http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63358 <pre>Congratulations to the WBF for producing a continuous mapping from IMPs to VPs in teams matches. Now each IMP difference will translate into a different VP result, probably eliminating the embarrassing splitting of tied results. Next, I would like a similar continuous scoring regime in the raw score to IMP conversion. I know it is rather nitpicking, but if I run a Howell with cross IMP scoring, I want the total of scores to be as near zero as possible. I use Herman DeWael's Bastille system in my own programs. This achieves this desideradum quite closely, but I am slightly worried that it might be only quasi-legal. I know that in Australia "Swiss Pairs" competitions are typically scored with IMPs versus a datum which I suspect is Butler obtained, and then rounded to the nearest 10, with 5 rounded up. I hate this, but it is said the punters like it as they can compare their scores against the datum more easily. Does anyone know how they do the IMP scoring on BBO? It seems to be some sort of cross-impe</pre> Tony Musgrove 2013-06-17T06:36:10 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63339 <pre>UNOFFICIAL 1997 Scope: ..... The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious. ..... 1997 Law 9B1(a): The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. Sven Pran: Richard Hills; Under the 1997 Lawbook David would be correct, since both sides would be seriously infracting "must" offending sides. (For example, if the 1997 TD was required to award an artificial adjusted score as a consequence of that 1997 Law 9B1(a) infraction, both 1997 sides would receive average-minus.) But ... Eric Landau observed on blml about a decade ago that "must" was an overly draconian modal for the purpose of Law 9B1(a). The WBF powers-that-be took cognizance of Eric's point, so the 2007 Law 9B1(a) reads: The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. And the 2007 Introduction reads: ..... "should" do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor'</pre> Richard HILLS 2013-06-06T00:47:08 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63335 <pre>The auction was E S W N 2NT 2D/3D P 3H The insufficient bid of 2D was replaced by 3D. The table apparently agreed that this was nonbarring. Now EW are calling the director because North is using UI from the 2D bid. North is guessing that 3D is probably Cappelletti, because 2D over 1NT would be Cappelletti. It's an interesting question how to rule. Or what to do. Note that if 3D is natural, then North is guessing wrong; if 2D was Capelletti and systemically 3D would be natural, then the table ruling was wrong. My point is this. I felt like this was a situation I should not have to deal with. These were experienced players. They should have known to call me. I should try to be fair, whatever that is. But really, they should accept whatever ruling I give them. And that became relevant when E wanted a committee. But there is nothing in the rule book about consequences for not calling the director. Should there be? _______________________________________________ Blml m</pre> Robert Frick 2013-06-05T00:27:47 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63311 <pre>As of 2007, it's up to the RA whether to permit defenders to ask each other or not. The ACBL allows it (always has), and I gather the EBU does too. (Right?) What's the current status in other jurisdictions, including EBL and WBF? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml&lt; at &gt;rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml </pre> Steve Willner 2013-05-30T20:40:27 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63296 <pre>Today, declarer said "making 4", East (defender) said "making 3, we won the last trick", and Declarer agreed. Then declarer, dummy, and that defender all put away their cards. Was that legal? Relevance: The other defender now said "I have making 2." "A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won..." Is agreement with one defender enough? The law is ambiguous. There are advantages to the ambiguity. There are other factors going on here. If East had said "Fine by me", I am not sure if I would count that as agreement. In my example, the defender actively participated in making the agreement. Why it was relevant: Of course, at an expert level you just go over the hand. I judged it unlikely that declarer or dummy would remember the hand and I was not confident in the defender. When the defender started verbally abusing declarer, it seemed like a bad idea to go through the hand. (I once tried to go through the hand </pre> Robert Frick 2013-05-29T00:54:02 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63275 <pre>Law 58B2: If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). Is the player allowed to choose his card (if both are legal plays), or must he play the originally intended card? Example: South leads a diamond, and West plays both the DJ and D8, with neither play clearly irrational. Should the TD ask West, "Which card did you intend to play?" or should he allow West to choose either card after explaining the consequences? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml&lt; at &gt;rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml </pre> David Grabiner 2013-05-27T02:06:16 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63269 <pre>EW wanted an explanation of South's 3C bid. I decided that (1) it was unlikely a partnership would talk about the meaning of the bid, and (2) it could/should be figured out using bridge knowledge. Since EW was a good pair, I denied their request. However, that all hinged on the meaning of North's double. West figured this out and asked the meaning of that bid. South started to say something like "take out" but was interrupted by North saying "It was penalty". Standard American is penalty, so now EW were receiving the correct partnership explanation. However, what they needed to know was how South interpreted the double. Which of course they are not entitled to. I think they got enough from South's short truncated explanation to figure it out. I am guessing it is not legal for North to explain her own bid until South shows some evidence that he will give the wrong explanation. Otherwise, all of the rules against this will apply. The auction: 1D X XX P P 2C P P X P 3C P 3N</pre> Robert Frick 2013-05-24T00:27:13 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63267 <pre>Hi all, Ten of you asked for and already received files (WinWord and PowerPoint or OpenOffice) containing description and maps of pair movements (French or English version). Useful to learn, choose and use movements, these files can be set to your needs and use freely. If I forgot you, just send me a private email. Nobody asked for my other files, set to print table maps for Howell and individual movements. I have only a French version, but you can easily translate to your language. Laval Du Breuil _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml&lt; at &gt;rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml </pre> Laval Du Breuil 2013-05-23T02:49:33 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63258 <pre>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 pro</pre> Laszlo Hegedus 2013-05-20T21:01:37 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63256 <pre>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 Ther</pre> Marcin Wasłowicz 2013-05-20T19:29:58 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63247 <pre>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 didn’t 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… &lt;http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/InRegGuid11.pdf&gt; http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/InRegGuid11.pdf are there other ones? Yours Richard Bley _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml&lt; at &gt;rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml </pre> Dr. Richard Bley 2013-05-20T10:21:19 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63241 <pre>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</pre> Richard HILLS 2013-05-20T02:30:39 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63192 <pre>Message to Jeff Easterson I apologize.... Jeff, As requested, I tried to send you a private email concerning my maps of movements. Unfortunately, the address you sent me failed. Laval Du Breuil _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml&lt; at &gt;rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml </pre> Laval Du Breuil 2013-05-13T23:09:56 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63158 <pre>I've been on the list for many years though I don't post often. I have responded twice recently however and neither post has appeared. I also seem to miss some other posts and only know of them when they are quoted in replies. Sent from my iPhone so may be more terse than usual _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml&lt; at &gt;rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml </pre> Gordon Rainsford 2013-05-09T06:17:28 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63138 <pre>UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills quote of October 2008 WBF Laws Committee minute: " ... compliance with the ***overriding requirement of the laws*** always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with ***correct explanations*** of the partnership understandings ... " Grattan Endicott, 31st December 2009 response: +=+ Reflecting the precedence that duty to opponents has over duty to partner. ~ G ~ +=+ Herman De Wael, 6th May 2013: [snip] Why the hell should guessing be disallowed? My opponents are not entitled to know that I am not certain. If I have guessed correctly, there is no-one who shall ever know I have "misled" them into believing I was certain. The option of having the Director send you away from the table is just that, an option. There is nothing in the laws that states that this is what you should do. And suggesting that doing otherwise is illegal is just plain WRONG. Richard Hills, 7th May 2013: When a player has forgotten her methods, there is a strong likelihood that her guess will be inaccurate</pre> Richard HILLS 2013-05-06T23:05:51 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63122 <pre>Of course, Richard Hills and ad hominems go together like a horse and carriage. I'll respond this time. Sounds like fun in this one case. [Richard Hills, with my paragraph numbering] [1.] Mr Fusselman is a hypocrite, frequently accusing me of misquoting, but now trying to make me sound weird by deleting my supporting arguments from my previous post without even the courtesy of using a [snip]. [2.] Choosing to play according to Restricted Choice may have an “a priori” chance of 76%, but after all the cards are played the Restricted Choice line has been either a 100% success or a 0% failure. [3.] Likewise, Law 85 requires the Director to weigh a disputed fact (for example, a contested explanation) upon the balance of probabilities, but Law 85 also requires the Director to eventually rule that that disputed fact is either 100% True or 0% False. [Richard Hills---this is most of what I left out previously, again with my paragraph numbers for a more careful and complete response] [4.] Rather, I app</pre> Jerry Fusselman 2013-05-06T01:38:55 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63115 <pre>Perhaps this is of interest. The player originally said he did not know the meaning of a bid. Then he offered to explain how he was interpreting it. The opponents turned this offer down. Then they claimed damage. If they had been told the correct meaning of the bid, then they would have found their correct contract. But, had he been (allowed? asked?) to explain how he was interpreting the bid, he would have given the correct partnership explanation. RULING I turned them down, as did a committee. For me, they can't turn down his offer to explain the bid and then claim damage because the bid was not explained correctly. IMO It seems to me that a player should have the right to guess at the partnership agreement (and then suffer the consequences if wrong). It would be odd to forbid him this opportunity and they adjust for damages because the opponents were not given the explanation he was forbidden from giving. The player perhaps should have phrased his offer differently. But the ACBL </pre> Robert Frick 2013-05-04T00:40:18 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63108 <pre>UNOFFICIAL From a private email: Richard Hills: Indeed. Portions of the Ali-Hills relay system are prohibited even under the ACBL Super-Chart (most obviously our Brown Sticker RCO Two Bids, which are commonly used by many other non-experts at the Canberra Bridge Club). Sydney's Lindfield Bridge Club powers-that-be have a policy aimed at discouraging psyches - which are legal under Law 40A3 - by requiring each and every psycher to fill out by hand a Psyche Form. Result: Even when a psyche is the demonstrably suggested logical alternative, many potential psychers will choose a second-best call to avoid the tedious paperwork. Similarly, those inclined to experiment with funky methods under the ACBL Super-Chart may likewise be deterred by the tedious paperwork. ACBL Super-Chart, introduction: This chart applies to all NABC+ events with no upper masterpoint limit played at an NABC in which contestants play segments (no change of opponents) of 12 or more boards. This chart (or any part) may be used at a s</pre> Richard HILLS 2013-04-30T23:16:54 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63091 <pre>W N E S - - P P 1H X 2C 2S P P 2H The director is called. East confirms that 2H was not a mispull, and South does not accept the insufficient bid. East is allowed to replace the call; he chooses to pass. Under L26A, South may require or forbid a heart lead. After the hand, it turns out that 2C was a constructive heart raise (a convention which is marked on the E-W card); West failed to alert and nobody asked the meaning. Therefore, East had specified hearts during the auction, and there should have been no lead penalty. Should either East or the director have does something about this possibility, which would have created UI once the meaning of the 2C bid was revealed? And if the lead penalty damaged E-W, should there be an adjustment? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml&lt; at &gt;rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml </pre> David Grabiner 2013-04-29T00:43:29 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63090 <pre>Compare two situations In one case, declarer claims the rest and shows his hand. The defense objects, noting that in terms of top winners, declarer is one trick short. I assume at this point we do not allow a clarification statement. Last Thursday, declarer claimed, but before showing his hand he double-checked and realized *by himself* that in terms of winners, he was a trick short. He quickly thinks about a good line of play and offers a clarification statement ("I have the rest on a marked heart-spade squeeze"). _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml&lt; at &gt;rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml </pre> Robert Frick 2013-04-29T00:10:37 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/63067 <pre>The discussion with Steve Wilner has given me insight into something that touches on the principles of DWS. A player hears his partner misexplain his previous bid. Well, he can't be certain it's a misexplanation, but in any case it's a different explanation than what he intended. That is going to become clear when his hand gets shown, as that hand corresponds to the system he thought he was playing and not to the system his partner thinks they are playing. But that damage has already been done and it's a worry for after the board. It is worthwhile here to note that the player has no way of knowing which of the two systems is the true one. Very often, the player is reasonably certain which one it is, but every so often he will be in doubt. And there's no way of finding out now. He's not allowed to check the SC, he's not allowed to call the TD, nothing. Before the board is over however, the player needs to do three things: 1) he needs to make his next call. That call will be judged, afterwards, to </pre> Herman De Wael 2013-04-26T07:51:12 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.games.bridge.laws