gmane.games.bridge.laws

Re: Director! - I haven't seen the alert!

Sven Pran — 2013-05-21T13:17:22

PL 

[Sven Pran] 
Not noticing an alert is not a misunderstanding.
The caller didn't misunderstand anything, but he didn't pay sufficient attention to the game.

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

Re: Director! - I haven't seen the alert!

PL — 2013-05-21T12:38:55

[Marcin Wasłowicz]
Anyway, I've thought about 4 options:
1. Violation of alerting procedure leads to the damage for the non 
offending side - ADJUSTED SCORE.
2. Falling asleep (or reading history from previous round) is not a 
proper behaviour and the damage was done because of this fact - RESULT 
STANDS
3. Both sides are offending - SPLIT SCORE (bad score for both pairs).

[Paul Lamford]
LAW 21: CALL BASED ON MISINFORMATION
A. Call Based on Caller’s Misunderstanding
No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of 
his own misunderstanding.

That seems to cover it. Tough luck!

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

Re: Declarer withdrows the card dummy played instead of him,opponent discards at same time.

Sven Pran — 2013-05-20T22:15:52

7

[Sven Pran] 
A similar situation was one of the authorization tests for Norwegian TD
candidates many years ago (I don't know if we still use it):

The applicable laws are 45D and 16D: The Ace of Clubs must be withdrawn etc.

However East now has the UI that South has no more clubs, and Law 16D (which
is explicitly invoked from Law 45D) forbids West from choosing any logical
alternative that could be suggested by this information. Consequently I will
allow West to play either the Ace or the King, but not any smaller Club from
dummy to this trick.  

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

Declarer withdrows the card dummy played instead of him, opponent discards at same time.

Laszlo Hegedus — 2013-05-20T21:01:37

S/EW
..........................532
..........................T
..........................86542
..........................T742
KQ....................................................AJ94
98642....................................................3
AKQT....................................................J3
J6....................................................AK9853
..........................T876
..........................AKQJ75
..........................97
..........................Q

West North East South
..........................1H
1N     pass  2S*   3H
pass  pass  3N    DBL
4C     pass  5C///

2 spades: club suit (nothing about spades)

1. HT, 3, J, 2
2. D9, A, 2, 3
3. CJ, 2, 3, Q
4. D7, K, 4, J
5. C6, 4,

A, This moment, before the declarer could choose any card, dummy plays 
the A of Clubs.
B, The declarer remarks, he haven't named a card yet
C, South discard the 7 of hearts

B and C event are at the same moment. West hadn't seen South's discard, 
when he protested. South hadn't detected the declarer's protest before 
she discarded. TD was at the table, so there were no argument about the 
facts.

How do you decide as TD?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml< at >rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Re: Director! - I haven't seen the alert!

Sven Pran — 2013-05-20T20:24:07

Quote from your post:

North didn't see the alert for 1H because he was busy reading the print-outs
from the previous round ("how could I have such a minus in the butler
here?") but without doubt the alert was there and it was clear (South
instantly did admit that) but silent. Nobody noticed that North could have
missed the alert.

If this is confirmed as a fact I would rule against North on a trivial
violation of Law 74B1:

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:
1. paying insufficient attention to the game.

 

 

 

Fra: blml-bounces< at >rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces< at >rtflb.org] På vegne av
Marcin Waslowicz
Sendt: 20. mai 2013 21:30
Til: blml< at >rtflb.org
Emne: [BLML] Director! - I haven't seen the alert!

 

It's my first post here so I'd like to say hello to everyone. :)

I was a tournament director of an international teams tournament (a
relatively small one, mostly for invited friends) and I was called by a
player after the board was played. The player (North) did not see an alert
during the bidding therefore he misunderstood his partners' call which ended
up as total disaster. 

Before the first board (this was the 5th) EW:

- informed NS about their openings

- informed NS about transfers after 1C

- asked if they mind "knocking" alerts instead of taking ALERT from a
bidding-box

 

NS did agree for the knocking as an alert procedure for the round (they
actually knocked themselves). Long after the incident I've found out that S
didn't pay attention to the talking before the round and didn't remember a
thing from that listed above. On the other hand, N did confirm everything
and he was aware of the conventions used by EW.


The bidding was: 

_N__E__S__W

pas pas pas 1C*

pas 1H* 1S* pas

3S   x    4C x 

pas pas pas

There were no screens. 

1C - alerted by knocking the table, 11+ HCP, 2+ clubs

1H - alerted by knocking the table, transfer to spades (7+ HCP, 4+ spades)

1S - NOT alerted, take-out (showing other suits)

You can find complete board here:
http://jaom.pl/wyniki/2013/trophy/forest13b-9.html

 

North had:
K 9 8 6 2
8 6
Q 6 4
K J 6 

North didn't see the alert for 1H because he was busy reading the print-outs
from the previous round ("how could I have such a minus in the butler
here?") but without doubt the alert was there and it was clear (South
instantly did admit that) but silent. Nobody noticed that North could have
missed the alert.

North have heard that the alerting one should make sure that the alert has
been seen by both the opponents and West did not so.  

West argues that it's not his fault that North fell asleep - should he next
time shake him and scream "DID YOU SEE THE ALERT?!"

My first impression was that:

- West failed to alert in the proper way (by "proper" I mean "making sure
that both the opponents are aware of it") 

- North  violated law 74 and did not paid sufficient attention to the game 

On the second thought - is there really a rule that you have to make sure
that the alert have been seen? Every one knows that (I'm pretty sure I even
read it once or twice) but no-one could point it for me. I couldn't find it
in Laws of Duplimate Bridge, thus it is possible that this rule does not
apply for this tournament. 



Anyway, I've thought about 4 options:

1. Violation of alerting procedure leads to the damage for the non offending
side - ADJUSTED SCORE. 

2. Falling asleep (or reading history from previous round)  is not a proper
behaviour and the damage was done because of this fact - RESULT STANDS

3. Both sides are offending - SPLIT SCORE (bad score for both pairs).

 

What would you do as a tournament director having whole night to decide? 

Best regards,

Marcin Waslowicz (sorry for my English :P )

 

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

Director! - I haven't seen the alert!

Marcin Wasłowicz — 2013-05-20T19:29:58

It's my first post here so I'd like to say hello to everyone. :)

I was a tournament director of an international teams tournament (a
relatively small one, mostly for invited friends) and I was called by a
player after the board was played. The player (North) did not see an alert
during the bidding therefore he misunderstood his partners' call which
ended up as total disaster.

Before the first board (this was the 5th) EW:
- informed NS about their openings
- informed NS about transfers after 1C
- asked if they mind "knocking" alerts instead of taking ALERT from a
bidding-box

NS did agree for the knocking as an alert procedure for the round (they
actually knocked themselves). Long after the incident I've found out that S
didn't pay attention to the talking before the round and didn't remember a
thing from that listed above. On the other hand, N did confirm everything
and he was aware of the conventions used by EW.

The bidding was:
_N__E__S__W
pas pas pas 1C*
pas 1H* 1S* pas
3S   x    4C x
pas pas pas

There were no screens.

1C - alerted by knocking the table, 11+ HCP, 2+ clubs
1H - alerted by knocking the table, transfer to spades (7+ HCP, 4+ spades)
1S - NOT alerted, take-out (showing other suits)

You can find complete board here:
http://jaom.pl/wyniki/2013/trophy/forest13b-9.html

North had:
K 9 8 6 2
8 6
Q 6 4
K J 6

North didn't see the alert for 1H because he was busy reading the
print-outs from the previous round ("how could I have such a minus in the
butler here?") but without doubt the alert was there and it was clear
(South instantly did admit that) but silent. Nobody noticed that North
could have missed the alert.

North have heard that the alerting one should make sure that the alert has
been seen by both the opponents and West did not so.

West argues that it's not his fault that North fell asleep - should he next
time shake him and scream "DID YOU SEE THE ALERT?!"

My first impression was that:
- West failed to alert in the proper way (by "proper" I mean "making sure
that both the opponents are aware of it")
- North  violated law 74 and did not paid sufficient attention to the game

On the second thought - is there really a rule that you have to make sure
that the alert have been seen? Every one knows that (I'm pretty sure I even
read it once or twice) but no-one could point it for me. I couldn't find it
in Laws of Duplimate Bridge, thus it is possible that this rule does not
apply for this tournament.


Anyway, I've thought about 4 options:
1. Violation of alerting procedure leads to the damage for the non
offending side - ADJUSTED SCORE.
2. Falling asleep (or reading history from previous round)  is not a proper
behaviour and the damage was done because of this fact - RESULT STANDS
3. Both sides are offending - SPLIT SCORE (bad score for both pairs).

What would you do as a tournament director having whole night to decide?

Best regards,
Marcin Waslowicz (sorry for my English :P )
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml< at >rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

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 inferior, in
ruling a contested claim.
• Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously
not the percentage line.
• Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible,
such
as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand.
_______________________________________________
[Nige1] IMO ...
In discussion groups, many directors judge an action to be a SEWOG that 
doesn't satisfy guidelines such as the above. Few directors know how to 
adjust the redress after an (alleged)  SEWOG. Players are no better than 
directors at understanding this rule as demonstrated by recent threads on 
Bridge-winners. Like many other rules, this rule is too sophisticated and 
subjective for players to comply with; or for directors to enforce. 
consistently, fairly, or even legally. Luckily this is one of the rules that 
add no value whatsoever to the game of Bridge. Such rules are completely 
unnecessary and should be scrapped. 

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

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 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: 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 be deemed ‘normal’, albeit careless or inferior, in
ruling a contested claim.
• Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously
not the percentage line.
• Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, 
such
as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml< at >rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

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

 

are there other ones? 

 

Yours

Richard Bley 

 

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

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.

_______________________________________________
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

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).

What's the problem?

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 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

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 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