Richard Hills | 16 Jun 07:30 2016
Picon

Marmalade

Imps

Dlr: North
Vul: None

You, North, hold:

S ---
H T9765
D AKQT8654
C ---

What call do you make?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Robert Frick | 9 Jun 02:46 2016

OLOOT, asked first

I know we talked about it, but was it just hypothetical? Today I got this. Defender asked who was declarer,
got a wrong answer, led out of turn, declarer put his hand down as dummy, then the irregularity was noticed
and I was called.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

agot | 23 May 12:37 2016
Picon
Picon

Re: Could have known

Le 22.05.2016 14:28, Peter Smulders a écrit :

> 
> And how about L12B1?
> 
> The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a 
> nonoffending
> side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side
> through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, 
> an
> innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have 
> been
> the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).

AG : surely this is not the right interpretation. Else you would cancel 
the result gained from a lucky lead of an exposed card.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard Hills | 22 May 16:45 2016
Picon

Re: Could have known

Peter Smulders:


And how about L12B1?

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending
side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side
through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an
innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been
the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).

Richard Hills:

And how about Law 10C4?

"Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50)."

In my opinion declarer's 6S did not fail "because of an infraction" a la Law 12B1. Rather the slam failed "because of a brilliant false card, the heart jack opening lead by West". Indeed, the false card was so brilliant that as Director I would rule that East was also fooled, hence a Law 23 ruling against East does not reach the first base of "could have been aware".

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Sunday, May 22, 2016, Peter Smulders <p.j.m.smulders <at> home.nl> wrote:

>
>From: Herman De Wael <hermandw <at> skynet.be>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml <at> rtflb.org>
>References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$ <at> optusnet.com.au>
>         <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra <at> centrum.is>
>         <573EDBE9.1000909 <at> skynet.be>
>         <000201d1b284$a3630da0$ea2928e0$ <at> optusnet.com.au>
>         <5740124F.2080101 <at> skynet.be>
>         <000601d1b345$78a3efa0$69ebcee0$ <at> optusnet.com.au>
>         <CAGZGHAj=wYyqGQkbo0jgyPUChzzdpngjDso1RauoL_Eatv-rWQ <at> mail.gmail.com>
>In-Reply-To:
><CAGZGHAj=wYyqGQkbo0jgyPUChzzdpngjDso1RauoL_Eatv-rWQ <at> mail.gmail.com>
>Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 10:47:32 +0200
>Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml <at> rtflb.org>
>Message-ID: <57417224.3080905 <at> skynet.be>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known
>Message: 4
>
>I was in fact referring to L23
>Herman (egg off-face)

And how about L12B1?

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending
side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side
through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an
innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been
the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).

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

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Peter Smulders | 22 May 14:28 2016
Picon

Re: Could have known


>
>From: Herman De Wael <hermandw <at> skynet.be>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml <at> rtflb.org>
>References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$ <at> optusnet.com.au>
>         <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra <at> centrum.is>
>         <573EDBE9.1000909 <at> skynet.be>
>         <000201d1b284$a3630da0$ea2928e0$ <at> optusnet.com.au>
>         <5740124F.2080101 <at> skynet.be>
>         <000601d1b345$78a3efa0$69ebcee0$ <at> optusnet.com.au>
>         <CAGZGHAj=wYyqGQkbo0jgyPUChzzdpngjDso1RauoL_Eatv-rWQ <at> mail.gmail.com>
>In-Reply-To: 
><CAGZGHAj=wYyqGQkbo0jgyPUChzzdpngjDso1RauoL_Eatv-rWQ <at> mail.gmail.com>
>Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 10:47:32 +0200
>Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml <at> rtflb.org>
>Message-ID: <57417224.3080905 <at> skynet.be>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known
>Message: 4
>
>I was in fact referring to L23
>Herman (egg off-face)

And how about L12B1?

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending
side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side
through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an
innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been
the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b). 

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

Tony Musgrove | 20 May 08:34 2016
Picon

Could have known

>From the latest ABF Newsletter:

                                    8 6
                                    A10 8 7 6 2
                                    K10 2
                                    A Q

    9 3                                                          J 4 2
    K J 9                                                       5 3
    8 4 3                                                      A 9 6
   K J 6 3 2                                                10 9 8 5 4

                                   A K Q 10 7 5
                                  Q 4
                                  Q J 7 5
                                  7
Playing 6S by South, West gets off to sneaky
HJ lead.  Rising HA, South will discard heart
loser on successful club finesse.  However
upon drawing trumps, East discards heart on 
third spade, but immediately corrects to
spade.  Now South feels inclined to play low
heart to Q since East's heart is a penalty card.
Bad luck, 1 down.
So, in OZ, no problem, laughed away, but I
presume that in other countries, the "could
have known" law would be wheeled out
rather quickly.  With what result?

Cheers,

Tony (Sydney)                            

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

Ed Reppert | 14 May 01:29 2016
Picon

Re: Non-weighted adjustments


On Mar 30, 2016, at 7:33 PM, Nigel Guthrie <g3 <at> nige1.com> wrote:

In practice, directors rarely and inconsistently impose procedural or disciplinary penalties. I asked a director  with decades of top-level experience about them.  He told me that players resent them.  They regard them as tantamount to an accusation of cheating. The director has never imposed one. Far better to include an element deterrence in basic rulings.

Drivers resent speeding tickets. Doesn’t stop cops from handing them out. If a player did something that rates a DP or PP, how he feels about getting that penalty is the *last* thing the director should be concerned with.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard Hills | 12 May 23:59 2016
Picon

Re: Uno

Brian Meadows:


[snip]

Opposite him, even though
this sequence wasn't in our agreements, I would be almost certain that
what he held was a weak 2H plus a long diamond suit but not good
enough a hand to promote it to 1 of a major.

void
KJ10xxx
J109xxx
x

would seem about right.

At adverse, my rebid is easy, 3H with no alternatives. It would be 4H
were the vulnerabilities reversed.

[snip]

The only way I can imagine partner having diamonds and no majors is if
2D was an unnoticed bidding box mispull for 3D.

Richard Hills:

Good judgement by Brian. The actual East reasoned as Brian did, and signed off in 3H. Alas, West held:

3
AJT
AJ8653
A84

having made an unnoticed bidding box mispull of 2D replacing West's intended opening bid of 1D. Hence East-West scored -600 in an unusual way.

The question of Law is this: The WBF Laws Committee has ruled that an Alert / explanation from partner is authorised information for the purpose of a Law 25A correction "without pause for thought". But West, like many players, was unaware of his rights under Law 25A. Therefore once East bid 2H West could no longer correct his 2D opening bid. Thus presumably at the moment East bid 2H East's earlier Alert and explanation transmogrified into being UI to West.

Hence was West's 3D an illegal call? Was West required to assume that the auction had proceeded 1D - pass - 2H (very weak with six hearts)? Or does Law 16A1(a) mean that West is entitled to know, by whatever means, that West opened the bidding with 2D? (Possibly relevant here is the "aids to his memory" Law 40C3(a).)

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Friday, May 13, 2016, brian <bmeadows666 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 23:34:15 +1000, Richard Hills wrote:

>Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: East-West
>
>You, East, hold:
>
>K842
>Q6
>2
>J97532
>
>The bidding has gone:
>
>2D (Alerted and explained as a weak two in hearts, or a weak two in spades,
>or 21-22 balanced) - pass - 2H (pass or correct) - pass - 3D (non-systemic)
>- pass - ???
>
>What call do you make?
>What other call(s) do you consider making?
>

I don't think you've given us enough information, Richard. If 2D is
being used as a multi, then what are 2H and 2S being used for? In
particular, does the system include some sort of weak two-suited bids
such as Muiderberg or CRO Twos?

I had one partner with whom I played a 2D Multi of this sort, but we
weren't using 2H and 2S as weak two suiters. Opposite him, even though
this sequence wasn't in our agreements, I would be almost certain that
what he held was a weak 2H plus a long diamond suit but not good
enough a hand to promote it to 1 of a major.

void
KJ10xxx
J109xxx
x

would seem about right.

At adverse, my rebid is easy, 3H with no alternatives. It would be 4H
were the vulnerabilities reversed.

I am definitely NOT going to pass 3D, but that's because I learned my
bridge under a jurisdiction where 2D showing a weak 2 in a major or
21-22 balanced OR a weak 2 in diamonds would be an unlicensed
convention, and if partner should show with a weak 2D without a major
then I don't expect to come out of it without penalties.

The only way I can imagine partner having diamonds and no majors is if
2D was an unnoticed bidding box mispull for 3D.


Brian.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard Hills | 10 May 10:57 2016
Picon

Glow teen

The May 2016 edition of the ABDA Directors' Bulletin (edited by Jan Peach, janpeach8 <at> bigpond.com) contained an extract from the EBU White Book. This suggested that it was not BB <at> B [Best Behaviour at Bridge] to congratulate partner on a well-played hand, since that amounted to gloating. (The White Book did concede, however, that a genuine compliment to partner was not a misdemeanour.)


I disagree with the White Book. I routinely congratulate an opponent for clever play. Hence I believe that I am entitled to congratulate the third opponent when pard does something clever.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard Hills | 3 May 15:30 2016
Picon

Uno

North-South play an Aussie variant of Standard American. East-West play an Aussie variant of Acol. Imps, dealer East, vulnerable North-South.


East and South pass, West opens 1C (Announced as 3+ clubs), North overcalls 1S, East passes again, South responds 1NT, pass, pass.

You, East, hold:

8732
JT9732
632
---

What call do you make?
What other calls do you consider making?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard Hills | 22 Apr 04:45 2016
Picon

Law 73F?

I was emailed this incident by a friend:


Last night at the Capital bridge club I opened 1S.
The next player looked puzzled and said to my partner is that a 4 or 5 card suit.
 He held three little S's and had four hcp.  I mis-played the hand based on his question.
Is he contravening the proprieties, or maybe worse?  I think it's almost cheating.

Assuming that my friend's description is accurate, is there a prima facie case for the Director to apply Law 73F?

Best wishes,

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

Gmane