[BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Sun Sep 23 16:50:18 CEST 2012

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:14:48 -0400, Ed Reppert <blackshoe at mac.com> wrote:

> On Sep 22, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Robert Frick <rfrick at rfrick.info> wrote:
>> Anyway, no one is going to follow the actual laws, right?
> This is the fundamental flaw in your entire approach. Bluntly, it's  
> bullshit. And so is making up your own laws. Either rule per the  
> lawbook, or tear up your director's card. If you can't figure out how to  
> rule per the lawbook, seek expert guidance. If after that you *still*  
> don't get it, tear up your director's card.

ignored content: The player announced his HCP to the entire table. I think  
he meant to bid but had his HCP total on his mind. I ruled that this  
information was AI to the opponents and UI to his partner.

The lawbook says this is UI to both sides. I claimed that no one follows  
that rule.

Or maybe you are ruling that the information is UI to the opponents too.  
Then your comment above makes more sense. I am guessing you are wrong  
about what experts would advise. But we can check. We can even have a bet  
-- $20 says that the ACBL will give the same ruling as I did, the same  
ruling that seems to incense you.

If we are going to have a lawbook we can follow, we have to work for that.  
You are not helping.


More information about the Blml mailing list