Indexing, The Art of

Jan Peach:

Where do you get 50% from, Richard?

Richard Hills:

Out of my own fertile (and entirely unofficial) imagination.

Jan Peach:

"Becomes aware of his own mistake" sounds like a 100% mistake and I don't
readily see why opponents shouldn't be told immediately about 100%
mistakes, as a "must do".

Richard Hills:

An immediate correction of a player's own misexplanation is still a
permitted option under the new 2017 Laws 20F4 / 75.

Jan Peach:

Far better to get normal table results than leaving it to the director
later.

Some additional waffle for when a player is merely wondering whether he has
gotten it wrong is no doubt fine but I can't read that into the current
wording.
I don't see creation of UI as the big problem. The problem with saying, eg,
"I said it was weak spades but I might be wrong and it's hearts and clubs,"
is that the opponents can't know whether partner is calling over weak
spades or hearts and clubs. I agree better to keep quiet if not 100% sure
of an error.

Richard Hills:

The issue is not to "get normal table results". Many years ago the American
expert partnership of Eddie Kantar and Marshall Miles very scientifically
reached a grand slam in clubs with a Trump suit of AKx opposite a void.

And the issue is not "to keep quiet", which may be a Misinformation
infraction.

Rather the issue, in my highly unofficial opinion, is to have an
uncontested auction correctly explained during the Clarification Period
without having the earlier auction poisoned by unnecessarily large amounts
of UI.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Monday, March 6, 2017, Jan Peach <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Where do you get 50% from, Richard?
> "Becomes aware of his own mistake" sounds like a 100% mistake and I don't
> readily see why opponents shouldn't be told immediately about 100%
> mistakes, as a "must do".
>
> Far better to get normal table results than leaving it to the director
> later.
>
> Some additional waffle for when a player is merely wondering whether he
> has gotten it wrong is no doubt fine but I can't read that into the current
> wording.
> I don't see creation of UI as the big problem. The problem with saying,
> eg, "I said it was weak spades but I might be wrong and it's hearts and
> clubs," is that the opponents can't know whether partner is calling over
> weak spades or hearts and clubs. I agree better to keep quiet if not 100%
> sure of an error.
> Jan
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> On Sunday, 5 Mar, 2017 At 1:23 PM, Richard Hills<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> The 2017 Drafting Committee created a number of improvements to Law 75.
> Two of these that I particularly like are:
>
> 1. The 2017 Law 75 specifically states that in a case of Misinformation
> the Director may unearth evidence that the offending side has "no agreed
> meaning" about a misexplained call; if so the Director can adjust the score
> if the non-offending side was damaged by not receiving the correct "no
> agreed meaning" explanation.
>
> 2. The 2007 Law 20F4 stated that a player MUST summon the Director
> IMMEDIATELY that player realises that their own earlier explanation was
> erroneous.
>
> But what if a player is only 50% confident that their own second thoughts
> are more correct than their own initial explanation? To prevent giving
> unnecessary UI to partner, the 2017 Law 75 (and the 2017 Law 20F4) now
> permits the player to defer summoning the Director to correct their
> own possibly erroneous explanation until the Correction Period. The player
> retains the option to summon the Director earlier (plus if the player
> belatedly realises their own misexplanation after the expiry of the
> Correction Period, then they must summon the Director immediately then).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard Hills
>
> On Saturday, March 4, 2017, Richard Hills <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tony Musgrove:
>
> Exactly, POTUS is a good joke.  As was the Kaplan L25.
> [snip]
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> The 2007 Drafting Committee deleted Kaplan's ridiculous Law 25B, replacing
> it with a more sensible clause.
>
> The 2017 Drafting Committee has further enhanced the clarity of Law 25
> (and Law 45C4(b)) by limiting the scope of "unintentional". A call (or
> designation of dummy's card) based on loss of concentration is now deemed
> intentional.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard Hills
>
> On Friday, March 3, 2017, Tony Musgrove <[email protected]> wrote:
> Exactly, POTUS is a good joke.  As was the Kaplan
> L25.  There should be more examples of how to
> apply some of the Laws, always promised but
> never delivered (except some from Max Bavin)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tony (Sydney)
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> a.witzen
> Sent: Friday, 3 March 2017 3:17 PM
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of
>
> On the contrary, there should be more jokes in this forum, such as
> beerfines in the lawbook for calls without merit.
> Regards,
> Anton
>
>
>
> Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet.
> A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam
>
>
> -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht --------
> Van: Michael Holmes <[email protected]>
> Datum: 03-03-2017 04:34 (GMT+01:00)
> Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected]>
> Cc: Richard Neville <[email protected]>, Rebecca Plush <
> [email protected]>, Rebecca Plush <[email protected]>
> Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of
>
> Richard,
>
> I don't find your joke funny!  Further, I don't think this is the forum
> for this!  I love the game of bridge like the rest of you!  Let's keep it
> to bridge.
>
> Mike Holmes
>
> Dr. Michael Holmes P.O. Box 56 Dumont, CO 80436 303 928-9187
>
>
> From: Richard Hills <[email protected]>
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected]>
> Cc: Richard Neville <[email protected]>; Rebecca Plush <
> [email protected]>; Rebecca Plush <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:45 PM
> Subject: [BLML] Indexing, The Art of
>
> In my penultimate draft of the Index to the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge
> I included this joke:
>
> POTUS
> See Trump
>
> In the ultimate draft I deleted the joke because it was irrelevant to the
> fabulous Lawbook. Likewise the American voters will delete the irrelevant
> joke in four years' time.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard Hills
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>

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