[BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 36, Issue 1
allevy at aol.com
Thu Mar 1 16:33:25 CET 2012
Maybe I came in the middle of the 'debate' but what was presented was taking a shot that some of the three panelists would have bid without the hesitation. No mention was made that they would think that the bid was so clear that there was no logical alternative.
In fact, from a director ruling and a prior poll, it was already determined (to the reader of this discussion) that Pass was strongly considered a logical alternate by many...otherwise the original ruling would have been different. So, if the first Director(s) did their work...and in the WBF it is strongly assumed to be the case...and in the ACBL (in top events) it most assuredly is the case...then that should end the matter.
Further appealing to get a second bite of the apple has its consequences. Wanting to start over because there is a probability that you will win, even if it is small chance is one's prerogative. (All cases fit that description.) In cases like this I would hope the committee gives an appeal without merit if they see no change in the ruling, even if not unanimous, and if the appealer continues with other similar appeals, disciplinary action should be taken. Also, Appeals should be posted to further be open and informative, and names of players, Directors and committee members should be given.
From: blml-request <blml-request at rtflb.org>
To: blml <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thu, Mar 1, 2012 6:00 am
Subject: Blml Digest, Vol 36, Issue 1
Send Blml mailing list submissions to
blml at rtflb.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
blml-request at rtflb.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
blml-owner at rtflb.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Blml digest..."
1. Re: 25A - but what now (Alain Gottcheiner)
2. Re: Blml Digest, Vol 35, Issue 50 (Robert Frick)
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:46:21 +0100
From: Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be>
Subject: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml at rtflb.org>
Message-ID: <4F4E2C2D.3000405 at ulb.ac.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Le 28/02/2012 20:28, Roger Pewick a ?crit :
>> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:51:00 +0800
>> From: diggadog at iinet.net.au
>> To: blml at rtflb.org
>> Subject: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now
>> On 28/02/2012 7:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote:
>>> Ed Reppert
>>>>> [Sven Pran]
>>>>> We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had
>>>>> just been introduced).
>>>>> Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and places
>>>>> it on the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call.
>>>>> The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player
>>>>> should be required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and
>>>>> then apply Laws 29 and 31.
>>>>> Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded.
>>>> Okay, but why? What was the reasoning behind this finding?
>>> [Sven Pran] No justification anywhere in the laws. Also implicit violation
>>> of Law 9A3.
>> Laws Committee Minute
>> "7. When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the call
>> withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. No unauthorized information
>> is conveyed by it. Law 16D does not apply to the change of an unintended
>> call. If the Director allows a call that should not be allowed under
>> this Law it is a Director?s error and Law 82C applies."
>> At the point where the call is withdrawn it may be opportune for the
>> director to determine that nothing has happened out of turn and return
>> to the player whose turn it was to call.
> What the law and its crafters have demonstrated is not knowing the crucial
> The crucial nexus is [a] the principle of one action per turn and [b] the
principle that what players do, counts.
> When a player BOOT he has gained turns [plural] while depriving the opponents
of turns to which they were entitled. To be a rightful remedy it must strive to
restore the turns to their proper balance. But only so much can in fact be
done?. Offender's extra turn must be canceled. The offender's partner must be
silenced until the balance of turns has been restored- which cannot happen
before offender has repeated his canceled action. The fact is that every
communication has the effect of taking a turn. So, even though a bid can be
undone, the spatial communication- the communication of haste/eagerness due to
not waiting for his turn cannot be undone.
AG : in my own experience, this isn't the main message. The main message
is that the player was mentally away from the table . Now, occaisonally,
this might constitute UI.
> Now, the law states: "?a player may substitute his intended call for an
> In other words, players are entitled to more turns than their opponents.
AG : No more, IMHO, than when a player picks back his revoke card and
substitutes a legal card. There will be a penalty, but it is indeed the
new card which counts.
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:01:38 -0500
From: "Robert Frick" <rfrick at rfrick.info>
Subject: Re: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 35, Issue 50
To: blml at rtflb.org, "Al Levy" <allevy at aol.com>
Message-ID: <op.wage40owbd67ou at bob-hp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed;
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:54:21 -0500, Al Levy <allevy at aol.com> wrote:
> Re: Appealing a correct ruling in hopes of getting a different result of
> the coin flip.
> The question for the committee is not what they would bid in the absence
> of a hesitation, but if Pass is a logical alternative. So, even if all
> three panelists would have bid at the table without the hesitation, if
> the decide, based on reason or a poll, that pass is a logical
based on reason? What is the possible reason?
If I poll 3 players, and they are all bidding, and apparently none are
seriously considering passing, isn't that end-of-story? What other
conclusion could anyone reach except the pass is a logical alternative?
(No one challenged the quality of the polling process.)
Should the committee decide, based on their own reasoning, what players
*of that ability evaluating the hand that way) will bid? One committee
member tried that -- she guessed they would all pass.
Or if you think a logical alternative is just an alternative that is
logical, then I can see a reasoning process. But I don't read the lawbook
that way. And if it supposed to be read that way, I am not sure why I
would have bothered with a poll.
> , then they will rule against the appeal and, in cases like this, should
> rule it frivolous. Ruling it frivolous, in itself, just says that the
> ruling is clear and without doubt.
> Further comments...
> (1) The Directors' decision should be assumed to be correct (WBF);
> (2) The Appeals should be published, with all names involved. It is
> important for future appeals that it set a clear standard;
> (3) Players who continually appeal in this type of situation (trying to
> get a better ruling even though they know they have been given a fair
> shot and are likely to be ruled against), establish a 'reputation' and
> have to live with it.
> (4) Repeat offenders should be disciplined.
> AL Levy
Blml mailing list
Blml at rtflb.org
End of Blml Digest, Vol 36, Issue 1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Blml