From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 3 11:14:35 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:14:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Poll Message-ID: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> Your hand: Sp KJ9 He 94 Di K5 Cl AKQ1083 red vs green, in fourth seat. The bidding starts: 3He pass 5He ?? what do you do consider doing? Herman. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Oct 3 11:55:20 2016 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 11:55:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Poll In-Reply-To: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> References: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 11:14:35 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > Your hand: > > Sp KJ9 He 94 Di K5 Cl AKQ1083 > > red vs green, in fourth seat. > > The bidding starts: > > 3He pass 5He ?? > > what do you do consider doing? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > 1. dbl 2. pass If partner is short in hearts, he must be quite weak not to have doubled 3H - so perhaps an opponent is trying it on. -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Oct 3 12:19:07 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:19:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Poll In-Reply-To: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> References: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <81573fb2-7064-3edb-801c-8c8f2cfe9380@t-online.de> Am 03.10.2016 um 11:14 schrieb Herman De Wael: > Your hand: > > Sp KJ9 He 94 Di K5 Cl AKQ1083 > > red vs green, in fourth seat. > > The bidding starts: > > 3He pass 5He ?? > > what do you do consider doing? 6 Clubs (makes opposite AQx, - , xxxxx, xxxxx if DA is right, or AQx, - , Qxxxx, xxxxx). I think dbl would be much too risky, for several reasons, so would pass. _If_ the opps have 11 hearts, pard can have a lot of hands too weak to double that make 6 clubs > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Oct 3 13:57:47 2016 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:57:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Poll In-Reply-To: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> References: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <74639423.16909510.1475495867946.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Herman De Wael" > ?: "blml" > Envoy?: Lundi 3 Octobre 2016 11:14:35 > Objet: [BLML] Poll > Your hand: > Sp KJ9 He 94 Di K5 Cl AKQ1083 > red vs green, in fourth seat. > The bidding starts: > 3He pass 5He ?? > what do you do consider doing? 6C. if rho tells a slam is cold, who am i to argue? jpr > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161003/9549c984/attachment.html From vip at centrum.is Mon Oct 3 18:50:18 2016 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:50:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Poll In-Reply-To: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> References: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <747593551.268856.1475513418155.JavaMail.zimbra@centrum.is> The 5H bid shows that partner has some values - What kind of values, I do not know 6 clubs is my bid. Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Herman De Wael" Til: "blml" Sent: M?nudagur, 3. Okt?ber, 2016 09:14:35 Efni: [BLML] Poll Your hand: Sp KJ9 He 94 Di K5 Cl AKQ1083 red vs green, in fourth seat. The bidding starts: 3He pass 5He ?? what do you do consider doing? Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Oct 5 02:17:34 2016 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 20:17:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Poll In-Reply-To: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> References: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0c2a13a5-7a52-b047-a4d9-ac0ea246481b@alumni.princeton.edu> Double and 6C are logical alternatives. I prefer double, as 6C is somewhat odds-against. At this vul, I expect partner to have a singleton heart, and thus he needs both aces for 5C to make, and even then I need the SQ onside and partner not getting drained of trumps. A quick pass by partner demonstrably suggests double over 5H, and a slow pass demonstrably suggests the opposite (since partner can correct 6C to 6S if he was considering a 3S bid with six spades but was light on points). On 10/3/2016 5:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Your hand: > > Sp KJ9 He 94 Di K5 Cl AKQ1083 > > red vs green, in fourth seat. > > The bidding starts: > > 3He pass 5He ?? > > what do you do consider doing? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Oct 5 02:46:37 2016 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 01:46:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Poll References: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> <0c2a13a5-7a52-b047-a4d9-ac0ea246481b@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: I polled 3 of the best players in my county. All 3 doubled. As do I... L ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Grabiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 1:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Poll > Double and 6C are logical alternatives. I prefer double, as 6C is > somewhat odds-against. At this vul, I expect partner to have a > singleton heart, and thus he needs both aces for 5C to make, and even > then I need the SQ onside and partner not getting drained of trumps. > > A quick pass by partner demonstrably suggests double over 5H, and a slow > pass demonstrably suggests the opposite (since partner can correct 6C to > 6S if he was considering a 3S bid with six spades but was light on > points). > > On 10/3/2016 5:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Your hand: >> >> Sp KJ9 He 94 Di K5 Cl AKQ1083 >> >> red vs green, in fourth seat. >> >> The bidding starts: >> >> 3He pass 5He ?? >> >> what do you do consider doing? >> >> 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 From hildalirsch at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 04:48:00 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 13:48:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Poll In-Reply-To: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> References: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> Message-ID: Your hand: Sp KJ9 He 94 Di K5 Cl AKQ1083 red vs green, in fourth seat. The bidding starts: 3He pass 5He ?? what do you do consider doing? Richard Hills: I consider that the opponents may have twelve cold tricks in hearts (due to a club void). In which case a 6C overcall may push them into their making slam. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, October 3, 2016, Herman De Wael wrote: > Your hand: > > Sp KJ9 He 94 Di K5 Cl AKQ1083 > > red vs green, in fourth seat. > > The bidding starts: > > 3He pass 5He ?? > > what do you do consider doing? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20161005/37370178/attachment.html From wrgptfan at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 06:56:32 2016 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 00:56:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Poll In-Reply-To: <0c2a13a5-7a52-b047-a4d9-ac0ea246481b@alumni.princeton.edu> References: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> <0c2a13a5-7a52-b047-a4d9-ac0ea246481b@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: I would not consider any call other than Pass. Double would be remotely on the radar, but would be dismissed during the first 2 seconds of the 10 second period I have to make a decision. Bidding 6C means your RHO owns you for life. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 4, 2016, at 8:17 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > > Double and 6C are logical alternatives. I prefer double, as 6C is > somewhat odds-against. At this vul, I expect partner to have a > singleton heart, and thus he needs both aces for 5C to make, and even > then I need the SQ onside and partner not getting drained of trumps. > > A quick pass by partner demonstrably suggests double over 5H, and a slow > pass demonstrably suggests the opposite (since partner can correct 6C to > 6S if he was considering a 3S bid with six spades but was light on points). > >> On 10/3/2016 5:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Your hand: >> >> Sp KJ9 He 94 Di K5 Cl AKQ1083 >> >> red vs green, in fourth seat. >> >> The bidding starts: >> >> 3He pass 5He ?? >> >> what do you do consider doing? >> >> 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 From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Oct 5 08:46:21 2016 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:46:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Poll In-Reply-To: References: <57F2217B.6020006@skynet.be> <0c2a13a5-7a52-b047-a4d9-ac0ea246481b@alumni.princeton.edu> Message-ID: <002501d21ed4$2f148660$8d3d9320$@optusnet.com.au> The bidding doesn't seem to have finished yet, so do we bid 7C when they try 6H? Cheers Tony (Sydney) > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Kent > Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2016 3:57 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Poll > > I would not consider any call other than Pass. Double would be remotely > on the radar, but would be dismissed during the first 2 seconds of the 10 > second period I have to make a decision. Bidding 6C means your RHO > owns you for life. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Oct 4, 2016, at 8:17 PM, David Grabiner > wrote: > > > > Double and 6C are logical alternatives. I prefer double, as 6C is > > somewhat odds-against. At this vul, I expect partner to have a > > singleton heart, and thus he needs both aces for 5C to make, and even > > then I need the SQ onside and partner not getting drained of trumps. > > > > A quick pass by partner demonstrably suggests double over 5H, and a > slow > > pass demonstrably suggests the opposite (since partner can correct 6C > to > > 6S if he was considering a 3S bid with six spades but was light on > points). > > > >> On 10/3/2016 5:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Your hand: > >> > >> Sp KJ9 He 94 Di K5 Cl AKQ1083 > >> > >> red vs green, in fourth seat. > >> > >> The bidding starts: > >> > >> 3He pass 5He ?? > >> > >> what do you do consider doing? > >> > >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Sat Oct 8 16:35:26 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 16:35:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Pula Message-ID: <0b76d0e1-4451-8e26-b4ed-3015cd1b3ec4@gmx.de> Don't know if you want to publish this but many blml readers play in Pula. The date of the tournament has been changed; advances one week. It now starts on Sept. 2nd. Ciao, JE --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Sat Oct 8 16:41:58 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 16:41:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Emil to bridgewinners Message-ID: <5d0f064a-0048-9933-a43e-1dd63abf185d@gmx.de> Can anyone tell me how I can send a message (email) to bridgewinners. I have the home page but no email address. Thanks, JE --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sat Oct 8 16:51:25 2016 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 15:51:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Emil to bridgewinners References: <5d0f064a-0048-9933-a43e-1dd63abf185d@gmx.de> Message-ID: <498B811F011240DCA8879CC69C467E1B@digitpc> support at bridgewinners.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "doubl doubl" ; "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2016 3:41 PM Subject: [BLML] Emil to bridgewinners > Can anyone tell me how I can send a message (email) to bridgewinners. I > have the home page but no email address. > > Thanks, JE > > --- > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonr60 at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 16:58:00 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (gordonr60 at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 15:58:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Emil to bridgewinners In-Reply-To: <5d0f064a-0048-9933-a43e-1dd63abf185d@gmx.de> References: <5d0f064a-0048-9933-a43e-1dd63abf185d@gmx.de> Message-ID: <57f90978.6222c20a.2576e.b773@mx.google.com> Click Help and then Contact Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Jeff Easterson Sent: 08 October 2016 15:49 To: doubl doubl; Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Emil to bridgewinners Can anyone tell me how I can send a message (email) to bridgewinners. I have the home page but no email address. Thanks, JE --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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/20161008/6524cb8c/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 19 12:16:38 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:16:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Strange revoke Message-ID: <58074806.9080505@skynet.be> Last week, a charity tournament with lots of LOLs. The last three cards from to adversaries: S AT9 S J7 C 7 North plays the Spade Ace, on which East discards the Club seven. Now North plays the Spade ten, taken with the Jack. "you have revoked", says North and she calls me. I ask for the last tric to be played which is seven of spades to the nine. So North has made 2 of the last to tricks. I notice that if East does not revoke, she makes the last to tricks (the club seven being high). So I tell the table that the revoke actually cost her a trick. After which everyone was happy. I did not give North a third trick, because they would not understand or agree. Have you ever seen a revoke cost a trick? Herman. From sven at svenpran.net Wed Oct 19 14:14:02 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:14:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Strange revoke In-Reply-To: <58074806.9080505@skynet.be> References: <58074806.9080505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101d22a02$4ae4b750$e0ae25f0$@svenpran.net> > Herman De Wael > Last week, a charity tournament with lots of LOLs. > > The last three cards from to adversaries: > > S AT9 > > S J7 > C 7 > > North plays the Spade Ace, on which East discards the Club seven. > Now North plays the Spade ten, taken with the Jack. > "you have revoked", says North and she calls me. > I ask for the last tric to be played which is seven of spades to the nine. > > So North has made 2 of the last to tricks. > I notice that if East does not revoke, she makes the last to tricks (the club > seven being high). > So I tell the table that the revoke actually cost her a trick. > After which everyone was happy. > > I did not give North a third trick, because they would not understand or agree. > > Have you ever seen a revoke cost a trick? [Sven Pran] Yes. And frankly I don't understand why you didn't give North the one trick rectification that was due. (Unless of course, if this was an event where "anything goes"). From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Oct 19 14:58:48 2016 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:58:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff Message-ID: Spades are trumps. Dummy has J4 of spades. Declarer leads a heart from hand, which LHO ruffs with the S5. Declarer says, "ruff". Does he play the SJ or the S4? The argument for overruffing is that "ruff" is equivalent to "win" (as if he had led the S2 from hand). The argument for underruffing is that he didn't notice the play; if he had led towards an AQ in dummy and said, "queen", the queen would be played even if LHO had played the king. From sven at svenpran.net Wed Oct 19 16:31:44 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:31:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d22a15$87897ca0$969c75e0$@svenpran.net> "Common sense" tells me that "ruff" shows the incontrovertible intention to win the trick. Law 46B: .....(except when declarer?s different intention is incontrovertible). If his intention had been to underruff I would have expected him to simply call for "a trump" or "a spade". However, if he says "ruff" before LHO has played to the trick he is deemed to play the lowest trump regardless of which card LHO then plays. The word "ruff" doesn't designate a card, it designates an action. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > David Grabiner > Sendt: 19. oktober 2016 14:59 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff > > Spades are trumps. Dummy has J4 of spades. Declarer leads a heart from > hand, which LHO ruffs with the S5. Declarer says, "ruff". Does he play the SJ > or the S4? > > The argument for overruffing is that "ruff" is equivalent to "win" (as if he had > led the S2 from hand). The argument for underruffing is that he didn't notice > the play; if he had led towards an AQ in dummy and said, "queen", the queen > would be played even if LHO had played the king. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonr60 at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 19:01:01 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (gordonr60 at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:01:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5807a6ce.d7092e0a.95540.ea6a@mx.google.com> I don?t think ?ruff? is equivalent to ?win? as it?s quite common to ruff and then be over-ruffed. It is equivalent to ?play the lowest trump? unless it?s modified by ?...with the Jack?. It does seem to me to be exactly like leading towards AQ in dummy and not noticing (or taking time to notice) the play of the king on the left. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: David Grabiner Sent: 19 October 2016 14:27 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff Spades are trumps. Dummy has J4 of spades. Declarer leads a heart from hand, which LHO ruffs with the S5. Declarer says, "ruff". Does he play the SJ or the S4? The argument for overruffing is that "ruff" is equivalent to "win" (as if he had led the S2 from hand). The argument for underruffing is that he didn't notice the play; if he had led towards an AQ in dummy and said, "queen", the queen would be played even if LHO had played the king. _______________________________________________ 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/20161019/39a92d48/attachment.html From rmlmarques at zonmail.pt Thu Oct 20 00:45:18 2016 From: rmlmarques at zonmail.pt (Rui Lopes Marques) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 23:45:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff In-Reply-To: <5807a6ce.d7092e0a.95540.ea6a@mx.google.com> References: <5807a6ce.d7092e0a.95540.ea6a@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <000001d22a5a$780a9b70$681fd250$@zonmail.pt> I?m with Gordon on this one, the player most likely didn?t see the opponent?s card. ?Ruff? has no definition inside the Laws. On a dictionary, ruff is ?The playing of a trump card when one cannot follow suit.? Just that. And if declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. 46B2. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of gordonr60 at gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:01 PM To: David Grabiner ; Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff I don?t think ?ruff? is equivalent to ?win? as it?s quite common to ruff and then be over-ruffed. It is equivalent to ?play the lowest trump? unless it?s modified by ?...with the Jack?. It does seem to me to be exactly like leading towards AQ in dummy and not noticing (or taking time to notice) the play of the king on the left. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: David Grabiner Sent: 19 October 2016 14:27 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff Spades are trumps. Dummy has J4 of spades. Declarer leads a heart from hand, which LHO ruffs with the S5. Declarer says, "ruff". Does he play the SJ or the S4? The argument for overruffing is that "ruff" is equivalent to "win" (as if he had led the S2 from hand). The argument for underruffing is that he didn't notice the play; if he had led towards an AQ in dummy and said, "queen", the queen would be played even if LHO had played the king. _______________________________________________ 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/20161019/a997a763/attachment-0001.html From nistler at bridgehands.com Wed Oct 19 19:46:28 2016 From: nistler at bridgehands.com (Nistler@BridgeHands.com) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:46:28 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6BB1500F-7037-4F7F-AE83-8AB1554CBBA5@bridgehands.com> Seems many directors would rule based upon the principal of an incontrovertible line of play based on the players ability ? and YES, this is always a slippery slope... Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 19, 2016, at 5:58 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > > Spades are trumps. Dummy has J4 of spades. Declarer leads a heart from > hand, which LHO ruffs with the S5. Declarer says, "ruff". Does he play > the SJ or the S4? > > The argument for overruffing is that "ruff" is equivalent to "win" (as > if he had led the S2 from hand). The argument for underruffing is that > he didn't notice the play; if he had led towards an AQ in dummy and > said, "queen", the queen would be played even if LHO had played the king. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 03:53:20 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:53:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Strange revoke In-Reply-To: <001101d22a02$4ae4b750$e0ae25f0$@svenpran.net> References: <58074806.9080505@skynet.be> <001101d22a02$4ae4b750$e0ae25f0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: > Have you ever seen a revoke cost a trick? [Sven Pran] Yes. And frankly I don't understand why you didn't give North the one trick rectification that was due. (Unless of course, if this was an event where "anything goes"). Cole Porter: In olden days a glimpse of stocking Was viewed as something very shocking But now, God knows Anything goes Richard Hills: In an "anything goes" Houserules Bridge (not Duplicate Bridge) session the Director is never summoned - the players mutually agree their own personally customised rulings. But I agree with Sven that if the Director is summoned, then the Director must strive to uphold the Laws to the best of her or his ability. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Sven Pran > wrote: > > Herman De Wael > > Last week, a charity tournament with lots of LOLs. > > > > The last three cards from to adversaries: > > > > S AT9 > > > > S J7 > > C 7 > > > > North plays the Spade Ace, on which East discards the Club seven. > > Now North plays the Spade ten, taken with the Jack. > > "you have revoked", says North and she calls me. > > I ask for the last tric to be played which is seven of spades to the > nine. > > > > So North has made 2 of the last to tricks. > > I notice that if East does not revoke, she makes the last to tricks (the > club > > seven being high). > > So I tell the table that the revoke actually cost her a trick. > > After which everyone was happy. > > > > I did not give North a third trick, because they would not understand or > agree. > > > > Have you ever seen a revoke cost a trick? > > [Sven Pran] > Yes. > > And frankly I don't understand why you didn't give North the one trick > rectification that was due. > > (Unless of course, if this was an event where "anything goes"). > _______________________________________________ > 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/20161020/97c88d3a/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Oct 20 17:48:40 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:48:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff In-Reply-To: <000001d22a5a$780a9b70$681fd250$@zonmail.pt> References: <5807a6ce.d7092e0a.95540.ea6a@mx.google.com> <000001d22a5a$780a9b70$681fd250$@zonmail.pt> Message-ID: On 2016-10-19 6:45 PM, Rui Lopes Marques wrote: > And if declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have > called the lowest card of the suit indicated. 46B2. Agreed, but don't ignore the start of L46B "except when declarer?s different intention is incontrovertible." If that were the case, it's hard to believe the Director would have been called, but some defenders are jerks who try to take undue advantage. Basically the Director has to decide whether declarer a) didn't notice that LHO had ruffed, or b) noticed and fully intended to overruff, but the oral instruction "came out wrong." Good luck! From bridge at vwalther.de Fri Oct 21 18:01:17 2016 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 18:01:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4606b9fd-9205-a3e3-9bd1-664afb257504@vwalther.de> If "ruff" is equivalent to "win" the word "underruff" does not make any sense. But there is sense in the word "underruff". So the assumption that "ruff" and "win" are equivalent seems to be wrong. But I agree "ruff" is not equivalent "trump" as well. It is somewhere in between and much closer to "win" than to "spade". Unless there is some evidence that declarer did not realize the S5, I would apply 46B1(b) rather than B2. But this decision has to be made at the table. Suppose the heart is led at trick 12 and declarer claims: "I will ruff the hearts in dummy". Do you give a trump to the S5? Volker Am 19.10.2016 um 14:58 schrieb David Grabiner: > Spades are trumps. Dummy has J4 of spades. Declarer leads a heart from > hand, which LHO ruffs with the S5. Declarer says, "ruff". Does he play > the SJ or the S4? > > The argument for overruffing is that "ruff" is equivalent to "win" (as > if he had led the S2 from hand). The argument for underruffing is that > he didn't notice the play; if he had led towards an AQ in dummy and > said, "queen", the queen would be played even if LHO had played the king. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Oct 22 09:39:32 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 09:39:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff In-Reply-To: <4606b9fd-9205-a3e3-9bd1-664afb257504@vwalther.de> References: <4606b9fd-9205-a3e3-9bd1-664afb257504@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <580B17B4.4080801@skynet.be> Volker Walther wrote: > If "ruff" is equivalent to "win" the word "underruff" does not make any > sense. But there is sense in the word "underruff". So the assumption > that "ruff" and "win" are equivalent seems to be wrong. > > But I agree "ruff" is not equivalent "trump" as well. It is somewhere in > between and much closer to "win" than to "spade". > Unless there is some evidence that declarer did not realize the S5, I > would apply 46B1(b) rather than B2. But this decision has to be made at > the table. > > Suppose the heart is led at trick 12 and declarer claims: "I will ruff > the hearts in dummy". Do you give a trump to the S5? > No, of course not. But the situations are not the same. When claiming, idiot actions (such as underruffing or not noticing the S5) are rendered impossible. Whereas when playing, such actions do occur. As I understand the case, it is clear that declarer did not notice the S5. If the hands are turned around, it's like him not noticing that card from his RHO, and simply playing a low trump on it. That card is played, and so is the card from dummy once he names it. If he says "ruff with the 4", that's hat he does. IMO, that's exactly what he intended to do, and that's what I'm sticking him with. Herman. > Volker > > > > > > > > > Am 19.10.2016 um 14:58 schrieb David Grabiner: >> Spades are trumps. Dummy has J4 of spades. Declarer leads a heart from >> hand, which LHO ruffs with the S5. Declarer says, "ruff". Does he play >> the SJ or the S4? >> >> The argument for overruffing is that "ruff" is equivalent to "win" (as >> if he had led the S2 from hand). The argument for underruffing is that >> he didn't notice the play; if he had led towards an AQ in dummy and >> said, "queen", the queen would be played even if LHO had played the king. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Sat Oct 22 14:06:31 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 14:06:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff In-Reply-To: <580B17B4.4080801@skynet.be> References: <4606b9fd-9205-a3e3-9bd1-664afb257504@vwalther.de> <580B17B4.4080801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <171092e9-ad65-0e16-f275-b2d3235ad96b@gmx.de> This may be a language problem. The word "underruff"does make sense linguistically although rarely at the bridge table. Gnerall "ruff" surely means to ruff high enough to win the trick although there may be rare exceptions. (I think you can find at least one by Victor Mollo and Rueful Rabbit.) But I don't understand how ruff can not be equivalnt to > Volker Walther wrote: >> If "ruff" is equivalent to "win" the word "underruff" does not make any >> sense. But there is sense in the word "underruff". So the assumption >> that "ruff" and "win" are equivalent seems to be wrong. >> "trump". >> But I agree "ruff" is not equivalent "trump" as well. Can "ruff" not mean trump? Can you ruff with another suit? >> It is somewhere in >> between and much closer to "win" than to "spade". >> Unless there is some evidence that declarer did not realize the S5, I >> would apply 46B1(b) rather than B2. But this decision has to be made at >> the table. >> >> Suppose the heart is led at trick 12 and declarer claims: "I will ruff >> the hearts in dummy". Do you give a trump to the S5? >> > No, of course not. > > But the situations are not the same. > When claiming, idiot actions (such as underruffing or not noticing the > S5) are rendered impossible. > Whereas when playing, such actions do occur. > > As I understand the case, it is clear that declarer did not notice the > S5. If the hands are turned around, it's like him not noticing that card > from his RHO, and simply playing a low trump on it. That card is played, > and so is the card from dummy once he names it. If he says "ruff with > the 4", that's hat he does. IMO, that's exactly what he intended to do, > and that's what I'm sticking him with. > Herman. > >> Volker >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Am 19.10.2016 um 14:58 schrieb David Grabiner: >>> Spades are trumps. Dummy has J4 of spades. Declarer leads a heart from >>> hand, which LHO ruffs with the S5. Declarer says, "ruff". Does he play >>> the SJ or the S4? >>> >>> The argument for overruffing is that "ruff" is equivalent to "win" (as >>> if he had led the S2 from hand). The argument for underruffing is that >>> he didn't notice the play; if he had led towards an AQ in dummy and >>> said, "queen", the queen would be played even if LHO had played the king. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From hildalirsch at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 00:56:23 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 09:56:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A great wall of Trump Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: All You, East, hold: QT 94 KJ98765 J6 After two passes you elect to preempt with 3D. Takeout double by South. Jump to 4S by North. 4NT Keycard Blackwood by South. 5S by North, promising two Keycards plus the Queen of Spades. 7S by South. Double by West, all pass. Which of your potential opening leads are logical alternatives? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161022/3385efc1/attachment.html From bridge at vwalther.de Mon Oct 24 01:06:32 2016 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 01:06:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff In-Reply-To: <580B17B4.4080801@skynet.be> References: <4606b9fd-9205-a3e3-9bd1-664afb257504@vwalther.de> <580B17B4.4080801@skynet.be> Message-ID: Hello Hermann, we are in different cases here: You: "As I understand the case, it is clear that declarer did not notice the S5...." I said "Unless there is some evidence that declarer did not realize the S5..." If we positively know, that declarer did not realize the S5 ,he lives in a world, where S4 is an winning card. So we have no need do make any distinction between "win" or"spade" or similar incomplete commands that indicate a spade play. The intention of a player who did not realize S5 is incontrovertible: he called for the lowest spade. But I could not find any evidence in Davids mail that indicated whether or not declarer had realized that that LHO ruffed with S5. Problems arise if we do not have such evidence: How do we have to act when declarer's intention is controvertible and we have to complete his call by using Law 46?. These completions are mostly done by reference to previously played cards. B1.(a,c) refer to the suit led. B1.(b) refers to all cards already played in the current trick. B2. does not refer to played cards B3.(a) refers to the winning card in the preceding trick and so on. The tricky point is the existence of 46B1(b) ("win!) If we apply 46B1(b) we do not have to check whether declarer was aware of the card played by LHO. If he orders "win", and we are called, we take a look to the cards already played to this trick and decide to play an appropriate card from dummy. Even if declarer orders "win!" before LHO has played a card, we would decide that LHO has to play a card and make our decision afterwards. The awareness of LHO's played card is part of the decision by law. In this special case LHO's S5 is part of the decision, and SJ, being the lowest winning card, has to be played. We need extra evidence that declarer was not aware of the S5 and intended to play the S4 to make him play that or nay other non winning card. If we decide that "ruff!" is the instruction to win the trick, we have to apply this rule. We may use 46B2 instead, arguing that "ruff!" is the instruction to play any card in the trump suit, meaning any spade. 46B2 does not take care of the other cards in the trick. The lowest spade, S4 hast to be played. Unless we can show that declarer intended to play the Jack. In the absence of further evidence these rules make different cards being played. So we have to decide on a linguistic matter: Does "ruff!" has the meaning of "win it" or is it only a designation of suit. In Merriam Websters dictionary you find "trump: to play a trump on (a card or trick) when another suit was led" "ruff: to take a trick with a trump." This indicates that "taking" or "winning" is part of ruffing, but not of trumping. On the other hand at wiktionary you find: "ruff: To play a trump card to a trick, other than when trumps were led". Here "to ruff" and "to play trump" are equivalent without the aspect of winning. I will give you two more reasons why I think that ruff should be treated like "win" rather than like "spade": When I asked you about the claim, you did not even think about the possibility that declarer intended to underruff, calling it an idiotic action. I agree with all my heart about that. If in the current case declarer looks on LHO's played card and then says "Ah, 5 of trumps! ruff it!" nobody would assume that he wants to play the 4. The main point of Davids question is: Should "ruff" have the same privilege of assumed card-awareness that "win" has applying 46B1(b), or is it "spades"and 46B2? I think that "ruff!" is rather an order to win that trick than to play any trump. But some native speakers should say something about that. What is the common intention of a native English speaking bridge player if he orders "ruff!" Volker Walther Am 22.10.2016 um 09:39 schrieb Herman De Wael: > Volker Walther wrote: >> If "ruff" is equivalent to "win" the word "underruff" does not make any >> sense. But there is sense in the word "underruff". So the assumption >> that "ruff" and "win" are equivalent seems to be wrong. >> >> But I agree "ruff" is not equivalent "trump" as well. It is somewhere in >> between and much closer to "win" than to "spade". >> Unless there is some evidence that declarer did not realize the S5, I >> would apply 46B1(b) rather than B2. But this decision has to be made at >> the table. >> >> Suppose the heart is led at trick 12 and declarer claims: "I will ruff >> the hearts in dummy". Do you give a trump to the S5? >> > > No, of course not. > > But the situations are not the same. > When claiming, idiot actions (such as underruffing or not noticing the > S5) are rendered impossible. > Whereas when playing, such actions do occur. > > As I understand the case, it is clear that declarer did not notice the > S5. If the hands are turned around, it's like him not noticing that card > from his RHO, and simply playing a low trump on it. That card is played, > and so is the card from dummy once he names it. If he says "ruff with > the 4", that's hat he does. IMO, that's exactly what he intended to do, > and that's what I'm sticking him with. > Herman. > >> Volker >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Am 19.10.2016 um 14:58 schrieb David Grabiner: >>> Spades are trumps. Dummy has J4 of spades. Declarer leads a heart from >>> hand, which LHO ruffs with the S5. Declarer says, "ruff". Does he play >>> the SJ or the S4? >>> >>> The argument for overruffing is that "ruff" is equivalent to "win" (as >>> if he had led the S2 from hand). The argument for underruffing is that >>> he didn't notice the play; if he had led towards an AQ in dummy and >>> said, "queen", the queen would be played even if LHO had played the king. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 24 01:59:56 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:59:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff In-Reply-To: References: <4606b9fd-9205-a3e3-9bd1-664afb257504@vwalther.de> <580B17B4.4080801@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:06:32 -0400, Volker Walther wrote: > Hello Hermann, we are in different cases here: > > You: "As I understand the case, it is clear that declarer did not notice > the S5...." > I said "Unless there is some evidence that declarer did not realize the > S5..." > > If we positively know, that declarer did not realize the S5 ,he lives > in a world, where S4 is an winning card. So we have no need do make any > distinction between "win" or"spade" or similar incomplete commands that > indicate a spade play. The intention of a player who did not realize S5 > is incontrovertible: he called for the lowest spade. > > But I could not find any evidence in Davids mail that indicated whether > or not declarer had realized that that LHO ruffed with S5. Here, no one looking at the S5 would say "ruff" with J4 in dummy. From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Mon Oct 24 16:12:41 2016 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:12:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > "Robert Frick" wrote: >Here, no one looking at the S5 would say "ruff" with J4 in dummy. Agreed, there are special words for this special case, like "overruff" or "overtrump". From adam at tameware.com Tue Oct 25 15:54:23 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:54:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted Message-ID: St. Louis - http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2013StLouisCasebook.pdf Providence - http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2014Providence.pdf The Providence casebook has a new layout that will be used for future casebooks. I like it! All the casebooks published so far are available here: http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/nabcs/past-nabcs/nabc-casebooks/ I did not make an announcement for each of these as they were posted, so some may be new to you. For now commentary is available only through 2011. It will be added for newer casebooks as available. Casebook publication is scheduled to continue. Decisions from Summer 2016 going forward will be made by TD panels for both NABC+ and non-NABC+ events. If you want to discuss a particular case please start a new thread with the tournament name and case number in the Subject line. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161025/39cad170/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Oct 25 16:11:45 2016 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:11:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted References: Message-ID: <9157CA419A634BED8357928E0E215421@digitpc> I asolutely hate E shown to the left of W in bidding diagrams. Silly and unecessary... The Providence casebook has a new layout that will be used for future casebooks. I like it! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161025/c2a291b5/attachment.html From gordonr60 at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 16:50:00 2016 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (gordonr60 at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:50:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted In-Reply-To: <9157CA419A634BED8357928E0E215421@digitpc> References: <9157CA419A634BED8357928E0E215421@digitpc> Message-ID: <580f7116.e8edc20a.43d2d.c261@mx.google.com> From: Larry Sent: 25 October 2016 15:40 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted I asolutely?hate E shown to the left of W in bidding diagrams. ? Indeed! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161025/e4c14fc2/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Oct 25 16:55:53 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:55:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted In-Reply-To: <9157CA419A634BED8357928E0E215421@digitpc> References: <9157CA419A634BED8357928E0E215421@digitpc> Message-ID: I agree. Thanks for mentioning this ? I missed it! I'll pass your note on to Keith Wells, who prepares these for the ACBL. I also meant to thank him in my initial post. It's a lot of work. On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Larry wrote: > I asolutely hate E shown to the left of W in bidding diagrams. > > Silly and unecessary... > > > > The Providence casebook has a new layout that will be used for future > casebooks. I like it! > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20161025/190bc666/attachment.html From richard.bley at gmx.de Tue Oct 25 18:28:27 2016 From: richard.bley at gmx.de (Dr. Richard Bley) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:28:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted In-Reply-To: References: <9157CA419A634BED8357928E0E215421@digitpc> Message-ID: In the case 2013 St. Louis Page19 there is a passage, that the players should inform about a probable misinformation on the other side. Just quoting here the actual WBF screen regulations.. At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the meanings of calls and explanations given. Yours Dr. Richard Bley Rheinstra?e 21 40822 Mettmann Tel.: 0160 94 70 98 52 > Am 25.10.2016 um 16:55 schrieb Adam Wildavsky : > > I agree. Thanks for mentioning this ? I missed it! I'll pass your note on to Keith Wells, who prepares these for the ACBL. I also meant to thank him in my initial post. It's a lot of work. > >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Larry wrote: >> I asolutely hate E shown to the left of W in bidding diagrams. >> >> Silly and unecessary... >> >> >> >> The Providence casebook has a new layout that will be used for future casebooks. I like it! >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20161025/1be45173/attachment-0001.html From adam at tameware.com Tue Oct 25 19:36:11 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:36:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted In-Reply-To: References: <9157CA419A634BED8357928E0E215421@digitpc> Message-ID: The ACBL has its own screen regulations. It does not use the WBF's. See: http://cdn.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Conditions-of-Contest/Appendix-G.pdf On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Dr. Richard Bley wrote: > In the case 2013 St. Louis Page19 there is a passage, that the players > should inform about a probable misinformation on the other side. Just > quoting here the actual WBF screen regulations.. > > 1. > > At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of > play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the > meanings of calls and explanations given. > > Yours > > Dr. Richard Bley > Rheinstra?e 21 > 40822 Mettmann > Tel.: 0160 94 70 98 52 > > > Am 25.10.2016 um 16:55 schrieb Adam Wildavsky : > > I agree. Thanks for mentioning this ? I missed it! I'll pass your note on > to Keith Wells, who prepares these for the ACBL. I also meant to thank him > in my initial post. It's a lot of work. > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Larry co.uk> wrote: > >> I asolutely hate E shown to the left of W in bidding diagrams. >> >> Silly and unecessary... >> >> >> >> The Providence casebook has a new layout that will be used for future >> casebooks. I like it! >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20161025/d6d03f2e/attachment.html From richard.bley at gmx.de Tue Oct 25 19:53:19 2016 From: richard.bley at gmx.de (Dr. Richard Bley) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:53:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted In-Reply-To: <580f7116.e8edc20a.43d2d.c261@mx.google.com> References: <9157CA419A634BED8357928E0E215421@digitpc> <580f7116.e8edc20a.43d2d.c261@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <00a601d22ee8$ac214e80$0463eb80$@gmx.de> The disadvantage then is ? at least with screens ? that the screenmates are in a ?natural? fashion positioned. Mit besten Gr??en Dr. Richard Bley --- Rheinstr. 21 40822 Mettmann Tel: 0160 / 94709852 richard.bley at gmx.de Von: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Im Auftrag von gordonr60 at gmail.com Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Oktober 2016 16:50 An: Larry ; Bridge Laws Mailing List Betreff: Re: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted From: Larry Sent: 25 October 2016 15:40 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] New ACBL Casebooks posted I asolutely hate E shown to the left of W in bidding diagrams. Indeed! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20161025/9e58520f/attachment.html