Re: L10c

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 03:02:49 -0500, Richard Hills <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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. :-) :-)


relevance?

>
> 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