Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Toronto 2017 case R6
Bill Kemp <[email protected]> Sun, 25 Feb 2018 13:30:49 +0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
We didn't give a pp, (I hope), we gave a DP. Bill Sent from my iPad > On 24 Feb 2018, at 21:55, 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 the very least, any use of such UI would be superseded by his bid of 7H.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