Re: L10c

Gordon Rainsford:

I think Herman was remembering the 1997 laws.

Richard Hills:

The laws of chess have not fundamentally changed since the Renaissance
(when "chess of the maddened queen" was introduced).

If the WBF adopted a similar policy of updating its laws every
half-millennium, instead of every ten years, it would simplify Herman
remembering which iteration of the fabulous Lawbook was operative. :-) :-)

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Monday, February 27, 2017, <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think Herman was remembering the 1997 laws.
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Richard Hills
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
> *Sent: *26 February 2017 06:56
> *To: *Bridge Laws Mailing List
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
> *Subject: *[BLML] L10c
>
>
>
> Herman De Wael:
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
> However, Richard carefully avoids saying anything about the other part:
> the lead out of turn by dummy or declarer. Here, both opponents may
> accept or refuse, so waiting to hear from partner must be allowed. But
> when partner speaks, he has decided for the partnership.
> [snip]
>
>
>
> Richard Hills:
>
>
>
> Not so. Herman has slightly misinterpreted the (admittedly ambiguous) 2007
> Law 55. The forthcoming unambiguous 2017 Law 55 will reveal that it is not
> necessarily the defender first to speak who decides for the partnership,
> but rather:
>
>
>
> "If the defenders choose differently then the option expressed by the
> player next in turn to the irregular lead shall prevail".
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Richard Hills
>
> On Friday, February 24, 2017, Herman De Wael <[email protected]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:
>
> Richard is correct as to the insufficient bid. Since only you can
> accept, any agreement by which partner can influence you is illegal
> communication.
> However, Richard carefully avoids saying anything about the other part:
> the lead out of turn by dummy or declarer. Here, both opponents may
> accept or refuse, so waiting to hear from partner must be allowed. But
> when partner speaks, he has decided for the partnership.
> And if this is illegal communication, then there is nothing anyone can
> do about it.
> Herman.
>
> Richard Hills wrote:
> > Mike Dodson:
> >
> > A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient bids
> > made me wonder if I have been cheating.  After an opponent’s
> > insufficient bid or lead out of turn,  I pause but do not call attention
> > to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference.  I assume partner
> > is paying attention and will call attention if he feels it is to our
> > advantage.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Richard Hills:
> >
> > 1) Only the LHO of an insufficient bidder is empowered to decide whether
> > or not to accept the insufficient bid (Law 27A1).
> > 2) If the RHO chooses a significant pause as a hint to the LHO, then in
> > my opinion that is an infraction of Law 16B (Extraneous Information from
> > Partner).
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Richard Hills
> >
> > On Friday, February 24, 2017, mike dodson <[email protected]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
> > <mailto:[email protected]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>> wrote:
> >
> >     A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient
> >     bids made me wonder if I have been cheating.  After an opponent’s
> >     insufficient bid or lead out of turn,  I pause but do not call
> >     attention to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference.  I
> >     assume partner is paying attention and will call attention if he
> >     feels it is to our advantage.  If it’s a lead out of turn and an
> >     opponent calls attention (all too often dummy!) I carefully say
> >     nothing unless I have a clear preference.  Allowing partner to speak
> >     first could be construed to be consultation, even if it seems
> >     allowed after a LOoT.
> >
> >     If waiting for partner to take action is consulting, calling
> >     attention to an irregularity is optional by L9 (may) and mandatory
> >     by L10 (without consulting partner).  Further as a director, should
> >     I rule against a player who didn’t notice  a lead or bid from an
> >     unexpected source.  And what ruling? Bid or play accepted by the
> >     pause? PP on general principles or  disqualification for deliberate
> >     violation of Law 10 (if I am mind reading I’ll know).
> >
> >     Mike Dodson
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Blml mailing list
> > [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
> > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14006 - Release Date:
> 02/23/17
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml