Konrad Ciborowski | 20 Oct 10:24 2014

Does not knowing your system invalidate an agreement?

Hi gang,

Let's say I agree to play a bidding system / a convention / a lead system with my partner.
For the sake of argument let's say my first time French partner offers me to play "Majeure Cinquième"
and I say "OK", and we have our CC filled.

Let's say that I then open 1NT on 12 points. Let's say that the opponents end up with a poor score
because they expect me to hold a stronger hand (for example they misdefend).

You are called to the table and after a few questions you discover that I opened 1NT because
I genuinely, truly believed that the weak NT is an integral part of the French standard
(which is of course not the case). Our CC says "1NT 15-17".

Your ruling? The question that bothers me is:

What is our agreement in the light of L40? I see two options:

1° Our agreement is Majeure Cinquième (and thus strong NT) and I just don't know
the system I have agreed to play but this is purely my problem, no MI
2° De facto we have no agreement at all as to the meaning of the 1NT call (because
one of us is convinced 1NT = 15-17 and the other 1NT = 12-14) 
and thus the opponents were misinformed.

Your thoughts?

Best regards,
Kraków, Poland
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
(Continue reading)

Robert Frick | 20 Oct 02:53 2014

Play (play what?)

It's come up twice in the last month. Declarer said "play". Dummy was  
following suit.

In one case declarer's "play" was accompanied by a wave of the hand, the  
second time it was not. In both cases, it was obvious that declarer should  
want to play the high card.

Of course, this could be treated as equivalent to saying just the suit. Or  
it could be a truly ambiguous call, to which dummy is supposed to answer  
"play what?".

I suppose it depends on whether, in that region, the word "play" is  
typically used to designate a small card.

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

Robert Geller | 11 Oct 16:18 2014

Mispull or 36B?

North DLR
W	N	E	S
-	1H	X	X

The director is called. South claims a mispull of XX.

Should the director approve this claim, or should L36 be applied?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Steve Willner | 8 Oct 15:51 2014
Picon

Re: passing over an unalerted artifical bid

On 2014-10-07 7:34 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:
> Because he DOESN'T FIND out that partner would not have doubled.

This is where we disagree.  In my view, once the MI is corrected, the TD 
explains that the NOS should _assume_ that the auction would be 
unchanged.  If the auction would have changed, of course the NOS are 
protected.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Robert Frick | 8 Oct 03:50 2014

Re: passing over an unalerted artifical bid

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 02:30:56 -0400, Konrad Ciborowski <Cibor <at> poczta.fm>  
wrote:

>>
>> It seems to me that once opening leader knows his partner wouldn't have
>> doubled (2H in this case) for the lead, he is in the same position
>> regardless of whether he finds this out during the auction or during the
>> correction period.
>
> No, he isn't. If the 2H is alerted in time then partner's pass over 2H
> means "I don't have a clear preference for the heart lead".
> For example partner cannot have KQJxx in hearts for instance or else he  
> would have
> doubled the artificial 2H.
> That's why there is a slight preference for selecting a diamond.
>
> As it went the pass over 2H is meaningless. As the opening leader
> I appreciate the late correction but now my partner _can_ have
> KQJxx in hearts or the like (he couldn't have doubled 2H because he  
> thought
> that 2H was natural). So on the bidding there is no preference for
> leading either suit.

To perhaps paraphrase Steve's position, a pass is a pass. Had the bid been  
alerted the player would have done the same thing -- passed.

You and Herman are arguing that a pass over a natural bid is not the same  
as a pass over an artificial bid. When I take this player who passed aside  
and ask if he would have done something different, does he say, "Yes, I  
would have passed to deny a strong interest in a heart lead"?
(Continue reading)

Robert Frick | 3 Oct 02:58 2014

passing over an unalerted artifical bid

2C   P   2H(1)   P
3C   P   3S        P
3NT  P    P       P

2H was not alerted but before opening lead was explained as a double  
negative. The player on lead had

Kxx
1087x
QJx
Kxx

Having a choice between hearts and diamonds, he chose to lead a heart.  
This did not work out well and a diamond lead would have set the contract.

He argued that if 2H had been properly alerted, his partner would have not  
doubled, suggesting not to lead a heart and he was more likely to lead a  
diamond. Which is all true.

It's already a difficult ruling, but in our normal way. Assume for the  
sake of argument that you buy into this.

The interesting thing is this. Suppose partner might have doubled 2  
Hearts, had he known it was artificial, and this lead would have worked  
well. Then the player can safely lead a diamond, as an unsuccessful  
diamond lead will be changed to a heart lead.

Therefore, the opening leader can safely assume that partner would not  
have doubled the 2 Heart bid.

(Continue reading)

Magyar Ádám | 1 Oct 12:06 2014
Picon

multi and counter-multi

Teams, screens are in use (North and East on one side)
Board 28, NS vuln, East dealer

	JTxx
	x
	ATx
	KJTxx
AKxxx		Qxx
xx		A9xxxx
K9xx		Qx
xx		xx
	x
	KQJT
	Jxxx
	AQxx

East	South	West	North (explanations below)
2d	2s	x	4h
P	p	4s	p
5h	x	p	p
p

Table result: 5h* -4, +800

The facts:
2d: Multi, weak 2 in a major, or 20-22 BAL
2s: According to south, counter-multi (take-out double of spades) Indeed,
this is NS's agreement. However, north forgets this, and does not alert,
treating (and explaining) it as a natural overcall in spades
x: according to west, shows spades. According to east, pass with spades, bid
(Continue reading)

Jerry Fusselman | 26 Sep 03:25 2014
Picon

Law 16C ruling


[jerry Fusselman]
What a huge amount of unauthorized information the presence or absence
of a "switch off" would provide!  Partner is not interested in the
meaning of the auction?---okay, he is not interested in action by our
side.  Or if, surprise, he does take some action, he was going to act
regardless of meanings.

Partner *is* interested in the meaning of the auction?---okay, I
should be more inclined to take action.

Sometimes, when I am declarer, I start to explain our auction but my
RHO will try to stop me---perhaps hoping for a particular lead that my
explanation could ruin.

Sorry, giving players options to stop explanations is a terrible idea.

[Nigel]
Players already have those options.  Under current local alert regulations,
you have the power to switch explanation on or off, by asking (or not
asking) about each individual alert!  Even worse: the way you ask each
question may give UI.
Under the proposed protocol, the default would be that you explain partner's
call, unprompted.  Opponents would have the power to switch off explanations
for the remainder of that auction.  You could still ask for an explanation
*of the whole auction* before the opening lead.

[Jerry]

Saying "I don't care to ask about this call at this time" conveys a lot less information than "I don't care to hear which of your calls are alertable or even what any of them mean until, possibly, after the auction is complete, for whatever they mean and no matter how the auction goes, I'm not going to be interested."

_______________________________________________
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
Brian | 25 Sep 11:03 2014
Picon

Re: Law 16C ruling

On 09/25/2014 03:34 AM, ton wrote:
> I do not think that we are going to do that. First question is "what is
> wrong with variations?".

Certainly the variations in alerting regulations cause a lot of
friction online when you have a table of players from different
jurisdictions. The usual requirement online is "alert what you think
your opponents might not understand", which usually seems to come
across as "alert what's not alertable in your local jurisdiction" to
the players who play both on and off line.

Brian.

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

Herman De Wael | 25 Sep 10:36 2014
Picon

Re: Law 16C ruling

correct Ton, there is nothing wrong with local variations.
but there is also nothing right with it.
why should the Belgian and Dutch bidding box regulations differ?
why should these federations not adopt the WBF regulation?
And what is then wrong with putting those regulations in the lawbook.

I think we could solve a lot of problems if we decide for the entire 
world when a bid is made with a bidding box. No need for every country 
to differ here.

Herman.

ton schreef:
> I do not think that we are going to do that. First question is "what is
> wrong with variations?".
> Having organisations around the world using their brains to inmprove the
> quality of bridge, as you try to do yourself once in a while, helps us to
> make progress. Having dictates normally does not.
>
> I give an example. The Dutch Federation has never excepted the previous
> regulation that behind screens 25B was not applicable. Intended wrong calls
> could be changed like 25A.  We did not like that.
>
> For some of the subjects mentioned the WBF and EBL have their own
> regulations, which can be adopted if wanted.  The Dutch Federation for
> example has adopted the bidding box regulations which now is an appendix in
> our lawbook.
>
> ton
>
>
> Seconded, except that rules for written explanations an convention cards
> still have to be given default values by OBs.
>
> And don't forget that, behind screens at least, Washoe explanations, which I
> used 20 years ago and are still used in Leuven.
>
>> I second that suggestion.
>> Herman.
>>
>> Nigel Guthrie schreef:
>>> [Nigel]
>>> IMO, the WBFLC should lay down rules governing convention-cards,
>>> bridge-mates, bidding-boxes, written-bidding, screens, and so on as
>>> appendices to TFLB. There's no sensible reason to delegate such
>>> responsibility to local jurisdiction -- the inevitable  result is
>>> variation and omission.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> -----
> Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
> Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
> Versie: 2014.0.4765 / Virusdatabase: 4025/8257 - datum van uitgifte:
> 09/22/14
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Sven Pran | 21 Sep 16:22 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: Law 16C ruling - procedures prescribed with the use of Bridgemate

I am talking about the regulation, instruction or whatever you want to call
it that is published together with the Bridgemate system and which is
reflected in the instructions shown on every Bridgemate terminal when any
information is to be entered on the terminal.

Instructions on Bridgemate has the same power as instructions from the
Director, disobeying them is subject to penalty under Law 90 B 8, and of
course also to rectification of whatever kind when such disobedience has
resulted in error(s). 

Is this sufficient for you?

> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] På vegne av
> Herman De Wael
> Sendt: 21. september 2014 13:12
> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 16C ruling
> 
> Sven Pran schreef:
> > As far as I know Bridgemate regulations require East to verify and
> > accept the data entered by North.
> > This is never optional, and Bridgemate terminals will not proceed
> > until after East has pressed OK.
> >
> 
> Well, I'm fairly certain they also proceed after North has pressed OK.
> 
> And you're talking about regulations. Does Norway have bridgemate
> regulations? Does your club? Do those regulations oblige East to check the
> board number? Have you announced clearly that if the board number is
> incorrect, East will also be considered at fault?
> Unless you have clearly done one of these, East cannot be deemed at fault
for
> something North has done.
> 
> And, just to be complete, even if Norwegian regulations have this
provision,
> what makes you assume the regulations in this actual case have it? The
original
> poster stated nothing of the kind, and he would have if they did have it.
So he's
> asking out of the blue and I don't assume such regulation exists. So my
ruling
> would be as stated.
> 
> OK?
> 
> 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


Gmane