headers
Gordon Rainsford | 1 Dec 2004 01:24
Picon

Re: Scrambled eggs


On 30 Nov 2004, at 22:56, richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au wrote:
>
> Matchpoint pairs
> Dlr: North
> Vul: Nil
>
> The bidding has gone:
>
> WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
> ---       Pass      1C        1H
> 2C        Pass      Pass      Dbl
> 2D        Dbl       3C        Pass
> Pass      3D        Pass      Pass
> Dbl       3H        Dbl       ?
>
> You, South, hold:
>
> AQJ8
> AT764
> 6
> J87
>
> What call do you make?

Pass.

> What other calls do you consider making?

None - I'm just glad to be part-way out of the mess I created with my
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
GUTHRIE | 1 Dec 2004 01:45

Re: Scrambled eggs

[Richard James Hills]
Pairs/N/LA:  AQJ8  AT764  6  J87
WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
---       Pass      1C        1H
2C        Pass      Pass      Dbl
2D        Dbl       3C        Pass
Pass      3D        Pass      Pass
Dbl       3H        Dbl       ?
[Nigel]
IMO, the only logical alternative is pass; without any 
hesitation that may be construed as an attempt to stop 
partner reverting to diamonds.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 
24/11/2004 

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
John R. Mayne | 1 Dec 2004 03:34
Picon

Re: Scrambled eggs


GUTHRIE wrote:

> [Richard James Hills]
> Pairs/N/LA:  AQJ8  AT764  6  J87
> WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
> ---       Pass      1C        1H
> 2C        Pass      Pass      Dbl
> 2D        Dbl       3C        Pass
> Pass      3D        Pass      Pass
> Dbl       3H        Dbl       ?
> [Nigel]
> IMO, the only logical alternative is pass; without any 
> hesitation that may be construed as an attempt to stop 
> partner reverting to diamonds.

I'd've passed 2C routinely; double seems like asking for it. (Partner 
short in clubs should have acted with anything.)

Pass is the only LA, if faking a heart attack isn't an option.

--JRM

> 
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 
> 24/11/2004
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
John Nichols | 1 Dec 2004 04:30

RE: An LA for one side only

Split scores are legal in the ACBL -- Weighted scores are not.

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-admin <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 11:12 PM
To: blml <at> rtflb.org
Subject: Re: [

However, was the splitting of the score legal in the
ACBL?

Best wishes

Richard Hills
Movie grognard and general guru

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Dec 2004 06:05
Picon

Re: An LA for one side only


Reno NABC+ Appeal Number Four:

>>...West deliberating and on
>>lead, East said, "Lead a card."
>>...
>>The committee assigned for NS the
>>contract of 2H doubled -100 and
>>for EW 2H doubled -470.

Steve Willner:

>At first this seems a strange
>decision, but I think it may be
>legal.  I'm guessing that the
>committee may have ruled that the
>infraction was of L73B2, not 73C or
>16A1.  If so, the AC must decide
>what would have happened if East's
>remark had not been made, and
>evidently they decided it was "at
>all probable" but not "likely" that
>West would have lead a losing
>diamond.  If this is indeed the
>reasoning, the writeup does a poor
>job of expressing it.

Richard Hills:

Steve's reference to Law 73B2
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Herman De Wael | 1 Dec 2004 09:59
Picon

Re: Concede of carry on?

GUTHRIE wrote:

>>[Herman de Wael]
>>But what happened above is even worse than those two.
>>Not only did your father not concede, he played on and
>>waited for his opponent to claim. Then when the opponent
>>did so, your father called the director and had him find
>>an obscure line so as to make two more tricks. But this
>>is a fictitious story probably, so let's not linger on it 
>>...
> 
> [Nigel]
> I'm hazy about details but the example is based on fact.
> Naturally, Charles is scrupulously legal and ethical.
> I resent Herman's implications to the contrary.

I would like to apologize for any implications not intended.

> My father played on, rather than conceding, because he hoped 
> for a defensive mistake or a lucky end position.

Which is not forbidden, but not really acceptable either. Anyway, I 
don't really see this can take a long while. Surely he had not been 
playing on for a number of tricks? So what was he doing then? In my 
experience, opponents usually claim when they believe it takes a long 
time. Was your father waiting to play a trick for an inordinate length 
of time? I would not accept it if he were.

> He and I still believe that this is both legal and ethical.
> In our view, bridge is mainly a game of mistakes.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Grattan Endicott | 1 Dec 2004 10:45
Picon

Re: Scrambled eggs


from Grattan Endicott
grandeval <at> vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta <at> tiscali.co.uk]
*********************************
"What is called the serenity of age is
only perhaps a euphemism for the fading
power to feel the sudden shock of joy
or sorrow."       ~ Arthur Bliss.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John R. Mayne" <jrmayne <at> mindspring.com>
To: <blml <at> rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Scrambled eggs

> 
> 
> GUTHRIE wrote:
> 
> > [Richard James Hills]
> > Pairs/N/LA:  AQJ8  AT764  6  J87
> > WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
> > ---       Pass      1C        1H
> > 2C        Pass      Pass      Dbl
> > 2D        Dbl       3C        Pass
> > Pass      3D        Pass      Pass
> > Dbl       3H        Dbl       ?
> > [Nigel]
> > IMO, the only logical alternative is pass; without any
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Eric Landau | 1 Dec 2004 14:36
Favicon

Re: Scrambled eggs

At 07:45 PM 11/30/04, GUTHRIE wrote:

>[Richard James Hills]
>Pairs/N/LA:  AQJ8  AT764  6  J87
>WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
>---       Pass      1C        1H
>2C        Pass      Pass      Dbl
>2D        Dbl       3C        Pass
>Pass      3D        Pass      Pass
>Dbl       3H        Dbl       ?
>[Nigel]
>IMO, the only logical alternative is pass; without any
>hesitation that may be construed as an attempt to stop
>partner reverting to diamonds.

A bit off-topic, but ISTM that a hesitation here would be construed as 
encouraging partner to revert to diamonds, by suggesting that South is 
doubtful about playing 3HX.

Eric Landau                     ehaa <at> starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Eric Landau | 1 Dec 2004 15:05
Favicon

Re: An LA for one side only

At 12:05 AM 12/1/04, richard.hills wrote:

>Reno NABC+ Appeal Number Four:
>
> >>...West deliberating and on
> >>lead, East said, "Lead a card."
> >>...
> >>The committee assigned for NS the
> >>contract of 2H doubled -100 and
> >>for EW 2H doubled -470.
>
>Steve Willner:
>
> >At first this seems a strange
> >decision, but I think it may be
> >legal.  I'm guessing that the
> >committee may have ruled that the
> >infraction was of L73B2, not 73C or
> >16A1.  If so, the AC must decide
> >what would have happened if East's
> >remark had not been made, and
> >evidently they decided it was "at
> >all probable" but not "likely" that
> >West would have lead a losing
> >diamond.  If this is indeed the
> >reasoning, the writeup does a poor
> >job of expressing it.
>
>Richard Hills:
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
John (MadDog) Probst | 1 Dec 2004 14:57

Re: Objected Concession

In article <003501c4d73b$17ea7460$3fa587d9 <at> yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan
Endicott <grandeval <at> vejez.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>
>from Grattan Endicott
>grandeval <at> vejez.fsnet.co.uk
>[also gesta <at> tiscali.co.uk]
>*********************************
>"What is called the serenity of age is
>only perhaps a euphemism for the fading
>power to feel the sudden shock of joy
>or sorrow."       ~ Arthur Bliss.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran <at> online.no>
>To: "blml" <blml <at> rtflb.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:12 PM
>Subject: RE: [blml] Objected Concession
>
>
>> Hans-Olof Hallén
>> I don´t see that the Ace of clubs can be a penalty card.
>> Play ceases (law 68 D). The TD decides the number of
>> tricks to each side.
>
>> Sorry Hans, you have overlooked the last part of Law 68B:
>> If a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and
>> his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred;
>
>> As the Ace of Clubs is exposed by a defender in an action
>> not related to a statement concerning an uncompleted trick
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane