PO Sundelin | 19 Apr 13:24 2014
Picon

Explaining agreements

Rho opens 1 spade
I overcall 1NT (trying to show 15-18)
Partner alerts and explains 1NT as 4hearts and a longer minor, and bids 2 clubs after pass by Lho-

I alert... and say what?
1. Pass or correct
2. Stayman

(As it happens I have four hearts and four clubs in my 16hp NT)
In any case I must bid 2 hearts) but what do I tell opponents?

Easy?
What about them being entitled to be told our agreements?

A - Partner´s alert and explanation reminded me that I had forgotten.
   Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is pass or correct. 
B - I am convinced that partner has forgotten
    Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is Stayman
C - I am not sure who has forgotten
    ???


_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Steve Willner | 19 Apr 04:04 2014
Picon

Three incidents

Nothing very profound here, but these may be amusing.  I'll welcome all 
comments, but don't feel obliged to comment on all three if you have 
opinions on fewer.  Please say if your answer would differ between a 
club game and a tournament.

For extra credit :-), guess which player I was or whether I was not 
involved at all (thus five choices for each).  Compass directions may 
have been changed to protect the guilty.

1. The Green Card

West is dealer and is studying his cards intently.  East puts a pass 
card on the table.  South picks up the pass card and gives it back to 
East.  East is relieved, North is indifferent, and West is oblivious. 
(That last would normally be a strong clue that I was West, but in this 
case it's not so.)

2. The Relays

South has opened a strong club and is relaying for more information by 
making the cheapest available bid.  North is describing shape and 
strength via artificial bids but has a _fejlgreb_ and wants to change 
his call under L25A.  The Director takes North away from the table to 
sort it out, whereupon _West_ asks South whether the auction so far has 
revealed North's exact shape.

A sidelight is the Director's ruling.  Apparently the ACBL has a 
guideline that step responses are normally "intended" and therefore are 
not changeable under L25A unless there is strong evidence of a 
mechanical problem.  What do people think of this guideline?

3. The Quick Dummy

This one has some actual Laws content.  The auction is over with South 
to become declarer.  East leads face up out of turn.  North immediately 
puts the dummy down before anyone has drawn attention to the LOOT.

The mechanical ruling is obvious: L54C says that the lead is accepted, 
and L54B1 says the play goes in normal order.  The question is whether 
North has committed an irregularity.  If so, L23 could apply.  However, 
L41D says nothing about the opening lead being correct, and North argues 
he has followed correct procedure.  Which Law, if any, has North broken 
or not followed?

"Irregularity — a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not
limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player."
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Peter Smulders | 17 Apr 09:28 2014
Picon

Re: Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman

Very interesting!
Does this method have a name, and is it documented somewhere?
In the notation of
http://www.pjms.nl/NEUBERG/Ascherman_en.html
it amounts to using S = 2k + m - n
instead of eq. (9), and then S/n scales properly with the size of the field.

At 00:12 17-4-2014, you wrote:
>From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran <at> online.no>
>Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 20:18:31 +0200
>Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman
>
>In an event with N tables the "standard" top is 2*(N-1) and bottom is zero.
>
>However I believe that in most events today we instead say that the top is
>(N-1) and bottom is -(N-1).
>
>If the Neuberg or Ascherman formulae are rewritten to work on such scores
>(relative to average) one will discover that Neuberg and Ascherman are
>indeed identical and also very simple to use: The scores are just divided by
>the number of tables for which they apply and multiplied by the number of
>tables for which they are to be adjusted.
>
>So a top score in an event for 20 tables with one table "missing" is
>adjusted from +18 to +18*(20/19) =  18,95

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Alain Gottcheiner | 16 Apr 15:28 2014
Picon
Picon

When it helps opponents

Hi all

I'd like your advice on one situation which could happen (and already 
happened) in countries where some calls (like doubles and cues) aren't 
alertable.

1C*    p    1D**    1H
Dbl <at> 

* classical in a 5-card majors framework
** T-Walsh (Hearts)
 <at>  you play support doubles (3 cards and a non-minimum) ; but of course 
here it doesn't make sense if 1H is natural, so it's plain penalties  
(although there is arguably little difference in the type of hands which 
will double)

You're the 1D bidder, and are asked by RHO about the double.

How do you react ?

You might of course say "it depends on the meaning of 1H, so please 
explain first and I'll tell you", but it will draw RHO's attention to 
the fact that 1H might in fact be artificial (some kind of take-out).
You might say "if 1H is natural etc.", with the same effect.
Alas, you may not assume from the lack of alert that 1H is natural and 
answer accordingly, because if it is a cue-bid, it isn't alertable either !

Most problematic : that conditional explanation will make apparent that 
your bid meant hearts. That might be considered as UI to your partner, 
just in case he forgot you're playing T-Walsh (maybe he alerted plain 
Walsh or something else).

So, the question is : are you compelled to remember RHO that 1H might be 
artificial and partner that 1D is ? Or is there some way out ?

Thank you for your help.

   Alain

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Peter Smulders | 16 Apr 14:50 2014
Picon

Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman

Law 78A says:

"In matchpoint scoring each contestant is awarded, for scores made by
different contestants who have played the same board and whose scores are
compared with his, two scoring units (matchpoints or half matchpoints) for
each score inferior to his, one scoring unit for each score equal to his,
and zero scoring units for each score superior to his."

Nothing is said about how to convert the matchpoints to a percentage score,
let alone how to do this in case of boards with different tops.

Is it not time that Ascherman and Neuberg are explicitly incorporated in the laws?

Max Bavin writes on the EBU website
However, it is acknowledged that there are difficulties, not the least being:-
(a) it is difficult (very difficult) to understand; and
(b) it is even more difficult (though not impossible) to perform such calculations without the aid of a computer.
For this reason, and for this reason alone, the formula has not been written into the Laws of Bridge as a "must do it this way".
http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/articles/neuberg-formula.pdf

I have put some notes on this subject on the internet, showing that Neuberg and Ascherman are not all that difficult to understand, see
http://www.pjms.nl/NEUBERG/index_en.htm

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard James HILLS | 15 Apr 05:40 2014
Picon

The Good Old Days [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

UNOFFICIAL
 
Oxford English Dictionary, Teacher Notes:
 
The assembled audiences for The Good Old Days were expected to dress in
period costume (and stick-on side-whiskers and fake moustaches!) and ‘ooh’
and ‘aah’ in all the appropriate places as Sachs introduced the next act with
alliterative attacks of alarming alacrity in a constipated display of
perspicacious polysyllabic peripatetics, culminating in the banging of his
gavel, which heralded the appearance of a teaming torrent of tempting talent
—for our delight and delectation, naturally.
 
Tony Musgrove, nostalgia for the good old days of blml, 9th April 2014:
 
>Sorrowfully, I have a protégé who has taken up directing and she “loves”
>it. The most important advice I could give her is not to subscribe to blml.
>Unlike 20 years ago when authoritative posts by DWS, John Probst,
>Grattan, the Danish guy, the Russian guy, Alan le Bendig etc. could be
>relied upon to illuminate the correct interpretation of the pre 2007 FLB,
>these days it would be very difficult for a neophyte to detect the gurus
>from the heretics, or the merely insane. There are better forums around
>to learn about rulings, or check on interpretations.
>.....
 
Grattan Endicott, blml posting from the good old day of 13th June 2007:
 
+=+ The sadness is that the whole is tainted by the rottenness of a
percentage of the ingredients. Blml allows of an infinite variety of
opinion. This is good. But when a long-winded contributor makes
repetitive assertions as to the Laws of the game, not as opinions of what
is desirable but rather professing an interpretation of Law at variance with
the proper - authorized - interpretation, the value and credibility of the
whole discussion becomes diminished, corrupted, noisome. People turn
aside from the stench, not persevering with research of the wholesome
parts for what golden truths and pearls of wisdom may lie there. ~ G ~ +=+
UNOFFICIAL
 
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard James HILLS | 15 Apr 06:12 2014
Picon

Marvin French [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

UNOFFICIAL
 
Despite our differences in age and political
philosophy (me the Aussie equivalent of an
Adlai Stevenson Democrat, Marv being an
Eisenhower Republican), we formed an email
friendship discussing movies. Attached is
Marv’s last movie review to me.
 
Best wishes,
 
Richard James Hills
 
>I sent for a Pompeii: First Day documentary
>and it was great. Good acting, good history.
>I had forgotten that Pliny the Elder died
>trying to save survivors.
>
>The Concerto was a film I enjoyed immensely.
>A bunch of Jewish musicians were barred from
>playing in Moscow so many years later they
>got together and pretended to be the Bolshoi
>orchestra, getting a big date in Paris.
>Wonderful story.
>
>Marv
UNOFFICIAL
 
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Timothy N. Hill | 12 Apr 06:07 2014

written bidding

On a recent visit to Sydney, Australia, (to meet my newborn granddaughter!) I had my first encounter with written bidding. I have a couple observations. I’d be interested in the comments of Australian directors experienced with both written bidding and bidding boxes.

My general impression (based on one weekday afternoon at a local club) was highly favorable. Written bidding seemed to work at least as well as bidding boxes in all respects (except paper consumption). I didn’t witness anything like some problems that are all too common with bidding boxes: “mechanical” misspulls, insufficient bids, calls out of rotation, calls covered up or placed at suspicious angles, reaching for one half of the box or one call before reconsidering, scooping up the cards and putting them away prematurely, or having to give a review after the bidding cards have been put away. (Of course, written bidding does nothing to prevent informative breaks in tempo, sometimes accompanied by pen-hand gestures.)

The bidding slip, including alerts made by reaching over and circling partner’s call, must be very handy when the director has to make a ruling.

There was one procedural peculiarity at this club. As North, I instinctively put the bidding slip out of sight when third hand played to the first trick (after which no one is entitled to a review of the auction). This seemed to disconcert people. Apparently the accepted practice in this club is to leave the slip on top of the board throughout the play. Is this common practice? I checked afterwards, and the regulations do say “The written bidding sheet remains in view until the third player (partner of the opening leader) has played to the first trick when it should be removed (or turned over) by dummy. If dummy omits to do this then another player may remove the bidding sheet.”

Tim
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Jeff Ford | 11 Apr 17:16 2014
Picon

Marvin French

For those who don't know, Marvin passed away in February. 

The ACBL Bridge Bulletin published a memorial this month, and there is a web memorial online here containing much of the same information: http://www.lajollabridge.com/LJUnit/Memorials/MarvinFrench.htm

Jeff


--
Jeff Ford
Redmond, WA
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Robert Frick | 8 Apr 12:40 2014

L65D and agreement

Declarer and dummy said "down 1" and one defender agreed. They folded up  
their cards. The other defender then said "down 2". (The fourth player's  
cards looked to be in order but did not seem to be in order when I  
examined them.)

A critical question was if that counted as agreement per L65D ("Agreement  
on Results of Play").

There was no L79A1 infraction, all four hands had not been returned to the  
board. Not sure how that would be relevant.

And, ironically, while the first defender was agreeing on the results of  
play, that defender was not agreeing on number of tricks won -- the  
defender claimed that she was agreeing to 1NT down one, when the contract  
was actually 2NT.

L79B2 apparently covered the situation -- "The director rules what score  
is to be recorded". And I consulted with a lawyer/director who said that  
one person agreeing counts as an agreement.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Herman De Wael | 3 Apr 13:52 2014
Picon

Reese Shapiro on BBC Radio 4.

I hope the following link works around the world - it did in Belgium:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03zby8c

45 minutes radio play abour the Buenos Aires affair.

Nothing new, though.

Herman.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml


Gmane