Tim West-Meads | 1 May 02:09 2005
Picon

RE: 2 claims

Sven wrote:

> And I am surprised it to be an unanimous blml ruling that West shall 
> have a trick for his last trump. (Before anyone starts yelling at me let 
> me just state that I don't feel I have sufficient information for a 
> ruling).

I agree we don't have enough information to give a ruling.  But there is 
enough info for me to form an opinion.  IE, declarer is going to have his 
work cut out getting me to believe he knew there was a trump out.
Had he claimed after the *1st* trump (or even immediately after the show-
out) he would have had a very easy time convincing me he was aware of the 
outstanding trumps.

Tim

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

Tim West-Meads | 1 May 02:09 2005
Picon

Re: MI or CPU?

Steve wrote:

> This is certainly MI, but is it a L40B infraction?  

If they have "disclosed the use of such call or play in accordance with 
the regulations of the sponsoring organisation" there can be no MI.  If 
they have failed (in some way) to disclose they have infracted L40b*  
(unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its 
meaning).  Technically there is no mention of concealment in L40b (the 
headings not being part of the laws).  There is mention of concealment in 
Law73E but L73f requires damage before adjusting.

*At least in the EBU where the Orange Book contains: 
3.1.1 All agreements, including implicit understandings and practices of 
your partnership, must be fully disclosed to your opponents. (Law 75A,
40B)

Actually 3.1.1 includes some L75c stuff while the brackets don't reference 
it, but I don't think that is important to the main thrust.  The rest of 
section 3/4/5 makes it pretty clear.  I have always presumed that 
disclosure regulations elsewhere following similar lines.

> Suppose the opponents both have awkward hands and were never taking 
> action, no matter what explanation they got.  Are you ruling that the 
> 2NT bid was illegal or only "MI, no damage this time?"  

I'm ruling MI, no damage.  NB, not particularly likely in EBU land because 
many players feel discouraged from asking about an alerted call *unless* 
the explanation will affect their bid. 

(Continue reading)

richard.hills | 1 May 04:43 2005
Picon

Re: Second catch your rabbit


Nigel Guthrie:

[snip]

>Bunny or not, you are tempted to remove 3NT because of the
>likelihood of a misunderstanding

[snip]

The complete deal:

Matchpoint pairs
Dlr: East
Vul: North-South
                        Rueful Rabbit
                        JT5
                        Q985
                        QJT5
                        94
Secretary Bird                                Walter the Walrus
643                                           K9872
JT63                                          AK72
7                                             A82
K6532                                         Q
                        Baffled Bunny
                        AQ
                        4
                        K9643
                        AJT87
(Continue reading)

Sven Pran | 1 May 07:06 2005
Picon
Picon

RE: Ruling in Belgian Cup Final


> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-bounces <at> amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> amsterdamned.org]
> On Behalf Of Steve Willner
> Sent: 30. april 2005 23:33
> To: blml <at> rtflb.org
> Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final
> 
> > From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran <at> online.no>
> > You use so many words explaining why you from your knowledge of those
> > players could tell that they actually have a special partnership
> experience;
> > the fact that South knows his partner quite likely has psyched with his
> 4D
> > bid. Now please explain why this is not in your opinion a serious
> violation
> > of Laws 40B and 75C?
> 
> Of 75C there is no doubt (if Sven's assumption about the existence of
> partnership experience is correct).  But why 40B?  Is there a regulation
> requiring some special form of disclosure?

Law 40B: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special
partnership understanding unless ..." (in so many words opponents will be
aware of and understand it).

Regards Sven

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
(Continue reading)

Tony Musgrove | 1 May 09:13 2005
Picon

Unethical conduct

The other day I got accused of unethical conduct under the
following circumstances:

I was dealer and partner passed out of turn, not accepted.
I opened 3C with a few clubs, but 3 aces and some other
stuff.  LHO bid 4H and went down for a bottom.  They said
it was unethical of me to take advantage of having partner
out of the bidding.  I am absolutely certain that it is authorised
information to me that my partner does not have an opening
hand, and that he must pass at the first opportunity,
and that I am free to make any call whatsoever, even
a psyche with this knowledge...but can I find chapter and
verse in TFLB to prove it to the opponents.  NO

Beseiged TD

Tony (Sydney)

--

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 29/04/2005

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

Herman De Wael | 1 May 12:10 2005
Picon

Re: Ruling in Belgian Cup Final

John (MadDog) Probst wrote:
> In article <427210FB.6070006 <at> hdw.be>, Herman De Wael <hermandw <at> hdw.be>
> writes
> 
> 
>>Yes Eric, that is what I did in fact rule - MI. Not because of
>>anything to do with psychs, but from simple observation that South
>>knew more than East/West.
> 
> 
> You must be kidding me Herman.  It's the sort of ruling one gets from
> the simian cage at Antwerp Zoo. This is premier division stuff. Psychic
> cues are general bridge knowledge. These guys are just playing bridge.
> Yhere's no way I'm going to alert my partner's cues when the actual
> opportunity for a psychic cue occurs on a low frequency set of all cue
> hands. 
> 

Allow me to correct you on a piece of "general" bridge knowledge in 
Belgium. Psychic cues are not as common in Belgium as they are in 
London. I'm not ruling GBK here, sorry.

--

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
(Continue reading)

Herman De Wael | 1 May 12:16 2005
Picon

Re: Second catch your rabbit

richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au wrote:

> 
> (b) with correct information, East would know North-South were
> having a bidding misunderstanding, so East would then try to catch
> their rabbit quietly with a soft Pass (not a loud Double), so
> 

This is WRONG.

East/West are entitled to knowing NS's system. EW are NOT entitled to 
know what North believes the system to be.
So East should act as if North explains 2NT as minors and then 
confidently raises to 3NT.

Now maybe passing this under that apprehension is a possibility (East 
has 3 quick tricks but not 5) so that the ruling below can still be a 
possibility, but maybe a L12C3 adjustment to some % of result stands 
and the remainder of -200 is also possible.

> (c) the score was adjusted to 3NT undoubled by South, for a score
> of NS -200 and EW +200.
> 

--

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be

_______________________________________________
(Continue reading)

Anne Jones | 1 May 12:43 2005
Picon

Re: Unethical conduct

This was discussed at length when an English junior well known to John 
Probst psyched a weak 2 in a suit he didn't have opposite a silenced 
partner.
As I recall we were all very ammused, couldn't decide about the ethics but 
told him not to do it again, as it had been so widely discussed that ANY 
partner he would ever have in  the future ould be privy to it.
Nice one Tony - you too are now on the list :-)
Anne
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony Musgrove" <ardelm <at> bigpond.net.au>
To: <blml <at> rtflb.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 8:13 AM
Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct

> The other day I got accused of unethical conduct under the
> following circumstances:
>
> I was dealer and partner passed out of turn, not accepted.
> I opened 3C with a few clubs, but 3 aces and some other
> stuff.  LHO bid 4H and went down for a bottom.  They said
> it was unethical of me to take advantage of having partner
> out of the bidding.  I am absolutely certain that it is authorised
> information to me that my partner does not have an opening
> hand, and that he must pass at the first opportunity,
> and that I am free to make any call whatsoever, even
> a psyche with this knowledge...but can I find chapter and
> verse in TFLB to prove it to the opponents.  NO
>
> Beseiged TD
>
(Continue reading)

Tim West-Meads | 1 May 13:23 2005
Picon

RE: Ruling in Belgian Cup Final

> > >  Now please explain why this is not in your opinion a serious
> > > violation of Laws 40B and 75C?
>
> > Of 75C there is no doubt (if Sven's assumption about the existence of

Well, I have my doubts about 75c.  To be "protected" would require that 
the partnership caters, in some way, to the possibility of psychic cues.
Personally, if partnering Zia, I would always bid as if his cues were 
genuine since doing otherwise is just too risky (I'd expect any other 
partner of sometime psychic cuer to do the same).  OK I'd investigate the 
possibility of catering - but with no great expectation of finding 
anything.

> > partnership experience is correct).  But why 40B?  Is there a 
> > regulation requiring some special form of disclosure?
> 
> Law 40B: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special
> partnership understanding unless ..." (in so many words opponents will 
> be aware of and understand it).

Sven, I'm with you on the violation of L40b.  It's the word "serious" I 
feel uncomfortable with.  The omission *could* have been down to 
carelessness/forgetfulness/lack of understanding of disclosure obligations 
(quite likely on the evidence Herman gave).  None of those are "serious" 
offences (IMO) - just routine MI.  "Serious" is when we judge a deliberate 
attempt at concealment has been made.

Tim

_______________________________________________
(Continue reading)

Grattan Endicott | 1 May 13:11 2005
Picon

Re: Unethical conduct


from Grattan Endicott
grandeval <at> vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta <at> tiscali.co.uk]
*******************************
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony Musgrove" <ardelm <at> bigpond.net.au>
To: <blml <at> rtflb.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 8:13 AM
Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct

> The other day I got accused of unethical conduct under the
> following circumstances:
> 
> I was dealer and partner passed out of turn, not accepted.
> I opened 3C with a few clubs, but 3 aces and some other
> stuff.  LHO bid 4H and went down for a bottom.  They said
> it was unethical of me to take advantage of having partner
> out of the bidding.  I am absolutely certain that it is authorised
> information to me that my partner does not have an opening
> hand, and that he must pass at the first opportunity,
> and that I am free to make any call whatsoever, even
> a psyche with this knowledge...but can I find chapter and
> verse in TFLB to prove it to the opponents.  NO
> 
+=+ I begin by assuring you that I do not accuse your
partnership of malfeasance. However, the situation is
typically one in which Law 72B1 may be applied. When
this law was written the drafting committee had reports 
precisely of players who were passing out of rotation before 
(Continue reading)


Gmane