[BLML] a new sort of claim

olivier.beauvillain olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr
Fri May 21 09:35:01 CEST 2010


2. West showed the entire table his hand and East made a comment about being
able to win a trick with the S8. Both these acts constitute UI so I am going
to rule that West arbitrarily plays one of his remaining cards and it is NOT
the S8. Therefore the result is 6NT -1.
not always my opinion :
says you have an UI
Dummy got HA, DA, CA, you have S8, D2, C2, playing in NT
for me, even if you don't know about the S8, not playing it IS irrationnal!
Olivier Beauvillain
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jack Rhind" <jrhind at therock.bm>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim



In an effort to get out from under all the semantics I will put my head int
he noose here and make a ruling as follows:

1. Dummy is not permitted to make a claim or any statement about the ability
to win or lose tricks during the play so there dummy as not claimed but has
violated the rules.

2. West showed the entire table his hand and East made a comment about being
able to win a trick with the S8. Both these acts constitute UI so I am going
to rule that West arbitrarily plays one of his remaining cards and it is NOT
the S8. Therefore the result is 6NT -1.

3. Both E/W and N/S will get the result for 6NT -1. Additionally N/S will
get a PP for violating a law and causing this problem in the first place.

Does this get the job done?
Do you think this is a correct application of the laws?

Jack


On 5/20/10 1:10 PM, "olivier.beauvillain" <olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

> so,
>
> he may not but he can?
>
> he may not claim
> but he did claim
>
> this is illegal, ok
> but do we have a Law to tell us was happens?
> i don't think,
>
> usually, when there is an infraction, NOS may accept it,
>
> so why not let EW accept it?
>
> then it's a clain, W tables his cards
> East see a master card and telle him to play it,
>
> so it'a an easy 6NT-2 for everybody,
>
> where did i go wrong?
>
> ok, nowhere it's said that you can accept ANY irrégularity ...
>
> Olivier Beauvillain
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" <agot at ulb.ac.be>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 5:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim
>
>
>
> ton a écrit :
>> ton:
>>
>>> Dummy cannot make a claim, so he commits an infraction.
>>>
> Sorry. Dummy must not (or may not) make a claim.
> Dummy must not participate in any way to the play, except as specified
> (enquiry about possible revoke etc.). That's the auxiliary verb used in
> TFLB.
>
> If he couldn't, but did, he would commit an infraction to the rules of
> propositional logic.
> He may not, but he does, so he commits an infraction to the rules of 
> bridge.
>
> See the difference ?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
> __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base
> des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________
>
> Le message a été vérifié par ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


__________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base 
des signatures de virus 4755 (20100108) __________

Le message a été vérifié par ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com







More information about the Blml mailing list