headers
Henk Uijterwaal | 1 Feb 2009 01:01
Favicon

List of BLML Abbreviations

(Automated, regular posting)

              Usenet Bridge Abbreviations

ABF        Australian Bridge Federation
AC         Appeals committee
ACBL       American Contract Bridge League
AI         Authorised information
ArtAS      Artificial adjusted score
AssAS      Assigned adjusted score
ATF        Across-the-field [matchpointing]
ATTNA      Appeal to the National Authority
BBL        British Bridge League [now defunct]
BGB        Bridge Great Britain
BIT        Break in Tempo
BLML       Bridge-laws mailing list
BoD        Board of directors [ACBL]
BoG        Board of governors [ACBL]
BOOT       Bid-Out-Of-Turn
CD         Convention Disruption
C&E        Conduct and ethics [often hearings]
CC         Convention card
CHO        Center Hand Opponent [ie partner]
CoC        Conditions of contest
COOT       Call-Out-Of-Turn
CoP        Code of practice
CPU        Concealed partnership understanding
CTD        Chief Tournament director
DBF        Danish Bridge Federation
DIC        Director in charge
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Henk Uijterwaal | 1 Feb 2009 01:01
Favicon

BLML Usage statistics

BLML usage statistics for January 2009

Posts   From
-----   ----
   39   richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au
   39   darkbystry (at) wp.pl
   25   agot (at) ulb.ac.be
   24   grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk
   22   ehaa (at) starpower.net
   17   john (at) asimere.com
   14   svenpran (at) online.no
   11   nigelguthrie (at) talktalk.net
    9   Hermandw (at) skynet.be
    7   rfrick (at) rfrick.info
    7   petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at
    6   mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com
    6   PeterEidt (at) t-online.de
    4   wjburrows (at) gmail.com
    4   ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au
    3   torsten.astrand (at) telia.com
    3   swillner (at) nhcc.net
    3   jfusselman (at) gmail.com
    3   gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com
    2   picatou (at) picatou.com
    2   jrhind (at) therock.bm
    2   henk (at) ripe.net
    2   henk (at) amsterdamned.org
    2   grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu
    2   gampas (at) aol.com
    2   adam (at) tameware.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Herman De Wael | 1 Feb 2009 11:54
Picon

Re: a question

I disagree with both answers so far.
It seems to me that there should be a rule for this.
I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which 
are held till last".
I award only one trick, and I have done so all my career, without 
objections by the players who are getting only one trick in stead of the 
two that they could get.
It feels more "normal" to me and to a lot of players.
Maybe you should ask a number of players what they would consider 
"fair". Would they be happy with one trick if you tell them that is the 
rule? Would they object to that rule?

Herman.

Jeff Easterson wrote:
> There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following case. 
>   Two card end position, diamonds trump.  Declarer has diam. 6 and a 
> high heart.  A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade.  The other hands 
> are irrelevant.  Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards 
> (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He 
> makes no further statement.  In my opinion he is thus claiming the last 
> two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD.
> 
> In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets 
> both of the last tricks.
> 
> Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it 
> according to the rules, that is say how he will play.  He hasn't done 
> that.  (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps 
> out" seems to me to be irrelevant.  If he is unsure he should not claim,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 108 comments |
headers
Sven Pran | 1 Feb 2009 13:17
Picon
Picon

Re: a question

If we discuss what the law "should be" I propose: Whenever the claimer has
failed to specify the exact sequence in which he wants to play his cards he
shall play them in a sequence as decided by his opponents (regardless of
whether or not such sequence can be considered "irrational").

If we discuss what the law is then we have to rule if it is "irrational" to
cash high trumps before cashing high cards in side suit(s). I cannot imagine
any particular sequence to be "irrational" when all cards are high.

Sven

> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-bounces <at> amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-
> bounces <at> amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael
> Sent: 1. februar 2009 11:54
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [blml] a question
> 
> I disagree with both answers so far.
> It seems to me that there should be a rule for this.
> I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which
> are held till last".
> I award only one trick, and I have done so all my career, without
> objections by the players who are getting only one trick in stead of the
> two that they could get.
> It feels more "normal" to me and to a lot of players.
> Maybe you should ask a number of players what they would consider
> "fair". Would they be happy with one trick if you tell them that is the
> rule? Would they object to that rule?
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 100 comments |
headers
Roger Pewick | 1 Feb 2009 14:15
Picon
Favicon

Re: a question


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Herman De Wael" <Hermandw <at> skynet.be>
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 04:54
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml <at> amsterdamned.org>
Subject: Re: [blml] a question

> I disagree with both answers so far.
> It seems to me that there should be a rule for this.
> I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which
> are held till last".

There ought not be such a rule [as in one that can conflict with law].  The 
ruling needs to be in accordance with law.

regards
roger pewick

> I award only one trick, and I have done so all my career, without
> objections by the players who are getting only one trick in stead of the
> two that they could get.
> It feels more "normal" to me and to a lot of players.
> Maybe you should ask a number of players what they would consider
> "fair". Would they be happy with one trick if you tell them that is the
> rule? Would they object to that rule?
>
> Herman.
>
> Jeff Easterson wrote:
>> There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following case.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Herman De Wael | 1 Feb 2009 15:41
Picon

Re: a question

Sven Pran wrote:
> If we discuss what the law "should be" I propose: Whenever the claimer has
> failed to specify the exact sequence in which he wants to play his cards he
> shall play them in a sequence as decided by his opponents (regardless of
> whether or not such sequence can be considered "irrational").
> 
> If we discuss what the law is then we have to rule if it is "irrational" to
> cash high trumps before cashing high cards in side suit(s). I cannot imagine
> any particular sequence to be "irrational" when all cards are high.
> 

Except that in the view of many players, trumps are not "high", but 
"alone". And as such, they are not equal to the other suits.
I urge you to ask this of a player, not well versed in the text of the 
law, and ask him how many tricks he would settle for, as defender.
I am quite confident that most players would agree with just the one trick.

We've talked about this case before, and it's impossible to settle by 
using just the lawbook. What is irrational play in this situation? 
Impossible to say. Yet we need some form of consensus.

I've used it before - we had a case like this in the EBL AC. We wrote 
that "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps which are kept till 
last." I think that this should constitute a precedent and be treated as 
"case law". But of course as long as people continue to disagree, this 
thing will keep coming up.

Herman.

> Sven
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 99 comments |
headers
Sven Pran | 1 Feb 2009 16:40
Picon
Picon

Re: a question

I don't need to ask any Norwegian player again; I have already asked many
(both skilled and unskilled in the laws of bridge) on the EBL case where
declarer had the ten of Spades (trump) and the two red Aces claiming with
the apparent belief that all his cards were high, only to discover that one
defender held the Jack of Spades and Ace/King of Clubs.

There hasn't been a single player among those I asked who would give any
trick at all to declarer! They all say that "of course" declarer must play
his cards in the sequence that is most favorable to the opponents, and that
means that he will begin with his last trump.

Nobody believe me when I tell them of the actual ruling originally made,
they all consider such a ruling a joke.

Why is it so difficult to apply the meaning of "irrational" as contrary to
"careless", I see no problem with that? 

And is it at all relevant whether the term used for the only remaining
trumps is "high" or "alone"? What is the difference?

Sven

> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-bounces <at> amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-
> bounces <at> amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael
> Sent: 1. februar 2009 15:42
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [blml] a question
> 
> Sven Pran wrote:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 32 comments |
headers
Herman De Wael | 1 Feb 2009 16:47
Picon

Re: a question

Roger Pewick wrote:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Herman De Wael" <Hermandw <at> skynet.be>
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 04:54
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml <at> amsterdamned.org>
> Subject: Re: [blml] a question
> 
>> I disagree with both answers so far.
>> It seems to me that there should be a rule for this.
>> I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which
>> are held till last".
> 
> There ought not be such a rule [as in one that can conflict with law].  The 
> ruling needs to be in accordance with law.
> 

And what does the law say? "Irrational". And what does irrational mean? 
Yes, Roger, we do need a "rule". Unless you find it acceptable that such 
cases are treated differently by different directors.

I propose that the WBF should settle this, as people seem not to be able 
to agree that EBL AC decisions can be treated as precedent.
In fact, why do we write up appeals, if not as to act as case law?

Herman.

> regards
> roger pewick
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Herman De Wael | 1 Feb 2009 18:04
Picon

Re: a question

Sven Pran wrote:
> I don't need to ask any Norwegian player again; I have already asked many
> (both skilled and unskilled in the laws of bridge) on the EBL case where
> declarer had the ten of Spades (trump) and the two red Aces claiming with
> the apparent belief that all his cards were high, only to discover that one
> defender held the Jack of Spades and Ace/King of Clubs.
> 
> There hasn't been a single player among those I asked who would give any
> trick at all to declarer! They all say that "of course" declarer must play
> his cards in the sequence that is most favorable to the opponents, and that
> means that he will begin with his last trump.
> 
> Nobody believe me when I tell them of the actual ruling originally made,
> they all consider such a ruling a joke.
> 

Indeed, the original ruling was wrong in a totally different aspect.

> Why is it so difficult to apply the meaning of "irrational" as contrary to
> "careless", I see no problem with that? 
> 
> And is it at all relevant whether the term used for the only remaining
> trumps is "high" or "alone"? What is the difference?
> 

If you don't understand the difference between a high spade and the last 
trump you have not played much bridge. Most bridge players draw trumps 
until there are no more out, and then start on the other suits, leaving 
the trumps to get back in when something strange happens.
When they have all tricks but are uncertain, they will cash all winners
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Herman De Wael | 1 Feb 2009 18:04
Picon

Re: a question

Sorry, wrong Tenerife in my previous link:
http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/2001%20Appeals%20Book.pdf

Sven Pran wrote:
> I don't need to ask any Norwegian player again; I have already asked many
> (both skilled and unskilled in the laws of bridge) on the EBL case where
> declarer had the ten of Spades (trump) and the two red Aces claiming with
> the apparent belief that all his cards were high, only to discover that one
> defender held the Jack of Spades and Ace/King of Clubs.
> 
> There hasn't been a single player among those I asked who would give any
> trick at all to declarer! They all say that "of course" declarer must play
> his cards in the sequence that is most favorable to the opponents, and that
> means that he will begin with his last trump.
> 
> Nobody believe me when I tell them of the actual ruling originally made,
> they all consider such a ruling a joke.
> 
> Why is it so difficult to apply the meaning of "irrational" as contrary to
> "careless", I see no problem with that? 
> 
> And is it at all relevant whether the term used for the only remaining
> trumps is "high" or "alone"? What is the difference?
> 
> Sven
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blml-bounces <at> amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-
>> bounces <at> amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael
>> Sent: 1. februar 2009 15:42
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 23 comments |

Gmane