Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Toronto 2017 case R6
"Robert Frick" <[email protected]> Sat, 24 Feb 2018 09:23:14 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <op.zex180m7bd67ou@december2014> |
Players should be taught to just bid 7S out of turn. (And of course players are not allowed to break the law for their own gain, but we already crossed that line.) On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 08:55:32 -0500, Herman De Wael <[email protected]> wrote: > Look, > > We seem to agree that thanks to his remark, he was allowed to bid 7H. > We also agree that the remark did not carry useful UI to partner, or at > the very least, any use of such UI would be superseded by his bid of 7H. > > So why do we need to give a PP for an action which carried no ill effect? > > Herman. > > Sven Pran wrote: >> It is indeed. >> And being a deliberate extraneous mark at his partner's turn to call (and which could influence his partner's selection of call) it deserves a hefty PP to say the least. >> >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] På vegne av Herman De Wael >> Sendt: fredag 23. februar 2018 13.46 >> Til: blml <[email protected]> >> Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 >> >> I consider his mention as "I will be bidding at my turn" not as a bid, but as an extraneous remark. >> >> brian wrote: >>> On 02/22/2018 09:26 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >>>> The Director is within his rights to adjust the score. North >>>> committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a specific >>>> redress for this infraction, the Director should make a ruling which >>>> restores equity. >>>> >>> >>> I understand that the fact that this is at the seven level makes >>> things a little unusual, but under more normal circumstances, would >>> there not be some logic to treating North's announcement as a bid out >>> of rotation? >>> >>> >>> Brian. >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory >>>> Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is >>>> whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the >>>> score. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Richard Hills >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> > On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the >>>> auction? >>>> > Bill >>>> > >>>> > Sent from my iPad >>>> > >>>> >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has >>>> just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking >>>> tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing >>>> that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any >>>> burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As >>>> advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. >>>> >> >>>> >> The Director ruled: >>>> >> >>>> >> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken >>>> tempo before doubling 7D. >>>> >> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. >>>> >> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested >>>> removing to 7S. >>>> >> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. >>>> >> >>>> >> The Appeals Committee ruled: >>>> >> >>>> >> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not >>>> actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose >>>> any call. >>>> >> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. >>>> >> >>>> >> Best wishes, >>>> >> >>>> >> Richard Hills >>>> >> >>>> >> Sent from my iPad >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> Blml mailing list >>>> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> <http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml> >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Blml mailing list >>>> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> <http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> <http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>> http://www.avg.com >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml