rfrick at rfrick.info
Thu May 12 18:51:08 CEST 2016
On Thu, 12 May 2016 09:34:15 -0400, Richard Hills <hildalirsch at gmail.com> wrote:
> Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: East-West
> You, East, hold:
> The bidding has gone:
> 2D (Alerted and explained as a weak two in hearts, or a weak two in spades,
> or 21-22 balanced) - pass - 2H (pass or correct) - pass - 3D (non-systemic)
> - pass - ???
> What call do you make?
> What other call(s) do you consider making?
I thought about 3S and 4C, taking the 3D bid as possibly strong. But if partner has that, it's his problem, he's the one who made a foolish bid.
This comes up a lot at the club. At the lower level, players easily recover from mistaken bids because they don't make up impossible bids.
I you want a more serious answer, you have to tell me the probability that partner forgot the convention versus the probability that partner would make up a bid, expect me to catch it, and not realize that he has rebid diamonds and how I am going to see the auction.
> Best wishes,
> Richard Hills
> On Wednesday, May 11, 2016, Richard Hills <hildalirsch at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Steve Willner:
>> If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is
>> to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate
>> disciplinary body.
>> An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating."
>> Richard Hills:
>> Some quibbles:
>> 1) Grattan Endicott earlier noted that the Drafting Committee
>> intentionally excluded the words "cheat" / "cheating" from the Lawbook.
>> 2) Rather, in addition to run-of-mill unintentional infractions, there are
>> "must not" intentional infringements / infractions (Law 72B1), and "gravest
>> possible offence" private systems, for example finger signals (Law 73B2).
>> 3) "If the Director is convinced" is NOT the criterion for Law 91B (Right
>> to Disqualify). Unlike many other Laws, the Director may not act upon a
>> personal conviction / balance of probabilities. Instead the criterion is
>> "for cause".
>> 4) Due to the gravity of disqualification, Law 91B is the only Law in the
>> Lawbook for which the Director lacks autarky power. Any disqualification
>> under Law 91B also requires approval from the Tournament Organizer.
>> Best wishes,
>> Richard Hills
>> On Tuesday, May 10, 2016, Steve Willner <swillner at nhcc.net> wrote:
>>> On 2016-05-09 10:06 AM, agot wrote:
>>> > I think that the point is to prove that a leap to slam isn't
>>> > necessarily a proof that one got UI.
>>> Of course it isn't. Nobody has suggested any such thing. Good grief!
>>> A leap to slam with no visible prospects of making nor a worthwhile
>>> sacrifice is another matter. "Got UI" is one possible explanation, but
>>> there may be others. The Director has to judge on a case-by-case basis.
>>> On 2016-05-09 1:36 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>>> > 3. The embarrassment to the laws is when we cannot find any way to
>>> > rectify for a blatant case of cheating.
>>> If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is
>>> to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate
>>> disciplinary body.
>>> An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating." If a
>>> player receives UI from some source other than partner and doesn't
>>> notify the Director, that's a violation of L16C. There's no prescribed
>>> rectification, so L12A1 applies. Such judgments are made on "balance of
>>> probabilities," per L85A1, if the facts are unclear.
>>> Blml mailing list
>>> Blml at rtflb.org
More information about the Blml