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
(Continue reading)

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
(Continue reading)

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

_______________________________________________
(Continue reading)

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

(Continue reading)

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 
(Continue reading)

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
Jeff Easterson | 13 Jul 12:05 2015
Picon
Picon

Postings from blml

I am having a problem with aol; thus the bounces. Please send all 
postings from blml to my other email address: <Jeff.Easterson <at> gmx.de>

Thanks,  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
Jeff Easterson | 11 Jul 15:27 2015
Picon
Picon

Postings?

I haven't been receiving any  blml postings for the last week or two.  I 
don't want my membership suspended and don't know why you are getting 
"bounces".  Please see to it that I am restored to the list.

Have two email addresses:

Jeff.Easterson <at> gmx.de

and

JffEstrsn <at> aol.com

Thanks,  Jeff Easterson

---
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
Jeff Easterson | 5 Jul 08:12 2015
Picon

Fwd: confirm 5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b

I received this recently.  Is it genuine or spam?  If genuine I don't 
understand it as I have done nothing to affect my membership.

Please see to it that my membership has not been disabled.

I'd appreciate a response.

Ciao,Jeff Easterson

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: 	confirm 5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b
Datum: 	Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:00:03 +0200
Von: 	blml-request <at> rtflb.org
An: 	jffestrsn <at> aol.com

Your membership in the mailing list Blml has been disabled due to
excessive bounces The last bounce received from you was dated
22-Jun-2015.  You will not get any more messages from this list until
you re-enable your membership.  You will receive 2 more reminders like
this before your membership in the list is deleted.

To re-enable your membership, you can simply respond to this message
(leaving the Subject: line intact), or visit the confirmation page at

     http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/confirm/blml/5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b

You can also visit your membership page at

     http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/options/blml/jffestrsn%40aol.com

On your membership page, you can change various delivery options such
as your email address and whether you get digests or not.  As a
reminder, your membership password is

     fuokvifo

If you have any questions or problems, you can contact the list owner
at

     blml-owner <at> rtflb.org

---
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