gmane.games.bridge.laws

Re: Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Herman De Wael — 2013-05-20T15:13:00

ton schreef:

For a moment, I thought you meant "it is" wrong, the ruling, meaning you 
would agree with me.
Then I realized "it is" referred only to being put before the WBFLC.


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

Re: definition of a serious error

Eric Landau — 2013-05-20T13:59:40


Failing to draw an inference from the combination of the auction and the high cards played so far, while it might be patently careless for a top-level expert, still would not, IMO, constitute a "serious" error in this context (for anyone).  Edgar Kapan, when he originated this idea that eventually found its way into TFLB as L12C1(b), used the words "egregious" or "ridiculous" rather than the ambiguously weaker "serious", but the principle hasn't changed.  Perhaps the LC should consider reverting to "egregious" in the next edition.



Eric Landau
Silver Spring MD
New York NY


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

Re: Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

ton — 2013-05-20T13:30:58

ton:

It is

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: blml-bounces< at >rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces< at >rtflb.org] Namens Herman De
Wael
Verzonden: maandag 20 mei 2013 13:07
Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Richard HILLS schreef:

The problem is that I consider that ruling to be wrong.

Since the player can ask, at any time, a review of the bidding, the sight of
the bidding cards cannot, IMO, be considered UI.

And this is a case that should be put in front of the WBFLC.

Herman.

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml< at >rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
-----
Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 2013.0.3336 / Virusdatabase: 3162/6336 - datum van uitgifte:
05/18/13

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

Re: definition of a serious error

Nigel Guthrie — 2013-05-20T12:51:22

[PL quotes  EBU White Book]
12.8.3 "Serious Error”
It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general
only the following
types of action would be covered:
• Failure to follow proper legal procedure (eg revoking, creating a major
penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an
irregularity).
• Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick
against
a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be
considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are
expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing
so.
• An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only
reached as
a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a
‘serious error’:
• Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner’s call.
• Any play that would be deemed ‘normal’, albeit careless or

Re: definition of a serious error

Dr. Richard Bley — 2013-05-20T12:04:22

Thank You!

I had the idea that there was sth, but I couldnt find it.

 

Yours

Richard 

 

 

Von: blml-bounces< at >rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces< at >rtflb.org] Im Auftrag von
Hans van Staveren
Gesendet: Montag, 20. Mai 2013 12:47
An: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Betreff: Re: [BLML] definition of a serious error

 

First read
<http://www.eurobridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/courses/2010lecturen
otes/serious-error.pdf>
http://www.eurobridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/courses/2010lectureno
tes/serious-error.pdf

 

Hans

 

From: blml-bounces< at >rtflb.org <mailto:blml-bounces< at >rtflb.org>
[mailto:blml-bounces< at >rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Richard Bley
Sent: maandag 20 mei 2013 12:21
To: blml< at >rtflb.org <mailto:blml< at >rtflb.org> 
Subject: [BLML] definition of a serious error

 

Hi Folks!

 

After /Beecause of an appeals case here in Germany, I´m  uncertain (but I
guess I´m not the only one) about the definition of a

 

serious error. 

 

Example: 

A declarer didnt count the points of an opponent

Re: definition of a serious error

PL — 2013-05-20T11:55:49

 From the EBU White Book, for TDs in England, and I think Wales:

12.8.3 "Serious Error”
It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general 
only the following
types of action would be covered:
• Failure to follow proper legal procedure (eg revoking, creating a major
penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an 
irregularity).
• Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick 
against
a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be
considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are
expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing
so.
• An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only 
reached as
a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a 
‘serious error’:
• Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner’s call.
• Any play that would

Re: Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Herman De Wael — 2013-05-20T11:07:20

Richard HILLS schreef:

The problem is that I consider that ruling to be wrong.

Since the player can ask, at any time, a review of the bidding, the 
sight of the bidding cards cannot, IMO, be considered UI.

And this is a case that should be put in front of the WBFLC.

Herman.

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

Re: definition of a serious error

Hans van Staveren — 2013-05-20T10:46:58

First read
<http://www.eurobridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/courses/2010lecturen
otes/serious-error.pdf>
http://www.eurobridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/courses/2010lectureno
tes/serious-error.pdf

 

Hans

 

From: blml-bounces< at >rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces< at >rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
Dr. Richard Bley
Sent: maandag 20 mei 2013 12:21
To: blml< at >rtflb.org
Subject: [BLML] definition of a serious error

 

Hi Folks!

 

After /Beecause of an appeals case here in Germany, I´m  uncertain (but I
guess I´m not the only one) about the definition of a

 

serious error. 

 

Example: 

A declarer didnt count the points of an opponent and therefor misplays a
hand. 

Is this question dependant on his playing strength? 

 

Is there a EBL/WBF guideline/definition ? 

Are there are experiences in other NBO´s regarding this question? 

 

I´ve found the definition from Australia 

 

 <http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/InRegGuid11.pdf>
http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/InRegGuid11.pdf

definition of a serious error

Dr. Richard Bley — 2013-05-20T10:21:19

Hi Folks!

 

After /Beecause of an appeals case here in Germany, I´m  uncertain (but I
guess I´m not the only one) about the definition of a

 

serious error. 

 

Example: 

A declarer didnt count the points of an opponent and therefor misplays a
hand. 

Is this question dependant on his playing strength? 

 

Is there a EBL/WBF guideline/definition ? 

Are there are experiences in other NBO´s regarding this question? 

 

I´ve found the definition from Australia 

 

 <http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/InRegGuid11.pdf>
http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/InRegGuid11.pdf

 

are there other ones? 

 

Yours

Richard Bley 

 

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

Re: Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Hans van Staveren — 2013-05-20T09:57:11

The law committee made this clear in the 25A case, a player is allowed to
wake up to an inadvertent call by an alert.
I think this is similar. If not a player would never be able to fix his
bidding after he missed something. This strikes me as too severe for such an
oversight.

Hans

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces< at >rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces< at >rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
ton
Sent: maandag 20 mei 2013 10:31
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [BLML] Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

ton:

this is another issue where the laws don't offer a clear solution. 
My personal view is that a player should be allowed to find out for himself
that he missed a call by an opponent, overriding the UI he received from
partner. But it is not clear at all in our laws. 






However, a player is always allowed to ask a repeat of the auction. It is
therefore not correct to view the bidding cards as aid to memory, since
there is no memory needed.


I don't understand your position on this matter, Richard.

Herman.

Re: Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Paul Lamford — 2013-05-20T08:59:03

[Richard Hills]
Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled 
during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, 
calculation or technique.

[Paul Lamford]
This should read (after aids) "other than the cards in his hand or the 
bids on the table". I hope Richard does not think that, as 7B2 provides 
for the player to inspect the faces of the cards and there is no 
provision in the Laws for reinspection, to reinspect them would be an 
aid to memory. Otherwise, for example, someone who opens 1NT would have 
to remember whether or not he was dealt a four-card major before 
responding to Stayman.

I think the ruling that Richard quoted was incorrect, because the 
auction itself must be AI, but yet again the Laws are silent on the 
matter.


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

Re: Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

ton — 2013-05-20T08:31:05

ton:

this is another issue where the laws don't offer a clear solution. 
My personal view is that a player should be allowed to find out for himself
that he missed a call by an opponent, overriding the UI he received from
partner. But it is not clear at all in our laws. 






However, a player is always allowed to ask a repeat of the auction. It is
therefore not correct to view the bidding cards as aid to memory, since
there is no memory needed.


I don't understand your position on this matter, Richard.

Herman.

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

Re: Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Richard HILLS — 2013-05-20T06:56:21

UNOFFICIAL

Herman De Wael:


Richard Hills:

Not merely my position, but also the position held by
very experienced Directors at the Aussie Summer Festival
of Bridge in January. This real-life case from then was
discussed in the March blml thread "PESEL failure".

Imps
Dlr: North
Vul: North-South

You, North, hold:

J62
K3
AT9532
K2

The bidding has gone:

WEST......NORTH
---.......2D(1)

(1) North thought that she was opening a natural and
unalertable weak two in diamonds. But when her husband
chose a Law 73C "unexpected alert", she then noticed

Imps
Dlr: West
Vul: North-South

You, North, hold:

J62
K3
AT9532
K2

The bidding has gone:

WEST......NORTH
1NT.......2D(1)

(1) Promising an overcall in an unspecified major
(usually six cards in the major) and therefore
requiring an alert.

At the table North used UI to wriggle to 3D for a
good result, but the Directors deemed that North-
South should abide by Law 73C for a PESEL failure
of -2300 in 3Sx (a 3-3 fit, but from South's point
of view a 3-6 fit).

Wh

Re: Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Herman De Wael — 2013-05-20T06:32:51

Richard HILLS schreef:


However, a player is always allowed to ask a repeat of the auction. It 
is therefore not correct to view the bidding cards as aid to memory, 
since there is no memory needed.


I don't understand your position on this matter, Richard.

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

Insufficient Blackwood [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Richard HILLS — 2013-05-20T02:30:39

UNOFFICIAL
Imps
Dlr: East
Vul: North-South

East-West play old-fashioned Acol
(lacking an immediate way to show a
strong game-force raise of 1S).

The bidding has gone:

SOUTH.....WEST......NORTH.....EAST
---.......---.......---.......1S
Pass......2C........3H........3D(1)
3H........4NT.......Pass......5D(2)
Pass......5S........Pass......?

(1) Director summoned.
(2) One ace (old-fashioned Blackwood).

You, East, hold:

KJ854
---
AQJ943
K2

What call do you make?

British comedian Tommy Cooper:

"I was driving along, and my boss rang
up, and he said 'You've been promoted.'
And I swerved. And then he rang up a
second time and said 'You've been
promoted again.' And I swerved again.
He rang up a third time and said
'You're managing director.' And I went
into a tree. And a policeman came up
and said 'What happened to you?' And I
said 'I careered off the road.'"

UNOFFICIAL


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please a

Re: Sans Voir [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Richard HILLS — 2013-05-19T22:38:33

UNOFFICIAL

Paul Lamford:


Richard Hills:

For this situation the WBF Drafting Committee has specifically decided
*should not*. See Law 40C3(a):

"Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not
entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory,
calculation or technique."

In Paul's example the player has miscalculated the course of the auction.
C'est la vie, we now progress from Law 40C3(a) to Laws 75A and 73C.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

UNOFFICIAL




--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 u

Re: Sans Voir

Nigel Guthrie — 2013-05-18T18:33:56

[Paul Lamford]
How do we reconcile that view with the following extract from the Laws:
[16A]1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it
derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including
illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by
unauthorized information from another source; or <snip>

In this example [the player thinks he has opened 2NT, but has actually
overcalled 2NT, to save those looking back at the thread] the opening
bid, which the player only saw because of the unauthorised information
of his partner's explanation, is not unaffected by UI, and therefore it
would seem that he cannot use the opening bid of 1H. Another approach
might be that to use the information that the player opened 1H is not
"carefully avoiding taking *any* advantage of the UI.

Now, I think one *should* always be able to use the auction. But that
is not what 16A1 says.

{Nige1]
I agree with Paul that a simple rule is best. Preferably a rule that we can 
understand and

Re: Sans Voir

Paul Lamford — 2013-05-18T16:40:59

[Herman de Wael]
The actual auction is a piece of information to which the player is 
entitled (since he is always allowed to ask it), so I would never rule  
that the player does not notice, when it is next his turn to bid, the 
auction so far.

[Paul Lamford]
How do we reconcile that view with the following extract from the Laws:
[16A]1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it 
derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including 
illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by 
unauthorized information from another source; or <snip>

In this example [the player thinks he has opened 2NT, but has actually 
overcalled 2NT, to save those looking back at the thread] the opening 
bid, which the player only saw because of the unauthorised information 
of his partner's explanation, is not unaffected by UI, and therefore it 
would seem that he cannot use the opening bid of 1H. Another approach 
might be that to use the information that the player opened 1H i

Re: claim

Robert Frick — 2013-05-18T16:27:18


Nigel is being logical and making a really nice point. Note that we have a  
continuum: (1) leading to AQ, (2) leading to AKJ, (3) leading to AKQ10,  
etc. In all cases declarer miscounts. In the first, he thinks the player  
behind the AQ has Kx but the player really has K; in the second, he thinks  
that the player behind the AKJ has Qxx but the player really has Qx; etc.

If you want to rule in the first case that Reese goes not get all of the  
tricks, but in the last case that he does, I think you need explain why  
you are making different rulings in two very similar cases.

Re: claim

Herman De Wael — 2013-05-18T15:45:40

You're right, Sven, but:
the problem about the later contestation is:
1) solved
2) based on what lines are normal.
So the discussion we are having is still interesting.
Herman.

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

Re: claim

Sven Pran — 2013-05-18T12:01:51

 [Sven Pran] 
I can't help feeling that this discussion focuses too much on adjudicating a
contested claim (Law 70).

But the actual situation as far as I can remember is that we have an agreed
claim that is subsequently contested (Law 71).

There is a significant difference between the application of these two laws
and I see little reason to cancel the original agreement of losing just one
trick on the ground that this is impossible while we cannot convincingly
decide against the possibility of losing either zero or two tricks as the
cards lie.  

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