headers
Richard HILLS | 24 May 2013 07:41
Picon

Re: Duty to opponents (was ...explain...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

UNOFFICIAL
 
Herman De Wael:
 
>.....
>I know of no single alert system in the world that tells one to alert against
>one kind of opponent and not against another one.
>.....
 
ABF Alert Regulation, Introduction, fifth sentence:
 
“The purpose of an alert is to draw the opponents’ attention to any call that
has a special meaning, or a meaning the ++opponents may not expect++.”
 
Richard Hills:
 
Expert opponents are a little bit more expecting than non-expert opponents.
 
What’s the problem? The problem is ->
 
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. DIAC 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
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Robert Frick | 24 May 2013 02:27
Favicon

explaining one's own bid as a good strategy

EW wanted an explanation of South's 3C bid. I decided that (1) it was  
unlikely a partnership would talk about the meaning of the bid, and (2) it  
could/should be figured out using bridge knowledge. Since EW was a good  
pair, I denied their request.

However, that all hinged on the meaning of North's double. West figured  
this out and asked the meaning of that bid. South started to say something  
like "take out" but was interrupted by North saying "It was penalty".  
Standard American is penalty, so now EW were receiving the correct  
partnership explanation.

However, what they needed to know was how South interpreted the double.  
Which of course they are not entitled to. I think they got enough from  
South's short truncated explanation to figure it out.

I am guessing it is not legal for North to explain her own bid until South  
shows some evidence that he will give the wrong explanation. Otherwise,  
all of the rules against this will apply.

The auction:

1D  X  XX  P
P  2C   P  P
X   P  3C  P
3NT
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Laval Du Breuil | 23 May 2013 04:49
Picon

Material on Movements

Hi all,

Ten of you asked for and already received files (WinWord and
PowerPoint or OpenOffice) containing description and maps of pair
movements (French or English version). Useful to learn, choose and use
movements, these files can be set to your needs and use freely. If I
forgot you, just send me a private email.

Nobody asked for my other files, set to print table maps for Howell
and individual movements. I have only a French version, but you can
easily translate to your language.

Laval Du Breuil
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Laszlo Hegedus | 20 May 2013 23:01
Picon
Picon

Declarer withdrows the card dummy played instead of him, opponent discards at same time.

S/EW
..........................532
..........................T
..........................86542
..........................T742
KQ....................................................AJ94
98642....................................................3
AKQT....................................................J3
J6....................................................AK9853
..........................T876
..........................AKQJ75
..........................97
..........................Q

West North East South
..........................1H
1N     pass  2S*   3H
pass  pass  3N    DBL
4C     pass  5C///

2 spades: club suit (nothing about spades)

1. HT, 3, J, 2
2. D9, A, 2, 3
3. CJ, 2, 3, Q
4. D7, K, 4, J
5. C6, 4,

A, This moment, before the declarer could choose any card, dummy plays 
the A of Clubs.
B, The declarer remarks, he haven't named a card yet
C, South discard the 7 of hearts

B and C event are at the same moment. West hadn't seen South's discard, 
when he protested. South hadn't detected the declarer's protest before 
she discarded. TD was at the table, so there were no argument about the 
facts.

How do you decide as TD?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Marcin Wasłowicz | 20 May 2013 21:29
Picon
Gravatar

Director! - I haven't seen the alert!

It's my first post here so I'd like to say hello to everyone. :)

I was a tournament director of an international teams tournament (a relatively small one, mostly for invited friends) and I was called by a player after the board was played. The player (North) did not see an alert during the bidding therefore he misunderstood his partners' call which ended up as total disaster.

Before the first board (this was the 5th) EW:
- informed NS about their openings
- informed NS about transfers after 1C
- asked if they mind "knocking" alerts instead of taking ALERT from a bidding-box

NS did agree for the knocking as an alert procedure for the round (they actually knocked themselves). Long after the incident I've found out that S didn't pay attention to the talking before the round and didn't remember a thing from that listed above. On the other hand, N did confirm everything and he was aware of the conventions used by EW.

The bidding was:
_N__E__S__W
pas pas pas 1C*
pas 1H* 1S* pas
3S   x    4C x
pas pas pas

There were no screens.

1C - alerted by knocking the table, 11+ HCP, 2+ clubs
1H - alerted by knocking the table, transfer to spades (7+ HCP, 4+ spades)
1S - NOT alerted, take-out (showing other suits)

You can find complete board here:
http://jaom.pl/wyniki/2013/trophy/forest13b-9.html

North had:
K 9 8 6 2
8 6
Q 6 4
K J 6

North didn't see the alert for 1H because he was busy reading the print-outs from the previous round ("how could I have such a minus in the butler here?") but without doubt the alert was there and it was clear (South instantly did admit that) but silent. Nobody noticed that North could have missed the alert.

North have heard that the alerting one should make sure that the alert has been seen by both the opponents and West did not so. 

West argues that it's not his fault that North fell asleep - should he next time shake him and scream "DID YOU SEE THE ALERT?!"

My first impression was that:
- West failed to alert in the proper way (by "proper" I mean "making sure that both the opponents are aware of it")
- North  violated law 74 and did not paid sufficient attention to the game

On the second thought - is there really a rule that you have to make sure that the alert have been seen? Every one knows that (I'm pretty sure I even read it once or twice) but no-one could point it for me. I couldn't find it in Laws of Duplimate Bridge, thus it is possible that this rule does not apply for this tournament.


Anyway, I've thought about 4 options:
1. Violation of alerting procedure leads to the damage for the non offending side - ADJUSTED SCORE.
2. Falling asleep (or reading history from previous round)  is not a proper behaviour and the damage was done because of this fact - RESULT STANDS
3. Both sides are offending - SPLIT SCORE (bad score for both pairs).

What would you do as a tournament director having whole night to decide?

Best regards,
Marcin Waslowicz (sorry for my English :P )

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Herman De Wael | 20 May 2013 17:13
Picon

Re: Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

ton schreef:
> ton:
>
> It is
>

For a moment, I thought you meant "it is" wrong, the ruling, meaning you 
would agree with me.
Then I realized "it is" referred only to being put before the WBFLC.

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] Namens Herman De
> Wael
> Verzonden: maandag 20 mei 2013 13:07
> Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>
> Richard HILLS schreef:
>> What's the problem?
>
> The problem is that I consider that ruling to be wrong.
>
> Since the player can ask, at any time, a review of the bidding, the sight of
> the bidding cards cannot, IMO, be considered UI.
>
> And this is a case that should be put in front of the WBFLC.
>
> Herman.
>

Herman.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dr. Richard Bley | 20 May 2013 12:21
Picon

definition of a serious error

Hi Folks!

 

After /Beecause of an appeals case here in Germany, I´m  uncertain (but I guess I´m not the only one…) about the definition of a

 

“serious error”.

 

Example:

A declarer didn’t count the points of an opponent and therefor misplays a hand.

Is this question dependant on his playing strength?

 

Is there a EBL/WBF guideline/definition ?

Are there are experiences in other NBO´s regarding this question?

 

I´ve found the definition from Australia…

 

http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/InRegGuid11.pdf

 

are there other ones?

 

Yours

Richard Bley

 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Hans van Staveren | 20 May 2013 11:57
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

The law committee made this clear in the 25A case, a player is allowed to
wake up to an inadvertent call by an alert.
I think this is similar. If not a player would never be able to fix his
bidding after he missed something. This strikes me as too severe for such an
oversight.

Hans

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
ton
Sent: maandag 20 mei 2013 10:31
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

ton:

this is another issue where the laws don't offer a clear solution. 
My personal view is that a player should be allowed to find out for himself
that he missed a call by an opponent, overriding the UI he received from
partner. But it is not clear at all in our laws. 

> For this situation the WBF Drafting Committee has specifically decided 
> **should not**. See Law 40C3(a):
> "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled 
> during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, 
> calculation or technique."

However, a player is always allowed to ask a repeat of the auction. It is
therefore not correct to view the bidding cards as aid to memory, since
there is no memory needed.

> In Paul's example the player has miscalculated the course of the auction.
> C'est la vie, we now progress from Law 40C3(a) to Laws 75A and 73C.

I don't understand your position on this matter, Richard.

> Best wishes,
> Richard Hills
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
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Richard HILLS | 20 May 2013 04:30
Picon

Insufficient Blackwood [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

UNOFFICIAL

Imps

Dlr: East

Vul: North-South

 

East-West play old-fashioned Acol

(lacking an immediate way to show a

strong game-force raise of 1S).

 

The bidding has gone:

 

SOUTH.....WEST......NORTH.....EAST

---.......---.......---.......1S

Pass......2C........3H........3D(1)

3H........4NT.......Pass......5D(2)

Pass......5S........Pass......?

 

(1) Director summoned.

(2) One ace (old-fashioned Blackwood).

 

You, East, hold:

 

KJ854

---

AQJ943

K2

 

What call do you make?

 

British comedian Tommy Cooper:

 

“I was driving along, and my boss rang

up, and he said ‘You’ve been promoted.’

And I swerved. And then he rang up a

second time and said ‘You’ve been

promoted again.’ And I swerved again.

He rang up a third time and said

‘You’re managing director.’ And I went

into a tree. And a policeman came up

and said ‘What happened to you?’ And I

said ‘I careered off the road.’”

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. DIAC 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
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Richard HILLS | 20 May 2013 00:38
Picon

Re: Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

UNOFFICIAL
 
Paul Lamford:
 
>.....
>In this example [the player thinks he has opened 2NT, but has actually
>overcalled 2NT, to save those looking back at the thread] the opening
>bid, which the player only saw because of the unauthorised information
>of his partner’s explanation, is not unaffected by UI, and therefore it
>would seem that he cannot use the opening bid of 1H. Another approach
>might be that to use the information that the player opened 1H is not
>“carefully avoiding taking *any* advantage” of the UI.
>
>Now, I think one *should* always be able to use the auction. But that
>is not what 16A1 says.
 
Richard Hills:
 
For this situation the WBF Drafting Committee has specifically decided
*should not*. See Law 40C3(a):
 
“Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not
entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory,
calculation or technique.”
 
In Paul’s example the player has miscalculated the course of the auction.
C’est la vie, we now progress from Law 40C3(a) to Laws 75A and 73C.
 
Best wishes,
 
Richard Hills
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. DIAC 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
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Robert Frick | 18 May 2013 18:27
Favicon

Re: claim

On Sat, 18 May 2013 06:25:15 -0400, ton <t.kooyman <at> worldonline.nl> wrote:

> ton:
>
> No Nigel this is contra productive. Only a nitwit will rule for five
> undertricks. And nitwits hardly ever become certificated TD's.  So all
> others will rule for an overtrick and at least some of those as we found  
> out
> in the answers given will rule for one trick in the Reese AQ case.

Nigel is being logical and making a really nice point. Note that we have a  
continuum: (1) leading to AQ, (2) leading to AKJ, (3) leading to AKQ10,  
etc. In all cases declarer miscounts. In the first, he thinks the player  
behind the AQ has Kx but the player really has K; in the second, he thinks  
that the player behind the AKJ has Qxx but the player really has Qx; etc.

If you want to rule in the first case that Reese goes not get all of the  
tricks, but in the last case that he does, I think you need explain why  
you are making different rulings in two very similar cases.

>
>
>
>
>
> Nigel
>
> You already have four tricks in your 3N contract. In the six card ending,
> you lead dummy's singleton spade towards your AKQJT8.  When RHO shows out
> you claim your contract. Unfortunately, you missed an earlier spade  
> discard.
>
> Presumably,
> - About half of BLML directors would rule an overtrick :)
> - The other half would rule five undertricks, (assuming that LHO had an
> entry to RHO's winners).
>
> Inconsistent rulings are bad. Worse is that those who try to follow the  
> law
> and speed up the game by claiming may be subjected to draconian penalties
> for what seem trivial oversights. The simple on-line rule avoids such
> anomalies.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml <at> rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> -----
> Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
> Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
> Versie: 2013.0.3336 / Virusdatabase: 3162/6330 - datum van uitgifte:
> 05/16/13
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml <at> rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

--

-- 
Wisdom is the beginning of seeing.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane