Richard Hills | 17 Aug 15:36 2015
Picon

Re: Fwd: curious

Brian Meadows:


I disagree with you on this, Herman. If you play transfer responses to
a strong 1C, then there is no need whatsoever to switch them off over
an overcall of 1D. It doesn't seem at all unusual to me to play pass =
0-4, double = 5-7, otherwise system on as if the 1D overcall hadn't
happened. Just substitute pass or double for the 1D negative.

Higher overcalls are a different matter.

Richard Hills:

I agree with Brian (and disagree with Herman) that it is sensible to play System On after a strong 1C is overcalled with 1D. But is the pair in question sensible? It is possible that they actually have No Agreement about 1C - (1D) - 1H, with opener non-sensibly expecting a heart suit and responder sensibly showing a spade suit.

Fortunately the actual partnership understanding does not affect the ruling. Law 73C:

"When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a ..... failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information."

Hence as Director I would rule a (possibly weighted) adjusted score in 4Hx.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Monday, August 17, 2015, brian <bmeadows666 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:09:09 +0200, you wrote:

>Since it is not common to play transfers after interference (how to
>transfer to hearts? - double? - how to distinguish between a transfer
>double and a negative one?)

I disagree with you on this, Herman. If you play transfer responses to
a strong 1C, then there is no need whatsoever to switch them off over
an overcall of 1D. It doesn't seem at all unusual to me to play pass =
0-4, double = 5-7, otherwise system on as if the 1D overcall hadn't
happened. Just substitute pass or double for the 1D negative.

Higher overcalls are a different matter.

Brian.

>we may well have correct information.
>South's first pass is ethical, although I might rule that the 4He call
>is enough of a wake-up. South should not sit for 4HX though.
>No infractions, then.
>Herman.
>
>Jeff Easterson schreef:
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
>> Betreff:     curious
>> Datum:       Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:40:02 +0200
>> Von:         Jeff Easterson <JffEstrsn <at> aol.com>
>> An:  Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml <at> rtflb.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> Team tournament, Swiss.  Called to table after the hand was played.
>> Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players.
>>
>> Here the bidding:
>>
>> N         E        S         W
>> 1cl       1di      1he      ps
>> 4he      ps       ps        dbl
>> ps        ps       4sp      dbl
>> all pass
>>
>> Result: 4sp+1
>>
>> 1cl = strong, 16+
>> 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted
>>
>> No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their handbag.
>> Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference.
>>
>> No hand records but the West hand was:  AQ9
>> 108532
>> xx
>> xxx
>>
>> South had a single heart and long spades.
>>
>> The result in 4he would be -6
>>
>> South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he.
>>
>> (But he did double 4sp. and with AQ9 in spades and a partner who bid he
>> might well be prepared to double 4sp (with correct info) as well.)
>>
>> Okay, what is your decision as TD?
>>
>> Some possibilities:  4 he without a double, 4 spades without a double,
>> anything else you might feel would be appropriate.
>>
>> Ciao, JE
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Blml mailing list
>Blml <at> rtflb.org
>http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Herman De Wael | 17 Aug 11:33 2015
Picon

Re: Fwd: curious

Sorry Brian, but this does not make sense.

brian schreef:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:09:09 +0200, you wrote:
>
>> Since it is not common to play transfers after interference (how to
>> transfer to hearts? - double? - how to distinguish between a transfer
>> double and a negative one?)
>
> I disagree with you on this, Herman. If you play transfer responses to
> a strong 1C, then there is no need whatsoever to switch them off over
> an overcall of 1D. It doesn't seem at all unusual to me to play pass =
> 0-4, double = 5-7, otherwise system on as if the 1D overcall hadn't
> happened. Just substitute pass or double for the 1D negative.
>

First of all, this was not a strong no club, and secondly, if double 
shows 5-7, and 1He shows spades, how can you still show hearts?

Herman.

> Higher overcalls are a different matter.
>
> Brian.
>
>> we may well have correct information.
>> South's first pass is ethical, although I might rule that the 4He call
>> is enough of a wake-up. South should not sit for 4HX though.
>> No infractions, then.
>> Herman.
>>
>> Jeff Easterson schreef:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
>>> Betreff: 	curious
>>> Datum: 	Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:40:02 +0200
>>> Von: 	Jeff Easterson <JffEstrsn <at> aol.com>
>>> An: 	Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml <at> rtflb.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Team tournament, Swiss.  Called to table after the hand was played.
>>> Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players.
>>>
>>> Here the bidding:
>>>
>>> N         E        S         W
>>> 1cl       1di      1he      ps
>>> 4he      ps       ps        dbl
>>> ps        ps       4sp      dbl
>>> all pass
>>>
>>> Result: 4sp+1
>>>
>>> 1cl = strong, 16+
>>> 1he = transfer for spades, not alerted
>>>
>>> No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their handbag.
>>> Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference.
>>>
>>> No hand records but the West hand was:  AQ9
>>> 108532
>>> xx
>>> xxx
>>>
>>> South had a single heart and long spades.
>>>
>>> The result in 4he would be -6
>>>
>>> South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he.
>>>
>>> (But he did double 4sp. and with AQ9 in spades and a partner who bid he
>>> might well be prepared to double 4sp (with correct info) as well.)
>>>
>>> Okay, what is your decision as TD?
>>>
>>> Some possibilities:  4 he without a double, 4 spades without a double,
>>> anything else you might feel would be appropriate.
>>>
>>> Ciao, JE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blml mailing list
>>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml <at> rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Jeff Easterson | 16 Aug 16:46 2015
Picon
Picon

Fwd: curious


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: 	curious
Datum: 	Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:40:02 +0200
Von: 	Jeff Easterson <JffEstrsn <at> aol.com>
An: 	Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml <at> rtflb.org>

Team tournament, Swiss.  Called to table after the hand was played.
Table 31 from 32, thus probably not very strong players.

Here the bidding:

N         E        S         W
1cl       1di      1he      ps
4he      ps       ps        dbl
ps        ps       4sp      dbl
all pass

Result: 4sp+1

1cl = strong, 16+
1he = transfer for spades, not alerted

No conv. card on the table but the NS ladies had one, in their handbag.
Confirms the transfer in system, at least without interference.

No hand records but the West hand was:  AQ9
108532
xx
xxx

South had a single heart and long spades.

The result in 4he would be -6

South claims that if he had the correct info he'd not double 4he.

(But he did double 4sp. and with AQ9 in spades and a partner who bid he
might well be prepared to double 4sp (with correct info) as well.)

Okay, what is your decision as TD?

Some possibilities:  4 he without a double, 4 spades without a double,
anything else you might feel would be appropriate.

Ciao, JE

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

Peter Smulders | 1 Aug 11:16 2015
Picon

Re: Should it be allowed to give incomplete Answers?

IMHO the proposed answer

"2D shows a weak 6 card major, or
on rare occasions some strong hands"

covers all the possibilities and should be considered as a complete 
answer in the spirit of
full disclosure. When later on in the bidding it turns out that the 
strong variant is used
I would give a new alert and supply further details on request.

But this is not the same as "giving useful information only". The 
possibility of a strong
hand is essential even though it may be useless information in 90% of 
the cases.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Volker Walther | 1 Aug 01:53 2015
Picon

Should it be allowed to give incomplete Answers? (Was: Answering about details)

Hello all,

Sometimes in sleepless nights I have the strange feeling that it might
be a good idea to allow incomplete answers and to jettison the principle
of full disclosure. Alain touched this nerve again.

Simple example:
2D Multi.

Agreement:
1) Strong NT 21-23
2) Strong 3-Suiter 17-24
3) Semiforcing Minor
4) Weak, 5-10(11) pt and a 6-card major

If you explain, you are playing multi, beginners are usually scared and
do not interfere, because they are  informed  about the lot of strong
hands and do not realize that Multi with overwhelming odds shows the
weak major.

Expereinced Players use defences against Multi that are based on the
assumption, 2D is showing a weak major.

As a consequence the information that 2D may contain the strong types
1)-3)  can be regarded as useless, since opps and partner firstly ignore
them in their actions. Not mentioning them would not change opps actions.

So we could introduce a concept of "useful information".

"When asked about a bid, explain what it usually shows. If you omit an
information that is of no influence to subsequent actions, this is not
be treated as misinformation. Give additional informations about the
bidding, if it comes out that they are relevant."

Following this concept the explanation "2D shows a weak 6 card major, or
on rare occasions some strong hands" would be sufficient.

This is a way to deal with the problem that too much information voids
information; of cause the concept is far away from "full disclosure"

The reality of the current law is somewhere in between: Law 20 requires
"full disclosure". But Law 21 gives redress only if there the offending
side gained an advantage by the misinformation, which will not happen if
"useless" information was concealed.

I am aware of the problems that will arise discussing whether a specific
information can be regarded as useless. But we have these problems now
as well, when we try to determine whether misinformation caused damage.

The idea, it could be possible to inform opps about all the implications
of a bidding system looks like an illusion to me.

If it really is an illusion it might be wise to face the facts.

Greetings, Volker

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

Petrus Schuster OSB | 19 Jul 21:45 2015
Picon

serious error?

Yesterday, after

P   -  P   -  1S   - P
2D  -  P   -   P   - ?

a player N/VUL against VUL balanced with 2H holding

Jx
KTxxx
xxx
Qxx

Opponents then reached 4S, as 2D was Drury (not alerted).
I adjusted to 2D+1.
The decision was not appealed, but the AC chairman privately voiced the  
opinion that 2H was "outrageous, gambling" and would have invoked 12C.

1. Your opinion?
2. If an AC judged some action a Serious Error which would not meet the  
criteria of Ton's Commentary (which is part of the Austrian Regulations  
and therefore binding), would this be a matter of Law where the AC cannot  
overrule the TD (92B3)?

Regards,
Petrus

--

-- 
Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Jeff Easterson | 19 Jul 18:27 2015
Picon
Picon

your opinion

As TD you are called to a table.  The players are average club players, 
in fact that is a generous estimate of their ability.

The declarer is playing 3 hearts. When you are called to the table the 
hand has been completed.  A defender has revoked, that is established 
(all at the table agree) and at the time of the revoke the declarer had 
lost 3 tricks.  The revoking defender did not win the revoke trick but 
his side won 2 tricks afterwards.  A simple case you assume, one trick 
shifted to the declarer so 9 instead of 8 tricks, contract exactly 
fulfilled.  But, of course you ask the declarer if he could win more 
than 9 tricks if the revoke had not been made.  He says that he could 
win all of the tricks, thus 10 altogether.   He demonstrates how he'd do 
this and it is convincing.  So (again a simple case) you decide to give 
him 10 tricks.  But now the defenders speak up and say that he could win 
all of the rest of the tricks after the revoke but misplayed the hand.  
This is shown to be true as well.

What now?  How do you decide?  Has the defender been so upset by the 
revoke that he didn't win the rest of the tricks?  And thus you give him 
10 tricks?  Does it depend on how obvious the line of play is to win the 
rest?  Do you decide that his play of the hand is binding and thus only 
9 tricks?

Ciao,  JE

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
David Grabiner | 15 Jul 07:16 2015
Picon

Seattle NABC+ Case 16: Bridge logic and logical alternatives

S   W   N   E
1N  P   P   X  (1N=10-12, X=at least a queen better)
P   2S! P   3C (2S alerted as minor-suit Stayman, intended as signoff)
P   3H  P   3S
AP

West holds QT932 Q652 QJ3 6.

What are the logical alternatives absent the UI?  If West assumes that East has 
a strong NT, then 3C is some type of game try, so pass by West is not a logical 
alternative but 3H and 3S are.  If West assumes that East has an unspecified 
strong hand, then 3C is natural and pass by West is a logical alternative.

The directors should determine this information before taking a poll.  If Wests 
are polled with the information that 3C is a game try, nobody will pass; either 
the table result stands or possibly a poll will say that West should bid 4S.  If 
Wests are polled with the information that 3C is a natural strong hand with 
clubs, then pass is a logical alternative.

Also, I see no evidence in the committee ruling for its claim, "the committee 
believed that a significant number of West's peers would pass" when only one of 
nine polled players passed.  This looks like the committee saying, "There was a 
poll but we are going to ignore the poll."

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

David Grabiner | 15 Jul 06:35 2015
Picon

Seattle NABC+ Case 2: responsibility to protect yourself after missing alert

The ACBL Alert Procedure has the following condition: "Players who, by 
experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert 
a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves."

I believe a clarification is needed to the standard: "If the missing Alert is 
very common, and the player can ask without causing a UI problem, he must ask to 
protect himself"; I proposed this with some examples in a post back in 2007.

In Case 2, the committee ruled accordingly, but the Director did not.

The auction:
N   E   S   W
P   P   1S  P
2C  P   4S  AP

2C was Drury but was not Alerted.  East, with AQJ84 of clubs, would have doubled 
an Alerted 2C.  East decided that he could not safely ask about 2C; if it was 
natural, he would pass UI to West, who could no longer lead a club against the 
final contract if he had a logical alternative.  He did wait a few seconds for 
South to Alert.

And I agree with East's decision, because I was just in the converse situation, 
in which 2C was not Alerted because I don't play Drury.  Our auction was P-1S; 
2C-2H; 3H-4H, and West led a club; I called the director as soon as I saw the 
club lead.  It turned out that the lead made no difference, so I didn't need to 
claim that a diamond lead was a logical alternative and request an adjusted 
score.

In theory, West could have protected East, by asking about 2C after the 4S bid 
made it likely (but not certain) that 2C was Drury; had he asked, East could 
have withdrawn his pass.  However, West had no need to ask at that time, and the 
Committee didn't expect him to work out both that this would help and that it 
wouldn't be a violation of the rule not to ask a question for partner's benefit.

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

Adam Wildavsky | 15 Jul 04:39 2015

ACBL Casebooks are back

The Fall 2011 (Seattle) casebook with comments is posted here:


We're now working on the Spring 2015 (New Orleans) casebook and hope to post its comments and those from 2012-2014 over the next few months.

All the ACBL casebooks published so far are available here:


Right now commentary is available only through 2011.

If you want to discuss a particular case from Seattle or any other casebook please start a separate thread whose subject indicates the casebook name, the case number, and whether it is an NABC+ case (heard by a player committee) or a non-NABC+ case (heard by a panel of TDs.)

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Jeff Easterson | 13 Jul 14:53 2015
Picon
Picon

membership

Ahoj Henk,

Have been having trouble with aol and no emails have been getting 
through, in either direction.  Have now filled out the application for a 
new membership giving an alternative email address. (Jeff.Easterson <at> gmx.de)
I hope this will be sufficient.  Actually I am an old member but 
couldn't find a place on the formula to change or add an email address 
so filled it out as application for new membership.

Ciao,  JE

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

Gmane