Robert Frick | 1 Apr 01:10 2010

Re: Taking Players Away from the Table

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:00:52 -0500, Marvin French <mfrench1 <at> san.rr.com>  
wrote:

> I may have asked this before, but if so I don't remember the
> answers.
>
> In an MI case, when it is too late for a call to be changed, is it
> appropriate for the TD to take players away from the table to ask
> what they would have done absent the MI?

Debatable. My understanding is that it is ACBL policy to do so. Well, the  
leading director in our area explained  that I should do that like I was a  
beginner for not doing that.

He didn't seem to care that the player was limping.

>
> I see it as a waste of time in what is a timed competition. There is
> no advantage to the players, since an answer that is not believed
> will be given zero weight, and a self-damaging answer will be given
> 100% certainty weight.
>
> Second question: I am advising players to obey the instruction to
> leave the table, but to refuse to answer any questions. Is that
> legal?
>
> Third question: If answers are not given, does the TD have the right
> to say that this annuls any chance of redress?

I think the TD shouldn't SAY that.
(Continue reading)

richard.hills | 1 Apr 01:32 2010
Picon

Re: San Diego NABC Appeal Case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Mark Twain (1835-1910):

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as
you please."

[big snip]

The AC continues:

"Based on the facts presented by the screening director and N-S,
the AC decided that the time it took North to pass did not
constitute an 'unmistakable hesitation'. Thus, the table result
of 3NT by North +600 was restored for both sides."

Marvin French:

>>This is typical AC operation. The TD's determination of a BIT
>>is ignored. It is implied that the NOS are self-serving liars
>>and that UI creators never lie. The correct procedure in
>>L16B2 is shelved in favor of a procedure not sanctioned by
>>the Laws.

Nigel Guthrie:

>Marvin, please would you supply a link to this case because I
>can't find it on the ACBL website.

http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks.html

Nigel Guthrie:
(Continue reading)

Nigel Guthrie | 1 Apr 01:58 2010

Re: San Diego NABC + Appeal Case 9

[Adam Beneschan]
It's actually NABC+ case 9.

{Nige1]
Renamed topic accordingly.

[Adam]
My thoughts on this: The commentators mostly agree with the committee
on this.  Barry Rigal commented that "experienced players should know"
that the right time to call the director is after the break in tempo
occurs.  I wonder about that.  If that's the case, then it seems that
directors would *always* be called after *every* hesitation, right
away, whenever experienced players are involved.  But that isn't
anywhere close to what happens at tournaments I go to, at least so it
seems.  The committee ruling says that the TD should be called after a
BIT "that might provide UI"; how many BIT's are there that have no
chance of providing UI?  Some, but certainly not a high percentage.
If everyone were calling at the "right time", then it seems like I'd
be hearing 20 or 30 more director calls every session.

[Nigel]
Polisner agrees with the committee ruling reversing the TD decision but 
suggests that the committee should have issued an AWMW to NS. Shome 
mishtake surely?

I think the law should *mandate* that (1) you draw attention to alleged 
UI at the time and (2) your opponents call the director, forthwith, if 
they want to dispute the UI. Marvin points out that ACBL rules don't say 
anything like that, so the committee ruling and the commentators' 
endorsement are perverse and incomprehensible (and in keeping with 
(Continue reading)

richard.hills | 1 Apr 02:29 2010
Picon

Re: San Diego NABC + Appeal Case 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Adam Beneschan:

[big snip]

>Finally, I tend to agree with Jeff Goldsmith here that the
>balance was automatic, and thus the question of whether
>there was a BIT is moot anyway.  South knew from the
>auction that his partner had to have something; he didn't
>need the UI.

Matchpoint pairs
Dlr: East
Vul: All

The bidding has gone:

WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
---       ---       1H        Pass
2H        Pass      Pass      ?

You, South, hold:

32
95
KQ7654
T73

What call do you make?

Panellist Hilda R. Lirsch, average player from Hobart:
(Continue reading)

richard.hills | 1 Apr 02:52 2010
Picon

Persona non grata [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


Nigel Guthrie:

>Are EW persona non grata for other reasons? An English
>International claims he can predict committee rulings, in
>ignorance of the facts of the case, if you provide him with
>the names and nationalities of the antagonists and committee
>members.

Richard Hills:

Both the English International and Nigel Guthrie (whose blml
postings over the past decade demonstrably shows that he
agrees with the English International) are demonstrably
incorrect.

The published EBU casebooks provide proof beyond reasonable
doubt.

(One minor caveat; in real-life Law a bee-in-bonnet person
can be deemed a "vexatious litigant".  Occasionally a bridge
player habitually launches meritless appeals.)

Best wishes

Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550
Telephone: 02 6223 8453
Email: richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au
Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets

(Continue reading)

Steve Willner | 1 Apr 03:14 2010
Picon

Re: Palsied little old lady

> On 3/31/2010 3:00 AM, Grattan wrote:
>> +=+ Question: if a defender accidentally exposes a card
>> or cards has any offence occurred? Is there an offender?

It occurs to me to ask the following: South, declarer and properly on 
lead, leads a small diamond.  West follows, declarer calls for the D-K 
from dummy, and North places that card in played position.  East has 
D-AQ and intends to play the ace but accidentally drops the queen face 
up on the table, the ace remaining invisible.  We can be certain that 
the D-Q was accidentally dropped -- a pure mechanical fumble -- even NS 
will testify to that.

East asks the TD to waive the penalty and let him play D-A.  (He will, 
of course, be compelled to lead D-Q to the next trick if the request is 
granted.)  South wants the penalty card provision enforced.  How should 
the TD rule?

Does it make any difference whether East has a known physical handicap?

Does it make any difference if the TD is friends or enemies with one or 
more of the players?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

David Burn | 1 Apr 03:51 2010

Re: Palsied little old lady [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[GE]

Question: if a defender accidentally exposes a card or cards has any offence
occurred? Is there an offender?

[DALB]

One may safely say that in a game where the legal requirement is to expose
at your turn exactly one card in playing to a trick, you are an "offender"
if whether by accident or design you expose more than one card in playing to
the trick. By the same token, whenever the legal requirement is to expose no
cards (as during the auction, or when it is not your turn to play) you are
an "offender" if whether by accident or design you expose any card at all.

David Burn
London, England

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

Marvin French | 1 Apr 05:26 2010
Picon

Re: Persona non grata [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


Richard Hills wrote:]

> (One minor caveat; in real-life Law a bee-in-bonnet person
> can be deemed a "vexatious litigant".  Occasionally a bridge
> player habitually launches meritless appeals.)
>
And sometimes a bee-in-bonnet person (as Grattan implied I might be) 
is a law-and-order person who likes to see the game played by the 
rules. That sort of person never launches a meritless appeal, but 
may call the TD in accordance with L9B1(a) more often than TDs like.

Marv
Marvin L French
San Diego, CA
www.marvinfrench.com 

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

richard.hills | 1 Apr 05:51 2010
Picon

Re: Persona non grata [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Alain Gottcheiner:

>>That's funny ; I encountered a similar case not long ago.
>>
>>I don't know whether it's universal, but we have a "moral
>>law" saying that if you happen to win a trick consisting of
>>the 2,3,4 and 5 of the same suit, you're compelled to order
>>champaign (not that it takes such uncommon occurrences to
>>have good reasons ; last night, it was the last day in
>>Brussels' championship and I lost the count of champaign
>>bottles)
>>
>>It happened that, on the third trick, declarer was last to
>>play after the 4, 2 and 3 were played, and dummy taunted :
>>"champaign, partner ?"
>>
>>Opponents complained that dummy had infracted several laws
>>by drawing declarer's attention to which cards had been
>>played.
>>
>>The TD's response was "do you know the meaning of the phrase
>>'fun of the game' ?"

Marvin French:

>And sometimes a bee-in-bonnet person (as Grattan implied I
>might be)

Richard Hills:

(Continue reading)

Thomas Dehn | 1 Apr 08:23 2010
Picon

Re: San Diego NABC + Appeal Case 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au wrote:
> Adam Beneschan:
> 
> [big snip]
> 
> >Finally, I tend to agree with Jeff Goldsmith here that the
> >balance was automatic, and thus the question of whether
> >there was a BIT is moot anyway.  South knew from the
> >auction that his partner had to have something; he didn't
> >need the UI.
> 
> Matchpoint pairs
> Dlr: East
> Vul: All
> 
> The bidding has gone:
> 
> WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
> ---       ---       1H        Pass
> 2H        Pass      Pass      ?
> 
> You, South, hold:
> 
> 32
> 95
> KQ7654
> T73
> 
> What call do you make?

(Continue reading)


Gmane