Herman De Wael | 11 Sep 09:56 2014
Picon

Ruling in Pula

Let me introduce the ruling as a poll:

teams, they are vulnerable, you are in third seat, holding A852 4 AJ4 AKQ72

partner passes, RHO opens 1H. you double
LHO bids 3H (pre-emptive), partner and RHO pass, you double again
pass, 3Sp from partner, pass.
What do you bid?

--
This mail was sent from Pula, Croatia
Please do not save this address - always use:
 
Herman De Wael
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Peter Smulders | 8 Sep 12:26 2014
Picon

Re: Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy.

How about the clause "except when declarer's
different intention is incontrovertible"
in the beginning paragraph of 46D?

Declarer's "incontrovertible" intention was to play the card that
to to him looked like an 8, but actually was a 9.
I would consider that card played, unless he can convince me
that the 9 instead of the 8 required a totally different strategy.

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

Volker Walther | 7 Sep 14:22 2014
Picon

Avoid "void" Law 46B4 Ordering a card not in dummy.

We are discussing the following case here in germany.

Dummy is on lead, having diamond J96.
Maybe the six was covering the lower half of the 9.
Declarer orders the "Diamond 8"., Dummy touches the diamonds fingering
out the card in the middle, RHO plays the King of Diamonds,   and dummy
discovers "It's the nine, not the eight". Declarer "play the 8 of spades
than!"

According to 46.B4 the call of the "Diamond 8" was "void". I see some
ambiguity about the meaning of this word. Does this mean we should
handle the situation as	if declarer never ordered a card from dummy,
which leads us to handle the King of Diamonds as penalty card?

Or is calling a card that dummy does not have still an irregularity
because it is not in accordance with law 45.B? In this case 46B4 is just
the rectification of this irregularity (Rectification: The void call has
no binding effect for the card to be played for dummy, declarer has to
name a legal one). This would lead to 47A, allowing to withdraw the king.

In the latter case -which makes much more sense to me- it might be a
good idea to replace "void" by "invalid" in law 46.

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

Richard Hills | 30 Aug 05:58 2014
Picon

Both players forget & numbering

Fortunately, the Lawbook is nuanced. In addition to Law 40C1 (which describes *frequent* deviations - caused either by forgetfulness or by intent - as creating an implicit partnership understanding), there is also Law 75C (which describes *infrequent* deviations - caused either by forgetfulness or by intent - as not requiring any disclosure). Law 75C emphasises that it is the partnership understanding, *not* a partner's cards, which much be disclosed.

This brings up one of my hobby-horses; the numbering of the Laws. Law 40 is located nowhere near Law 75 in the Lawbook, making it easier for a novice Director to rule incorrectly. Another classic example of poor numbering is Law 23. It is surrounded by Laws which deal exclusively with irregularities in the auction, yet Law 23 is applicable both to the auction and also to the play.

Christopher Smart (1722-1771), final stanza of his poem Jubilate Agno celebrating his cat:

 

For God has blessed him in the variety of his movements.

For, tho he cannot fly, he is an excellent clamberer.

For his motions upon the face of the earth are more than any other quadruped.

For he can tread to all the measures upon the music.

For he can swim for life.

For he can creep.

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard Hills | 29 Aug 03:56 2014
Picon

Both players forget

Sven Pran quoting Ian Fleming's "Goldfinger":
 
>He said, "Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago:
>Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence. The
>third time it's enemy action."
 
Richard Hills:
 
And indeed the Goldfinger principle is imbedded
in Law 40C1.
 
For example a partnership may explicitly have a
pre-existing mutual understanding that after an opponent opens the bidding with 1S, a 3C jump overcall shows a weak hand with 5/5 in the red suits. But 50% of the time an alternating partner forgets, jumping to 3C with a weak hand and seven clubs.
 
Law 40C1 mandates that the partnership's intial
explicit understanding has now been replaced by a new multi-meaning understanding; the 3C jump overcall is now EITHER seven clubs OR 5/5 in the red suits. This may or may not be an illegal convention (depending upon local regulations).
 
BUT...
 
Even if the multi-meaning convention is legal
under local rules (for example, such a multi-
meaning overcall is permitted by ABF rules), full
disclosure is required. Disclosing merely the
original 5/5 red suits understanding is a
misinformation infraction.
 
"Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach a person to
use the internet and they won't bother you for weeks, months, maybe
years."
 
 
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Ray Gur über LinkedIn | 6 Aug 20:10 2014
Picon

Richard Bley, bitte fügen Sie mich zu Ihrem beruflichen Netzwerk auf LinkedIn hinzu.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Richard Bley,
 
ich möchte Sie gerne in mein Netzwerk auf LinkedIn einladen.
 
Ray Gur
 
Principal Member of Technical Staff at AT&T
 
 
 
 
Sie erhalten folgende E-Mails: Einladung. Abbestellen
 
Diese E-Mail war an Richard Bley gerichtet. Erfahren Sie, warum wir dies hinzufügen. © 2014, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct., Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
 
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Mike Amos | 6 Aug 02:16 2014

Law 79B

B. Disagreement on Tricks Won

If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then:

1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, applies Law 69.

2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to increase a side’s score.


I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training Course and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. 

I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to me to be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be interested to hear other opinions before offering it)

Any thoughts?

Mike 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Robert Frick | 5 Aug 19:02 2014

both players forget

N    E     S    W
1D  P    3C

alerted and (eventually) described as criss-cross. The player had  
forgotten and had a weak jump shift in clubs. But both players agree that  
3C is criss-cross and it's on their card. No rectification, right?

N    E     S    W
1D  P    3C   P
   P

Today, both players forgot they were playing criss-cross. When asked,  
North was woken up and answered "criss-cross". Did the opponents receive  
an accurate description of the Nourth-South agreement? (All the other  
elements are present for rectification).
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Jim Fox | 29 Jul 06:47 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: Imp Tables (was QWERTY (was (Imp Tables (was QWERTY (was IMP tables))))

Test

 

QWERTY

 

Mmbridge

 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Jim Fox | 16 Jul 23:55 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: IMP and VP Tables and Bridge Scoring (was RE: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL])

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
Jerry Fusselman
Sent: 07/14/2014 12:30 AM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] IMP and VP Tables and Bridge Scoring (was RE: QWERTY
(was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL])

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Jim Fox <jimfox00 <at> cox.net> wrote:
> For now, I will just state that checkers and tic-tac-toe are deterministic
in the sense that a person who knows the correct strategy can never lose no
matter what his opponent does.  More later.

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

Does any single human on earth know this correct strategy for
checkers?  No.  Therefore, I'm not sure of the relevance of this one
observation to the subject at hand, but I look forward to hearing your
later thoughts.

Thanks for continuing the discussion.  I've already learned some
things.  (For example, I had no idea that checkers had been "solved"
by a battery of computers.)

Mmbridge:  As has qubic (a kind of 3-dimensional tic-tac-toe)

Jerry Fusselman

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

Mmbridge

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

Jim Fox | 14 Jul 05:53 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: IMP and VP Tables and Bridge Scoring (was RE: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL])

For now, I will just state that checkers and tic-tac-toe are deterministic in the sense that a person who
knows the correct strategy can never lose no matter what his opponent does.  More later.

Mmbridge

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman
Sent: 07/13/2014 7:58 PM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] IMP and VP Tables and Bridge Scoring (was RE: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL])

>> Bridge is a probabilistic game and that is a good thing.  Most interesting
>> games are.
>>
>
> Go and chess are very interesting games.
>
> Mmbridge:  Although I believe that Go and chess are also probabilistic games, I won't argue the point other
than to say that when you make a move in those games, there is some finite probability your opponent won't
find the best move in response.  One would probably try to estimate that probability when choosing which of
several moves to make.  More to the point, I guess I cannot tell whether or not you differ with "most".

This is revisionist history.  In this thread, you wrote that "Checkers
and tic-tac-toe are deterministic games."  In those games too, your
opponent's reply to your move is unknowable.  You can't logically
claim that go and chess are probabilistic immediately after claiming
the checkers is not.  Besides, "probabilistic" would lose all meaning
if any game in which your opponent has choices is deemed
probabilistic.

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


Gmane