richard.hills | 2 Jul 00:54 2012
Picon

Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 81 + footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Hypothetical 2017 Law 81 - The Director

A. Official Status

The Director is the official representative of the
Tournament Organizer.

B. Restrictions and Responsibilities

1. The Director is responsible for the on-site
technical management of the tournament. The
Director has powers to remedy any omissions of
the Tournament Organizer.*

2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these
Laws and supplementary regulations announced
under authority given in these Laws.

C. Director's Duties and Powers

The Director (not the players) has the sole
responsibility for rectifying irregularities and
redressing damage. The Director's duties and
powers normally include also the following:

1. to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly
progress of the game.

2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to
relevantly** advise the players of their rights and
responsibilities thereunder.

3. to rectify an error or irregularity of which the
Director becomes aware (but not necessarily as
soon as the Director becomes aware***) in any
manner, within the correction period established
in accordance with Law 79C.

4. to assess rectification when applicable and to
exercise the powers given in Laws 90 and 91.

5. to waive rectification for cause****, in the
Director's discretion, upon the request of the non-
offending side.

6. to adjust disputes.

7. to refer any matter to an appropriate committee
and/or appropriate person (for example, the
official Recorder).

8. to report results for the official record if the
Tournament Organizer requires it and to deal with
any other matters delegated to him by the
Tournament Organizer.

D. Delegation of Duties

The Director in charge may delegate any duties
to assistant directors, but the Director in charge is
not thereby relieved of responsibility for the
correct performance of those delegated duties by
those assistant directors.*****

[Footnotes]

* The Tournament Organizer must publish
Conditions of Contest in advance, but the
Director is permitted, if necessary, to create ex
post facto Conditions of Contest. For example,
the Director shall create an ex post facto tie-
break Condition of Contest if the Tournament
Organizer has forgotten to do so.

** The Director confines such advice to the
rights and responsibilities of the players that are
relevant to the situation that the Director is
dealing with. For example, a player is not entitled
to request the Director to recite the IMP table
which is embedded in Law 78B.

*** For example, the Director may become aware
of an established revoke during the play of a deal,
but the non-offending side may be blissfully
unaware of the established revoke. In that case
the Director should delay drawing attention to the
established revoke until only Law 64C (Director
Responsible for Equity) is applicable. An earlier
intervention by the Director during the play could
well unfairly disadvantage the offending side, due
to them being unfairly outnumbered in the play by
three to two.

A second example is the Director observing an
an opening lead out of turn, but none of the
players drawing attention to that infraction. The
Director should not intervene immediately, thus
the Director should let declarer unintentionally
become dummy. But at the end of play the
Director should consider whether to use Law 23
to adjust the score.

**** An example of insufficient cause would be,
"The opponents are my friends, and we have no
chance of winning but they do."

***** In particular the Director in charge should
review an assistant director's ruling which may be
appealed. The Director in charge should ease
the squeeze on the appeals committee by
reversing an incorrect ruling by an assistant
director immediately, rather than waste the
appeals committee's time by instead requiring
them to do so.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
richard.hills | 2 Jul 01:29 2012
Picon

Re: §81C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Law 81C3:

The Director (not the players) has the responsibility
for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage.
The Director's duties and powers normally include
also the following:
to rectify an error or irregularity of which he
becomes aware in any manner, within the
correction period established in accordance with
Law 79C.

Richard Hills, 2nd July 2012:

In my opinion "to rectify" is not synonymous with
"to instantly and immediately rectify". The principle
of delayed rectification is already embedded in the
Lawbook, for example the delayed rectifications of
Law 20F5 and Law 42B3.

Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002:

[snip]
But note also the word "rectify". This covers
returning the position to normality, restoration of
equity, but it does not necessarily require that any
penalty provision of a law be imposed. A Director
often has room for manoeuvre in this respect: time
limits intervene, there are such provisions as those
in Law 11B, and so on. ~ Grattan ~ +=+

Law 11 - Forfeiture of the Right to Rectification

A. Action by Non-Offending Side

The right to rectification of an irregularity may be
forfeited if either member of the non-offending side
takes any action before summoning the Director.
The Director does so rule, for example, when the
non-offending side may have gained through
subsequent action taken by an opponent in
ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.

B. Penalty after Forfeiture of the Right to Rectification

Even after the right to rectification has been forfeited
under this Law, the Director may assess a
procedural penalty (see Law 90).


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Nigel Guthrie | 2 Jul 01:49 2012

Re: Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 81 + footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Richard’s law]
C. Director's Duties and Powers The Director (not the players) has the sole 
responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The 
Director's duties and powers normally include also the following:
[Nigel]
IMO this should simply say "The directors duties are". Otherwise you risk 
the interpretation: "these [few things] are duties. The rest are powers that 
the director may exercise if he feels like doing so.

[Richard's law]
* The Tournament Organizer must publish Conditions of Contest in advance, 
but the Director is permitted, if necessary, to create ex post facto 
Conditions of Contest. For example, the Director shall create an ex post 
facto tie-break Condition of Contest if the Tournament Organizer has 
forgotten to do so.
[Nigel]
IMO this law should stipulate that when local regulations omit to cater for 
a contingency, then WBF rules apply. Of course WBF rules would have to be 
made more comprehensive, so that less escapes the net. Then, with any luck, 
eventually, sensible local regulators wouldn't bother to concoct local 
variants and  just use global rules instead.

[Richard's law]
*** For example, the Director may become aware of an established revoke 
during the play of a deal, but the non-offending side may be blissfully 
unaware of the established revoke. In that case the Director should delay 
drawing attention to the established revoke until only Law 64C (Director 
Responsible for Equity) is applicable. An earlier intervention by the 
Director during the play could well unfairly disadvantage the offending 
side, due to them being unfairly outnumbered in the play by three to two.
[Nigel]
I understand the reason for this footnote. Traditionally, directors have 
been reluctant to interfere when they witness law-breaking. Such directors 
argue "Why should I bother to prevent law-breaking at this table just 
because I'm watching. At another tables, the same infraction may occur. 
Unless the victim notices and reports the infraction,  the other law-breaker 
will get away Scott-free."

This "two of wrongs make a right" fudge seems morally wrong to me. 
Controversially, I think directors should be actively looking out for 
irregularities (other duties permitting). 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Robert Frick | 2 Jul 03:42 2012

Re: Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 81 + footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 18:54:48 -0400, <richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au> wrote:

>
> Hypothetical 2017 Law 81 - The Director
>
> A. Official Status
>
> The Director is the official representative of the
> Tournament Organizer.
>
> B. Restrictions and Responsibilities
>
> 1. The Director is responsible for the on-site
> technical management of the tournament. The
> Director has powers to remedy any omissions of
> the Tournament Organizer.*
>
> 2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these
> Laws and supplementary regulations announced
> under authority given in these Laws.
>
> C. Director's Duties and Powers
>
> The Director (not the players) has the sole
> responsibility for rectifying irregularities and
> redressing damage. The Director's duties and
> powers normally include also the following:
>
> 1. to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly
> progress of the game.
>
> 2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to
> relevantly** advise the players of their rights and
> responsibilities thereunder.
>
> 3. to rectify an error or irregularity of which the
> Director becomes aware (but not necessarily as
> soon as the Director becomes aware***) in any
> manner, within the correction period established
> in accordance with Law 79C.

If you are thinking of this as a power, then I am not sure the  
parenthetical stuff is needed. Directors now feel comfortable delaying  
their intervention.

If you are thinking of this as a duty, then you are leaving it unsaid when  
the director intervenes -- sometimes the director has the duy to intervene  
right away and sometimes he doesn't. You might as well just leave that  
part as a power.

>
> 4. to assess rectification when applicable and to
> exercise the powers given in Laws 90 and 91.
>
> 5. to waive rectification for cause****, in the
> Director's discretion, upon the request of the non-
> offending side.
>
> 6. to adjust disputes.
>
> 7. to refer any matter to an appropriate committee
> and/or appropriate person (for example, the
> official Recorder).
>
> 8. to report results for the official record if the
> Tournament Organizer requires it and to deal with
> any other matters delegated to him by the
> Tournament Organizer.
>
> D. Delegation of Duties
>
> The Director in charge may delegate any duties
> to assistant directors, but the Director in charge is
> not thereby relieved of responsibility for the
> correct performance of those delegated duties by
> those assistant directors.*****
>
> [Footnotes]
>
> * The Tournament Organizer must publish
> Conditions of Contest in advance, but the
> Director is permitted, if necessary, to create ex
> post facto Conditions of Contest. For example,
> the Director shall create an ex post facto tie-
> break Condition of Contest if the Tournament
> Organizer has forgotten to do so.
>
> ** The Director confines such advice to the
> rights and responsibilities of the players that are
> relevant to the situation that the Director is
> dealing with. For example, a player is not entitled
> to request the Director to recite the IMP table
> which is embedded in Law 78B.
>
> *** For example, the Director may become aware
> of an established revoke during the play of a deal,
> but the non-offending side may be blissfully
> unaware of the established revoke. In that case
> the Director should delay drawing attention to the
> established revoke until only Law 64C (Director
> Responsible for Equity) is applicable. An earlier
> intervention by the Director during the play could
> well unfairly disadvantage the offending side, due
> to them being unfairly outnumbered in the play by
> three to two.
>
> A second example is the Director observing an
> an opening lead out of turn, but none of the
> players drawing attention to that infraction. The
> Director should not intervene immediately, thus
> the Director should let declarer unintentionally
> become dummy. But at the end of play the
> Director should consider whether to use Law 23
> to adjust the score.
>
> **** An example of insufficient cause would be,
> "The opponents are my friends, and we have no
> chance of winning but they do."
>
> ***** In particular the Director in charge should
> review an assistant director's ruling which may be
> appealed. The Director in charge should ease
> the squeeze on the appeals committee by
> reversing an incorrect ruling by an assistant
> director immediately, rather than waste the
> appeals committee's time by instead requiring
> them to do so.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please  
> advise
> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This  
> email,
> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally  
> privileged
> and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
> or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
> intended recipient is prohibited.  DIAC respects your privacy and has
> obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.  The official departmental  
> privacy
> policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.   
> See:
> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--

-- 
The end of one day is always the start of a next. *

*This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

richard.hills | 2 Jul 08:13 2012
Picon

Re: Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 81 + footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Macquarie Dictionary:

normally, adverb. as a rule; regularly; according
to rule, general custom, etc.

Law 81C prologue, second sentence:

The Director's duties and powers ++normally++
include also the following:

Nigel Guthrie:

>IMO this should simply say "The director's
>duties are". Otherwise you risk the
>interpretation: "these [few things] are duties.
>The rest are powers that the director may
>exercise if he feels like doing so.

Richard Hills:

My $0.02 worth is that the Drafting Committee
carefully chose the flexible "normally" instead of
Nigel's rigid "are" so that a Regulating Authority
or a Tournament Organizer could add and/or
subtract duties and powers from the Director's
++normal++ duties and powers as required by
the particular needs for a particular tournament.

Law 80 footnote:

* It is ++normal++ in some jurisdictions for the
Director to assume responsibility for some or all
of the tasks that the Tournament Organizer is
here required to arrange.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
richard.hills | 3 Jul 00:27 2012
Picon

Re: Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 81 + footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Burn's Third Law:

"You cannot make 3NT on a cross-ruff."

David Burn also wrote an extremely entertaining
article about partnership agreements (or lack
thereof) on conventions, with particular reference
to the notorious Ghestem convention:

http://blakjak.org/brx_brn0.htm

David Burn, 10th February 2008:

[DALB]

Directing an event the other day, I observed
dummy putting the spade suit down on her left.
Since I knew that the contract was 4S, I told her to
put the spades down on her right. "Are we
playing in spades?" said declarer. "I thought the
contract was 3NT."

How would the Chief Tournament Director rule?

[DALB, continued]

That is, how should the CTD rule when the
defending side complains that had I not reminded
declarer that the contract was 4S, she made it by
ruffing a loser in dummy when she would almost
certainly not have followed this line in 3NT? (see
Burn's Third Law in "Larry who?" for details).

It seems to me that the deep and underlying
problem is this: the Laws of Duplicate Contract
Bridge operate in an environment where most of
them don't matter. That is, they operate only
where experts play against other experts,
preferably with screens. They don't work all that
well even then, but at least they stand a chance.

As Eric Landau has pointed out time after time,
these Laws and the opinions attached thereto
simply cause chaos when attempts are made to
apply them to bridge at the local club, or to any
face-to-face game without screens among non-
experts.

Players do not know what to do when in
possession of UI - most of them do not know
whether or not they have UI in the first place.

Players do not know what to do when it comes to
informing the opponents of their "methods" in
positions where they may or may not have any
methods, or where they may or may not have
remembered the methods that they may or may
not have. Even the dWS [the now-repealed De
Wael School] is an honest attempt to establish
how players should behave in everyday positions
that confront them at the table, and neither the
Laws nor the WBF interpretations provide them
with anything by way of meaningful guidance.

That's not the players' fault. That's the Lawmakers'
fault, if it's anyone's.

Larry Bennett, a gentleman I don't know and
whose surname I might have misspelled (in
which case I apologise) asked the other day
whether anything we said on BLML had anything
to do with the game he'd loved playing for a
number of years.

The answer is: yes it does, because at least here
we're trying to sort out what the rules actually are,
and we have to guide us some of the people who
are the fons et origo of the rules as they actually
are in 2008.

But the answer also is: no it doesn't, because the
rules as they actually are apply to a game that is
not actually played by about 90% of the people
who play duplicate bridge around the world.

I don't have any easy answers. I don't even have
any difficult ones. I just thought I'd state the
problem.

David Burn
London, England


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
richard.hills | 3 Jul 01:24 2012
Picon

Re: Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 81 + footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

David Burn, 10th February 2008:

>Directing an event the other day, I observed
>dummy putting the spade suit down on her left.
>Since I knew that the contract was 4S, I told her
>to put the spades down on her right. "Are we
>playing in spades?" said declarer. "I thought the
>contract was 3NT."
[snip]
>Players do not know what to do when in
>possession of UI - most of them do not know
>whether or not they have UI in the first place.
>
>Players do not know what to do when it comes
>to informing the opponents of their "methods" in
>positions where they may or may not have any
>methods, or where they may or may not have
>remembered the methods that they may or may
>not have.
[snip]
>not the players' fault. That's the Lawmakers'
>fault, if it's anyone's.
[snip]
>the rules as they actually are apply to a game
>that is not actually played by about 90% of the
>people who play duplicate bridge around the
>world.
>
>I don't have any easy answers. I don't even
>have any difficult ones. I just thought I'd state the
>problem.
>
>David Burn
>London, England 

Richard Hills, 3rd July 2012:

In my youth I read Stephen Covey's philosophical
tome (marketed as a self-help book) The Seven
Habits of Highly Effective People. Covey used the
metaphor of the map versus the compass.

A map of a city, analogous to adding about 10
pages to The Fabulous Law Book, is useless if
navigating in a different city. But a compass
pointing north, analogous to guiding principles
(and indicative examples) subtracting about 10
pages from The Fabulous Law Book, is useful if
navigating any city.

So my two guiding principle for a Director
applying Law 81C3 are:

(a) "No windfalls for an inattentive non-offending
side". The Director intervenes at the moment
when an inattentive NOS will gain mere equity,
not the more-than-equity that an attentive NOS
might have gained (e.g. an attentive NOS might
make 7H missing the ace of trumps due to a trivial
revoke; an inattentive NOS should not receive
such a windfall because of assistance from the
Director),

and,

(b) "No windfalls for the offending side". That is
my solution to the above "3NT on a cross-ruff"
hypothetical Law 81C3 problem that David Burn
posed in February 2008. The Director should not
correct dummy's Law 41D error, which could be
a windfall for the offending declaring side. Instead,
if the defending side is eventually damaged then
the Director adjusts the score at the end of play. If
the declaring side is so-called "damaged" (which
is not the Law 12 definition of damage) due to its
own Law 41D error then the score stands.

What's the problem?

The problem is that a fundamental rewrite of The
Fabulous Law Book from details-based rules to
principles-based (with indicative examples) rules
will be a Sisyphean task for the Lawmakers.

Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (1942):

Integrity has no need of rules.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
richard.hills | 3 Jul 06:03 2012
Picon

Re: Appeals Poznan on-line [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Craig:

>It is good to hear from you Herman. It has been
>so long since I have seen one of your posts I had
>feared for your health. I hope that it is good.
>
>Craig (these days mostly a lurker because of
>working doubles last several months)

Richard:

My non-working doubles often score -1190. ;-) ;-)

But yes, I also welcome Herman's return to blml,
giving it necessary diversity of analytical views.

James Surowiecki (author of The Wisdom of
Crowds), The Collaboration Landscape, page 4 ->

[snip]
Experts' forecasts are no better than novices'.
Experts are as confident in their mistakes. There
are only two kinds of experts – Bridge Players and
Weathermen – who have consistently been shown
to be better. Unless you want to aggregate in these
areas then you should aggregate the group view.

Diversity also makes it easier to resist peer
pressure. Solomon Asch conducted an experiment
with lines on cards. They key to the experiment was
to put ten people in a row (9 of Asch’s people and
one victim) and run down the line asking them
whether the cards matched. The experiment ran a
number of times. When the group gave the wrong
answers then the victim would give the same
answer. Or change their mind. They were un-
comfortable with their original, correct answer. After
a debrief, people admitted to feeling pressure, or
assuming they were missing something or
eventually thought that the cards matched.
[snip]
Asch did a different experiment with 8 people
offering up a false judgment, and one giving a true
one. This was enough for the victim to give a true
judgment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
richard.hills | 3 Jul 08:23 2012
Picon

Poznan appeal 5, AC reasoning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Appeals Committee:

Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan
Endicott (England), Jan Kamras (Sweden), PO
Sundelin (Sweden), Jan van Cleeff (the
Netherlands)

Herman De Wael sat in on the meeting to act
as Scribe.

[snip]

The Committee:

Considered that this was a difficult case, and
decided to tackle all the different points
separately.

1) Had there been misinformation? No
evidence for a misbid had been presented to
either the Director or the Committee. North /
South had not asked for this possibility to be
taken into consideration. North had tried to
convey his doubts to East after the bid of 2D,
but he had not succeeded in getting that
message across. North / South’s assertion that
they had not been able to form a solid
agreement after their opponents late arrival is
of no importance either. As the Director had
already pointed out, North / South could have
asked (and would have received) additional
time in which to reach more firm agreements.
The Committee decided to rule that East had
been misinformed.

2) Are East / West damaged? East is uncertain
about what to bid, and this is caused by her
being misinformed. If she has a correct
description of South’s holdings, she is in a
better position to judge. The Committee ruled
that East / West had been damaged.

3) Have East / West committed a Serious Error
by not bidding anyway? East had contributed
to the bad score by passing, but this was not
serious enough an error to warrant denying
her a rectification.

4) Have East / West committed a Serious Error
by misdefending? The contract was difficult to
defend, so this error should also be
considered not serious enough. The
Committee ruled that Law 12C1(b) did not
apply.

5) What adjusted score should be given? The
Committee considered that the conditions of
Law 12C1(d) were not met. There are a
number of possible bidding sequences, but
they all arrive in a score of -130. The
Committee decided to award a score based
on just one possibility. This meant the non-
appealing side gained, but the Committee felt
that the correct result should be achieved no
matter what the circumstances.

The Committee’s decision:

Director's ruling adjusted:
Score adjusted to 3C by West, making 10
tricks, NS -130

Deposit: Returned


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Łukasz Kalbarczyk | 3 Jul 10:55 2012
Picon

Dummy's missing card and claim

Hello :)

I'd like to show you the abstract of the problem only :)

We have (in trumps):

         Dummy:
             (K)x
LHO                RHO
x                      10xx
         Declarer
            AQJxxxx

Declarer plays the ace (small, small, small),
then the Q and when the LHO played a card in any other suit,
declarer says: "so, 2 tricks for you: K and 10".

But, at this time, both opponents say: "but we don't have the K".

King was the lost/missing card, not showed in the dummy before the claim.

So, we have the claim - and the declarer:

1) can not lose any trick, he has the King in the dummy now and wins all 
of the last tricks
2) could lose the 10, because the "missing king" is an "extraneous" 
information,
that wasn't showed during the play

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

Gmane