From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Oct 2 08:48:38 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 17:48:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How careless is careless? In-Reply-To: References: <002001d338e5$b3aafc70$1b00f550$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: In response to David Grabiner, the use of the word "irrational" in the 1997 claim Laws caused much blml debate, generating more heat than light. The 2017 Drafting Committee cunningly completely deleted "irrational" from the 2017 claim Laws. Instead, a prospective play post-claim is either "normal" or not "normal". "Normal" is defined as including play that would be "careless or inferior for the class of player involved". Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 30 Sep 2017, at 7:15 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > > The question is whether East has a logical alternative, or, equivalently, whether a club lead by East would be irrational. From your facts, it appears that East knows that West has good spades, and that the club may not be good (because dummy has a higher club, or declarer is likely to have one). If that is the case, leading a club is irrational (if you use the claim rule) and not a logical alternative (if you use the UI rule), and the defense gets the last two tricks. > >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Impossible to answer off-table. >> >> At one end of the spectrum, there will always be people who don't know >> what is going on, and for whom the club return is a possibility. Made >> >> At another end of the spectrum, players should know better and not claim >> when partner is on lead. Made. >> >> But in the middle, there are certainly situations where I would rule >> that the spade return is the only possibility. One down. >> >> This is really up to the table director. >> >> Herman. >> >> Tony Musgrove wrote: >> > Playing 3NT, at the antepenultimate >> > trick, E wins and W immediately tables >> > two established spade tricks, claiming >> > 1 down. E has a club and a spade and >> > knows what is going on, and was always >> > going to lead partners set up suit. And >> > she is a "good" player. >> > >> > A club lead allows contract to make. >> > >> > I think maybe RJH would feel constrained >> > to lead a club to punish partner and >> > himself, but otherwise I can only fall >> > back on "careless" (which I have done >> > myself once when I had two cards of >> > the same colour). Declarer says I am >> > wrong to allow the spade lead from >> > West, so have agreed to ask the great >> > and the good, >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Tony (Sydney) >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Blml mailing list >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > >> > --- >> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> > http://www.avg.com >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171002/146caef9/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Oct 3 08:40:54 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:40:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] How careless is careless? In-Reply-To: <2f9397e2-584b-c4a4-19a2-827e865fa012@nhcc.net> References: <002001d338e5$b3aafc70$1b00f550$@optusnet.com.au> <2f9397e2-584b-c4a4-19a2-827e865fa012@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: [snip] E has a club and a spade and knows what is going on, and was always going to lead partners set up suit. And she is a "good" player. [snip] Richard Hills: Law 70D2 does NOT require the Director to assess whether a particular East "knows what is going on". Instead Law 70D2 requires the Director to assess what is "normal" for East's class of player. Last weekend I played in Canberra's mini-Nationals. I am a "good" player and some of my opponents were "good" players, but all of us perpetrated bone-headed defences. For example, a player who has represented Australia in international competition let me score +850 in 5Hx when an obvious defence would result in -200 instead. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 30 Sep 2017, at 7:41 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> On 9/29/2017 5:15 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >> From your facts, it appears that East knows that West has good spades, >> and that the club may not be good (because dummy has a higher club, or >> declarer is likely to have one). > > I agree that the ruling depends on the cards East can see and on the > play up to that point. > >> If that is the case, leading a club is >> irrational (if you use the claim rule) and not a logical alternative (if >> you use the UI rule), and the defense gets the last two tricks. > > I don't see any UI. The relevant Law seems to be 70A in general and > 70D2 in particular, i.e., is a club from East "normal" or "irrational" > based on East's information and state of mind. The OP said "E ... was > always going to lead partner[']s set up suit," which suggests a club > would have been irrational in the circumstances. If that is not a > "doubtful point (L70A)," then the claim should be allowed. > > I am thinking about a PP to West, probably a warning, but I'm not sure > whether one is appropriate or not. Claiming is entirely proper, but > here West has claimed at a time that makes it impossible for him to > follow L68C, so you could argue it's a violation of procedure. Despite > that, West may have thought East had only spades left. I think I > wouldn't give a PP unless West often does this sort of thing, but I'd > warn him that the ruling could well have gone against him, and that it's > better to let East play before claiming. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 26 16:16:04 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:16:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards Message-ID: They are vulnerable, you're in second seat, after the bidding: decl you dummy part 2Cl Pass 2Sp Pass 2Cl=2-suiter 2Sp=relay 3He Pass 3Sp Pass natural 3NT All Pass And you have to lead from: Sp K Q 9 7 5 2 He Q J 10 8 Di 9 Cl 6 3 Your lead? Herman. From webmaster at lusobridge.org Thu Oct 26 16:37:04 2017 From: webmaster at lusobridge.org (Rui Lopes Marques) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:37:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002301d34e67$e613c650$b23b52f0$@lusobridge.org> Sp K -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 3:16 PM To: blml Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards They are vulnerable, you're in second seat, after the bidding: decl you dummy part 2Cl Pass 2Sp Pass 2Cl=2-suiter 2Sp=relay 3He Pass 3Sp Pass natural 3NT All Pass And you have to lead from: Sp K Q 9 7 5 2 He Q J 10 8 Di 9 Cl 6 3 Your lead? Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 27 00:38:09 2017 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:38:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Heart queen. It's safe and will work well if declarer has the minors. Someone has to have them, right? On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:16:04 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > They are vulnerable, you're in second seat, after the bidding: > > decl you dummy part > 2Cl Pass 2Sp Pass 2Cl=2-suiter 2Sp=relay > 3He Pass 3Sp Pass natural > 3NT All Pass > > And you have to lead from: > > Sp K Q 9 7 5 2 > He Q J 10 8 > Di 9 > Cl 6 3 > > Your lead? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 01:44:50 2017 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:44:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would like a more complete explanation of the auction first. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171026/4840f3db/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Oct 27 04:54:11 2017 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:54:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005601d34ece$df41d760$9dc58620$@optusnet.com.au> I think my partner has asked the meaning of 2S, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman Sent: Friday, 27 October 2017 10:45 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards I would like a more complete explanation of the auction first. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171027/99e5f2d4/attachment-0001.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Oct 27 04:06:47 2017 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill Kemp) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:06:47 +0800 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think that I would also be asking what 2D/2H responses would have meant in this auction Sent from my iPad > On 27 Oct 2017, at 07:44, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > I would like a more complete explanation of the auction first. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 27 08:12:02 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 08:12:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry, not complete enough for some: two clubs is strong, one- or two-suited. two spades is an asking relay. 3 Hearts and 3 spades have not been alerted. And if partner has asked anything, you ould not know (screens!) Herman. Herman De Wael wrote: > They are vulnerable, you're in second seat, after the bidding: > > decl you dummy part > 2Cl Pass 2Sp Pass 2Cl=2-suiter 2Sp=relay > 3He Pass 3Sp Pass natural > 3NT All Pass > > And you have to lead from: > > Sp K Q 9 7 5 2 > He Q J 10 8 > Di 9 > Cl 6 3 > > Your lead? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 27 15:07:14 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:07:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <425a13c1-bbae-b0e6-61f9-d8d0bfd77738@nhcc.net> On 2017-10-26 7:44 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > I would like a more complete explanation of the auction first. Much more complete! Also the form of scoring. Just looking at my hand, heart looks safer, but spade is more likely to set the contract, but even one of the short minors could be right depending on what the opponents have shown or denied. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 27 18:01:03 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:01:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards In-Reply-To: <425a13c1-bbae-b0e6-61f9-d8d0bfd77738@nhcc.net> References: <425a13c1-bbae-b0e6-61f9-d8d0bfd77738@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6688a2c0-efdc-37a9-0b7e-5bfc8c7904ba@skynet.be> Teams Steve Willner wrote: > On 2017-10-26 7:44 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> I would like a more complete explanation of the auction first. > > Much more complete! Also the form of scoring. Just looking at my hand, > heart looks safer, but spade is more likely to set the contract, but > even one of the short minors could be right depending on what the > opponents have shown or denied. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 27 19:21:56 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:21:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards In-Reply-To: <6688a2c0-efdc-37a9-0b7e-5bfc8c7904ba@skynet.be> References: <425a13c1-bbae-b0e6-61f9-d8d0bfd77738@nhcc.net> <6688a2c0-efdc-37a9-0b7e-5bfc8c7904ba@skynet.be> Message-ID: <810a6226-08c1-fceb-690c-2904a9fd01de@nhcc.net> On 2017-10-27 12:01 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Teams > decl you dummy part > 2Cl Pass 2Sp Pass 2Cl=2-suiter 2Sp=relay > 3He Pass 3Sp Pass natural > 3NT All Pass > two clubs is strong, one- or two-suited. > two spades is an asking relay. > 3 Hearts and 3 spades have not been alerted. So 2C was artificial and forcing? How strong: GF or as typical in US 9+ tricks? Could it be balanced? (And why the *!@&# did I pass over 2C?! Presumably I've just substituted in for the player who was comatose during the auction.) Did 2S guarantee a trick or so in hand? What were responder's other choices? I'm guessing 2D would have been negative (or neutral?), but what about 2H? Would 3C and 3D by opener have been natural? It's odd to describe 2S as a relay when the relay responses are natural. It seems to me the 2S bid must have shown something specific. > Sp K Q 9 7 5 2 > He Q J 10 8 > Di 9 > Cl 6 3 At IMPs, a heart lead is probably useless given the 3H bid, but I can see a case for any of the other three suits (though probably least for a D). If leading S, either high or a spot could be right. If we're beating this, partner will have a couple of useful cards, so maybe a "give-nothing-away" heart is best after all. If this is a ruling problem, on the information so far, any suit (except _possibly_ D) is a LA, and no suit is a serious error. Those may of course change with additional information. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 20:30:21 2017 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:30:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Then the original explanation of 2Cl was MI. At what point was it corrected? What other options besides the relay did dummy have on the first round? What do the nonalerts show in your jurisdiction? Are questions about the auction without a "need to know right now" risky and subject to penalty? On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Sorry, not complete enough for some: > > two clubs is strong, one- or two-suited. > two spades is an asking relay. > 3 Hearts and 3 spades have not been alerted. > And if partner has asked anything, you ould not know (screens!) > Herman. > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > They are vulnerable, you're in second seat, after the bidding: > > > > decl you dummy part > > 2Cl Pass 2Sp Pass 2Cl=2-suiter 2Sp=relay > > 3He Pass 3Sp Pass natural > > 3NT All Pass > > > > And you have to lead from: > > > > Sp K Q 9 7 5 2 > > He Q J 10 8 > > Di 9 > > Cl 6 3 > > > > Your lead? > > From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 27 22:17:08 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:17:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5b5e9486-43a2-c8c3-e2a1-f7d896b4a8e1@nhcc.net> On 2017-10-27 2:30 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Then the original explanation of 2Cl was MI. This was behind screens, so presumably 2C was fully explained on the system card, which would have been handed over in response to any questions. > Are questions about the auction without a "need to know right now" > risky and subject to penalty? I don't see why questions would be a problem behind screens. Even without them, asking for a full explanation before the opening lead shouldn't be a problem unless the questions are badly worded. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 27 23:36:51 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 23:36:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Then the original explanation of 2Cl was MI. At what point was it corrected? > Sorry, no it was not - Steve asked for more explanations, which I gave him, like the original player would have got if he had asked. > What other options besides the relay did dummy have on the first round? > I presume that 2Di would be negative. But 2Sp was explained as an asking relay (so not shoving anything). I do not know what would have been the difference between 2He and 2Sp. > What do the nonalerts show in your jurisdiction? > natural bids. If you ask, he will say that he's shown 5 hearts and partner shows 4 spades. > Are questions about the auction without a "need to know right now" > risky and subject to penalty? > no, since you're behind screens. But this is all the information you are likely to extract. > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> Sorry, not complete enough for some: >> >> two clubs is strong, one- or two-suited. >> two spades is an asking relay. >> 3 Hearts and 3 spades have not been alerted. >> And if partner has asked anything, you ould not know (screens!) >> Herman. >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >>> They are vulnerable, you're in second seat, after the bidding: >>> >>> decl you dummy part >>> 2Cl Pass 2Sp Pass 2Cl=2-suiter 2Sp=relay >>> 3He Pass 3Sp Pass natural >>> 3NT All Pass >>> >>> And you have to lead from: >>> >>> Sp K Q 9 7 5 2 >>> He Q J 10 8 >>> Di 9 >>> Cl 6 3 >>> >>> Your lead? >>> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Oct 28 18:18:47 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 12:18:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2ba8603d-3f60-7185-5655-f786e56f0a42@nhcc.net> On 2017-10-27 5:36 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > But this is all the information you are likely to extract. It's still unclear how strong the 2C opener had to be. This is a difficult opening lead problem, and any suit could be right. I think today I'll try the fourth-best spade (or my standard spot card lead if different), but high spade or heart Q are fine alternatives. Either minor could be the only lead to beat the contract, but those look less likely to me. My main hope for the spade lead is that opener has stiff A or Ax, and I have two heart entries before they take 9 tricks, but there are other layouts that will also work. Of course it could also give away the ninth trick: two spades, two hearts, and five in the minors. If that's the case, though, we may never have been beating the contract because they could take one spade, three hearts, and the same five in the minors. At matchpoints or BAM, I'd probably lead H-Q, trying to give nothing away. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 29 15:49:21 2017 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:49:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] subject will become clearer afterwards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If partner has such a good minor that a minor lead might be the only lead to set this contract, partner probably could have bid it. I still like the heart lead. If my partner had a long hesitation during this auction, I lead a club, planning on blaming him when it doesn't work. On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:16:04 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > They are vulnerable, you're in second seat, after the bidding: > > decl you dummy part > 2Cl Pass 2Sp Pass 2Cl=2-suiter 2Sp=relay > 3He Pass 3Sp Pass natural > 3NT All Pass > > And you have to lead from: > > Sp K Q 9 7 5 2 > He Q J 10 8 > Di 9 > Cl 6 3 > > Your lead? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Oct 29 20:44:26 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 20:44:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] subject now becoming clearer Message-ID: <18b6c8a9-f6d7-5e73-93ab-61514c8f4f77@skynet.be> I posted this week: They are vulnerable, you're in second seat, after the bidding: decl you dummy part 2Cl Pass 2Sp Pass 2Cl=strong 2Sp=relay 3He Pass 3Sp Pass natural 3NT All Pass And you have to lead from: Sp K Q 9 7 5 2 He Q J 10 8 Di 9 Cl 6 3 Your lead? There have been many different leads (I believe all four suits have been suggested) Now I'll tell you what happened: 3Sp was intended, by Dummy, as a second relay. He has only two spades. Offending side told the TD that this was a misbid, and it should have been natural - so East was not misinformed. However, the TD ruled that this was not proven and he ruled misinformation. But that's not the end of the ruling. It is clear that without the mention of natural spades in dummy, a spade lead is mandatory. In that case, the contract goes two down. That is what the TD ruled for the offending side. At the table, the lead was a club and declarer made 11 tricks. Now, the TD polled six players, like I did you, and received six answers of a spade lead even after the misinformation. I am not criticising this, different polls do lead to different results. Based on this poll the TD of the hand ruled serious error and left the score of -660 for the non offending side (leaving the final result of the match at 18-9 on the ancient scale). My question is the following: Is it enough for a poll to be unanimous in order to rule that the club lead was a serious error as indicated by the new laws? Herman. Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Oct 29 21:14:27 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 16:14:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] subject now becoming clearer In-Reply-To: <18b6c8a9-f6d7-5e73-93ab-61514c8f4f77@skynet.be> References: <18b6c8a9-f6d7-5e73-93ab-61514c8f4f77@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 2017-10-29 3:44 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Is it enough for a poll to be unanimous in order to rule that the club > lead was a serious error as indicated by the new laws? _If the poll is properly done_, and as many as six pollees agree, it's certainly reasonable to rule that way. Here the conclusion that a club lead is serious error strikes me as so bonkers that I'm not merely skeptical but actually suspicious that the poll was improperly done. Alternatively, there may have been additional facts we haven't been told. From gordonr60 at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 22:49:37 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 21:49:37 +0000 Subject: [BLML] subject now becoming clearer In-Reply-To: <18b6c8a9-f6d7-5e73-93ab-61514c8f4f77@skynet.be> References: <18b6c8a9-f6d7-5e73-93ab-61514c8f4f77@skynet.be> Message-ID: <59f64cf3.45851c0a.625b5.35bf@mx.google.com> It doesn?t sound as though, had it been considered a serious error, it would have been unrelated to the infraction. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Herman De Wael Sent: 29 October 2017 21:36 To: blml Subject: [BLML] subject now becoming clearer I posted this week: They are vulnerable, you're in second seat, after the bidding: decl you dummy part 2Cl Pass 2Sp Pass 2Cl=strong 2Sp=relay 3He Pass 3Sp Pass natural 3NT All Pass And you have to lead from: Sp K Q 9 7 5 2 He Q J 10 8 Di 9 Cl 6 3 Your lead? There have been many different leads (I believe all four suits have been suggested) Now I'll tell you what happened: 3Sp was intended, by Dummy, as a second relay. He has only two spades. Offending side told the TD that this was a misbid, and it should have been natural - so East was not misinformed. However, the TD ruled that this was not proven and he ruled misinformation. But that's not the end of the ruling. It is clear that without the mention of natural spades in dummy, a spade lead is mandatory. In that case, the contract goes two down. That is what the TD ruled for the offending side. At the table, the lead was a club and declarer made 11 tricks. Now, the TD polled six players, like I did you, and received six answers of a spade lead even after the misinformation. I am not criticising this, different polls do lead to different results. Based on this poll the TD of the hand ruled serious error and left the score of -660 for the non offending side (leaving the final result of the match at 18-9 on the ancient scale). My question is the following: Is it enough for a poll to be unanimous in order to rule that the club lead was a serious error as indicated by the new laws? Herman. Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171029/abf12301/attachment-0001.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Oct 30 00:51:47 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:51:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] subject now becoming clearer In-Reply-To: <18b6c8a9-f6d7-5e73-93ab-61514c8f4f77@skynet.be> References: <18b6c8a9-f6d7-5e73-93ab-61514c8f4f77@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4CAE57CF-D704-47B2-8437-6175B08F8662@gmail.com> Herman De Wael reveals key issue: [snip] > Now, the TD polled six players, like I did you, and received six answers > of a spade lead even after the misinformation. > I am not criticising this, different polls do lead to different results. > > Based on this poll the TD of the hand ruled serious error [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion the TD made a serious error interpreting Law 12. It is insufficient to deny the non-offending side redress merely because of their serious error. What Law 12 requires is that the serious error be unrelated to the infraction. Obviously in this case the serious error was influenced by the infraction, hence the TD's poll was completely unnecessary and irrelevant. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 30 Oct 2017, at 6:44 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > I posted this week: > > They are vulnerable, you're in second seat, after the bidding: > > decl you dummy part > 2Cl Pass 2Sp Pass 2Cl=strong 2Sp=relay > 3He Pass 3Sp Pass natural > 3NT All Pass > > And you have to lead from: > > Sp K Q 9 7 5 2 > He Q J 10 8 > Di 9 > Cl 6 3 > > Your lead? > > There have been many different leads (I believe all four suits have been > suggested) > > Now I'll tell you what happened: > > 3Sp was intended, by Dummy, as a second relay. He has only two spades. > Offending side told the TD that this was a misbid, and it should have > been natural - so East was not misinformed. > However, the TD ruled that this was not proven and he ruled misinformation. > But that's not the end of the ruling. > > It is clear that without the mention of natural spades in dummy, a spade > lead is mandatory. In that case, the contract goes two down. That is > what the TD ruled for the offending side. > > At the table, the lead was a club and declarer made 11 tricks. > > Now, the TD polled six players, like I did you, and received six answers > of a spade lead even after the misinformation. > I am not criticising this, different polls do lead to different results. > > Based on this poll the TD of the hand ruled serious error and left the > score of -660 for the non offending side (leaving the final result of > the match at 18-9 on the ancient scale). > > My question is the following: > Is it enough for a poll to be unanimous in order to rule that the club > lead was a serious error as indicated by the new laws? > > Herman. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171029/96b80e4a/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Oct 30 06:57:42 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 16:57:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] subject now becoming clearer In-Reply-To: <59f64cf3.45851c0a.625b5.35bf@mx.google.com> References: <18b6c8a9-f6d7-5e73-93ab-61514c8f4f77@skynet.be> <59f64cf3.45851c0a.625b5.35bf@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4417A0A9-367C-488C-9934-FE98CD1E456C@gmail.com> World Chess Champion Jose Raul Caplanca said: "The good player is always lucky." The lucky Gordon Rainsford suggested that the actual Director perpetrated a Director's Error. The unlucky Herman De Wael wants to discuss an irrelevant unanimous poll. The unlucky Richard Hills proposes this opening lead problem: RHO opens 1H, LHO responds 2D, RHO shows extra strength with a "high reverse" of 3C, LHO tries a fourth suit forcing 3S, for which pard makes a lead-directing double, RHO rebids 4C, LHO jumps to 5H and RHO concludes with 6H. You hold: QT63 76 AT652 82 What is your opening lead? Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 30 Oct 2017, at 8:49 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > It doesn?t sound as though, had it been considered a serious error, it would have been unrelated to the infraction. > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > From: Herman De Wael > Sent: 29 October 2017 21:36 > To: blml > Subject: [BLML] subject now becoming clearer > > I posted this week: > > They are vulnerable, you're in second seat, after the bidding: > > decl you dummy part > 2Cl Pass 2Sp Pass 2Cl=strong 2Sp=relay > 3He Pass 3Sp Pass natural > 3NT All Pass > > And you have to lead from: > > Sp K Q 9 7 5 2 > He Q J 10 8 > Di 9 > Cl 6 3 > > Your lead? > > There have been many different leads (I believe all four suits have been > suggested) > > Now I'll tell you what happened: > > 3Sp was intended, by Dummy, as a second relay. He has only two spades. > Offending side told the TD that this was a misbid, and it should have > been natural - so East was not misinformed. > However, the TD ruled that this was not proven and he ruled misinformation. > But that's not the end of the ruling. > > It is clear that without the mention of natural spades in dummy, a spade > lead is mandatory. In that case, the contract goes two down. That is > what the TD ruled for the offending side. > > At the table, the lead was a club and declarer made 11 tricks. > > Now, the TD polled six players, like I did you, and received six answers > of a spade lead even after the misinformation. > I am not criticising this, different polls do lead to different results. > > Based on this poll the TD of the hand ruled serious error and left the > score of -660 for the non offending side (leaving the final result of > the match at 18-9 on the ancient scale). > > My question is the following: > Is it enough for a poll to be unanimous in order to rule that the club > lead was a serious error as indicated by the new laws? > > Herman. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171030/b52e8ffb/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 30 15:57:43 2017 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:57:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] subject now becoming clearer In-Reply-To: <18b6c8a9-f6d7-5e73-93ab-61514c8f4f77@skynet.be> References: <18b6c8a9-f6d7-5e73-93ab-61514c8f4f77@skynet.be> Message-ID: Even if your example doesn't work, you have asked a good question that deserves answering. One issue is that any poll might not yield the correct answer. Here, the chances of a spade lead working, if dummy has four spades, is faily small, so I too am suspicious of how the question was asked. But in general, I determine LA's via a poll. It's a standardized procedure, and when I am done I am done. But I don't think this poll addressed "extremely serious error". If in fact almost everyone is playing a hand one way, that suggests that other lines of play are inferior. But that could be "normal error", not "extremely serious error". On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 15:44:26 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > I posted this week: > > They are vulnerable, you're in second seat, after the bidding: > > decl you dummy part > 2Cl Pass 2Sp Pass 2Cl=strong 2Sp=relay > 3He Pass 3Sp Pass natural > 3NT All Pass > > And you have to lead from: > > Sp K Q 9 7 5 2 > He Q J 10 8 > Di 9 > Cl 6 3 > > Your lead? > > There have been many different leads (I believe all four suits have been > suggested) > > Now I'll tell you what happened: > > 3Sp was intended, by Dummy, as a second relay. He has only two spades. > Offending side told the TD that this was a misbid, and it should have > been natural - so East was not misinformed. > However, the TD ruled that this was not proven and he ruled misinformation. > But that's not the end of the ruling. > > It is clear that without the mention of natural spades in dummy, a spade > lead is mandatory. In that case, the contract goes two down. That is > what the TD ruled for the offending side. > > At the table, the lead was a club and declarer made 11 tricks. > > Now, the TD polled six players, like I did you, and received six answers > of a spade lead even after the misinformation. > I am not criticising this, different polls do lead to different results. > > Based on this poll the TD of the hand ruled serious error and left the > score of -660 for the non offending side (leaving the final result of > the match at 18-9 on the ancient scale). > > My question is the following: > Is it enough for a poll to be unanimous in order to rule that the club > lead was a serious error as indicated by the new laws? > > Herman. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Oct 30 19:08:40 2017 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:08:40 +0000 Subject: [BLML] subject now becoming clearer In-Reply-To: References: <18b6c8a9-f6d7-5e73-93ab-61514c8f4f77@skynet.be> Message-ID: I am surprised that anyone is so mistaken as not to agree with the post below. A unanimous poll may help determine LAs, but the bar for a serious error is much, much lower. The action should be absurd, ridiculous. In fact in this case the club lead could have worked when a spade wouldn't. > On 30 Oct 2017, at 2:57 pm, Robert Frick wrote: > > Even if your example doesn't work, you have asked a good question that deserves answering. One issue is that any poll might not yield the correct answer. Here, the chances of a spade lead working, if dummy has four spades, is faily small, so I too am suspicious of how the question was asked. > > But in general, I determine LA's via a poll. It's a standardized procedure, and when I am done I am done. > > But I don't think this poll addressed "extremely serious error". If in fact almost everyone is playing a hand one way, that suggests that other lines of play are inferior. But that could be "normal error", not "extremely serious error". > > >> On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 15:44:26 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> I posted this week: >> >> They are vulnerable, you're in second seat, after the bidding: >> >> decl you dummy part >> 2Cl Pass 2Sp Pass 2Cl=strong 2Sp=relay >> 3He Pass 3Sp Pass natural >> 3NT All Pass >> >> And you have to lead from: >> >> Sp K Q 9 7 5 2 >> He Q J 10 8 >> Di 9 >> Cl 6 3 >> >> Your lead? >> >> There have been many different leads (I believe all four suits have been >> suggested) >> >> Now I'll tell you what happened: >> >> 3Sp was intended, by Dummy, as a second relay. He has only two spades. >> Offending side told the TD that this was a misbid, and it should have >> been natural - so East was not misinformed. >> However, the TD ruled that this was not proven and he ruled misinformation. >> But that's not the end of the ruling. >> >> It is clear that without the mention of natural spades in dummy, a spade >> lead is mandatory. In that case, the contract goes two down. That is >> what the TD ruled for the offending side. >> >> At the table, the lead was a club and declarer made 11 tricks. >> >> Now, the TD polled six players, like I did you, and received six answers >> of a spade lead even after the misinformation. >> I am not criticising this, different polls do lead to different results. >> >> Based on this poll the TD of the hand ruled serious error and left the >> score of -660 for the non offending side (leaving the final result of >> the match at 18-9 on the ancient scale). >> >> My question is the following: >> Is it enough for a poll to be unanimous in order to rule that the club >> lead was a serious error as indicated by the new laws? >> >> Herman. >> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> http://www.avg.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 00:38:26 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:38:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] subject now becoming clearer In-Reply-To: References: <18b6c8a9-f6d7-5e73-93ab-61514c8f4f77@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8574AE1B-345F-400D-83BD-0C4878977FCE@gmail.com> Stefanie Rohan, key point: A unanimous poll may help determine LAs, but the bar for a serious error is much, much lower. The action should be absurd, ridiculous. Richard Hills: Furthermore the 2007 Law 12 formula was " ... serious error (unrelated to the infraction) ... ", but the new 2017 Law 12 formula is " ... extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) ... ". Hence in the opening lead problem that I proposed I would rule that anything other than the ace of diamonds was a serious error, but I would NOT rule that a spade lead was an extremely serious error. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 31 Oct 2017, at 5:08 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > A unanimous poll may help determine LAs, but the bar for a serious error is much, much lower. The action should be absurd, ridiculous.