headers
Henk Uijterwaal | 1 Aug 2010 01:01
Picon
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
Grattan | 1 Aug 2010 08:25
Picon

Re: Not a 25A case...


Grattan Endicott<grandaeval <at> tiscali.co.uk
****************************************************
Skype directory:  grattan.endicott
****************************************************
" Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et 
le Verbe c'est Dieu."
            ('Les Contemplations']
..................................................
For words are The Word, and 
The Word is God.
 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++   
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Frick" <rfrick <at> rfrick.info>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml <at> rtflb.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case...

> So the law could be paraphrased as "no pause 
> for thought to decide whether or not to change 
> the bid". Or the phrase could simply be dropped 
> from the laws.
<
+=+ It could perhaps be phrased "pause for 
      reconsideration". +=+
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Steve Willner | 1 Aug 2010 22:58
Favicon

Re: Not a 25A case...

On 7/31/2010 6:06 AM, Grattan wrote:
> ... alternative possibilities that (a) the player
> had seen the 1NT bid and intended all along to
> respond 2C, or (b) the player had not seen the
> 1NT bid, intended to open 1C, and rethought

Yes, this seems to be a judgment decision for the Director. It might 
help to look at offender's cards, but as we've seen in the other thread, 
not everyone approves of doing so.  Even if permitted, it might not help 
at all: there are lots of hands (in normal systems) consistent with both 
a 1C opening bid and with using Stayman over 1NT.

What I think we can say as a matter of Law is that the time starting 
with the initial TD call doesn't count as "pause for thought" because of 
the overriding provision that players shall take no action after the TD 
is called.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Steve Willner | 1 Aug 2010 23:08
Favicon

Re: suits indicated by an impossible bid

On 7/28/2010 10:49 AM, Eric Landau wrote:
>  Consider four variations of
> this scenario:  At tables #1 and #3, North, who knows and understands
> L27, can deduce from the nature of the permitted replacement call, or
> lack thereof, that South's IB must have been meant to shown hearts.
> At tables #2 and #4, North lacks sufficient knowledge of the laws to
> make this deduction.  At tables #1 and #2, the TD is called
> immediately without problem, but at tables #3 and #4 South
> (improperly but innocently) blurts out a comment that clearly reveals
> to all that the IB was intended to show hearts before the TD can arrive.

Unlike Alain (I think it was), I don't see why the rulings at tables 3 
and 4 should be the same as at tables 1 and 2.  Souths at 3/4 have done 
something they shouldn't have (blurting out a comment), and it seems 
fair for the ruling to take account of that.  However, I agree with Eric 
that detailed knowledge of the Laws shouldn't be a factor, and I'd argue 
that "explained all matters" in L9B2 tends to support our shared position.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 2 Aug 2010 05:24
Picon

Obscure reading of the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


WBF Code of Practice 2008, page 6:

"A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of
ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions
of the laws in respect of conduct. A player who has
conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject
to criticism."

Matthew McManus, ABDA Bulletin 46, page 7:

[snip]

I was relating this story to another director and
he told of a similar scenario, which occurred in
an international tournament. Declarer was in 7NT
and down to the last few cards, with just AKJ of
clubs in hand and the lead in dummy. His decision
was whether to finesse the jack or play for the
drop. When he called for a club from dummy, his
right hand opponent played the queen, solving all
his problems. He made some comment like, "That
was lucky" and started to face his hand.
Unfortunately for him the CJ was the first card
to touch the table.

The opponents now called the director,
demanding that he be required to play the jack to
this trick. Unbelievably the ruling was in favour
of the defenders. Bad rulings such as this, no
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Hans van Staveren | 2 Aug 2010 09:17
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Obscure reading of the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Play to hand with AKJ, right hand opp played Q.

Now if declarer says: "this is lucky", and tables all three cards, with just
the J hitting the table first declarer of course claimed and makes all
tricks.

Richard Hills, as usual long, posting suggests something else happened.
Declarer was planning to finesse, held the CJ in his hand, and played it
after seeing the CQ. Then said "this is lucky" and converted his play to a
claim.
I agree with RH that if that happened the director ruled correctly.

However, given the original post, my guess is the facts correspond more to
my first scenario. But as we all know, the TD's first and most important
duty, is finding out the facts.

Hans van Staveren

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Alain Gottcheiner | 2 Aug 2010 10:51
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Not a 25A case...

Volker Walther a écrit :
> This happened during the club tournament:
> Bidding:
>
> N     E     S     W
> 1NT   Pass  1C
>
> West:  "Director"
> South: "Whats up?"
> West:  "Insufficient bid. The director has to sort this out."
> 5 secs later TD arrives.
> TD: "what has happened?"
> West: "Insufficient bid."
> South: "I wanted to bid Stayman, but I pulled the wrong card"
>
> Decision:
> Law 25A does not apply, because South did not make any immediate attempt
> to replace the unintended bid. There was a pause for thought until the
> TD arrived.
>   
AG : the TD will have to ascertain whether this is true. There was a 
pause, but I'm not sure that South thought about changing his bid. More 
probably, he didn't realize, then decided to let the TD do one's job - 
hardly a bad idea.
What we call "pause for thought" is that the player changed his mind, 
not that some time elapsed.
Perhaps even South didn't now about his right of changing the bid.

If I think it plausible that South mispulled, no matter how many hours 
elapsed, I'd allow the 2cbid.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Alain Gottcheiner | 2 Aug 2010 10:53
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Not a 25A case...

LarryB a écrit :
> I too look closely at Grattan's (b). 1C is a single piece of card, right on 
> the very edge of the box. It has a certain feel. 
AG : wrong. Many bidding boxes hold two 1C bids.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 54 comments |
headers
Grattan | 2 Aug 2010 14:37
Picon

Re: Not a 25A case...


Grattan Endicott<grandaeval <at> tiscali.co.uk
****************************************************
Skype directory:  grattan.endicott
****************************************************
" Car le mot, c'est le Verbe, et
le Verbe c'est Dieu."
            ('Les Contemplations']
..................................................
For words are The Word, and
The Word is God.
 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alain Gottcheiner" <agot <at> ulb.ac.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml <at> rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Not a 25A case...

LarryB a écrit :
> I too look closely at Grattan's (b). 1C is a single
> piece of card, right on the very edge of the box.
> It has a certain feel.
AG : wrong. Many bidding boxes hold two 1C bids.
<
(Grattan):
+=+ And is the second one placed next to the 2C
card in the box? +=+ 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 50 comments |
headers
LarryB | 2 Aug 2010 14:42
Picon

Re: Not a 25A case...

New one on me. Have never seen that, playing or directing in 30-odd yrs.
Does the 2nd one have "alert" on it??

LB

LarryB a écrit :
> I too look closely at Grattan's (b). 1C is a single piece of card, right 
> on
> the very edge of the box. It has a certain feel.
AG : wrong. Many bidding boxes hold two 1C bids.
_______________________________________________
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
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane