uno Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: Both In principle North-South play an Aussie variant of Acol.? The uncontested North-South auction proceeds: 1C (Announced as 4+ clubs) - 1S - 2S - 6S - all pass You, East, hold: --- 542 8642 K86432 What opening lead do you make? What opening lead(s) would be a Serious Error? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, May 5, 2016, Mike Amos < mikeamostd at btinternet.com > wrote: It is a very good 1 count ? I held a 1-1-7-4 nil count recently at red v green and partner called 2C gf? and later showed long strong Hearts after LHO had bid Spades over my negative response.? ?RHO ?bounced to 4S.? I figured that if I bid 5D partner was sure to go back to 5H so I decided to bid 6D to show I really did have lots of Diamonds.? P had AKQ of Diamonds and all the Aces so I got to play 7D with my nil count (successfully of course or I wouldn?t be telling you this) ? On the strength of this I think of bidding 2H?? and briefly consider Pass (joke)?? - I bid 2H ? ? (I hate it it when I poll and people don?t answer the question I ask ? but I do accept Pass is a logical alternative J ? ) ? Mike ? From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto: blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] On Behalf Of Timothy N. Hill Sent: 05 May 2016 06:17 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List < blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] Uno ? On 2016 May 3, at 09:30, Richard Hills < hildalirsch at gmail.com > wrote: ? North-South play an Aussie variant of Standard American. East-West play an Aussie variant of Acol. Imps, dealer East, vulnerable North-South. ? East and South pass, West opens 1C (Announced as 3+ clubs), North overcalls 1S, East passes again, South responds 1NT, pass, pass. ? You, East, hold: ? 8732 JT9732 632 --- ? What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? ? On 2016 May 3, at 11:13, Vigf?s P?lsson < vip at centrum.is > wrote: 1. PASS from Iceland. 2. PASS PASS from Iceland ? On 2016 May 3, at 12:01, agot < agot at ulb.ac.be > wrote: I think it is close. It seems very natural to call 2H, expecting to have a good chance to? make it, especially on a spade lead (you can ruff or overruff the third? spade). However, spades seem wonderfully placed for opponents, and I might push? them into a thin 3NT, making, after South's 2S, 2NT or 3C bid. The answer might depend on our 1NT range. "Acol" doesn't say everything.? If playing 15-17 NT, I expect partner to hold a 18-19 NT type, making 2H? safer, but if playing 12-14, partner might hold 15-16. If that's the question, both surely are LA?s. ? On 2016 May 4, at 09:26, Richard Hills < hildalirsch at gmail.com > wrote: ? West broke tempo over South's 1NT response, demonstrably suggesting extra values. However, East's uno hcp together with the timid North-South bidding demonstrably suggests that West holds extra values. ? Hence, is West's UI cancelled by the available AI? ? No, the UI still exists and still demonstrably suggests competing. The issue is whether, given the AI and without the UI, passing out 1NT is a LA. ? The definition of LA (Law 16B1b) effectively requires polling. If the two responses to Richard?s poll on BLML are representative of ?the class of players in question,? then Pass is, by definition, a LA, and the score must be adjusted if East gained an advantage by not passing. ? ??????????? Tim Virus-free. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 6 12:17:28 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 12:17:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <23d8ab4246b0517141583dbb73464912@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 06.05.2016 10:21, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: Both > > In principle North-South play an Aussie variant of Acol.?The > uncontested North-South auction proceeds: > > 1C (Announced as 4+ clubs) - 1S - 2S - 6S - all pass > > You, East, hold: > > --- > 542 > 8642 > K86432 > > What opening lead do you make? > What opening lead(s) would be a Serious Error? So that it cuts the link between irregularity and damage ? None. I wouldn't lead a club, fearing AQ facing void, or perhaps I would, others being nearly as dangerous. Does North hold a void ? (most probably not in a red suit) Do they play exclusion BW ? Is North the kind of guy who likes to leap to slam to avoid giving away information ? etc. So no lead stands out. Okay okay. The CK would be a serious error. I would disallow a club lead if West had hesitated before passing. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 6 14:59:59 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 14:59:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 06.05.2016 12:11, Vigf?s P?lsson a ?crit?: > Opening lead ? King of clubs Into opener's suit ?? It's unopposed bidding, isn't it ? From vip at centrum.is Fri May 6 16:26:05 2016 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 14:26:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> ohhhh I thought partner opened 1 club, and the opp's bid 6S Then I withdraw my lead ( and TD is called :) ) ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "agot" Til: blml at rtflb.org Sent: F?studagur, 6. Ma?, 2016 12:59:59 Efni: Re: [BLML] Uno Le 06.05.2016 12:11, Vigf?s P?lsson a ?crit?: > Opening lead ? King of clubs Into opener's suit ?? It's unopposed bidding, isn't it ? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun May 8 09:22:21 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 17:22:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] I wouldn't lead a club, fearing AQ facing void, or perhaps I would, others being nearly as dangerous. Does North hold a void ? (most probably not in a red suit) Do they play exclusion BW ? Is North the kind of guy who likes to leap to slam to avoid giving away information ? etc. So no lead stands out. [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, I was the kind of guy sitting North who likes to leap to slam, because I have not yet adopted the Exclusion Blackwood convention. An American blmler publicly asserted that I was unethical for a previous successful leap to slam; he argued that my leap "proved" that I had infracted Law 16C via non-existent so-called unconscious / invisible UI. On this occasion the complete deal is a counter-example to the American blmer's deluded belief: .............KQ8632 .............AKJ73 .............KJ .............--- AT4.........................--- 986.........................542 AQT975..................8642 T.............................K86432 .............J975 .............QT .............3 .............AQJ975 Obviously I could not have overheard a whisper from a player at an adjacent table stating that, "6S is cold," since 6S is not cold. Indeed, in this ten table Mitchell-with-a-skip movement all of the other eight declarers scored exactly eleven tricks. But since I was the kind of guy who likes to avoid giving away information East had to guess the opening lead. East misguessed with a low club. I finessed the queen of clubs, discarding the jack of diamonds from my hand. Now I attempted to cash the ace of clubs, but West ruffed with the ten of spades. Plan B. I overruffed and played on hearts. With the heart suit breaking 3-3 dummy's singleton diamond disappeared. Best wishes, Richard Hills PS Of course the Serious Error was perpetrated by the Walter the Walrus sitting West. Walter deemed a mere 10 hcp insufficient to overcall 1D after South's opening bid of 1C. Those players not slaves to the Milton Work Point Count would automatically overcall 1D, due to the diamond suit quality and two Quick Tricks. It is poetic justice that the Walrus's failure to overcall meant that Walter failed to cash one of his Quick Tricks. On Friday, May 6, 2016, agot wrote: > Le 06.05.2016 10:21, Richard Hills a ?crit : > > Matchpoint pairs > > Dlr: South > > Vul: Both > > > > In principle North-South play an Aussie variant of Acol. The > > uncontested North-South auction proceeds: > > > > 1C (Announced as 4+ clubs) - 1S - 2S - 6S - all pass > > > > You, East, hold: > > > > --- > > 542 > > 8642 > > K86432 > > > > What opening lead do you make? > > What opening lead(s) would be a Serious Error? > > So that it cuts the link between irregularity and damage ? None. > > I wouldn't lead a club, fearing AQ facing void, or perhaps I would, > others being nearly as dangerous. > > Does North hold a void ? (most probably not in a red suit) Do they play > exclusion BW ? Is North the kind of guy who likes to leap to slam to > avoid giving away information ? etc. So no lead stands out. > > Okay okay. The CK would be a serious error. > > I would disallow a club lead if West had hesitated before passing. > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160508/e5c96718/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 8 21:57:53 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 May 2016 15:57:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: Except to insult nationalities, what is the point of this? You made a leap to slam. You got lucky. Doesn't this happen to everyone? On Sun, 08 May 2016 03:22:21 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [snip] > > I wouldn't lead a club, fearing AQ facing void, or perhaps I would, > others being nearly as dangerous. > > Does North hold a void ? (most probably not in a red suit) Do they play > exclusion BW ? Is North the kind of guy who likes to leap to slam to > avoid giving away information ? etc. So no lead stands out. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, I was the kind of guy sitting North who likes to leap to slam, because > I have not yet adopted the Exclusion Blackwood convention. An American > blmler publicly asserted that I was unethical for a previous successful > leap to slam; he argued that my leap "proved" that I had infracted Law 16C > via non-existent so-called unconscious / invisible UI. On this occasion the > complete deal is a counter-example to the American blmer's deluded belief: > > .............KQ8632 > .............AKJ73 > .............KJ > .............--- > AT4.........................--- > 986.........................542 > AQT975..................8642 > T.............................K86432 > .............J975 > .............QT > .............3 > .............AQJ975 > > Obviously I could not have overheard a whisper from a player at an adjacent > table stating that, "6S is cold," since 6S is not cold. Indeed, in this ten > table Mitchell-with-a-skip movement all of the other eight declarers scored > exactly eleven tricks. But since I was the kind of guy who likes to avoid > giving away information East had to guess the opening lead. > > East misguessed with a low club. I finessed the queen of clubs, discarding > the jack of diamonds from my hand. Now I attempted to cash the ace of > clubs, but West ruffed with the ten of spades. Plan B. I overruffed and > played on hearts. With the heart suit breaking 3-3 dummy's singleton > diamond disappeared. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > PS Of course the Serious Error was perpetrated by the Walter the Walrus > sitting West. Walter deemed a mere 10 hcp insufficient to overcall 1D after > South's opening bid of 1C. Those players not slaves to the Milton Work > Point Count would automatically overcall 1D, due to the diamond suit > quality and two Quick Tricks. It is poetic justice that the Walrus's > failure to overcall meant that Walter failed to cash one of his Quick > Tricks. > > > > > On Friday, May 6, 2016, agot wrote: > >> Le 06.05.2016 10:21, Richard Hills a ?crit : >> > Matchpoint pairs >> > Dlr: South >> > Vul: Both >> > >> > In principle North-South play an Aussie variant of Acol. The >> > uncontested North-South auction proceeds: >> > >> > 1C (Announced as 4+ clubs) - 1S - 2S - 6S - all pass >> > >> > You, East, hold: >> > >> > --- >> > 542 >> > 8642 >> > K86432 >> > >> > What opening lead do you make? >> > What opening lead(s) would be a Serious Error? >> >> So that it cuts the link between irregularity and damage ? None. >> >> I wouldn't lead a club, fearing AQ facing void, or perhaps I would, >> others being nearly as dangerous. >> >> Does North hold a void ? (most probably not in a red suit) Do they play >> exclusion BW ? Is North the kind of guy who likes to leap to slam to >> avoid giving away information ? etc. So no lead stands out. >> >> Okay okay. The CK would be a serious error. >> >> I would disallow a club lead if West had hesitated before passing. >> >> Best regards >> >> Alain >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon May 9 04:13:24 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 12:13:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: Some pertinent thoughts from Grattan Endicott and Edgar Kaplan on the subject of bridge ethics: http://blml.rtflb.narkive.com/fCYsyDBQ/it-s-illegal-but-ethical-sec-unofficial Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sunday, May 8, 2016, Richard Hills wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [snip] > > I wouldn't lead a club, fearing AQ facing void, or perhaps I would, > others being nearly as dangerous. > > Does North hold a void ? (most probably not in a red suit) Do they play > exclusion BW ? Is North the kind of guy who likes to leap to slam to > avoid giving away information ? etc. So no lead stands out. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, I was the kind of guy sitting North who likes to leap to slam, > because I have not yet adopted the Exclusion Blackwood convention. > An American blmler publicly asserted that I was unethical for a previous > successful leap to slam; he argued that my leap "proved" that I had > infracted Law 16C via non-existent so-called unconscious / invisible UI. On > this occasion the complete deal is a counter-example to the > American blmer's deluded belief: > > .............KQ8632 > .............AKJ73 > .............KJ > .............--- > AT4.........................--- > 986.........................542 > AQT975..................8642 > T.............................K86432 > .............J975 > .............QT > .............3 > .............AQJ975 > > Obviously I could not have overheard a whisper from a player at an > adjacent table stating that, "6S is cold," since 6S is not cold. Indeed, in > this ten table Mitchell-with-a-skip movement all of the other > eight declarers scored exactly eleven tricks. But since I was the kind of > guy who likes to avoid giving away information East had to guess the > opening lead. > > East misguessed with a low club. I finessed the queen of clubs, discarding > the jack of diamonds from my hand. Now I attempted to cash the ace of > clubs, but West ruffed with the ten of spades. Plan B. I overruffed and > played on hearts. With the heart suit breaking 3-3 dummy's singleton > diamond disappeared. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > PS Of course the Serious Error was perpetrated by the Walter the Walrus > sitting West. Walter deemed a mere 10 hcp insufficient to overcall 1D after > South's opening bid of 1C. Those players not slaves to the Milton Work > Point Count would automatically overcall 1D, due to the diamond suit > quality and two Quick Tricks. It is poetic justice that the Walrus's > failure to overcall meant that Walter failed to cash one of his Quick > Tricks. > > > > > On Friday, May 6, 2016, agot wrote: > >> Le 06.05.2016 10:21, Richard Hills a ?crit : >> > Matchpoint pairs >> > Dlr: South >> > Vul: Both >> > >> > In principle North-South play an Aussie variant of Acol. The >> > uncontested North-South auction proceeds: >> > >> > 1C (Announced as 4+ clubs) - 1S - 2S - 6S - all pass >> > >> > You, East, hold: >> > >> > --- >> > 542 >> > 8642 >> > K86432 >> > >> > What opening lead do you make? >> > What opening lead(s) would be a Serious Error? >> >> So that it cuts the link between irregularity and damage ? None. >> >> I wouldn't lead a club, fearing AQ facing void, or perhaps I would, >> others being nearly as dangerous. >> >> Does North hold a void ? (most probably not in a red suit) Do they play >> exclusion BW ? Is North the kind of guy who likes to leap to slam to >> avoid giving away information ? etc. So no lead stands out. >> >> Okay okay. The CK would be a serious error. >> >> I would disallow a club lead if West had hesitated before passing. >> >> Best regards >> >> Alain >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20160509/ef8fffbc/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 9 16:06:09 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 16:06:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 08.05.2016 21:57, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > Except to insult nationalities, what is the point of this? You made a > leap to slam. You got lucky. Doesn't this happen to everyone? I think that the point is to prove that a leap to slam isn't necessarily a proof that one got UI. Richard has occasionally suffered from this state of mind, which indeed seems typically American. No insult, not any more than stating that American schools often take severe decisions against their pupils who in fact did the good. And it is guided by the same suspicious spirit. And BTW I wouldn't overcall 1D. If available, a 2D bid seems superior. Of course, Pass is a LA (losing alternative). Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 9 19:36:41 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 13:36:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 09 May 2016 10:06:09 -0400, agot wrote: > Le 08.05.2016 21:57, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> Except to insult nationalities, what is the point of this? You made a >> leap to slam. You got lucky. Doesn't this happen to everyone? > > > I think that the point is to prove that a leap to slam isn't necessarily > a proof that one got UI. Thanks. But no one suggested that. Everyone said that wasn't the point. 1. In the original, the player opened 7NT, with no bridge reason. The bid was inconceivable. He had ways of getting more information from partner. Richard proposed a good bridge reason for his bid. That's the exact opposite. 2. In the original, the hand was discussed at the previous table. A few feet away. Yes, Richard might have seen or heard a good result for this hand, not paid much attention to it, then forgotten about it. But that's a huge difference. 3. The embarrassment to the laws is when we cannot find any way to rectify for a blatant case of cheating. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue May 10 03:27:43 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:27:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On 2016-05-09 10:06 AM, agot wrote: > I think that the point is to prove that a leap to slam isn't > necessarily a proof that one got UI. Of course it isn't. Nobody has suggested any such thing. Good grief! A leap to slam with no visible prospects of making nor a worthwhile sacrifice is another matter. "Got UI" is one possible explanation, but there may be others. The Director has to judge on a case-by-case basis. On 2016-05-09 1:36 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 3. The embarrassment to the laws is when we cannot find any way to > rectify for a blatant case of cheating. If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate disciplinary body. An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating." If a player receives UI from some source other than partner and doesn't notify the Director, that's a violation of L16C. There's no prescribed rectification, so L12A1 applies. Such judgments are made on "balance of probabilities," per L85A1, if the facts are unclear. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue May 10 10:57:48 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 18:57:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Glow teen Message-ID: The May 2016 edition of the ABDA Directors' Bulletin (edited by Jan Peach, janpeach8 at bigpond.com) contained an extract from the EBU White Book. This suggested that it was not BB at B [Best Behaviour at Bridge] to congratulate partner on a well-played hand, since that amounted to gloating. (The White Book did concede, however, that a genuine compliment to partner was not a misdemeanour.) I disagree with the White Book. I routinely congratulate an opponent for clever play. Hence I believe that I am entitled to congratulate the third opponent when pard does something clever. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160510/8e2f71c6/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue May 10 17:09:36 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 01:09:36 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Glow teen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The 2005 Disney movie Sky High is about an airborne high school for superhero teenagers. One such teen had the apparently ineffective power of glowing in the dark, so initially he was relegated to the status of sidekick. However, in the climax of the movie this glow teen was instrumental in the defeat of the supervillain. Imps, Dlr: South, Vul: Nil .............K743 .............KT8 .............K2 .............AK84 ---.........................AQJ9852 QJ5432.................7 QJ6.......................9543 6532......................7 .............T6 .............A96 .............AT87 .............QJT9 Hashmat Ali as South opened 1NT (Announced as 11-14), West chose to overcall 2D (either hearts or both black suits), as North I made a value-showing double, East dutifully bid 2H, pass, pass, penalty double from me. Now East ran to 2S, pass, pass, another penalty double from me. Pass, pass and now West innovatively ran to his three-card diamond suit. I made a forcing pass, and Hashmat had no difficulty in doubling 3D for penalties. +1100 to the good guys. At the end of play unsurprisingly East-West had a willing post-mortem as to who was responsible for avoiding the relatively cheap contract of 2Sx which would be only -300. West argued that East should have immediately responded 2S to the 2D overcall. East argued (in my opinion correctly) that once West had described his shape East was captain of the auction. But I carefully kept schtum about my opinion. For supporting East's argument would be denigrating West's argument, hence a gloating infraction of Law 74A2 (in my opinion this courtesy Law is the most important Law in the Lawbook). Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, May 10, 2016, Richard Hills wrote: > The May 2016 edition of the ABDA Directors' Bulletin (edited by Jan Peach, > janpeach8 at bigpond.com) contained an extract from the EBU White Book. This > suggested that it was not BB at B [Best Behaviour at Bridge] to congratulate > partner on a well-played hand, since that amounted to gloating. (The White > Book did concede, however, that a genuine compliment to partner was not a > misdemeanour.) > > I disagree with the White Book. I routinely congratulate an opponent for > clever play. Hence I believe that I am entitled to congratulate the third > opponent when pard does something clever. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160510/46bf91e9/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed May 11 14:10:15 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 22:10:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate disciplinary body. An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating." [snip] Richard Hills: Some quibbles: 1) Grattan Endicott earlier noted that the Drafting Committee intentionally excluded the words "cheat" / "cheating" from the Lawbook. 2) Rather, in addition to run-of-mill unintentional infractions, there are "must not" intentional infringements / infractions (Law 72B1), and "gravest possible offence" private systems, for example finger signals (Law 73B2). 3) "If the Director is convinced" is NOT the criterion for Law 91B (Right to Disqualify). Unlike many other Laws, the Director may not act upon a personal conviction / balance of probabilities. Instead the criterion is "for cause". 4) Due to the gravity of disqualification, Law 91B is the only Law in the Lawbook for which the Director lacks autarky power. Any disqualification under Law 91B also requires approval from the Tournament Organizer. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, May 10, 2016, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2016-05-09 10:06 AM, agot wrote: > > I think that the point is to prove that a leap to slam isn't > > necessarily a proof that one got UI. > > Of course it isn't. Nobody has suggested any such thing. Good grief! > > A leap to slam with no visible prospects of making nor a worthwhile > sacrifice is another matter. "Got UI" is one possible explanation, but > there may be others. The Director has to judge on a case-by-case basis. > > On 2016-05-09 1:36 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > 3. The embarrassment to the laws is when we cannot find any way to > > rectify for a blatant case of cheating. > > If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is > to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate > disciplinary body. > > An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating." If a > player receives UI from some source other than partner and doesn't > notify the Director, that's a violation of L16C. There's no prescribed > rectification, so L12A1 applies. Such judgments are made on "balance of > probabilities," per L85A1, if the facts are unclear. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160511/792e04ad/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 11 16:08:14 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 16:08:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Glow teen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <350ba83bf8bd4343427d31a0875ed6b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 10.05.2016 10:57, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > The May 2016 edition of the ABDA Directors' Bulletin (edited by Jan > Peach, janpeach8 at bigpond.com) contained an extract from the EBU White > Book. This suggested that it was not BB at B [Best Behaviour at Bridge] > to congratulate partner on a well-played hand, since that amounted to > gloating. (The White Book did concede, however, that a genuine > compliment to partner was not a misdemeanour.) Er ... what's the difference between "congratulating" and making a "genuine compliment" ? Are congratulations considered as fake compliments ? And how do they adjudge Cooper echoes ? I use them mainly to say "well bid" rather than "it's a make". Mute gloating ?? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 11 16:14:10 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 16:14:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Glow teen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5c6169182cfce29ff632d6875868a52c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 10.05.2016 17:09, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > The 2005 Disney movie Sky High is about an airborne high school for > superhero teenagers. One such teen had?the apparently ineffective > power of glowing in the dark, so initially he was?relegated to the > status of sidekick. However, in the climax of the movie this glow teen > was instrumental in the defeat of the supervillain. > > Imps, Dlr: South, Vul: Nil > > .............K743 > .............KT8 > .............K2 > .............AK84 > ---.........................AQJ9852 > QJ5432.................7 > QJ6.......................9543 > 6532......................7 > .............T6 > .............A96 > .............AT87 > .............QJT9 > > Hashmat Ali as South opened 1NT (Announced as 11-14), West chose to > overcall 2D (either hearts or both black suits), as North I made a > value-showing double, East dutifully bid 2H, pass, pass, penalty > double from me. Now East ran to 2S, pass, pass, another penalty double > from me. Pass, pass and now West innovatively ran to his three-card > diamond suit. I made a forcing pass, and Hashmat had no difficulty in > doubling 3D for penalties. +1100 to the good guys. > > At the end of play unsurprisingly East-West had a willing post-mortem > as to who was responsible for avoiding the relatively cheap contract > of 2Sx which would be only -300. West argued that East should have > immediately responded 2S to the 2D overcall. East argued (in my > opinion correctly) that once West had described his shape East was > captain of the auction. It's not te core of the argument here, but notice that a direct 2S bid would be "pass-or-correct", so East manoeuvered well. In better systems, a redouble asks partner to bid 2H, after which you make the final bid in your long suit(or a game try, if a jump). This is known in some circles as a "selfish redouble". Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 12 00:26:20 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 18:26:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Good points. And since it is at least possible that the use was unintentional, that would be a defense against the cheating charge. I should have just called it "exceedingly likely use of UI" On Wed, 11 May 2016 08:10:15 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > Steve Willner: > > [snip] > > If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is > to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate > disciplinary body. > > An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating." > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Some quibbles: > > 1) Grattan Endicott earlier noted that the Drafting Committee intentionally > excluded the words "cheat" / "cheating" from the Lawbook. > 2) Rather, in addition to run-of-mill unintentional infractions, there are > "must not" intentional infringements / infractions (Law 72B1), and "gravest > possible offence" private systems, for example finger signals (Law 73B2). > 3) "If the Director is convinced" is NOT the criterion for Law 91B (Right > to Disqualify). Unlike many other Laws, the Director may not act upon a > personal conviction / balance of probabilities. Instead the criterion is > "for cause". > 4) Due to the gravity of disqualification, Law 91B is the only Law in the > Lawbook for which the Director lacks autarky power. Any disqualification > under Law 91B also requires approval from the Tournament Organizer. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > On Tuesday, May 10, 2016, Steve Willner wrote: > >> On 2016-05-09 10:06 AM, agot wrote: >> > I think that the point is to prove that a leap to slam isn't >> > necessarily a proof that one got UI. >> >> Of course it isn't. Nobody has suggested any such thing. Good grief! >> >> A leap to slam with no visible prospects of making nor a worthwhile >> sacrifice is another matter. "Got UI" is one possible explanation, but >> there may be others. The Director has to judge on a case-by-case basis. >> >> On 2016-05-09 1:36 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> > 3. The embarrassment to the laws is when we cannot find any way to >> > rectify for a blatant case of cheating. >> >> If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is >> to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate >> disciplinary body. >> >> An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating." If a >> player receives UI from some source other than partner and doesn't >> notify the Director, that's a violation of L16C. There's no prescribed >> rectification, so L12A1 applies. Such judgments are made on "balance of >> probabilities," per L85A1, if the facts are unclear. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 12 10:31:45 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:31:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <3bc9d90d2c4d362cb329bb4e800faa4a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 12.05.2016 00:26, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > Good points. And since it is at least possible that the use was > unintentional, that would be a defense against the cheating charge. > > I should have just called it "exceedingly likely use of UI" AG : agree on the principle with the above, but there remains a hurdle. Let's just take an example. If a player has a marked hesitation before making a takeout double, it is UI that his double is flawed in some way, and its (obvious or likely) use would lead to score adjustment and perhaps a moderate procedural penalty, without any other measure being needed. If a pair decides that, when they make a slow takeout double, it means it is flawed, this constitutes illicit communication, "the gravest possible offence", and should lead to extremely severe reaction. Just tell me : how do you distinguish between those two ? Best regards, Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu May 12 15:34:15 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 23:34:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: East-West You, East, hold: K842 Q6 2 J97532 The bidding has gone: 2D (Alerted and explained as a weak two in hearts, or a weak two in spades, or 21-22 balanced) - pass - 2H (pass or correct) - pass - 3D (non-systemic) - pass - ??? What call do you make? What other call(s) do you consider making? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, May 11, 2016, Richard Hills wrote: > Steve Willner: > > [snip] > > If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is > to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate > disciplinary body. > > An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating." > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Some quibbles: > > 1) Grattan Endicott earlier noted that the Drafting Committee > intentionally excluded the words "cheat" / "cheating" from the Lawbook. > 2) Rather, in addition to run-of-mill unintentional infractions, there are > "must not" intentional infringements / infractions (Law 72B1), and "gravest > possible offence" private systems, for example finger signals (Law 73B2). > 3) "If the Director is convinced" is NOT the criterion for Law 91B (Right > to Disqualify). Unlike many other Laws, the Director may not act upon a > personal conviction / balance of probabilities. Instead the criterion is > "for cause". > 4) Due to the gravity of disqualification, Law 91B is the only Law in the > Lawbook for which the Director lacks autarky power. Any disqualification > under Law 91B also requires approval from the Tournament Organizer. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > On Tuesday, May 10, 2016, Steve Willner wrote: > >> On 2016-05-09 10:06 AM, agot wrote: >> > I think that the point is to prove that a leap to slam isn't >> > necessarily a proof that one got UI. >> >> Of course it isn't. Nobody has suggested any such thing. Good grief! >> >> A leap to slam with no visible prospects of making nor a worthwhile >> sacrifice is another matter. "Got UI" is one possible explanation, but >> there may be others. The Director has to judge on a case-by-case basis. >> >> On 2016-05-09 1:36 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> > 3. The embarrassment to the laws is when we cannot find any way to >> > rectify for a blatant case of cheating. >> >> If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is >> to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate >> disciplinary body. >> >> An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating." If a >> player receives UI from some source other than partner and doesn't >> notify the Director, that's a violation of L16C. There's no prescribed >> rectification, so L12A1 applies. Such judgments are made on "balance of >> probabilities," per L85A1, if the facts are unclear. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20160512/72e5f32c/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 12 17:51:23 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 17:51:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <5734A67B.3080408@skynet.be> Richard Hills schreef: > Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: East-West > > You, East, hold: > > K842 > Q6 > 2 > J97532 > > The bidding has gone: > > 2D (Alerted and explained as a weak two in hearts, or a weak two in > spades, or 21-22 balanced) - pass - 2H (pass or correct) - pass - 3D > (non-systemic) - pass - ??? > Apparently, I am the partner of the 2D opener, so it's I who have explained it as Majors or 21-22. It is impossible for "me" not to know what partner is doing. Apparently, he has done something else than the type of Multi that I was thinking we were playing. Now, it depends on the circumstances, which the "I" of the story knows, but the "I" (HDW) doesn't. I can think of a few possibilities: - my partner is used to playing weak twos in diamonds, and I explained the Multi to him last week, and he has probably forgotten. I pass. - my partner is used to playing the Multi with plural possibilities, I am the one who insisted not to include strong single suiters, and he has probably forgotten that. He has strong diamonds, and I bid 3NT. - there might be other possibilities. In either position I do not consider anything else. In any case, the circumstances which lead to us reaching the agreement that I previously thought to have (as I also explained them) are AI to me. They - combined with the 3D bid - lead me to the conclusion cited abovve. I feel not constrained by UI. However, there might be a ruling of UI towards my partner. If he has a weak two, passing 2H is probably a LA to him. If he has strong diamonds, but in a 6322, he probablt has a LA in 2NT, which he should choose as the 3D bid more clearly shows what he has. If he has a 54 in diamonds and spades, 2S is also a LA, which he should certainly select. > What call do you make? > What other call(s) do you consider making? > depends on the circumstances, which are AI to me. > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 12 18:51:08 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:51:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 May 2016 09:34:15 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: East-West > > You, East, hold: > > K842 > Q6 > 2 > J97532 > > The bidding has gone: > > 2D (Alerted and explained as a weak two in hearts, or a weak two in spades, > or 21-22 balanced) - pass - 2H (pass or correct) - pass - 3D (non-systemic) > - pass - ??? > > What call do you make? Pass > What other call(s) do you consider making? I thought about 3S and 4C, taking the 3D bid as possibly strong. But if partner has that, it's his problem, he's the one who made a foolish bid. This comes up a lot at the club. At the lower level, players easily recover from mistaken bids because they don't make up impossible bids. I you want a more serious answer, you have to tell me the probability that partner forgot the convention versus the probability that partner would make up a bid, expect me to catch it, and not realize that he has rebid diamonds and how I am going to see the auction. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Wednesday, May 11, 2016, Richard Hills wrote: > >> Steve Willner: >> >> [snip] >> >> If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is >> to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate >> disciplinary body. >> >> An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating." >> >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Some quibbles: >> >> 1) Grattan Endicott earlier noted that the Drafting Committee >> intentionally excluded the words "cheat" / "cheating" from the Lawbook. >> 2) Rather, in addition to run-of-mill unintentional infractions, there are >> "must not" intentional infringements / infractions (Law 72B1), and "gravest >> possible offence" private systems, for example finger signals (Law 73B2). >> 3) "If the Director is convinced" is NOT the criterion for Law 91B (Right >> to Disqualify). Unlike many other Laws, the Director may not act upon a >> personal conviction / balance of probabilities. Instead the criterion is >> "for cause". >> 4) Due to the gravity of disqualification, Law 91B is the only Law in the >> Lawbook for which the Director lacks autarky power. Any disqualification >> under Law 91B also requires approval from the Tournament Organizer. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> >> On Tuesday, May 10, 2016, Steve Willner wrote: >> >>> On 2016-05-09 10:06 AM, agot wrote: >>> > I think that the point is to prove that a leap to slam isn't >>> > necessarily a proof that one got UI. >>> >>> Of course it isn't. Nobody has suggested any such thing. Good grief! >>> >>> A leap to slam with no visible prospects of making nor a worthwhile >>> sacrifice is another matter. "Got UI" is one possible explanation, but >>> there may be others. The Director has to judge on a case-by-case basis. >>> >>> On 2016-05-09 1:36 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> > 3. The embarrassment to the laws is when we cannot find any way to >>> > rectify for a blatant case of cheating. >>> >>> If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is >>> to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate >>> disciplinary body. >>> >>> An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating." If a >>> player receives UI from some source other than partner and doesn't >>> notify the Director, that's a violation of L16C. There's no prescribed >>> rectification, so L12A1 applies. Such judgments are made on "balance of >>> probabilities," per L85A1, if the facts are unclear. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu May 12 20:42:14 2016 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:42:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 May 2016 23:34:15 +1000, Richard Hills wrote: >Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: East-West > >You, East, hold: > >K842 >Q6 >2 >J97532 > >The bidding has gone: > >2D (Alerted and explained as a weak two in hearts, or a weak two in spades, >or 21-22 balanced) - pass - 2H (pass or correct) - pass - 3D (non-systemic) >- pass - ??? > >What call do you make? >What other call(s) do you consider making? > I don't think you've given us enough information, Richard. If 2D is being used as a multi, then what are 2H and 2S being used for? In particular, does the system include some sort of weak two-suited bids such as Muiderberg or CRO Twos? I had one partner with whom I played a 2D Multi of this sort, but we weren't using 2H and 2S as weak two suiters. Opposite him, even though this sequence wasn't in our agreements, I would be almost certain that what he held was a weak 2H plus a long diamond suit but not good enough a hand to promote it to 1 of a major. void KJ10xxx J109xxx x would seem about right. At adverse, my rebid is easy, 3H with no alternatives. It would be 4H were the vulnerabilities reversed. I am definitely NOT going to pass 3D, but that's because I learned my bridge under a jurisdiction where 2D showing a weak 2 in a major or 21-22 balanced OR a weak 2 in diamonds would be an unlicensed convention, and if partner should show with a weak 2D without a major then I don't expect to come out of it without penalties. The only way I can imagine partner having diamonds and no majors is if 2D was an unnoticed bidding box mispull for 3D. Brian. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu May 12 23:59:50 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 07:59:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: <20160512190719.8ACA538EE4104@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160512190719.8ACA538EE4104@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: Brian Meadows: [snip] Opposite him, even though this sequence wasn't in our agreements, I would be almost certain that what he held was a weak 2H plus a long diamond suit but not good enough a hand to promote it to 1 of a major. void KJ10xxx J109xxx x would seem about right. At adverse, my rebid is easy, 3H with no alternatives. It would be 4H were the vulnerabilities reversed. [snip] The only way I can imagine partner having diamonds and no majors is if 2D was an unnoticed bidding box mispull for 3D. Richard Hills: Good judgement by Brian. The actual East reasoned as Brian did, and signed off in 3H. Alas, West held: 3 AJT AJ8653 A84 having made an unnoticed bidding box mispull of 2D replacing West's intended opening bid of 1D. Hence East-West scored -600 in an unusual way. The question of Law is this: The WBF Laws Committee has ruled that an Alert / explanation from partner is authorised information for the purpose of a Law 25A correction "without pause for thought". But West, like many players, was unaware of his rights under Law 25A. Therefore once East bid 2H West could no longer correct his 2D opening bid. Thus presumably at the moment East bid 2H East's earlier Alert and explanation transmogrified into being UI to West. Hence was West's 3D an illegal call? Was West required to assume that the auction had proceeded 1D - pass - 2H (very weak with six hearts)? Or does Law 16A1(a) mean that West is entitled to know, by whatever means, that West opened the bidding with 2D? (Possibly relevant here is the "aids to his memory" Law 40C3(a).) Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, May 13, 2016, brian wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2016 23:34:15 +1000, Richard Hills wrote: > > >Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: East-West > > > >You, East, hold: > > > >K842 > >Q6 > >2 > >J97532 > > > >The bidding has gone: > > > >2D (Alerted and explained as a weak two in hearts, or a weak two in > spades, > >or 21-22 balanced) - pass - 2H (pass or correct) - pass - 3D > (non-systemic) > >- pass - ??? > > > >What call do you make? > >What other call(s) do you consider making? > > > > I don't think you've given us enough information, Richard. If 2D is > being used as a multi, then what are 2H and 2S being used for? In > particular, does the system include some sort of weak two-suited bids > such as Muiderberg or CRO Twos? > > I had one partner with whom I played a 2D Multi of this sort, but we > weren't using 2H and 2S as weak two suiters. Opposite him, even though > this sequence wasn't in our agreements, I would be almost certain that > what he held was a weak 2H plus a long diamond suit but not good > enough a hand to promote it to 1 of a major. > > void > KJ10xxx > J109xxx > x > > would seem about right. > > At adverse, my rebid is easy, 3H with no alternatives. It would be 4H > were the vulnerabilities reversed. > > I am definitely NOT going to pass 3D, but that's because I learned my > bridge under a jurisdiction where 2D showing a weak 2 in a major or > 21-22 balanced OR a weak 2 in diamonds would be an unlicensed > convention, and if partner should show with a weak 2D without a major > then I don't expect to come out of it without penalties. > > The only way I can imagine partner having diamonds and no majors is if > 2D was an unnoticed bidding box mispull for 3D. > > > Brian. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160512/8f56fd89/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 13 02:05:28 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 20:05:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160512190719.8ACA538EE4104@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: I would guess the standard ruling is that it is AI to West that he (West) has opened 2D. I would explain it at the table that he would have noticed before his next turn to bid. But that's for bidding boxes (or bidding screens), I would rule different for vocal bidding. The rule against memory aids should not apply to information supplied to contestants, such as looking on the board to determine vulnerability. As my room tried to play bridge while a lecture occurred in the next room, I cheerfully told my players the lecture was all AI. On Thu, 12 May 2016 17:59:50 -0400, Richard Hills wrote: > Brian Meadows: > > [snip] > > Opposite him, even though > this sequence wasn't in our agreements, I would be almost certain that > what he held was a weak 2H plus a long diamond suit but not good > enough a hand to promote it to 1 of a major. > > void > KJ10xxx > J109xxx > x > > would seem about right. > > At adverse, my rebid is easy, 3H with no alternatives. It would be 4H > were the vulnerabilities reversed. > > [snip] > > The only way I can imagine partner having diamonds and no majors is if > 2D was an unnoticed bidding box mispull for 3D. > > Richard Hills: > > Good judgement by Brian. The actual East reasoned as Brian did, and signed > off in 3H. Alas, West held: > > 3 > AJT > AJ8653 > A84 > > having made an unnoticed bidding box mispull of 2D replacing West's > intended opening bid of 1D. Hence East-West scored -600 in an unusual way. > > The question of Law is this: The WBF Laws Committee has ruled that an Alert > / explanation from partner is authorised information for the purpose of a > Law 25A correction "without pause for thought". But West, like many > players, was unaware of his rights under Law 25A. Therefore once East bid > 2H West could no longer correct his 2D opening bid. Thus presumably at the > moment East bid 2H East's earlier Alert and explanation transmogrified into > being UI to West. > > Hence was West's 3D an illegal call? Was West required to assume that the > auction had proceeded 1D - pass - 2H (very weak with six hearts)? Or does > Law 16A1(a) mean that West is entitled to know, by whatever means, that > West opened the bidding with 2D? (Possibly relevant here is the "aids to > his memory" Law 40C3(a).) > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Friday, May 13, 2016, brian wrote: > >> On Thu, 12 May 2016 23:34:15 +1000, Richard Hills wrote: >> >> >Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: East-West >> > >> >You, East, hold: >> > >> >K842 >> >Q6 >> >2 >> >J97532 >> > >> >The bidding has gone: >> > >> >2D (Alerted and explained as a weak two in hearts, or a weak two in >> spades, >> >or 21-22 balanced) - pass - 2H (pass or correct) - pass - 3D >> (non-systemic) >> >- pass - ??? >> > >> >What call do you make? >> >What other call(s) do you consider making? >> > >> >> I don't think you've given us enough information, Richard. If 2D is >> being used as a multi, then what are 2H and 2S being used for? In >> particular, does the system include some sort of weak two-suited bids >> such as Muiderberg or CRO Twos? >> >> I had one partner with whom I played a 2D Multi of this sort, but we >> weren't using 2H and 2S as weak two suiters. Opposite him, even though >> this sequence wasn't in our agreements, I would be almost certain that >> what he held was a weak 2H plus a long diamond suit but not good >> enough a hand to promote it to 1 of a major. >> >> void >> KJ10xxx >> J109xxx >> x >> >> would seem about right. >> >> At adverse, my rebid is easy, 3H with no alternatives. It would be 4H >> were the vulnerabilities reversed. >> >> I am definitely NOT going to pass 3D, but that's because I learned my >> bridge under a jurisdiction where 2D showing a weak 2 in a major or >> 21-22 balanced OR a weak 2 in diamonds would be an unlicensed >> convention, and if partner should show with a weak 2D without a major >> then I don't expect to come out of it without penalties. >> >> The only way I can imagine partner having diamonds and no majors is if >> 2D was an unnoticed bidding box mispull for 3D. >> >> >> Brian. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> From hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 13 10:42:26 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:42:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <20160512190719.8ACA538EE4104@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <57359372.20409@skynet.be> Richard poses an interesting question: (I've deleted the rest without negative intent) Richard Hills schreef: > > The question of Law is this: The WBF Laws Committee has ruled that an > Alert / explanation from partner is authorised information for the > purpose of a Law 25A correction "without pause for thought". But West, > like many players, was unaware of his rights under Law 25A. Therefore > once East bid 2H West could no longer correct his 2D opening bid. Thus > presumably at the moment East bid 2H East's earlier Alert and > explanation transmogrified into being UI to West. > > Hence was West's 3D an illegal call? Was West required to assume that > the auction had proceeded 1D - pass - 2H (very weak with six hearts)? Or > does Law 16A1(a) mean that West is entitled to know, by whatever means, > that West opened the bidding with 2D? (Possibly relevant here is the > "aids to his memory" Law 40C3(a).) > Aids to memory does not seem to apply here, since we don't use it in the millions of bidding sequences we make every single day. Aftere all, a player is entitled to ask what the bidding was at every turn, thus it seems logical to accept that the bidding cards that are on the table are AI at every single turn. Therefore, when West notices his 2D bidding card, he is entitled to know what he has shown, even if he does not have that. Since he is allowed to remember his system (and if we believe that he mispulled, we should also believe that he knows his real system), he is also entitled to know what partner will believe he has shown. He is entitled to make every call he wishes, but he must abstain from showing by any other means than his call that he has made a previous mistake. This just makes the problem for East even harder - how is he supposed to figure out that the mistake West made (he is allowed to know there was a mistake, but not which one) is precisely this one? Therefore, every poll made will be flawed, as we cannot by any means tell the polled player (would we be allowed to call such a player a pollee ?) what the exact circumstances of the likely mistakes by partner are. As you saw, I imagined two such possible mistakes and it turned out to be a third one. A real partner will be more likely to pick the correct one. I knew of my partners which mistakes they were likely to make and which ones they had never made in their careers. But interesting topic nevertheless. Herman. > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 13 15:20:31 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 15:20:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Le 12.05.2016 15:34, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: East-West > > You, East, hold: > > K842 > Q6 > 2 > J97532 > > The bidding has gone: > > 2D (Alerted and explained as a weak two in hearts, or a weak two in > spades, or 21-22 balanced) - pass - 2H (pass or correct) - pass - 3D > (non-systemic) - pass - ??? > > What call do you make? > What other call(s) do you consider making? I'm a little late in answering this thread, but I'd like to add that, unless there is a very plausible explanation (like that one about partner using a Multi which includes Acol-2 types, but not facing me), explanations are many and very different from eachother : from partner having mispulled 2D for 3D to him supposing that I would understand him to have a very strong NT type with diamonds or simply he might have mispulled *now* 3D in lieu of 2NT. Given that, and supposing he didn't use UI (I think he didn't, and agree with what has been said up to now), all roads lead to him holding diamonds or an otherwise strong hand. So the only alternatives are pass and 3NT. Maybe the former at Matchpoints and the latter at IMPs. I don't believe in the "weak H cum D" explanation. Where are the spades ? Best regards Alain From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri May 13 20:39:28 2016 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:39:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:20:31 +0200, Alain wrote: >Le 12.05.2016 15:34, Richard Hills a ?crit?: >> Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: East-West >> >> You, East, hold: >> >> K842 >> Q6 >> 2 >> J97532 >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> 2D (Alerted and explained as a weak two in hearts, or a weak two in >> spades, or 21-22 balanced) - pass - 2H (pass or correct) - pass - 3D >> (non-systemic) - pass - ??? >> >> What call do you make? >> What other call(s) do you consider making? > >I'm a little late in answering this thread, but I'd like to add that, >unless there is a very plausible explanation (like that one about >partner using a Multi which includes Acol-2 types, but not facing me), >explanations are many and very different from eachother : from partner >having mispulled 2D for 3D to him supposing that I would understand him >to have a very strong NT type with diamonds or simply he might have >mispulled *now* 3D in lieu of 2NT. > >Given that, and supposing he didn't use UI (I think he didn't, and agree >with what has been said up to now), all roads lead to him holding >diamonds or an otherwise strong hand. So the only alternatives are pass >and 3NT. Maybe the former at Matchpoints and the latter at IMPs. > >I don't believe in the "weak H cum D" explanation. Where are the spades >? > Speaking as the one who suggested that explanation - you'll note that East has four spades. If I switch my suggestion for West's hand to 1=6=6=0 rather than 0=6=6=1. now which opponent do you feel should overcall a four card spade suit at the two level - especially in North's case as he's almost guaranteed another call after the multi 2D opener has shown their holding? In any case, I'm not responsible for explaining opponents' bidding. If I were still partnering the person to whom I referred, I would be 95% certain that they would show with that weak red two-suiter. Why opponents have chosen to stay silent is really not my problem. Brian. From blackshoe at mac.com Sat May 14 01:29:55 2016 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 19:29:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Non-weighted adjustments In-Reply-To: <20160331000559.B320FB6F0360@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <20160328181141.E05FC38F1C0C0@relay1.webreus.nl> <56FA2F54.4070205@skynet.be> <405A8C9C-F0FB-4EF8-B27B-9EDE21F3B273@wesleyan.edu> <20160331000559.B320FB6F0360@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <6F33C9CD-DF6A-4281-A4F7-2F237954B3DC@mac.com> > On Mar 30, 2016, at 7:33 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > In practice, directors rarely and inconsistently impose procedural or disciplinary penalties. I asked a director with decades of top-level experience about them. He told me that players resent them. They regard them as tantamount to an accusation of cheating. The director has never imposed one. Far better to include an element deterrence in basic rulings. Drivers resent speeding tickets. Doesn?t stop cops from handing them out. If a player did something that rates a DP or PP, how he feels about getting that penalty is the *last* thing the director should be concerned with. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160513/27a2d085/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat May 14 17:02:05 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 01:02:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Uno In-Reply-To: References: <5BE87B6A-899D-4401-9E8B-8F733DFD4B9C@wesleyan.edu> <000401d1a6af$49203470$db609d50$@btinternet.com> <1085679334.986940.1462529474007.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <12e8fc91ecbaa1a63a656aebe41aa03a@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <332862498.1129465.1462544765523.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <55f605ebeb60ad7f1757f8424dfa8b16@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: The WBF Revised Disciplinary Code (in effect since 1st January 2016): http://www.worldbridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/official-documents/Policies/WBFDisciplinaryCode.pdf states in clause 6.12.1 that the standard of proof for Reprehensible Conduct must be higher than "balance of probabilities", instead being "clear and convincing evidence". Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, May 11, 2016, Richard Hills > wrote: > Steve Willner: > > [snip] > > If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is > to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate > disciplinary body. > > An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating." > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Some quibbles: > > 1) Grattan Endicott earlier noted that the Drafting Committee > intentionally excluded the words "cheat" / "cheating" from the Lawbook. > 2) Rather, in addition to run-of-mill unintentional infractions, there are > "must not" intentional infringements / infractions (Law 72B1), and "gravest > possible offence" private systems, for example finger signals (Law 73B2). > 3) "If the Director is convinced" is NOT the criterion for Law 91B (Right > to Disqualify). Unlike many other Laws, the Director may not act upon a > personal conviction / balance of probabilities. Instead the criterion is > "for cause". > 4) Due to the gravity of disqualification, Law 91B is the only Law in the > Lawbook for which the Director lacks autarky power. Any disqualification > under Law 91B also requires approval from the Tournament Organizer. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > On Tuesday, May 10, 2016, Steve Willner wrote: > >> On 2016-05-09 10:06 AM, agot wrote: >> > I think that the point is to prove that a leap to slam isn't >> > necessarily a proof that one got UI. >> >> Of course it isn't. Nobody has suggested any such thing. Good grief! >> >> A leap to slam with no visible prospects of making nor a worthwhile >> sacrifice is another matter. "Got UI" is one possible explanation, but >> there may be others. The Director has to judge on a case-by-case basis. >> >> On 2016-05-09 1:36 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> > 3. The embarrassment to the laws is when we cannot find any way to >> > rectify for a blatant case of cheating. >> >> If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is >> to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate >> disciplinary body. >> >> An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating." If a >> player receives UI from some source other than partner and doesn't >> notify the Director, that's a violation of L16C. There's no prescribed >> rectification, so L12A1 applies. Such judgments are made on "balance of >> probabilities," per L85A1, if the facts are unclear. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20160514/ca7cf11a/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri May 20 08:34:39 2016 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 16:34:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Could have known Message-ID: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> >From the latest ABF Newsletter: 8 6 A10 8 7 6 2 K10 2 A Q 9 3 J 4 2 K J 9 5 3 8 4 3 A 9 6 K J 6 3 2 10 9 8 5 4 A K Q 10 7 5 Q 4 Q J 7 5 7 Playing 6S by South, West gets off to sneaky HJ lead. Rising HA, South will discard heart loser on successful club finesse. However upon drawing trumps, East discards heart on third spade, but immediately corrects to spade. Now South feels inclined to play low heart to Q since East's heart is a penalty card. Bad luck, 1 down. So, in OZ, no problem, laughed away, but I presume that in other countries, the "could have known" law would be wheeled out rather quickly. With what result? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From vip at centrum.is Fri May 20 10:50:35 2016 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 08:50:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Are we really suggesting to use of law 73F here? If it is, then something is missing in this story. Well In Iceland, the ruling is "Next board please" Greetings Vigfus Palsson ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Tony Musgrove" Til: "BLML" Sent: F?studagur, 20. Ma?, 2016 06:34:39 Efni: [BLML] Could have known >From the latest ABF Newsletter: 8 6 A10 8 7 6 2 K10 2 A Q 9 3 J 4 2 K J 9 5 3 8 4 3 A 9 6 K J 6 3 2 10 9 8 5 4 A K Q 10 7 5 Q 4 Q J 7 5 7 Playing 6S by South, West gets off to sneaky HJ lead. Rising HA, South will discard heart loser on successful club finesse. However upon drawing trumps, East discards heart on third spade, but immediately corrects to spade. Now South feels inclined to play low heart to Q since East's heart is a penalty card. Bad luck, 1 down. So, in OZ, no problem, laughed away, but I presume that in other countries, the "could have known" law would be wheeled out rather quickly. With what result? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 20 11:42:01 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 11:42:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> Message-ID: <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> Vigf?s P?lsson schreef: > Are we really suggesting to use of law 73F here? yes > If it is, then something is missing in this story. > maybe you did not read the same into it as I did. My question is why it would not be ruled such in OZ. Let's see (I'm now going on to the original, see further) > Well In Iceland, the ruling is "Next board please" > > Greetings > > Vigfus Palsson > > > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > Fr?: "Tony Musgrove" > Til: "BLML" > Sent: F?studagur, 20. Ma?, 2016 06:34:39 > Efni: [BLML] Could have known > >>From the latest ABF Newsletter: > > 8 6 > A10 8 7 6 2 > K10 2 > A Q > > 9 3 J 4 2 > K J 9 5 3 > 8 4 3 A 9 6 > K J 6 3 2 10 9 8 5 4 > > A K Q 10 7 5 > Q 4 > Q J 7 5 > 7 > Playing 6S by South, West gets off to sneaky > HJ lead. Rising HA, South will discard heart > loser on successful club finesse. However > upon drawing trumps, East discards heart on > third spade, but immediately corrects to > spade. Now South feels inclined to play low > heart to Q since East's heart is a penalty card. > Bad luck, 1 down. > So, in OZ, no problem, laughed away, but I > presume that in other countries, the "could > have known" law would be wheeled out > rather quickly. With what result? > > Cheers, > Let's try to construct a "could have known" story: East knows, from the lead, that South has the queen of hearts. Let's suppose he knows from the bidding that South has real diamonds. So there can be no other winner for his side than the Ace of clubs. If South still needs it, the queen of clubs is also a trick. So if South has the king of hearts as well, there is no more play. So East can assume west has the king, and has led a sneaky jack. So south may assume East has the king of hearts, and taking a penalty card in hearts may lead south to play towards his queen, if there is still a choice between two lines (south does not know the club finesse is on). So from East's perspective, taking a penalty card is a move which might lead south to a different, losing line. East could certainly have known that taking a penalty card might be to his advantage. I would certainly rule against, and I don't see why this should be different in OZ. > Tony (Sydney) > Herman. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri May 20 12:44:51 2016 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 20:44:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201d1b284$a3630da0$ea2928e0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Friday, 20 May 2016 7:42 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known > > Vigf?s P?lsson schreef: > > Are we really suggesting to use of law 73F here? > > yes > > > If it is, then something is missing in this story. > > > > maybe you did not read the same into it as I did. My question is why it > would not be ruled such in OZ. > > Let's see (I'm now going on to the original, see further) > > > Well In Iceland, the ruling is "Next board please" > > > > Greetings > > > > Vigfus Palsson > > > > > > > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > > Fr?: "Tony Musgrove" > > Til: "BLML" > > Sent: F?studagur, 20. Ma?, 2016 06:34:39 > > Efni: [BLML] Could have known > > > >>From the latest ABF Newsletter: > > > > 8 6 > > A10 8 7 6 2 > > K10 2 > > A Q > > > > 9 3 J 4 2 > > K J 9 5 3 > > 8 4 3 A 9 6 > > K J 6 3 2 10 9 8 5 4 > > > > A K Q 10 7 5 > > Q 4 > > Q J 7 5 > > 7 > > Playing 6S by South, West gets off to sneaky > > HJ lead. Rising HA, South will discard heart > > loser on successful club finesse. However > > upon drawing trumps, East discards heart on > > third spade, but immediately corrects to > > spade. Now South feels inclined to play low > > heart to Q since East's heart is a penalty card. > > Bad luck, 1 down. > > So, in OZ, no problem, laughed away, but I > > presume that in other countries, the "could > > have known" law would be wheeled out > > rather quickly. With what result? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Let's try to construct a "could have known" story: > > East knows, from the lead, that South has the queen of hearts. > Let's suppose he knows from the bidding that South has real diamonds. > So > there can be no other winner for his side than the Ace of clubs. If > South still needs it, the queen of clubs is also a trick. So if South > has the king of hearts as well, there is no more play. So East can > assume west has the king, and has led a sneaky jack. > So south may assume East has the king of hearts, and taking a penalty > card in hearts may lead south to play towards his queen, if there is > still a choice between two lines (south does not know the club finesse > is on). > So from East's perspective, taking a penalty card is a move which might > lead south to a different, losing line. > > East could certainly have known that taking a penalty card might be to > his advantage. > > I would certainly rule against, and I don't see why this should be > different in OZ. > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > Herman. Thank you Herman, the reason is that in OZ, the players would recognise a genuine error with no malice intended and go on to the next board (in my limited experience of playing with the big boys) Cheers, Tony (Sydney) [] From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri May 20 12:57:30 2016 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 20:57:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301d1b286$680588d0$38109a70$@optusnet.com.au> BTW, I am referring to L23, (not 73F) my favourite Law where I can get away with calling cheats "Probst cheats", and just say "there is no question of calling your ethics into question, but the rules say I must consider what a real cheat would do in your position" Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Friday, 20 May 2016 7:42 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known > > Vigf?s P?lsson schreef: > > Are we really suggesting to use of law 73F here? > > yes > > > If it is, then something is missing in this story. > > > > maybe you did not read the same into it as I did. My question is why it > would not be ruled such in OZ. > > Let's see (I'm now going on to the original, see further) > > > Well In Iceland, the ruling is "Next board please" > > > > Greetings > > > > Vigfus Palsson > > > > > > > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > > Fr?: "Tony Musgrove" > > Til: "BLML" > > Sent: F?studagur, 20. Ma?, 2016 06:34:39 > > Efni: [BLML] Could have known > > > >>From the latest ABF Newsletter: > > > > 8 6 > > A10 8 7 6 2 > > K10 2 > > A Q > > > > 9 3 J 4 2 > > K J 9 5 3 > > 8 4 3 A 9 6 > > K J 6 3 2 10 9 8 5 4 > > > > A K Q 10 7 5 > > Q 4 > > Q J 7 5 > > 7 > > Playing 6S by South, West gets off to sneaky > > HJ lead. Rising HA, South will discard heart > > loser on successful club finesse. However > > upon drawing trumps, East discards heart on > > third spade, but immediately corrects to > > spade. Now South feels inclined to play low > > heart to Q since East's heart is a penalty card. > > Bad luck, 1 down. > > So, in OZ, no problem, laughed away, but I > > presume that in other countries, the "could > > have known" law would be wheeled out > > rather quickly. With what result? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Let's try to construct a "could have known" story: > > East knows, from the lead, that South has the queen of hearts. > Let's suppose he knows from the bidding that South has real diamonds. > So > there can be no other winner for his side than the Ace of clubs. If > South still needs it, the queen of clubs is also a trick. So if South > has the king of hearts as well, there is no more play. So East can > assume west has the king, and has led a sneaky jack. > So south may assume East has the king of hearts, and taking a penalty > card in hearts may lead south to play towards his queen, if there is > still a choice between two lines (south does not know the club finesse > is on). > So from East's perspective, taking a penalty card is a move which might > lead south to a different, losing line. > > East could certainly have known that taking a penalty card might be to > his advantage. > > I would certainly rule against, and I don't see why this should be > different in OZ. > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 20 13:47:47 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:47:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8b04afcbb05fc103b88cbdd8ceed7872@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 20.05.2016 11:42, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Vigf?s P?lsson schreef: >> Are we really suggesting to use of law 73F here? > > yes > >> If it is, then something is missing in this story. >> > > maybe you did not read the same into it as I did. My question is why it > would not be ruled such in OZ. > > Let's see (I'm now going on to the original, see further) > >> Well In Iceland, the ruling is "Next board please" >> >> Greetings >> >> Vigfus Palsson >> >> >> >> ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- >> Fr?: "Tony Musgrove" >> Til: "BLML" >> Sent: F?studagur, 20. Ma?, 2016 06:34:39 >> Efni: [BLML] Could have known >> >>> From the latest ABF Newsletter: >> >> 8 6 >> A10 8 7 6 2 >> K10 2 >> A Q >> >> 9 3 J 4 >> 2 >> K J 9 5 3 >> 8 4 3 A 9 6 >> K J 6 3 2 10 9 8 5 >> 4 >> >> A K Q 10 7 5 >> Q 4 >> Q J 7 5 >> 7 >> Playing 6S by South, West gets off to sneaky >> HJ lead. Rising HA, South will discard heart >> loser on successful club finesse. However >> upon drawing trumps, East discards heart on >> third spade, but immediately corrects to >> spade. Now South feels inclined to play low >> heart to Q since East's heart is a penalty card. >> Bad luck, 1 down. >> So, in OZ, no problem, laughed away, but I >> presume that in other countries, the "could >> have known" law would be wheeled out >> rather quickly. With what result? >> >> Cheers, >> > > Let's try to construct a "could have known" story: > > East knows, from the lead, that South has the queen of hearts. > Let's suppose he knows from the bidding that South has real diamonds. > So > there can be no other winner for his side than the Ace of clubs. If > South still needs it, the queen of clubs is also a trick. So if South > has the king of hearts as well, there is no more play. So East can > assume west has the king, and has led a sneaky jack. > So south may assume East has the king of hearts, and taking a penalty > card in hearts may lead south to play towards his queen, if there is > still a choice between two lines (south does not know the club finesse > is on). > So from East's perspective, taking a penalty card is a move which might > lead south to a different, losing line. > > East could certainly have known that taking a penalty card might be to > his advantage. AG : It is possible, but only if East is strong enough to be able to reconstruct all this in the 40 seconds it takes to play to the first four tricks (South's line of play being pretty obvious). Furthermore, if West is able to lead a tricky Jack from KJ, why not from QJ ? Which seems to change quite a bit, because declarer, holding K9x, is going to finesse in hearts. And in that case the Heart discard helps South, because he will know you aren't going to discard from remaining Qx(x), and he might then guess what happened. Whence "could have known", while being theoretically correct, is probably wrong at the table. Best regards Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri May 20 17:57:41 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 01:57:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <000301d1b286$680588d0$38109a70$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> <000301d1b286$680588d0$38109a70$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Law 73F may not be invoked unless there has been an infraction of one of Laws 73A to 73E. Since the infraction is a Law 50 penalty card, Tony Musgrove is correct in stating we should be discussing Law 23, not Law 73F. If it is legal for the Director to consider ruling a Law 73F adjusted score, then "could have known" is an easy hurdle for the Director to leap. But a Law 23 adjusted score requires the Director leaping a much higher hurdle: "an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side" In my opinion "could well damage" is significantly different in meaning from "could damage". Thus, if I was the Director I would not adjust the score. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, May 20, 2016, Tony Musgrove wrote: > BTW, I am referring to L23, (not 73F) my favourite > Law where I can get away with calling cheats > "Probst cheats", and just say "there is no > question of calling your ethics into question, > but the rules say I must consider what a > real cheat would do in your position" > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto: > blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] On > > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Sent: Friday, 20 May 2016 7:42 PM > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known > > > > Vigf?s P?lsson schreef: > > > Are we really suggesting to use of law 73F here? > > > > yes > > > > > If it is, then something is missing in this story. > > > > > > > maybe you did not read the same into it as I did. My question is why it > > would not be ruled such in OZ. > > > > Let's see (I'm now going on to the original, see further) > > > > > Well In Iceland, the ruling is "Next board please" > > > > > > Greetings > > > > > > Vigfus Palsson > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- > > > Fr?: "Tony Musgrove" > > > > Til: "BLML" > > > > Sent: F?studagur, 20. Ma?, 2016 06:34:39 > > > Efni: [BLML] Could have known > > > > > >>From the latest ABF Newsletter: > > > > > > 8 6 > > > A10 8 7 6 2 > > > K10 2 > > > A Q > > > > > > 9 3 J 4 2 > > > K J 9 5 3 > > > 8 4 3 A 9 6 > > > K J 6 3 2 10 9 8 5 4 > > > > > > A K Q 10 7 5 > > > Q 4 > > > Q J 7 5 > > > 7 > > > Playing 6S by South, West gets off to sneaky > > > HJ lead. Rising HA, South will discard heart > > > loser on successful club finesse. However > > > upon drawing trumps, East discards heart on > > > third spade, but immediately corrects to > > > spade. Now South feels inclined to play low > > > heart to Q since East's heart is a penalty card. > > > Bad luck, 1 down. > > > So, in OZ, no problem, laughed away, but I > > > presume that in other countries, the "could > > > have known" law would be wheeled out > > > rather quickly. With what result? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Let's try to construct a "could have known" story: > > > > East knows, from the lead, that South has the queen of hearts. > > Let's suppose he knows from the bidding that South has real diamonds. > > So > > there can be no other winner for his side than the Ace of clubs. If > > South still needs it, the queen of clubs is also a trick. So if South > > has the king of hearts as well, there is no more play. So East can > > assume west has the king, and has led a sneaky jack. > > So south may assume East has the king of hearts, and taking a penalty > > card in hearts may lead south to play towards his queen, if there is > > still a choice between two lines (south does not know the club finesse > > is on). > > So from East's perspective, taking a penalty card is a move which might > > lead south to a different, losing line. > > > > East could certainly have known that taking a penalty card might be to > > his advantage. > > > > I would certainly rule against, and I don't see why this should be > > different in OZ. > > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20160520/a93219fe/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 20 18:25:56 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 18:25:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> <000301d1b286$680588d0$38109a70$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <120df18f0dc57b42eb2d8ee457411de0@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 20.05.2016 17:57, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Law 73F may not be invoked unless there has been an infraction of one > of Laws 73A to 73E. Since the infraction is a Law 50 penalty card, > Tony Musgrove is correct in stating we should be discussing Law 23, > not Law 73F. > > If it is legal for the Director to consider ruling a Law 73F adjusted > score, then "could have known" is an easy hurdle for the Director to > leap. But a Law 23 adjusted score requires the Director leaping a much > higher hurdle: > > "an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity > that this could well damage the non-offending side" > > In my opinion "could well damage" is significantly different in > meaning from "could damage". Thus, if I was the Director I would not > adjust the score. Yes, that's it. It is much more plausible for a remark or variation of tempo to be intended to decieve than for an insufficient bid or a revoke, if only because in the latter case there is a severe penalty and it might backfire. Also, speaking is not part of the game, contrary to playing a card, making it a bit more suspect. Or, to express it differently, Herman's scenario features a deliberate action, whose effect on opponents is much easier to predict when it is a remark than when it is a revoke. For those reasons, the lawmakers have decided on a limit which,in Richard's feelings and in mine, is quite different. Best regards, Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Sat May 21 09:46:23 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 09:46:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <000201d1b284$a3630da0$ea2928e0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> <000201d1b284$a3630da0$ea2928e0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <5740124F.2080101@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove schreef: > >>> >> >> Herman. > Thank you Herman, the reason is that in OZ, the players > would recognise a genuine error with no malice intended > and go on to the next board (in my limited experience of > playing with the big boys) > Strange. Where I play, any player who finds himself down in a contract after an opponent misled him tries to get the contract back from the TD. And the Law is clear: "could have known", not "knew". But I understand your point. Just make it "no problem in this tournament" rather than "in OZ", which suggested to me that the laws are different up there. Herman. > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > [] > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat May 21 11:45:12 2016 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 19:45:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <5740124F.2080101@skynet.be> References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> <000201d1b284$a3630da0$ea2928e0$@optusnet.com.au> <5740124F.2080101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601d1b345$78a3efa0$69ebcee0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Saturday, 21 May 2016 5:46 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known > > > > Tony Musgrove schreef: > > > >>> > >> > >> Herman. > > Thank you Herman, the reason is that in OZ, the players > > would recognise a genuine error with no malice intended > > and go on to the next board (in my limited experience of > > playing with the big boys) > > > > Strange. > > Where I play, any player who finds himself down in a contract after an > opponent misled him tries to get the contract back from the TD. > And the Law is clear: "could have known", not "knew". > > But I understand your point. Just make it "no problem in this > tournament" rather than "in OZ", which suggested to me that the laws > are > different up there. We are down here from up there, and the South protagonist was actually European, while the EW were OZ extra good players, Cheers Tony (Sydney) [] > > Herman. > > > Cheers, > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > [] > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 hildalirsch at gmail.com Sat May 21 14:05:14 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 22:05:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <000601d1b345$78a3efa0$69ebcee0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> <000201d1b284$a3630da0$ea2928e0$@optusnet.com.au> <5740124F.2080101@skynet.be> <000601d1b345$78a3efa0$69ebcee0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: WarGames: "Is this a game or is it real?" "What's the difference?" So-called Could Have Known Law 73F: ".....a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like,....." Richard Hills: In my opinion a corrected revoke is not "like" a deceptive question or hesitating with a singleton. Hence I believe Herman's assertion that "the Law is clear" is accurate; alas with egg-on-face that Herman has not yet correctly parsed the clear Law 73F. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Saturday, May 21, 2016, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto: > blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] On > > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Sent: Saturday, 21 May 2016 5:46 PM > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known > > > > > > > > Tony Musgrove schreef: > > > > > >>> > > >> > > >> Herman. > > > Thank you Herman, the reason is that in OZ, the players > > > would recognise a genuine error with no malice intended > > > and go on to the next board (in my limited experience of > > > playing with the big boys) > > > > > > > Strange. > > > > Where I play, any player who finds himself down in a contract after an > > opponent misled him tries to get the contract back from the TD. > > And the Law is clear: "could have known", not "knew". > > > > But I understand your point. Just make it "no problem in this > > tournament" rather than "in OZ", which suggested to me that the laws > > are > > different up there. > > We are down here from up there, and the South protagonist > was actually European, while the EW were OZ extra > good players, > Cheers > Tony (Sydney) > > > [] > > > > > Herman. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > [] > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/20160521/b53c84bd/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 21 19:18:31 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 13:18:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: That happened here -- declarer needed to avoid a spade loser with AQ in the dummy and two very good reasons to think the king was Kxxx ofside. Then LHO revoked and corrected it, giving him a small spade penalty card. This made it safe to take the finesse, but declarer was in dummy. Every way back to his hand would force LHO to discard his small spade. Finally declarer worked out that the proper play was to lead the queen of spades while in dummy. That was how declarer lost to a singleton king onside. Someone here already noted the problem with "could have" phrases. He could have known this was a good play if he was Garazzo. But he wasn't. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 21 20:18:09 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 14:18:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Could have known (RHO not LHO) In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Argh can we please have a correct function? RHO revoked. You probably figured that out. That's why the finesse could be safely taken. On Sat, 21 May 2016 13:18:31 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > That happened here -- declarer needed to avoid a spade loser with AQ in the dummy and two very good reasons to think the king was Kxxx ofside. Then LHO revoked and corrected it, giving him a small spade penalty card. > > This made it safe to take the finesse, but declarer was in dummy. Every way back to his hand would force LHO to discard his small spade. Finally declarer worked out that the proper play was to lead the queen of spades while in dummy. > > That was how declarer lost to a singleton king onside. > > Someone here already noted the problem with "could have" phrases. He could have known this was a good play if he was Garazzo. But he wasn't. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Sun May 22 10:47:32 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 10:47:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> <000201d1b284$a3630da0$ea2928e0$@optusnet.com.au> <5740124F.2080101@skynet.be> <000601d1b345$78a3efa0$69ebcee0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <57417224.3080905@skynet.be> I was in fact referring to L23 Herman (egg off-face) Richard Hills schreef: > WarGames: > > "Is this a game or is it real?" > > "What's the difference?" > > So-called Could Have Known Law 73F: > > ".....a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like,....." > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion a corrected revoke is not "like" a deceptive question or > hesitating with a singleton. Hence I believe Herman's assertion that > "the Law is clear" is accurate; alas with egg-on-face that Herman has > not yet correctly parsed the clear Law 73F. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Saturday, May 21, 2016, Tony Musgrove > wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org ] On > > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Sent: Saturday, 21 May 2016 5:46 PM > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known > > > > > > > > Tony Musgrove schreef: > > > > > >>> > > >> > > >> Herman. > > > Thank you Herman, the reason is that in OZ, the players > > > would recognise a genuine error with no malice intended > > > and go on to the next board (in my limited experience of > > > playing with the big boys) > > > > > > > Strange. > > > > Where I play, any player who finds himself down in a contract > after an > > opponent misled him tries to get the contract back from the TD. > > And the Law is clear: "could have known", not "knew". > > > > But I understand your point. Just make it "no problem in this > > tournament" rather than "in OZ", which suggested to me that the laws > > are > > different up there. > > We are down here from up there, and the South protagonist > was actually European, while the EW were OZ extra > good players, > Cheers > Tony (Sydney) > > > [] > > > > > Herman. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > [] > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Sun May 22 14:28:27 2016 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 14:28:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > >From: Herman De Wael >Precedence: list >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> > <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra at centrum.is> > <573EDBE9.1000909 at skynet.be> > <000201d1b284$a3630da0$ea2928e0$@optusnet.com.au> > <5740124F.2080101 at skynet.be> > <000601d1b345$78a3efa0$69ebcee0$@optusnet.com.au> > >In-Reply-To: > >Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 10:47:32 +0200 >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Message-ID: <57417224.3080905 at skynet.be> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known >Message: 4 > >I was in fact referring to L23 >Herman (egg off-face) And how about L12B1? The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred ? but see C1(b). From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun May 22 16:45:33 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 00:45:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <20160522125633.A1B3817D700E1@relay4.webreus.nl> References: <20160522125633.A1B3817D700E1@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: Peter Smulders: And how about L12B1? The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred ? but see C1(b). Richard Hills: And how about Law 10C4? "Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50)." In my opinion declarer's 6S did not fail "because of an infraction" a la Law 12B1. Rather the slam failed "because of a brilliant false card, the heart jack opening lead by West". Indeed, the false card was so brilliant that as Director I would rule that East was also fooled, hence a Law 23 ruling against East does not reach the first base of "could have been aware". Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sunday, May 22, 2016, Peter Smulders wrote: > > > > >From: Herman De Wael > > >Precedence: list > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > >References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> > > <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra at centrum.is > > > > <573EDBE9.1000909 at skynet.be > > > <000201d1b284$a3630da0$ea2928e0$@optusnet.com.au> > > <5740124F.2080101 at skynet.be > > > <000601d1b345$78a3efa0$69ebcee0$@optusnet.com.au> > > wYyqGQkbo0jgyPUChzzdpngjDso1RauoL_Eatv-rWQ at mail.gmail.com > > >In-Reply-To: > > > > >Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 10:47:32 +0200 > >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > >Message-ID: <57417224.3080905 at skynet.be > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known > >Message: 4 > > > >I was in fact referring to L23 > >Herman (egg off-face) > > And how about L12B1? > > The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending > side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side > through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an > innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been > the expectation had the infraction not occurred ? but see C1(b). > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160522/79ea5bd3/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 23 12:35:28 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 12:35:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <57417224.3080905@skynet.be> References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> <000201d1b284$a3630da0$ea2928e0$@optusnet.com.au> <5740124F.2080101@skynet.be> <000601d1b345$78a3efa0$69ebcee0$@optusnet.com.au> <57417224.3080905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <64ffd8fdb254e48aaf1b1f2324a766ea@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 22.05.2016 10:47, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > I was in fact referring to L23 > Herman (egg off-face) AG : IMO L23 applies when the penalty itself might harm the innocent side, like when a player holding a weak hand bars partner. That's a situation which the infractor could have foreseen. I've never heard it applied to how the innocent side manages what follows from the penalty. This is much more difficult to foresee, and for this reason "could have known" seldom applies. For example, if a player opens light in order to make a OOOT penalty active, and if it backfires, would you apply "could have known" ? I wouldn't. Best regards, Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 23 12:37:17 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 12:37:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <20160522123555.CACDB17D700E2@relay4.webreus.nl> References: <20160522123555.CACDB17D700E2@relay4.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4445184968eeed841339e9257cc63611@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 22.05.2016 14:28, Peter Smulders a ?crit?: > > And how about L12B1? > > The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a > nonoffending > side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side > through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, > an > innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have > been > the expectation had the infraction not occurred ? but see C1(b). AG : surely this is not the right interpretation. Else you would cancel the result gained from a lucky lead of an exposed card. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 23 15:01:25 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:01:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <64ffd8fdb254e48aaf1b1f2324a766ea@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> <000201d1b284$a3630da0$ea2928e0$@optusnet.com.au> <5740124F.2080101@skynet.be> <000601d1b345$78a3efa0$69ebcee0$@optusnet.com.au> <57417224.3080905@skynet.be> <64ffd8fdb254e48aaf1b1f2324a766ea@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <5742FF25.7030503@skynet.be> agot schreef: > Le 22.05.2016 10:47, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> I was in fact referring to L23 >> Herman (egg off-face) > > AG : IMO L23 applies when the penalty itself might harm the innocent > side, like when a player holding a weak hand bars partner. That's a > situation which the infractor could have foreseen. > Well, in the example, the penalty harmed the innocent side. > I've never heard it applied to how the innocent side manages what > follows from the penalty. This is much more difficult to foresee, and > for this reason "could have known" seldom applies. > No, you have never seen it, which is why it's an interesting topic on blml. > For example, if a player opens light in order to make a OOOT penalty > active, and if it backfires, would you apply "could have known" ? I > wouldn't. > I don't understand this example, but it has no bearing on the question whether L23 applies or not. L23 could be viewed in connection to L72B1. A player should not deliberately infract, even if he's prepared to suffer the penalty. Here, the penalty for the non-established revoke is nil, and the penalty for the penalty card is very small. If partner gains the lead the contract is down already, so there are no problems with lead penalty, and the obligation to play a card one would always play is also non-harmful. That makes it a prime candidate for the "could have knonw". Herman. > Best regards, > > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 23 16:35:52 2016 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 16:35:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Could have known In-Reply-To: <5742FF25.7030503@skynet.be> References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> <573EDBE9.1000909@skynet.be> <000201d1b284$a3630da0$ea2928e0$@optusnet.com.au> <5740124F.2080101@skynet.be> <000601d1b345$78a3efa0$69ebcee0$@optusnet.com.au> <57417224.3080905@skynet.be> <64ffd8fdb254e48aaf1b1f2324a766ea@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <5742FF25.7030503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7eae2bd67de4cfb9589fb6615c33fe03@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 23.05.2016 15:01, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > > L23 could be viewed in connection to L72B1. A player should not > deliberately infract, even if he's prepared to suffer the penalty. SNIP> I think there lies the main problem. We all agree that a player should not deliberately infract (contrast with basketball). But L23 isn't there to penalize players who deliberately infracted, but those who didn't but might have done the same thing, had they decided to infract. Which makes the link rather weak. IMO "could have understood after lengthy analysis that it might be a trap against declarer if declarer thought the way one thinks he could have" doesn't fall within the socpe of L23 ; "could easily have deduced that the penalty would obviously help him" does. The Aussie case is of the former ilk. Best regards Alain