[BLML] Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
richard.hills at immi.gov.au
richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Fri May 21 01:09:52 CEST 2010
Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980):
"There is no terror in a bang, only in the anticipation of it."
Herman De Wael:
>It is not difficult, but imagine the hands were reversed, and
>it is declarer who claims for -1. Now, even if West has no
>intention of playing the S8 (obviously not realising it is
>high) we do give him that trick - even if it is East who
>remarks that it is high.
This hypothetical is correctly resolved by Herman.
Herman De Wael:
>Why should we not give East-West the same benefit here?
However, if a non-claim has been made by the declaring side,
because dummy has merely made a non-binding random remark, and
West attempts to concede the remaining tricks because West
obviously does not realise that the S8 is high, but East
immediately objects to West's concession, then use Law 68B2:
"Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede
one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no
concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist,
so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues.
Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these
circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to
information arising from its exposure and the information may
not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it."
While in this hypothetical situation none of West's cards are
penalty cards (which they were in the original problem, in
which West did not concede but merely exposed her cards as a
response to dummy's non-claim), the fact that East has objected
to West's concession is UI to West.
Ergo, West may not select from amongst logical alternative
cards one that might have been demonstrably suggested by East's
objection to the concession.
In the original post there was visible in dummy nothing but
heart and club winners. So the only logical cards for West to
play fall into the category of spade and diamond cards. Ergo,
if West's eight of spades is the only card in that category,
cashing the eight of spades must be West's only logical
>>"Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a
>>specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks"
>>means not only that dummy can claim, but that a spectator or
>>a Vugraph commentator can claim. True, it was "obviously"
>>not intended to mean that, but that is what it means.
>>Faced with this kind of thing, the people in charge of the
>>rules tend to adopt the "this is obvious" defence. They
>>should not, for most of the rules that are rubbish were made
>>before their time and can easily be remade to say what those
>>in charge want them to say. Konrad and I are happy to
Nigel Guthrie desires a Big Bang rewrite of the Laws of
Duplicate Bridge, in which their meanings are fundamentally
changed. However, for the few specific suggestions Nigel
Guthrie has put forward so far, I believe that the unintended
detrimental consequences of those Big Bang changes far
outweigh any mooted benefits.
On the other hand, I would be delighted to join Konrad
Ciborowski and David Burn in _translating_ the 2007 Lawbook
from turgid Kaplanese into plainer English.
Law 68A, plainer (but not plainest) English version:
"Any statement by declarer or a defender* to the effect that
their side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of
those tricks. Declarer or a defender also claims when she
suggests that play be curtailed, or when she shows her cards
(unless she demonstrably did not intend to claim - for
example, if declarer faces her cards after an opening lead
out of turn then Law 54, not this Law, will apply).
* See Law 43 for a statement by dummy, and see Law 76 for a
statement by a spectator."
Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550
Telephone: 02 6223 8453
Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets
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:
More information about the Blml