From henk at ripe.net Tue Apr 7 14:49:36 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:49:36 +0200 Subject: [Blml] First posting to the list Message-ID: <49DB4BE0.3050600@ripe.net> Hi all, If this mail gets through, then the list should be operational on the new server. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From henk at uijterwaal.nl Tue Apr 7 14:50:06 2009 From: henk at uijterwaal.nl (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:50:06 +0200 Subject: [Blml] [Fwd: First posting to the list] Message-ID: <49DB4BFE.6070704@uijterwaal.nl> Hi all, If this mail gets through, then the list should be operational on the new server. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 7 15:04:09 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:04:09 +0200 Subject: [Blml] First posting to the list In-Reply-To: <49DB4BE0.3050600@ripe.net> References: <49DB4BE0.3050600@ripe.net> Message-ID: <49DB4F49.70704@skynet.be> Is there any reason why the first post should contain the quote: Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. (with which I completely agree, FWIW) Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Hi all, > > If this mail gets through, then the list should be operational on the > new server. > > Henk > From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Apr 7 15:09:54 2009 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 15:09:54 +0200 Subject: [Blml] [blml] A revoke case study Message-ID: <9E60EF8B2732459E901D87D4A99CDAEB@PCdeOlivier> hi, where are AK of hearts? if both in East, you have a squeeze : JS K A, club ruff, cash trumps and East is squeezed between H & S then i give 11 tricks witch is equity, best regards Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: PO Sundelin To: blml at amsterdamned.org Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 12:53 PM Subject: [blml] A revoke case study Dummy has AQT83, Q32, -, 2 J4,T8,-,65432,- Contract is 4 diamonds. Declarer has lost two tricks. Trumps are drawn, clubs have been ruffed, hearts and spades are untouched. Declarer plays the spade jack, winning the trick, West discards a club. Declarer continues with the four and West this time follows with the two. Declarer wins the ace and discards a heart on the spade queen, which is won by West?s king. West?s spade holding originally was K4. The revoke is established. The revoker didn?t win the revoke trick, but did win a trick later so it seems ?64A covers that. One trick for declarer, contract just made. However, 64C gives the TD the right to correct the score. Is this such a case? Of course declarer could have finessed again making two overtricks, but the revoke gave him a safety play, which had never been possible without the revoke. Question A: Should the result be corrected, and if so, to what? Question B: Is a decision by the TD under 64C considered a matter of law which I think can?t be appealed? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ G?r det l?ngsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling. S?k och j?mf?r priser hos Kelkoo. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 3979 (20090331) __________ Le message a iti virifii par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 3988 (20090404) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090407/a14161b9/attachment.html From henk at uijterwaal.nl Tue Apr 7 15:11:07 2009 From: henk at uijterwaal.nl (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:11:07 +0200 Subject: [Blml] First posting to the list In-Reply-To: <49DB4F49.70704@skynet.be> References: <49DB4BE0.3050600@ripe.net> <49DB4F49.70704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49DB50EB.5040401@uijterwaal.nl> Herman De Wael wrote: > Is there any reason why the first post should contain the quote: > > Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no > hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. It happens to be my quote of the month. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com Tue Apr 7 15:37:08 2009 From: ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com (Ranju Bhattacharjee) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 19:07:08 +0530 Subject: [Blml] Thanks for new server Ranju Bhattacharjee Calc... Message-ID: Thanks for new server Ranju Bhattacharjee Calcutta, India _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Messenger. Multitasking at its finest. http://www.microsoft.com/india/windows/windowslive/messenger.aspx From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 7 15:49:39 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:49:39 +0200 Subject: [Blml] First posting to the list In-Reply-To: <49DB4F49.70704@skynet.be> References: <49DB4BE0.3050600@ripe.net> <49DB4F49.70704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49DB59F3.9030402@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Is there any reason why the first post should contain the quote: > > Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no > hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. > > (with which I completely agree, FWIW) > Except, perhaps, that the eight casualties of the Pecrot railway disaster -obviously caused by regionalist nonsense- aren't alive. To cut it short, two sections of a 25-mile railway line had to be managed by separate authorities, because it crosses the linguistic boundary ; and the persons in charge didn't understand each other's language -or didn't want to admit they did. Recently, a politician exclaimed : "we'll eventually do something when there will have been loss of life". There already was. Alain From adam at irvine.com Tue Apr 7 16:56:44 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:56:44 -0700 Subject: [Blml] First posting to the list In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:04:09 +0200." <49DB4F49.70704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200904071444.HAA11257@mailhub.irvine.com> Herman wrote: > Is there any reason why the first post should contain the quote: > > Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no > hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. Maybe Henk accidentally put us all on the Belgium Laughter Mailing List instead of the Bridge Laws Mailing List... -- Adam From tedying at yahoo.com Tue Apr 7 17:20:46 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Blml] How do you rule? Message-ID: <969502.18056.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I had been having problems with the old list for some time, but thanks to Henk, I'm not back on the BLML list. Note that if anyone prefers to see the hand in normal hand record form, the hand record is on-line at: http://www.districtsix.org/WBL/Results/2009_games/0402/Hands.pdf Board 13 Both Vul Dealer North N S-AT763, H-9, D-K98, C-K842 W E S-Q4, H-JT84, D-AJ762, C-A7 S-2, H-AQ762, D-T4, C-QJ963 S S-KJ985, H-K53, D-Q53, C-T5 N E S W P 1H 1S 2S 4S P(1) P X P 5C P 5H PP (1) N said that she put the STOP card down, waited 10 seconds and then E still paused for a time before the STOP card came up. S agreed that the BIT was significant. E/W contend that she waited about 5 seconds, picked it up and then E waited appropriately and then passed. Table result 5H, -2, E/W +200 So, I'm curious how BLML would rule in this case. -Ted Ying. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090407/df0aecb8/attachment-0001.html From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Apr 7 17:46:27 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:46:27 +0200 Subject: [Blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <969502.18056.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <969502.18056.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <009601c9b798$06e34740$14a9d5c0$@nl> I do not understand exactly what happened with that stop card. I presume it is handled in the States a bit different. Let's assume a BIT by E. I fail to see how West can ever be barred from doubling with an opening after PD opened. I cannot imagine pass to be a LA. So score stands. It is funny that East bids 5C, that could be construed as constructive, but that of course is beside the point. By the way, a normal reply on this message did not go to the list, I did reply all. I think that was different on the previous server. I like it this way. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ted Ying Sent: dinsdag 7 april 2009 17:21 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [Blml] How do you rule? I had been having problems with the old list for some time, but thanks to Henk, I'm not back on the BLML list. Note that if anyone prefers to see the hand in normal hand record form, the hand record is on-line at: http://www.districtsix.org/WBL/Results/2009_games/0402/Hands.pdf Board 13 Both Vul Dealer North N S-AT763, H-9, D-K98, C-K842 W E S-Q4, H-JT84, D-AJ762, C-A7 S-2, H-AQ762, D-T4, C-QJ963 S S-KJ985, H-K53, D-Q53, C-T5 N E S W P 1H 1S 2S 4S P(1) P X P 5C P 5H PP (1) N said that she put the STOP card down, waited 10 seconds and then E still paused for a time before the STOP card came up. S agreed that the BIT was significant. E/W contend that she waited about 5 seconds, picked it up and then E waited appropriately and then passed. Table result 5H, -2, E/W +200 So, I'm curious how BLML would rule in this case. -Ted Ying. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090407/cd911a1a/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 17:56:06 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:56:06 -0500 Subject: [Blml] First posting to the list In-Reply-To: <49DB4BE0.3050600@ripe.net> References: <49DB4BE0.3050600@ripe.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0904070856n62709bbfw5b7fdbe116733682@mail.gmail.com> Thanks so much for the upgrade, Henk. I would like it better if the replies went to BLML only by default. ?I don't want to go back to the days of hundreds of?apologies?on BLML after sending private emails by accident. Regards, Jerry Fusselman From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Apr 7 17:56:34 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:56:34 +0200 Subject: [Blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <969502.18056.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <969502.18056.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49DB77B2.2040504@t-online.de> Hi Ted, Ted Ying schrieb: > I had been having problems with the old list for some time, but thanks to Henk, I'm not back > on the BLML list. > > Note that if anyone prefers to see the hand in normal hand record form, the hand record is > on-line at: http://www.districtsix.org/WBL/Results/2009_games/0402/Hands.pdf > > Board 13 > Both Vul > Dealer North > > N > S-AT763, H-9, D-K98, C-K842 > W E > S-Q4, H-JT84, D-AJ762, C-A7 S-2, H-AQ762, D-T4, C-QJ963 > S > S-KJ985, H-K53, D-Q53, C-T5 > > N E S W > P 1H 1S 2S > 4S P(1) P X > P 5C P 5H > PP > > (1) N said that she put the STOP card down, waited 10 seconds and then E still paused for a time before the STOP card > came up. S agreed that the BIT was significant. E/W contend that she waited about 5 seconds, picked it up and then > E waited appropriately and then passed. I am not going to offer an opinion on that STOP card thing, but I fail to see the significance anyway. West has a clear cut action, holding two aces opposite an opening bid. East is free to act as he wishes, having no UI, so the score should stand, regardless of whether the TD thought there was a hesitation or not. Does anyone suggest West should pass?? Best regards Matthias > > Table result 5H, -2, E/W +200 > So, I'm curious how BLML would rule in this case. > > -Ted Ying. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 7 20:12:25 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 19:12:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] First posting Message-ID: <002801c9b7dc$6b83aed0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <969502.18056.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49DC0DF2.60306@verizon.net> Hi Ted, I believe that Hans and Matthias have the ruling correct. W may or may not have UI from the stop card, but it turns out to be irrelevant. With a partner who opened, and looking at an opening bid himself, W cannot pass. Since all of his values are defensive, including two aces, double is the only logical alternative. The 5C call is curious, perhaps looking for a potential better fit that hearts, but the preference back to hearts is normal. The UI only becomes an issue if there is more than one logical alternative for W. Then you'd have to determine if the UI suggests on LA over another. I'm a bit curious why anyone would consider a delay after N pulled back the stop card a problem, unless the lag was significantly longer than reported. The purpose of the stop card is to ask E to break tempo whether or not it is necessary. E did so (and E should not necessarily call the instant that N pulls back the stop card, as this could be interpreted as a "fast" call). The regulation worked, more or less. No infraction. No adjustment. Hirsch Ted Ying wrote: > I had been having problems with the old list for some time, but thanks > to Henk, I'm not back > on the BLML list. > > Note that if anyone prefers to see the hand in normal hand record > form, the hand record is > on-line at: > http://www.districtsix.org/WBL/Results/2009_games/0402/Hands.pdf > > Board 13 > Both Vul > Dealer North > > N > S-AT763, H-9, D-K98, C-K842 > W E > S-Q4, H-JT84, D-AJ762, C-A7 S-2, H-AQ762, D-T4, C-QJ963 > S > S-KJ985, H-K53, D-Q53, C-T5 > > N E S W > P 1H 1S 2S > 4S P(1) P X > P 5C P 5H > PP > > (1) N said that she put the STOP card down, waited 10 seconds and then > E still paused for a time before the STOP card > came up. S agreed that the BIT was significant. E/W contend > that she waited about 5 seconds, picked it up and then > E waited appropriately and then passed. > > Table result 5H, -2, E/W +200 > So, I'm curious how BLML would rule in this case. > > -Ted Ying. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090408/a9ab507e/attachment.html From rgtjbos at xs4all.nl Wed Apr 8 08:39:00 2009 From: rgtjbos at xs4all.nl (Rob Bosman) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 08:39:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] FW: [Blml] [blml] A revoke case study Message-ID: <004101c9b814$b42d63a0$1c882ae0$@nl> I had some trouble to figure out the exact hands of N and S ?but Oliver is right: with AK of hearts in East there is a squeeze and a good player in South will always make 11 tricks. However, if West hold either Hearts A, K or both, no squeeze exists and 10 tricks seems to be the normal result. But this ignores the possibility that West makes a mistake (playing low at spade J)- if he does again South has 11 tricks. So I suggest the following rulings: With AK of hearts in east: 4D+1, based on 64C. In my mind this is 100% technical, so an AC should not hear an appeal. EW can only ask the Chief TD to review the ruling (which he in turn should refuse). In other cases: a weighted score based on x% of 4D= and y% of 4D+1, the weights based on the judgement of the likelihood that west errs when playing to the J of spades. That likelihood (the y-value) might be small but should never be 0. Since this includes a judgement of the TD about the quality of play by West, the weights may be appealed and an AC should give its judgement. The AC in turn must limit itself to a review of the chosen values for x and y, and must not judge the principle of the weighted score itself, as that still is a technical matter. Rob -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of olivier.beauvillain Sent: 07 April 2009 15:10 To: Laws Subject: Re: [Blml] [blml] A revoke case study hi, where are AK of hearts? if both in East, you have a squeeze : JS K A, club ruff, cash trumps and East is squeezed between H & S then i give 11 tricks witch is equity, best regards Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: PO Sundelin To: blml at amsterdamned.org Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 12:53 PM Subject: [blml] A revoke case study Dummy has AQT83, Q32, -, 2 J4,T8,-,65432,- Contract is 4 diamonds. Declarer has lost two tricks. Trumps are drawn, clubs have been ruffed, hearts and spades are untouched. Declarer plays the spade jack, winning the trick, West discards a club. Declarer continues with the four and West this time follows with the two. Declarer wins the ace and discards a heart on the spade queen, which is won by West?s king. West?s spade holding originally was K4. The revoke is established. The revoker didn?t win the revoke trick, but did win a trick later so it seems ?64A covers that. One trick for declarer, contract just made. However, 64C gives the TD the right to correct the score. Is this such a case? Of course declarer could have finessed again making two overtricks, but the revoke gave him a safety play, which had never been possible without the revoke. Question A: Should the result be corrected, and if so, to what? Question B: Is a decision by the TD under 64C considered a matter of law which I think can?t be appealed? ________________________________ G?r det l?ngsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling. S?k och j?mf?r priser hos Kelkoo. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 3979 (20090331) __________ Le message a iti virifii par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 3988 (20090404) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090408/1a42dbd0/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 8 10:56:20 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:56:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <969502.18056.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <969502.18056.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49DC66B4.5000202@ulb.ac.be> Ted Ying a ?crit : > I had been having problems with the old list for some time, but thanks > to Henk, I'm not back > on the BLML list. > > Note that if anyone prefers to see the hand in normal hand record > form, the hand record is > on-line at: > http://www.districtsix.org/WBL/Results/2009_games/0402/Hands.pdf > > Board 13 > Both Vul > Dealer North > > N > S-AT763, H-9, D-K98, C-K842 > W E > S-Q4, H-JT84, D-AJ762, C-A7 S-2, H-AQ762, D-T4, C-QJ963 > S > S-KJ985, H-K53, D-Q53, C-T5 > > N E S W > P 1H 1S 2S > 4S P(1) P X > P 5C P 5H > PP > > (1) N said that she put the STOP card down, waited 10 seconds and then > E still paused for a time before the STOP card > came up. S agreed that the BIT was significant. E/W contend > that she waited about 5 seconds, picked it up and then > E waited appropriately and then passed. > > Table result 5H, -2, E/W +200 > So, I'm curious how BLML would rule in this case. AG : I don't see anything wrong with West's double, BIT or not (and it should be noticed that a BIT in such a case is less revealing than a very quick decision). Two aces and partner's opening bid (which opening ?) mean passing is inconcievable. As between 5H vs double, I don't see which one could be suggested by the tempo. BTW, a 5H bid from West would have yielded the same result. As for East's 5C bid, first he isn't restricted in any way (I suppose West's double wasn't too slow), and second, he isn't making a strong bid, because his pass wasn't forcing (West could have held a 2344 11-count with no aces AFAIK). East-West are a bit lucky, because it wasn't obvious from their point of view that 4S would make. So what ? Bet regards Alain From posundelin at yahoo.se Wed Apr 8 12:08:45 2009 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:08:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] FW: [Blml] [blml] A revoke case study In-Reply-To: <004101c9b814$b42d63a0$1c882ae0$@nl> Message-ID: <827582.20467.qm@web23703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Dear Olivier and Rob, General point taken. ? However,?if the TD would rule the way?you, I recommend that?the AC be given the power to overrule (not just suggest what the TD is supposed to refuse), as the?described squeeze doesn?t work unless?East holds AK+jack of hearts. Best rgds PO --- Den ons 2009-04-08 skrev Rob Bosman : Fr?n: Rob Bosman ?mne: [BLML] FW: [Blml] [blml] A revoke case study Till: "BLML" Datum: onsdag 8 april 2009 08.39 I had some trouble to figure out the exact hands of N and S ?but Oliver is right: with AK of hearts in East there is a squeeze and a good player in South will always make 11 tricks. However, if West hold either Hearts A, K or both, no squeeze exists and 10 tricks seems to be the normal result. But this ignores the possibility that West makes a mistake (playing low at spade J)- if he does again South has 11 tricks. So I suggest the following rulings: ? With AK of hearts in east: 4D+1, based on 64C. In my mind this is 100% technical, so an AC should not hear an appeal. EW can only ask the Chief TD to review the ruling (which he in turn should refuse). In other cases: a weighted score based on x% of 4D= and y% of 4D+1, the weights based on the judgement of the likelihood that west errs when playing to the J of spades. That likelihood (the y-value) might be small but should never be 0. Since this includes a judgement of the TD about the quality of play by West, the weights may be appealed and an AC should give its judgement. The AC in turn must limit itself to a review of the chosen values for x and y, and must not judge the principle of the weighted score itself, as that still is a technical matter. ? Rob ? -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of olivier.beauvillain Sent: 07 April 2009 15:10 To: Laws Subject: Re: [Blml] [blml] A revoke case study ? ? hi, where are AK of hearts? if both in East, you have a squeeze : JS K A, club ruff, cash trumps and East is squeezed between H & S then i give 11 tricks witch is equity, ? best regards Olivier Beauvillain ? ????? ----- Original Message ----- ????? From: PO Sundelin ? ????? To: blml at amsterdamned.org ? ????? Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 12:53 PM ????? Subject: [blml] A revoke case study ? Dummy has AQT83, Q32, -, 2 J4,T8,-,65432,- ? Contract is 4 diamonds. Declarer has lost two tricks. Trumps are drawn, clubs have been ruffed, hearts and spades are untouched. ? Declarer plays the spade jack, winning the trick, West discards a club. Declarer continues with the four and West this time follows with the two. Declarer wins the ace and discards a heart on the spade queen, which is won by West?s king. West?s spade holding originally was K4. ? The revoke is established. The revoker didn?t win the revoke trick, but did win a trick later so it seems ?64A covers that. One trick for declarer, contract just made. However, 64C gives the TD the right to correct the score. Is this such a case? Of course declarer could have finessed again making two overtricks, but the revoke gave him a safety play, which had never been possible without the revoke. ? Question A: Should the result be corrected, and if so, to what? Question B: Is a decision by the TD under 64C considered a matter of law which I think can?t be appealed? ? ________________________________ ? ????? G?r det l?ngsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling. ????? S?k och j?mf?r priser hos Kelkoo. ? ? ????? ________________________________ ? ? ????? ? ????? _______________________________________________ ????? blml mailing list ????? blml at amsterdamned.org ????? http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ????? ????? ????? ????? __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 3979 (20090331) __________ ????? ????? Le message a iti virifii par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. ????? ????? http://www.eset.com ????? ????? ? ? ? __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 3988 (20090404) __________ ? Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. ? http://www.eset.com ?_______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________________________________________________________ G?r det l?ngsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling. S?k och j?mf?r priser hos Kelkoo. http://www.kelkoo.se/c-100015813-bredband.html?partnerId=96914325 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090408/915edc86/attachment.html From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Apr 8 14:29:46 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:29:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [blml] Basic Claiming Principles In-Reply-To: <006c01c9b830$7a1aaf80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <8CB81CF9051A67C-1530-176C@webmail-dh44.sysops.aol.com> <006c01c9b830$7a1aaf80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49DC98BA.2040806@talktalk.net> [John (Maddog) Probst] This depends on the site and the software. [Nigel] I tried to make it clear which on-line rules I recommend. For example, in several posts, I wrote: "To claim, declarer exposes his hand; defenders may dispute the claim, by playing on, double dummy. From gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 8 15:45:14 2009 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:45:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles Message-ID: <8CB866761445219-1F8-22BB@webmail-dd12.sysops.aol.com> [grattan] +=+ Law 70B establishes clearly enough that the Director hears the original statement of claim and the opponents' objections before there is any introduction of alternative possibilities under 70D. [paul lamford] I agree completely with the chronology of events. So: Claimant: I have the rest, taking the marked finesse as you, West, opened 1NT. East: Bad luck, mate, my partner opened 1NT with a singleton, so I think your claim is invalid. I have the singleton queen. Claimant: Ah, I have just realised that I have eleven of this suit between the two hands. I now want to make a Law 72D1 statement of a successful line of play not embraced in my original clarification statement on the basis that there is no alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. I could also make a similar statement under 72E1, as I also believe that to play other than the ace and king would be irrational. TD: Sorry, you are not allowed to make statements under 72D1 or 72E1 that were not embodied in your original statement. So I am not obliged to judge whether not to play the ace and king is abnormal or irrational. Claimant: Where does it say or imply that? In fact, they both apply a specific test as to whether I can. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090408/466e2fe3/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 8 15:57:23 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:57:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles In-Reply-To: <8CB866761445219-1F8-22BB@webmail-dd12.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CB866761445219-1F8-22BB@webmail-dd12.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <49DCAD43.1080509@skynet.be> Paul asks a very pertinent question, and there is a good answer: gampas at aol.com wrote: > [grattan] > +=+ Law 70B establishes clearly enough that the Director hears the > original statement of claim and the opponents' objections before there > is any introduction of alternative possibilities under 70D. > > [paul lamford] > I agree completely with the chronology of events. So: > > Claimant: I have the rest, taking the marked finesse as you, West, > opened 1NT. > > East: Bad luck, mate, my partner opened 1NT with a singleton, so I think > your claim is invalid. I have the singleton queen. > > Claimant: Ah, I have just realised that I have eleven of this suit > between the two hands. I now want to make a Law 72D1 statement of a > successful line of play not embraced in my original clarification > statement on the basis that there is no alternative normal line of play > that would be less successful. I could also make a similar statement > under 72E1, as I also believe that to play other than the ace and king > would be irrational. > > TD: Sorry, you are not allowed to make statements under 72D1 or 72E1 > that were not embodied in your original statement. So I am not obliged > to judge whether not to play the ace and king is abnormal or irrational. > > Claimant: Where does it say or imply that? In fact, they both apply a > specific test as to whether I can. > It says this nowhere. The only reason why we shall rule against this claimer is because FOR HIM playing the finesse is not irrational. Only if we interpret the words rational and normal as applying to the mindset under which claimer is apparently working, can we rule according to what we "feel" to be right. Herman. From henk at rtflb.org Wed Apr 8 21:20:45 2009 From: henk at rtflb.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:20:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Known issues with the new list] Message-ID: <49DCF90D.3090402@rtflb.org> Hi all, A couple of people have reported issues with the new list: 1. The archives have been moved and should be visible from the website (yes, this list has a website at http://www.rtflb.org). They aren't, at least all the stuff before 1/4/2009. 2. The access stats are also not visible, the one for March hasn't been produced. 3. The list of abbreviations (TLA's) is not sent around monthly. I'm aware of those and working on the solution. If there are any other problems, please let me know. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)rtflb.org BLML Moderator http://www.rtflb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Apr 8 21:24:47 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:24:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Known issues with the new list] In-Reply-To: <49DCF90D.3090402@rtflb.org> References: <49DCF90D.3090402@rtflb.org> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0904081224q1788cf3ag395846fb37229b58@mail.gmail.com> Henk wrote: > If there are any other problems, please let me know. Hi Henk, I thought I already sent this: The reply-to goes to individual poster in addition to the group. It seems better just to go to the group, like my other forums. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 9 01:18:18 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:18:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince peoples [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Conversation with Prince Rabadash, global warming sceptic: "Know, O enlightened Prince," said the Grand Vizier, "that until the year in which your exalted father began his salutary and unending reign, the land of Narnia was covered with ice and snow and was moreover ruled by a most powerful enchantress." "This I know very well, O loquacious Vizier," answered the Prince. "But I know also that the enchantress is dead. And the ice and snow have vanished, so that Narnia is now wholesome, fruitful and delicious." "And this change, O most learned Prince, has doubtless been brought to pass by the powerful incantations of those wicked persons who now call themselves kings and queens of Narnia." "I am rather of the opinion," said Rabadash, "that it has come about by the alteration of the stars and the operation of natural causes." Environment reporter C.S. Lewis, in The Horse and His Boy, Chapter Eight Australian National Director, Laurie Kelso, semi-official ABF article: "...The director normally requires the claimer to repeat, and if necessary, elaborate on any clarification statement..." Sceptic Robert Frick asked: Is this an astounding statement? Bridge Laws reporter Richard Hills answers: No. Sceptic Robert Frick asserted: There is nothing in the claiming procedure (L70B) that allows the director to elaborate the claim. The laws specifically say that claimer just repeats the statement accompanying the original claim. Law 70B2, bracketed phrase, refutes: "(but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections)" Sceptic Robert Frick again asserted: I think your quote is out of context and in context would refer only to the obvious fact that the director also can construct objections to the claim. Law 70A (General Objective), first sentence, again refutes: "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." Australian National Director, Laurie Kelso, semi-official ABF article: "...The overriding requirement should always be an equitable result, and hence the most important question is simply: If the claimer had played the hand out, is there any doubt that he would have been successful? When there is no real doubt, the claim is sustained..." Sceptic Paul Lamford asserted: [Laurie Kelso's] long and interesting summary of how [he] interprets the claim laws breaks down with the above paragraph; as I understand it the WBFLC minute has already stipulated that if part of the claim includes an infraction which the opponents would be allowed to accept to their benefit under the Laws, their rights to accept the infraction are taken from them, even if the player would be extremely likely to have gone down if the hand had been played out. So much for [Richard Hills'] belief that "the philosophy of the Laws is the principle that the non-offending side should not be damaged by the consequences of an opponent's irregularity" Law 9A3, second sentence, refutes: "However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)." Bridge Laws reporter Richard Hills answers: It is not a Law 70A doubtful point that any one of the four players at the table may prevent the committal of an irregularity. Most relevantly, the player who is about to commit the irregularity may realise what she is about to do at the penultimate moment, thus recoil from the abyss. Ergo, an assertion by a Trick Nine claimer that she might commit an irregularity at Trick Eleven does not disadvantage the opponents when the Director rules that the irregularity may not occur. One cannot "be damaged by the consequences" of a stillborn irregularity. Former WBF Chief Director, William Schoder, infandous blml post: thank you Grattan. I thought we had put this baby to bed along time ago, but as with so many other things there would be less to posture about and "interpret" on BLML if it simply accepted what is the workable situation. Kojak Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 9 05:53:51 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:53:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince peoples [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for posting this. David Stevenson: "Play ceases: suggestions from declarer cease [or are ignored]." (http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4224&st=0) I believe a blmler said the same, without contradiction. Yet Laurie Kelso mentions that the director might require claimer to elaborate on the claiming statement. And Richard supports this. Is this some major controversy that has already been discussed on blml? How can there be such different advice on this issue? Is this just regional differences? (My issue. Suppose declarer claims on trick one saying he has 13 tricks. There is a blocked suit or two. You would confidently grant the claim to an expert. Would you really ever deny the claim to a lesser player? Wouldn't you like to be able to make sure declarer can play the hand right?) From posundelin at yahoo.se Thu Apr 9 10:12:22 2009 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:12:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] [blml] B.J. Becker - or rather Hills Message-ID: <200984.16497.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I enjoy Richard's humour (attempts at humour??) and would regret not seeing it on blml in the future.? JE ? ? Me too PO ...... > WBF Code of Practice, page 6: > > "A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics > where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in > respect of conduct. A player who has conformed to the laws > and regulations is not subject to criticism." > > Richard Hills: > > On the other hand, if some of my recent blml postings had > been conversations at the bridge table, I would indeed have > grossly infracted Law 74something: > > "A blmler should carefully avoid any remark or action that > might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another blmler or > might interfere with the enjoyment of the posts." > > I therefore apologise to Herman De Wael for casting aspersions > on his intellect and integrity, and also apologise to Jerry > Fusselman for my annoying attempts at humour. > > In future I will be careful to keep my humorous asides both > incidental to my postings on the Laws, and also mostly self- > deprecating. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > __________________________________________________________ L?na pengar utan s?kerhet. J?mf?r vilkor online hos Kelkoo. http://www.kelkoo.se/c-100390123-lan-utan-sakerhet.html?partnerId=96915014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090409/e5ce7c30/attachment.html From henk at rtflb.org Thu Apr 9 11:29:51 2009 From: henk at rtflb.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:29:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Known issues with the new list] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0904081224q1788cf3ag395846fb37229b58@mail.gmail.com> References: <49DCF90D.3090402@rtflb.org> <2b1e598b0904081224q1788cf3ag395846fb37229b58@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49DDC00F.1080705@rtflb.org> Hi Jerry, > I thought I already sent this: > > The reply-to goes to individual poster in addition to the group. It > seems better just to go to the group, like my other forums. This is the same setting as the old list. Most mailers have 2 reply commands: reply and reply-all. The first one returns a message to the sender (only), the second one to the sender and the list. It'd be nice to have a 3rd one (list only), but that isn't very popular. It is easy to do though: Reply-all, remove duplicate addresses. I can change this, but setting a reply-to: override has the disadvantage that anything the user sets as a return address will be removed and it is not possible to reply to the sender only. I suggest to leave this as is, Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)rtflb.org BLML Moderator http://www.rtflb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 9 11:46:11 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:46:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Known issues with the new list] In-Reply-To: <49DDC00F.1080705@rtflb.org> References: <49DCF90D.3090402@rtflb.org> <2b1e598b0904081224q1788cf3ag395846fb37229b58@mail.gmail.com> <49DDC00F.1080705@rtflb.org> Message-ID: <49DDC3E3.8080903@skynet.be> This is not "as is" - or rather "as was". For many years it was like this, and then we changed it to "reply to list". And I never heard any complaints since (and many before). I vote for reply to list. Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Hi Jerry, > >> I thought I already sent this: >> >> The reply-to goes to individual poster in addition to the group. It >> seems better just to go to the group, like my other forums. > > This is the same setting as the old list. Most mailers have 2 reply > commands: reply and reply-all. The first one returns a message to > the sender (only), the second one to the sender and the list. It'd > be nice to have a 3rd one (list only), but that isn't very popular. > It is easy to do though: Reply-all, remove duplicate addresses. > > I can change this, but setting a reply-to: override has the disadvantage > that anything the user sets as a return address will be removed and it is > not possible to reply to the sender only. > > I suggest to leave this as is, > > Henk > > > From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Apr 9 12:18:36 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 05:18:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Known issues with the new list] In-Reply-To: <49DDC3E3.8080903@skynet.be> References: <49DCF90D.3090402@rtflb.org> <2b1e598b0904081224q1788cf3ag395846fb37229b58@mail.gmail.com> <49DDC00F.1080705@rtflb.org> <49DDC3E3.8080903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0904090318m7c82d93dw7e20e69be626f1c9@mail.gmail.com> (I have removed Herman's name from To: and moved blml from Cc: to To: so that Herman and everyone else gets one copy of this post. I never had to do that in 2008.) [Herman] This is not "as is" - or rather "as was". For many years it was like this, and then we changed it to "reply to list". And I never heard any complaints since (and many before). I vote for reply to list. [Jerry] Herman has it right. I am surprised that Henk forgot the change he made in August of 2007. Here are two postings from then: [Henk, Aug 13, 2007 in subject [blml] This is how Reply should work] Hi all, I've added a "reply-to: blml at rtflb.org" field, so if your mail client behaves, then you won't send a second copy of your reply to the previous poster. [Henk, Aug 19/20, 2007, referring to the new way] I think most of the time one wants to reply to the list, not the individual poster, so I'm going to leave it as is. [Jerry] I vote it should go back the way Henk made it work in August of 2007, because I agree with Henk's statement, that most of the time, one wants to reply to the list, not the individual poster. From rgtjbos at xs4all.nl Thu Apr 9 12:35:36 2009 From: rgtjbos at xs4all.nl (Rob Bosman) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 12:35:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] FW: [Blml] [blml] A revoke case study In-Reply-To: <827582.20467.qm@web23703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <004101c9b814$b42d63a0$1c882ae0$@nl> <827582.20467.qm@web23703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000701c9b8fe$ebff9790$c3fec6b0$@nl> I give in... :-), but you're right, since dummy must throw before East it is necessary to kill the J of hearts as well in the squeeze. However, that does not change my view. An error of the TD in analysing the squeeze should be corrected by the Chief TD, not by an AC - as it remains a technical matter. What then remains is to judge how likely West would have erred with the King of spades on the first spade-round... Nice talking again to you by the way! Rob -----Original Message----- From: PO Sundelin [mailto:posundelin at yahoo.se] Sent: 08 April 2009 12:09 To: BLML; Rob Bosman Subject: SV: [BLML] FW: [Blml] [blml] A revoke case study Dear Olivier and Rob, General point taken. However, if the TD would rule the way you, I recommend that the AC be given the power to overrule (not just suggest what the TD is supposed to refuse), as the described squeeze doesn?t work unless East holds AK+jack of hearts. Best rgds PO --- Den ons 2009-04-08 skrev Rob Bosman : Fr?n: Rob Bosman ?mne: [BLML] FW: [Blml] [blml] A revoke case study Till: "BLML" Datum: onsdag 8 april 2009 08.39 I had some trouble to figure out the exact hands of N and S ?but Oliver is right: with AK of hearts in East there is a squeeze and a good player in South will always make 11 tricks. However, if West hold either Hearts A, K or both, no squeeze exists and 10 tricks seems to be the normal result. But this ignores the possibility that West makes a mistake (playing low at spade J)- if he does again South has 11 tricks. So I suggest the following rulings: With AK of hearts in east: 4D+1, based on 64C. In my mind this is 100% technical, so an AC should not hear an appeal. EW can only ask the Chief TD to review the ruling (which he in turn should refuse). In other cases: a weighted score based on x% of 4D= and y% of 4D+1, the weights based on the judgement of the likelihood that west errs when playing to the J of spades. That likelihood (the y-value) might be small but should never be 0. Since this includes a judgement of the TD about the quality of play by West, the weights may be appealed and an AC should give its judgement. The AC in turn must limit itself to a review of the chosen values for x and y, and must not judge the principle of the weighted score itself, as that still is a technical matter. Rob -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of olivier.beauvillain Sent: 07 April 2009 15:10 To: Laws Subject: Re: [Blml] [blml] A revoke case study hi, where are AK of hearts? if both in East, you have a squeeze : JS K A, club ruff, cash trumps and East is squeezed between H & S then i give 11 tricks witch is equity, best regards Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: PO Sundelin To: blml at amsterdamned.org Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 12:53 PM Subject: [blml] A revoke case study Dummy has AQT83, Q32, -, 2 J4,T8,-,65432,- Contract is 4 diamonds. Declarer has lost two tricks. Trumps are drawn, clubs have been ruffed, hearts and spades are untouched. Declarer plays the spade jack, winning the trick, West discards a club. Declarer continues with the four and West this time follows with the two. Declarer wins the ace and discards a heart on the spade queen, which is won by West?s king. West?s spade holding originally was K4. The revoke is established. The revoker didn?t win the revoke trick, but did win a trick later so it seems ?64A covers that. One trick for declarer, contract just made. However, 64C gives the TD the right to correct the score. Is this such a case? Of course declarer could have finessed again making two overtricks, but the revoke gave him a safety play, which had never been possible without the revoke. Question A: Should the result be corrected, and if so, to what? Question B: Is a decision by the TD under 64C considered a matter of law which I think can?t be appealed? ________________________________ G?r det l?ngsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling. S?k och j?mf?r priser hos Kelkoo. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 3979 (20090331) __________ Le message a iti virifii par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 3988 (20090404) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ________________________________ L?na pengar utan s?kerhet. S?k och j?mf?r l?n hos Kelkoo. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 9 12:36:00 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:36:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Known issues with the new list] References: <49DCF90D.3090402@rtflb.org><2b1e598b0904081224q1788cf3ag395846fb37229b58@mail.gmail.com> <49DDC00F.1080705@rtflb.org> Message-ID: <002101c9b8ff$20327a00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Jerry Fusselman" Cc: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] [Fwd: Known issues with the new list] << > It'd be nice to have a 3rd one (list only), but that isn't > very popular. > It is easy to do though: Reply-all, remove duplicate > addresses. > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 9 12:49:56 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:49:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince peoples [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003901c9b900$fd196bd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 4:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince peoples [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > (My issue. Suppose declarer claims on trick one saying > he has 13 tricks. There is a blocked suit or two. You would > confidently grant the claim to an expert. Would you really > ever deny the claim to a lesser player? Wouldn't you like > to be able to make sure declarer can play the hand right?) > +=+ In my opinion, when claiming no player should have an advantage in the law over any other player . It may be 'careless' for an expert player to block a suit if he fails to specify. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Thu Apr 9 15:03:10 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:03:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <5489B3BE400C4C46B15724608565AEE0@JOHN> "Please repeat your original statement" "Have you anything you would now like to add?" Seems obvious to me. How can I resolve the claim unless I know what the doubtful points are and I can only find that out by asking questions. Do not confuse the law itself with the investigative process. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: ; Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 4:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince peoples [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Thanks for posting this. > > David Stevenson: "Play ceases: suggestions from declarer cease [or are > ignored]." (http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4224&st=0) I > believe a blmler said the same, without contradiction. > > Yet Laurie Kelso mentions that the director might require claimer to > elaborate on the claiming statement. And Richard supports this. > > Is this some major controversy that has already been discussed on blml? > How can there be such different advice on this issue? Is this just > regional differences? > > (My issue. Suppose declarer claims on trick one saying he has 13 tricks. > There is a blocked suit or two. You would confidently grant the claim to > an expert. Would you really ever deny the claim to a lesser player? > Wouldn't you like to be able to make sure declarer can play the hand > right?) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk at ripe.net Thu Apr 9 14:31:16 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:31:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Known issues with the new list] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0904090318m7c82d93dw7e20e69be626f1c9@mail.gmail.com> References: <49DCF90D.3090402@rtflb.org> <2b1e598b0904081224q1788cf3ag395846fb37229b58@mail.gmail.com> <49DDC00F.1080705@rtflb.org> <49DDC3E3.8080903@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0904090318m7c82d93dw7e20e69be626f1c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49DDEA94.7060007@ripe.net> Hi all, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Henk, Aug 13, 2007 in subject [blml] This is how Reply should work] > > Hi all, > > I've added a "reply-to: blml at rtflb.org" field, so if your mail client > behaves, then you won't send a second copy of your reply to the > previous poster. [...] > I vote it should go back the way Henk made it work in August of 2007, > because I agree with Henk's statement, that most of the time, one > wants to reply to the list, not the individual poster. OK, now that you mention it, I did change this back in 2007, but I forgot all about this. I'll change it for the new list. One condition though: if you ever rule at my table, then you are not allowed to use this against me when deciding if I had forgotten about the last trump or not ;-) Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From henk at ripe.net Thu Apr 9 17:29:12 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:29:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Please ignore Message-ID: <49DE1448.7050705@ripe.net> Testing -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From henk at ripe.net Thu Apr 9 17:32:06 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:32:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Known issues with the new list] In-Reply-To: <49DDEA94.7060007@ripe.net> References: <49DCF90D.3090402@rtflb.org> <2b1e598b0904081224q1788cf3ag395846fb37229b58@mail.gmail.com> <49DDC00F.1080705@rtflb.org> <49DDC3E3.8080903@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0904090318m7c82d93dw7e20e69be626f1c9@mail.gmail.com> <49DDEA94.7060007@ripe.net> Message-ID: <49DE14F6.1050704@ripe.net> Hi all, > OK, now that you mention it, I did change this back in 2007, but I forgot > all about this. I'll change it for the new list. This has been done. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 9 18:16:48 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:16:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince peoples [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003901c9b900$fd196bd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49DE1987.2060105@aol.com> Message-ID: <003301c9b92e$c705f3a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan" Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince peoples [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > When he claims he should state how he would play. That statement should > include all relevant points including possible blocking of suits. That > is, he should mention in the claim that he recognises the possibility and > shall be careful not to block the suit. JE > > Grattan schrieb: >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> " Switzerland only seems small because >> it's all folded up. If you opened it out it >> would be bigger than the U.S." >> - Neil Kinnock. >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: ; >> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 4:53 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince peoples [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> (My issue. Suppose declarer claims on trick one saying >>> he has 13 tricks. There is a blocked suit or two. You would >>> confidently grant the claim to an expert. Would you really >>> ever deny the claim to a lesser player? Wouldn't you like >>> to be able to make sure declarer can play the hand right?) >>> >> +=+ In my opinion, when claiming no player should have an >> advantage in the law over any other player . >> It may be 'careless' for an expert player to block a suit >> if he fails to specify. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 9 22:38:26 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:38:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Known issues with the new list] References: <13A7CCE4-7F95-45D7-BAC3-9A99ACFC0E3C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4F5EAEEE-5FB3-4A4C-BFF2-2917B0AF0BDE@starpower.net> On Apr 9, 2009, at 6:18 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > (I have removed Herman's name from To: and moved blml from Cc: to To: > so that Herman and everyone else gets one copy of this post. I never > had to do that in 2008.) > > [Herman] > This is not "as is" - or rather "as was". > For many years it was like this, and then we changed it to "reply to > list". And I never heard any complaints since (and many before). > I vote for reply to list. > > [Jerry] > Herman has it right. I am surprised that Henk forgot the change he > made in August of 2007. Here are two postings from then: > > [Henk, Aug 13, 2007 in subject [blml] This is how Reply should work] > > Hi all, > > I've added a "reply-to: blml at rtflb.org" field, so if your mail client > behaves, then you won't send a second copy of your reply to the > previous poster. > > [Henk, Aug 19/20, 2007, referring to the new way] > > I think most of the time one wants to reply to the list, not the > individual > poster, so I'm going to leave it as is. > > [Jerry] > > I vote it should go back the way Henk made it work in August of 2007, > because I agree with Henk's statement, that most of the time, one > wants to reply to the list, not the individual poster. Yes, please, oh pretty please! When the old server worked this way, before the changes Jerry refers to, misdirected (via "Reply") and double-posted (via "Reply All") -- not to mention all those follow-up apologies for forgetting to "finger-fix" the addresses before clicking "Send" -- were a routine daily annoyance from which BLML was thankfully free since the changes were made. I can't imagine wanting to go back to that. P.S. I originally sent this earlier today, but, being used to not having to screw around with the "To" line, inadvertently sent it only to Jerry! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 10 14:18:02 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 08:18:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5489B3BE400C4C46B15724608565AEE0@JOHN> References: <5489B3BE400C4C46B15724608565AEE0@JOHN> Message-ID: On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:03:10 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > "Please repeat your original statement" "Have you anything you would now > like to add?" Seems obvious to me. Sounds practical to me. > > How can I resolve the claim unless I know what the doubtful points are > and I > can only find that out by asking questions. > > Do not confuse the law itself with the investigative process. John How do you get around the word "Next" in L70B2? Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: ; > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 4:53 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince peoples [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Thanks for posting this. >> >> David Stevenson: "Play ceases: suggestions from declarer cease [or are >> ignored]." (http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4224&st=0) >> I >> believe a blmler said the same, without contradiction. >> >> Yet Laurie Kelso mentions that the director might require claimer to >> elaborate on the claiming statement. And Richard supports this. >> >> Is this some major controversy that has already been discussed on blml? >> How can there be such different advice on this issue? Is this just >> regional differences? >> >> (My issue. Suppose declarer claims on trick one saying he has 13 tricks. >> There is a blocked suit or two. You would confidently grant the claim to >> an expert. Would you really ever deny the claim to a lesser player? >> Wouldn't you like to be able to make sure declarer can play the hand >> right?) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 13 11:01:25 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:01:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] just testing the new blml as I experienced some surprising effects Message-ID: <000101c9bc16$6cd105b0$46731110$@no> Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 13 11:07:26 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:07:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no> In my honest opinion Law 70D1 answers this question completely? Regards Sven From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com Sent: 1. april 2009 12:15 To: blml at amsterdamned.org Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? In a message dated 01/04/2009 11:00:22 GMT Standard Time, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: > What Law 70 essentially says is that once the claimer has made his claim > statement (if any), opponents can request him to apply any line of play > that > they find beneficial to them provided such line of play is neither in > conflict with the original claim statement nor is judged to be > "irrational". > > Regards Sven > +=+ That is to say opponents may include it in their objections to the claim. The alternative they point to must be a 'normal' line of play. ~ G ~ +=+ Both 70D1 and 70E1 begin: "The director shall not accept from claimer". Clearly he can accept an objection from the opponents without restriction. But both 70D1 and 70E1 imply the converse which is: "The director will accept from claimer an unstated successful line of play if there is no alternative normal line of play that is less successful." Now if this had meant "unstated similar" or "line of play consistent with the wording of the original claim" it would say so. So it doesn't mean that. And if it had intended "without pause for thought" it would say so. The only test is normality. There is a set of all claims, and two subsets, those that have an alternative normal line of play that is unsuccessful, and those that don't. It is clear these comprise all claims. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090413/4a5dea74/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 13 11:51:53 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:51:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no> Message-ID: <001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no> <001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be> Please Grattan, Grattan wrote: > > There are two points that I consider fundamental: > 2. That references in the laws to normality are not linked to > the views of a player. They refer to a general understanding > of the game as determined by the Director. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > We really don't seem to be understanding one another. The trump 2 is out. Claimer has forgotten about it. He holds two more trumps and does not need them immediately. He has the Club 10, which he knows to be high. The defender with the trump 2 has no more clubs, and he's in an position to ruff the club without being overruffed. How can you now rule that it is normal to play the club 10? You can only rule that this is normal if you consider the "views of the player". I can understand why you want to write what you did above, in the sense that normalcy does not depend on the "class of player", but when you write what you do above you are going directly against common sense in the idea that you need to know what claimer "knows" before you can rule that a line is normal to him, when that same line would not be normal to another claimer. Take exactly the same cards, but with a claimer who states "I know you still hold the trump 2". That claimer has not issued a claim statement either (not in the sense of "I'm drawing trumps") but we can infer from his statement that he knows the trump is out. Knowing that, it is not normal to play the C10 first. We can only rule correctly in these two cases if we assume that the word "normal" in the laws means something else for different claimers, and that it is subject to what the claimer "knows" about the hand. Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 13 15:33:12 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:33:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no> Message-ID: On Apr 13, 2009, at 5:07 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > In my honest opinion Law 70D1 answers this question completely? > > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > > In a message dated 01/04/2009 11:00:22 GMT Standard Time, > grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: > > > What Law 70 essentially says is that once the claimer has made > his claim > > statement (if any), opponents can request him to apply any line > of play > > that > > they find beneficial to them provided such line of play is > neither in > > conflict with the original claim statement nor is judged to be > > "irrational". > > +=+ That is to say opponents may include it in their objections > to the claim. The alternative they point to must be a 'normal' > line of play.Both 70D1 and 70E1 begin: "The director shall > not accept from claimer". Clearly he can accept an objection from > the opponents without restriction. But both 70D1 and 70E1 imply the > converse which is: > > Both 70D1 and 70E1 begin: "The director shall not accept from > claimer". Clearly he can accept an objection from the opponents > without restriction. But both 70D1 and 70E1 imply the converse > which is: > > "The director will accept from claimer an unstated successful line > of play if there is no alternative normal line of play that is less > successful." > > Now if this had meant "unstated similar" or "line of play > consistent with the wording of the original claim" it would say so. > So it doesn't mean that. And if it had intended "without pause for > thought" it would say so. The only test is normality. > > There is a set of all claims, and two subsets, those that have an > alternative normal line of play that is unsuccessful, and those > that don't. It is clear these comprise all claims. L70D1: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement..." American Heritage Dictionary: "embrace... To include within its bounds; encompass... To take up" That suggests interpreting "not embraced" to mean not taken up, not addressed, not spoken to. Which would mean that a "line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement" would mean one that would expand or clarify the original statement, but not one that would contradict it outright. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 13 19:54:29 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:54:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [blml] minor question (questions about) In-Reply-To: References: <49E11EBE.7040506@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:09:56 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 11, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> Unless I have missed it I don't think this is covered in the laws. >> >> As TDs know, and most players (at least club players) don't seem to >> know, a player can't ask the other players to turn their cards once >> the >> trick has been quitted, more exactly, once he has turned his card. >> But >> when exactly has he turned his card? If he turns the card but doesn't >> place it on the table, or touches the table with it but doesn't >> release >> it, and then turns it again (showing it), can he ask the other players >> to turn their cards? > > I don't think Jeff missed anything; this is essentially just the TD's > call. I am normally all for giving the TD more powers. But can this be overrulled by an AC? Also, when a director makes a call, players have ways of checking if it is right. In my case, anyone can email the ACBL and get the "right" answer. It does me no good to have the power to decide if I then am going to be wrong. Then it's just an obligation to play Russian roulette. Also, it helps resolve tension and unpleasantness at the table is there is a right answer, as opposed to me (director) making an arbitrary decision. > Sensible TDs, IME, are relatively liberal with this call, and > would allow the player to see the trick until he definitively > abandons his card to the face-down pile. What is the logic of putting a line anywhere other than where the law says it should be placed? I mean, if it should be someplace more liberal, let's put the line there. Until then, shouldn't we be trying to put the line wherever the line says? > > I have also noted that bar the occasional Secretary Bird, experienced > players are even more liberal than sensible TDs, and will often show > their card rather than call the TD even when it's unlikely that the > TD would require them to. But surely they will not ask to see cards when they feel they are not entitled. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 13 18:42:00 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:42:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? > The trump 2 is out. Claimer has forgotten about it. He holds > two more trumps and does not need them immediately. He > has the Club 10, which he knows to be high. The defender > with the trump 2 has no more clubs, and he's in an position > to ruff the club without being overruffed. > How can you now rule that it is normal to play the club 10? > You can only rule that this is normal if you consider the "views > of the player". < +=+ The circumstances here are governed by Law 70C. The use of 'normal' in 70C3 is a clear instance where the C10 is a 'normal' play. It is a lawful play and with defender having made no statement about the trump, nor with evidence from the prior play, and therefore (at all likely to be) unaware of the presence in defender's hand of the trump it is entirely in keeping with a general understanding of the game to play C10. The Director does not need to know how much declarer knows; he is directed by law to consider from the evidence already before him whether declarer is "at all likely" to be unaware of the trump. It is too late for claimer to introduce fresh evidence not embraced in his original statement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Apr 14 02:58:19 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:58:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be> <000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c9bc9c$1aae2430$500a6c90$@com> [GE] The Director does not need to know how much declarer knows; he is directed by law to consider from the evidence already before him whether declarer is "at all likely" to be unaware of the trump. [DALB] This seems to me to say that the Director does not need to know how much a claimer knows, only how much a claimer might know. Since in my experience the vast majority of claimers do not know anything at all, the usefulness of this principle appears somewhat limited. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 14 04:08:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:08:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dian Svarlien (http://www.txclassics.org/exrpts7.htm): Higgledy piggledy Baucis and Philemon Treated their visitors Just like they should; Now in return for their Hyperphiloxeny Jupiter's done all he Could, and they're wood. John (MadDog) Probst: >>>"Please repeat your original statement" "Have you anything you >>>would now like to add?" Seems obvious to me. Robert Frick: >>Sounds practical to me. John (MadDog) Probst: >>>How can I resolve the claim unless I know what the doubtful points >>>are and I can only find that out by asking questions. >>> >>>Do not confuse the law itself with the investigative process. John Robert Frick: >>How do you get around the word "Next" in L70B2? >> >>Bob Richard Hills: Laws 70B1, 2 and 3 are arranged in a chronological sequence (hence the Law 70B2 word "Next") which was determined to minimise chaos and maximise the speed with which a disputed claim is resolved. A less effective chronological sequence existed in the 1997 Lawbook (B2 and B3 reversed). Under the 2007 Laws, MadDog's question "Please repeat your original statement?" is a Law 70B1 question, and "Have you anything you would now like to add?" is a Law 70B2 question. What's the problem? Grattan Endicott: [snip] >The Director does not need to know how much declarer knows; he is >directed by law to consider from the evidence already before him >whether declarer is "at all likely" to be unaware of the trump. It is >too late for claimer to introduce fresh evidence not embraced in his >original statement. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: But not too late for claimer to introduce stale evidence; that is, pre-existing stale evidence of which the Director is not yet aware. Thus Edgar Kaplan's classic example of 7S cold on all except 5-0 breaks; declarer draws one round of trumps, both follow, then declarer claims without a statement. Declarer may legitimately draw the attention of the Director to the stale evidence of the timing of the claim, and its consequent Law 70C2 stale relevance. Unacceptable fresh evidence would be declarer asserting, "I never forget about outstanding trumps, so I never mention them in a claim statement." :-) :-) Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 14 08:50:52 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:50:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c9bccd$5a7d04b0$0f770e10$@no> On Behalf Of > richard.hills at immi.gov.au ............ > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > > >The Director does not need to know how much declarer knows; he is > >directed by law to consider from the evidence already before him > >whether declarer is "at all likely" to be unaware of the trump. It is > >too late for claimer to introduce fresh evidence not embraced in his > >original statement. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > But not too late for claimer to introduce stale evidence; that is, > pre-existing stale evidence of which the Director is not yet aware. > > Thus Edgar Kaplan's classic example of 7S cold on all except 5-0 breaks; > declarer draws one round of trumps, both follow, then declarer claims > without a statement. Declarer may legitimately draw the attention of > the Director to the stale evidence of the timing of the claim, and its > consequent Law 70C2 stale relevance. But what holds the claimer from just stating: "Pulling the rest of your trumps of course" (or some indication to that effect) with his claim? If he wants to spare his tongue he can for instance show his cards in two parts: First the necessary amount of high trumps and then the rest. > Unacceptable fresh evidence would be declarer asserting, "I never forget > about outstanding trumps, so I never mention them in a claim statement." This is definitely careless and should lead to misclaim when possible. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 14 09:37:00 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:37:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c9bccd$5a7d04b0$0f770e10$@no> Message-ID: Eva Jaksch (http://www.txclassics.org/exrpts7.htm): Higgledy piggledy Gay Caius Julius. Tribune sojourning a Long way from home, Seeking distraction in Nicomedophily, Earned with his service a Province for Rome. Richard Hills: >>But not too late for claimer to introduce stale evidence; that is, >>pre-existing stale evidence of which the Director is not yet aware. >> >>Thus Edgar Kaplan's classic example of 7S cold on all except 5-0 breaks; >>declarer draws one round of trumps, both follow, then declarer claims >>without a statement. Declarer may legitimately draw the attention of >>the Director to the stale evidence of the timing of the claim, and its >>consequent Law 70C2 stale relevance. Sven Pran: >But what holds the claimer from just stating: "Pulling the rest of your >trumps of course" (or some indication to that effect) with his claim? Richard Hills: But what held Richard Hills from just playing bridge in the recent ACT Open Trials (or some indication to that effect), thus finishing first rather than eleventh out of twelve pairs? In the real world, players may carelessly act against their own interests. So, in the real world players may infract Law 68C with an insufficiently "clear statement", but also in the real world the Director must now subsequently search for equity to both sides, pursuant to Law 70A. Ergo, the Director may rule that the omission of the word "Nicomedophily" in the claim statement was a slip of the tongue, not a slip of the mind, and thus it is legal for the Director to rule that there is no reasonable doubt the claimer would indeed have always achieved Nicomedophily during the play. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 14 09:59:16 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:59:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be> <000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49E44254.7080408@skynet.be> No Grattan, this won't do: Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " The thing that impresses me > most about America is the way > parents obey their children." > [Edward VIII] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 12:23 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? > > >> The trump 2 is out. Claimer has forgotten about it. He holds >> two more trumps and does not need them immediately. He >> has the Club 10, which he knows to be high. The defender >> with the trump 2 has no more clubs, and he's in an position >> to ruff the club without being overruffed. >> How can you now rule that it is normal to play the club 10? >> You can only rule that this is normal if you consider the "views >> of the player". > < > +=+ The circumstances here are governed by Law 70C. The use of > 'normal' in 70C3 is a clear instance where the C10 is a 'normal' play. No Grattan, this won't do. WHY is this playing of C10 a "normal" play? To say that is a clear instance does not bring us anything in the discussion. I gave you two examples, in both of which we needed to rule if the playing of the C10 is a normal play. It is, indeed, "clear" that in the case where the trump 2 was forgotten, the playing of the C10 is normal. It is equally "clear" that in the case where the trump 2 is not forgotten, playing the C10 is not normal (even if L70C does not apply here, we still need to judge if paying the C10 is normal for the sake of L70D1). But this "normalcy" depends on whether or not claimer knew about the outstanding trump. Which is my contention and you have not yet said anything that effectively counters that. > It is a lawful play and with defender having made no statement about > the trump, nor with evidence from the prior play, and therefore (at all > likely to be) unaware of the presence in defender's hand of the trump > it is entirely in keeping with a general understanding of the game to > play C10. No Grattan, we are not to rule "in keeping with a general understanding of the game". We are to rule according to the lawbook. Which asks us to decide whether to play the C10 is normal or not. We have no discussion about these rulings, we both understand how they are to go - but you're failing to see what this means for the lawbook meaning of the words "normal" and "irrational". They are to be judged within the knowledgeframe of the claimer. I'm amazed that you might have thought otherwise, and I'm even more amazed that my clear examples did not teach you that your previous understanding might have been erroneous. > The Director does not need to know how much declarer > knows; Of course he does. How else can he rule a trick to defenders in the case where claimer does not know about the outstanding trump, and no tricks to defenders when claimer does know about it? > he is directed by law to consider from the evidence already > before him whether declarer is "at all likely" to be unaware of the > trump. And what does the phrase "to be aware of" mean other than the verb "to know"? If you want to mince words, please rewrite all my previous posts and change "know" in "is aware of". The inclusion of the "at all likely" simply states how certain the director needs to be of what claimer does and does not know, but it brings you no closer to telling me that my interpretation is wrong. > It is too late for claimer to introduce fresh evidence not > embraced in his original statement. Totally besides the question. Claimer can introduce evidence as long as he wishes, the director will view later evidence with more caution thatn immediately pronounced evidence. How do you rule when a claimer, without having turned any tricks, tells you the precise trick and card that each and every defender's trump was played? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 14 10:02:25 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:02:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c9bccd$5a7d04b0$0f770e10$@no> References: <000001c9bccd$5a7d04b0$0f770e10$@no> Message-ID: <49E44311.6060501@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > But what holds the claimer from just stating: "Pulling the rest of your > trumps of course" (or some indication to that effect) with his claim? If he > wants to spare his tongue he can for instance show his cards in two parts: > First the necessary amount of high trumps and then the rest. > Yes Sven, this might solve some problems. But you're not there to educate, you're there to rule. And stating that it would be better to act differently does not help you one iota when you're asked to rule on someone who does not do as you wish. If you then rule according to how you wish the game to be played, and not according to the evidence presented, you are not doing your job. Herman. From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 14 10:34:34 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:34:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49E44311.6060501@skynet.be> References: <000001c9bccd$5a7d04b0$0f770e10$@no> <49E44311.6060501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c9bcdb$d6f41570$84dc4050$@no> On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > But what holds the claimer from just stating: "Pulling the rest of your > > trumps of course" (or some indication to that effect) with his claim? If he > > wants to spare his tongue he can for instance show his cards in two parts: > > First the necessary amount of high trumps and then the rest. > > > > Yes Sven, this might solve some problems. But you're not there to > educate, you're there to rule. And stating that it would be better to > act differently does not help you one iota when you're asked to rule on > someone who does not do as you wish. > > If you then rule according to how you wish the game to be played, and > not according to the evidence presented, you are not doing your job. Whenever I have to rule on a claim I ask myself if there can be any doubt about the claimer having a full survey of the remaining possibilities. If I find that he may have overlooked something that turns out to be important I rule that he in fact has. This includes the possibility of miscounting (trumps or other suits), blocking himself from a suit and (only) God knows what. "If he doesn't mention it, the reason is that he is unaware of it". Real evidence does not leave doubtful points. Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 14 10:35:58 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:35:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Card turned face down. Message-ID: <002701c9bcdf$6d8c9b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be><000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E44254.7080408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002801c9bcdf$6df7e020$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? > No Grattan, this won't do: > +=+ Dear me, such impertinence .... +=+ .................................................................... +=+ Leaving all that aside, let me return to the question of 'normal'. I see no obstacle in the laws to the view that any lawful play that does not violate an understanding of the construction of the pack is a 'normal' play. To illustrate the latter concept I revert to the example of the eleven card suit including AK not conceding to the Queen (except in some obscure problematic circumstance). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 14 11:30:28 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:30:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Situation normal. In-Reply-To: <002801c9bcdf$6df7e020$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be><000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E44254.7080408@skynet.be> <002801c9bcdf$6df7e020$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49E457B4.7070308@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " The thing that impresses me > most about America is the way > parents obey their children." > [Edward VIII] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:59 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? > > >> No Grattan, this won't do: >> > +=+ Dear me, such impertinence .... +=+ > Sorry Grattan, but when I believe you are wrong, there is no impertinence in me saying so. So unless you think it is an impertinence to beleive that Grattan canbe wrong (such impertinence!), I really don't think your exclamation above is warranted. > .................................................................... > > +=+ Leaving all that aside, let me return to the question > of 'normal'. > I see no obstacle in the laws to the view that any > lawful play that does not violate an understanding of the > construction of the pack is a 'normal' play. an understanding by whom? by the Director? by the claimer? Within his (wrong) frame of mind or regardless of it? > To illustrate the latter concept I revert to the example > of the eleven card suit including AK not conceding to the > Queen (except in some obscure problematic circumstance). Which is indeed the best example to illustrate my point! Do you consider the ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finess to the queen will lose it? Do you consider the line of finessing in such a case a "normal" line? Do you consider that line "normal" for anyone else? Do you agree with me that normalcy depends on the particular knowledge of the player. Your sentence above can be understood to be meaning that you agree with my conclusions - in which case I don't see any impertinence on my part. But your sentence is cryptical enough to be also understood that you would not rule a trick off a player who finesses to a card he should know to be dropping. Which is it? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 14 11:35:37 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:35:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c9bcdb$d6f41570$84dc4050$@no> References: <000001c9bccd$5a7d04b0$0f770e10$@no> <49E44311.6060501@skynet.be> <000601c9bcdb$d6f41570$84dc4050$@no> Message-ID: <49E458E9.6040400@skynet.be> Sven, Sven! Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of >> Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> But what holds the claimer from just stating: "Pulling the rest of your >>> trumps of course" (or some indication to that effect) with his claim? If > he >>> wants to spare his tongue he can for instance show his cards in two > parts: >>> First the necessary amount of high trumps and then the rest. >>> >> Yes Sven, this might solve some problems. But you're not there to >> educate, you're there to rule. And stating that it would be better to >> act differently does not help you one iota when you're asked to rule on >> someone who does not do as you wish. >> >> If you then rule according to how you wish the game to be played, and >> not according to the evidence presented, you are not doing your job. > > Whenever I have to rule on a claim I ask myself if there can be any doubt > about the claimer having a full survey of the remaining possibilities. > Sven rules on the evidence. > If I find that he may have overlooked something that turns out to be > important I rule that he in fact has. > Of course. > This includes the possibility of miscounting (trumps or other suits), > blocking himself from a suit and (only) God knows what. > Of course. > "If he doesn't mention it, the reason is that he is unaware of it". > NO. Sven, my post was to say that you should not judge a book on its cover. You say you don't, and then you do anyway. > Real evidence does not leave doubtful points. > Of course not. But to say that EVERYONE who does not mention trumps MUST have forgotten them is negating your obligation to rule on doubtful points. If the player convinces you - beyond the level of doubt that is required - that he has not forgotten the trump, then you must rule according to that conviction. So to hammer on saying "if he does not mention it, he has forgotten it" is quite simply wrong and not doing your job. And to not even listen to the player when he tries to convince you otherwise is arrogant and unworthy of a director. > Sven > Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 14 12:17:43 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:17:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Situation normal. References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be><000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E44254.7080408@skynet.be><002801c9bcdf$6df7e020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E457B4.7070308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c9bcea$442ed9a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Situation normal. > Grattan wrote: >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> " The thing that impresses me >> most about America is the way >> parents obey their children." >> [Edward VIII] >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:59 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? >> >> >>> No Grattan, this won't do: >>> >> +=+ Dear me, such impertinence .... +=+ >> > > Sorry Grattan, but when I believe you are wrong, there is no > impertinence in me saying so. So unless you think it is an impertinence > to beleive that Grattan canbe wrong (such impertinence!), I really don't > think your exclamation above is warranted. > >> .................................................................... >> >> +=+ Leaving all that aside, let me return to the question >> of 'normal'. >> I see no obstacle in the laws to the view that any >> lawful play that does not violate an understanding of the >> construction of the pack is a 'normal' play. > > an understanding by whom? by the Director? by the claimer? Within his > (wrong) frame of mind or regardless of it? > >> To illustrate the latter concept I revert to the example >> of the eleven card suit including AK not conceding to the >> Queen (except in some obscure problematic circumstance). > > Which is indeed the best example to illustrate my point! > Do you consider the ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finess > to the queen will lose it? > Do you consider the line of finessing in such a case a "normal" line? > Do you consider that line "normal" for anyone else? > Do you agree with me that normalcy depends on the particular knowledge > of the player. > > Your sentence above can be understood to be meaning that you agree with > my conclusions - in which case I don't see any impertinence on my part. > But your sentence is cryptical enough to be also understood that you > would not rule a trick off a player who finesses to a card he should > know to be dropping. > > Which is it? < +=+ Just read my words as they are written, Herman. They supply a view of a basic interpretation of 'normal' play to apply in any situation. Your questions have no relevance to this, and as already indicated (to your distaste) it is not to you that I would look for authoritative opinion; that is for my committee colleagues. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 14 12:26:30 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:26:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Situation normal. In-Reply-To: <49E457B4.7070308@skynet.be> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be><000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E44254.7080408@skynet.be> <002801c9bcdf$6df7e020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E457B4.7070308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E464D6.8030006@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > Your sentence above can be understood to be meaning that you agree with > my conclusions - in which case I don't see any impertinence on my part. > But your sentence is cryptical enough to be also understood that you > would not rule a trick off a player who finesses to a card he should > know to be dropping. > AG : this seems impossible, because 'should know' also means 'has a complete count of the hand', a case where we surely do not want to give him the trick. Too bad for him if he miscounted. There is always a strong hint that a player who finesses for a card which obviously drops has miscounted the number of cards in the suit. Whether he didn't add his 8 cards to dummy's 3, or whether he forgot a discard, or whether he didn't perform a complete count that was available doesn't change the essence of the case. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 14 12:31:54 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:31:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. Message-ID: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <000001c9bccd$5a7d04b0$0f770e10$@no> Message-ID: <014201c9bcf0$faaaf2d0$f000d870$@nl> This is not about the laws, sorry about that. But given the high percentage of TD's on this list: I wrote software to seed for tournaments, and it is now available: The software solves two problems: 1) Distributing contestants among different groups(not necc. equal sized) to make groups roughly same strength, and distributed equitably among countries/districts/clubs/what-have-you. 2) Numbering contestants within the groups to make same-country(etc...) meetings as early as possible. Interested parties see www.xs4all.nl/~sater Only programmers or computer-savvy people need bother. Hans From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Apr 14 13:55:50 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:55:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Situation normal. In-Reply-To: <49E457B4.7070308@skynet.be> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be><000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E44254.7080408@skynet.be> <002801c9bcdf$6df7e020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E457B4.7070308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E479C6.2070409@aol.com> Impertinence: How about using the expression "I disagree"? "This won't do" is objective (and absolute) sounding but perhaps Herman's command of English is not sensitive to such nuances. If "this won't do", then "in my opinion this won't do". JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Grattan wrote: >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> " The thing that impresses me >> most about America is the way >> parents obey their children." >> [Edward VIII] >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:59 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? >> >> >>> No Grattan, this won't do: >>> >> +=+ Dear me, such impertinence .... +=+ >> > > Sorry Grattan, but when I believe you are wrong, there is no > impertinence in me saying so. So unless you think it is an impertinence > to beleive that Grattan canbe wrong (such impertinence!), I really don't > think your exclamation above is warranted. > >> .................................................................... >> >> +=+ Leaving all that aside, let me return to the question >> of 'normal'. >> I see no obstacle in the laws to the view that any >> lawful play that does not violate an understanding of the >> construction of the pack is a 'normal' play. > > an understanding by whom? by the Director? by the claimer? Within his > (wrong) frame of mind or regardless of it? > >> To illustrate the latter concept I revert to the example >> of the eleven card suit including AK not conceding to the >> Queen (except in some obscure problematic circumstance). > > Which is indeed the best example to illustrate my point! > Do you consider the ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finess > to the queen will lose it? > Do you consider the line of finessing in such a case a "normal" line? > Do you consider that line "normal" for anyone else? > Do you agree with me that normalcy depends on the particular knowledge > of the player. > > Your sentence above can be understood to be meaning that you agree with > my conclusions - in which case I don't see any impertinence on my part. > But your sentence is cryptical enough to be also understood that you > would not rule a trick off a player who finesses to a card he should > know to be dropping. > > Which is it? > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Apr 14 13:58:27 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:58:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Situation normal. In-Reply-To: <49E457B4.7070308@skynet.be> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be><000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E44254.7080408@skynet.be> <002801c9bcdf$6df7e020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E457B4.7070308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E47A63.7090301@aol.com> Addendum: If you (Herman) believe Grattan (or anyone) is wrong, or mistaken it is quite in order to say so. But that means "I believe you are wrong"; not "you are wrong". Herman De Wael schrieb: > Grattan wrote: >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> " The thing that impresses me >> most about America is the way >> parents obey their children." >> [Edward VIII] >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:59 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? >> >> >>> No Grattan, this won't do: >>> >> +=+ Dear me, such impertinence .... +=+ >> > > Sorry Grattan, but when I believe you are wrong, there is no > impertinence in me saying so. So unless you think it is an impertinence > to beleive that Grattan canbe wrong (such impertinence!), I really don't > think your exclamation above is warranted. > >> .................................................................... >> >> +=+ Leaving all that aside, let me return to the question >> of 'normal'. >> I see no obstacle in the laws to the view that any >> lawful play that does not violate an understanding of the >> construction of the pack is a 'normal' play. > > an understanding by whom? by the Director? by the claimer? Within his > (wrong) frame of mind or regardless of it? > >> To illustrate the latter concept I revert to the example >> of the eleven card suit including AK not conceding to the >> Queen (except in some obscure problematic circumstance). > > Which is indeed the best example to illustrate my point! > Do you consider the ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finess > to the queen will lose it? > Do you consider the line of finessing in such a case a "normal" line? > Do you consider that line "normal" for anyone else? > Do you agree with me that normalcy depends on the particular knowledge > of the player. > > Your sentence above can be understood to be meaning that you agree with > my conclusions - in which case I don't see any impertinence on my part. > But your sentence is cryptical enough to be also understood that you > would not rule a trick off a player who finesses to a card he should > know to be dropping. > > Which is it? > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 14 14:01:38 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:01:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Situation normal. In-Reply-To: <000c01c9bcea$442ed9a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be><000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E44254.7080408@skynet.be><002801c9bcdf$6df7e020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E457B4.7070308@skynet.be> <000c01c9bcea$442ed9a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49E47B22.9090809@skynet.be> The most complete non-answer I have ever seen. I am quickly losing any interest I have in what you are writing, Grattan. Does anybody else remark that Grattan has not replied to my question. "read what I have written" is not a valid answer to a question that implied that the asker did not understand what he had written. Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " The thing that impresses me > most about America is the way > parents obey their children." > [Edward VIII] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:30 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Situation normal. > > >> Grattan wrote: >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ************************************ >>> " The thing that impresses me >>> most about America is the way >>> parents obey their children." >>> [Edward VIII] >>> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:59 AM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? >>> >>> >>>> No Grattan, this won't do: >>>> >>> +=+ Dear me, such impertinence .... +=+ >>> >> Sorry Grattan, but when I believe you are wrong, there is no >> impertinence in me saying so. So unless you think it is an impertinence >> to beleive that Grattan canbe wrong (such impertinence!), I really don't >> think your exclamation above is warranted. >> >>> .................................................................... >>> >>> +=+ Leaving all that aside, let me return to the question >>> of 'normal'. >>> I see no obstacle in the laws to the view that any >>> lawful play that does not violate an understanding of the >>> construction of the pack is a 'normal' play. >> an understanding by whom? by the Director? by the claimer? Within his >> (wrong) frame of mind or regardless of it? >> >>> To illustrate the latter concept I revert to the example >>> of the eleven card suit including AK not conceding to the >>> Queen (except in some obscure problematic circumstance). >> Which is indeed the best example to illustrate my point! >> Do you consider the ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finess >> to the queen will lose it? >> Do you consider the line of finessing in such a case a "normal" line? >> Do you consider that line "normal" for anyone else? >> Do you agree with me that normalcy depends on the particular knowledge >> of the player. >> >> Your sentence above can be understood to be meaning that you agree with >> my conclusions - in which case I don't see any impertinence on my part. >> But your sentence is cryptical enough to be also understood that you >> would not rule a trick off a player who finesses to a card he should >> know to be dropping. >> >> Which is it? > < > +=+ Just read my words as they are written, Herman. They > supply a view of a basic interpretation of 'normal' play to apply > in any situation. Your questions have no relevance to this, and > as already indicated (to your distaste) it is not to you that I would > look for authoritative opinion; that is for my committee colleagues. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 14 14:05:08 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:05:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " The thing that impresses me > most about America is the way > parents obey their children." > [Edward VIII] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > +=+ Irrelevantly Herman asked "Do you consider the > ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finesse to the > queen will lose it? - with eleven cards headed AK. > < > +=+ There is no requirements that plays included in a > statement of claim should be 'normal'. They must be > legal plays. No they must not. Read L70E again. When it is irrational to not follow the alternate line, the stated lines shall not be followed. That is equivalent to saying that non-normal lines are not followed when they are included in a claim statement. I have said this before, Grattan, and you refuse to point me to the error in my logic, except by repeating that "Grattan is right because Grattan is right". I am using logic here, so please do the same. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 14 14:07:10 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:07:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Situation normal. In-Reply-To: <49E479C6.2070409@aol.com> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be><000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E44254.7080408@skynet.be> <002801c9bcdf$6df7e020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E457B4.7070308@skynet.be> <49E479C6.2070409@aol.com> Message-ID: <49E47C6E.903@skynet.be> Please add an IMO to each and every post I write from now on. OK? Herman. Jeff Easterson wrote: > Impertinence: How about using the expression "I disagree"? "This won't > do" is objective (and absolute) sounding but perhaps Herman's command of > English is not sensitive to such nuances. If "this won't do", then "in > my opinion this won't do". JE > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Grattan wrote: >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ************************************ >>> " The thing that impresses me >>> most about America is the way >>> parents obey their children." >>> [Edward VIII] >>> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:59 AM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? >>> >>> >>>> No Grattan, this won't do: >>>> >>> +=+ Dear me, such impertinence .... +=+ >>> >> Sorry Grattan, but when I believe you are wrong, there is no >> impertinence in me saying so. So unless you think it is an impertinence >> to beleive that Grattan canbe wrong (such impertinence!), I really don't >> think your exclamation above is warranted. >> >>> .................................................................... >>> >>> +=+ Leaving all that aside, let me return to the question >>> of 'normal'. >>> I see no obstacle in the laws to the view that any >>> lawful play that does not violate an understanding of the >>> construction of the pack is a 'normal' play. >> an understanding by whom? by the Director? by the claimer? Within his >> (wrong) frame of mind or regardless of it? >> >>> To illustrate the latter concept I revert to the example >>> of the eleven card suit including AK not conceding to the >>> Queen (except in some obscure problematic circumstance). >> Which is indeed the best example to illustrate my point! >> Do you consider the ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finess >> to the queen will lose it? >> Do you consider the line of finessing in such a case a "normal" line? >> Do you consider that line "normal" for anyone else? >> Do you agree with me that normalcy depends on the particular knowledge >> of the player. >> >> Your sentence above can be understood to be meaning that you agree with >> my conclusions - in which case I don't see any impertinence on my part. >> But your sentence is cryptical enough to be also understood that you >> would not rule a trick off a player who finesses to a card he should >> know to be dropping. >> >> Which is it? >> >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Apr 14 14:10:53 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:10:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E47D4D.2010701@aol.com> I like the last paragraph here and also the last one in Herman's response to Sven ("hammering on" or something like that and the rest of the sentence). Wasn't there once a discussion on blml about the pot calling the kettle black? JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Grattan wrote: >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> " The thing that impresses me >> most about America is the way >> parents obey their children." >> [Edward VIII] >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> +=+ Irrelevantly Herman asked "Do you consider the >> ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finesse to the >> queen will lose it? - with eleven cards headed AK. >> < >> +=+ There is no requirements that plays included in a >> statement of claim should be 'normal'. They must be >> legal plays. > > No they must not. Read L70E again. When it is irrational to not follow > the alternate line, the stated lines shall not be followed. That is > equivalent to saying that non-normal lines are not followed when they > are included in a claim statement. > > I have said this before, Grattan, and you refuse to point me to the > error in my logic, except by repeating that "Grattan is right because > Grattan is right". I am using logic here, so please do the same. > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Apr 14 14:11:53 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:11:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Situation normal. In-Reply-To: <49E47C6E.903@skynet.be> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be><000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E44254.7080408@skynet.be> <002801c9bcdf$6df7e020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E457B4.7070308@skynet.be> <49E479C6.2070409@aol.com> <49E47C6E.903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E47D89.8040101@aol.com> Why don't you do it, at least in the future? JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Please add an IMO to each and every post I write from now on. OK? > Herman. > > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Impertinence: How about using the expression "I disagree"? "This won't >> do" is objective (and absolute) sounding but perhaps Herman's command of >> English is not sensitive to such nuances. If "this won't do", then "in >> my opinion this won't do". JE >> Herman De Wael schrieb: >>> Grattan wrote: >>>> Grattan Endicott>>> also >>> ************************************ >>>> " The thing that impresses me >>>> most about America is the way >>>> parents obey their children." >>>> [Edward VIII] >>>> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:59 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? >>>> >>>> >>>>> No Grattan, this won't do: >>>>> >>>> +=+ Dear me, such impertinence .... +=+ >>>> >>> Sorry Grattan, but when I believe you are wrong, there is no >>> impertinence in me saying so. So unless you think it is an impertinence >>> to beleive that Grattan canbe wrong (such impertinence!), I really don't >>> think your exclamation above is warranted. >>> >>>> .................................................................... >>>> >>>> +=+ Leaving all that aside, let me return to the question >>>> of 'normal'. >>>> I see no obstacle in the laws to the view that any >>>> lawful play that does not violate an understanding of the >>>> construction of the pack is a 'normal' play. >>> an understanding by whom? by the Director? by the claimer? Within his >>> (wrong) frame of mind or regardless of it? >>> >>>> To illustrate the latter concept I revert to the example >>>> of the eleven card suit including AK not conceding to the >>>> Queen (except in some obscure problematic circumstance). >>> Which is indeed the best example to illustrate my point! >>> Do you consider the ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finess >>> to the queen will lose it? >>> Do you consider the line of finessing in such a case a "normal" line? >>> Do you consider that line "normal" for anyone else? >>> Do you agree with me that normalcy depends on the particular knowledge >>> of the player. >>> >>> Your sentence above can be understood to be meaning that you agree with >>> my conclusions - in which case I don't see any impertinence on my part. >>> But your sentence is cryptical enough to be also understood that you >>> would not rule a trick off a player who finesses to a card he should >>> know to be dropping. >>> >>> Which is it? >>> >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>>> >>> Herman. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Apr 14 14:57:28 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:57:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Question_not_arising=2E?= In-Reply-To: <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Grattan wrote: > > > > Grattan Endicott > also > ************************************ > > " The thing that impresses me > > most about America is the way > > parents obey their children." > > [Edward VIII] > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > +=+ Irrelevantly Herman asked ?"Do you consider the > > ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finesse to the > > queen will lose it? - with eleven cards headed AK. > > < > > +=+ There is no requirements that plays included in a > > statement of claim should be 'normal'. They must be > > legal plays. > > > > No they must not. Read L70E again. When it is irrational to not follow > the alternate line, the stated lines shall not be followed. That is > equivalent to saying that non-normal lines are not followed when they > are included in a claim statement. Here is your non-logical argument. My Law 70E says that _un_stated lines shall not be followed, if is is irrational not to follow them. This ist not the same (or equivalent) statement as yours above. Irrational is not equivalent to non-normal, so your last deduction above also is logically wrong. Furthermore the Laws's statement about unstated lines does not imply that stated lines are not to be followed. And it does not say that - even if the TD finds that an unstated line _may_ be accepted (because "shall not accept" does not apply) - the TD _must_ or even _should_ accept any such line. Nowhere in the laws (except 70E) it says that the claimer isn't bound to his own statement. The WBFLC additionally said that the statement may be partially invalid if it contains irregularities but is still valid besides that. > > I have said this before, Grattan, and you refuse to point me to the > error in my logic, except by repeating that "Grattan is right because > Grattan is right". I am using logic here, so please do the same. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 14 15:34:57 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:34:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <660E0044-3C52-4840-A397-A39A650D9E6A@starpower.net> On Apr 14, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael > >> Grattan wrote: >> >>> +=+ Irrelevantly Herman asked "Do you consider the >>> ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finesse to the >>> queen will lose it? - with eleven cards headed AK. >>> < >>> +=+ There is no requirements that plays included in a >>> statement of claim should be 'normal'. They must be >>> legal plays. >> >> No they must not. Read L70E again. When it is irrational to not >> follow >> the alternate line, the stated lines shall not be followed. That is >> equivalent to saying that non-normal lines are not followed when they >> are included in a claim statement. > > Here is your non-logical argument. > > My Law 70E says that _un_stated lines shall not be followed, > if is is irrational not to follow them. This ist not the same (or > equivalent) statement as yours above. > Irrational is not equivalent to non-normal, so your last > deduction above also is logically wrong. > > Furthermore the Laws's statement about unstated lines does not > imply that stated lines are not to be followed. And it does not > say that - even if the TD finds that an unstated line _may_ be > accepted (because "shall not accept" does not apply) - the TD > _must_ or even _should_ accept any such line. > > Nowhere in the laws (except 70E) it says that the claimer > isn't bound to his own statement. > The WBFLC additionally said that the statement may be partially > invalid if it contains irregularities but is still valid besides that. Why the parenthetical? As Peter himself suggests, L70E concerns itself exclusively with "unstated line[s] of play", which, not coincidentally, is also the title of the law (not officially definitive, but certainly highly suggestive). The notion that L70E1 requires (or even permits) adjusting *stated* (legal) lines of play seems to be Herman's alone. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 14 18:10:10 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:10:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <660E0044-3C52-4840-A397-A39A650D9E6A@starpower.net> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <660E0044-3C52-4840-A397-A39A650D9E6A@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:34:57 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 14, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > >> From: Herman De Wael >> >>> Grattan wrote: >>> >>>> +=+ Irrelevantly Herman asked "Do you consider the >>>> ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finesse to the >>>> queen will lose it? - with eleven cards headed AK. >>>> < >>>> +=+ There is no requirements that plays included in a >>>> statement of claim should be 'normal'. They must be >>>> legal plays. >>> >>> No they must not. Read L70E again. When it is irrational to not >>> follow >>> the alternate line, the stated lines shall not be followed. That is >>> equivalent to saying that non-normal lines are not followed when they >>> are included in a claim statement. >> >> Here is your non-logical argument. >> >> My Law 70E says that _un_stated lines shall not be followed, >> if is is irrational not to follow them. This ist not the same (or >> equivalent) statement as yours above. >> Irrational is not equivalent to non-normal, so your last >> deduction above also is logically wrong. >> >> Furthermore the Laws's statement about unstated lines does not >> imply that stated lines are not to be followed. And it does not >> say that - even if the TD finds that an unstated line _may_ be >> accepted (because "shall not accept" does not apply) - the TD >> _must_ or even _should_ accept any such line. >> >> Nowhere in the laws (except 70E) it says that the claimer >> isn't bound to his own statement. >> The WBFLC additionally said that the statement may be partially >> invalid if it contains irregularities but is still valid besides that. > > Why the parenthetical? As Peter himself suggests, L70E concerns > itself exclusively with "unstated line[s] of play", which, not > coincidentally, is also the title of the law (not officially > definitive, but certainly highly suggestive). The notion that L70E1 > requires (or even permits) adjusting *stated* (legal) lines of play > seems to be Herman's alone. This is/was discussed on rec.games.bridge, and David Flowers made the point that you can't have L70D and L70E both ways. One situation is Axx opposite KQJ9x. Declarer claims starting that he will play the ace and then the king. RHO would show out, making the finesse obvious. blmlers want to invoke L70E and give claimer the marked finesse. For AKJxxxxx opposite xxx, declarer claims saying he is finessing for the queen. If LHO follows suit, most blmlers want to insist on the finesse and not allow claimer to change his mind and invoke L70D (or L70E). I know those are two different laws. But the language is almost identical. They either do apply to changes in the claim statement or they don't. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 14 22:22:27 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:22:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <660E0044-3C52-4840-A397-A39A650D9E6A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <913CCDA2-DB3F-4758-A8FC-E0B6FA1D93AE@starpower.net> On Apr 14, 2009, at 12:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:34:57 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Apr 14, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>> From: Herman De Wael >>> >>>> Grattan wrote: >>>> >>>>> +=+ Irrelevantly Herman asked "Do you consider the >>>>> ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finesse to the >>>>> queen will lose it? - with eleven cards headed AK. >>>>> < >>>>> +=+ There is no requirements that plays included in a >>>>> statement of claim should be 'normal'. They must be >>>>> legal plays. >>>> >>>> No they must not. Read L70E again. When it is irrational to not >>>> follow >>>> the alternate line, the stated lines shall not be followed. That is >>>> equivalent to saying that non-normal lines are not followed when >>>> they >>>> are included in a claim statement. >>> >>> Here is your non-logical argument. >>> >>> My Law 70E says that _un_stated lines shall not be followed, >>> if is is irrational not to follow them. This ist not the same (or >>> equivalent) statement as yours above. >>> Irrational is not equivalent to non-normal, so your last >>> deduction above also is logically wrong. >>> >>> Furthermore the Laws's statement about unstated lines does not >>> imply that stated lines are not to be followed. And it does not >>> say that - even if the TD finds that an unstated line _may_ be >>> accepted (because "shall not accept" does not apply) - the TD >>> _must_ or even _should_ accept any such line. >>> >>> Nowhere in the laws (except 70E) it says that the claimer >>> isn't bound to his own statement. >>> The WBFLC additionally said that the statement may be partially >>> invalid if it contains irregularities but is still valid besides >>> that. >> >> Why the parenthetical? As Peter himself suggests, L70E concerns >> itself exclusively with "unstated line[s] of play", which, not >> coincidentally, is also the title of the law (not officially >> definitive, but certainly highly suggestive). The notion that L70E1 >> requires (or even permits) adjusting *stated* (legal) lines of play >> seems to be Herman's alone. > > This is/was discussed on rec.games.bridge, and David Flowers made the > point that you can't have L70D and L70E both ways. One situation is > Axx > opposite KQJ9x. Declarer claims starting that he will play the ace and > then the king. RHO would show out, making the finesse obvious. blmlers > want to invoke L70E and give claimer the marked finesse. For AKJxxxxx > opposite xxx, declarer claims saying he is finessing for the queen. > If LHO > follows suit, most blmlers want to insist on the finesse and not allow > claimer to change his mind and invoke L70D (or L70E). > > I know those are two different laws. But the language is almost > identical. > They either do apply to changes in the claim statement or they don't. You cannot draw a valid analogy between a definitive statement of an immediate play and an omitted statement of a future reaction to an unlikely contingency. The queen finesse and the ten finesse in Bob's examples are entirely different. Laying down the ace, seeing RHO show out, and *then* claiming with the statement that he will lead to the king would be analogous to the queen finesse -- and nobody (well, few of us, and certainly not I) would argue that he should be allowed to finesse the nine. Requiring him to play the king in the case we've been discussing is analogous to requiring a claimer who stated "small to the queen" holding an AQ combination to play the queen under the unexpectedly appearing king. In those kinds of cases, we allow for claimer to have omitted obvious secondary lines to be taken in the event of unlikely contingencies when those contingencies will be obvious -- we *do not* require him to say "unless, or course, the king pops up" nor "unless, of course, RHO shows out on the ace". In the eleven-card-fit queen-finesse example, there is no analogous secondary consideration, no unlikely contingency, no obvious occurrence to be noticed, no similarity whatsoever. And even if the situations were similar, the legal analogy still wouldn't hold. L70E1 explicitly requires that we presume proven finesses to be taken, while for any other play we must determine our presumptions from considerations of "normality", "irrationality" and the like. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 15 00:40:48 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:40:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c9bcdb$d6f41570$84dc4050$@no> Message-ID: Law 70C, clauses 1 and 2: C. There Is an Outstanding Trump When a trump remains in one of the opponents? hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent?s hand, and Sven Pran asserted: [snip] >"If he doesn't mention it, the reason is that he is unaware of it". > >Real evidence does not leave doubtful points. Richard Hills quibbles: If Sven Pran's assertion was correct, Law 70C2 would be a tautological waste of space, since all of its possibilities would be embraced by Law 70C1. Ergo, in my opinion, Sven Pran's sick clay Ming Prince e-pull should be amended to this bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pull: "If she doesn't mention it, the likely reason is that she is unaware of it, but overwhelming evidence may prove beyond reasonable doubt otherwise." Of course, a Director must steer between Sven's Scylla and Adam's Charybdis. ACBL Laws Commission Vice-Chairman Adam Wildavsky, in a personal opinion, incorrectly approved of a decision by an ACBL Appeals Committee to overrule an ACBL Director's decision to disallow an ACBL declarer's claim under Law 70C. Apparently both Adam and the ACBL AC believed that the normal Law 85 "balance of probabilities" standard for disputed facts applied to the disputed fact of claimer's intent. But this is not so. The Law 70A phrase "doubtful point" and the Law 70C2 phrase "at all likely" mean that claimer's intent is a special exception to "balance of probabilities", with the special standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" applying instead. What's the problem? Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Apr 15 02:33:10 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:33:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no> Message-ID: <49E52B46.6010907@talktalk.net> Recent arguments add to the theoretical confusion. But, in practice, in common cases like the 2 recent examples, do claim laws generate inconsistent rulings? [1] With a singleton small spade opposite a 10 card spade suit missing the queen, declarer claims. saying "finessing for SQ." [2] With S:Axx opposite dummy's S:KQJ9x, declarer cashes SA and RHO shows out. Then declarer claims, saying "playing spades from the top." Assuming that you can glean no more relevant facts, in each case, how would you rule - with the specified claim statement? - without any claim statement? Primarily, in these cases, are your rulings a matter - of law? or - of director judgement? From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 15 04:55:53 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:55:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <913CCDA2-DB3F-4758-A8FC-E0B6FA1D93AE@starpower.net> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <660E0044-3C52-4840-A397-A39A650D9E6A@starpower.net> <913CCDA2-DB3F-4758-A8FC-E0B6FA1D93AE@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:22:27 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 14, 2009, at 12:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> This is/was discussed on rec.games.bridge, and David Flowers made the >> point that you can't have L70D and L70E both ways. One situation is >> Axx >> opposite KQJ9x. Declarer claims starting that he will play the ace and >> then the king. RHO would show out, making the finesse obvious. blmlers >> want to invoke L70E and give claimer the marked finesse. For AKJxxxxx >> opposite xxx, declarer claims saying he is finessing for the queen. >> If LHO >> follows suit, most blmlers want to insist on the finesse and not allow >> claimer to change his mind and invoke L70D (or L70E). >> >> I know those are two different laws. But the language is almost >> identical. >> They either do apply to changes in the claim statement or they don't. > > You cannot draw a valid analogy between a definitive statement of an > immediate play and an omitted statement of a future reaction to an > unlikely contingency. The queen finesse and the ten finesse in Bob's > examples are entirely different. Laying down the ace, seeing RHO > show out, and *then* claiming with the statement that he will lead to > the king would be analogous to the queen finesse -- and nobody (well, > few of us, and certainly not I) would argue that he should be allowed > to finesse the nine. Requiring him to play the king in the case > we've been discussing is analogous to requiring a claimer who stated > "small to the queen" holding an AQ combination to play the queen > under the unexpectedly appearing king. In those kinds of cases, we > allow for claimer to have omitted obvious secondary lines to be taken > in the event of unlikely contingencies when those contingencies will > be obvious -- we *do not* require him to say "unless, or course, the > king pops up" nor "unless, of course, RHO shows out on the ace". In > the eleven-card-fit queen-finesse example, there is no analogous > secondary consideration, no unlikely contingency, no obvious > occurrence to be noticed, no similarity whatsoever. > > And even if the situations were similar, the legal analogy still > wouldn't hold. L70E1 explicitly requires that we presume proven > finesses to be taken, while for any other play we must determine our > presumptions from considerations of "normality", "irrationality" and > the like. You say, "...We allow for claimer to have omitted obvious secondary lines to be taken in the event of unlikely contingencies when those contingencies will be obvious." But I can't find that in the laws. I would have said it differently: If the claim itself is not normal (for example, finessing for the queen in an 11-card fit would not be judged normal), L70D1 does not apply; when an unexpected event occurs to make the remaining claim procedures not normal (for example, not taking a revealed marked finesse), L70D1 does apply. But I can't find anything in L70D1 to make this distinction. I get this distinction only from polling blml. If it is relevant, does L70E1 explicitly require that we presume proven finesses to be taken? Your own example contradicts that. (The player plays the ace, RHO shows out, and then the player claims stating that he will, irrationally, play to the king.) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Apr 15 05:48:17 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:48:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <49E52B46.6010907@talktalk.net> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no> <49E52B46.6010907@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <200904150348.n3F3mJoq027933@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 10:33 AM 15/04/2009, nigel wrote: >Recent arguments add to the theoretical confusion. But, in practice, in >common cases like the 2 recent examples, do claim laws generate >inconsistent rulings? > >[1] With a singleton small spade opposite a 10 card spade suit missing >the queen, declarer claims. saying "finessing for SQ." >[2] With S:Axx opposite dummy's S:KQJ9x, declarer cashes SA and RHO >shows out. Then declarer claims, saying "playing spades from the top." I presume that it is dummy who has disputed the claim?? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) Grattan deserved a sainthood for buying into this argument From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 15 06:03:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:03:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49E52B46.6010907@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Jason Slater, What is Push and Pull e-mail? (20th October 2008): "The traditional method of receiving electronic mail (e-mail) employed a mechanism known as pull technology (such as POP). In this scenario you configure your e-mail program to periodically connect to your e-mail provider and retrieve any message it finds. In a mobile environment where data rates are still chargeable this regular polling can be problematic as polling every fifteen minutes (or more frequently) can quickly build up your data charges. In a push e-mail environment an initial connection is made from your client to the e-mail server and the connection between the two is kept open for periods of time. Some systems use a regular pulse- signal (also called a ping and a heartbeat) to tell the connection to stay alive (this is a much smaller overhead than performing a full poll). I was surprised recently to hear someone tell me that Blackberry is the only push e-mail provider - maybe this was true a long time ago but these days Microsoft ActiveSync is a competitive push e-mail technology." Nigel Guthrie: >Recent arguments add to the theoretical confusion. But, in >practice, in common cases like the 2 recent examples, do claim >laws generate inconsistent rulings? > >[1] With a singleton small spade opposite a 10 card spade suit >missing the queen, declarer claims, saying "finessing for SQ." >[2] With S:Axx opposite dummy's S:KQJ9x, declarer cashes SA and >RHO shows out. Then declarer claims, saying "playing spades from >the top." > >Assuming that you can glean no more relevant facts, in each case, >how would you rule >- with the specified claim statement? >- without any claim statement? > >Primarily, in these cases, are your rulings a matter >- of law? or >- of director judgement? Herman De Wael: >>Please add an IMO to each and every post I write from now on. OK? Richard Hills: In My Opinion the answers to Nigel's questions lie in Law 70E, and in particular lie in the heading of Law 70E: E. Unstated Line of Play 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational. 2. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. "from the top down") in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law). * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. Richard Hills: The 1997 Lawbook's Scope and Interpretation specified that Law headings were not part of the Laws. The 2007 Lawbook's Introduction takes a more nuanced position, instead specifying: "...Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law...". In My Opinion, 2007 headings (while not limiting a Law) assist in _interpreting_ a Law. And interpreting a Law is something the TD sometimes has to do, as specifically stated in Law 81C2. In My Opinion >[2] With S:Axx opposite dummy's S:KQJ9x, declarer cashes SA and >RHO shows out. would be resolved, if declarer claims without a statement, by the TD noticing the Law 70E1 phrase "unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made", thus the TD assuming that declarer noticed RHO's void as the reason declarer claimed at that point, thus declarer's claim for all the spade tricks being accepted by the TD. In My Opinion >[2] With S:Axx opposite dummy's S:KQJ9x, declarer cashes SA and >RHO shows out. Then declarer claims, saying "playing spades from >the top." would be resolved, now that declarer has Stated a Line of Play, by the TD refusing to apply Law 70E (Unstated Line of Play). That is, the standard TD assumption that declarer has noticed RHO's void is overturned by declarer's self-incriminating words proving she merely noticed RHO playing a black card, and so declarer foolishly assumed that RHO's black card was the to-be-expected spade card, rather than the actual club card. >Primarily, in these cases, are your rulings a matter >- of law? or >- of director judgement? In My Opinion, in these Guthrie test cases my rulings would be primarily a matter of Law. As Paul Lamford previously observed, if a particular player always plays abnormally, it is advantageous for that particular player to eschew a self-incriminating claim statement, since without any claim statement Laws 70E1 and 70E2 will require the Director to accept a claim for which each and every normal line leads to success. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 15 08:00:15 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:00:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200904150348.n3F3mJoq027933@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: >>[2] With S:Axx opposite dummy's S:KQJ9x, declarer cashes SA and RHO >>shows out. Then declarer claims, saying "playing spades from the top." >I presume that it is dummy who has disputed the claim?? >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) > >Grattan deserved a sainthood for buying into this argument Law 68D: "...if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately..." Law 79A2: "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." Best wishes Richard (Saint James) Hills, resident of ultramontane, ultramundane and ultra-mundane Canberra Peter Bowler, The Superior Person's Book of Words: "Ultramontane, a. Formerly, that faction within the Catholic Church which either lived north of the Alps, outside of Italy, and opposed the concept of papal supremacy, or lived south of the Alps, within Italy, and supported the concept of papal supremacy. Nowadays, more commonly used simply to mean situated beyond the mountains. As, for example, Canberra. Not to be confused with 'ultramundane', which means beyond the realities of earthly existence; unreal, unworldly. As, for example, Canberra. Not to be confused, also, with 'ultra-mundane' (with a hyphen), which means excessively humdrum. As, for example, Canberra." R. James Hills: The ultracrepidarian American editor of Peter Bowler's book erred in translating "Canberra" as "Palm Springs". Perhaps that American editor should occupy a position more suited to his talents: Vice-Chairman of the ACBL Laws Commission? :-) :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 15 09:28:46 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:28:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Situation normal. In-Reply-To: <49E47D89.8040101@aol.com> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be><000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E44254.7080408@skynet.be> <002801c9bcdf$6df7e020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E457B4.7070308@skynet.be> <49E479C6.2070409@aol.com> <49E47C6E.903@skynet.be> <49E47D89.8040101@aol.com> Message-ID: <49E58CAE.8070608@skynet.be> Because anything I write is "my opinion". And as such, we don't need to add it. Besides, there are at least two different opinions. Those that one realises may be no more than one possible opinion, and those of which one believes firmly that they are right. I frequently add IMO to my postings in the first category - I don't think I should also add them to my postings of the second category. I firmly believe that "normal" must be judged from within the mindset of the claimer - and I have given logical reasons why. Grattan is the one propounding his opinion without any basis. If that is pots calling kettles black, then please do remember that kettles ARE black. Herman. Jeff Easterson wrote: > Why don't you do it, at least in the future? JE > > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Please add an IMO to each and every post I write from now on. OK? >> Herman. >> >> Jeff Easterson wrote: >>> Impertinence: How about using the expression "I disagree"? "This won't >>> do" is objective (and absolute) sounding but perhaps Herman's command of >>> English is not sensitive to such nuances. If "this won't do", then "in >>> my opinion this won't do". JE >>> Herman De Wael schrieb: >>>> Grattan wrote: >>>>> Grattan Endicott>>>> also >>>> ************************************ >>>>> " The thing that impresses me >>>>> most about America is the way >>>>> parents obey their children." >>>>> [Edward VIII] >>>>> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:59 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> No Grattan, this won't do: >>>>>> >>>>> +=+ Dear me, such impertinence .... +=+ >>>>> >>>> Sorry Grattan, but when I believe you are wrong, there is no >>>> impertinence in me saying so. So unless you think it is an impertinence >>>> to beleive that Grattan canbe wrong (such impertinence!), I really don't >>>> think your exclamation above is warranted. >>>> >>>>> .................................................................... >>>>> >>>>> +=+ Leaving all that aside, let me return to the question >>>>> of 'normal'. >>>>> I see no obstacle in the laws to the view that any >>>>> lawful play that does not violate an understanding of the >>>>> construction of the pack is a 'normal' play. >>>> an understanding by whom? by the Director? by the claimer? Within his >>>> (wrong) frame of mind or regardless of it? >>>> >>>>> To illustrate the latter concept I revert to the example >>>>> of the eleven card suit including AK not conceding to the >>>>> Queen (except in some obscure problematic circumstance). >>>> Which is indeed the best example to illustrate my point! >>>> Do you consider the ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finess >>>> to the queen will lose it? >>>> Do you consider the line of finessing in such a case a "normal" line? >>>> Do you consider that line "normal" for anyone else? >>>> Do you agree with me that normalcy depends on the particular knowledge >>>> of the player. >>>> >>>> Your sentence above can be understood to be meaning that you agree with >>>> my conclusions - in which case I don't see any impertinence on my part. >>>> But your sentence is cryptical enough to be also understood that you >>>> would not rule a trick off a player who finesses to a card he should >>>> know to be dropping. >>>> >>>> Which is it? >>>> >>>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>>>> >>>> Herman. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 15 09:46:57 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:46:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> Hello Peter, Thanks for taking the time to try and apply logic to this discussion. I hope you'll also take time to read why your logic is not up to the task: Peter Eidt wrote: >>> < >>> +=+ There is no requirements that plays included in a >>> statement of claim should be 'normal'. They must be >>> legal plays. >>> >> No they must not. Read L70E again. When it is irrational to not follow >> the alternate line, the stated lines shall not be followed. That is >> equivalent to saying that non-normal lines are not followed when they >> are included in a claim statement. > > Here is your non-logical argument. > > My Law 70E says that _un_stated lines shall not be followed, Indeed. > if is is irrational not to follow them. This ist not the same (or > equivalent) statement as yours above. Yes it is. > Irrational is not equivalent to non-normal, so your last > deduction above also is logically wrong. > Irrational lines are non-normal, but I grant you that there are non-normal lines that are not irrational. But I was using the words as near synonyms. > Furthermore the Laws's statement about unstated lines does not > imply that stated lines are not to be followed. And it does not > say that - even if the TD finds that an unstated line _may_ be > accepted (because "shall not accept" does not apply) - the TD > _must_ or even _should_ accept any such line. > Law 70E uses far too many negatives, so let's diffuse them one by one: 1) "The Director shall not accept". I read this as being analogous to "the director shall accept the opposite". True, this is logically not the same, but then we should take this as an example of Kaplanesque language. If the lawbook were only to state what the director shall not do, leaving him free to do what he wants, the lawbook is not very good, is it? 2) "any unstated line of play ...". The director shall therefore accept an unstated line. Which I say is analogous to saying he shall discard the stated line. 3) "unless failure to adopt the alternative". This is analogous to saying "when following the original". OK, again not complete logic if there are more than two lines - but close enough for government work. 4) "would be irrational". Let's leave this one negative in there. "The director shall not accept an alternative unless not following that alternative would be irrational" = "The director shall accept an alternative when not following that alternative would be irrational" = "The director shall accept an alternative when following the original would be irrational" = "The director shall not follow the original when following the original would be irrational" = "Irrational original lines shall not be followed". I fail to see why you would have any problems with this logic. Herman. > Nowhere in the laws (except 70E) it says that the claimer > isn't bound to his own statement. > The WBFLC additionally said that the statement may be partially > invalid if it contains irregularities but is still valid besides that. > >> I have said this before, Grattan, and you refuse to point me to the >> error in my logic, except by repeating that "Grattan is right because >> Grattan is right". I am using logic here, so please do the same. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Wed Apr 15 09:59:48 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:59:48 +0300 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49E593F4.5050707@jldata.fi> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > > Ergo, the Director may rule that the omission of the word "Nicomedophily" > in the claim statement was a slip of the tongue, not a slip of the mind, > and thus it is legal for the Director to rule that there is no reasonable > doubt the claimer would indeed have always achieved Nicomedophily during > the play. > > > [juuso] Finally something reasonable. I agree completely. Best regards Juuso From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 15 10:04:56 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:04:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Situation normal. In-Reply-To: <49E47A63.7090301@aol.com> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be><000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E44254.7080408@skynet.be> <002801c9bcdf$6df7e020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E457B4.7070308@skynet.be> <49E47A63.7090301@aol.com> Message-ID: <49E59528.7000106@ulb.ac.be> Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > Addendum: If you (Herman) believe Grattan (or anyone) is wrong, or > mistaken it is quite in order to say so. But that means "I believe you > are wrong"; not "you are wrong". > AG : I disagree ;-) Being right or wrong on a topic of law is an objective datum. It usually can be proven on the basis of legal texts, else the AC's job would be totally impossible. So, if you're able tro prove that the other guy is wrong (which doesn't necessarily mean you're right), you're entitled to say so, if you don't put too much vehemence into it. I'm na?ve enough to think that only when legal texts are imprecise or lacking is a matter subject to controverse, e.g. on blml. Best regards Alain From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Wed Apr 15 10:12:03 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:12:03 +0300 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <660E0044-3C52-4840-A397-A39A650D9E6A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49E596D3.1080509@jldata.fi> Robert Frick wrote: > [snip] > This is/was discussed on rec.games.bridge, and David Flowers made the > point that you can't have L70D and L70E both ways. One situation is Axx > opposite KQJ9x. Declarer claims starting that he will play the ace and > then the king. RHO would show out, making the finesse obvious. blmlers > want to invoke L70E and give claimer the marked finesse. For AKJxxxxx > opposite xxx, declarer claims saying he is finessing for the queen. If LHO > follows suit, most blmlers want to insist on the finesse and not allow > claimer to change his mind and invoke L70D (or L70E). > > I know those are two different laws. But the language is almost identical. > They either do apply to changes in the claim statement or they don't. > > [juuso] This is completely different situation. In the first claimer sees discard after he has played ace according his claim. He can after that finesse. But in the second example claimer still may be in impression, that he don't have 11 cards in suit. He cant change his mind. He has no new information yet. Best regards Juuso From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Wed Apr 15 10:23:22 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:23:22 +0300 Subject: [BLML] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <49E52B46.6010907@talktalk.net> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no> <49E52B46.6010907@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49E5997A.8050306@jldata.fi> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Recent arguments add to the theoretical confusion. But, in practice, in > common cases like the 2 recent examples, do claim laws generate > inconsistent rulings? > > [1] With a singleton small spade opposite a 10 card spade suit missing > the queen, declarer claims. saying "finessing for SQ." > [2] With S:Axx opposite dummy's S:KQJ9x, declarer cashes SA and RHO > shows out. Then declarer claims, saying "playing spades from the top." > > Assuming that you can glean no more relevant facts, in each case, how > would you rule > - with the specified claim statement? > - without any claim statement? > > Primarily, in these cases, are your rulings a matter > - of law? or > - of director judgement? > > Both cases, with specified claim statement, claimer must follow his statement Without any statement, first I allow play from top, and second finesse. Law or judgement. I am not sure, but I think law. With claim statement claimer may have not noticed in the first case, that he don't need finesse and second that 10 don't drop. Without any statement I assume normal play. Best regards Juuso > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From tom at abacurial.com Wed Apr 15 10:47:40 2009 From: tom at abacurial.com (tOM Trottier) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:47:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred>, <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de>, <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E566EC.20106.185E1EF@tom.abacurial.com> I would suggest that the claimer is bound by her declaration of how she will play it. If not completely delineated, then "normal", i.e., most obviously beneficial, play should be assumed to fill in the blanks. Peace, tOM On Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at 9:46, Herman De Wael wrote: | Hello Peter, | | Thanks for taking the time to try and apply logic to this discussion. | I hope you'll also take time to read why your logic is not up to the task: | | Peter Eidt wrote: | >>> < | >>> +=+ There is no requirements that plays included in a | >>> statement of claim should be 'normal'. They must be | >>> legal plays. | >>> | >> No they must not. Read L70E again. When it is irrational to not follow | >> the alternate line, the stated lines shall not be followed. That is | >> equivalent to saying that non-normal lines are not followed when they | >> are included in a claim statement. | > | > Here is your non-logical argument. | > | > My Law 70E says that _un_stated lines shall not be followed, | | Indeed. | | > if is is irrational not to follow them. This ist not the same (or | > equivalent) statement as yours above. | | Yes it is. | | > Irrational is not equivalent to non-normal, so your last | > deduction above also is logically wrong. | > | | Irrational lines are non-normal, but I grant you that there are | non-normal lines that are not irrational. | | But I was using the words as near synonyms. | | > Furthermore the Laws's statement about unstated lines does not | > imply that stated lines are not to be followed. And it does not | > say that - even if the TD finds that an unstated line _may_ be | > accepted (because "shall not accept" does not apply) - the TD | > _must_ or even _should_ accept any such line. | > | | Law 70E uses far too many negatives, so let's diffuse them one by one: | | 1) "The Director shall not accept". I read this as being analogous to | "the director shall accept the opposite". True, this is logically not | the same, but then we should take this as an example of Kaplanesque | language. If the lawbook were only to state what the director shall not | do, leaving him free to do what he wants, the lawbook is not very good, | is it? | | 2) "any unstated line of play ...". The director shall therefore accept | an unstated line. Which I say is analogous to saying he shall discard | the stated line. | | 3) "unless failure to adopt the alternative". This is analogous to | saying "when following the original". OK, again not complete logic if | there are more than two lines - but close enough for government work. | | 4) "would be irrational". Let's leave this one negative in there. | | "The director shall not accept an alternative unless not following that | alternative would be irrational" | = | "The director shall accept an alternative when not following that | alternative would be irrational" | = | "The director shall accept an alternative when following the original | would be irrational" | = | "The director shall not follow the original when following the original | would be irrational" | = | "Irrational original lines shall not be followed". | | I fail to see why you would have any problems with this logic. | | Herman. | | | > Nowhere in the laws (except 70E) it says that the claimer | > isn't bound to his own statement. | > The WBFLC additionally said that the statement may be partially | > invalid if it contains irregularities but is still valid besides that. | > | >> I have said this before, Grattan, and you refuse to point me to the | >> error in my logic, except by repeating that "Grattan is right because | >> Grattan is right". I am using logic here, so please do the same. | > | > | > | > _______________________________________________ | > Blml mailing list | > Blml at rtflb.org | > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml | > | _______________________________________________ | Blml mailing list | Blml at rtflb.org | http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Absum! -- tOM Trottier, +1 613 860-6633 469 Ancaster Ave, Ottawa, ON K2B 5B6 Canada http://Information.Architecture.Abacurial.com Est-ce c'est necessaire d'imprimer ce courriel? Do you really need to print this email? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 15 11:04:47 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:04:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] basic claiming principles? References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><49E52B46.6010907@talktalk.net> <200904150348.n3F3mJoq027933@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <003401c9bda9$3b68dae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] basic claiming principles? > At 10:33 AM 15/04/2009, nigel wrote: >>Recent arguments add to the theoretical confusion. But, in >>practice, in common cases like the 2 recent examples, do >>claim laws generate inconsistent rulings? >> >>[1] With a singleton small spade opposite a 10 card spade >>suit missing the queen, declarer claims. saying "finessing for >>SQ." >>[2] With S:Axx opposite dummy's S:KQJ9x, declarer >>cashes SA and RHO shows out. Then declarer claims, >>saying "playing spades from the top." > > I presume that it is dummy who has disputed the claim?? > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > Grattan deserved a sainthood for buying into this argument > +=+ Dummy may 'doubt' a claim - i.e. suggest it is invalid. If he does the Director is summoned. (68D) Bear in mind that the requirements for the statement of claim are specified in Law 68C. There is no mention of normality. Normal lines of play are an issue for the Director in given circumstances when applying Laws 70 and 71. ~ St. G. ~ :-)* +=+ * candidate! From Gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 15 11:13:31 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:13:31 EDT Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 15/04/2009 05:04:46 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: As Paul Lamford previously observed, if a particular player always plays abnormally, it is advantageous for that particular player to eschew a self-incriminating claim statement, since without any claim statement Laws 70E1 and 70E2 will require the Director to accept a claim for which each and every normal line leads to success. [paul lamford] I would go further. At our Christmas Social, we had 12.75 tables plus a player who had never played before. I was very happy to partner him as host and we agreed a simple point count system to describe our range, and I guessed the final contract with my opening bid whenever we had the balance of points. When he was a defender, he would make a defensive claim of all the tricks, either instead of an opening lead, or instead of playing to trick one as partner of the opening leader, and "normal" play was substituted for his overoptimistic attempt to achieve nine off in 3NT. When we declared, he had a very high percentage of being dummy, but on the two occasions when he was declarer, he claimed at trick one with the pre-agreed spiel "I think I can manage the rest", in Spanish in fact, as he did not speak any English. Again "normal" play was substituted, and we won the event comfortably. The opponents were not that happy about the 13 TD calls we had that night, but the 11 boards I played were fairly quick, so we still finished on time. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 15 11:15:30 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:15:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal Message-ID: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> Most of you have not yet answered if you believe I am right or not in saying that the decision on what is normal or not hangs on what claimer "knows" about the hand. In order to make you see that it does, I have constructed the following example: AKQx xxx xxxx AK xxx xxxx KQJxxxx xx xxx xx - 109832 xx A AKQJ QJ7654 The contract is 6NT, the lead is a heart and declarer claims after seeing dummy, saying "we should have bid 7, partner, I have 14 top tricks". Now there are two possibilities: 1) claimer adds (immediately) "I do hope clubs are not 5-0". I am sure most of you will now rule, if clubs are indeed 5-0, that claimer gets his 12 top tricks, and his contract just made. 2) claimer adds nothing. Certainly there will be some who will rule that claimer fails to notice that the C8 does not drop, and that he will play his fifth club immediately after cashing HA, CAK, DA, CQJ, so in trick seven. West makes all the remaining tricks for minus six. I am not sure I will be as harsh as this, but the ruling is certainly possible. Now tell me how you can rule completely different in case 1 to case 2. Neither claimer has issued a full claim statement. We need to rule if the line described in 2) is normal or not. How can you rule contract made in 1) and down six in 2), except when viewing whether line 2 is normal, depending on the state of mind of claimer (in 1 he has a count of the hand, in 2 he has not)? I would, in particular, hear Grattan's views on this. Herman. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Apr 15 12:05:03 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:05:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Situation normal. In-Reply-To: <49E58CAE.8070608@skynet.be> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no><001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E320AD.1080203@skynet.be><000201c9bc9a$c6aea6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E44254.7080408@skynet.be> <002801c9bcdf$6df7e020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E457B4.7070308@skynet.be> <49E479C6.2070409@aol.com> <49E47C6E.903@skynet.be> <49E47D89.8040101@aol.com> <49E58CAE.8070608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E5B14F.8060704@aol.com> There is a definite difference between statements including "in my opinion" (or asimilar statement) and those without it. Both are possible, one is subjective, the other absolute. Thus, if something is an opinion it should be added. (If you state that law x in the TBR states yyy, it is not your opinion; if you state Grattan is wrong or mistaken it is your opinion.) Otherwise the reader might think (surely mistakenly) that there are at least two opinions (as you say in your second paragraph), yours and the wrong/mistaken one/ones. But I may be misinterpreting, perhaps this is your belief and intention. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Because anything I write is "my opinion". And as such, we don't need to > add it. > Besides, there are at least two different opinions. Those that one > realises may be no more than one possible opinion, and those of which > one believes firmly that they are right. > I frequently add IMO to my postings in the first category - I don't > think I should also add them to my postings of the second category. > > I firmly believe that "normal" must be judged from within the mindset of > the claimer - and I have given logical reasons why. Grattan is the one > propounding his opinion without any basis. > > If that is pots calling kettles black, then please do remember that > kettles ARE black. > > Herman. > > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Why don't you do it, at least in the future? JE >> >> Herman De Wael schrieb: >>> Please add an IMO to each and every post I write from now on. OK? >>> Herman. >>> >>> Jeff Easterson wrote: >>>> Impertinence: How about using the expression "I disagree"? "This won't >>>> do" is objective (and absolute) sounding but perhaps Herman's command of >>>> English is not sensitive to such nuances. If "this won't do", then "in >>>> my opinion this won't do". JE >>>> Herman De Wael schrieb: >>>>> Grattan wrote: >>>>>> Grattan Endicott>>>>> also >>>>> ************************************ >>>>>> " The thing that impresses me >>>>>> most about America is the way >>>>>> parents obey their children." >>>>>> [Edward VIII] >>>>>> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>>>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:59 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] basic claiming principles? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> No Grattan, this won't do: >>>>>>> >>>>>> +=+ Dear me, such impertinence .... +=+ >>>>>> >>>>> Sorry Grattan, but when I believe you are wrong, there is no >>>>> impertinence in me saying so. So unless you think it is an impertinence >>>>> to beleive that Grattan canbe wrong (such impertinence!), I really don't >>>>> think your exclamation above is warranted. >>>>> >>>>>> .................................................................... >>>>>> >>>>>> +=+ Leaving all that aside, let me return to the question >>>>>> of 'normal'. >>>>>> I see no obstacle in the laws to the view that any >>>>>> lawful play that does not violate an understanding of the >>>>>> construction of the pack is a 'normal' play. >>>>> an understanding by whom? by the Director? by the claimer? Within his >>>>> (wrong) frame of mind or regardless of it? >>>>> >>>>>> To illustrate the latter concept I revert to the example >>>>>> of the eleven card suit including AK not conceding to the >>>>>> Queen (except in some obscure problematic circumstance). >>>>> Which is indeed the best example to illustrate my point! >>>>> Do you consider the ruling correct that a claimer stating he will finess >>>>> to the queen will lose it? >>>>> Do you consider the line of finessing in such a case a "normal" line? >>>>> Do you consider that line "normal" for anyone else? >>>>> Do you agree with me that normalcy depends on the particular knowledge >>>>> of the player. >>>>> >>>>> Your sentence above can be understood to be meaning that you agree with >>>>> my conclusions - in which case I don't see any impertinence on my part. >>>>> But your sentence is cryptical enough to be also understood that you >>>>> would not rule a trick off a player who finesses to a card he should >>>>> know to be dropping. >>>>> >>>>> Which is it? >>>>> >>>>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>>>>> >>>>> Herman. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Apr 15 12:23:14 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:23:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Definition_of_Normal?= In-Reply-To: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Now there are two possibilities: > 1) claimer adds (immediately) "I do hope clubs are not 5-0". > I am sure most of you will now rule, if clubs are indeed 5-0, that > claimer gets his 12 top tricks, and his contract just made. > > 2) claimer adds nothing. Certainly there will be some who will rule > that claimer fails to notice that the C8 does not drop, and that he > will play his fifth club immediately after cashing HA, CAK, DA, CQJ, > so in trick seven. West makes all the remaining tricks for minus six. > I am not sure I will be as harsh as this, but the ruling is certainly > possible. > > Now tell me how you can rule completely different in case 1 to case 2. > Neither claimer has issued a full claim statement. We need to rule if > the line described in 2) is normal or not. I do not rule differently, and I do not need to rule whether line 2 is normal* or not. > How can you rule contract made in 1) and down six in 2), except when > viewing whether line 2 is normal, depending on the state of mind of > claimer (in 1 he has a count of the hand, in 2 he has not)? I do not rule differently, and I do not mind about the claimer's state of mind. WBFLC Minute from Paris, 30 Oct 2001: "3.The committee discussed Law 70E. It was agreed that it is assumed declarer would see cards as they would be played and to take account of what he would see." 6 NT made. In both cases. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Apr 15 12:39:01 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:39:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Question_not_arising=2E?= In-Reply-To: <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Irrational lines are non-normal, but I grant you that there are > non-normal lines that are not irrational. > > But I was using the words as near synonyms. # 1 > 1) "The Director shall not accept". I read this as being analogous to > "the director shall accept the opposite". True, this is logically not > the same, but ... # 2 > 2) "any unstated line of play ...". The director shall therefore > accept an unstated line. Which I say is analogous to saying he shall > discard the stated line. # 2 > 3) "unless failure to adopt the alternative". This is analogous to > saying "when following the original". OK, again not complete logic if > there are more than two lines - but close enough for government work. # 4 > 4) "would be irrational". Let's leave this one negative in there. > > "The director shall not accept an alternative unless not following > that alternative would be irrational" > = > "The director shall accept an alternative when not following that > alternative would be irrational" > = > "The director shall accept an alternative when following the original > would be irrational" > = > "The director shall not follow the original when following the > original would be irrational" > = > "Irrational original lines shall not be followed". > > I fail to see why you would have any problems with this logic. I marked (only) 4 points in your "logic" above where you admit that your assumptions are inaccurate. E.g. you "define" equivalent terms which are definitely considered as truly non-equivalent. "irrational" is considered absolutely whereas "normal" is considered in view of the person involved. And then - after "redefining" everything to your own pleasure - you deduce something .. and, o wonder, it proves your theory. That, Herman, is not logic; at least not my logic. From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Wed Apr 15 12:58:13 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:58:13 +0300 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal In-Reply-To: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E5BDC5.6010706@jldata.fi> Herman De Wael wrote: > Most of you have not yet answered if you believe I am right or not in > saying that the decision on what is normal or not hangs on what claimer > "knows" about the hand. > > In order to make you see that it does, I have constructed the following > example: > > AKQx > xxx > xxxx > AK > > xxx xxxx > KQJxxxx xx > xxx xx > - 109832 > xx > A > AKQJ > QJ7654 > > The contract is 6NT, the lead is a heart and declarer claims after > seeing dummy, saying "we should have bid 7, partner, I have 14 top tricks". > > Now there are two possibilities: > 1) claimer adds (immediately) "I do hope clubs are not 5-0". > I am sure most of you will now rule, if clubs are indeed 5-0, that > claimer gets his 12 top tricks, and his contract just made. > > 2) claimer adds nothing. Certainly there will be some who will rule that > claimer fails to notice that the C8 does not drop, and that he will play > his fifth club immediately after cashing HA, CAK, DA, CQJ, so in trick > seven. West makes all the remaining tricks for minus six. > I am not sure I will be as harsh as this, but the ruling is certainly > possible. > > Now tell me how you can rule completely different in case 1 to case 2. > Neither claimer has issued a full claim statement. We need to rule if > the line described in 2) is normal or not. > > This is bridge, not war where aim is made worst possible verdict against claimer within laws Remark "we have 14 tricks" is very normal, and it really don't imply that claimer thinks that there is 14 tricks in every distribution. There is 12 top tricks, and I give them to claimer in both cases. We will see soon club situation. By the way, I can't understand statement "I do hope clubs are not 5-0". I is odd. I would hope that clubs are 5-0 as claimer. Best regards Juuso. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 15 13:23:27 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:23:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> <1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <49E5C3AF.4080200@skynet.be> Granted Peter, but: Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> Irrational lines are non-normal, but I grant you that there are >> non-normal lines that are not irrational. >> >> But I was using the words as near synonyms. > > # 1 > >> 1) "The Director shall not accept". I read this as being analogous to >> "the director shall accept the opposite". True, this is logically not >> the same, but ... > > # 2 > >> 2) "any unstated line of play ...". The director shall therefore >> accept an unstated line. Which I say is analogous to saying he shall >> discard the stated line. > > # 2 > >> 3) "unless failure to adopt the alternative". This is analogous to >> saying "when following the original". OK, again not complete logic if >> there are more than two lines - but close enough for government work. > > # 4 > >> 4) "would be irrational". Let's leave this one negative in there. >> >> "The director shall not accept an alternative unless not following >> that alternative would be irrational" >> = >> "The director shall accept an alternative when not following that >> alternative would be irrational" >> = >> "The director shall accept an alternative when following the original >> would be irrational" >> = >> "The director shall not follow the original when following the >> original would be irrational" >> = >> "Irrational original lines shall not be followed". >> >> I fail to see why you would have any problems with this logic. > > I marked (only) 4 points in your "logic" above where you > admit that your assumptions are inaccurate. > E.g. you "define" equivalent terms which are definitely considered > as truly non-equivalent. "irrational" is considered absolutely > whereas "normal" is considered in view of the person involved. > > And then - after "redefining" everything to your own > pleasure - you deduce something .. and, o wonder, > it proves your theory. > That, Herman, is not logic; at least not my logic. > When statements are inaccurate, that can mean two things: - the conclusions are correct after making the statements accurate; - the conclusions are incorrect because the statements are inaccurate; Now we could go two ways about this: either you allow me to make my statements accurate, and to prove beyond all discussion that the conclusions are correct; a long an torduous process which I am quite willing to undertake, but many might be quite unwilling to listen to; or you point to one example in which the inaccuracy of the statement leads to a wrong conclusion. If you do the second, I'll grant you your conclusion; if not, your conclusion leads to nothing else than Herman-bashing. "see, Herman missed one detail, so he must be wrong". My conclusion was that all claim statements which become irrational are to be disregarded. Give me one example where a claim statement becomes irrational and you still regard it, and in which you have a ruling that most of us can live with. If you can, I'll shut up about this. Or else: disprove my logic by more than mere inaccuracies. IN MY OPINION. Herman. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 15 13:24:40 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:24:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal In-Reply-To: <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <49E5C3F8.5040905@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> Now there are two possibilities: >> 1) claimer adds (immediately) "I do hope clubs are not 5-0". >> I am sure most of you will now rule, if clubs are indeed 5-0, that >> claimer gets his 12 top tricks, and his contract just made. >> >> 2) claimer adds nothing. Certainly there will be some who will rule >> that claimer fails to notice that the C8 does not drop, and that he >> will play his fifth club immediately after cashing HA, CAK, DA, CQJ, >> so in trick seven. West makes all the remaining tricks for minus six. >> I am not sure I will be as harsh as this, but the ruling is certainly >> possible. >> >> Now tell me how you can rule completely different in case 1 to case 2. >> Neither claimer has issued a full claim statement. We need to rule if >> the line described in 2) is normal or not. > > I do not rule differently, and I do not need to rule whether > line 2 is normal* or not. > NO? then tell me how you rule either case. Please tell me. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 15 13:27:12 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:27:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal In-Reply-To: <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <49E5C490.80702@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> Now there are two possibilities: >> 1) claimer adds (immediately) "I do hope clubs are not 5-0". >> I am sure most of you will now rule, if clubs are indeed 5-0, that >> claimer gets his 12 top tricks, and his contract just made. >> >> 2) claimer adds nothing. Certainly there will be some who will rule >> that claimer fails to notice that the C8 does not drop, and that he >> will play his fifth club immediately after cashing HA, CAK, DA, CQJ, >> so in trick seven. West makes all the remaining tricks for minus six. >> I am not sure I will be as harsh as this, but the ruling is certainly >> possible. >> >> Now tell me how you can rule completely different in case 1 to case 2. >> Neither claimer has issued a full claim statement. We need to rule if >> the line described in 2) is normal or not. > > I do not rule differently, and I do not need to rule whether > line 2 is normal* or not. > >> How can you rule contract made in 1) and down six in 2), except when >> viewing whether line 2 is normal, depending on the state of mind of >> claimer (in 1 he has a count of the hand, in 2 he has not)? > > I do not rule differently, and I do not mind about the > claimer's state of mind. > Peter is one of those who lets a claimer off the hook when he tells us he'll finesse holding 12 to the ace. OK, that's his opinion. He's right then of course - he does not rule according to claimer's mind. I'll have to try and find another example in which Peter will rule against a claimer and ask him again. > WBFLC Minute from Paris, 30 Oct 2001: > "3.The committee discussed Law 70E. It was agreed that > it is assumed declarer would see cards as they would be > played and to take account of what he would see." > > 6 NT made. In both cases. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 15 13:32:09 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:32:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal In-Reply-To: <49E5BDC5.6010706@jldata.fi> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <49E5BDC5.6010706@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <49E5C5B9.9030309@ulb.ac.be> HdW a ?crit : > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Most of you have not yet answered if you believe I am right or not in >> saying that the decision on what is normal or not hangs on what claimer >> "knows" about the hand. >> Back to normal life, so I'll try to answer in detail. >> In order to make you see that it does, I have constructed the following >> example: >> >> AKQx >> xxx >> xxxx >> AK >> >> xxx xxxx >> KQJxxxx xx >> xxx xx >> - 109832 >> xx >> A >> AKQJ >> QJ7654 >> >> The contract is 6NT, the lead is a heart and declarer claims after >> seeing dummy, saying "we should have bid 7, partner, I have 14 top tricks". >> >> Now there are two possibilities: >> 1) claimer adds (immediately) "I do hope clubs are not 5-0". >> I am sure most of you will now rule, if clubs are indeed 5-0, that >> claimer gets his 12 top tricks, and his contract just made. >> >> AG : I would, because declarer has made it clear that he was aware of everything that mattered about the hand, i.e. the club suit. And there is no risk at all of mistiming. It would be even more obvious if he had added "... provided clubs aren't 5-0", which is most probably how it would happen IRL. >> 2) claimer adds nothing. Certainly there will be some who will rule that >> claimer fails to notice that the C8 does not drop, and that he will play >> his fifth club immediately after cashing HA, CAK, DA, CQJ, so in trick >> seven. West makes all the remaining tricks for minus six. >> I am not sure I will be as harsh as this, but the ruling is certainly >> possible. >> >> AG : I would indeed decide declarer isn't aware of the club problem, as his former remark about the number of tricks available implies. >> Now tell me how you can rule completely different in case 1 to case 2. >> Neither claimer has issued a full claim statement. We need to rule if >> the line described in 2) is normal or not. >> >> AG : in case 1, declarer has made it obvious that he was aware of the possible problem - that he would check what happens in clubs. In case 2, there is a strong hint that he wasn't, hence wouldn't. Notice that in both cases he should have made 13 tricks nevertheless, but that's another problem. Best regards Alain From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Apr 15 14:17:01 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:17:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <49E5997A.8050306@jldata.fi> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no> <49E52B46.6010907@talktalk.net> <49E5997A.8050306@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <49E5D03D.5030901@talktalk.net> [Juuso Lapinjatka] Both cases, with specified claim statement, claimer must follow his statement Without any statement, first I allow play from top, and second finesse. Law or judgement. I am not sure, but I think law. With claim statement claimer may have not noticed in the first case, that he don't need finesse and second that 10 don't drop.Without any statement I assume normal play. [Nigel] I agree. It seems that, in common contexts, it pays to make no claim statement, especially if you feel that you may have lost the place. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Apr 15 14:41:31 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:41:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Definition_of_Normal?= In-Reply-To: <49E5C490.80702@skynet.be> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E5C490.80702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1Lu4Ql-0VGLkO0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Peter Eidt wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > > Now there are two possibilities: > > > 1) claimer adds (immediately) "I do hope clubs are not 5-0". > > > I am sure most of you will now rule, if clubs are indeed 5-0, that > > > claimer gets his 12 top tricks, and his contract just made. > > > > > > 2) claimer adds nothing. Certainly there will be some who will > > > rule that claimer fails to notice that the C8 does not drop, and > > > that he will play his fifth club immediately after cashing HA, > > > CAK, DA, CQJ, so in trick seven. West makes all the remaining > > > tricks for minus six. > > > I am not sure I will be as harsh as this, but the ruling is > > > certainly possible. > > > > > > Now tell me how you can rule completely different in case 1 to > > > case 2. > > > Neither claimer has issued a full claim statement. We need to rule > > > if the line described in 2) is normal or not. > > > > > > > I do not rule differently, and I do not need to rule whether > > line 2 is normal* or not. > > > > > How can you rule contract made in 1) and down six in 2), except > > > when viewing whether line 2 is normal, depending on the state of > > > mind of claimer (in 1 he has a count of the hand, in 2 he has > > > not)? > > > > I do not rule differently, and I do not mind about the > > claimer's state of mind. > > > > Peter is one of those who lets a claimer off the hook when he tells us > he'll finesse holding 12 to the ace. STOP that, Herman !! :( I've never said that I let claimer off the hook; more the opposite! > OK, that's his opinion. > He's right then of course - he does not rule according to claimer's > mind. > > I'll have to try and find another example in which Peter will rule > against a claimer and ask him again. > > > > WBFLC Minute from Paris, 30 Oct 2001: > > "3.The committee discussed Law 70E. It was agreed that > > it is assumed declarer would see cards as they would be > > played and to take account of what he would see." > > > > 6 NT made. In both cases. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Apr 15 15:14:06 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:14:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal In-Reply-To: <1Lu4Ql-0VGLkO0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E5C490.80702@skynet.be> <1Lu4Ql-0VGLkO0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> In an attempt further to define the word "normal" as it is to be interpreted in the context of the Laws, I offer some examples for your consideration: [1] South, declarer in 7NT with 432 432 32 KQ109 AKQ AKQ AK A8765 claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" with no further amplification. A defender with CJ432 objects. Is the claim allowed? [2] South, declarer in 7NT with 432 432 32 KQ94 AKQ AKQ AK A8765 claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" with no further amplification. West, with CJ1032, objects. Is the claim allowed? [3] South, declarer in 6NT with A32 A32 A2 AK1097 KQJ KQJ K6543 82 claims "four club tricks after losing to the queen, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds". The reason for this is that he believes his jack of spades to be the jack of clubs. East, with CQJ doubleton and DQJ1098, objects. Is the claim allowed? David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 15 15:17:13 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:17:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <660E0044-3C52-4840-A397-A39A650D9E6A@starpower.net> <913CCDA2-DB3F-4758-A8FC-E0B6FA1D93AE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <83F419D0-F800-4F14-997C-F26379C3C6B2@starpower.net> On Apr 14, 2009, at 10:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:22:27 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Apr 14, 2009, at 12:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >>> This is/was discussed on rec.games.bridge, and David Flowers made >>> the >>> point that you can't have L70D and L70E both ways. One situation is >>> Axx >>> opposite KQJ9x. Declarer claims starting that he will play the >>> ace and >>> then the king. RHO would show out, making the finesse obvious. >>> blmlers >>> want to invoke L70E and give claimer the marked finesse. For >>> AKJxxxxx >>> opposite xxx, declarer claims saying he is finessing for the queen. >>> If LHO >>> follows suit, most blmlers want to insist on the finesse and not >>> allow >>> claimer to change his mind and invoke L70D (or L70E). >>> >>> I know those are two different laws. But the language is almost >>> identical. >>> They either do apply to changes in the claim statement or they >>> don't. >> >> You cannot draw a valid analogy between a definitive statement of an >> immediate play and an omitted statement of a future reaction to an >> unlikely contingency. The queen finesse and the ten finesse in Bob's >> examples are entirely different. Laying down the ace, seeing RHO >> show out, and *then* claiming with the statement that he will lead to >> the king would be analogous to the queen finesse -- and nobody (well, >> few of us, and certainly not I) would argue that he should be allowed >> to finesse the nine. Requiring him to play the king in the case >> we've been discussing is analogous to requiring a claimer who stated >> "small to the queen" holding an AQ combination to play the queen >> under the unexpectedly appearing king. In those kinds of cases, we >> allow for claimer to have omitted obvious secondary lines to be taken >> in the event of unlikely contingencies when those contingencies will >> be obvious -- we *do not* require him to say "unless, or course, the >> king pops up" nor "unless, of course, RHO shows out on the ace". In >> the eleven-card-fit queen-finesse example, there is no analogous >> secondary consideration, no unlikely contingency, no obvious >> occurrence to be noticed, no similarity whatsoever. >> >> And even if the situations were similar, the legal analogy still >> wouldn't hold. L70E1 explicitly requires that we presume proven >> finesses to be taken, while for any other play we must determine our >> presumptions from considerations of "normality", "irrationality" and >> the like. > > You say, "...We allow for claimer to have omitted obvious secondary > lines > to be taken in the event of unlikely contingencies when those > contingencies will be obvious." But I can't find that in the laws. > > I would have said it differently: If the claim itself is not normal > (for > example, finessing for the queen in an 11-card fit would not be judged > normal), L70D1 does not apply; when an unexpected event occurs to > make the > remaining claim procedures not normal (for example, not taking a > revealed > marked finesse), L70D1 does apply. But I can't find anything in > L70D1 to > make this distinction. I get this distinction only from polling blml. > > If it is relevant, does L70E1 explicitly require that we presume > proven > finesses to be taken? Your own example contradicts that. (The > player plays > the ace, RHO shows out, and then the player claims stating that he > will, > irrationally, play to the king.) It's not in the laws per se, but consensual jurisprudence, along with the expressed policy of the ACBL (and, if I'm not mistaken, various other RAs), is that it is the director's job to adjudicate a contested claim based upon his determination of the intended meaning of the claim statement rather than being bound by the literal words. That means that we do not require claimers to state how they will play, card by card, in response to any possible development, even though that's what L68C explicitly calls for. (We accept, for example, "small to the queen" as expressing the intention "small to the queen unless LHO plays the king, in which case the ace".) This means that we do not require a claimer to cover every secondary consideration, no matter how unlikely. Should such a contingency prospectively manifest in a presumed line of play, in a manner which claimer would be expected to notice were he playing the hand out (the king appearing in front of the AQ, or RHO showing out on the ace cash), we do not force the claimer to blindly follow his original statement literally, but instead treat it as a situation for which claimer has not stated a line, and rule according to L70E1. When no such contingency arises there is nothing about which we may assume that claimer left his intention unstated, so L70E1, which explicitly requires proven finesses to be presumed *in unstated lines of play*, does not apply, and the stated line must be followed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 15 15:21:17 2009 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:21:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles Message-ID: <8CB8BE431C453A6-1610-3633@webmail-mf16.sysops.aol.com> +=+ That player may think an action irrational but to meet the meaning of the law, by which the Director must abide, it must be irrational as defined above.? Law 70E1 deals only with the case of a supplementary statement by claimer, not included in his original statement, and what in it the Director may allow, or may not allow.? It tells us that if it would be irrational for any player not to do what claimer is belatedly proposing it will be allowed by the Director.? As far as I recall this is now the only situation in which the Director is called upon to judge irrationality.? Elsewhere it is not at issue - irrational actions are part of the game and permitted. ~ Grattan ~? +=+ [paul lamford] OK, I interpret the above to mean that an original "irrational or abnormal" claim statement where the player would?have succeeded if he had said nothing does not permit the player to substitute a rational or normal claim statement, even though the wording of 70E1 clearly does allow him to do so. Last night I had three director calls at my local club, where declarer was playing in 7NT with AK2 KQJ2?K3 KQJ3 opposite 543 A1098?AQ4 A42. The good, the bad and the ugly: Table 1 I:?How can I help you sir? Contestant: A contested claim. I: (to declarer) What did you say, sir? Declarer: I stated that I had to give them a spade; soon afterwards I added "at trick 14" I: (to declarer) Hmmm...? Yes, I would agree that giving them a spade is not a normal line, so I will allow your supplementary later statement under 70E1. Your statement that you "had" to give them a spade was not true, and did not indicate that you would give them a spade. Table 2 I: How can I help you sir? Contestant: A contested claim. I: (to declarer) What did you say, sir? Declarer (sheepishly): I will play out 12 winners and concede a spade at trick 13. I then, perhaps 20 seconds later after the opponents seemed to accept that, said, "Oh, I miscounted, sorry I have 13 tricks after all" I: (to declarer) Hmmm ... I am not sure about this. According to Grattan, your proposal to concede a spade at trick 13 was a legal play, and its rationality or normality does not come into it, and like the quiz show, he thinks I have to accept your first answer. I personally think you are allowed a Law 70E1 correction, but this does not appear to be mainstream opinion. Table 3 I: How can I help you sir? Contestant: A contested claim. I: (to declarer) What did you say, sir? Declarer (sheepishly): Well, it was that board ten minutes ago. I was in 6NT and just showed my hand at trick one and for some reason thought we should have been in 7H. Just now my?partner (dummy on the hand) pointed out that I should have made 13 tricks. Everyone wrote down 12 tricks at the time. What happens now? I: (to declarer): You did well, my student. Silence is golden when it comes to claims. As to make fewer than 13 tricks is not normal, I am happy to award you these. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090415/fcb19eb6/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 15 15:41:01 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:41:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal In-Reply-To: <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E5C490.80702@skynet.be> <1Lu4Ql-0VGLkO0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> Message-ID: <001101c9bdcf$d12850d0$7378f270$@no> On Behalf Of David > In an attempt further to define the word "normal" as it is to be interpreted > in the context of the Laws, I offer some examples for your consideration: > > [1] South, declarer in 7NT with > > 432 > 432 > 32 > KQ109 > > AKQ > AKQ > AK > A8765 > > claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" with > no further amplification. A defender with CJ432 objects. Is the claim > allowed? First of all: Any claim is of course "allowed", the question is whether it is honored. Yes, because regardless of which defender holds all four clubs they will be picked up (it is not "normal" in this case to begin with the CA from the "long" hand) But exchange the CK (or CQ) with the C5 and I will give West a club trick if he holds all outstanding clubs. > > [2] South, declarer in 7NT with > > 432 > 432 > 32 > KQ94 > > AKQ > AKQ > AK > A8765 > > claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" with > no further amplification. West, with CJ1032, objects. Is the claim allowed? No, I shall rule that the first club trick is won in the short hand (see above). > > [3] South, declarer in 6NT with > > A32 > A32 > A2 > AK1097 > > KQJ > KQJ > K6543 > 82 > > claims "four club tricks after losing to the queen, three spades, three > hearts and two diamonds". The reason for this is that he believes his jack > of spades to be the jack of clubs. East, with CQJ doubleton and DQJ1098, > objects. Is the claim allowed? This is a bit trickier, but according to his statement I shall assume the following intended line of play: South will play his SJ and notice that West is void in clubs. Whichever club he now plays from dummy the Director will interfere and prevent this "revoke". So the first trick is won with the SJ, in the next trick he will lead C8 and play low from dummy as West follows low, losing to the CJ. He will then eventually reenter his hand and try a second finesse in clubs being his best chance and then go one down. Regards Sven From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Apr 15 15:41:23 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:41:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal In-Reply-To: <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E5C490.80702@skynet.be> <1Lu4Ql-0VGLkO0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> Message-ID: 2009/4/15 David Burn : > In an attempt further to define the word "normal" as it is to be interpreted > in the context of the Laws, I offer some examples for your consideration: > > [1] South, declarer in 7NT with > > ? ? 432 > ? ? 432 > ? ? 32 > ? ? KQ109 > > ? ? AKQ > ? ? AKQ > ? ? AK > ? ? A8765 > > claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" with > no further amplification. A defender with CJ432 objects. Is the claim > allowed? I'd allow him to play the club suit for no loser if west held Jxxx, since he'd be able to finesse the jack after seeing the void whichever honour he played first. However, not having said anything about the order he'd play the suits, it's very possible that he hasn't spotted the possibility for clubs being blocked. And thus still goes down even with Jxxx in clubs in west. I've got antother problem with this hand, north having only 12 cards.... > > [2] South, declarer in 7NT with > > ? ? 432 > ? ? 432 > ? ? 32 > ? ? KQ94 > > ? ? AKQ > ? ? AKQ > ? ? AK > ? ? A8765 > > claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" with > no further amplification. West, with CJ1032, objects. Is the claim allowed? No. He might not be aware of the safety play of starting with the ace. As above, he might not be aware of the possibility of club blockage. As avove, only 12 cards in dummy. > > [3] South, declarer in 6NT with > > ? ? A32 > ? ? A32 > ? ? A2 > ? ? AK1097 > > ? ? KQJ > ? ? KQJ > ? ? K6543 > ? ? 82 > > claims "four club tricks after losing to the queen, three spades, three > hearts and two diamonds". The reason for this is that he believes his jack > of spades to be the jack of clubs. East, with CQJ doubleton and DQJ1098, > objects. Is the claim allowed? This time both hands contain 13 cards! :-) I'd rule him to take the percentage play, the double finesse in clubs. One down. > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 15 16:00:33 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:00:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> <1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> On Apr 15, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael > >> Irrational lines are non-normal, but I grant you that there are >> non-normal lines that are not irrational. >> >> But I was using the words as near synonyms. > > # 1 > >> 1) "The Director shall not accept". I read this as being analogous to >> "the director shall accept the opposite". True, this is logically not >> the same, but ... > > # 2 > >> 2) "any unstated line of play ...". The director shall therefore >> accept an unstated line. Which I say is analogous to saying he shall >> discard the stated line. > > # 2 > >> 3) "unless failure to adopt the alternative". This is analogous to >> saying "when following the original". OK, again not complete logic if >> there are more than two lines - but close enough for government work. > > # 4 > >> 4) "would be irrational". Let's leave this one negative in there. >> >> "The director shall not accept an alternative unless not following >> that alternative would be irrational" >> = >> "The director shall accept an alternative when not following that >> alternative would be irrational" >> = >> "The director shall accept an alternative when following the original >> would be irrational" >> = >> "The director shall not follow the original when following the >> original would be irrational" >> = >> "Irrational original lines shall not be followed". >> >> I fail to see why you would have any problems with this logic. > > I marked (only) 4 points in your "logic" above where you > admit that your assumptions are inaccurate. > E.g. you "define" equivalent terms which are definitely considered > as truly non-equivalent. "irrational" is considered absolutely > whereas "normal" is considered in view of the person involved. That is no longer true (effective with the 2008 laws); "'normal'" is now understood to be the same for everyone. > And then - after "redefining" everything to your own > pleasure - you deduce something .. and, o wonder, > it proves your theory. > That, Herman, is not logic; at least not my logic. Herman's logic fails at his #2. "Stated" lines of play are subject to evaluation per L70D. L70E governs situations in which no line of play has been stated, and establishes the parameters for inferring unstated lines. "Acceptiing" an unstated line of play is in no way equivalent to discarding the stated line. (Herman, perhaps subconsciously, seems to recognize that this assumption is both critical and arguable, as he writes "I say" in asserting it.) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 15 16:15:29 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:15:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles In-Reply-To: <8CB8BE431C453A6-1610-3633@webmail-mf16.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CB8BE431C453A6-1610-3633@webmail-mf16.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <49E5EC01.6010509@skynet.be> gampas at aol.com wrote: > +=+ That player may think an action irrational but to meet the meaning > of the law, by which the Director must abide, it must be irrational as > defined above. Law 70E1 deals only with the case of a supplementary > statement by claimer, not included in his original statement, and what > in it the Director may allow, or may not allow. It tells us that if it > would be irrational for any player not to do what claimer is belatedly > proposing it will be allowed by the Director. As far as I recall this > is now the only situation in which the Director is called upon to judge > irrationality. Elsewhere it is not at issue - irrational actions are > part of the game and permitted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > [paul lamford] OK, I interpret the above to mean that an original > "irrational or abnormal" claim statement where the player would have > succeeded if he had said nothing does not permit the player to > substitute a rational or normal claim statement, even though the wording > of 70E1 clearly does allow him to do so. > That is only if you interpret the word "irrational" as being outside the players mind. If a player makes a statement that includes an "irrational" line (by that definition), then he shall be held to that line (unless something happens that tells him it is irrational). I see it differently, though. If you interpret the rationality as being inside the player's mind, then a claim statement is never irrational (since it conforms to player's view of the hand) and, being rational, it must be followed. Then, when something happens to alter the player's vision, the rationality of the line changes, and he is no longer held to the same line. OK, perhaps now we understand why there seems to be such a great gap between our ways of thinking. Now which one is the correct one? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 15 16:20:15 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:20:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles In-Reply-To: <8CB8BE431C453A6-1610-3633@webmail-mf16.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CB8BE431C453A6-1610-3633@webmail-mf16.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <49E5ED1F.6020508@skynet.be> Allow me to rule on the three cases of Paul's: gampas at aol.com wrote: > > Last night I had three director calls at my local club, where declarer > was playing in 7NT with AK2 KQJ2 K3 KQJ3 opposite 543 A1098 AQ4 A42. > > The good, the bad and the ugly: > > Table 1 > > I: How can I help you sir? > > Contestant: A contested claim. > > I: (to declarer) What did you say, sir? > > Declarer: I stated that I had to give them a spade; soon afterwards I > added "at trick 14" > > I: (to declarer) Hmmm... Yes, I would agree that giving them a spade is > not a normal line, so I will allow your supplementary later statement > under 70E1. Your statement that you "had" to give them a spade was not > true, and did not indicate that you would give them a spade. > The mistake this declarer made was to not count his winners. If he plays them out in any normal way - he will make 13 winners. > Table 2 > > I: How can I help you sir? > > Contestant: A contested claim. > > I: (to declarer) What did you say, sir? > > Declarer (sheepishly): I will play out 12 winners and concede a spade at > trick 13. I then, perhaps 20 seconds later after the opponents seemed to > accept that, said, "Oh, I miscounted, sorry I have 13 tricks after all" > > I: (to declarer) Hmmm ... I am not sure about this. According to > Grattan, your proposal to concede a spade at trick 13 was a legal play, > and its rationality or normality does not come into it, and like the > quiz show, he thinks I have to accept your first answer. I personally > think you are allowed a Law 70E1 correction, but this does not appear to > be mainstream opinion. > I fail to see any difference. The player will play out his 12 winners, and then notice that rather than having a spade to give them, he has a 13th winner. > Table 3 > > I: How can I help you sir? > > Contestant: A contested claim. > > I: (to declarer) What did you say, sir? > > Declarer (sheepishly): Well, it was that board ten minutes ago. I was in > 6NT and just showed my hand at trick one and for some reason thought we > should have been in 7H. Just now my partner (dummy on the hand) pointed > out that I should have made 13 tricks. Everyone wrote down 12 tricks at > the time. What happens now? > > I: (to declarer): You did well, my student. Silence is golden when it > comes to claims. As to make fewer than 13 tricks is not normal, I am > happy to award you these. > This seems to be a retraction of a concession, not a contested claim. As such, there seems to be no normal line losing a trick, so the concession is cancelled. I do not agree that silence is golden. When a player is silent, I shall look for the possible error he has made - and I can perhaps find one. if he is not silent, there are less possible errors to be looking for. Herman. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download AOL Toolbar and get access to all of your favourite websites > and Google powered Search in an instant. Download AOL Toolbar for FREE. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Apr 15 16:18:58 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:18:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <200904150348.n3F3mJoq027933@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <000301c9bc17$445c2910$cd147b30$@no> <49E52B46.6010907@talktalk.net> <200904150348.n3F3mJoq027933@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <49E5ECD2.4060200@talktalk.net> [Tony Musgrave] I presume that it is dummy who has disputed the claim?? Cheers, [Nigel] Is it important which player disputes a claim? Presumably, declarer may dispute his own claim, if he feels it may have been faulty. Of more interest would be straight answers to the questions originally posed :) From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 15 16:22:13 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:22:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> <1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49E5ED95.1020500@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Herman's logic fails at his #2. "Stated" lines of play are subject > to evaluation per L70D. L70E governs situations in which no line of > play has been stated, and establishes the parameters for inferring > unstated lines. "Acceptiing" an unstated line of play is in no way > equivalent to discarding the stated line. (Herman, perhaps > subconsciously, seems to recognize that this assumption is both > critical and arguable, as he writes "I say" in asserting it.) > Wrong, Eric. The fact that there is talk of _an_ unstated line tells us nothing about whether there were stated lines or not. (IMO) Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 15 16:28:28 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:28:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal In-Reply-To: <001101c9bdcf$d12850d0$7378f270$@no> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E5C490.80702@skynet.be> <1Lu4Ql-0VGLkO0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> <001101c9bdcf$d12850d0$7378f270$@no> Message-ID: <49E5EF0C.1070108@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of David >> In an attempt further to define the word "normal" as it is to be > interpreted >> in the context of the Laws, I offer some examples for your consideration: >> >> [1] South, declarer in 7NT with >> >> 432 >> 432 >> 32 >> KQ109 >> >> AKQ >> AKQ >> AK >> A8765 >> >> claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" > with >> no further amplification. A defender with CJ432 objects. Is the claim >> allowed? > > First of all: Any claim is of course "allowed", the question is whether it > is honored. > > Yes, because regardless of which defender holds all four clubs they will be > picked up (it is not "normal" in this case to begin with the CA from the > "long" hand) > Indeed. Every player is taught to play the King first. > But exchange the CK (or CQ) with the C5 and I will give West a club trick if > he holds all outstanding clubs. > >> [2] South, declarer in 7NT with >> >> 432 >> 432 >> 32 >> KQ94 >> >> AKQ >> AKQ >> AK >> A8765 >> >> claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" > with >> no further amplification. West, with CJ1032, objects. Is the claim > allowed? > > No, I shall rule that the first club trick is won in the short hand (see > above). > Why? I would rather say that every player is taught to play the ace first in this case, of course losing a trick to the four card to the right but not to the left. >> [3] South, declarer in 6NT with >> >> A32 >> A32 >> A2 >> AK1097 >> >> KQJ >> KQJ >> K6543 >> 82 >> >> claims "four club tricks after losing to the queen, three spades, three >> hearts and two diamonds". The reason for this is that he believes his jack >> of spades to be the jack of clubs. East, with CQJ doubleton and DQJ1098, >> objects. Is the claim allowed? > > This is a bit trickier, but according to his statement I shall assume the > following intended line of play: > South will play his SJ and notice that West is void in clubs. Whichever club > he now plays from dummy the Director will interfere and prevent this > "revoke". > > So the first trick is won with the SJ, in the next trick he will lead C8 and > play low from dummy as West follows low, losing to the CJ. He will then > eventually reenter his hand and try a second finesse in clubs being his best > chance and then go one down. > I think I agree, although it may be different if declarer starts from the table, I have not analysed completely yet. > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 15 16:32:15 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:32:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal In-Reply-To: <49E5C5B9.9030309@ulb.ac.be> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <49E5BDC5.6010706@jldata.fi> <49E5C5B9.9030309@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <49E5EFEF.8060607@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > HdW a ?crit : >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Most of you have not yet answered if you believe I am right or not in >>> saying that the decision on what is normal or not hangs on what claimer >>> "knows" about the hand. >>> > Back to normal life, so I'll try to answer in detail. > >>> In order to make you see that it does, I have constructed the following >>> example: >>> >>> AKQx >>> xxx >>> xxxx >>> AK >>> >>> xxx xxxx >>> KQJxxxx xx >>> xxx xx >>> - 109832 >>> xx >>> A >>> AKQJ >>> QJ7654 >>> >>> The contract is 6NT, the lead is a heart and declarer claims after >>> seeing dummy, saying "we should have bid 7, partner, I have 14 top tricks". >>> >>> Now there are two possibilities: >>> 1) claimer adds (immediately) "I do hope clubs are not 5-0". >>> I am sure most of you will now rule, if clubs are indeed 5-0, that >>> claimer gets his 12 top tricks, and his contract just made. >>> >>> > AG : I would, because declarer has made it clear that he was aware of > everything that mattered about the hand, i.e. the club suit. > And there is no risk at all of mistiming. > It would be even more obvious if he had added "... provided clubs aren't > 5-0", which is most probably how it would happen IRL. > > >>> 2) claimer adds nothing. Certainly there will be some who will rule that >>> claimer fails to notice that the C8 does not drop, and that he will play >>> his fifth club immediately after cashing HA, CAK, DA, CQJ, so in trick >>> seven. West makes all the remaining tricks for minus six. >>> I am not sure I will be as harsh as this, but the ruling is certainly >>> possible. >>> >>> > AG : I would indeed decide declarer isn't aware of the club problem, as > his former remark about the number of tricks available implies. > >>> Now tell me how you can rule completely different in case 1 to case 2. >>> Neither claimer has issued a full claim statement. We need to rule if >>> the line described in 2) is normal or not. >>> >>> > AG : in case 1, declarer has made it obvious that he was aware of the > possible problem - that he would check what happens in clubs. > In case 2, there is a strong hint that he wasn't, hence wouldn't. > Thanks Alain, But this leads us to the question we had before - in both rulings the same laws apply - and they both refer to "normal" lines. How can we rule that the same line is "normal" for one declarer and not "normal" for the other, when the cards, and the tricks, are exactly the same? Only by ruling that "normal" depends on the state of mind of the claimer! > Notice that in both cases he should have made 13 tricks nevertheless, > but that's another problem. > I've never been good at creating problems. > Best regards > > Alain Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 15 16:43:12 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:43:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal In-Reply-To: <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E5C490.80702@skynet.be> <1Lu4Ql-0VGLkO0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> Message-ID: <858E7E8F-F289-4C4D-BB7B-6948677FF072@starpower.net> On Apr 15, 2009, at 9:14 AM, David Burn wrote: > In an attempt further to define the word "normal" as it is to be > interpreted > in the context of the Laws, I offer some examples for your > consideration: > > [1] South, declarer in 7NT with > > 432 > 432 > 32 > KQ109 > > AKQ > AKQ > AK > A8765 > > claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two > diamonds" with > no further amplification. A defender with CJ432 objects. Is the claim > allowed? No. He has given no indication that he is aware that the order of play of the top clubs matters. > [2] South, declarer in 7NT with > > 432 > 432 > 32 > KQ94 > > AKQ > AKQ > AK > A8765 > > claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two > diamonds" with > no further amplification. West, with CJ1032, objects. Is the claim > allowed? No. Ditto. > [3] South, declarer in 6NT with > > A32 > A32 > A2 > AK1097 > > KQJ > KQJ > K6543 > 82 > > claims "four club tricks after losing to the queen, three spades, > three > hearts and two diamonds". The reason for this is that he believes > his jack > of spades to be the jack of clubs. East, with CQJ doubleton and > DQJ1098, > objects. Is the claim allowed? No. He will (presumptively) play a non-honor from dummy, losing to the jack, which he thought he had. That gets us into unstated lines, and brings L70E into play. At this point it is "normal" to play the remaining x opposite AK109 either way, and he gets the worst of it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 15 16:50:45 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:50:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> <1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:00:33 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > Herman's logic fails at his #2. "Stated" lines of play are subject > to evaluation per L70D. L70E governs situations in which no line of > play has been stated, and establishes the parameters for inferring > unstated lines. I always assumed that the claimer states the unstated lines of play that come from the claimer. Most seriously, what is the diference between an unstated line of play and a line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement? I had assumed the two were the same. From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Wed Apr 15 16:53:12 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:53:12 +0300 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal In-Reply-To: <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E5C490.80702@skynet.be> <1Lu4Ql-0VGLkO0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> Message-ID: <49E5F4D8.2070702@jldata.fi> David Burn wrote: > In an attempt further to define the word "normal" as it is to be interpreted > in the context of the Laws, I offer some examples for your consideration: > > [1] South, declarer in 7NT with > > 432 > 432 > 32 > KQ109 > > AKQ > AKQ > AK > A8765 > > claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" with > no further amplification. A defender with CJ432 objects. Is the claim > allowed? > > [2] South, declarer in 7NT with > > 432 > 432 > 32 > KQ94 > > AKQ > AKQ > AK > A8765 > > claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" with > no further amplification. West, with CJ1032, objects. Is the claim allowed? > > [3] South, declarer in 6NT with > > A32 > A32 > A2 > AK1097 > > KQJ > KQJ > K6543 > 82 > > claims "four club tricks after losing to the queen, three spades, three > hearts and two diamonds". The reason for this is that he believes his jack > of spades to be the jack of clubs. East, with CQJ doubleton and DQJ1098, > objects. Is the claim allowed? > > 1) I allow taking blocking clubs and club finesse, if West has clubs, but not allow club finesse, if east has clubs. 2) I don't allow claim. 3) Most probably, at the Table, I would allow claim, but if I realise that South really think spade J to club J, I will not allow claim. Best regards Juuso > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 15 17:17:28 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:17:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de><49E5C490.80702@skynet.be> <1Lu4Ql-0VGLkO0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> Message-ID: <031C5D761C3D41FF9D67F1C40786C65C@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definition of Normal > In an attempt further to define the word "normal" as it is to be > interpreted > in the context of the Laws, I offer some examples for your consideration: > > [1] South, declarer in 7NT with > > 432 > 432 > 32 > KQ109 > > AKQ > AKQ > AK > A8765 > > claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" > with > no further amplification. A defender with CJ432 objects. Is the claim > allowed? Nope, if they're on the right. It is careless to cash the Ace. We've discussed this before. We allow it if declarer says "I know the position" or words of like import. We have discussed that too. > > [2] South, declarer in 7NT with > > 432 > 432 > 32 > KQ94 > > AKQ > AKQ > AK > A8765 > > claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" > with > no further amplification. West, with CJ1032, objects. Is the claim > allowed? nope, cashing the King frst is careless, see above. > > [3] South, declarer in 6NT with > > A32 > A32 > A2 > AK1097 > > KQJ > KQJ > K6543 > 82 > > claims "four club tricks after losing to the queen, three spades, three > hearts and two diamonds". The reason for this is that he believes his jack > of spades to be the jack of clubs. East, with CQJ doubleton and DQJ1098, > objects. Is the claim allowed? 13 tricks, wtp? He sees the CQ, so he continues from the top. or he sees the CJ and re-evaluates. As always what would have happened if he'd played on (well in cricket it's out, but that's different) Doubtful points etc. sheesh! > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Apr 15 18:31:05 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:31:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Question_not_arising=2E?= In-Reply-To: <3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> <1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1Lu80w-1mPPV20@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> From: Eric Landau > On Apr 15, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: [snip] > > I marked (only) 4 points in your "logic" above where you > > admit that your assumptions are inaccurate. > > E.g. you "define" equivalent terms which are definitely considered > > as truly non-equivalent. "irrational" is considered absolutely > > whereas "normal" is considered in view of the person involved. > > That is no longer true (effective with the 2008 laws); "'normal'" is > now understood to be the same for everyone. Allow me to cite the footnote to Laws 70/71: "* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Apr 15 19:31:17 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:31:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be><1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E619E5.2030305@meteo.fr> Herman De Wael a ?crit : ... > > Law 70E uses far too many negatives, so let's diffuse them one by one: > > 1) "The Director shall not accept". I read this as being analogous to > "the director shall accept the opposite". True, this is logically not > the same, but then we should take this as an example of Kaplanesque > language. If the lawbook were only to state what the director shall not > do, leaving him free to do what he wants, the lawbook is not very good, > is it? > > 2) "any unstated line of play ...". The director shall therefore accept > an unstated line. Which I say is analogous to saying he shall discard > the stated line. > > 3) "unless failure to adopt the alternative". This is analogous to > saying "when following the original". OK, again not complete logic if > there are more than two lines - but close enough for government work. > > 4) "would be irrational". Let's leave this one negative in there. > > "The director shall not accept an alternative unless not following that > alternative would be irrational" > = > "The director shall accept an alternative when not following that > alternative would be irrational" > = > "The director shall accept an alternative when following the original > would be irrational" > = > "The director shall not follow the original when following the original > would be irrational" > = > "Irrational original lines shall not be followed". > > I fail to see why you would have any problems with this logic. i roughly agree with your decomposition of L70E1 but... "shall accept an alternative = shall not follow the original" both propositions are not exactly equivalent: for the TD to accept something, it must be submitted to him. claimer needs to submit at some (late) time a line he didn't submit when he claimed. i admit in most cases where he made a stupid claim, he will soon realize his error and want to correct his statement. another problem is the imprecision of "unstated line of play". is it a line stated afterwards when there was no statement at the moment of the claim? is it a precision of an unclear initial claim statement? is it a new line submitted by claimer which may be in contradiction with the initial claim statement? absent any clarification, i understand it is any of these and it is a pity that it allows a player to recover from the irrational plays he intended when claiming. in the example of the suit he intended to finesse the queen with 11 cards, when claimer replaces his defecting line with the correct one, as soon as the correct one doesn't depend upon finding one opponent rather than the other with the queen, i am afraid TD is obliged to accept the change. jpr > > Herman. > > >> Nowhere in the laws (except 70E) it says that the claimer >> isn't bound to his own statement. >> The WBFLC additionally said that the statement may be partially >> invalid if it contains irregularities but is still valid besides that. >> >>> I have said this before, Grattan, and you refuse to point me to the >>> error in my logic, except by repeating that "Grattan is right because >>> Grattan is right". I am using logic here, so please do the same. >> >> -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 15 20:24:13 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:24:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> <1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> Message-ID: <59459CFB-05B9-486F-B77A-7E5F78A28FB6@starpower.net> On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:00:33 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> Herman's logic fails at his #2. "Stated" lines of play are subject >> to evaluation per L70D. L70E governs situations in which no line of >> play has been stated, and establishes the parameters for inferring >> unstated lines. > > I always assumed that the claimer states the unstated lines of play > that > come from the claimer. > > Most seriously, what is the diference between an unstated line of > play and > a line of play not embraced in the original clarification > statement? I had > assumed the two were the same. As do I. Indeed, my offered interpretation of L70E rests on the assumption that "any unstated line of play" [L70E1] is equivalent to "any... line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement" [L70D1]. > On Apr 13, 2009, at 9:33 AM, I wrote: > >> L70D1: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful >> line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement..." >> >> American Heritage Dictionary: "embrace... To include within its >> bounds; encompass... To take up" >> >> That suggests interpreting "not embraced" to mean not taken up, >> not addressed, not spoken to. Which would mean that a "line of >> play not embraced in the original clarification statement" would >> mean one that would expand or clarify the original statement, but >> not one that would contradict it outright. L70D addresses considerations in evaluation of the claim statement (where the intent may have been different from what was literally stated), whereas L70E address circumstances not encompassed by the claim statement (where the literal statement may have failed to address an unlikely, unexpected circumstance), but the protocols of L70D1 and L70E1 are essentially the same. (I confess that my justification for the distinction lies mainly in the titles.) They establish criteria for "accepting" statements regarding how claimer proposes to play in situations or circumstances in which his original claim statement, taken literally, would suggest something other than what the TD determines to have been the claimer's (actual for L70D, likely for L70E) intent. Where I may differ signigicantly from the mainstream on this subject is that I find no functional difference between those lines of play that the TD may "accept from claimer" and those which he may presume ("impose") on his own in adjudicating the outcome, despite the explicit use of the former phrase in both laws. In evaluating alternative lines subsequent to the claim, I don't see that it makes any difference to their "presumability" whether it is the claimer or the TD who thinks of them first. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 15 20:46:37 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:46:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <1Lu80w-1mPPV20@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> <1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> <1Lu80w-1mPPV20@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <21E0DC7A-192C-42BF-AAE3-9DBB2AB3CA5F@starpower.net> On Apr 15, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Eric Landau > >> On Apr 15, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > > [snip] > >>> I marked (only) 4 points in your "logic" above where you >>> admit that your assumptions are inaccurate. >>> E.g. you "define" equivalent terms which are definitely considered >>> as truly non-equivalent. "irrational" is considered absolutely >>> whereas "normal" is considered in view of the person involved. >> >> That is no longer true (effective with the 2008 laws); "'normal'" is >> now understood to be the same for everyone. > > Allow me to cite the footnote to Laws 70/71: > "* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes > play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player > involved." Allow me to read it. The primary verb is "includes". You "include" things with other things. Since those "other things" are not stated, the footnote says that "play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved" are included along with play that would be incontrovertably "normal" in the absence of the footnote. That would be identical play by an inferior player for whom it would *not* be "careless or inferior". Thus the footnote can be rephrased as, "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, a play is to be considered 'normal' even if it would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved". Yes, the wording could be clearer, despite the fact that the WBF has taken at least three recent whacks at getting it right, but they have made their intention clear. On Mar 30, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> But Grattan, the word "irrational" was not taken out of the laws, >> it is >> still there, in L70E. > > +=+ What we did was to remove it from the footnote so that the > false link to class of player was broken. Now to be 'irrational' > an action must be irrational in the dictionary sense and equally so > for all players. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 15 21:22:51 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:22:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> <1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001201c9bdff$92497e90$b6dc7bb0$@no> On Behalf Of ......... > Most seriously, what is the diference between an unstated line of play and > a line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement? I had > assumed the two were the same. They are. Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 15 22:03:41 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:03:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> <1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:00:33 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 15, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > >> From: Herman De Wael >> >>> Irrational lines are non-normal, but I grant you that there are >>> non-normal lines that are not irrational. >>> >>> But I was using the words as near synonyms. >> >> # 1 >> >>> 1) "The Director shall not accept". I read this as being analogous to >>> "the director shall accept the opposite". True, this is logically not >>> the same, but ... >> >> # 2 >> >>> 2) "any unstated line of play ...". The director shall therefore >>> accept an unstated line. Which I say is analogous to saying he shall >>> discard the stated line. >> >> # 2 >> >>> 3) "unless failure to adopt the alternative". This is analogous to >>> saying "when following the original". OK, again not complete logic if >>> there are more than two lines - but close enough for government work. >> >> # 4 >> >>> 4) "would be irrational". Let's leave this one negative in there. >>> >>> "The director shall not accept an alternative unless not following >>> that alternative would be irrational" >>> = >>> "The director shall accept an alternative when not following that >>> alternative would be irrational" >>> = >>> "The director shall accept an alternative when following the original >>> would be irrational" >>> = >>> "The director shall not follow the original when following the >>> original would be irrational" >>> = >>> "Irrational original lines shall not be followed". >>> >>> I fail to see why you would have any problems with this logic. >> >> I marked (only) 4 points in your "logic" above where you >> admit that your assumptions are inaccurate. >> E.g. you "define" equivalent terms which are definitely considered >> as truly non-equivalent. "irrational" is considered absolutely >> whereas "normal" is considered in view of the person involved. > > That is no longer true (effective with the 2008 laws); "'normal'" is > now understood to be the same for everyone. > >> And then - after "redefining" everything to your own >> pleasure - you deduce something .. and, o wonder, >> it proves your theory. >> That, Herman, is not logic; at least not my logic. > > Herman's logic fails at his #2. "Stated" lines of play are subject > to evaluation per L70D. L70E governs situations in which no line of > play has been stated, and establishes the parameters for inferring > unstated lines. "Acceptiing" an unstated line of play is in no way > equivalent to discarding the stated line. (Herman, perhaps > subconsciously, seems to recognize that this assumption is both > critical and arguable, as he writes "I say" in asserting it.) I don't understand what you are saying here. Why would stated lines of play be subjected to 70D1 and not 70E1? Yes, L70E goversn when no line of play has been stated (by anyone?), but wouldn't it also be relavant when there are stated lines of play? From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 15 22:44:03 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:44:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> <1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5957B5CC-D260-45A1-93E1-30641F851F05@starpower.net> On Apr 15, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:00:33 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Apr 15, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>> From: Herman De Wael >>> >>>> Irrational lines are non-normal, but I grant you that there are >>>> non-normal lines that are not irrational. >>>> >>>> But I was using the words as near synonyms. >>> >>> # 1 >>> >>>> 1) "The Director shall not accept". I read this as being >>>> analogous to >>>> "the director shall accept the opposite". True, this is >>>> logically not >>>> the same, but ... >>> >>> # 2 >>> >>>> 2) "any unstated line of play ...". The director shall therefore >>>> accept an unstated line. Which I say is analogous to saying he >>>> shall >>>> discard the stated line. >>> >>> # 2 >>> >>>> 3) "unless failure to adopt the alternative". This is analogous to >>>> saying "when following the original". OK, again not complete >>>> logic if >>>> there are more than two lines - but close enough for government >>>> work. >>> >>> # 4 >>> >>>> 4) "would be irrational". Let's leave this one negative in there. >>>> >>>> "The director shall not accept an alternative unless not following >>>> that alternative would be irrational" >>>> = >>>> "The director shall accept an alternative when not following that >>>> alternative would be irrational" >>>> = >>>> "The director shall accept an alternative when following the >>>> original >>>> would be irrational" >>>> = >>>> "The director shall not follow the original when following the >>>> original would be irrational" >>>> = >>>> "Irrational original lines shall not be followed". >>>> >>>> I fail to see why you would have any problems with this logic. >>> >>> I marked (only) 4 points in your "logic" above where you >>> admit that your assumptions are inaccurate. >>> E.g. you "define" equivalent terms which are definitely considered >>> as truly non-equivalent. "irrational" is considered absolutely >>> whereas "normal" is considered in view of the person involved. >> >> That is no longer true (effective with the 2008 laws); "'normal'" is >> now understood to be the same for everyone. >> >>> And then - after "redefining" everything to your own >>> pleasure - you deduce something .. and, o wonder, >>> it proves your theory. >>> That, Herman, is not logic; at least not my logic. >> >> Herman's logic fails at his #2. "Stated" lines of play are subject >> to evaluation per L70D. L70E governs situations in which no line of >> play has been stated, and establishes the parameters for inferring >> unstated lines. "Acceptiing" an unstated line of play is in no way >> equivalent to discarding the stated line. (Herman, perhaps >> subconsciously, seems to recognize that this assumption is both >> critical and arguable, as he writes "I say" in asserting it.) > > I don't understand what you are saying here. Why would stated lines of > play be subjected to 70D1 and not 70E1? Yes, L70E goversn when no > line of > play has been stated (by anyone?), but wouldn't it also be relavant > when > there are stated lines of play? I distinguish between those aspects of play that were "embraced" in the original statement and those which were not (*not* to be confused with distinguishing claims with some statement from those without any). "The Director proceeds as follows" [L70A]. L70B controls the repetition of the statement. L70C controls interpretation of the statement with respect to the specific issue of outstanding trump [s]. L70D sets forth the (additional) "director's considerations" which control issues arising from what was stated, i.e. "embraced in the original". L70E addresses those aspects of play which were "unstated", or not "embraced" in the original statement. Indeed, L70D1 and L70E1 read practically the same and do work in very much the same way. But the difference in context between them could have a significant effect on what the TD might choose to consider to be "as equitabl[e] as possible" or a "doubtful point". Which could lead to very different adjudications. As I confessed earlier, this relies for its justification largely on the titles of the individual sections. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 16 03:07:23 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:07:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A revoke case study [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c9b8fe$ebff9790$c3fec6b0$@nl> Message-ID: Rob Bosman suggested: >An error of the TD in analysing the squeeze should be corrected >by the Chief TD, not by an AC Richard Hills nuances: "An error of the TD in analysing the squeeze should be corrected by the Director in charge, but may also be corrected by the AC (since the issue is of fact, not of Law) if the Director in charge shares the table TD's analytical incompetence." In a now-deleted appendix to the WBF Code of Practice (due to the pending Appendix to the Lawbook soon to be added to the CoP), the WBF observed that the Director in charge should "correct obvious errors" of the table TD rather than unnecessarily waste the time of an AC. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 16 03:24:11 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:24:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be><1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be><1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de><3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> <5957B5CC-D260-45A1-93E1-30641F851F05@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002401c9be32$0dd895f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Question not arising. >. L70E addresses those aspects of play which were > "unstated", or not "embraced" in the original statement. > > Indeed, L70D1 and L70E1 read practically the same > and do work in very much the same way. But the > difference in context between them could have a > significant effect on what the TD might choose to > consider to be "as equitabl[e] as possible" or a > "doubtful point". Which could lead to very different > adjudications. > +=+ I was surprised to read the above, Eric. .......... Law 70E1 applies to situations when claimer seeks to introduce an "unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card.". Your exposition appears to treat the law as though the seventeen words that follow 'line of play' were not present. When considering other unstated lines of play do we not refer to Law 70D1 ? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 16 04:10:18 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:10:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001c01c9bc1d$8176f4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Australia's longest serving Prime Minister (1939 to 1941 and 1949 to 1966) was Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, Knight of the Thistle, and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. In the Australian way, his surname was pronounced the way it was spelt. However, when he returned from one of his frequent trips to Britain, he unfortunately observed that the original Scottish pronunciation of his surname was "Ming-iss". He then promptly gained the nickname of "Ming the Merciless", the name of the villain in the Flash Gordon comic books. Another of his nicknames was "Pig Iron Bob". This was because in 1938, as Attorney-General in the Lyons government, Menzies sent troops to the waterfront to break up a principled strike by the workers, who were refusing to send pig iron to Imperial Japan. Sure enough, a few years later some of the Aussie pig iron was returned to Aussie soldiers in the form of Japanese bullets. Grattan Endicott: [snip] >There are two points that I consider fundamental: > 1. That the Director is ruling and he is not bound by the > observations of any player at the table except as the law > specifies. Richard Hills: Yes, the claimer's understanding of the deal at the point of the claim versus the claimer's understanding of the deal after the claim has been disputed are often significantly different deal understandings. Hence the inutility of the hobby horse repeatedly suggested by Nigel Guthrie. Grattan Endicott: > 2. That references in the laws to normality are not linked to > the views of a player. They refer to a general understanding > of the game as determined by the Director. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Maybe not linked to the "views" of a player. But while I do not wish to indulge in a subtle Hermanic critique of the subtler Grattanic interpretation of the English language, my unsubtle and naive reading of the claim Laws footnote's use of the English language suggests to my blinkered understanding that "normality" is linked to "class of player", _not_ linked to "a general understanding of the game". Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 16 05:29:52 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:29:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal In-Reply-To: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de><49E5C490.80702@skynet.be> <1Lu4Ql-0VGLkO0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de><49E5C490.80702@skynet.be> <1Lu4Ql-0VGLkO0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "David Burn" Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 08:14 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Definition of Normal > In an attempt further to define the word "normal" as it is to be > interpreted > in the context of the Laws, I offer some examples for your consideration: The law is constructed with words that are pliable, from which derives the outcome of prolific litigation. In particular, normal is such a word- in fact the wrong word to for the use to which it has been put. A much more satisfactory standard is that of legitimate. For a line to be legitimate it must embrace the entirety of the clarification, which is to say that the clarification must not exclude any part of the line. A line that would be successful for a possible [but not necessarily likely] lie of the outstanding cards is sufficient to be legitimate yet need not be a necessary condition. To put this to Burn's samples: > [1] South, declarer in 7NT with > > 432 > 432 > 32 > KQ109 > > AKQ > AKQ > AK > A8765 > > claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" > with > no further amplification. A defender with CJ432 objects. Is the claim > allowed? A possible layout of the Cs is 2-2 that will produce the 5C tricks. But say in the case of W holding the Cs- The claim does not exclude** playing the DHSs first so it is thus legitimate to play off those suits and then lead toward the CK. A C back to the CA and the marked C hook will now leave the lead in N holding CK at T12- it being careless to not notice the club blockage. > [2] South, declarer in 7NT with > > 432 > 432 > 32 > KQ94 > > AKQ > AKQ > AK > A8765 > > claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" > with > no further amplification. West, with CJ1032, objects. Is the claim > allowed? It is a bit curious for N to start with 12 cards- this hand must have originated on rgb. A possible layout of the Cs is 2-2 that will produce the 5C tricks The claim does not exclude** playing the DHSs first so it is thus legitimate to play off those suits and then lead toward the CK. Notably, if the lead is lost- which it by now must no later than T12 a second trick with accrue to the defense. > [3] South, declarer in 6NT with > > A32 > A32 > A2 > AK1097 > > KQJ > KQJ > K6543 > 82 > > claims "four club tricks after losing to the queen, three spades, three > hearts and two diamonds". The reason for this is that he believes his jack > of spades to be the jack of clubs. East, with CQJ doubleton and DQJ1098, > objects. Is the claim allowed? A possible layout is Cx in E that will produce the 5C tricks and as the claim does not exclude** playing the DHS honors first it is legitimate to do so and then finesse W for the CJ. **as claimer asserts he loses no further tricks it is no need to protect the number of tricks by retaining stoppers > David Burn > London, England regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 16 08:47:29 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:47:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] seeding software available [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <014201c9bcf0$faaaf2d0$f000d870$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: [snip] >The software solves two problems: >1) Distributing contestants among different groups(not necc. equal sized) >to make groups roughly same strength, and distributed equitably among >countries/districts/clubs/what-have-you. [snip] Richard Hills: After examining Hans' documentation, this seems like a program that Jeff Easterson has been desperately wishing for. Jeff regularly organises a very large international matchpoint pairs tournament which needs such a strength/country balance between the different sections. I particularly like the feature that a contestant's seed number may be arbitrarily large, which makes it easy for the Tournament Organizer to arrange "fuzzy" seeding for a semi-unknown contestant. That is, the TO can decide that the semi-unknown is likely to be weaker than Contestant A, but stronger than Contestant B, so the TO can then award a seed number corresponding to B+ (while still having room to give another semi- unknown a slightly higher seed number corresponding to A-). Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 16 09:31:09 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:31:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <1Lu80w-1mPPV20@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be> <1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be> <1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> <1Lu80w-1mPPV20@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <49E6DEBD.7070605@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Eric Landau >> On Apr 15, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > > [snip] > >>> I marked (only) 4 points in your "logic" above where you >>> admit that your assumptions are inaccurate. >>> E.g. you "define" equivalent terms which are definitely considered >>> as truly non-equivalent. "irrational" is considered absolutely >>> whereas "normal" is considered in view of the person involved. >> That is no longer true (effective with the 2008 laws); "'normal'" is >> now understood to be the same for everyone. > > Allow me to cite the footnote to Laws 70/71: > "* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes > play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player > involved." > But that is not the discussion we are having. I have no problem with the standard of normalcy being the same for everyone, but the knowledge-base against which the rationality or not of a particular line is judged, must be different depending on what the individual claimer knows about the hand he is playing. A line which is normal for a player who has a faulty view of the hand may well be abnormal for every other player, who have a correct view. The line of finessing from an 11-card holding with AK is irrational and abnormal for every player, but normal and rational for a player who has miscounted the suit, believing he only has 10 cards in it. Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 16 09:35:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:35:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sit you Aton nor MAL [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49E47B22.9090809@skynet.be> Message-ID: Item in DIAC acronym list (contains a "normal" zillion entries): "MAL = Movement Alert List" Herman De Wael: >The most complete non-answer I have ever seen. I am quickly >losing any interest I have in what you are writing, Grattan. > >Does anybody else remark that Grattan has not replied to my >question? > >"Read what I have written" is not a valid answer to a question >that implied that the asker did not understand what he had >written. Richard Hills, former posting: >>I therefore apologise to Herman De Wael for casting aspersions >>on his intellect and integrity, and also apologise to Jerry >>Fusselman for my annoying attempts at humour. >> >>In future I will be careful to keep my humorous asides both >>incidental to my postings on the Laws, and also mostly self- >>deprecating. Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919), German revolutionary: "Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently." Frank Bainimarama (1954- ), Fiji dictator, on freedom of speech: "Not in Fiji ... causes trouble ... We want to come up with these reforms and the last thing we want to do is have opposition to these reforms throughout. So that was the reason we've come up with emergency regulations." Richard Hills, current posting: In response to the dictator's supremely arrogant censorship, the Fiji Times chose to publish an edition with blank spaces marking the censored articles. In response to Mister De Wael's supremely Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From tom at abacurial.com Thu Apr 16 10:27:36 2009 From: tom at abacurial.com (tOM Trottier) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:27:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <49E6DEBD.7070605@skynet.be> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred>, <1Lu80w-1mPPV20@fwd00.aul.t-online.de>, <49E6DEBD.7070605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E6B3B8.26593.1A0B251@tom.abacurial.com> On Thursday, April 16, 2009 at 9:31, Herman De Wael wrote: ... | The line of finessing from an 11-card holding with AK is irrational and | abnormal for every player, but normal and rational for a player who has | miscounted the suit, believing he only has 10 cards in it. Depends - maybe he needs an entry. tOM -- Absum! -- tOM Trottier, +1 613 860-6633 469 Ancaster Ave, Ottawa, ON K2B 5B6 Canada http://Information.Architecture.Abacurial.com Est-ce c'est necessaire d'imprimer ce courriel? Do you really need to print this email? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 16 10:36:13 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:36:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > Maybe not linked to the "views" of a player. But while I do > not wish to indulge in a subtle Hermanic critique of the subtler > Grattanic interpretation of the English language, my unsubtle > and naive reading of the claim Laws footnote's use of the > English language suggests to my blinkered understanding that > "normality" is linked to "class of player", _not_ linked to "a > general understanding of the game". > +=+ The footnote does not deal with the definition of 'normal' generally. It deals with items that are specified not to be excluded from it. Since 'normal' is not included in the list of definitions it is interpreted with its dictionary meaning. The Director is required to determine what is a normal line of play only in given circumstances. When he is applying a statement of legal plays made under Law 68C, where abnormality is not an issue, and can do so without obstacle, he has no cause to consider alternatives. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 16 10:51:43 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:51:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Normal In-Reply-To: <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> References: <49E5A5B2.4020801@skynet.be> <1Lu2Gw-25eYi00@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E5C490.80702@skynet.be> <1Lu4Ql-0VGLkO0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> Message-ID: <49E6F19F.9060709@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > In an attempt further to define the word "normal" as it is to be interpreted > in the context of the Laws, I offer some examples for your consideration: > > [1] South, declarer in 7NT with > > 432 > 432 > 32 > KQ109 > > AKQ > AKQ > AK > A8765 > > claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" with > no further amplification. A defender with CJ432 objects. Is the claim > allowed? > AG : in a very similar case, in Belgium, the claim was allowed because the declarer was a good player (at least, he says he is). I'm not sure this was right, but I understand it. > [2] South, declarer in 7NT with > > 432 > 432 > 32 > KQ94 > > AKQ > AKQ > AK > A8765 > > claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two diamonds" with > no further amplification. West, with CJ1032, objects. Is the claim allowed? > > AG : less than in the previous case, because : - there are cases where the contract would fail anyway, whence the unadorned claim shows us declarer didn't realize the problem.. - this combination is often misplayed, through confusion with the former one. This year, a Belgian lady international player and mixed national champion misplayed it. > [3] South, declarer in 6NT with > > A32 > A32 > A2 > AK1097 > > KQJ > KQJ > K6543 > 82 > > claims "four club tricks after losing to the queen, three spades, three > hearts and two diamonds". The reason for this is that he believes his jack > of spades to be the jack of clubs. East, with CQJ doubleton and DQJ1098, > objects. Is the claim allowed? > > AG : no. Take the heart lead, let the C8 run to the Queen, take the heart return, play the club Jacl, ooos, Spade. Now declarer could take the wrong play. This is interesting, because one may not take any finesse if there happens anything drastic during the play, but surely what happened is drastic. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 16 11:00:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:00:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred>, <1Lu80w-1mPPV20@fwd00.aul.t-online.de>, <49E6DEBD.7070605@skynet.be> <49E6B3B8.26593.1A0B251@tom.abacurial.com> Message-ID: <002a01c9be71$d3dda530$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Question not arising. > ... > | The line of finessing from an 11-card holding > with AK is irrational and abnormal for every > player, but normal and rational for a player who > has miscounted the suit, believing he only has > 10 cards in it. > > Depends - maybe he needs an entry. > > tOM < +=+ If it is part of the "clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played" provided by claimer under Law 68C the fact that the play is 'abnormal' does not prevent the Director from pursuing it. There is nothing illegal, no irregularity, in a play solely because it is abnormal. The laws allow claimer freedom to choose a comedy or a tragedy if he will, and in such circumstances there is no cause to consider alternatives to legal plays he has proposed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 16 11:23:56 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:23:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be> Grattan fails to see one thing: Grattan wrote: > >> > +=+ The footnote does not deal with the definition of > 'normal' generally. It deals with items that are specified > not to be excluded from it. > Since 'normal' is not included in the list of definitions > it is interpreted with its dictionary meaning. The Director > is required to determine what is a normal line of play only > in given circumstances. When he is applying a statement > of legal plays made under Law 68C, where abnormality > is not an issue, and can do so without obstacle, he has no > cause to consider alternatives. L68C does not enter into this discussion. L68 deals with how a claim is made and should be made. When the Director comes to rule upon the claim, he is already in L70, and this consists of five subclauses. A just sets out general principles B just tells the director what to do, but not how to rule So it's up to L70C,D and E to tell us how a claim should be ruled upon. And all three of those contain the word "normal". So Grattan's insistence that abnormality is not an issue is, quite simple, wrong. IMO Herman. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 16 12:29:00 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:29:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > L68C does not enter into this discussion. > L68 deals with how a claim is made and should be made. > When the Director comes to rule upon the claim, he is already in L70, > and this consists of five subclauses. > A just sets out general principles > B just tells the director what to do, but not how to rule > So it's up to L70C,D and E to tell us how a claim should be ruled upon. > > And all three of those contain the word "normal". > > So Grattan's insistence that abnormality is not an issue is, quite > simple, wrong. > > IMO > > Herman. > +=+ Flawed. There is much that Herman does not see. If it is part of the "clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played" provided by claimer under Law 68C the fact that the play is 'abnormal' does not prevent the Director from pursuing it. There is nothing illegal, no irregularity, in a play solely because it is abnormal. The laws allow claimer freedom to choose a comedy or a tragedy if he will, and in such circumstances there is no cause to consider alternatives to legal plays he has proposed. The importance of 68C is that it allows of abnormal lines of play and is the basis of the Director's ruling. When he has been summoned the Director takes charge of the matter. He is to rule the outcome of the play claimer proposes. If he is able to follow the proposed plays without encountering an obstacle in law he does not look for alternatives. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 16 13:10:49 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:10:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be> <001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > >> > +=+ Flawed. There is much that Herman does > not see. > If it is part of the "clear statement as to the > order in which cards will be played" provided by > claimer under Law 68C the fact that the play is > 'abnormal' does not prevent the Director from > pursuing it. Grattan, for the second time: L68C does not tell the director how to rule. It says what a player should do - not what the director shall do with the statement. L70E does that. > There is nothing illegal, no irregularity, > in a play solely because it is abnormal. The laws > allow claimer freedom to choose a comedy or a > tragedy if he will, and in such circumstances there > is no cause to consider alternatives to legal plays > he has proposed. Yes Grattan, but if the claimer notices that he did propose a less effective line, he cannot fail to propose an alternative line, and the director needs to rule if the original line will become irrational as play progresses. You cannot rule claims solely based on L68, because there is nothing to rule upon. Only when either side objects to the claim will the director come to the table. At that time, either L70 or L71 will need to be applied. > The importance of 68C is that it allows of > abnormal lines of play and is the basis of the > Director's ruling. When he has been summoned > the Director takes charge of the matter. He is to > rule the outcome of the play claimer proposes. Indeed, but when abnormal lines are included in the claim statement, L70E kicks in. So there is no need to insist on L68 being the basis. > If he is able to follow the proposed plays without > encountering an obstacle in law he does not look > for alternatives. But he is required by the players to look at those alternatives. He may well reject them, but he's going to have to look at them in any case. It is not the director who looks for alternatives, it is the layers who will propose them. And the director needs to rule if the proposed lines are normal ones. And in one sense, the director DOES look for alternatives. If he is satisfied that the original line breaks down then he may well accept the alternative proposed by the claimer, but he will also look for other alternative lines which might be less succesful. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 16 15:10:39 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:10:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Question not arising. In-Reply-To: <002401c9be32$0dd895f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001401c9bcec$3d0d8610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E47BF4.60402@skynet.be><1LtiCe-0z855c0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <49E590F1.5060303@skynet.be><1Lu2WD-0WqWCu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de><3633B092-9AA1-437F-83F1-9216A3789133@starpower.net> <5957B5CC-D260-45A1-93E1-30641F851F05@starpower.net> <002401c9be32$0dd895f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <91E105AA-5494-4EB1-9FD4-6F81397979D8@starpower.net> On Apr 15, 2009, at 9:24 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> . L70E addresses those aspects of play which were >> "unstated", or not "embraced" in the original statement. >> >> Indeed, L70D1 and L70E1 read practically the same >> and do work in very much the same way. But the >> difference in context between them could have a >> significant effect on what the TD might choose to >> consider to be "as equitabl[e] as possible" or a >> "doubtful point". Which could lead to very different >> adjudications. > > +=+ I was surprised to read the above, Eric. .......... > Law 70E1 applies to situations when claimer seeks to > introduce an "unstated line of play the success of which > depends upon finding one opponent rather than the > other with a particular card.". Your exposition appears > to treat the law as though the seventeen words that > follow 'line of play' were not present. > When considering other unstated lines of play do > we not refer to Law 70D1 ? This is a good point; perhaps in relying too much on the section titles I have been overlooking the implication of "the success of which..." Grattan suggests that L70E1 is specific to card-placing decisions, in the same way L70C is specific to trump-drawing decisions, wiith L70D1 (redundantly) applying to all others. That would be the "natural" way to read L70 (and its section titles) if L70D and L70E were reversed. Was that the authors' intent? As written, it is natural to interpret L70E1 as meaningful, and therefore to reject an interpretation that makes it nothing more than a restatement of L70D1 for a particular subset of cases already covered by that law. I do not buy the argument that they differ because of some meaningless leftover distinction between "not 'normal'" and "irrational"; the WBF has made it clear that there is no longer any such distinction, if indeed there ever was. If Grattan is prepared to assert that he is representing the position of the WBF rather than expressing a personal opinion in offering this interpretation, I am certainly prepared to accept it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 16 16:17:00 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:17:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? In-Reply-To: <001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be> <001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:29 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> L68C does not enter into this discussion. >> L68 deals with how a claim is made and should be made. >> When the Director comes to rule upon the claim, he is already in L70, >> and this consists of five subclauses. >> A just sets out general principles >> B just tells the director what to do, but not how to rule >> So it's up to L70C,D and E to tell us how a claim should be ruled >> upon. >> >> And all three of those contain the word "normal". >> >> So Grattan's insistence that abnormality is not an issue is, quite >> simple, wrong. > > +=+ Flawed. There is much that Herman does > not see. > If it is part of the "clear statement as to the > order in which cards will be played" provided by > claimer under Law 68C the fact that the play is > 'abnormal' does not prevent the Director from > pursuing it. There is nothing illegal, no irregularity, > in a play solely because it is abnormal. The laws > allow claimer freedom to choose a comedy or a > tragedy if he will, and in such circumstances there > is no cause to consider alternatives to legal plays > he has proposed. > The importance of 68C is that it allows of > abnormal lines of play and is the basis of the > Director's ruling. When he has been summoned > the Director takes charge of the matter. He is to > rule the outcome of the play claimer proposes. > If he is able to follow the proposed plays without > encountering an obstacle in law he does not look > for alternatives. L68C is important here for another reason as well. Although it is established jurisprudence that a claimer is not to be held to the literal fulfillment of L68C (we do not, in practice, require a card- by-card exposition of every possible variation in the prospective "play" after the claim), that does not give him carte blanche to ignore it. Gross violations of L68C do have consequences. When there is a prospective problem in the play to be overcome by the claimer, his failure to mention or address the problem in his claim statement provides a strong (albeit not necessarily determinative) presumption that he is not aware of it, which the TD must consider in making his ruling. Herman's argument that "L68C does not enter into this discussion", which would mean that the application of L70 wouldn't be any different if L68C didn't exist, is simply absurd. He argues that L70 requires the TD to evaluate the state of the "knowledge" in the claimer's mind, but overlooks that L68C puts the obligation on the claimer to convey that knowledge to the TD before L70 is invoked. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 16 17:17:08 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:17:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? In-Reply-To: References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be> <001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49E74BF4.8040509@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:29 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> >>> L68C does not enter into this discussion. > > L68C is important here for another reason as well. Although it is > established jurisprudence that a claimer is not to be held to the > literal fulfillment of L68C (we do not, in practice, require a card- > by-card exposition of every possible variation in the prospective > "play" after the claim), that does not give him carte blanche to > ignore it. Gross violations of L68C do have consequences. When > there is a prospective problem in the play to be overcome by the > claimer, his failure to mention or address the problem in his claim > statement provides a strong (albeit not necessarily determinative) > presumption that he is not aware of it, which the TD must consider in > making his ruling. > > Herman's argument that "L68C does not enter into this discussion", > which would mean that the application of L70 wouldn't be any > different if L68C didn't exist, is simply absurd. What is absurd is your misunderstanding of what I am trying to say. Grattan stated that normalcy was not an issue, because the word normal is not mentioned in L68. To this I replied that L68 is not the law we are talking about, but L70 (and L71) is. And these laws do have the word "normal" in them. Whenever a claim is disputed (and that IS what these endless threads are about, after all) L70 comes into operation. So saying that the director need not apply the word "normal" is, quite simply, wrong. You fall into the same trap, Eric. You state, quite correctly, that L68 demands a complete claim statement. You go on to say that this is important, and that too is true. But where you then go off the tracks as that you fail to realise that when the claim statement is incomplete, the Director will apply L70D1. When ruling on the claim, the director will award the worst of all possible lines, but only of those lines he judges "normal". He won't ask claimer to ruff a winner or play low from both hands, for example. That is applying a test of normalcy, and it enters into this discussion, no matter what claim you are talking about. Please understand carefully what I am trying to say here: Grattan is wrong in believing that the director should only follow the claim statement and not look out for the normalcy of all the lines. In any claim ruling, that is exactly what the director must do! Eric goes on: > He (that is I, Herman) argues that L70 > requires the TD to evaluate the state of the "knowledge" in the > claimer's mind, but overlooks that L68C puts the obligation on the > claimer to convey that knowledge to the TD before L70 is invoked. > Why do you believe I overlook this? Of course it is up to the claimer, by means of his claim statement, in tempo non-suspecto, to give the director enough information to make a decision on what claimer does and does not know. And indeed that obligation is written in L68. But it is L70 (and L71) that tell the director what he must do with it. He must find the worst of all "normal" lines, judging normalcy based on the knowledge that he judges claimer to have. (IMO, that last bit). > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 16 19:14:57 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] warning the opps that a player isn't going to psych Message-ID: <47132.24.45.197.30.1239902097.squirrel@email.powweb.com> An old topic, but it came up. I had a player psych on the first round and probably psych on the second round (uninvestigated). I warned him that he couldn't psych any more. He is such a notorious psycher I felt it appropriate to warn all of his upcoming opponents that he wouldn't be psyching. That's because his partner would know that. (That also had the effect that the opponents knew to call me when he produced a psych on the next round.) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Apr 16 20:31:25 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:31:25 -0800 Subject: [BLML] warning the opps that a player isn't going to psych References: <47132.24.45.197.30.1239902097.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: From: > An old topic, but it came up. I had a player psych on the first > round and > probably psych on the second round (uninvestigated). I warned him > that he > couldn't psych any more. He is such a notorious psycher I felt it > appropriate to warn all of his upcoming opponents that he wouldn't > be > psyching. That's because his partner would know that. (That also > had the > effect that the opponents knew to call me when he produced a psych > on the > next round.) Do you also warn players that an opponent is prone to wild overbidding? Psychs are part of the game, after all. Or should be. If this is ACBL-land, I believe the regulation says that psyching *more* than *three* times a session is considered excessive unless subsequent psychs are in situations that make a psych quite reasonable (e.g., over a takeout double, vulnerability favorable, support for opener's suit.). Even this restraint is of doubtful legality. You must first determine whether a psych was fielded illegally, the partner seemingly, or possibly, basing his further actions on the assumption of a psych. If so, that calls for serious measures. Even then, if the bidding shows that either the vulnerable opponents are crazy or a non-vulnerable partner has psyched, then basing non-action on the logic of the auction is legal. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Apr 16 21:02:39 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:02:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E780CF.30505@aol.com> I do admire the way Herman has complied with the request to occasionally note that a statement is his opinion. Putting it collectively at the end of his postings is, I suspect, a subtle hint. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Grattan fails to see one thing: > > Grattan wrote: >> +=+ The footnote does not deal with the definition of >> 'normal' generally. It deals with items that are specified >> not to be excluded from it. >> Since 'normal' is not included in the list of definitions >> it is interpreted with its dictionary meaning. The Director >> is required to determine what is a normal line of play only >> in given circumstances. When he is applying a statement >> of legal plays made under Law 68C, where abnormality >> is not an issue, and can do so without obstacle, he has no >> cause to consider alternatives. > > L68C does not enter into this discussion. > L68 deals with how a claim is made and should be made. > When the Director comes to rule upon the claim, he is already in L70, > and this consists of five subclauses. > A just sets out general principles > B just tells the director what to do, but not how to rule > So it's up to L70C,D and E to tell us how a claim should be ruled upon. > > And all three of those contain the word "normal". > > So Grattan's insistence that abnormality is not an issue is, quite > simple, wrong. > > IMO > > Herman. > > > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 16 23:38:56 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:38:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Indeed, but when abnormal lines are included in the > claim statement, L70E kicks in. > +=+ Wrong. Utterly wrong. Read the law. Law70 E only applies when claimer proposes an unstated line of play *"the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card"*. Claimer will not have the opportunity to suggest any unstated line of play unless the original statement breaks down. It is entirely wrong to think that the Director in performing his duty to rule whether the claim is valid is required to invite or consider any alternative line so long as the "statement as to the order in which cards will be played" pursues only a legal line of play devoid of any irregularity. The claimer is wholly entitled to propose a play that is - or plays that are - abnormal, provided no proposed play violates a law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 17 00:24:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:24:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ABDA Bulletin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: The President of the Australian Bridge Directors Association, Sean Mullamphy, has advised me that the ABDA Bulletin is being revived. The once and future perfectionist Editor, Laurie Kelso, is returning to his Sisyphean task. In addition to the traditional Aussie, Kiwi and Pommy columnists, there will be a new esteemed Yankee columnist, Rick Beye (the ACBL's Chief Tournament Director). Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 17 00:42:36 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:42:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be> <001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:38:56 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > " If you chase two hares one will escape." > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:10 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Indeed, but when abnormal lines are included in the >> claim statement, L70E kicks in. >> > +=+ Wrong. Utterly wrong. Read the law. Law70 E > only applies when claimer proposes an unstated line > of play *"the success of which depends upon finding > one opponent rather than the other with a particular > card"*. > Claimer will not have the opportunity to suggest > any unstated line of play unless the original statement > breaks down. L70B4: The stated claiming statement is followed until_______. I was interpreting the law exactly as Grattan states here -- that it is followed until the original statement breaks down. However, this seems to be a small minority position, as the majority of BLMLers follow the claiming statment until it breaks down OR new information comes to light to make the claiming statment irrational. So, the majority of BLMLers do not interpret L70D and L70E as applying only when the claiming statement breaks down. > It is entirely wrong to think that the > Director in performing his duty to rule whether the > claim is valid is required to invite or consider any > alternative line so long as the "statement as to the > order in which cards will be played" pursues only a > legal line of play devoid of any irregularity. The > claimer is wholly entitled to propose a play that is - > or plays that are - abnormal, provided no proposed > play violates a law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 17 01:11:27 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:11:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >...However, this seems to be a small minority position, as the >majority of BLMLers... Richard Hills: The hyperactive posters to BLML (including myself and Herman De Wael) are all idiosyncratic Parnassians, each ploughing their own lonely furrow. So correct interpretation of the Laws is not decided by this BLML majority vote of hyperactive posters. Rather, the correct interpretation of the Laws is decided by a majority vote of the idiosyncratic Parnassians on the WBF Laws Committee (including Grattan and Kojak), at a point where most of their own lonely furrows intersect. What's the problem? If the problem is defined as removing idiosyncratic Parnassians from Duplicate Bridge administrative, legislative and judicial committees, then the solution is to restrict the number of entries to Duplicate Bridge tournaments to zero tables, thus obviating the necessity for any of those committees. :-) :-) Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 17 01:26:17 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:26:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:36:13 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > " If you chase two hares one will escape." > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:10 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Richard Hills: >> >> Maybe not linked to the "views" of a player. But while I do >> not wish to indulge in a subtle Hermanic critique of the subtler >> Grattanic interpretation of the English language, my unsubtle >> and naive reading of the claim Laws footnote's use of the >> English language suggests to my blinkered understanding that >> "normality" is linked to "class of player", _not_ linked to "a >> general understanding of the game". >> > +=+ The footnote does not deal with the definition of > 'normal' generally. It deals with items that are specified > not to be excluded from it. > Since 'normal' is not included in the list of definitions > it is interpreted with its dictionary meaning. But in normal usage, it is recognized that what is normal for France is not necessarily normal for England, what is normal in private is not necessarily normal in public, and what is normal for a billionaire is not necessarily normal for the rest of us. (shamelessly interjecting both money and sex into this posting.) So it is natural, I am afraid, to base normality on class of player. For example, David Stevenson, a leading internet bridge law advice provider, said "Play ceases: suggestions from declarer cease [or are ignored]. The TD judges the hand. His judgement - like in almost every other judgement case - involves his view of the abilities of the players involved." I think this relates to the 1997 laws. But it would be nice if ability was detached from the consideration of a claim. My understanding is that is the intention of the 2007 laws. Bob, who wonders who states the unstated lines of play from the claimer if suggestions from the claimer are ignored. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 17 03:21:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:21:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sit you Aton nor MAL [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49E59528.7000106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Extract from the Great Hymn to Aton, found in the tomb of Ay, and thought to have been composed by the monotheistic Pharaoh Akhenaton: "Thou makest the Seasons to develop everything that thou hast made; the season of Pert (i.e., November 16 - March 16) so that they may refresh themselves, and the season of Heh (i.e., March 16 - November 16) in order to taste thee." Alain Gottcheiner suggested: [snip] >I'm na?ve enough to think that only when legal texts are imprecise or >lacking is a matter subject to controversy, e.g. on blml. Richard Hills addenDumb: I'm subtle enough to think that when legal texts are precise, but when a Canberran mind is imprecise or lacking, then that also is a matter subject to controversy, e.g. on blml. For example, in the season of Heh I imprecisely asserted: >>>Maybe not linked to the "views" of a player. But while I do not >>>wish to indulge in a subtle Hermanic critique of the subtler >>>Grattanic interpretation of the English language, my unsubtle and >>>naive reading of the claim Laws footnote's use of the English >>>language suggests to my blinkered understanding that "normality" is >>>linked to "class of player", _not_ linked to "a general >>>understanding of the game". and later in the season of Heh Grattan Endicott tempestively replied: >>+=+ The footnote does not deal with the definition of 'normal' >>generally. It deals with items that are specified not to be >>excluded from it. >> Since 'normal' is not included in the list of definitions it is >>interpreted with its dictionary meaning. The Director is required >>to determine what is a normal line of play only in given >>circumstances. When he is applying a statement of legal plays made >>under Law 68C, where abnormality is not an issue, and can do so >>without obstacle, he has no cause to consider alternatives. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Pocket Oxford Dictionary: normal, adj. illustrating the type, regular, ordinary Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 17 06:54:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:54:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Brisbane Times, April 16th 2009: WELLINGTON - In a satirical jibe at stringent censorship imposed by Fiji's military government, the Daily Post newspaper has been filling the space with some no news. Headlines in Wednesday's edition included "Man gets on bus," over an item reading: "In what is believed to be the first reported incident of its kind, a man got on a bus yesterday. 'It was easy,' he said. 'I just lifted one leg up and then the other and I was on."' Another headed "Breakfast as usual" began: "It was breakfast as usual for the staff of this newspaper. 'I had leftover roti from last night,' senior reporter Manueli told his colleague yesterday morning. "Staff gasped with delight when Fiji Daily Post receptionist Lupe said her breakfast was a cup of latte coffee along with toasted currant bread." A third story began, "Paint has apparently dried on his old couch, Max reports. Given the job of painting the couch, Max was excited at the prospect of the paint drying. But when asked how it dried, he was nonplussed. "'It just went on wet, but after about four hours, it started to dry. That was when I realised, paint dries,' the young scholar observed." [snip] Paul Lamford chrestomathy: >I would go further. At our Christmas Social, we had 12.75 tables plus a >player who had never played before. I was very happy to partner him as host >and we agreed a simple point count system to describe our range, and I >guessed the final contract with my opening bid whenever we had the balance >of points. When he was a defender, he would make a defensive claim of all >the tricks, either instead of an opening lead, Richard Hills chrestomathy: In the Law 68A definition of a claim "...claims when he suggests that play be curtailed...", that phrase suggests to me that a claim is only legal during the play period. Before the opening lead is faced we are still in the auction period. So when Paul's partner claimed instead of facing an opening lead that would be either Law 16B Extraneous Information from Partner (if Paul's partner attempted to claim without exposing his hand) or Law 24 Card Exposed or Led Prior to Play Period (if Paul's partner attempted to claim by exposing his hand). Paul Lamford chrestomathy: >or instead of playing to trick one as partner of the opening leader, and >"normal" play was substituted for his overoptimistic attempt to achieve >nine off in 3NT. When we declared, he had a very high percentage of being >dummy, but on the two occasions when he was declarer, he claimed at trick >one with the pre-agreed spiel "I think I can manage the rest", in Spanish >in fact, as he did not speak any English. Richard Hills chrestomathy: But what if the opponents incorrectly think that someone who claims must know what he is doing, so accept their unnecessary loss of 13 tricks? Law 79A2: "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." Richard Hills chrestomathy: Of course, if Paul's Spanish partner is from Barcelona, named Manuel, then: "I know nothing." means that Manuel's Fawlty claims are not knowing infractions of Law 79A2. Paul Lamford chrestomathy: >Again "normal" play was substituted, and we won the event comfortably. The >opponents were not that happy about the 13 TD calls we had that night, but >the 11 boards I played were fairly quick, so we still finished on time. Law 40A2, first sentence: "Information conveyed to partner through such understandings must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal." Richard Hills chrestomathy: Some might foolishly believe the first sentence of Law 40A2 means that Paul's partnership understanding with Manuel for Manuel to claim 13 tricks at the beginning of trick 1 whenever declarer is an unLawful understanding. However, since the understanding is based on a declarer condition of the current deal, the understanding is completely Lawful. What's the anagram? Best wishes Tom Marvolo Riddle -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Apr 17 07:01:12 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:01:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200904170501.n3H51CJ3027766@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 09:11 AM 17/04/2009, you wrote: >Robert Frick: > > >...However, this seems to be a small minority position, as the > >majority of BLMLers... > >Richard Hills: > >The hyperactive posters to BLML (including myself and Herman De >Wael) are all idiosyncratic Parnassians, each ploughing their >own lonely furrow. So correct interpretation of the Laws is >not decided by this BLML majority vote of hyperactive posters. > >Rather, the correct interpretation of the Laws is decided by a >majority vote of the idiosyncratic Parnassians on the WBF Laws >Committee (including Grattan and Kojak), at a point where most >of their own lonely furrows intersect. > >What's the problem? > >If the problem is defined as removing idiosyncratic Parnassians >from Duplicate Bridge administrative, legislative and judicial >committees, then the solution is to restrict the number of >entries to Duplicate Bridge tournaments to zero tables, thus >obviating the necessity for any of those committees. :-) :-) > A recent Hills posting contained 20 blank lines (the first I have understood without recourse to dictionary). Similar postings would remove a lot of blml disagreement, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 17 08:27:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:27:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] D. Burn ition of Normal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c9bdcc$0f812630$2e837290$@com> Message-ID: D. Burn: >In an attempt further to define the word "normal" as it is to be >interpreted in the context of the Laws, I offer some examples for >your consideration: > >[1] South, declarer in 7NT with > > 432 > 432 > 432 > KQT9 > > AKQ > AKQ > AK > A8765 > >claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two >diamonds" with no further amplification. A defender with C J432 >objects. Is the claim allowed? R. J. Hills: Yes and no. Because of the order of suits mentioned in the claim statement (clubs, then spades, then hearts, then diamonds), as TD I would allow the claim if West holds C J432. Law 70E1: "...or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play..." Not allowed if East holds C J432. Laws 70 & 71 footnote: "...'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior..." S. Pran: >>(it is not "normal" in this case to begin with the CA from the >>"long" hand) R. J. Hills: Shades of H. De Wael's assertion of "trumps last" normality. :-) :-) If, however, the claim was, "two diamond tricks, three hearts, three spades and five clubs", then H. Skj?ran: >>it's very possible that he hasn't spotted the possibility for >>clubs being blocked. And thus still goes down even with Jxxx in >>clubs in west. D. Burn: >[2] South, declarer in 7NT with > > 432 > 432 > 432 > KQ94 > > AKQ > AKQ > AK > A8765 > >claims "five club tricks, three spades, three hearts and two >diamonds" with no further amplification. West, with C JT32, >objects. Is the claim allowed? H. Skj?ran: >>No. >>He might not be aware of the safety play of starting with the >>ace. R. J. Hills, prior posting: >>>Ergo, the Director may rule that the omission of the word >>>"Nicomedophily" in the claim statement was a slip of the >>>tongue, not a slip of the mind, and thus it is legal for the >>>Director to rule that there is no reasonable doubt the claimer >>>would indeed have always achieved Nicomedophily during the >>>play. R. J. Hills, current posting: If declarer perpetrated an identical safety play on the previous board, and if declarer's "no further amplification" claim statement on this board is accompanied by declarer's hysterical laughter, then as TD I rule that declarer achieves Nicomedophily. D. Burn: >[3] South, declarer in 6NT with > > A32 > A32 > A2 > AKT97 > > KQJ > KQJ > K6543 > 82 > >claims "four club tricks after losing to the queen, three spades, >three hearts and two diamonds". The reason for this is that he >believes his jack of spades to be the jack of clubs. East, with >C QJ doubleton and D QJT98, objects. Is the claim allowed? R. J. Hills, ancient posting: The Red Queen's Race Imps Dlr E 3 Vul NS 7 AJ862 AT9862 Me K JT65 AQT982 653 KT4 973 KJ7 Q54 M.L.L.A.I. AQ98742 KQJ4 5 3 SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- Pass 1S 2H 3C Pass 3S Pass 4D Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass The play was truncated: Ace of hearts; King of spades switch to the Ace; Queen of spades cashed. After that trick, declarer laid his hand on the table, noting that the only remaining tricks he would lose were to my JT of trumps. Declarer is one of the two best players in Canberra (1), and for him Most Losing Lines Are Irrational. (1) My friend Brian Thorp naturally wondered who is the second of Canberra's two best players. I responded with this apocryphal anecdote: "About half a century ago, 50 American experts were polled as to who the best American player was. The result was a 50-way tie for first place. But the 50 experts were unanimous in their opinions that Howard Schenken was the second-best American player." Even so, I decided to summon the TD, since I had noticed that the pip on declarer's Queen of hearts was a little bit too pointy. The TD unimaginatively ruled that 4S was now two off, giving us the additional tricks of the King of diamonds and the Queen of hearts. However, as TD, I would have ruled differently. Firstly, I would rule that it would be irrational for M.L.L.A.I. to mis-sort his cards. The fact that he had actually mis-sorted his cards I would rule irrelevant. This follows the Maastricht precedent where it was ruled irrelevant to the claim on a double squeeze, the inconvenient truth that declarer had actually mistimed his double squeeze. Secondly, I would rule that it would be irrational for declarer to fail in 4S by not taking the diamond finesse, ruffing out the diamonds, crossing to the Ace of clubs, and discarding the losing Jack of hearts on a good diamond. The fact that M.L.L.A.I. had not stated this only normal line of play in his claim statement was irrelevant, since given his class of player (2) he is never required to make a complete and comprehensive claim statement. (2) Anatole France: "La majesteuse egalite des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain." The majestic equity of the Law, which prohibits rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 17 09:11:49 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:11:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > " If you chase two hares one will escape." > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:10 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> Indeed, but when abnormal lines are included in the >> claim statement, L70E kicks in. >> > +=+ Wrong. Utterly wrong. Read the law. Law70 E > only applies when claimer proposes an unstated line > of play *"the success of which depends upon finding > one opponent rather than the other with a particular > card"*. Right, utterly right. The claimer cannot fail to propose an alternative line, or there would be no need for the director to be there. As to "finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card", can you give me one example where the success of a line does not depend on the cards opponents hold? I'm tired of people criticising my logic by small steps, without giving counter-examples to tell me why my small steps are wrong in general. Herman. (note to Henk: when people tell me I'm wrong, I am allowed to tell them why I'm right, no?) > Claimer will not have the opportunity to suggest > any unstated line of play unless the original statement > breaks down. It is entirely wrong to think that the > Director in performing his duty to rule whether the > claim is valid is required to invite or consider any > alternative line so long as the "statement as to the > order in which cards will be played" pursues only a > legal line of play devoid of any irregularity. The > claimer is wholly entitled to propose a play that is - > or plays that are - abnormal, provided no proposed > play violates a law. Totally different discussion, that one. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 17 10:28:10 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:28:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claims discussion - another try Message-ID: <49E83D9A.1080609@skynet.be> Ther seems to be a discussion going on that could be likened to "pins on an angel's head". The discussion is about whether the word "normal", as used in the claim laws, refers to general principles of the hand, or to the way the claimers sees the hand. Because we have different opinions about that, our opinions of what L70E says is different: - Grattan believes that abnormal lines can be included in a claims statement, and must be followed; - I believe that, when a claimer states an apparently abnormal line, that line is normal to him, and it must be followed for that reason; We seem to differ on the application of L70E: - I believe that, when something happens, the formerly normal line becomes irrational, and L70E kicks in; - Grattan seems to believe that L70E does it all by itself; So basically, nothing different there either. I think we can let the discussion on L70E rest. But what about L70D. specifically L70D1. "the director shall not accept from claimer any succesful line of play not embraced in the original clarification if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful". Let us take again the example of finessing to the queen when holding 11. This is clearly an abnormal line. Now people like Grattan have defended not granting that trick to claimer because it is an abnormal line, but included in the claim statement. Now it is hard to imagine how, but suppose there is no claim statement, yet director clearly establishes that claimer believes he will lose the trick. As an example, let's say that declarer claims immediately after seeing LHO showing out, saying "one trick for you". Let's further assume that declarer has made a second error, and there is a high trump out. So "one trick for you" is a perfectly correct claim (no king to lose, but a trump) but from the timing and subsequent investigation, the director establishes that claimer intended to lose the king. He has two lines of doing so (ace or the queen first), both of which must be deemed likely. But can they be considered "normal"? According to Grattan, the line of playing the queen first is not "normal". Now Grattan needs to rule according to L70D. The line of playing the ace now is "not embraced in the original clarification statement". But playing the queen first is no "alternative normal line of play", since Grattan does not consider this line normal. I really don't see how one can rule claims without defining "normal" as I see it. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 17 10:33:08 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:33:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] warning the opps that a player isn't going to psych In-Reply-To: <47132.24.45.197.30.1239902097.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <47132.24.45.197.30.1239902097.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <49E83EC4.1040400@ulb.ac.be> rfrick at rfrick.info a ?crit : > An old topic, but it came up. I had a player psych on the first round and > probably psych on the second round (uninvestigated). I warned him that he > couldn't psych any more. He is such a notorious psycher I felt it > appropriate to warn all of his upcoming opponents that he wouldn't be > psyching. That's because his partner would know that. (That also had the > effect that the opponents knew to call me when he produced a psych on the > next round.) > AG : perhaps the second argument is right, but I don't like the first one. Parnters are required to "know partner wouldn't be psyching" when deciding their course of action. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 17 10:44:34 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:44:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] warning the opps that a player isn't going to psych In-Reply-To: References: <47132.24.45.197.30.1239902097.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <49E84172.7090709@ulb.ac.be> Marvin L French a ?crit : > > You must first determine whether a psych was fielded illegally, the > partner seemingly, or possibly, basing his further actions on the > assumption of a psych. If so, that calls for serious measures. Even > then, if the bidding shows that either the vulnerable opponents are > crazy or a non-vulnerable partner has psyched, then basing > non-action on the logic of the auction is legal. > AG : I agree with your arguments, but not with the idea that the bidding shows that either the vulnerable opponents are crazy or a non-vulnerable partner has psyched Anything could happen at the bridge table. Here is what happened in a recent tournament EW vul, South deals. You, North, hold : Axx - Jxx - KQxxx - xx S W N E 2H* 2NT 3D** 3NT p p ? * 11-14 HCP, 6-card suit ** fit-showing If you pass, because opponents aren't crazy and partner surely psyched his opening bid, you're in for a bottom. What happended ? West was merely inattentive, and upon hearing that 2H was the equivalent of an opening bid, he made the overcall he would have made over 1H. I guess passing in such a situation is the price you have to pay when your partner is prone to psyche, but North was fortunate enough not to have one. She doubled and the final contract of 4CX went down 2 for a shared top. Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Apr 17 11:49:27 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:49:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claims discussion - another try In-Reply-To: <49E83D9A.1080609@skynet.be> References: <49E83D9A.1080609@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2009/4/17 Herman De Wael : > Ther seems to be a discussion going on that could be likened to "pins on > an angel's head". > > The discussion is about whether the word "normal", as used in the claim > laws, refers to general principles of the hand, or to the way the > claimers sees the hand. > > Because we have different opinions about that, our opinions of what L70E > says is different: > - Grattan believes that abnormal lines can be included in a claims > statement, and must be followed; > - I believe that, when a claimer states an apparently abnormal line, > that line is normal to him, and it must be followed for that reason; > > We seem to differ on the application of L70E: > - I believe that, when something happens, the formerly normal line > becomes irrational, and L70E kicks in; > - Grattan seems to believe that L70E does it all by itself; > > So basically, nothing different there either. > > I think we can let the discussion on L70E rest. > > But what about L70D. specifically L70D1. > > "the director shall not accept from claimer any succesful line of play > not embraced in the original clarification if there is an alternative > normal line of play that would be less successful". > > Let us take again the example of finessing to the queen when holding 11. > This is clearly an abnormal line. > Now people like Grattan have defended not granting that trick to claimer > because it is an abnormal line, but included in the claim statement. > > Now it is hard to imagine how, but suppose there is no claim statement, > yet director clearly establishes that claimer believes he will lose the > trick. As an example, let's say that declarer claims immediately after > seeing LHO showing out, saying "one trick for you". Let's further assume > that declarer has made a second error, and there is a high trump out. So > "one trick for you" is a perfectly correct claim (no king to lose, but a > trump) but from the timing and subsequent investigation, the director > establishes that claimer intended to lose the king. He has two lines of > doing so (ace or the queen first), both of which must be deemed likely. > But can they be considered "normal"? > According to Grattan, the line of playing the queen first is not "normal". For a declarer believing there's more than one card missing in the suit, playing the queen is perfectly normal, IMO. It's in principle the same position as I had myself as declarer in a 4H contract a few years ago. Having drawn all the outstanding trumps but one, with the rest of the hand high, I claimed one down, giving up a trump trick. However, I had missed that both the jack and ten had fallen, thus my 97xx was high, LHO holding the 8. It wouldn't occur to me as a player to call the TD and try getting the trick back. Nor would I ever as a TD allow a player to make the contract in such a position. And that's the same for me if there's only trumps left in declarers hand. Believing that the outstanding trump is the highest left, it's normal IMO to play any of the remaining trumps first. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Now Grattan needs to rule according to L70D. The line of playing the ace > now is "not embraced in the original clarification statement". But > playing the queen first is no "alternative normal line of play", since > Grattan does not consider this line normal. > > I really don't see how one can rule claims without defining "normal" as > I see it. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 17 11:54:47 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:54:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ABDA Bulletin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001601c9bf42$8e526100$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 11:24 PM Subject: [BLML] ABDA Bulletin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > The President of the Australian Bridge Directors Association, Sean > Mullamphy, has advised me that the ABDA Bulletin is being revived. > > The once and future perfectionist Editor, Laurie Kelso, is returning > to his Sisyphean task. > > In addition to the traditional Aussie, Kiwi and Pommy columnists, > there will be a new esteemed Yankee columnist, Rick Beye (the ACBL's > Chief Tournament Director). > > > Best wishes > > R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Apr 17 12:02:50 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:02:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Grattan wrote: >> Grattan Endicott> also > ********************************** >> " If you chase two hares one will escape." >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:10 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? >> [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> Indeed, but when abnormal lines are included in the >>> claim statement, L70E kicks in. >>> >> +=+ Wrong. Utterly wrong. Read the law. Law70 E >> only applies when claimer proposes an unstated line >> of play *"the success of which depends upon finding >> one opponent rather than the other with a particular >> card"*. > > Right, utterly right. > The claimer cannot fail to propose an alternative line, or there would > be no need for the director to be there. Huh? Since when does a TD call in a claim case depend on some alternate line proposed by declarer? Defenders object, TD is summoned. TD checks proposed line (if any), hears objections. No alternative has to be proposed. It often is, sure, but who cares? TD follows the original line for as long as it is legal, rationality be d.....d. > As to "finding one opponent > rather than the other with a particular card", can you give me one > example where the success of a line does not depend on the cards > opponents hold? > > I'm tired of people criticising my logic by small steps, without giving > counter-examples to tell me why my small steps are wrong in general. Because you fail to understand that the original claim statement (however sparse it may have been) is first followed until something happens to it. It does not have have to be rational. If he wants to finesse for the queen holding 11 cards, who is the director to hinder him? Up to here we are in 68 and 70B2, but not in 70 D or E. Matthias > > Herman. > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 17 13:21:26 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:21:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de> Message-ID: <49E86636.4030000@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>>> Indeed, but when abnormal lines are included in the >>>> claim statement, L70E kicks in. >>>> >>> +=+ Wrong. Utterly wrong. Read the law. Law70 E >>> only applies when claimer proposes an unstated line >>> of play *"the success of which depends upon finding >>> one opponent rather than the other with a particular >>> card"*. >> Right, utterly right. >> The claimer cannot fail to propose an alternative line, or there would >> be no need for the director to be there. > > Huh? Since when does a TD call in a claim case depend on some alternate > line proposed by declarer? Defenders object, TD is summoned. TD checks > proposed line (if any), hears objections. No alternative has to be > proposed. It often is, sure, but who cares? TD follows the original line > for as long as it is legal, rationality be d.....d. > Read the previous again. We are talking about an abnormal line being included in a claim statement. When a TD call is made along those lines, an alternative is bound to be turned up. And Mathias. Read L70E again. If the orginal line is (no: turns to be) irrational, then the alternative can be accepted. So you d....d is, quite simply, wrong. I've stopped answering in this thread except to point people to obvious errors in their posts. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 17 13:26:54 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:26:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claims discussion - another try In-Reply-To: References: <49E83D9A.1080609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E8677E.80307@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2009/4/17 Herman De Wael : >> Ther seems to be a discussion going on that could be likened to "pins on >> an angel's head". >> >> The discussion is about whether the word "normal", as used in the claim >> laws, refers to general principles of the hand, or to the way the >> claimers sees the hand. >> >> Because we have different opinions about that, our opinions of what L70E >> says is different: >> - Grattan believes that abnormal lines can be included in a claims >> statement, and must be followed; >> - I believe that, when a claimer states an apparently abnormal line, >> that line is normal to him, and it must be followed for that reason; >> >> We seem to differ on the application of L70E: >> - I believe that, when something happens, the formerly normal line >> becomes irrational, and L70E kicks in; >> - Grattan seems to believe that L70E does it all by itself; >> >> So basically, nothing different there either. >> >> I think we can let the discussion on L70E rest. >> >> But what about L70D. specifically L70D1. >> >> "the director shall not accept from claimer any succesful line of play >> not embraced in the original clarification if there is an alternative >> normal line of play that would be less successful". >> >> Let us take again the example of finessing to the queen when holding 11. >> This is clearly an abnormal line. >> Now people like Grattan have defended not granting that trick to claimer >> because it is an abnormal line, but included in the claim statement. >> >> Now it is hard to imagine how, but suppose there is no claim statement, >> yet director clearly establishes that claimer believes he will lose the >> trick. As an example, let's say that declarer claims immediately after >> seeing LHO showing out, saying "one trick for you". Let's further assume >> that declarer has made a second error, and there is a high trump out. So >> "one trick for you" is a perfectly correct claim (no king to lose, but a >> trump) but from the timing and subsequent investigation, the director >> establishes that claimer intended to lose the king. He has two lines of >> doing so (ace or the queen first), both of which must be deemed likely. >> But can they be considered "normal"? >> According to Grattan, the line of playing the queen first is not "normal". > > For a declarer believing there's more than one card missing in the > suit, playing the queen is perfectly normal, IMO. > Precisely my point, Harald. Harals agrees with me that normalcy depends on the claimer's mindset, not just on some external "lie of the cards". > It's in principle the same position as I had myself as declarer in a > 4H contract a few years ago. Having drawn all the outstanding trumps > but one, with the rest of the hand high, I claimed one down, giving up > a trump trick. However, I had missed that both the jack and ten had > fallen, thus my 97xx was high, LHO holding the 8. It wouldn't occur to > me as a player to call the TD and try getting the trick back. Nor > would I ever as a TD allow a player to make the contract in such a > position. And that's the same for me if there's only trumps left in > declarers hand. Believing that the outstanding trump is the highest > left, it's normal IMO to play any of the remaining trumps first. > Harald has the principle right - for a player who believes there is a high trump out, the normal lines are other than for a player who knows the correct lay of the cards. Herman. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Apr 17 13:40:27 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:40:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49E86636.4030000@skynet.be> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de> <49E86636.4030000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c9bf51$4e2fc720$ea8f5560$@com> [HdW] We are talking about an abnormal line being included in a claim statement. [DALB] I am trying to understand the arguments here, and the following seems to me a possible scenario. Declarer, with AQJ987 in dummy and 1065432 in hand, leads the two and, on seeing West show out, says "in that case I concede a trick to the king and have the rest of the tricks". Now, assuming that he really does have the rest of the tricks, this might occur: Dummy says "but you have a twelve-card fit" [Law 68D: If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies.] The Director arrives, and [Law 70B] requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim; hears the opponents' objections to the claim. There will not be any of these, but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections, so the Director can presumably listen to dummy's objections. It should be noted that in the foregoing, declarer did not say "I will play the queen, losing to the king", merely "I will lose to the king". If declarer now says "well, of course I would play the ace and then the queen", should the Director award all the tricks? Would Herman's view and Grattan's view differ? David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 17 13:26:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:26:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims discussion - another try References: <49E83D9A.1080609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001801c9bf51$b39ce570$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims discussion - another try > It's in principle the same position as I had myself as declarer in a > 4H contract a few years ago. Having drawn all the outstanding trumps > but one, with the rest of the hand high, I claimed one down, giving up > a trump trick. However, I had missed that both the jack and ten had > fallen, thus my 97xx was high, LHO holding the 8. It wouldn't occur to > me as a player to call the TD and try getting the trick back. Nor > would I ever as a TD allow a player to make the contract in such a > position. And that's the same for me if there's only trumps left in > declarers hand. Believing that the outstanding trump is the highest > left, it's normal IMO to play any of the remaining trumps first. > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran >> >> Now Grattan needs to rule according to L70D. The line of playing the ace >> now is "not embraced in the original clarification statement". But >> playing the queen first is no "alternative normal line of play", since >> Grattan does not consider this line normal. >> >> I really don't see how one can rule claims without defining "normal" as >> I see it. >> >> Herman. >> +=+ You should not accept Herman's statements as to what my position is. What I have said is that a Law 68C statement of claim may properly include abnormal plays and the Director will follow them provided there is no irregularity. It is only when there is an irregularity that the Director will consider alternatives. An abnormality is not an irregularity if the play is legal. I agree with Harald that "believing that the outstanding trump is the highest left, it's normal ... to play any of the remaining trumps first" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 17 13:40:27 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:40:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001901c9bf51$b3e6e6c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Grattan wrote: >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ********************************** >>> " If you chase two hares one will escape." >>> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:10 PM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? >>> [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>> Indeed, but when abnormal lines are included in the >>>> claim statement, L70E kicks in. >>>> >>> +=+ Wrong. Utterly wrong. Read the law. Law70 E >>> only applies when claimer proposes an unstated line >>> of play *"the success of which depends upon finding >>> one opponent rather than the other with a particular >>> card"*. >> >> Right, utterly right. >> The claimer cannot fail to propose an alternative line, or there would >> be no need for the director to be there. > > Huh? Since when does a TD call in a claim case depend on some alternate > line proposed by declarer? Defenders object, TD is summoned. TD checks > proposed line (if any), hears objections. No alternative has to be > proposed. It often is, sure, but who cares? TD follows the original line > for as long as it is legal, rationality be d.....d. > >> As to "finding one opponent >> rather than the other with a particular card", can you give me one >> example where the success of a line does not depend on the cards >> opponents hold? >> >> I'm tired of people criticising my logic by small steps, without giving >> counter-examples to tell me why my small steps are wrong in general. > > Because you fail to understand that the original claim statement > (however sparse it may have been) is first followed until something > happens to it. It does not have have to be rational. If he wants to > finesse for the queen holding 11 cards, who is the director to hinder > him? Up to here we are in 68 and 70B2, but not in 70 D or E. > > Matthias > +=+ You are absolutely right, Matthias. If the Director can follow claimer's line and it gives what claimer has claimed he overrules the objections. Sadly Herman simply does not fully understand English - not the English in the laws, not mine. So he becomes fixated upon his own obsessive assertions. And despite Herman's misreading and distortion of it Law 70E only applies when an alternative line offered depends for its success upon one opponent having a given card rather than the other opponent. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Apr 17 13:51:07 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:51:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901c9bf51$b3e6e6c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de> <001901c9bf51$b3e6e6c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000e01c9bf52$cb8f00e0$62ad02a0$@com> [GE] Law 70E only applies when an alternative line offered depends for its success upon one opponent having a given card rather than the other opponent. [DALB] It occurs to me that in the example I have just given (AQJ987 facing 1065432), the alternative line offered depends for its success upon neither of the opponents having the fourteenth card in the suit. Whether this falls within the purview of Law 70E is left as an exercise for the reader. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 17 13:58:05 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:58:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claims discussion - another try In-Reply-To: <001801c9bf51$b39ce570$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49E83D9A.1080609@skynet.be> <001801c9bf51$b39ce570$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49E86ECD.7060406@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > +=+ You should not accept Herman's statements as to > what my position is. > What I have said is that a Law 68C statement of claim > may properly include abnormal plays and the Director > will follow them provided there is no irregularity. AG : this is lawful, but uncomfortable for the mind, as it means that in some cases you'd be better off to make an imprecise statement (when TDs and ACs have to exclude abnormal plays). I suggest, for the next edition of TFLB, to address this problem. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 17 14:41:33 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:41:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de><49E86636.4030000@skynet.be> <000501c9bf51$4e2fc720$ea8f5560$@com> Message-ID: <002001c9bf59$f2bc21a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [HdW] > > We are talking about an abnormal line being included in a claim statement. > > [DALB] > > I am trying to understand the arguments here, and the following seems to > me > a possible scenario. > > Declarer, with AQJ987 in dummy and 1065432 in hand, leads the two and, on > seeing West show out, says "in that case I concede a trick to the king and > have the rest of the tricks". Now, assuming that he really does have the > rest of the tricks, this might occur: > > Dummy says "but you have a twelve-card fit" [Law 68D: If the claim or > concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player > (dummy > included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies.] > > The Director arrives, and [Law 70B] > > requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time > of his claim; > > hears the opponents' objections to the claim. There will not be any of > these, but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the > opponents' objections, so the Director can presumably listen to dummy's > objections. > > It should be noted that in the foregoing, declarer did not say "I will > play > the queen, losing to the king", merely "I will lose to the king". If > declarer now says "well, of course I would play the ace and then the > queen", > should the Director award all the tricks? Would Herman's view and > Grattan's > view differ? > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Here, David, claimer has made no statement under Law 68C (to which he would be held if specifying an abnormal play). He has made a concession and we are in Law 71 not Law 70. The answer to your question lies in the interpretation of 'normal' in para 2 of Law 71. My view, previously stated, of what constitutes a 'normal' play is that a play is 'normal' if (a) it is legal, and (b) it does not defy* the structure of the pack. The concession you cite does not require an illegal play but that play would be abnormal nevertheless in this view.. So I would cancel the concession. [* David, ? 'disregard' - I am looking for 'le mot juste', what do you think?] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 17 15:03:31 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:03:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claims discussion - another try References: <49E83D9A.1080609@skynet.be> <001801c9bf51$b39ce570$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E86ECD.7060406@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004b01c9bf5f$ce2c7c30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims discussion - another try > Grattan a ?crit : >> >> +=+ You should not accept Herman's statements as to >> what my position is. >> What I have said is that a Law 68C statement of claim >> may properly include abnormal plays and the Director >> will follow them provided there is no irregularity. > AG : this is lawful, but uncomfortable for the mind, as it means that in > some cases you'd be better off to make an imprecise statement (when TDs > and ACs have to exclude abnormal plays). I suggest, for the next edition > of TFLB, to address this problem. > +=+ Personally I think claimer should be given total freedom to specify any legal line of play he chooses. I do not find this in the least uncomfortable. To the best of my belief neither do my committee colleagues. Refer to my reply to Matthias Berghaus. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 17 15:51:57 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:51:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? In-Reply-To: References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be> <001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <6B312918-22CA-4905-8683-9F9C2F298BBA@starpower.net> On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:38:56 -0400, Grattan > wrote: > >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> >>> Indeed, but when abnormal lines are included in the >>> claim statement, L70E kicks in. >> >> +=+ Wrong. Utterly wrong. Read the law. Law70 E >> only applies when claimer proposes an unstated line >> of play *"the success of which depends upon finding >> one opponent rather than the other with a particular >> card"*. >> Claimer will not have the opportunity to suggest >> any unstated line of play unless the original statement >> breaks down. > > L70B4: The stated claiming statement is followed until_______. I was > interpreting the law exactly as Grattan states here -- that it is > followed > until the original statement breaks down. > > However, this seems to be a small minority position, as the > majority of > BLMLers follow the claiming statment until it breaks down OR new > information comes to light to make the claiming statment irrational. > > So, the majority of BLMLers do not interpret L70D and L70E as applying > only when the claiming statement breaks down. I don't know if I speak for the majority, but I'd put it this way: We follow the claiming statement until it "breaks down". This occurs when either (a) following it would require a line of play which is impossible or illegal, or (b) an unlikely but "obvious" (as previously defined) occurence presents a choice of play not embraced in the original statement. I've been wrestling with this thread, and do not claim to have the answers. But I do have a bottom line, which is this: Declarer, with an AQ in dummy, states in his claim that he will start by playing "small to the queen" in this suit. His LHO, sitting in front of the AQ, produces the K, calls the director, and claims the trick, arguing that declarer has announced that he will play the Q and therefore must play it under the K. I reject as unreasonable any interpretation of L70 that requires me to grant this trick to claimer's LHO. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 17 16:21:25 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:21:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49E71239.5040008@skynet.be><000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <6B312918-22CA-4905-8683-9F9C2F298BBA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000a01c9bf67$ce6741a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? > > Declarer, with an AQ in dummy, states in his claim > that he will start by playing "small to the queen" in > this suit. His LHO, sitting in front of the AQ, produces > the K, calls the director, and claims the trick, arguing > that declarer has announced that he will play the Q > and therefore must play it under the K. I reject as > unreasonable any interpretation of L70 that requires > me to grant this trick to claimer's LHO. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > +=+ To help us think about this, would you please say how you regard the position when declarer leads the suit, calls for the Q, and then notices that LHO has played the King? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Fri Apr 17 17:35:41 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:35:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de><49E86636.4030000@skynet.be><000501c9bf51$4e2fc720$ea8f5560$@com> <002001c9bf59$f2bc21a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <358F174DF2DA41EB93CFAB24B827F516@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > " If you chase two hares one will escape." > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 12:40 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> [HdW] >> >> We are talking about an abnormal line being included in a claim >> statement. >> >> [DALB] >> >> I am trying to understand the arguments here, and the following seems to >> me >> a possible scenario. >> >> Declarer, with AQJ987 in dummy and 1065432 in hand, leads the two and, on >> seeing West show out, says "in that case I concede a trick to the king >> and >> have the rest of the tricks". Now, assuming that he really does have the >> rest of the tricks, this might occur: >> >> Dummy says "but you have a twelve-card fit" [Law 68D: If the claim or >> concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player >> (dummy >> included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies.] >> >> The Director arrives, and [Law 70B] >> >> requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the >> time >> of his claim; >> >> hears the opponents' objections to the claim. There will not be any of >> these, but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the >> opponents' objections, so the Director can presumably listen to dummy's >> objections. >> >> It should be noted that in the foregoing, declarer did not say "I will >> play >> the queen, losing to the king", merely "I will lose to the king". If >> declarer now says "well, of course I would play the ace and then the >> queen", >> should the Director award all the tricks? Would Herman's view and >> Grattan's >> view differ? >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> > +=+ Here, David, claimer has made no statement under Law 68C (to > which he would be held if specifying an abnormal play). He has made > a concession and we are in Law 71 not Law 70. The answer to your > question lies in the interpretation of 'normal' in para 2 of Law 71. > My view, previously stated, of what constitutes a 'normal' play is > that a play is 'normal' if (a) it is legal, and (b) it does not defy* the > structure of the pack. The concession you cite does not require an > illegal play but that play would be abnormal nevertheless in this view.. > So I would cancel the concession. > [* David, ? 'disregard' - I am looking for 'le mot juste', what do > you think?] I believe it is careless, not irrational, to play the Queen - after all in your mind there is Kx on your right and this is a doubtful point. John > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Apr 17 17:45:44 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:45:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <358F174DF2DA41EB93CFAB24B827F516@JOHN> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de><49E86636.4030000@skynet.be><000501c9bf51$4e2fc720$ea8f5560$@com> <002001c9bf59$f2bc21a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <358F174DF2DA41EB93CFAB24B827F516@JOHN> Message-ID: <001201c9bf73$925fdcb0$b71f9610$@com> [JP] I believe it is careless, not irrational, to play the Queen [with twelve cards missing the king] - after all in your mind there is Kx on your right and this is a doubtful point. [DALB] The trouble is that if one regards the play of the queen as careless, one would have to give a trick to the opponents of a declarer who made no statement at all. Or can it be that there is something in Herman's assertion that what is "normal" (that is, careless or inferior) for a declarer who thinks there are two cards missing is not "normal" for a declarer who knows that there is only one? - if indeed that is Herman's assertion; I confess to some difficulty in understanding exactly what it is that Herman asserts. David Burn London, England From john at asimere.com Fri Apr 17 17:55:26 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:55:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de><49E86636.4030000@skynet.be><000501c9bf51$4e2fc720$ea8f5560$@com> <002001c9bf59$f2bc21a0$0302a8c0@Mildred><358F174DF2DA41EB93CFAB24B827F516@JOHN> <001201c9bf73$925fdcb0$b71f9610$@com> Message-ID: <0628A17EC944476DBA1033D74BA9F135@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [JP] > > I believe it is careless, not irrational, to play the Queen [with twelve > cards missing the king] - after all in your mind there is Kx on your right > and this is a doubtful point. > > [DALB] > > The trouble is that if one regards the play of the queen as careless, one > would have to give a trick to the opponents of a declarer who made no > statement at all. Or can it be that there is something in Herman's > assertion > that what is "normal" (that is, careless or inferior) for a declarer who > thinks there are two cards missing is not "normal" for a declarer who > knows > that there is only one? - if indeed that is Herman's assertion; I confess > to > some difficulty in understanding exactly what it is that Herman asserts. Hmm, I think you rather foolishly created the doubt with your sloppy claim "losing to the king". A player who simply shows 12 cards in a suit is much more likely to know he has 12 of them. > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk at ripe.net Fri Apr 17 18:57:36 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:57:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: <200904171657.n3HGvarW006686@dog.ripe.net> (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From henk at ripe.net Fri Apr 17 19:14:20 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:14:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <200904171714.n3HHEKfC007203@dog.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for March 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 78 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 62 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 46 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 38 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 23 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 21 svenpran (at) online.no 21 ehaa (at) starpower.net 13 nigelguthrie (at) talktalk.net 12 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 11 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 9 john (at) asimere.com 7 lapinjatka (at) jldata.fi 7 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 6 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 6 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 6 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 4 swillner (at) nhcc.net 4 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 4 Gampas (at) aol.com 3 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 3 jrhind (at) therock.bm 2 mv.phaff (at) quicknet.nl 2 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 geller (at) nifty.com 2 blml (at) bridgescore.de 1 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 1 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 1 rbusch (at) ozemail.com.au 1 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 1 nbpfemu (at) bigpond.com 1 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 1 karel (at) esatclear.ie 1 jimfox00 (at) cox.net 1 bobpark (at) consolidated.net 1 bbickford (at) charter.net 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 1 adam (at) tameware.com 1 HauffHJ (at) aol.com From henk at rtflb.org Fri Apr 17 19:32:43 2009 From: henk at rtflb.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:32:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Check your address book Message-ID: <49E8BD3B.7040205@rtflb.org> Hi all, I still see people (trying) to post to the "blml at amsterdamned.org" mail address. This is (presumably) because people have put this address in their address book. This is an address on the old server. While it still works, the new address does not include all changes of address made since 1/4. I also no longer have access to admin interface on the old server, making it impossible for me to deal with problems related to those postings. So, please check your address book and only send mail to blml at rtflb.org Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)rtflb.org BLML Moderator http://www.rtflb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Apr 17 19:35:43 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:35:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49E86636.4030000@skynet.be> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de> <49E86636.4030000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E8BDEF.6030107@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>>>> Indeed, but when abnormal lines are included in the >>>>> claim statement, L70E kicks in. >>>>> >>>> +=+ Wrong. Utterly wrong. Read the law. Law70 E >>>> only applies when claimer proposes an unstated line >>>> of play *"the success of which depends upon finding >>>> one opponent rather than the other with a particular >>>> card"*. >>> Right, utterly right. >>> The claimer cannot fail to propose an alternative line, or there would >>> be no need for the director to be there. >> Huh? Since when does a TD call in a claim case depend on some alternate >> line proposed by declarer? Defenders object, TD is summoned. TD checks >> proposed line (if any), hears objections. No alternative has to be >> proposed. It often is, sure, but who cares? TD follows the original line >> for as long as it is legal, rationality be d.....d. >> > > Read the previous again. We are talking about an abnormal line being > included in a claim statement. When a TD call is made along those lines, > an alternative is bound to be turned up. > > And Mathias. Read L70E again. If the orginal line is (no: turns to be) > irrational, then the alternative can be accepted. So you d....d is, > quite simply, wrong. Speaking about pointing out errors... The original line may be as irrational as humanly imaginable, even conceding a trick to a queen in an eleven card fit, nobody cares, as long as it`s legal (and as long as declarer is not about to be rudely awakended by having LHO show out). No TD looks at how harebrained a claim statement is, only whether it`s legal and does not _obviously_ break down (David may even campaign for not even giving him that chance). Only when the claim statement breaks down, either by being illegal or by evidence which _cannot_ fail to shake declarer out of his misconception, only then are we concerned with "normal", "irrational" or whatever. So I read 70E. Declarer, having some misconception or other about the hand, has uttered a statement to the effect that he will play the ace, then finesse the guy over there for the queen. Unfortunately said guy shows out on the second round. Drat. Now we are indeed likely to hear some previously unstated line. But this is only because LHO has _proven_ beyond the shadow of a doubt that the finesse is going to lose. This is not the case with Qx missing and the claimer proposing to finesse. If LHO follows suit nothing has changed (or rather would have changed if the hand had been played out), so the TD lets him lose the finesse. Where is the problem? We do not enter 70E territory until something like this happens. As long as we remain in "straight" 68 territory irrationality is not a factor. Matthias > > I've stopped answering in this thread except to point people to obvious > errors in their posts. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From henk at rtflb.org Fri Apr 17 19:47:36 2009 From: henk at rtflb.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:47:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list Message-ID: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> Hi all, I finally found some time to fix the remaining issues with the new list: 1. The archives have been moved and are now visible from the website (yes, this list has a website at http://www.rtflb.org). 2. The access stats are also visible again, the one for March has just been produced. 3. The list of abbreviations (TLA's) will be sent around again monthly. 4. A reply-to has been added. 5. A few practical things that you don't want to know about have been done as well. All this has been checked from an independent location (the NWA lounge at IAD to be precise). This concludes the transition to the new server. Of course, if you see any remaining problems, let me know. That leaves one practical issue. The new server costs approximately 20 euro's/year. If you want to contribute towards the costs, then please transfer 10 euro cents, a US$ dime, 10 pence or something equivalent in your local currency to my paypal account henk at ripe.net. (Paypal is free for both sender and receiver, so nobody will be hit by bank costs). Of course, if nobody pays, then I won't loose any sleep over this either ;-) Should the balance hit 20 euro's, I promise to say stop. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)rtflb.org BLML Moderator http://www.rtflb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 17 20:04:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:04:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49E8BDEF.6030107@t-online.de> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be> <001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de> <49E86636.4030000@skynet.be> <49E8BDEF.6030107@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:35:43 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>>>>> Indeed, but when abnormal lines are included in the >>>>>> claim statement, L70E kicks in. >>>>>> >>>>> +=+ Wrong. Utterly wrong. Read the law. Law70 E >>>>> only applies when claimer proposes an unstated line >>>>> of play *"the success of which depends upon finding >>>>> one opponent rather than the other with a particular >>>>> card"*. >>>> Right, utterly right. >>>> The claimer cannot fail to propose an alternative line, or there would >>>> be no need for the director to be there. >>> Huh? Since when does a TD call in a claim case depend on some alternate >>> line proposed by declarer? Defenders object, TD is summoned. TD checks >>> proposed line (if any), hears objections. No alternative has to be >>> proposed. It often is, sure, but who cares? TD follows the original >>> line >>> for as long as it is legal, rationality be d.....d. >>> >> >> Read the previous again. We are talking about an abnormal line being >> included in a claim statement. When a TD call is made along those lines, >> an alternative is bound to be turned up. >> >> And Mathias. Read L70E again. If the orginal line is (no: turns to be) >> irrational, then the alternative can be accepted. So you d....d is, >> quite simply, wrong. > > Speaking about pointing out errors... > The original line may be as irrational as humanly imaginable, even > conceding a trick to a queen in an eleven card fit, nobody cares, as > long as it`s legal (and as long as declarer is not about to be rudely > awakended by having LHO show out). No TD looks at how harebrained a > claim statement is, only whether it`s legal and does not _obviously_ > break down (David may even campaign for not even giving him that > chance). Only when the claim statement breaks down, either by being > illegal or by evidence which _cannot_ fail to shake declarer out of his > misconception, only then are we concerned with "normal", "irrational" or > whatever. > > So I read 70E. Declarer, having some misconception or other about the > hand, has uttered a statement to the effect that he will play the ace, > then finesse the guy over there for the queen. Unfortunately said guy > shows out on the second round. Drat. Now we are indeed likely to hear > some previously unstated line. But this is only because LHO has _proven_ > beyond the shadow of a doubt that the finesse is going to lose. This is > not the case with Qx missing and the claimer proposing to finesse. If > LHO follows suit nothing has changed (or rather would have changed if > the hand had been played out), so the TD lets him lose the finesse. > > Where is the problem? > > We do not enter 70E territory until something like this happens. As long > as we remain in "straight" 68 territory irrationality is not a factor. > It's not a happy choice. You seem to be now going with the majority of BLMLers, which is that L70D and L70E do not kick in until the claim statement can't be followed or something unexpected happens. Grattan seems to be arguing that they don't kick in even if something unexpected happens, and you are implying that Herman is saying that they apply to the claim statement even if nothing unexpected happens. But, IMO, Herman and Grattan (if these are their positions) are being consistent, and there is nothing in L70D/E to support the distinction most BLMLer's including yourself want to make. Bob From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 17 22:50:09 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:50:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? In-Reply-To: <000a01c9bf67$ce6741a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49E71239.5040008@skynet.be><000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <6B312918-22CA-4905-8683-9F9C2F298BBA@starpower.net> <000a01c9bf67$ce6741a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Apr 17, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> Declarer, with an AQ in dummy, states in his claim >> that he will start by playing "small to the queen" in >> this suit. His LHO, sitting in front of the AQ, produces >> the K, calls the director, and claims the trick, arguing >> that declarer has announced that he will play the Q >> and therefore must play it under the K. I reject as >> unreasonable any interpretation of L70 that requires >> me to grant this trick to claimer's LHO. > > +=+ To help us think about this, would you please > say how you regard the position when declarer leads > the suit, calls for the Q, and then notices that LHO > has played the King? I think that if the king was on the table when declarer called for the queen, I may have to award the trick to the king. That is not, however, the non-claim analog of the scenario I am concerned about. Rather, consider the position when declarer leads the suit and, essentially simultaneously, calls "queen", *after which* LHO triumphantly produces the king and expects to be awarded the trick. As in the claim scenario, I reject any interpretation of law that requires me to award *this* trick to the king. I am hopeful that this thread will produce a sensible and acceptable such interpretation, from which I will be able to derive a firmer answer to Grattan's query. In the meantime, if I wanted to let declarer play the ace in Grattan's scenario, I might be hard-pressed to find any justification for doing so in TFLB, but as an ACBLer I could always cite the infamous "Oh, shit" precedent. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Apr 17 23:04:54 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:04:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> Message-ID: <49E8EEF6.3090006@aol.com> Hola Henk! As you surely well know I am a computer anti-talent. I also don't know what paypal is or how to access it. And sending 10 pence or centimes or whatever seems much trouble for such a small sum. But I don't want you to be out of pocket (nor, I assume, does anyone else in blml) so might a make a suggestion? I assume the other blmlers won't be such computer idiots (as I am) so: if, at the end of the year, you don't have the ?20, send me a private email detailing how much you are short and I'll send it to you. (I'm sure others would do the same.) D'accord? JE Henk Uijterwaal schrieb: > Hi all, > > I finally found some time to fix the remaining issues with the new list: > > 1. The archives have been moved and are now visible from the website > (yes, this list has a website at http://www.rtflb.org). > > 2. The access stats are also visible again, the one for March has just > been produced. > > 3. The list of abbreviations (TLA's) will be sent around again monthly. > > 4. A reply-to has been added. > > 5. A few practical things that you don't want to know about have been > done as well. > > All this has been checked from an independent location (the NWA lounge > at IAD to be precise). This concludes the transition to the new server. > Of course, if you see any remaining problems, let me know. > > That leaves one practical issue. The new server costs approximately > 20 euro's/year. If you want to contribute towards the costs, then > please transfer 10 euro cents, a US$ dime, 10 pence or something > equivalent in your local currency to my paypal account henk at ripe.net. > (Paypal is free for both sender and receiver, so nobody will be hit > by bank costs). Of course, if nobody pays, then I won't loose any > sleep over this either ;-) Should the balance hit 20 euro's, I > promise to say stop. > > Henk > From henk at rtflb.org Fri Apr 17 23:12:36 2009 From: henk at rtflb.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:12:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <49E8EEF6.3090006@aol.com> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> <49E8EEF6.3090006@aol.com> Message-ID: <49E8F0C4.406@rtflb.org> Jeff, others, Jeff Easterson wrote: > I also don't know what paypal is or how to access it. Paypal (www.paypal.com) is a site that allows you to send money from one user to another, without the hassle of international money transfers and such. Assuming that both sender and receier have an account, sending money becomes trivial: enter the email of the receiver and the amount, press send. And this works for 10 cents with no costs. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)rtflb.org BLML Moderator http://www.rtflb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Apr 17 23:21:39 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:21:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be> <001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de> <49E86636.4030000@skynet.be> <49E8BDEF.6030107@t-online.de> Message-ID: <49E8F2E3.3060508@t-online.de> Robert Frick schrieb: > It's not a happy choice. You seem to be now going with the majority of > BLMLers, which is that L70D and L70E do not kick in until the claim > statement can't be followed or something unexpected happens. No. L70D does not "kick in", it just tells us what the director is authorized to do nd what not. "Shall not accept", "does not accept", "may provide evidence", "may accept". There is no specific case where 70D may or may not apply, it is always "on". Neither does L70E kick in when something "unexpected" happens. If my finesse unexpectedly loses I am still bound to my claim statement if it can still be followed from here. This is not a 70E case. If an opponent I was going to finesse _shows out_ thereby demonstrating beyond the shadow of a doubt how the suit is distributed, then 70E kicks in if I now make a statement containing an (obviously) unstated line of play. > Grattan seems > to be arguing that they don't kick in even if something unexpected > happens, and you are implying that Herman is saying that they apply to the > claim statement even if nothing unexpected happens. > > But, IMO, Herman and Grattan (if these are their positions) are being > consistent, and there is nothing in L70D/E to support the distinction most > BLMLer's including yourself want to make. What distinction? Matthias > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Apr 17 23:26:12 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:26:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> Message-ID: <49E8F3F4.4060900@t-online.de> This is my chance (possibly the only one I will ever get) to have my opinion supported unanimously by all BLMLers! Thank you, Henk (and all who did it before you), for the work you do for us! Matthias From Gampas at aol.com Fri Apr 17 23:39:30 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:39:30 EDT Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles Message-ID: In a message dated 15/04/2009 15:20:04 GMT Standard Time, Hermandw at skynet.be writes: > Declarer (sheepishly): I will play out 12 winners and concede a spade at > trick 13. I then, perhaps 20 seconds later after the opponents seemed to > accept that, said, "Oh, I miscounted, sorry I have 13 tricks after all" > > I: (to declarer) Hmmm ... I am not sure about this. According to > Grattan, your proposal to concede a spade at trick 13 was a legal play, > and its rationality or normality does not come into it, and like the > quiz show, he thinks I have to accept your first answer. I personally > think you are allowed a Law 70E1 correction, but this does not appear to > be mainstream opinion. > I fail to see any difference. The player will play out his 12 winners, and then notice that rather than having a spade to give them, he has a 13th winner. [paul lamford] The difference is that the declarer stated he would concede a spade at trick 13, a legal play even though he has 13 top tricks. And we have already heard from Grattan that he will always allow a legal play (however abnormal) as part of a claim. Maybe I misunderstand him in that he really means that he will allow a Law 70D1 substitute statement up to the end of the correction period provided that the original statement was abnormal. But he does not seem to be saying that. He says [grattan] What I have said is that a Law 68C statement of claim may properly include abnormal plays and the Director will follow them provided there is no irregularity. References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de> <49E86636.4030000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49E8FCED.4010302@aol.com> It is a relief to read that Herman has stopped answering in this thread except "to point people to obvious errors in their posts". Unfortunately this seems to mean ("obvious error") any opinion disagreeing with Herman. So unless we all keep quiet the thread will go on forever. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>>>> Indeed, but when abnormal lines are included in the >>>>> claim statement, L70E kicks in. >>>>> >>>> +=+ Wrong. Utterly wrong. Read the law. Law70 E >>>> only applies when claimer proposes an unstated line >>>> of play *"the success of which depends upon finding >>>> one opponent rather than the other with a particular >>>> card"*. >>> Right, utterly right. >>> The claimer cannot fail to propose an alternative line, or there would >>> be no need for the director to be there. >> Huh? Since when does a TD call in a claim case depend on some alternate >> line proposed by declarer? Defenders object, TD is summoned. TD checks >> proposed line (if any), hears objections. No alternative has to be >> proposed. It often is, sure, but who cares? TD follows the original line >> for as long as it is legal, rationality be d.....d. >> > > Read the previous again. We are talking about an abnormal line being > included in a claim statement. When a TD call is made along those lines, > an alternative is bound to be turned up. > > And Mathias. Read L70E again. If the orginal line is (no: turns to be) > irrational, then the alternative can be accepted. So you d....d is, > quite simply, wrong. > > I've stopped answering in this thread except to point people to obvious > errors in their posts. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Apr 18 00:08:42 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:08:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01c9bf52$cb8f00e0$62ad02a0$@com> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de> <001901c9bf51$b3e6e6c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000e01c9bf52$cb8f00e0$62ad02a0$@com> Message-ID: <49E8FDEA.8030103@aol.com> What if losing to the king sets up an end play/throw in and thus gains an extra trick? Does the TD still rule that the ace would be played because dummy has disputed the claim? JE David Burn schrieb: > [GE] > > Law 70E only applies when an alternative line offered depends for its > success upon one opponent having a given card rather than the other > opponent. > > [DALB] > > It occurs to me that in the example I have just given (AQJ987 facing > 1065432), the alternative line offered depends for its success upon neither > of the opponents having the fourteenth card in the suit. Whether this falls > within the purview of Law 70E is left as an exercise for the reader. > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 18 00:12:00 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:12:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <49E8F0C4.406@rtflb.org> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> <49E8EEF6.3090006@aol.com> <49E8F0C4.406@rtflb.org> Message-ID: <000b01c9bfa9$87dc4db0$9794e910$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Henk > Uijterwaal > Sent: 17. april 2009 23:13 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list > > Jeff, others, > > > Jeff Easterson wrote: > > I also don't know what paypal is or how to access it. > > Paypal (www.paypal.com) is a site that allows you to send money from > one user to another, without the hassle of international money transfers > and such. > > Assuming that both sender and receier have an account, sending money > becomes trivial: enter the email of the receiver and the amount, press > send. And this works for 10 cents with no costs. > > Henk My "problem" is that I do not have any PayPal account, and for a serious reason (security: From time to time I receive suspicious email messages referring to my PayPal account) I do not want to establish one. This is the only occasion I have met a situation where this prevents me from making a payment that I gladly would contribute, and I do not know what to do about it? Regards Sven From tedying at yahoo.com Sat Apr 18 00:18:55 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:18:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <000b01c9bfa9$87dc4db0$9794e910$@no> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> <49E8EEF6.3090006@aol.com> <49E8F0C4.406@rtflb.org> <000b01c9bfa9$87dc4db0$9794e910$@no> Message-ID: <955910.75579.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> A suggestion. Do you know anyone around you who has a paypal account that could make the payment for you and you just give them a dime (or appropriate amount in your local currency)? Even those who don't use PayPal may have friends, acquaintances, or family members who do have an account. -Ted Ying. ________________________________ From: Sven Pran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 6:12:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Henk > Uijterwaal > Sent: 17. april 2009 23:13 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list > > Jeff, others, > > > Jeff Easterson wrote: > > I also don't know what paypal is or how to access it. > > Paypal (www.paypal.com) is a site that allows you to send money from > one user to another, without the hassle of international money transfers > and such. > > Assuming that both sender and receier have an account, sending money > becomes trivial: enter the email of the receiver and the amount, press > send. And this works for 10 cents with no costs. > > Henk My "problem" is that I do not have any PayPal account, and for a serious reason (security: From time to time I receive suspicious email messages referring to my PayPal account) I do not want to establish one. This is the only occasion I have met a situation where this prevents me from making a payment that I gladly would contribute, and I do not know what to do about it? Regards Sven _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090417/371fe46e/attachment.html From tedying at yahoo.com Sat Apr 18 00:28:15 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] [Blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <49DC0DF2.60306@verizon.net> References: <969502.18056.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <49DC0DF2.60306@verizon.net> Message-ID: <901777.84453.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> A belated thanks to those who responded. I had to travel out of town and then had to relocate my office due to recarpeting going on in my building. I'm finally starting to catch up on some of the extracurricular activities (such as BLML) that have collected over the last week. While I understand the sentiment, I had two issues that gave me pause. First, if there was a hesitation did it unduly suggest that double was a safer call? Not knowing what partner was hesitating about, does the double not seem to be a "protect" bid to ensure that whatever partner was thinking about, he could correct to that? With 4 trumps, was 5H a reasonable option and was double suggested by the hesitation as a safer bid? Second, there was a significant discussion with the director being called and attention being called to the disputed BIT. Enough attention was called to the dispute that I question East "running" when holding an side A and knowing that West may have been protecting in this situation and possibly not have a real penalty oriented hand. My ruling at the table was to allow West to double but to bar East from bidding 5C and I adjusted the score to 4S-X making 4 on the hand. On appeal, the committee had a hard time and took quite a while, but ultimately restored the table result. -Ted. ________________________________ From: Hirsch Davis To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2009 10:37:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] [Blml] How do you rule? Hi Ted, I believe that Hans and Matthias have the ruling correct. W may or may not have UI from the stop card, but it turns out to be irrelevant. With a partner who opened, and looking at an opening bid himself, W cannot pass. Since all of his values are defensive, including two aces, double is the only logical alternative. The 5C call is curious, perhaps looking for a potential better fit that hearts, but the preference back to hearts is normal. The UI only becomes an issue if there is more than one logical alternative for W. Then you'd have to determine if the UI suggests on LA over another. I'm a bit curious why anyone would consider a delay after N pulled back the stop card a problem, unless the lag was significantly longer than reported. The purpose of the stop card is to ask E to break tempo whether or not it is necessary. E did so (and E should not necessarily call the instant that N pulls back the stop card, as this could be interpreted as a "fast" call). The regulation worked, more or less. No infraction. No adjustment. Hirsch Ted Ying wrote: I had been having problems with the old list for some time, but thanks to Henk, I'm not back on the BLML list. Note that if anyone prefers to see the hand in normal hand record form, the hand record is on-line at: http://www.districtsix.org/WBL/Results/2009_games/0402/Hands.pdf Board 13 Both Vul Dealer North N S-AT763, H-9, D-K98, C-K842 W E S-Q4, H-JT84, D-AJ762, C-A7 S-2, H-AQ762, D-T4, C-QJ963 S S-KJ985, H-K53, D-Q53, C-T5 N E S W P 1H 1S 2S 4S P(1) P X P 5C P 5H PP (1) N said that she put the STOP card down, waited 10 seconds and then E still paused for a time before the STOP card came up. S agreed that the BIT was significant. E/W contend that she waited about 5 seconds, picked it up and then E waited appropriately and then passed. Table result 5H, -2, E/W +200 So, I'm curious how BLML would rule in this case. -Ted Ying. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.orghttp://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090417/fa3bb120/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 18 00:30:43 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:30:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <955910.75579.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> <49E8EEF6.3090006@aol.com> <49E8F0C4.406@rtflb.org> <000b01c9bfa9$87dc4db0$9794e910$@no> <955910.75579.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001201c9bfac$25b55250$711ff6f0$@no> Good idea, but sorry: No I don?t know any. Regards Sven From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ted Ying Sent: 18. april 2009 00:19 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list A suggestion.? Do you know anyone around you who has a paypal account that could make the payment for you and you just give them a dime (or appropriate amount in your local currency)?? Even those who don't use PayPal may have friends, acquaintances, or family members who do have an account. -Ted Ying. ________________________________________ From: Sven Pran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 6:12:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Henk > Uijterwaal > Sent: 17. april 2009 23:13 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list > > Jeff, others, > > > Jeff Easterson wrote: > >? I also don't know what paypal is or how to access it. > > Paypal (www.paypal.com) is a site that allows you to send money from > one user to another, without the hassle of international money transfers > and such. > > Assuming that both sender and receier have an account, sending money > becomes trivial: enter the email of the receiver and the amount, press > send.? And this works for 10 cents with no costs. > > Henk My "problem" is that I do not have any PayPal account, and for a serious reason (security: From time to time I receive suspicious email messages referring to my PayPal account) I do not want to establish one. This is the only occasion I have met a situation where this prevents me from making a payment that I gladly would contribute, and I do not know what to do about it? Regards Sven _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 18 01:54:42 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:54:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de><49E86636.4030000@skynet.be> <49E8BDEF.6030107@t-online.de> Message-ID: <003901c9bfbd$ed257930$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> > So I read 70E. Declarer, having some misconception or other about the > hand, has uttered a statement to the effect that he will play the ace, > then finesse the guy over there for the queen. Unfortunately said guy > shows out on the second round. Drat. Now we are indeed likely to hear > some previously unstated line. But this is only because LHO has _proven_ > beyond the shadow of a doubt that the finesse is going to lose. This is > not the case with Qx missing and the claimer proposing to finesse. If > LHO follows suit nothing has changed (or rather would have changed if > the hand had been played out), so the TD lets him lose the finesse. > > Where is the problem? > > We do not enter 70E territory until something like this happens. As long > as we remain in "straight" 68 territory irrationality is not a factor. > > Matthias > +=+ We do not enter 70E territory at all. It is not a situation where claimer is seeking to adopt a line whose success depends on finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 18 02:37:54 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 01:37:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de><49E86636.4030000@skynet.be> <49E8FCED.4010302@aol.com> Message-ID: <003a01c9bfbd$ed6f7a80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > It is a relief to read that Herman has stopped answering > in this thread except "to point people to obvious errors > in their posts". > Unfortunately this seems to mean ("obvious error") any > opinion disagreeing with Herman. So unless we all keep > quiet the thread will go on forever. JE > +=+ One thing that persists is reference to 70E in cases which do not involve proposed plays that depend for their success on finding one opponent rather than the other with a specified card. But that is the only situation in which the Director refers to Law 70E. Those who wish to argue other cases should refer to 70D. It will be observed that for a while now I have given up direct replies to emails initiated by HDW. I am finally persuaded his disease as incurable. There are those who are uncomfortable with the thought that if the line of the original statement of claim, warts and all, can be followed to a result without encountering any irregularity the ruling is made on that line of play alone. The Director is ruling on the line of play embraced in the Law 68C statement. That is the claim. He does not concern himself with alternatives if there is no irregularity embraced in the original clarification statement and it provides a whole scenario to the end of the play. It can be as irrational a line as claimer chooses; that is his prerogative: irrationality is not infractive. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 18 02:59:19 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 01:59:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de> <001901c9bf51$b3e6e6c0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000e01c9bf52$cb8f00e0$62ad02a0$@com> <49E8FDEA.8030103@aol.com> Message-ID: <00a301c9bfc0$ea4b01a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> It occurs to me that in the example I have just given (AQJ987 >> facing 1065432), the alternative line offered depends for its >> success upon neither of the opponents having the fourteenth >> card in the suit. >> Whether this falls within the purview of Law 70E is left as an >> exercise for the reader. >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> +=+ Claimer has made no statement under Law 68C (to which he would be held if specifying an abnormal play). He has made a concession and we are in Law 71 not Law 70. The answer lies in the interpretation of 'normal' in para 2 of Law 71. My view, previously stated, of what constitutes a 'normal' play is that a play is 'normal' if (a) it is legal, and (b) it does not defy (or fly in the face of) the structure of the pack. The concession you cite does not require an illegal play but the play would be abnormal nevertheless in this interpretation. . Re Law 70E see my parallel posts. Someone who failed to read this law carefully started this hare running. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Sat Apr 18 11:06:00 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 05:06:00 EDT Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 18/04/2009 01:38:41 GMT Standard Time, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: +=+ There are those who are uncomfortable with the thought that if the line of the original statement of claim, warts and all, can be followed to a result without encountering any irregularity the ruling is made on that line of play alone. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am not uncomfortable with the thought that the original statement of claim should take precedence even if it is not normal, provided the Laws state that or an intention to correct them to state that is indicated by the WBFLC, with an interim statement to clarify the situation. In the play period before the claim, we all make abnormal decisions, and are generally bound by them. And I am equally happy that 72D1 and 71E1 should only be applied when the original claim statement is ambiguous or illegal. But that is not what the Laws say. Let us rewrite them with the implied converse: [72] D. Director?s Considerations 1. The Director will accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is no alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. E. Unstated Line of Play 1. The Director will accept from claimer any unstated line of play other than one where its success depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card. He will also accept a line whose success depends on finding the opponent with a particular card if the opponent has failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational. For a TD to not consider a subsequent new line of play, such as a new statement that declarer with 12 cards in the suit will now play for the drop rather than finesse the queen, he needs to be satisfied of one or more of these conditions: a) That 72D and 72E do not mean what they say above, in that the claimer is not able to substitute a new line of play for a previously stated abnormal line of play. The "I must take your first answer" brigade, which seems to include Grattan, adopts this way of thinking. b) That to finesse the queen is a "normal" line of play. There is a group, well maybe an individual, that seems to think that anything which is stated as part of a claim is always normal to the player at the time. c) That it is correct to make a different ruling for someone who is silent and for someone who makes a statement which incorporates abnormal play. Now, I have no problem with the WBFLC deciding that the application of Law will be, primarily, that the wording of the claim takes priority and 72D and 72E only apply if the original claim is illegal. But that is not what they say. From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 18 12:07:45 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:07:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000d01c9c00d$85189b60$8f49d220$@no> On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com ............... > But that is not what the Laws say. > Let us rewrite them with the implied converse: Sorry Gampas, your logic is seriously flawed: When the laws state that the Director "must not" make a particular decision if a certain condition is true they do not imply that he shall make this decision when that same condition is false. The logical complement to "must not" is "may", not "must". Regards Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Apr 18 13:05:30 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:05:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Bay_sick_clay_Ming_Prince_e-pulls=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49E71239.5040008@skynet.be><000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <6B312918-22CA-4905-8683-9F9C2F298BBA@starpower.net> <000a01c9bf67$ce6741a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <1Lv8MU-1UPX280@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> From: Eric Landau > On Apr 17, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Grattan wrote: > > > From: "Eric Landau" > > > > > Declarer, with an AQ in dummy, states in his claim > > > that he will start by playing "small to the queen" in > > > this suit. ?His LHO, sitting in front of the AQ, produces > > > the K, calls the director, and claims the trick, arguing > > > that declarer has announced that he will play the Q > > > and therefore must play it under the K. ?I reject as > > > unreasonable any ?interpretation of L70 that requires > > > me to grant this trick to claimer's LHO. > > > > +=+ To help us think about this, would you please > > say how you regard the position when declarer leads > > the suit, calls for the Q, and then notices that LHO > > has played the King? > > I think that if the king was on the table when declarer called for the > queen, I may have to award the trick to the king. ?That is not, > however, the non-claim analog of the scenario I am concerned about. > Rather, consider the position when declarer leads the suit and, > essentially simultaneously, calls "queen", *after which* LHO > triumphantly produces the king and expects to be awarded the trick. (Inofficial) Commentary to the 2007 edition of the Laws by Ton Kooijman: "Law 45 The word ?designat-es/ion? in C4 is used to distinguish the play of a card as described in A and B (second sentence) from playing it in another way. A card manually played by declarer from dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced if it is a legal card. Only in the case of a card played in another way, by naming it for example, it is possible to change it. This law states that such designation needs to be unintended and that the player already knew which card he wanted to play, at that moment. Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not have already put a card in the played position." This interpretation definitely means that the King will win the trick in your scenario. > As in the claim scenario, I reject any interpretation of law that > requires me to award *this* trick to the king. ?I am hopeful that this > thread will produce a sensible and acceptable such > interpretation, from which I will be able to derive a firmer answer to > Grattan's query. > > In the meantime, if I wanted to let declarer play the ace in > Grattan's scenario, I might be hard-pressed to find any justification > for doing so in TFLB, but as an ACBLer I could always cite the > infamous "Oh, shit" precedent. From Gampas at aol.com Sat Apr 18 13:33:58 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:33:58 EDT Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 18/04/2009 11:08:07 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: Sorry Gampas, your logic is seriously flawed: When the laws state that the Director "must not" make a particular decision if a certain condition is true they do not imply that he shall make this decision when that same condition is false. The logical complement to "must not" is "may", not "must". Regards Sven [paul lamford] Sorry Sven, one of the Norwegian translation, your English, your eyesight or your logic is seriously flawed. Both 70D1 and 70E1 use the expression "shall not", the logical complement of which is "shall". If you think the logical complement of it is "may", then there will be a set which does not fall within "shall" and "shall not" where the director can choose whether to accept the successful line of play or not. But the rest of the clause indicates whether he shall or shall not, so that is illogical. The logical complement of "may not" is "may". I submit that there are only two sets, that in which the director shall accept the successful unstated line and that in which he shall not. Note that 70D3 use the expression "may accept" implying that in this case the director uses judgement as to whether any play after the claim "may" be considered. From Gampas at aol.com Sat Apr 18 13:43:30 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:43:30 EDT Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 18/04/2009 01:38:41 GMT Standard Time, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: +=+ There are those who are uncomfortable with the thought that if the line of the original statement of claim, warts and all, can be followed to a result without encountering any irregularity the ruling is made on that line of play alone. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [paul lamford] I am not uncomfortable with the thought that the original statement of claim should take precedence even if it is not normal, provided the Laws state that or an intention to correct them to state that is indicated by the WBFLC, with an interim statement to clarify the situation. In the play period before the claim, we all make abnormal decisions, and are generally bound by them. And I am equally happy that 70D1 and 70E1 should only be applied when the original claim statement is ambiguous or illegal. But that is not what the Laws say. Let us rewrite them with the implied converse: [70] D. Director?s Considerations 1. The Director shall accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is no alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. E. Unstated Line of Play 1. The Director shall accept from claimer any unstated line of play other than one where its success depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card. He shall also accept a line whose success depends on finding the opponent with a particular card if the opponent has failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational. For a TD not to consider a subsequent new line of play, such as a new statement that declarer with 12 cards in the suit will now play for the drop rather than finesse the queen, he needs to be satisfied of one or more of these conditions: a) That 70D and 70E do not mean what they say above, in that the claimer is not able to substitute a new line of play for a previously stated abnormal line of play. The "I must take your first answer" brigade, which seems to include Grattan, adopts this way of thinking. b) That to finesse the queen is a "normal" line of play. There is a group, well maybe an individual, that seems to think that anything which is stated as part of a claim is always normal to the player at the time. c) That it is correct to make a different ruling for someone who is silent and for someone who makes a statement which incorporates abnormal play. Now, I have no problem with the WBFLC deciding that the application of Law will be, primarily, that the wording of the claim takes priority and 70D and 70E only apply if the original claim is illegal. But that is not what they say. The above is a corrected version with the right law numbers From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 18 15:56:38 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:56:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c9c02d$7f2d5b30$7d881190$@no> On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com ............. > Sorry Sven, one of the Norwegian translation, your English, your eyesight > or your logic is seriously flawed. 1: When posting on this list I always use the official WBFLC law text unless I specifically states otherwise. 2: My logic is based upon application of Boole's algebra which is the mathematical implantation of logical structures etc. 3. I am probably not the right person to judge my English or my eyesight, but the comments I receive on either are generally very positive. When a statement in the laws requires or forbids a particular action by the Director in a specified situation and on a specified condition that statement applies exclusively to the given situation and on the specified condition. When the Director finds that the situation is different from the specified or that the specified condition is not satisfied then he is free to rule according to his own judgment, but of course subject to other relevant statements in the laws. > Both 70D1 and 70E1 use the expression "shall not", the logical complement > of which is "shall". If you think the logical complement of it is "may", > then there will be a set which does not fall within "shall" and "shall not" > where the director can choose whether to accept the successful line of play > or not. But the rest of the clause indicates whether he shall or shall not, > so that is illogical. The logical complement of "may not" is "may". > > I submit that there are only two sets, that in which the director shall > accept the successful unstated line and that in which he shall not. > > Note that 70D3 use the expression "may accept" implying that in this case > the director uses judgement as to whether any play after the claim "may" be > considered. Law 70D3 applies only in the irregular case when play did not cease with the claim. So according to your own statement you submit that the Director shall NEVER use judgment when ruling on contested claims except when Law 70D3 applies? I shall suppress my comment. Regards Sven From blml at arcor.de Sat Apr 18 18:20:37 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (blml at arcor.de) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:20:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c9c00d$85189b60$8f49d220$@no> References: <000d01c9c00d$85189b60$8f49d220$@no> Message-ID: <23598943.1240071637619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > ............... > > But that is not what the Laws say. > > Let us rewrite them with the implied converse: > > Sorry Gampas, your logic is seriously flawed: > > When the laws state that the Director "must not" make a particular decision > if a certain condition is true they do not imply that he shall make this > decision when that same condition is false. The logical complement to "must > not" is "may", not "must". You are making a misleading linguistical point, Sven. When the laws state that the director "must not" make a particular decision if a certain condition is true, this is no statement whatsoever about what happens if that same condition is false. "When it is midnight at the equator, the sun is not shining there". >From that sentence, one cannot conclude whether the sun is shining at 6 pm, at 8 am, or at noon. "A implies B" implies "if B is false, then A must be false, too". That is, "if a director who correctly interpreted the law did make that particular decision, then that certain condition was false". Or, in my example, "if the sun is shining at the equator, it is not midnight there" Thomas Zerrei?en Sie die Netze der Phisher, Hacker und Betr?ger! Ihre Internet-Sicherheits-Seiten auf Arcor.de bieten alle Infos und Hilfsmittel, die Sie zum sicheren Surfen brauchen! Play it safe! http://www.arcor.de/footer-sicherheit/ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 18 18:58:51 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:58:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c9c00d$85189b60$8f49d220$@no> References: <000d01c9c00d$85189b60$8f49d220$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:07:45 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > ............... >> But that is not what the Laws say. >> Let us rewrite them with the implied converse: > > Sorry Gampas, your logic is seriously flawed: > > When the laws state that the Director "must not" make a particular > decision if a certain condition is true they do not imply that he shall > make this decision when that same condition is false. The logical > complement to "must not" is "may", not "must". > Regards Sven It seems to be well-accepted that logic does not capture the "rules" for making inferences in normal conversation. (See Gricean for a keyword.) In this case, what is the director supposed to use for judgment? Whether or not he likes the people? The collective wisdom of a flipped coin? So declarer suggests an unstated line of play. There is no alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. I see no good interpretation except that the director accepts the unstated line of play (assuming L70D or L70E applies). Equity? Is there anything in the laws saying the director should try to make equitable rulings? I would like that. Bob From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 18 19:10:33 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:10:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <23598943.1240071637619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <000d01c9c00d$85189b60$8f49d220$@no> <23598943.1240071637619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <000101c9c048$95c62960$c1527c20$@no> On Behalf Of blml at arcor.de > Sven Pran wrote: > > ............... > > When the laws state that the Director "must not" make a particular decision > > if a certain condition is true they do not imply that he shall make this > > decision when that same condition is false. The logical complement to "must > > not" is "may", not "must". > > You are making a misleading linguistical point, Sven. Please elaborate, I am most interested. > > When the laws state that the director "must not" make a particular > decision if a certain condition is true, this is no statement whatsoever > about what happens if that same condition is false. Isn't that precisely what I wrote? > > "When it is midnight at the equator, the sun is not shining there". > >From that sentence, one cannot conclude whether the sun is shining > at 6 pm, at 8 am, or at noon. Agreed. > > "A implies B" implies "if B is false, then A must be false, too". Again exactly what I wrote isn't it? (When B is true then A can be either true or false.). > That is, "if a director who correctly interpreted the law did make > that particular decision, then that certain condition was false". > Or, in my example, "if the sun is shining at the equator, it is not midnight there" I don't see any inconsistency between you and me? Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 18 19:21:31 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:21:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c9c00d$85189b60$8f49d220$@no> Message-ID: <000201c9c04a$1dc2ac20$59480460$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick .............. > So declarer suggests an unstated line of play. There is no alternative > normal line of play that would be less successful. I see no good > interpretation except that the director accepts the unstated line of play > (assuming L70D or L70E applies). > > Equity? Is there anything in the laws saying the director should try to > make equitable rulings? I would like that. I don't see the point. The interpretation of L70 is in my honest opinion crystal clear: If there is no alternative "normal" line of play that would be less successful for the claimer then Law 70 clearly states that this line of play is to be used when ruling on a contested claim. But observe that the original claim statement shall always be considered "normal" to the extent that it specifies legal play. Equity is served when the Director protects against claimer changing his specified line of play to something more successful for him, possibly as a result of the fact that his claim was contested. Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 18 20:27:45 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:27:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201c9bf73$925fdcb0$b71f9610$@com> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de><49E86636.4030000@skynet.be><000501c9bf51$4e2fc720$ea8f5560$@com> <002001c9bf59$f2bc21a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <358F174DF2DA41EB93CFAB24B827F516@JOHN> <001201c9bf73$925fdcb0$b71f9610$@com> Message-ID: <49EA1BA1.3010902@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [JP] > > I believe it is careless, not irrational, to play the Queen [with twelve > cards missing the king] - after all in your mind there is Kx on your right > and this is a doubtful point. > > [DALB] > > The trouble is that if one regards the play of the queen as careless, one > would have to give a trick to the opponents of a declarer who made no > statement at all. Or can it be that there is something in Herman's assertion > that what is "normal" (that is, careless or inferior) for a declarer who > thinks there are two cards missing is not "normal" for a declarer who knows > that there is only one? - if indeed that is Herman's assertion; I confess to > some difficulty in understanding exactly what it is that Herman asserts. > > David Burn > London, England > You have understood perfectly my assertions, David. I am amazed to see that Grattan can cancel the concession. I would imagine he is in a minority. I would like te ask Grattan how he deals with the next example: A claimer, thinking an opponent has the highest club, concedes saying "I give you one club". When he notices the club is not high, he asks for his concession to be cancelled since it is clearly irrational to play the 2 from 97652 when the only club out is the 8. I am amazed that this is even up for discussion. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 18 20:30:53 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:30:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901c9bf51$b3e6e6c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be><001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49E82BB5.5000708@skynet.be> <49E853CA.1040405@t-online.de> <001901c9bf51$b3e6e6c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49EA1C5D.5040205@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: >> > +=+ You are absolutely right, Matthias. If the Director can > follow claimer's line and it gives what claimer has claimed > he overrules the objections. Sadly Herman simply does > not fully understand English - not the English in the laws, > not mine. So he becomes fixated upon his own obsessive > assertions. I do not like this sentence. > And despite Herman's misreading and distortion of it > Law 70E only applies when an alternative line offered > depends for its success upon one opponent having a > given card rather than the other opponent. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 18 21:37:32 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:37:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c9c04a$1dc2ac20$59480460$@no> References: <000d01c9c00d$85189b60$8f49d220$@no> <000201c9c04a$1dc2ac20$59480460$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:21:31 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > .............. >> So declarer suggests an unstated line of play. There is no alternative >> normal line of play that would be less successful. I see no good >> interpretation except that the director accepts the unstated line of >> play >> (assuming L70D or L70E applies). >> >> Equity? Is there anything in the laws saying the director should try to >> make equitable rulings? I would like that. > > I don't see the point. The interpretation of L70 is in my honest opinion > crystal clear: > > If there is no alternative "normal" line of play that would be less > successful for the claimer then Law 70 clearly states that this line of > play > is to be used when ruling on a contested claim. But observe that the > original claim statement shall always be considered "normal" to the > extent > that it specifies legal play. That is of course what (only) Grattan said. He did not specify if he was speaking for himself or the World Bridge Federation Law Committee. It is Grattanesque to call those plays normal even though they aren't. It is much easier to say that the claiming statement is followed until _______ and L70D and L70E do not apply until that event occurs. I would have read the laws the same way as you. But given that the majority of people will let declarer propose a new line of play when some event during the play would make the proposed claim irrational, I would not call it crystal clear that our interpretation is correct. > > Equity is served when the Director protects against claimer changing his > specified line of play to something more successful for him, possibly as > a > result of the fact that his claim was contested. Right. If this is what happens. Is there anything in the laws to say the the director is supposed to achieve equity? I thought he was supposed to follow the rules and then just hope that led to equity instead of something absurd or defying moral common sense. From john at asimere.com Sat Apr 18 22:23:57 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:23:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> <49E8F3F4.4060900@t-online.de> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list > This is my chance (possibly the only one I will ever get) to have my > opinion supported unanimously by all BLMLers! England 5; Germany 0 John > > Thank you, Henk (and all who did it before you), for the work you do for > us! > > > Matthias > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 18 22:24:43 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:24:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? In-Reply-To: <6B312918-22CA-4905-8683-9F9C2F298BBA@starpower.net> References: <002301c9be6e$fe64aae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E6F92C.2040508@skynet.be> <001d01c9be7e$29d288f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49E71239.5040008@skynet.be> <000a01c9bedb$cadc99e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <6B312918-22CA-4905-8683-9F9C2F298BBA@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:51:57 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:38:56 -0400, Grattan >> wrote: >> >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> >>>> Indeed, but when abnormal lines are included in the >>>> claim statement, L70E kicks in. >>> >>> +=+ Wrong. Utterly wrong. Read the law. Law70 E >>> only applies when claimer proposes an unstated line >>> of play *"the success of which depends upon finding >>> one opponent rather than the other with a particular >>> card"*. >>> Claimer will not have the opportunity to suggest >>> any unstated line of play unless the original statement >>> breaks down. >> >> L70B4: The stated claiming statement is followed until_______. I was >> interpreting the law exactly as Grattan states here -- that it is >> followed >> until the original statement breaks down. >> >> However, this seems to be a small minority position, as the >> majority of >> BLMLers follow the claiming statment until it breaks down OR new >> information comes to light to make the claiming statment irrational. >> >> So, the majority of BLMLers do not interpret L70D and L70E as applying >> only when the claiming statement breaks down. > > I don't know if I speak for the majority, but I'd put it this way: > > We follow the claiming statement until it "breaks down". This occurs > when either (a) following it would require a line of play which is > impossible or illegal, or (b) an unlikely but "obvious" (as > previously defined) occurence presents a choice of play not embraced > in the original statement. > > I've been wrestling with this thread, and do not claim to have the > answers. But I do have a bottom line, which is this: > > Declarer, with an AQ in dummy, states in his claim that he will start > by playing "small to the queen" in this suit. His LHO, sitting in > front of the AQ, produces the K, calls the director, and claims the > trick, arguing that declarer has announced that he will play the Q > and therefore must play it under the K. I reject as unreasonable any > interpretation of L70 that requires me to grant this trick to > claimer's LHO. I like this point; I am sorry it took me so long to appreciate it. A claim saying "finessing hearts" is fine, of course. If declarer says "leading to the AQ and playing the Q, I am very comfortable with calling that a poorly expressed intention to take the heart finesse. But in the case of Axx opposite KQJ9x, if declarer says "winning the ace, small the king, and then running the suit", I don't like accepting that as a poorly expressed intention to "play the suit correctly". That's because I won't accept "playing the suit correctly" as part of a claim statement. So I see the two situations as different. I don't think I have to get to L70D to let the declarer play the ace on the king. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 19 11:05:19 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:05:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> <49E8F3F4.4060900@t-online.de> Message-ID: <49EAE94F.80002@skynet.be> I vote this the most xenophobe post yet on the blml list! John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > England 5; Germany 0 > There is one good thing about it though - he's stopped ranting about 1966! Herman. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Apr 19 20:07:55 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:07:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <49EAE94F.80002@skynet.be> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> <49E8F3F4.4060900@t-online.de> <49EAE94F.80002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49EB687B.1010105@aol.com> I must be quite dense. I understood neither the first posting (Probst): (why 5?) nor Herman's. (I do understand that it is an attempt at humour, at least I hope it is.) Can someone help me with explanations? Do not forget to take account of my obvious lack of acuity. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > I vote this the most xenophobe post yet on the blml list! > > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> England 5; Germany 0 >> > > There is one good thing about it though - he's stopped ranting about 1966! > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Apr 19 20:09:12 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:09:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <49EAE94F.80002@skynet.be> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> <49E8F3F4.4060900@t-online.de> <49EAE94F.80002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49EB68C8.4030507@aol.com> Addendum: Did he ever rave about 1966? I must have missed it. And why would that bother a Belgian, or for that matter anyone not German? JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > I vote this the most xenophobe post yet on the blml list! > > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> England 5; Germany 0 >> > > There is one good thing about it though - he's stopped ranting about 1966! > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 20 06:39:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:39:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >>A recent Hills posting contained 20 blank lines (the first I have >>understood without recourse to dictionary). Similar postings >>would remove a lot of blml disagreement, >> >>Cheers, >> >>Tony (Sydney) Will Cuppy (1884-1949) The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody: "Most of the Elizabethans were armourers, pewterers, cofferers, girdlers, fellmongers, and stringers. The others were whifflers and underskinkers." Richard Hills: The Fabulous Law Book does not use words such as "underskinkers", so in theory one does not need recourse to a dictionary to interpret TFLB, since TFLB uses simple words which everyone understands. :-) However..... TFLB then uses those simple words in whiffling ways. Law 16B chooses to define "logical" alternatives as including idiosyncratically "illogical" actions. The claim Laws footnote extends the dictionary definition of "normal" plays to include "abnormally" careless or inferior plays. The dictionary definition of "irrational" means "not rational", but Aristotelian ratiocination about the structure of the pack reveals that the only rational way to play this canonical suit combination Dummy Declarer KQT9 A8765 is to cash a monarch first. Perhaps when The Fabulous Law Makers wrote the word "irrational" in Law 70E1 they meant to write "very irrational", but "very irrational" is as meaningless as "slightly pregnant". And TFLB's contextual definition of "equity" means a ruling which is "equitable" for the particular table the Director is rectifying; but the ruling may be "inequitable" for the overall field of contestants. Robert Frick asked: [snip] >Equity? Is there anything in the laws saying the director should try >to make equitable rulings? I would like that. Law 84D - Rulings on Agreed Facts - Director's Option: "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12)." Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 20 08:42:43 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:42:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Committee of Honour [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: For exceptional service to the Australian Bridge Federation, the ABF used to award "Life Membership". But in recent years the ABF noticed that many of its "Life" Members were deceased, so rectified the anomaly by changing the title of this award for exceptional service to "Committee of Honour". Matthias Berghaus: >This is my chance (possibly the only one I will ever get) to have my >opinion supported unanimously by all BLMLers! > >Thank you, Henk (and all who did it before you), for the work you do >for us! > > >Matthias Yes, my nominations for Blml Committee of Honour would include: Markus Buchhorn, Blml Administrator 1996-2002 Henk Uijterwaal, Blml Administrator 2002- David Stevenson, Blml Primus Inter Pares 1996-2005 Note that Henk's move to a new server has meant that the long lost archives from 1996 to 2002 are again available for perusal by all. My suggestion is that the Blml Committee of Honour should not include posters who are currently very active on Blml. Otherwise I would consider the exceptional service from Herman De Wael and Grattan Endicott to earn them automatic nominations. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 20 09:21:03 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:21:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <49EB68C8.4030507@aol.com> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> <49E8F3F4.4060900@t-online.de> <49EAE94F.80002@skynet.be> <49EB68C8.4030507@aol.com> Message-ID: <49EC225F.9020107@skynet.be> Jeff, the references are to football (soccer to the American, calcio to the Italian, Fussball to the German in you). 5-0 was a famous result that England once scored against Germany. It has become a chant for Englishmen against Germans, replacing "1966", which reference must be obvious now. Herman. Jeff Easterson wrote: > Addendum: Did he ever rave about 1966? I must have missed it. And why > would that bother a Belgian, or for that matter anyone not German? JE > > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> I vote this the most xenophobe post yet on the blml list! >> >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> England 5; Germany 0 >>> >> There is one good thing about it though - he's stopped ranting about 1966! >> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From henk at ripe.net Mon Apr 20 09:42:59 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:42:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <000b01c9bfa9$87dc4db0$9794e910$@no> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> <49E8EEF6.3090006@aol.com> <49E8F0C4.406@rtflb.org> <000b01c9bfa9$87dc4db0$9794e910$@no> Message-ID: <49EC2783.2050403@ripe.net> Sven, > My "problem" is that I do not have any PayPal account, and for a serious > reason (security: From time to time I receive suspicious email messages > referring to my PayPal account) I do not want to establish one. Technology-wise, paypal uses the same stuff as most online banks do. Yes, this can be cracked but the effort to do so outweighs the gain. Of course, it is a bank. People have tried to get passwords etc. by sending official looking emails that are supposed to come from paypal. In that respect, the situation is not different from BoA, Postbank, Rabobank and a few dozen others for which I got similar requests in the past, even though I do not have accounts there. However, if you stick to the paypal policy that they'll never ask for your password by email, you are safe. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 20 09:43:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:43:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Committee of Honour [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >It is a relief to read that Herman has stopped answering in this >thread except "to point people to obvious errors in their posts". > >Unfortunately this seems to mean ("obvious error") any opinion >disagreeing with Herman. So unless we all keep quiet the thread >will go on forever. JE James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, page 183: "Berkeley political scientist Chandra Nemeth has shown in a host of studies of mock juries that the presence of a minority viewpoint, all by itself, makes a group's decisions more nuanced and its decision-making process more rigorous. This is true even when the minority viewpoint turns out to be ill-conceived." Richard Hills: Hence, if and when Herman De Wael retires from active postings to Blml, in my opinion Herman De Wael will well merit an elevation to the Blml Committee of Honour. Herman De Wael's other memorial might be the new 2018 Drafting Committee finally removing all of the Kaplanesque nuanced English language from the 2018 edition of the Lawbook. He (and I, and many other blmlers) have shown how ridiculously easy it is to "cleverly" misinterpret, misunderstand and misapply the Kaplanesque nuances. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 20 11:21:45 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:21:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <901777.84453.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <969502.18056.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <49DC0DF2.60306@verizon.net> <901777.84453.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49EC3EA9.40203@ulb.ac.be> Ted Ying a ?crit : > A belated thanks to those who responded. I had to travel out of town > and then had to relocate my office > due to recarpeting going on in my building. I'm finally starting to > catch up on some of the extracurricular > activities (such as BLML) that have collected over the last week. > > While I understand the sentiment, I had two issues that gave me > pause. First, if there was a hesitation > did it unduly suggest that double was a safer call? Not knowing what > partner was hesitating about, does > the double not seem to be a "protect" bid to ensure that whatever > partner was thinking about, he could > correct to that? With 4 trumps, was 5H a reasonable option and was > double suggested by the hesitation > as a safer bid? > > Second, there was a significant discussion with the director being > called and attention being called to the > disputed BIT. Enough attention was called to the dispute that I > question East "running" when holding an > side A and knowing that West may have been protecting in this > situation and possibly not have a real > penalty oriented hand. AG : what is "a real penalty oriented hand" when you have shown a strong raise and they are obviously defending on the basis of many trumps ? Not a trump stack, but quick tricks. On this basis, East is allowed to take out IMHO. Surely 5H was an option for West, but if you do rule that Double was suggested by the hesitation and 5H was a LA, then you have to change the contract to 5H ... oops, no change, then. Best regards Alain From Gampas at aol.com Mon Apr 20 11:45:24 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:45:24 EDT Subject: [BLML] Bay sick clay Ming Prince e-pulls? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 18/04/2009 14:57:14 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: So according to your own statement you submit that the Director shall NEVER use judgment when ruling on contested claims except when Law 70D3 applies? [paul lamford] Your analogy is inappropriate. If there is play after the claim, the director may take it into account if it is relevant in his judgement. If there is no play after the claim, there is nothing to take into account, so the comparison is completely irrelevant. But in 70D1, we have a statement: 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. And note that *shall not* is the wording, not *must not*, despite your protestations that you always use the WBFLC wording. And note that the original claim statement is not exempt from the "normality" test. Now we ask ourselves what happens if the claimer submits a successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification when there no alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. Claimer: "I have the rest". We will say the ending is S: AK H: 32 D: none C: none opposite S : QJ H: none D: 32 C: none and spades are trumps. None of the small cards is a winner. Director: "How do you propose to play? Claimer: "Drawing trumps of course." Director: "Hmmm ... That was not part of your original statement, and this line is not successful, so you still get four tricks, as the only normal line is a high cross-ruff. Or: Claimer: "I have the rest". We will say the ending is S: AK H: 32 D: none C: none opposite S : QJ H: none D: 32 C: none and spades are trumps. None of the small cards is a winner. Director: "How do you propose to play? Claimer: "High cross-ruff of course." Director: "Hmmm... This was not included in your original statement, but 70D1 implies that the director shall accept a successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification if there is no alternative normal line of play that would be less successful, or, I grant you, he MAY accept it, following the general guidelines in 70A to rule on the claim as equitably as possible. The converse of "thou shall not covet thy neighbour's system card except during the round" is that you give it back to them afterwards, although that is rarely followed. Or: Claimer: "Drawing Trumps". We will say the ending is S: AK H: 32 D: none C: none opposite S : QJ H: none D: 32 C: none and spades are trumps. None of the small cards is a winner. Director: "How do you propose to make either of those small cards?" Claimer: "Sorry I meant to say high cross ruff; I am so use to saying drawing trumps when claiming, I just said the wrong thing." Director: "Hmmm ... That was not part of your original statement, but I will use the wording of 70D1 which allows me to reject the original line that was not normal and the guidance of 70A, and rule that you get four tricks. What is your ruling in each of these three scenarios, and what is the official WBFLC line please? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 20 11:33:01 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:33:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Committee of Honour [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002e01c9c19d$0b9cc720$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott " unless we all keep quiet the thread will go on forever" - JE > +=+ Come to think of it, wouldn't this apply to any thread? +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 20 11:47:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:47:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A girdle about the earth. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000d01c9c00d$85189b60$8f49d220$@no> <23598943.1240071637619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <002f01c9c19d$0bdf9c80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan EndicottFrom that sentence, one cannot conclude whether the sun is shining at 6 pm, at 8 am, or at noon. < +=+ It is, of course, these times and all others at the equator at all times. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 20 11:23:42 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:23:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org><49E8F3F4.4060900@t-online.de> <49EAE94F.80002@skynet.be> <49EB68C8.4030507@aol.com> Message-ID: <002d01c9c19d$0b5536d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 7:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list > Addendum: Did he ever rave about 1966? I must have missed > it. And why would that bother a Belgian, or for that matter anyone > not German? JE > +=+ There have been allegations that the English view all persons from other countries simply as 'foreigners'. However, this is imprecise. Numbers of supporters of Liverpool Football Club regard supporters of Manchester United Football Club, 56 kilometres down the road, as foreigners. ~ G ~ :-) +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 20 13:09:18 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:09:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unreality [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004601c9c1a8$77123c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott > > What is your ruling in each of these three scenarios, and > what is the official WBFLC line please? > +=+ I am sure I have not followed Gampas' argument. I believe the WBFLC position is that the clarification of claim is followed until an irregularity is encountered. Minute 3 of 1st November 2001 then applies, and if a line of play is suggested that depends for its success on one opponent rather than the other being possessed of a particular card minute 3 of 30 October 2001 applies. No legal play constitutes an irregularity and if it contains no irregularity the line of play in the statement of clarification is 'normal', even if it requires claimer to be labouring under an illusion. The Director may consider alternative possibilities if at any point the statement fails to provide a lawful line of play that (s)he is able to follow. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Apr 20 13:17:09 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:17:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <49EC225F.9020107@skynet.be> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> <49E8F3F4.4060900@t-online.de> <49EAE94F.80002@skynet.be> <49EB68C8.4030507@aol.com> <49EC225F.9020107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49EC59B5.1030601@aol.com> Hola Herman! I knew that the reference was to football/soccer/calcio/Fu?ball, etc. I am a rabid(but passive) fan -- support Juve, Hertha BSC, Barca and St. Etienne and a few other clubs less passionately. The "5" in conjunction with "1966" puzzled me. As I recall the result then was 3:2. (I saw the match.) I don't recall the/any 5:0 match. When was it? In the early days of football Germany probably lost by even more against England. That was my problem aside from not noticing that Probst mentioned it (often?) since I have been a member of blml. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Jeff, > the references are to football (soccer to the American, calcio to the > Italian, Fussball to the German in you). > 5-0 was a famous result that England once scored against Germany. > It has become a chant for Englishmen against Germans, replacing "1966", > which reference must be obvious now. > Herman. > > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Addendum: Did he ever rave about 1966? I must have missed it. And why >> would that bother a Belgian, or for that matter anyone not German? JE >> >> Herman De Wael schrieb: >>> I vote this the most xenophobe post yet on the blml list! >>> >>> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>> England 5; Germany 0 >>>> >>> There is one good thing about it though - he's stopped ranting about 1966! >>> >>> Herman. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Apr 20 14:40:45 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:40:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org><49E8F3F4.4060900@t-online.de> <49EAE94F.80002@skynet.be><49EB68C8.4030507@aol.com> <002d01c9c19d$0b5536d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <64C20434D4824D5098610E954EC79511@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > " If you chase two hares one will escape." > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 7:09 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list > > >> Addendum: Did he ever rave about 1966? I must have missed >> it. And why would that bother a Belgian, or for that matter anyone >> not German? JE >> > +=+ There have been allegations that the English view all persons > from other countries simply as 'foreigners'. However, this is imprecise. > Numbers of supporters of Liverpool Football Club regard supporters > of Manchester United Football Club, 56 kilometres down the road, > as foreigners. > ~ G ~ :-) +=+ > For an Englishman, "Wogs begins at Calais." is a fundamental tenet, like not revoking and making full claim statements This all started when, in agreeing with Mathias (not sure it has one or two t's) that he was in total harmony with blml, I just wanted to remind him that this was from one of his English cousins. Such harmony and you lot decided I was being xenophobic! As for the English, well, my idea of a day out is to check for fog in the channel, and if it's clear go on a brief excursion to assure myself that Calais is still English. Why it would want to be French defeats me. Grattan is, of course, right. Sitting where I do on the North bank of the Thames I view those unfortunates who live the other side of the river with considerable suspicion and subscribe to charities to provide them with blue paint. I subscribe to the view that railways terminate at Birmingham, roads by Manchester and the only sensible way to Liverpool (home of the Beatles and Grattan) is by ox-cart dragged through the marshes of the tributaries to the Mersey, the Ribble and the Lee or possibly by raft. Indeed I wonder how he finds the strength to get to civilisation in order to fly to foreign parts and discuss the Law, when he knows full well that there'll be no sanitation, no healthcare and transport will be by rickshaw when he arrives. A Londoner's view of the Universe is that seen on the back page of every Englishman's pocket diary (It's a map of the London underground). When asked to travel somewhere he'll ask "where's the nearest tube" and if told it's not on the tube will shrug and decide it's too hard. One of my friends seriously tricked me by telling me to change at Heathrow to Boarding gate 44, Quantas flight No xxxx and explained that Sydney wasn't on the underground map in my diary as the printers were saving space. When she met me at Sydney airport I handed in my underground ticket from Mile End.and apologised for having taken so long to get there - I must have taken the fast train as it only stopped once in 20 something hours. So you can see, I was being REALLY REALLY nice to Mathias. :) (and it would be cruel to remind him of 1966 as well.) john > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Mon Apr 20 15:05:51 2009 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:05:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [Blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <901777.84453.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <969502.18056.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <49DC0DF2.60306@verizon.net> <901777.84453.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49EC732F.2070006@verizon.net> Ted, I'm still not sure what the problem is: Ted Ying wrote: > A belated thanks to those who responded. I had to travel out of town > and then had to relocate my office > due to recarpeting going on in my building. I'm finally starting to > catch up on some of the extracurricular > activities (such as BLML) that have collected over the last week. > > While I understand the sentiment, I had two issues that gave me > pause. First, if there was a hesitation > did it unduly suggest that double was a safer call? Not knowing what > partner was hesitating about, does > the double not seem to be a "protect" bid to ensure that whatever > partner was thinking about, he could > correct to that? With 4 trumps, was 5H a reasonable option and was > double suggested by the hesitation > as a safer bid? W had four trumps, but had already shown trump support through his cue bid. W also had two outside aces, a queen in opponents' suit, and trump headed by the jack. Those two aces scream defense, opposite an opening partner. Sure, double is safer than 5H, but sometimes that very safety can make it the only LA. It is NOT logical, IMO, to commit the hand to offence holding a defensively oriented hand. Sure, the double in passout seat is protective, but is there any other protective bid for the W hand, much less one suggested over double by UI? With the majority of the points (W does not know the E opening is substandard), W must protect. > > Second, there was a significant discussion with the director being > called and attention being called to the > disputed BIT. Enough attention was called to the dispute that I > question East "running" when holding an > side A and knowing that West may have been protecting in this > situation and possibly not have a real > penalty oriented hand. What UI does E have in specific that suggests running? W is in the passout seat, so of course the bid has protective aspects. However, W had more than his share of defensive values, and 4S could still not be set. E has much less defence than would be suggested by a vul 2nd seat opening bid, so a pull is marked. What was the specific UI, provided by partner that suggested a pull over pass to E (or that W might have less defense than he had)? Since 4S could not be set even with the aces in the W hand, is pass even a logical alternative with the minimal defence of the E hand? If, as the TD conducting the investigation into the BIT (or lack thereof), you felt that any information provided by W in response to your questions would provide UI, that question might best have been addressed away from the table. What instructions did you give E after the BIT investigation about what was UI and what was AI after the BIT discussion? > > My ruling at the table was to allow West to double but to bar East > from bidding 5C and I adjusted the score > to 4S-X making 4 on the hand. On appeal, the committee had a hard > time and took quite a while, but > ultimately restored the table result. > > -Ted. What specific information, conveyed by W to E, was considered to be UI, suggested a pull over pass (assuming both were LAs), and therefore caused you to remove the pull? IMO the committee got this one right, and I still don't see why it would take very long to reach that conclusion. Hirsch > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Hirsch Davis > *To:* blml at rtflb.org > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 7, 2009 10:37:38 PM > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] [Blml] How do you rule? > > Hi Ted, > > I believe that Hans and Matthias have the ruling correct. W may or > may not have UI from the stop card, but it turns out to be > irrelevant. With a partner who opened, and looking at an opening bid > himself, W cannot pass. Since all of his values are defensive, > including two aces, double is the only logical alternative. The 5C > call is curious, perhaps looking for a potential better fit that > hearts, but the preference back to hearts is normal. > > The UI only becomes an issue if there is more than one logical > alternative for W. Then you'd have to determine if the UI suggests on > LA over another. > > I'm a bit curious why anyone would consider a delay after N pulled > back the stop card a problem, unless the lag was significantly longer > than reported. The purpose of the stop card is to ask E to break tempo > whether or not it is necessary. E did so (and E should not necessarily > call the instant that N pulls back the stop card, as this could be > interpreted as a "fast" call). The regulation worked, more or less. > > No infraction. No adjustment. > > Hirsch > > > Ted Ying wrote: >> I had been having problems with the old list for some time, but >> thanks to Henk, I'm not back >> on the BLML list. >> >> Note that if anyone prefers to see the hand in normal hand record >> form, the hand record is >> on-line at: >> http://www.districtsix.org/WBL/Results/2009_games/0402/Hands.pdf >> >> Board 13 >> Both Vul >> Dealer North >> >> N >> S-AT763, H-9, D-K98, C-K842 >> W E >> S-Q4, H-JT84, D-AJ762, C-A7 S-2, H-AQ762, D-T4, C-QJ963 >> S >> S-KJ985, H-K53, D-Q53, C-T5 >> >> N E S W >> P 1H 1S 2S >> 4S P(1) P X >> P 5C P 5H >> PP >> >> (1) N said that she put the STOP card down, waited 10 seconds and >> then E still paused for a time before the STOP card >> came up. S agreed that the BIT was significant. E/W contend >> that she waited about 5 seconds, picked it up and then >> E waited appropriately and then passed. >> >> Table result 5H, -2, E/W +200 >> So, I'm curious how BLML would rule in this case. >> >> -Ted Ying. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Apr 20 15:38:13 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:38:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org><49E8F3F4.4060900@t-online.de> <49EAE94F.80002@skynet.be><49EB68C8.4030507@aol.com><002d01c9c19d$0b5536d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <64C20434D4824D5098610E954EC79511@JOHN> Message-ID: <001b01c9c1bd$420df340$2401a8c0@p41600> Here in Bristol (of which Wales is a suburb) anywhere past Swindon is the Far East, the North starts at Gloucester, and to the south lie deepest darkest Dorset, Devon and Cornwall. **************************** Cum homine de cane debeo congredi **************************** > > +=+ There have been allegations that the English view all persons > > from other countries simply as 'foreigners'. However, this is imprecise. > > Numbers of supporters of Liverpool Football Club regard supporters > > of Manchester United Football Club, 56 kilometres down the road, > > as foreigners. > > ~ G ~ :-) +=+ > > > For an Englishman, "Wogs begins at Calais." is a fundamental tenet, like not > revoking and making full claim statements > > This all started when, in agreeing with Mathias (not sure it has one or two > t's) that he was in total harmony with blml, I just wanted to remind him > that this was from one of his English cousins. Such harmony and you lot > decided I was being xenophobic! > > As for the English, well, my idea of a day out is to check for fog in the > channel, and if it's clear go on a brief excursion to assure myself that > Calais is still English. Why it would want to be French defeats me. > > Grattan is, of course, right. Sitting where I do on the North bank of the > Thames I view those unfortunates who live the other side of the river with > considerable suspicion and subscribe to charities to provide them with blue > paint. I subscribe to the view that railways terminate at Birmingham, roads > by Manchester and the only sensible way to Liverpool (home of the Beatles > and Grattan) is by ox-cart dragged through the marshes of the tributaries to > the Mersey, the Ribble and the Lee or possibly by raft. Indeed I wonder how > he finds the strength to get to civilisation in order to fly to foreign > parts and discuss the Law, when he knows full well that there'll be no > sanitation, no healthcare and transport will be by rickshaw when he arrives. > > A Londoner's view of the Universe is that seen on the back page of every > Englishman's pocket diary (It's a map of the London underground). When asked > to travel somewhere he'll ask "where's the nearest tube" and if told it's > not on the tube will shrug and decide it's too hard. One of my friends > seriously tricked me by telling me to change at Heathrow to Boarding gate > 44, Quantas flight No xxxx and explained that Sydney wasn't on the > underground map in my diary as the printers were saving space. When she met > me at Sydney airport I handed in my underground ticket from Mile End.and > apologised for having taken so long to get there - I must have taken the > fast train as it only stopped once in 20 something hours. > > So you can see, I was being REALLY REALLY nice to Mathias. :) (and it would > be cruel to remind him of 1966 as well.) > > john > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.0/2068 - Release Date: 04/19/09 20:04:00 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 20 15:43:52 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:43:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> Message-ID: On Apr 17, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > That leaves one practical issue. The new server costs approximately > 20 euro's/year. If you want to contribute towards the costs, then > please transfer 10 euro cents, a US$ dime, 10 pence or something > equivalent in your local currency to my paypal account henk at ripe.net. > (Paypal is free for both sender and receiver, so nobody will be hit > by bank costs). Of course, if nobody pays, then I won't loose any > sleep over this either ;-) Should the balance hit 20 euro's, I > promise to say stop. First of all, many thanks for all the trouble you've gone to to manage the list all these years, and to keep it going now. I do not wish to freeload, but am not willing to join PayPal. I would be delighted to send a contribution by mail. Can you accept a check in U.S. funds? Can you give us a mailing address? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From henk at ripe.net Mon Apr 20 16:14:24 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:14:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> Message-ID: <49EC8340.8080300@ripe.net> All, > I do not wish to freeload, but am not willing to join PayPal. I > would be delighted to send a contribution by mail. Can you accept a > check in U.S. funds? Can you give us a mailing address? No, sorry, I don't accept US$ checks. Cashing a US$ check here costs something like 5 US$, that is not worth the trouble. If all else fails, put a few coins in an envelop and mail it to the address below. For this year (2009), I can handle euro's, pounds UK, US$ and Yen. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 20 17:10:20 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:10:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <955910.75579.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> <49E8EEF6.3090006@aol.com> <49E8F0C4.406@rtflb.org> <000b01c9bfa9$87dc4db0$9794e910$@no> <955910.75579.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2A50A727-8C67-4E80-B0D1-3E0A4B4E4621@starpower.net> On Apr 17, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Ted Ying wrote: > A suggestion. Do you know anyone around you who has a paypal > account that could > make the payment for you and you just give them a dime (or > appropriate amount in your > local currency)? Even those who don't use PayPal may have friends, > acquaintances, > or family members who do have an account. An excellent suggestion. I am fortunate in that Ted lives in my area, and has volunteered to do this for me. It shall be arranged forthwith. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 20 18:13:57 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:13:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unreality [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004601c9c1a8$77123c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004601c9c1a8$77123c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:09:18 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > " We are haunted, not by reality, but > by those images we have put in place > of reality." ~ Daniel J. Boorstin, 1962. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: >> >> What is your ruling in each of these three scenarios, and >> what is the official WBFLC line please? >> > +=+ I am sure I have not followed Gampas' argument. > I believe the WBFLC position is that the clarification of > claim is followed until an irregularity is encountered. Minute 3 > of 1st November 2001 then applies, and if a line of play is > suggested that depends for its success on one opponent rather > than the other being possessed of a particular card minute 3 > of 30 October 2001 applies. > No legal play constitutes an irregularity and if it contains > no irregularity the line of play in the statement of clarification > is 'normal', even if it requires claimer to be labouring under an > illusion. The Director may consider alternative possibilities if > at any point the statement fails to provide a lawful line of play > that (s)he is able to follow. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I don't understand how there could be a WBFLC position on the situation where claimer states playing the ace and then the king in this situation: KQJ9x 10xxxx -- Axx Many (probably most) BLMLers would allow the finesse. No one has mentioned a minute relevant to this issue. From gampas at aol.com Mon Apr 20 18:55:10 2009 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:55:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles Message-ID: <8CB8FEFE6DD7C6A-6BC-38C@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> ? In a message dated 18/04/2009 14:57:14 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: So according to your own statement you submit that the Director shall NEVER use judgment when ruling on contested claims except when Law 70D3 applies? ? [paul lamford] Your analogy is inappropriate. If there is play after the claim, the director may take it into account if it is relevant in his judgement. If there is no play after the claim, there is nothing to take into account, so the comparison is completely irrelevant. ? But in 70D1, we have a statement: ? 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. ? And note that *shall not* is the wording, not *must not*, despite your protestations that you always use the WBFLC wording. And note that the original claim statement is not exempt from the "normality" test. ? Now we ask ourselves what happens if the claimer submits a successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification when there no alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. ? Claimer: "I have the rest". We will say the ending is S: AK H: 32 D: none C: none?opposite S : QJ H: none D: 32 C: none and spades are trumps. None of the small cards is a winner. Director: "How do you propose to play? Claimer: "Drawing trumps of course." Director: "Hmmm ... That was not part of your original statement, and this line is not successful, so you still get four tricks, as the only normal line is a high cross-ruff. Or: ? Claimer: "I have the rest". We will say the ending is S: AK H: 32 D: none C: none opposite S : QJ H: none D: 32 C: none and spades are trumps. None of the small cards is a winner. Director: "How do you propose to play? Claimer: "High cross-ruff?of course." Director: "Hmmm... This was not included in your original statement, but 70D1 implies that the director shall accept a successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification if there is?no alternative normal line of play that would be less successful, or, I grant you, he MAY accept it, following the general guidelines in 70A to rule on the claim as equitably as possible. ? The converse of "thou shall not covet thy neighbour's?system card except during the round" is that you give it back to them afterwards, although that is rarely followed. Or: ? Claimer: "Drawing Trumps". We will say the ending is S: AK H: 32 D: none C: none opposite S : QJ H: none D: 32 C: none and spades are trumps. None of the small cards is a winner. Director: "How do you propose to make either of those small cards?" Claimer: "Sorry I meant to say high cross ruff; I am so use to saying drawing trumps when claiming, I just said the wrong thing." Director: "Hmmm ... That was not part of your original statement, but I will use the wording of 70D1 which allows me to reject the original line that was not normal and the guidance of 70A, and rule that you get four tricks. ? What is your ruling in each of these three scenarios, and what is the official WBFLC line please? ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090420/a1d3c471/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Mon Apr 20 19:09:19 2009 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:09:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles Message-ID: <8CB8FF1E0F062B8-6BC-480@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> [grattan] No legal play constitutes an irregularity and if it contains no irregularity the line of play in the statement of clarification is 'normal', even if it requires claimer to be labouring under an illusion. Why not then change Law 70D1 to read: D. Director?s Considerations 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative?normal line of play that would be less successful or if the line of play proposed in the original clarification statement is legal. ? I presume also that if the original clarification statement is "I have the rest", then the director will substitute a normal line. I play with someone who always claims stating "I think I can manage the rest", and he never seems to have a problem! ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090420/137464e4/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 20 19:49:26 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:49:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Can't get there from here Message-ID: This is probably of more theoretical interest than practical importance. Declarer claims in no trump with AKQJ9 of diamonds and AKQJ9 of clubs, stating that his hand is good and adding that he will cash diamonds before clubs. The regularint authority has not said that high cards are to be played first. LHO calls you the director and objects to the claim. He says that if declarer actually thinks everything in his hand is good, he should play a small diamond first, losing to the ten. I think this claim breaks down at trick 1 due to ambiguity -- declarer didn't say which diamond to pitch. So it can't be followed. Someone offers the unstated line of play of cashing the diamonds from the top. You go to L70D1 and rule that declarer cannot be forced to start with the nine of diamonds. Unfortunately, playing clubs first is a rational alternative, given that declarer has stated that both suits are good. In this example, clubs are breaking badly and the nine will lose, at which time the defenders can cash some good tricks in the majors. So L70D cannot be used to allow declarer to play diamonds from the top. It leads straight to playing clubs first. No doubt the correct ruling is to let the claimer play diamonds from the top and then clubs from the top, and whatever happens happens. The problem is that this ruling involves abandoning part of the claim statement but not all of it. That isn't in the current rules. I can't really think of any good way of stating whatever principle is here, or the more general problem of how to follow a claim statement that is ambiguous or has broken down. Bob From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 20 20:10:41 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:10:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unreality In-Reply-To: References: <004601c9c1a8$77123c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Apr 20, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:09:18 -0400, Grattan > wrote: > >> +=+ I am sure I have not followed Gampas' argument. >> I believe the WBFLC position is that the clarification of >> claim is followed until an irregularity is encountered. Minute 3 >> of 1st November 2001 then applies, and if a line of play is >> suggested that depends for its success on one opponent rather >> than the other being possessed of a particular card minute 3 >> of 30 October 2001 applies. >> No legal play constitutes an irregularity and if it contains >> no irregularity the line of play in the statement of clarification >> is 'normal', even if it requires claimer to be labouring under an >> illusion. The Director may consider alternative possibilities if >> at any point the statement fails to provide a lawful line of play >> that (s)he is able to follow. > > I don't understand how there could be a WBFLC position on the > situation > where claimer states playing the ace and then the king in this > situation: > > KQJ9x > > 10xxxx -- > > Axx > > Many (probably most) BLMLers would allow the finesse. No one has > mentioned > a minute relevant to this issue. No need for a minute. The specific case of a finesse which will become proven in the course of following the stated line (or any normal line if the statement has already "broken down") is explicitly addressed in L70E1. "The Director shall not accept... unless or ". The example case is subsumed within . "unless... irrational" is , and irrelevant to the example. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 20 20:18:38 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:18:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Can't get there from here In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 20, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > This is probably of more theoretical interest than practical > importance. > > Declarer claims in no trump with AKQJ9 of diamonds and AKQJ9 of clubs, > stating that his hand is good and adding that he will cash diamonds > before > clubs. The regularint authority has not said that high cards are to be > played first. > > LHO calls you the director and objects to the claim. He says that if > declarer actually thinks everything in his hand is good, he should > play a > small diamond first, losing to the ten. > > I think this claim breaks down at trick 1 due to ambiguity -- declarer > didn't say which diamond to pitch. So it can't be followed. Someone > offers > the unstated line of play of cashing the diamonds from the top. You > go to > L70D1 and rule that declarer cannot be forced to start with the > nine of > diamonds. > > Unfortunately, playing clubs first is a rational alternative, given > that > declarer has stated that both suits are good. In this example, > clubs are > breaking badly and the nine will lose, at which time the defenders can > cash some good tricks in the majors. > > So L70D cannot be used to allow declarer to play diamonds from the > top. It > leads straight to playing clubs first. > > No doubt the correct ruling is to let the claimer play diamonds > from the > top and then clubs from the top, and whatever happens happens. The > problem > is that this ruling involves abandoning part of the claim statement > but > not all of it. That isn't in the current rules. I can't really > think of > any good way of stating whatever principle is here, or the more > general > problem of how to follow a claim statement that is ambiguous or has > broken > down. Why should we not just be allowed to presume what we know to be invariably true in real life: When a claimer states that he will "run" or "cash" a specified suit without specifying the order in which he will play the individual cards in the suit, his presumed intent is to play them from the top down. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 20 20:49:48 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:49:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Can't get there from here In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:18:38 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 20, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> This is probably of more theoretical interest than practical >> importance. >> >> Declarer claims in no trump with AKQJ9 of diamonds and AKQJ9 of clubs, >> stating that his hand is good and adding that he will cash diamonds >> before >> clubs. The regularint authority has not said that high cards are to be >> played first. >> >> LHO calls you the director and objects to the claim. He says that if >> declarer actually thinks everything in his hand is good, he should >> play a >> small diamond first, losing to the ten. >> >> I think this claim breaks down at trick 1 due to ambiguity -- declarer >> didn't say which diamond to pitch. So it can't be followed. Someone >> offers >> the unstated line of play of cashing the diamonds from the top. You >> go to >> L70D1 and rule that declarer cannot be forced to start with the >> nine of >> diamonds. >> >> Unfortunately, playing clubs first is a rational alternative, given >> that >> declarer has stated that both suits are good. In this example, >> clubs are >> breaking badly and the nine will lose, at which time the defenders can >> cash some good tricks in the majors. >> >> So L70D cannot be used to allow declarer to play diamonds from the >> top. It >> leads straight to playing clubs first. >> >> No doubt the correct ruling is to let the claimer play diamonds >> from the >> top and then clubs from the top, and whatever happens happens. The >> problem >> is that this ruling involves abandoning part of the claim statement >> but >> not all of it. That isn't in the current rules. I can't really >> think of >> any good way of stating whatever principle is here, or the more >> general >> problem of how to follow a claim statement that is ambiguous or has >> broken >> down. > > Why should we not just be allowed to presume what we know to be > invariably true in real life: When a claimer states that he will > "run" or "cash" a specified suit without specifying the order in > which he will play the individual cards in the suit, his presumed > intent is to play them from the top down. Hi Eric. Works for me! Add that to your revised claiming laws. But I am probably one of the people on this list most willing to let you follow your own rules for adjudicating claims. Or if you are the regulating authority, then it's all legal (L70E2). I was just interested in the issue of how to get to that ruling following the laws. There is also a more general problem of how the claiming statment is to be followed. To mention one, I say I am going to take the marked spade finesse and then everything is good. All is well except I am not in hand to take the finesse. Can I be allowed or forced to go to my hand to take the finesse? From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 20 23:23:58 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:23:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles In-Reply-To: <8CB8FEFE6DD7C6A-6BC-38C@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CB8FEFE6DD7C6A-6BC-38C@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <000c01c9c1fe$52507bb0$f6f17310$@no> On Behalf Of gampas at aol.com > And note that *shall not* is the wording, not *must not*, despite your protestations that you always use the WBFLC wording. Where I wrote "must not" it was in the following clause: >>When the laws state that the Director "must not" make a particular decision if a certain condition is true they do not imply that he shall make this decision when that same condition is false. The logical complement to "must not" is "may", not "must". This is a generic statement with no reference to any particular law. To make it clearer to gampas I should have written the last sentence: The logical complement to either "must not" or "shall not" is in both cases "may", not "must" or "shall" I am surprised that any such clarification should be needed, I really most most readers to immediately see that "may" is the compliment in both cases. And as a side point: You will do all users of blml a favor by posting in plain text rather than in html (or rich text). Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Apr 21 00:52:48 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:52:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles In-Reply-To: <000c01c9c1fe$52507bb0$f6f17310$@no> References: <8CB8FEFE6DD7C6A-6BC-38C@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> <000c01c9c1fe$52507bb0$f6f17310$@no> Message-ID: <000001c9c20a$bab14110$3013c330$@com> [SP] The logical complement to either "must not" or "shall not" is in both cases "may", not "must" or "shall" [DALB] No, it isn't. The following passage from the Introduction to the Laws says this: Established usage has been retained in regard to "may" do (failure to do it is not wrong), "does" (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized) "should" do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized), "shall" do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), "must" do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again, "must not" is the strongest prohibition, "shall not" is strong but "may not" is stronger - just short of "must not". and a beautiful passage of prose it is too, designed to render the Laws as difficult as possible to implement and utterly impossible to translate. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with logic: the logical complement of X is "not-X", not "not some other proposition completely unrelated to X". It was precisely this tendency to use elegant but vaporous phraseology ("failure to do it is not wrong", great Scott) that led to the superb Maastricht Condition of Contest designed to prevent sportsmanlike dumping: "failure to play other than as good bridge as possible is not permitted". This actually mandated playing badly, but no one noticed, for as I remarked somewhat later in the tournament, "all the Laws are pure hot air, and made for sheep by chimpanzees". David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 21 04:11:09 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:11:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Unreality [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004601c9c1a8$77123c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, comment ripped out of context: [big snip] >No legal play constitutes an irregularity [big snip] Law 72A - General Principles - Observance of the Laws: ".....The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 21 06:21:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:21:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Committee of Honour [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills on Kaplanesque nuances: >>Herman De Wael's other memorial might be the new 2018 Drafting >>Committee finally removing all of the Kaplanesque nuanced English >>language from the 2018 edition of the Lawbook. He (and I, and many >>other blmlers) have shown how ridiculously easy it is to "cleverly" >>misinterpret, misunderstand and misapply the Kaplanesque nuances. David Burn on triple negatives: >It was precisely this tendency to use elegant but vaporous phraseology >("failure to do it is not wrong", great Scott) that led to the superb >Maastricht Condition of Contest designed to prevent sportsmanlike >dumping: > >"failure to play other than as good bridge as possible is not permitted". > >This actually mandated playing badly, but no one noticed, for as I >remarked somewhat later in the tournament, "all the Laws are pure hot >air, and made for sheep by chimpanzees". John Raymond Carson on elegant but vaporous phraseology: Scintillate, scintillate Globule lucific Fain would I fathom Thy nature specific Loftily perched In the ether capacious Strongly resembling A gem carbonaceous. Richard Hills on translating into plain English: In a former life Grattan Endicott was a translator, so perhaps he might make a stab at translating Carson's verse into a more memorable but plainer English verse??? :-) :-) Under the previous regime of the 1997 Lawbook, Blml Committee of Honour member David Stevenson offered some plain English translations of WBF LC minutes, but the WBF LC chose to eventually reject DWS's offer.* But DWS did include semi-official plain English paraphrases of WBF LC minutes in the EBU White Book guide for EBU TDs. Furthermore, recently the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee authorised David Stevenson to begin preparing a new edition of the EBU White Book, so soon DWS will give at least EBU TDs plain English guidance on the 2007 Lawbook. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets * In a private email to me, a cynic floated the subversive suggestion that the reason for the WBF LC rejection was that the WBF LC was unable to consistently agree on the interpretation of its own minutes. :-) :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 21 07:51:56 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:51:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ABDA Bulletin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001601c9bf42$8e526100$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ Check your facts. An informant tells me the ACBL no longer has a Chief Tournament Director. Enquire if the word 'former' is appropriate or whether my informant has got it wrong. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Rick Beye was listed as "CTD" in the 2008 Las Vegas minutes of the ACBL Board of Directors. I have not found any evidence in those or subsequent minutes of the ACBL Board of Directors that Rick Beye's status has changed. Nor have I found any evidence of a Rick Beye status change after a search of the ACBL website and a general Google search. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, perhaps Grattan's informant was thinking of the new 2007 Law 93, which changed "Chief Director" to "Director in charge"? I do not have access to the ACBL Bulletin. Do blml ACBLers who have read the ACBL Bulletin have any news to report on the status of Rick Beye? Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 21 09:45:08 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:45:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Can't get there from here In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49ED7984.30703@skynet.be> Robert asks a pertinent question, but is Grattan listening? Robert Frick wrote: > This is probably of more theoretical interest than practical importance. > > Declarer claims in no trump with AKQJ9 of diamonds and AKQJ9 of clubs, > stating that his hand is good and adding that he will cash diamonds before > clubs. The regularint authority has not said that high cards are to be > played first. > > LHO calls you the director and objects to the claim. He says that if > declarer actually thinks everything in his hand is good, he should play a > small diamond first, losing to the ten. > And this is where the word "normal" comes in. L70D states that claimer shall not be allowed to embellish his claim statement (I'm playing diamonds first ... from the top) if there are other, normal lines that are less succesful. So if the D9 is a normal play, it shall be followed. I do not consider the D9 normal, whatever the RA has or has not decided. > I think this claim breaks down at trick 1 due to ambiguity -- declarer > didn't say which diamond to pitch. So it can't be followed. Someone offers > the unstated line of play of cashing the diamonds from the top. You go to > L70D1 and rule that declarer cannot be forced to start with the nine of > diamonds. > Indeed. > Unfortunately, playing clubs first is a rational alternative, given that > declarer has stated that both suits are good. In this example, clubs are > breaking badly and the nine will lose, at which time the defenders can > cash some good tricks in the majors. > Usually I will no force a claimer to play the 9 when the 10 hasn't dropped, especially if the suit has not been played before the claim (in which case claimer shall notice a particular bad break). But the point is not that - can claimer be forced to play clubs first if he states he'll play diamonds first? I don't think so. > So L70D cannot be used to allow declarer to play diamonds from the top. It > leads straight to playing clubs first. > > No doubt the correct ruling is to let the claimer play diamonds from the > top and then clubs from the top, and whatever happens happens. The problem > is that this ruling involves abandoning part of the claim statement but > not all of it. That isn't in the current rules. I can't really think of > any good way of stating whatever principle is here, or the more general > problem of how to follow a claim statement that is ambiguous or has broken > down. > Bob remarks are quite good, though. The claim laws are simple (IMO): Claimer shall get the worst of all the normal lines that are included in his claim statement, except when something happens that tells him his claim statement is wrong, after which moment he gets the worst of all the normal lines. The second part can be deduced from L70E. But how do we read the first part from L70D? Herman. > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 21 10:14:41 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:14:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles In-Reply-To: <000001c9c20a$bab14110$3013c330$@com> References: <8CB8FEFE6DD7C6A-6BC-38C@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> <000c01c9c1fe$52507bb0$f6f17310$@no> <000001c9c20a$bab14110$3013c330$@com> Message-ID: <000001c9c259$38fb21f0$aaf165d0$@no> On Behalf Of David Burn > [SP] > > The logical complement to either "must not" or "shall not" is in both cases > "may", not "must" or "shall" > > [DALB] > > No, it isn't. The following passage from the Introduction to the Laws says > this: > > Established usage has been retained in regard to "may" do (failure to do it > is not wrong), "does" (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that > violation be penalized) "should" do (failure to do it is an infraction > jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized), "shall" do (a > violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), "must" do > (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again, "must not" is the > strongest prohibition, "shall not" is strong but "may not" is stronger - > just short of "must not". So when David Burns walks on a sidewalk at a place where there is a pedestrian crossing with traffic lights controlling when pedestrians are allowed to cross the road he "must" cross the road when the signal is green whether or not he really wants to cross over to the other side of the road? Of course he must because when the signal is red he definitely "must not" cross the road, and "must" in his opinion is the complement of "must not". Note that you can say: "must not", "shall not" or "may not" (cross the road on a red signal), all three clauses are correct and applicable (implying a prohibition), but the only correct interpretation of such a rule is that the pedestrian "may" cross the road on a green signal (implying a permission), he is not required to. Sven. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 21 12:22:11 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:22:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ABDA Bulletin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003a01c9c26b$15cd6000$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] ABDA Bulletin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > +=+ Check your facts. An informant tells me the ACBL > no longer has a Chief Tournament Director. Enquire if the > word 'former' is appropriate or whether my informant has > got it wrong. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Rick Beye was listed as "CTD" in the 2008 Las Vegas minutes of > the ACBL Board of Directors. I have not found any evidence in > those or subsequent minutes of the ACBL Board of Directors that > Rick Beye's status has changed. Nor have I found any evidence of > a Rick Beye status change after a search of the ACBL website and > a general Google search. > > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. > > However, perhaps Grattan's informant was thinking of the new 2007 > Law 93, which changed "Chief Director" to "Director in charge"? > > I do not have access to the ACBL Bulletin. Do blml ACBLers who > have read the ACBL Bulletin have any news to report on the status > of Rick Beye? > > +=+ This is the sense of the message sent to me last month: "Rick Beye is no longer the CTD of the ACBL. There is no CTD any more. The Board of Directors in their wisdom decided that we needed no such central authority for the 200-plus TDs working at tournaments - in order to economise, eliminate the job and turn it over to locals". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. it surprises me that North Americans do not spell the word as 'tornaments' eliminating the unneeded 'u'. ~ G ~ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 21 13:20:52 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:20:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles References: <8CB8FEFE6DD7C6A-6BC-38C@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> <000c01c9c1fe$52507bb0$f6f17310$@no><000001c9c20a$bab14110$3013c330$@com> <000001c9c259$38fb21f0$aaf165d0$@no> Message-ID: <005801c9c273$3e88f380$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles > On Behalf Of David Burn [SP] >> The logical complement to either "must not" or "shall not" is in both cases "may", not "must" or "shall" > [DALB] > No, it isn't. The following passage from the Introduction to the Laws says this: > Established usage has been retained in regard to "may" do (failure to do it is not wrong), "does" (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized) "should" do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized), "shall" do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), "must" do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again, "must not" is the strongest prohibition, "shall not" is strong but "may not" is stronger - just short of "must not". > (SP) So when David Burns walks on a sidewalk at a place where there is a pedestrian crossing with traffic lights controlling when pedestrians are allowed to cross the road he "must" cross the road when the signal is green whether or not he really wants to cross over to the other side of the road? Of course he must because when the signal is red he definitely "must not" cross the road, and "must" in his opinion is the complement of "must not". Note that you can say: "must not", "shall not" or "may not" (cross the road on a red signal), all three clauses are correct and applicable (implying a prohibition), but the only correct interpretation of such a rule is that the pedestrian "may" cross the road on a green signal (implying a permission), he is not required to. > +=+ Who was it that introduced the suggestion that when the law book makes a statement the converse also shall necessarily apply? I have not discovered any such provision in the law book. ~ G ~ +=+ From bobpark at consolidated.net Tue Apr 21 14:02:36 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:02:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ABDA Bulletin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49EDB5DC.9090507@consolidated.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Do blml ACBLers who > have read the ACBL Bulletin have any news to report on the status > of Rick Beye? > > He was alive and well and in uniform at Gatlinburg last week. I don't know what he rank was, though, but he certainly looked official. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Apr 21 14:15:52 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:15:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles In-Reply-To: <005801c9c273$3e88f380$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <8CB8FEFE6DD7C6A-6BC-38C@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> <000c01c9c1fe$52507bb0$f6f17310$@no><000001c9c20a$bab14110$3013c330$@com> <000001c9c259$38fb21f0$aaf165d0$@no> <005801c9c273$3e88f380$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001301c9c27a$eaa4fe50$bfeefaf0$@com> [GE] Who was it that introduced the suggestion that when the law book makes a statement the converse also shall necessarily apply? I have not discovered any such provision in the law book. [DALB] One would hope that no such provision exists, since it would have no logical foundation. Some basic terminology may be useful here. A proposition of the form "If A then B" has: An inverse - If B then A; A converse - If not A then not B; A contrapositive - If not B then not A. If the proposition is true, then its inverse and its converse are not necessarily true, but its contrapositive is necessarily true. Thus, the statement: If there exists an alternative normal line of play that would not succeed, the Director shall not accept from claimer a proposed line not embraced in the original claim statement is logically equivalent to: The Director shall accept from claimer a proposed line not embraced in the original claim statement if there does not exist an alternative normal line of play that would not succeed. That is what Gampas said, and it is necessarily true. Its consequences may be unpalatable, to the extent that Sven Pran might cross the street to avoid them, but I cannot help that. David Burn London, England From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Apr 21 14:39:56 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:39:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <64C20434D4824D5098610E954EC79511@JOHN> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org><49E8F3F4.4060900@t-online.de> <49EAE94F.80002@skynet.be><49EB68C8.4030507@aol.com> <002d01c9c19d$0b5536d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <64C20434D4824D5098610E954EC79511@JOHN> Message-ID: <49EDBE9C.10003@t-online.de> John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: > > This all started when, in agreeing with Mathias (not sure it has one or two > t's) that he was in total harmony with blml, I just wanted to remind him > that this was from one of his English cousins. Such harmony and you lot > decided I was being xenophobic! I have no idea why they classify this as xenophobic, either. At the time of the 5-0 game the following joke was told in _Germany_! England has to play Germany at Wembley. Beckham tells his guys: "You lot go to the nearest pub and order some drinks, I will be right with you afer the game". Off they go. After a couple of drinks they remember about he match, so they switch to the appropriate TV channel. England 1 Germany 1 (Beckham (10th minute) , Klose (89th minute). They rush to the stadium to find Beckham all in tears in the dresser. "Becks, what happened, why is it only a draw?" "I am terribly sorry guys, I let you down, the bloody referee sent me off after 11 minutes...." > So you can see, I was being REALLY REALLY nice to Mathias. :) (and it would > be cruel to remind him of 1966 as well.) > I am a bit in a fog about that 1966 reference... Was that the last year an English player actually scored with a penalty against Germany? :-) Matthias > john > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Apr 21 14:47:06 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:47:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list In-Reply-To: <002d01c9c19d$0b5536d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org><49E8F3F4.4060900@t-online.de> <49EAE94F.80002@skynet.be> <49EB68C8.4030507@aol.com> <002d01c9c19d$0b5536d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49EDC04A.1060505@t-online.de> Grattan schrieb: > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > " If you chase two hares one will escape." > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > +=+ There have been allegations that the English view all persons > from other countries simply as 'foreigners'. However, this is imprecise. > Numbers of supporters of Liverpool Football Club regard supporters > of Manchester United Football Club, 56 kilometres down the road, > as foreigners. > ~ G ~ :-) +=+ > Hm. I always assumed that Liverpool supporters did not regard ManU supporters as _human_ (and vice versa, probably), but maybe I was mistaken in that. Well, we live and we learn... :-) Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Apr 21 15:07:30 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:07:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ABDA Bulletin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003a01c9c26b$15cd6000$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <003a01c9c26b$15cd6000$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49EDC512.8030000@t-online.de> Grattan schrieb: > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > " We are haunted, not by reality, but > by those images we have put in place > of reality." ~ Daniel J. Boorstin, 1962. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > p.s. it surprises me that North Americans do not spell the word > as 'tornaments' eliminating the unneeded 'u'. ~ G ~ It surpries me that nobody thought of eliminating the unneeded 'na' either..... Matthias From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 21 16:03:26 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:03:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles In-Reply-To: <001301c9c27a$eaa4fe50$bfeefaf0$@com> References: <8CB8FEFE6DD7C6A-6BC-38C@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> <000c01c9c1fe$52507bb0$f6f17310$@no><000001c9c20a$bab14110$3013c330$@com> <000001c9c259$38fb21f0$aaf165d0$@no> <005801c9c273$3e88f380$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001301c9c27a$eaa4fe50$bfeefaf0$@com> Message-ID: <492F5826-66FA-4650-B39E-3A2850506ACA@starpower.net> On Apr 21, 2009, at 8:15 AM, David Burn wrote: > [GE] > > Who was it that introduced the suggestion that when the law book > makes a > statement the converse also shall necessarily apply? I have not > discovered > any such provision in the law book. > > [DALB] > > One would hope that no such provision exists, since it would have > no logical > foundation. Some basic terminology may be useful here. > > A proposition of the form "If A then B" has: > > An inverse - If B then A; > > A converse - If not A then not B; > > A contrapositive - If not B then not A. > > If the proposition is true, then its inverse and its converse are not > necessarily true, but its contrapositive is necessarily true. Thus, > the > statement: > > If there exists an alternative normal line of play that would not > succeed, > the Director shall not accept from claimer a proposed line not > embraced in > the original claim statement > > is logically equivalent to: > > The Director shall accept from claimer a proposed line not embraced > in the > original claim statement if there does not exist an alternative > normal line > of play that would not succeed. > > That is what Gampas said, and it is necessarily true. Its > consequences may > be unpalatable, to the extent that Sven Pran might cross the street > to avoid > them, but I cannot help that. Normative propositions have an implicit temporal component which logical propositions in general do not, and which must be taken into account when applying the rules of logic. Thus: "If there exists an alternative normal line of play that would not succeed, the Director shall not accept from claimer a proposed line not embraced in the original claim statement." is logically equivalent to (its correct contrapositive): "If the Director has accepted from claimer a proposed line not embraced in the original claim statement, there did not exist an alternative normal line of play that would have succeeded." I'm not sure that gets us anywhere. I am sure that Sven does not deserve the abuse he's been taking. All he ever said was that repealing the laws against murder would not be the same thing as requiring every citizen to go out an murder someone. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 21 16:15:29 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:15:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles References: <8CB8FEFE6DD7C6A-6BC-38C@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> <000c01c9c1fe$52507bb0$f6f17310$@no><000001c9c20a$bab14110$3013c330$@com> <000001c9c259$38fb21f0$aaf165d0$@no><005801c9c273$3e88f380$0302a8c0@Mildred><001301c9c27a$eaa4fe50$bfeefaf0$@com> <492F5826-66FA-4650-B39E-3A2850506ACA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001401c9c28b$a5a20030$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 3:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles > > I am sure that Sven does not deserve the abuse he's been taking. All > he ever said was that repealing the laws against murder would not be > the same thing as requiring every citizen to go out an murder someone. > +=+ However much one might wish to do so. +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Apr 21 17:14:36 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:14:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles In-Reply-To: <492F5826-66FA-4650-B39E-3A2850506ACA@starpower.net> References: <8CB8FEFE6DD7C6A-6BC-38C@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> <000c01c9c1fe$5 2507bb0$f6f17310$@no><000001c9c20a$bab14110$3013c330$@com> <000001c9c259$38 fb21f0$aaf165d0$@no><005801c9c273$3e88f380$0302a8c0@Mildred><001301c9c27a$e aa4fe50$bfeefaf0$@com> <492F5826-66FA-4650-B39E-3A2850506ACA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49EDE2DC.8010005@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 21, 2009, at 8:15 AM, David Burn wrote: > >> [GE] >> >> Who was it that introduced the suggestion that when the law book >> makes a >> statement the converse also shall necessarily apply? I have not >> discovered >> any such provision in the law book. >> >> [DALB] >> >> One would hope that no such provision exists, since it would have >> no logical >> foundation. Some basic terminology may be useful here. >> >> A proposition of the form "If A then B" has: >> >> An inverse - If B then A; >> >> A converse - If not A then not B; >> >> A contrapositive - If not B then not A. >> >> If the proposition is true, then its inverse and its converse are not >> necessarily true, but its contrapositive is necessarily true. right >> Thus, the >> statement: >> >> If there exists an alternative normal line of play that would not >> succeed, >> the Director shall not accept from claimer a proposed line not >> embraced in >> the original claim statement >> >> is logically equivalent to: >> >> The Director shall accept from claimer a proposed line not embraced >> in the >> original claim statement if there does not exist an alternative >> normal line >> of play that would not succeed. wrong: you tried to write the contrapositive but wrote the converse. >> >> That is what Gampas said, and it is necessarily true. Its >> consequences may >> be unpalatable, to the extent that Sven Pran might cross the street >> to avoid >> them, but I cannot help that. > > Normative propositions have an implicit temporal component which > logical propositions in general do not, and which must be taken into > account when applying the rules of logic. Thus: > > "If there exists an alternative normal line of play that would not > succeed, the Director shall not accept from claimer a proposed line > not embraced in the original claim statement." > > is logically equivalent to (its correct contrapositive): > > "If the Director has accepted from claimer a proposed line not > embraced in the original claim statement, there did not exist an > alternative normal line of play that would have succeeded." wrong: it should be "failed" in place of "succeeded" jpr > > I'm not sure that gets us anywhere. > > I am sure that Sven does not deserve the abuse he's been taking. All > he ever said was that repealing the laws against murder would not be > the same thing as requiring every citizen to go out an murder someone. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 21 17:29:23 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:29:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles In-Reply-To: <49EDE2DC.8010005@meteo.fr> References: <8CB8FEFE6DD7C6A-6BC-38C@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> <000c01c9c1fe$5 2507bb0$f6f17310$@no> <000001c9c20a$bab14110$3013c330$@com> <000001c9c259$38 fb21f0$aaf165d0$@no> <005801c9c273$3e88f380$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001301c9c27a$e aa4fe50$bfeefaf0$@com> <492F5826-66FA-4650-B39E-3A2850506ACA@starpower.net> <49EDE2DC.8010005@meteo.fr> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:14:36 -0400, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> On Apr 21, 2009, at 8:15 AM, David Burn wrote: >> >>> [GE] >>> >>> Who was it that introduced the suggestion that when the law book >>> makes a >>> statement the converse also shall necessarily apply? I have not >>> discovered >>> any such provision in the law book. >>> >>> [DALB] >>> >>> One would hope that no such provision exists, since it would have >>> no logical >>> foundation. Some basic terminology may be useful here. >>> >>> A proposition of the form "If A then B" has: >>> >>> An inverse - If B then A; >>> >>> A converse - If not A then not B; >>> >>> A contrapositive - If not B then not A. >>> >>> If the proposition is true, then its inverse and its converse are not >>> necessarily true, but its contrapositive is necessarily true. > right > >>> Thus, the >>> statement: >>> >>> If there exists an alternative normal line of play that would not >>> succeed, >>> the Director shall not accept from claimer a proposed line not >>> embraced in >>> the original claim statement >>> >>> is logically equivalent to: >>> >>> The Director shall accept from claimer a proposed line not embraced >>> in the >>> original claim statement if there does not exist an alternative >>> normal line >>> of play that would not succeed. > wrong: you tried to write the contrapositive but wrote the converse. >>> >>> That is what Gampas said, and it is necessarily true. Its >>> consequences may >>> be unpalatable, to the extent that Sven Pran might cross the street >>> to avoid >>> them, but I cannot help that. >> >> Normative propositions have an implicit temporal component which >> logical propositions in general do not, and which must be taken into >> account when applying the rules of logic. Thus: >> >> "If there exists an alternative normal line of play that would not >> succeed, the Director shall not accept from claimer a proposed line >> not embraced in the original claim statement." >> >> is logically equivalent to (its correct contrapositive): >> >> "If the Director has accepted from claimer a proposed line not >> embraced in the original claim statement, there did not exist an >> alternative normal line of play that would have succeeded." > > wrong: it should be "failed" in place of "succeeded" > > jpr >> >> I'm not sure that gets us anywhere. >> >> I am sure that Sven does not deserve the abuse he's been taking. All >> he ever said was that repealing the laws against murder would not be >> the same thing as requiring every citizen to go out an murder someone. Someone proposes an unstated line of play. There is no normal line of play that does worse. The director can reject this unstated line of play? What would be an example of that? From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 21 17:32:18 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:32:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles In-Reply-To: <492F5826-66FA-4650-B39E-3A2850506ACA@starpower.net> References: <8CB8FEFE6DD7C6A-6BC-38C@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> <000c01c9c1fe$52507bb0$f6f17310$@no><000001c9c20a$bab14110$3013c330$@com> <000001c9c259$38fb21f0$aaf165d0$@no> <005801c9c273$3e88f380$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001301c9c27a$eaa4fe50$bfeefaf0$@com> <492F5826-66FA-4650-B39E-3A2850506ACA@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:03 AM, I wrote: > On Apr 21, 2009, at 8:15 AM, David Burn wrote: > >> [GE] >> >> Who was it that introduced the suggestion that when the law book >> makes a >> statement the converse also shall necessarily apply? I have not >> discovered >> any such provision in the law book. >> >> [DALB] >> >> One would hope that no such provision exists, since it would have >> no logical >> foundation. Some basic terminology may be useful here. >> >> A proposition of the form "If A then B" has: >> >> An inverse - If B then A; >> >> A converse - If not A then not B; >> >> A contrapositive - If not B then not A. >> >> If the proposition is true, then its inverse and its converse are not >> necessarily true, but its contrapositive is necessarily true. Thus, >> the >> statement: >> >> If there exists an alternative normal line of play that would not >> succeed, >> the Director shall not accept from claimer a proposed line not >> embraced in >> the original claim statement >> >> is logically equivalent to: >> >> The Director shall accept from claimer a proposed line not embraced >> in the >> original claim statement if there does not exist an alternative >> normal line >> of play that would not succeed. >> >> That is what Gampas said, and it is necessarily true. Its >> consequences may >> be unpalatable, to the extent that Sven Pran might cross the street >> to avoid >> them, but I cannot help that. > > Normative propositions have an implicit temporal component which > logical propositions in general do not, and which must be taken into > account when applying the rules of logic. Thus: > > "If there exists an alternative normal line of play that would not > succeed, the Director shall not accept from claimer a proposed line > not embraced in the original claim statement." > > is logically equivalent to (its correct contrapositive): > > "If the Director has accepted from claimer a proposed line not > embraced in the original claim statement, there did not exist an > alternative normal line of play that would have succeeded." That should have been "...that would not have succeeded". Sorry 'bout that; lost track of the "nots" concentrating on the tenses. > I'm not sure that gets us anywhere. > > I am sure that Sven does not deserve the abuse he's been taking. All > he ever said was that repealing the laws against murder would not be > the same thing as requiring every citizen to go out an murder someone. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Tue Apr 21 17:58:21 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:58:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> <49EC8340.8080300@ripe.net> Message-ID: <17597481D4884673821CE1A528133062@JOHN> ok.ok I sense that the credit crunch has severely affected my continental and crosspond cousins and have today accordingly stuck a pony in an envelope and mailed it to henk. There are a number of possibilities amd sub-possibilities. 1) It arrives and those who don't speak Cockney will discover what a pony is 2) It doesn't arrive - this leads to two sub-possibilities: 2.1) I'm lying 2.2) The theiving wogs have nicked my currency. - it wouldn't happen in England of course, our Mail is Royal. All I can say is if it does arrive, look after it carefully, don't invest it in Iceland and don't spend it all at once. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list > All, > >> I do not wish to freeload, but am not willing to join PayPal. I >> would be delighted to send a contribution by mail. Can you accept a >> check in U.S. funds? Can you give us a mailing address? > > No, sorry, I don't accept US$ checks. Cashing a US$ check here > costs something like 5 US$, that is not worth the trouble. > > If all else fails, put a few coins in an envelop and mail it to > the address below. For this year (2009), I can handle euro's, > pounds UK, US$ and Yen. > > Henk > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no > hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Tue Apr 21 18:15:47 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:15:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Committee of Honour [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <64042E6F4A594ED384FE1EAF312DDD2C@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Committee of Honour [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] snip > > Furthermore, recently the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee authorised David > Stevenson to begin preparing a new edition of the EBU White Book, so soon > DWS will give at least EBU TDs plain English guidance on the 2007 Lawbook. > Hmm, Stevenson is almost as opaque as Grattan. It comes from living in a part of England where they mispronounce most of the vowels. It's very hard for them. Quite seriously, Burn would be a much better choice, but he's a Londoner and I'll be accused of prejudice.. Wahey, I am having a really xenophobic week here :) I'll tone it down soon. John > Best wishes > > R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > * In a private email to me, a cynic floated the subversive suggestion that > the reason for the WBF LC rejection was that the WBF LC was unable to > consistently agree on the interpretation of its own minutes. :-) :-) > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 21 18:19:00 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:19:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles In-Reply-To: References: <8CB8FEFE6DD7C6A-6BC-38C@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> <000c01c9c1fe$5 2507bb0$f6f17310$@no> <000001c9c20a$bab14110$3013c330$@com> <000001c9c259$38 fb21f0$aaf165d0$@no> <005801c9c273$3e88f380$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001301c9c27a$e aa4fe50$bfeefaf0$@com> <492F5826-66FA-4650-B39E-3A2850506ACA@starpower.net> <49EDE2DC.8010005@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <3E15C406-BD99-4A6E-B8F4-E60979C911E4@starpower.net> On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >>> I am sure that Sven does not deserve the abuse he's been taking. >>> All >>> he ever said was that repealing the laws against murder would not be >>> the same thing as requiring every citizen to go out an murder >>> someone. > > Someone proposes an unstated line of play. There is no normal line > of play > that does worse. The director can reject this unstated line of > play? What > would be an example of that? The player who claimed stating that he will finesse for the queen in his 11-card fit, then changed his mind when he recounted. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 21 18:52:59 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:52:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unreality [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <004601c9c1a8$77123c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:13:57 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:09:18 -0400, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ********************************** >> " We are haunted, not by reality, but >> by those images we have put in place >> of reality." ~ Daniel J. Boorstin, 1962. >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >>> >>> What is your ruling in each of these three scenarios, and >>> what is the official WBFLC line please? >>> >> +=+ I am sure I have not followed Gampas' argument. >> I believe the WBFLC position is that the clarification of >> claim is followed until an irregularity is encountered. Minute 3 >> of 1st November 2001 then applies, and if a line of play is >> suggested that depends for its success on one opponent rather >> than the other being possessed of a particular card minute 3 >> of 30 October 2001 applies. >> No legal play constitutes an irregularity and if it contains >> no irregularity the line of play in the statement of clarification >> is 'normal', even if it requires claimer to be labouring under an >> illusion. The Director may consider alternative possibilities if >> at any point the statement fails to provide a lawful line of play >> that (s)he is able to follow. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I don't understand how there could be a WBFLC position on the situation > where claimer states playing the ace and then the king in this situation: > > KQJ9x > > 10xxxx -- > > Axx > > Many (probably most) BLMLers would allow the finesse. No one has > mentioned > a minute relevant to this issue. I can now see how this could be the official WBFLC position. Suppose in this position declarer states that he will play the ace of clubs, lead a club to king and play the king, then lead a club to the queen and play the queen. That is the kind of ideal, detailed statement the the laws admire. However, the laws don't really say that this clarification statement should be followed or exactly what is to be done with it, if anything. HOWEVER, this particular claim contains an irregularity (lead out of turn). The WBFLC has opined "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim THE DIRECTOR FOLLOWS THAT STATEMENT up to the point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." (1 Nov 2001) Now, it seems to me that playing the king is the only play that follows the claiming statement. It would be silly if the claiming statement was followed this strictly only when it contains a subsequent irregularity. Therefore, the WBFLC must have believed that the claiming statement is also followed when there is no irregularity [except when that does not become possible, with amiguities in the claim statement being resolved]. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 21 19:16:26 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:16:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unreality In-Reply-To: References: <004601c9c1a8$77123c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <8622BF7B-D01F-4F25-B373-6004E18B1A5F@starpower.net> On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:13:57 -0400, Robert Frick > wrote: > >> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:09:18 -0400, Grattan >> >> wrote: >> >>> From: >>> >>>> What is your ruling in each of these three scenarios, and >>>> what is the official WBFLC line please? >>> >>> +=+ I am sure I have not followed Gampas' argument. >>> I believe the WBFLC position is that the clarification of >>> claim is followed until an irregularity is encountered. Minute 3 >>> of 1st November 2001 then applies, and if a line of play is >>> suggested that depends for its success on one opponent rather >>> than the other being possessed of a particular card minute 3 >>> of 30 October 2001 applies. >>> No legal play constitutes an irregularity and if it contains >>> no irregularity the line of play in the statement of clarification >>> is 'normal', even if it requires claimer to be labouring under an >>> illusion. The Director may consider alternative possibilities if >>> at any point the statement fails to provide a lawful line of play >>> that (s)he is able to follow. >> >> I don't understand how there could be a WBFLC position on the >> situation >> where claimer states playing the ace and then the king in this >> situation: >> >> KQJ9x >> >> 10xxxx -- >> >> Axx >> >> Many (probably most) BLMLers would allow the finesse. No one has >> mentioned >> a minute relevant to this issue. > > I can now see how this could be the official WBFLC position. > Suppose in > this position declarer states that he will play the ace of clubs, > lead a > club to king and play the king, then lead a club to the queen and > play the > queen. > > That is the kind of ideal, detailed statement the the laws admire. > However, the laws don't really say that this clarification statement > should be followed or exactly what is to be done with it, if anything. > > HOWEVER, this particular claim contains an irregularity (lead out of > turn). The WBFLC has opined > > "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity > embodied in a statement of claim THE DIRECTOR FOLLOWS THAT > STATEMENT up to > the point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs and, > since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that > point as > though there were no statement of claim but should take into > account any > later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." (1 > Nov 2001) > > Now, it seems to me that playing the king is the only play that > follows > the claiming statement. > > It would be silly if the claiming statement was followed this strictly > only when it contains a subsequent irregularity. Therefore, the > WBFLC must > have believed that the claiming statement is also followed when > there is > no irregularity [except when that does not become possible, with > amiguities in the claim statement being resolved]. I'm sure Grattan and the minute mean an irregularity in the manifestly intended claim, not a literal irregularity in the phraseology of the claim statement. Holding xx/Ax/Kx/Ax in hand opposite AQ/Kx/Ax/Kx, I claim with "taking the spade finesse, making seven or eight of the eight remaining". Is Bob saying that this is a good claim only if I happen to be in my hand when I speak up, but "breaks down" immediately if I happen to be in dummy? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 21 19:19:29 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:19:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Basic Claiming Principles In-Reply-To: <3E15C406-BD99-4A6E-B8F4-E60979C911E4@starpower.net> References: <8CB8FEFE6DD7C6A-6BC-38C@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> <000c01c9c1fe$5 2507bb0$f6f17310$@no> <000001c9c20a$bab14110$3013c330$@com> <000001c9c259$38 fb21f0$aaf165d0$@no> <005801c9c273$3e88f380$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001301c9c27a$e aa4fe50$bfeefaf0$@com> <492F5826-66FA-4650-B39E-3A2850506ACA@starpower.net> <49EDE2DC.8010005@meteo.fr> <3E15C406-BD99-4A6E-B8F4-E60979C911E4@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:19:00 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >>> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> >>>> I am sure that Sven does not deserve the abuse he's been taking. >>>> All >>>> he ever said was that repealing the laws against murder would not be >>>> the same thing as requiring every citizen to go out an murder >>>> someone. >> >> Someone proposes an unstated line of play. There is no normal line >> of play >> that does worse. The director can reject this unstated line of >> play? What >> would be an example of that? > > The player who claimed stating that he will finesse for the queen in > his 11-card fit, then changed his mind when he recounted. Awk! And declarer stating that he will try to drop the queen in a 9-card fit and the defenders making the unstated proposal that he finesse. Revised question: Except for following the claiming statment, is there any time the director rejects an unstated proposal even though there are no alternative normal lines of play that do worse? From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 21 19:42:24 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:42:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unreality In-Reply-To: <8622BF7B-D01F-4F25-B373-6004E18B1A5F@starpower.net> References: <004601c9c1a8$77123c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> <8622BF7B-D01F-4F25-B373-6004E18B1A5F@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:16:26 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:13:57 -0400, Robert Frick >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:09:18 -0400, Grattan >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> From: >>>> >>>>> What is your ruling in each of these three scenarios, and >>>>> what is the official WBFLC line please? >>>> >>>> +=+ I am sure I have not followed Gampas' argument. >>>> I believe the WBFLC position is that the clarification of >>>> claim is followed until an irregularity is encountered. Minute 3 >>>> of 1st November 2001 then applies, and if a line of play is >>>> suggested that depends for its success on one opponent rather >>>> than the other being possessed of a particular card minute 3 >>>> of 30 October 2001 applies. >>>> No legal play constitutes an irregularity and if it contains >>>> no irregularity the line of play in the statement of clarification >>>> is 'normal', even if it requires claimer to be labouring under an >>>> illusion. The Director may consider alternative possibilities if >>>> at any point the statement fails to provide a lawful line of play >>>> that (s)he is able to follow. >>> >>> I don't understand how there could be a WBFLC position on the >>> situation >>> where claimer states playing the ace and then the king in this >>> situation: >>> >>> KQJ9x >>> >>> 10xxxx -- >>> >>> Axx >>> >>> Many (probably most) BLMLers would allow the finesse. No one has >>> mentioned >>> a minute relevant to this issue. >> >> I can now see how this could be the official WBFLC position. >> Suppose in >> this position declarer states that he will play the ace of clubs, >> lead a >> club to king and play the king, then lead a club to the queen and >> play the >> queen. >> >> That is the kind of ideal, detailed statement the the laws admire. >> However, the laws don't really say that this clarification statement >> should be followed or exactly what is to be done with it, if anything. >> >> HOWEVER, this particular claim contains an irregularity (lead out of >> turn). The WBFLC has opined >> >> "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity >> embodied in a statement of claim THE DIRECTOR FOLLOWS THAT >> STATEMENT up to >> the point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs and, >> since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that >> point as >> though there were no statement of claim but should take into >> account any >> later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." (1 >> Nov 2001) >> >> Now, it seems to me that playing the king is the only play that >> follows >> the claiming statement. >> >> It would be silly if the claiming statement was followed this strictly >> only when it contains a subsequent irregularity. Therefore, the >> WBFLC must >> have believed that the claiming statement is also followed when >> there is >> no irregularity [except when that does not become possible, with >> amiguities in the claim statement being resolved]. > > I'm sure Grattan and the minute mean an irregularity in the > manifestly intended claim, not a literal irregularity in the > phraseology of the claim statement. > > Holding xx/Ax/Kx/Ax in hand opposite AQ/Kx/Ax/Kx, I claim with > "taking the spade finesse, making seven or eight of the eight > remaining". Is Bob saying that this is a good claim only if I happen > to be in my hand when I speak up, but "breaks down" immediately if I > happen to be in dummy? I have told Eric, again and again, that I agree with him that claimer should not be punished for incorrectly stating a claim when the intent is obvious. "leading to the queen" is obviously a poorly phrased rendition of "taking the finesse". This, however, is not an irregularity in the phraseology (unless you are taking the claimer to be saying "I am playing the club suit in the proper way", which I personally would not accept in a claim statement.) Bob thinks Eric's trailing question is really hard and he has no idea what the correct answer is. AQ10xx AQx AKQ AK J9xxx Kxx xxx xx Declarer claims saying that he leads the jack of spades and is taking the spade finesse for the overtrick in 6S. He has, apparently(?), forgotten that he won the opening diamond lead on the board. Do we allow him to go to hand to take the finesse? Do we force him to go to hand to take the finesse if the layout is AQ10xx AQx AKQ AK Kx x -- J109xxxx J109xxx x xxxxx xxxx J9xxx Kxx xxx xx I think the standard answer is that we allow him to go to hand to take the finesse, but when that doesn't work we don't make him go to hand, and from then on we are less tolerant about letting him go to hand. Except of course when the king is singleton offside. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 21 19:56:37 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:56:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org><49EC8340.8080300@ripe.net> <17597481D4884673821CE1A528133062@JOHN> Message-ID: <000e01c9c2aa$86f805c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Final steps in the transition of the list > > > ok.ok > > I sense that the credit crunch has severely affected my continental and > crosspond cousins and have today accordingly stuck a pony in an envelope > and mailed it to henk. > +=+ Earlier I sent only four-fifths of a pony. That's because my horse was tailed off today. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 21 20:36:23 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:36:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unreality In-Reply-To: References: <004601c9c1a8$77123c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> <8622BF7B-D01F-4F25-B373-6004E18B1A5F@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:16:26 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> I'm sure Grattan and the minute mean an irregularity in the >> manifestly intended claim, not a literal irregularity in the >> phraseology of the claim statement. >> >> Holding xx/Ax/Kx/Ax in hand opposite AQ/Kx/Ax/Kx, I claim with >> "taking the spade finesse, making seven or eight of the eight >> remaining". Is Bob saying that this is a good claim only if I happen >> to be in my hand when I speak up, but "breaks down" immediately if I >> happen to be in dummy? > > I have told Eric, again and again, that I agree with him that claimer > should not be punished for incorrectly stating a claim when the > intent is > obvious. "leading to the queen" is obviously a poorly phrased > rendition of > "taking the finesse". This, however, is not an irregularity in the > phraseology (unless you are taking the claimer to be saying "I am > playing > the club suit in the proper way", which I personally would not > accept in a > claim statement.) > > Bob thinks Eric's trailing question is really hard and he has no > idea what > the correct answer is. > > AQ10xx > AQx > AKQ > AK > > J9xxx > Kxx > xxx > xx > > Declarer claims saying that he leads the jack of spades and is > taking the > spade finesse for the overtrick in 6S. He has, apparently(?), > forgotten > that he won the opening diamond lead on the board. > > Do we allow him to go to hand to take the finesse? Yes. He manifestly intended to play spades by finessing for the king. > Do we force him to go to hand to take the finesse if the layout is > > AQ10xx > AQx > AKQ > AK > > Kx x > -- J109xxxx > J109xxx x > xxxxx xxxx > > J9xxx > Kxx > xxx > xx Yes. He won't make it to his hand, of course, but we force him to try. One trick to E-W (coincidentally the normal result). Two tricks to E-W if the diamonds are Kxx opposite AQx (assume a club lead to avoid side issues) and the E-W hands are reversed (where we would expect one trick to E-W if the hand were to be played out)? One trick if, in addition, we exchange North's CK for West's Sx, making the finesse irrational after the presumed heart ruff? > I think the standard answer is that we allow him to go to hand to > take the > finesse, but when that doesn't work we don't make him go to hand, > and from > then on we are less tolerant about letting him go to hand. Except of > course when the king is singleton offside. I think that regardless of the lie, we consider only lines in which declarer attempts to take the spade finesse. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From tom at abacurial.com Tue Apr 21 22:01:47 2009 From: tom at abacurial.com (tOM Trottier) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:01:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Can't get there from here In-Reply-To: <49ED7984.30703@skynet.be> References: , <49ED7984.30703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49EDEDEB.22451.1DDBEFE6@tom.abacurial.com> On Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 9:45, Herman De Wael wrote: | Robert asks a pertinent question, but is Grattan listening? | | Robert Frick wrote: | > This is probably of more theoretical interest than practical importance. | > | > Declarer claims in no trump with AKQJ9 of diamonds and AKQJ9 of clubs, | > stating that his hand is good and adding that he will cash diamonds before | > clubs. The regularint authority has not said that high cards are to be | > played first. | > | > LHO calls you the director and objects to the claim. He says that if | > declarer actually thinks everything in his hand is good, he should play a | > small diamond first, losing to the ten. I think the operative word here is "cash". Cash means that the leader will take the trick. If the 9 is not high, then he cannot "cash" it - as opponents would take their their 10 instead. tOM -- Absum! -- tOM Trottier, +1 613 860-6633 469 Ancaster Ave, Ottawa, ON K2B 5B6 Canada http://Information.Architecture.Abacurial.com Est-ce c'est necessaire d'imprimer ce courriel? Do you really need to print this email? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 21 23:26:18 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:26:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Committee of Honour [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John Raymond Carson on elegant but vaporous phraseology: Scintillate, scintillate Globule lucific Fain would I fathom Thy nature specific Loftily perched In the ether capacious Strongly resembling A gem carbonaceous. Richard Hills on translating into plain English: In a former life Grattan Endicott was a translator, so perhaps he might make a stab at translating Carson's verse into a more memorable but plainer English verse??? :-) :-) For example: Twinkle, twinkle, little star How I wonder what you are Up above the world so high Like a diamond in the sky Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 21 23:29:03 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:29:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Small World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Philippe Keyaerts, designer of esteemed strategy board games: "And a special thanks to Xavier Georges and Alain Gottcheiner for their suggestions and contributions." Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 21 23:40:40 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:40:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Will Cuppy, How to Attract the Wombat, page 128: "Then there's the law that any person found carrying a Swan- hook, the same being neither a Swanherd in good standing nor accompanied by two certified Swanherds, or Swannerds (or Swanners, or Swanmasters), of known probity, should cough up thirteen shillings fourpence, three shillings fourpence going to the informer and the rest to the King. This looked like a fine bit of legislation until it developed that you can't collect from such people. They haven't got it. That's why they're out stealing Swans." Imps Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- 1H 2S (1) Pass Pass ? (1) Weak jump overcall You, East, hold: 3 QJ732 AT6 KQ83 What call do you make? Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From james at kineticmind.com Wed Apr 22 00:18:34 2009 From: james at kineticmind.com (James Heneghan) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:18:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49EE463A.60803@kineticmind.com> If E/W play neg x, I reopen with an X richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Will Cuppy, How to Attract the Wombat, page 128: > > "Then there's the law that any person found carrying a Swan- > hook, the same being neither a Swanherd in good standing nor > accompanied by two certified Swanherds, or Swannerds (or > Swanners, or Swanmasters), of known probity, should cough up > thirteen shillings fourpence, three shillings fourpence going > to the informer and the rest to the King. This looked like a > fine bit of legislation until it developed that you can't > collect from such people. They haven't got it. That's why > they're out stealing Swans." > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- 1H > 2S (1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) Weak jump overcall > > You, East, hold: > > 3 > QJ732 > AT6 > KQ83 > > What call do you make? > > > Best wishes > > R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 22 00:26:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:26:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ABDA Bulletin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003a01c9c26b$15cd6000$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Extract from ACBL Board of Directors minutes, Houston 2009: * * * * * Executive Session At approximately 4:45 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session. * * * * * The Board reconvened at 9 a.m. on Thursday, March 12, at 9 a.m. +=+ This is the sense of the message sent to me last month: "Rick Beye is no longer the CTD of the ACBL. There is no CTD any more. The Board of Directors in their wisdom decided that we needed no such central authority for the 200-plus TDs working at tournaments - in order to economise, eliminate the job and turn it over to locals". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. it surprises me that North Americans do not spell the word as 'tornaments' eliminating the unneeded 'u'. ~ G ~ It surpries me that nobody thought of eliminating the unneeded 'na' either..... Matthias Best torments R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 22 03:11:52 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:11:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Quest yon newt aria sing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <83F419D0-F800-4F14-997C-F26379C3C6B2@starpower.net> Message-ID: Gil-Galad was an Elven-king. Of him kibitzers sadly sing: The last whose table fees were free Inside his club beside the sea. His thoughts were long, his bidding keen, His shining smile afar was seen; And victories in all bridge fields Were graven on his cups and shields. But long ago he passed away, And where he shuffles none can say; For into darkness fell this star In Mordor where the psychers are. Eric Landau asserted: >That means that we do not require claimers to state how they >will play, card by card, in response to any possible >development, even though that's what L68C explicitly calls for. Does it? Law 68C, Clarification Required for Claim: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." In my opinion a statement to the effect of, "I claim the last eight tricks on a high cross-ruff," does not technically infract Law 68C, but rather is both pragmatically and also ideally Lawful. The "high cross-ruff" is: (a) "a clear statement", and (b) describes "the order" high trumps "will be played" from dummy and the closed hand alternately, thus (c) is "the line of play", which will (d) "win the tricks". The fact that that claim statement does not specify which particular high trump is played to which specific trick is, in my opinion, no way Jose an infraction of Law 68C. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 08:53:19 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:53:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unreality In-Reply-To: References: <004601c9c1a8$77123c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> <8622BF7B-D01F-4F25-B373-6004E18B1A5F@starpower.net> Message-ID: 2009/4/21 Eric Landau : > On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:16:26 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> I'm sure Grattan and the minute mean an irregularity in the >>> manifestly intended claim, not a literal irregularity in the >>> phraseology of the claim statement. >>> >>> Holding xx/Ax/Kx/Ax in hand opposite AQ/Kx/Ax/Kx, I claim with >>> "taking the spade finesse, making seven or eight of the eight >>> remaining". ?Is Bob saying that this is a good claim only if I happen >>> to be in my hand when I speak up, but "breaks down" immediately if I >>> happen to be in dummy? >> >> I have told Eric, again and again, that I agree with him that claimer >> should not be punished for incorrectly stating a claim when the >> intent is >> obvious. "leading to the queen" is obviously a poorly phrased >> rendition of >> "taking the finesse". This, however, is not an irregularity in the >> phraseology (unless you are taking the claimer to be saying "I am >> playing >> the club suit in the proper way", which I personally would not >> accept in a >> claim statement.) >> >> Bob thinks Eric's trailing question is really hard and he has no >> idea what >> the correct answer is. >> >> AQ10xx >> AQx >> AKQ >> AK >> >> J9xxx >> Kxx >> xxx >> xx >> >> Declarer claims saying that he leads the jack of spades and is >> taking the >> spade finesse for the overtrick in 6S. He has, apparently(?), >> forgotten >> that he won the opening diamond lead on the board. >> >> Do we allow him to go to hand to take the finesse? > > Yes. ?He manifestly intended to play spades by finessing for the king. > >> Do we force him to go to hand to take the finesse if the layout is >> >> ? ? ? AQ10xx >> ? ? ? AQx >> ? ? ? AKQ >> ? ? ? AK >> >> Kx ? ? ? ? ? ?x >> -- ? ? ? ? ? ?J109xxxx >> J109xxx ? ? ? x >> xxxxx ? ? ? ? xxxx >> >> ? ? ? J9xxx >> ? ? ? Kxx >> ? ? ? xxx >> ? ? ? xx > > Yes. ?He won't make it to his hand, of course, but we force him to > try. ?One trick to E-W (coincidentally the normal result). Excuse me, but if we force him to lead a heart to his king, west ruffs, plays a diamond which east ruffs and a heart return is ruffed by west, giving the defence three tricks, not one. Remember, the opening lead was a diamond won in dummy. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran >?Two > tricks to E-W if the diamonds are Kxx opposite AQx (assume a club > lead to avoid side issues) and the E-W hands are reversed (where we > would expect one trick to E-W if the hand were to be played out)? > One trick if, in addition, we exchange North's CK for West's Sx, > making the finesse irrational after the presumed heart ruff? > >> I think the standard answer is that we allow him to go to hand to >> take the >> finesse, but when that doesn't work we don't make him go to hand, >> and from >> then on we are less tolerant about letting him go to hand. Except of >> course when the king is singleton offside. > > I think that regardless of the lie, we consider only lines in which > declarer attempts to take the spade finesse. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 22 12:34:47 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:34:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Can't get there from here In-Reply-To: <49EDEDEB.22451.1DDBEFE6@tom.abacurial.com> References: , <49ED7984.30703@skynet.be> <49EDEDEB.22451.1DDBEFE6@tom.abacurial.com> Message-ID: <49EEF2C7.2090609@skynet.be> tOM Trottier wrote: > On Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 9:45, > Herman De Wael wrote: > > | Robert asks a pertinent question, but is Grattan listening? > | > | Robert Frick wrote: > | > This is probably of more theoretical interest than practical importance. > | > > | > Declarer claims in no trump with AKQJ9 of diamonds and AKQJ9 of clubs, > | > stating that his hand is good and adding that he will cash diamonds before > | > clubs. The regularint authority has not said that high cards are to be > | > played first. > | > > | > LHO calls you the director and objects to the claim. He says that if > | > declarer actually thinks everything in his hand is good, he should play a > | > small diamond first, losing to the ten. > > I think the operative word here is "cash". Cash means that the leader will take the trick. > If the 9 is not high, then he cannot "cash" it - as opponents would take their their 10 > instead. > I think you rely too heavily on the actual words used. I strongly believe that we must use the words of claimer to determine what the know of the hand and then deduce the normal lines from that knowledge, and not bother too much about the actual words. When a player uses the word "cash", he means that he's playing high ones. If he believes the 9 is a high one, then yes - he may play it, regardles of whether it actually is high or not. But in the case of AKQJ9 it is difficult to see a player "cash" the nine. No-one does that. But that is stuff for another discussion. > tOM Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 22 15:26:49 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:26:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Can't get there from here In-Reply-To: <49EDEDEB.22451.1DDBEFE6@tom.abacurial.com> References: , <49ED7984.30703@skynet.be> <49EDEDEB.22451.1DDBEFE6@tom.abacurial.com> Message-ID: <74DDD754-124A-42A9-A1F5-2C19CDB42EB0@starpower.net> On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:01 PM, tOM Trottier wrote: > On Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 9:45, > Herman De Wael wrote: > > | Robert asks a pertinent question, but is Grattan listening? > | > | Robert Frick wrote: > | > This is probably of more theoretical interest than practical > importance. > | > > | > Declarer claims in no trump with AKQJ9 of diamonds and AKQJ9 of > clubs, > | > stating that his hand is good and adding that he will cash > diamonds before > | > clubs. The regularint authority has not said that high cards > are to be > | > played first. > | > > | > LHO calls you the director and objects to the claim. He says > that if > | > declarer actually thinks everything in his hand is good, he > should play a > | > small diamond first, losing to the ten. > > I think the operative word here is "cash". Cash means that the > leader will take the trick. > If the 9 is not high, then he cannot "cash" it - as opponents would > take their their 10 > instead. A player gestures in the direction of his AKQJ9 and says something to the effect of "run the diamonds", or "cash the diamond suit", or "diamonds from the top", or some such. It would be absurd to pretend that small differences in his precise choice of words unambiguously indicate substantial differences in analysis or intention. If three different players in otherwise identical circumstances used the three different word choices above, it would be obvious to everyone at the table, the non-bridge-playing janitor and the dog on Lynn's lap that they were attempting to express the same intention. Maybe we should rule one way, maybe we should rule the other way (OK, in this case it's clear, but in general...), but if we believe that "the Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage", we should rule the same way regardless of the exact words used when we're convinced we know what was intended. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 22 15:33:49 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:33:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unreality In-Reply-To: References: <004601c9c1a8$77123c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> <8622BF7B-D01F-4F25-B373-6004E18B1A5F@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Apr 22, 2009, at 2:53 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2009/4/21 Eric Landau : > >> On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Do we force him to go to hand to take the finesse if the layout is >>> >>> AQ10xx >>> AQx >>> AKQ >>> AK >>> >>> Kx x >>> -- J109xxxx >>> J109xxx x >>> xxxxx xxxx >>> >>> J9xxx >>> Kxx >>> xxx >>> xx >> >> Yes. He won't make it to his hand, of course, but we force him to >> try. One trick to E-W (coincidentally the normal result). > > Excuse me, but if we force him to lead a heart to his king, west > ruffs, plays a diamond which east ruffs and a heart return is ruffed > by west, giving the defence three tricks, not one. Remember, the > opening lead was a diamond won in dummy. Yup, I overlooked the diamond lead. Three tricks. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 22 15:48:34 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:48:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Can't get there from here References: , <49ED7984.30703@skynet.be> <49EDEDEB.22451.1DDBEFE6@tom.abacurial.com> Message-ID: <007601c9c351$09043dd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Can't get there from here > > Declarer claims in no trump with AKQJ9 of diamonds > and AKQJ9 of clubs, stating that his hand is good and > adding that he will cash diamonds before clubs. The > regularint authority has not said that high cards are to be > played first. > > LHO calls you the director and objects to the claim. He > says that if declarer actually thinks everything in his hand > is good, he should play a small diamond first, losing to the > ten. > I think the operative word here is "cash". Cash means that the leader will take the trick. If the 9 is not high, then he cannot "cash" it - as opponents would take their their 10 instead. tOM < +=+ One could argue a case for providing a definition of 'to cash'. As for example: .................................................................................. "To 'cash' is to play a suit downwards from the player's highest card in the belief that through such play he will win all the tricks or all the tricks he specifies." .................................................................................. A player is likely to intend this on occasion and not to be saying that he is holding all the highest cards of the suit. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Apr 22 20:33:36 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:33:36 -0800 Subject: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: >From Richard Hills: > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- 1H > 2S (1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) Weak jump overcall > > You, East, hold: > > 3 > QJ732 > AT6 > KQ83 > > What call do you make? Pass. But I don't play negative doubles. Even if I did, I would refuse to balance with a minimum opening like this. However, if partner passed with extreme speed, indicating weakness, I would double. Such partners must be taught a lesson. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Apr 22 20:40:19 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:40:19 -0800 Subject: [BLML] ABDA Bulletin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003a01c9c26b$15cd6000$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: From: "Grattan" >> > +=+ This is the sense of the message sent to me last month: > "Rick Beye is no longer the CTD of the ACBL. There is no CTD > any more. The Board of Directors in their wisdom decided that we > needed no such central authority for the 200-plus TDs working at > tournaments - in order to economise, eliminate the job and turn it > over to locals". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > After long experience at NABCs, it is evident to me that ACBL TDs need a central authority to train them and monitor their performance. Rick must have irritated some politico or the buddy of a politico. I have asked a top-level TD with whom I am friendly for an explanation, but no reply yet. If I get one, it is likely to be private and not for dissemination. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Apr 22 23:32:44 2009 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:32:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49EF8CFC.5050802@verizon.net> Double, if I ever want partner to trust me again. Then again, I don't have any partnerships where a W double would not be negative. It is becoming rare to find W with a penalty double available, and I haven't played such a system in many, many years. So, speaking hypothetically but not from recent experience... The reopening double backfires if partner is holding a dog, of course, but it is likelier that the missing values are split between W and N. On this auction, partner may be even more likely to have values if pinned from bidding minor oriented hands by the lack of a negative double. The problematical shape occurs if partner has any values is something like 4-2-4-3. If partner has some cards, just about any other shape yields either enough spades to play defense, or an eight or nine card fit somewhere, so once again I need to double. If partner is broke, I congratulate N on his disciplined pass, score up the minus, and go to the next hand. I await the real problem with interest. Hirsch richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Will Cuppy, How to Attract the Wombat, page 128: > > "Then there's the law that any person found carrying a Swan- > hook, the same being neither a Swanherd in good standing nor > accompanied by two certified Swanherds, or Swannerds (or > Swanners, or Swanmasters), of known probity, should cough up > thirteen shillings fourpence, three shillings fourpence going > to the informer and the rest to the King. This looked like a > fine bit of legislation until it developed that you can't > collect from such people. They haven't got it. That's why > they're out stealing Swans." > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- 1H > 2S (1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) Weak jump overcall > > You, East, hold: > > 3 > QJ732 > AT6 > KQ83 > > What call do you make? > > > Best wishes > > R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Apr 23 00:21:56 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:21:56 -0800 Subject: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49EF8CFC.5050802@verizon.net> Message-ID: <1227E459782B41539CBD15AB29FB477F@MARVLAPTOP> Hirsch Davis > Double, if I ever want partner to trust me again. Then again, I > don't > have any partnerships where a W double would not be negative. > Giving a free pass to light bidders, the "get-in get-out" types. The lack of a negative double costs me some matchpoints maybe once a year, but penalty doubles of overcalls have been very lucrative. Of course those of us who open four-card majors have less need for negative doubles. One trouble with Hirsch's balancing policy is that many players are incapable of passing an overcall in proper tempo. Often there is a decision that requires thought. Double or pass? Bid notrump or pass? That should not be apparent, but few players are good actors. Openers with minimum hands seem to take the right path, pass or double, with uncanny accuracy. If the partnership has an agreement to always balance with minimums, that is not a problem, but it should be disclosed beforehand. I love to trap such people, but RHO's tempo often makes a trap ineffective if balancing is not near-automatic. I play negative doubles with a few partners, but warn them that I am not going to balance with a minimum hand, and certainly not with an off-shape double. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Apr 23 00:25:33 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:25:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49EF8CFC.5050802@verizon.net> <1227E459782B41539CBD15AB29FB477F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <002001c9c399$49cf3a20$2401a8c0@p41600> Yeah, "automatic" **************************** Cum homine de cane debeo congredi **************************** > Hirsch Davis > > > Double, if I ever want partner to trust me again. Then again, I > > don't > > have any partnerships where a W double would not be negative. > > > Giving a free pass to light bidders, the "get-in get-out" types. The > lack of a negative double costs me some matchpoints maybe once a > year, but penalty doubles of overcalls have been very lucrative. Of > course those of us who open four-card majors have less need for > negative doubles. > > One trouble with Hirsch's balancing policy is that many players are > incapable of passing an overcall in proper tempo. Often there is a > decision that requires thought. Double or pass? Bid notrump or pass? > That should not be apparent, but few players are good actors. > Openers with minimum hands seem to take the right path, pass or > double, with uncanny accuracy. > > If the partnership has an agreement to always balance with minimums, > that is not a problem, but it should be disclosed beforehand. I love > to trap such people, but RHO's tempo often makes a trap ineffective > if balancing is not near-automatic. > > I play negative doubles with a few partners, but warn them that I am > not going to balance with a minimum hand, and certainly not with an > off-shape double. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.2/2072 - Release Date: 04/21/09 16:48:00 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Apr 23 01:11:27 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:11:27 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Boston NABC 2009 Casebook Message-ID: <438B82CA189141E9B46E7DE86A15DC3D@MARVLAPTOP> Sorry all, I hadn't noticed until today that all the commentary has been added to the Boston NABC appeals cases, making the casebook complete. I have combined the cases into two pdf files, one for NABC+ cases and one for Non-NABC+ cases (why not NABC-?) The result is on my Web site under Bridge Laws and Regulations. Let's start talking about these cases and let the claims discussions die. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Apr 23 01:23:34 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:23:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Boston NABC 2009 Casebook In-Reply-To: <438B82CA189141E9B46E7DE86A15DC3D@MARVLAPTOP> References: <438B82CA189141E9B46E7DE86A15DC3D@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49EFA6F6.80600@aol.com> Thanks, JE Marvin L French schrieb: > Sorry all, I hadn't noticed until today that all the commentary has > been added to the Boston NABC appeals cases, making the casebook > complete. > > I have combined the cases into two pdf files, one for NABC+ cases > and one for Non-NABC+ cases (why not NABC-?) > > The result is on my Web site under Bridge Laws and Regulations. > > Let's start talking about these cases and let the claims discussions > die. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 23 03:41:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:41:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] D. Burn ition of Normal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: J. (M.-D.) Probst: [snip] >I'm not considering a line of play that presumes possession of the [non- >existent but believed to be held] CJ. I'm happy to be howled down on >this - I think this point may well be legitimate for discussion and >won't engender a string of "You are wrong" "No I'm not" "Yes you are" >"No I'm not" emails. In all cases bear in mind "doubtful points" is the >test. Perhaps "how doubtful?" is what we need to answer. R. J. Hills: Yes, Probst is wrong. Richard Hills: No, Probst is not. R. J. Hills: Yes he is. Richard Hills: No he isn't. Wretched Hills: In my ancient posting The Red Queen's Race (reposted as an attachment earlier in this thread), Aussie Chief Director Sean Mullamphy ruled that since the second-best bridge player in Canberra, Arjuna De Livera, claimed on the second-best belief that his Queen of Diamonds was the Queen of Hearts, it was a Doubtful Point whether the second-best bridge player in Canberra, Arjuna De Livera, would realise that his second-best belief resulted in a second-best line of play until it was too late to take the necessary diamond finesse. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Apr 23 04:16:37 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:16:37 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Boston NABC 2008 Casebook References: <438B82CA189141E9B46E7DE86A15DC3D@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <6E1711C1E77342D88A2D142A5DD77181@MARVLAPTOP> Yeah, yeah, 2008, not 2009 - Marv > Sorry all, I hadn't noticed until today that all the commentary > has > been added to the Boston NABC appeals cases, making the casebook > complete. > > I have combined the cases into two pdf files, one for NABC+ cases > and one for Non-NABC+ cases (why not NABC-?) > > The result is on my Web site under Bridge Laws and Regulations. > > Let's start talking about these cases and let the claims > discussions > die. > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 23 06:43:32 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:43:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2008 Boston non-NABC+ Three [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Marvin French: >...Let's start talking about these cases and let the claims >discussions die. Matt Smith was born in 1957 in Victoria, B.C. and still lives there with his wife Vicky. He has been an ACBL National Tournament Director since 2002. He has been an assistant tournament director at several WBF Championships. Is a member of the ACBL Laws Commission, and the first working tournament director to have been appointed since Al Sobel. Matt is an avid golfer when not directing. 2008 Boston non-NABC+ Three casebook panellist Matt Smith: "Many players don't understand the principles involved in resolving claims made with unmentioned outstanding trumps and, as this case shows, even some directors don't understand them. Congratulations to the panel for correctly deciding this case and for producing a first rate write-up that should be required reading for all directors and committee members." Richard Hills: "Many ACBL Laws Commissioners don't understand the principles involved in resolving claims made with unmentioned outstanding trumps and, as this case shows, even all five ACBL casebook panellists don't understand them. Disgratulations to the appeals panel for unLawfully over-ruling the correct Director ruling and for producing a meretricious write-up that should be shredded by all directors and committee members." Before the five ACBL casebook panellists finalised their writeups, this case was discussed was extensively discussed by blml in general and by Grattan Endicott in particular. The sage Grattan observed: +=+ I do not know the case. However, prima facie when a claim is made without mentioning an outstanding trump the claimer is unaware of it. Normally it is for the claimer to produce evidence that he was unquestionably aware of the trump. The words '*at all* likely' are key and the evidence should be irrefutable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ and then the sage Grattan further observed: +=+ I disagree with the suggestion that this is a value (1) judgement. The question is one of fact. The standard of proof required under Law 70C2 is high, indeed I would say absolute since minimal doubt establishes some degree of likelihood and the law says that the opponents *shall* then be awarded a trick or tricks. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills sage-and-onions: (1) This may be Grattanic shorthand for "no way Jose a balance of probabilities value judgement under Law 85A1". Is my translation from Grattanese into plainer English correct, My Lord Endicott? Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 23 09:27:59 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:27:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49EF8CFC.5050802@verizon.net> Message-ID: Hirsch Davis: >Double, if I ever want partner to trust me again. Then again, I >don't have any partnerships where a W double would not be negative. [snip] >I await the real problem with interest. Marv French: [snip] >If the partnership has an agreement to always balance with >minimums, that is not a problem, but it should be disclosed >beforehand. I love to trap such people, [snip] >I am not going to balance with a minimum hand, and certainly not >with an off-shape double. Larry Bennett: >Yeah, "automatic" > >**************************** >Cum homine de cane debeo congredi >**************************** Richard Hills: Does it matter whether pard hesitates for a required 10 seconds or a non-required 10 minutes? IF one plays negative doubles and IF pard's initial pass over South's bid could be a Trap Pass and IF one holds ideal shape for a reopening double THEN is that reopening double one's ONLY Logical Alternative? Will Cuppy, The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody, page 166: Either you like Henry VII or you don't. He has been much criticised for beheading two of his wives.(2) In a way, he has only himself to blame. Any man who beheads two of his wives must expect a little talk. He shouldn't have done it, but you know how things are. As a matter of fact, Henry merely let the law take its course, but some people feel that a really thoughtful husband would have done something about it. (2) He beheaded only two out of six, or thirty-three and a third per cent. That's not a bad average, considering. Richard Hills: A chance of 33.3% meant that beheading his current wife would not have been Henry's ONLY Logical Alternative. Marv French: [snip] >However, if partner passed with extreme speed, indicating weakness, I >would double. Such partners must be taught a lesson. Richard Hills: As it happens, this deal came from the Final of the Australian Open Team Selection Trials. Being played behind screens, over-hasty or veeery slooow tempo by West was not an issue. The complete deal: Dlr: East 64 Vul: North-South AK 98542 J976 QJ97 3 65 QJ732 K3 AT6 AT542 KQ83 AKT852 T984 QJ7 --- SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Richard Theo Ian Al Brightling Antoff Thomson Simpson --- --- --- 1H 1S Pass 1NT Pass 2S X Pass Pass Pass North-South +670 SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Leigh Ian Jamie Arjuna Gold Robinson Ebery De Livera (1) --- --- --- 1H 2S (2) Pass Pass Pass (3) North-South +110 (4) (1) The second-best bridge player in Canberra. (2) To quote Marvellous Marv, Leigh Gold may have been thinking: "I love to trap such people," (3) But Arjuna De Livera noticed that Leigh Gold was making a theoretically "weak" jump overcall at adverse vulnerability. Arjuna also observed that Leigh was not sitting down in the Trials Final because Leigh had made a wrong turn in the lobby. (4) Apparently the BBO commentariat harshly criticised Arjuna for his Pass; they would rather be right than be President. Sure enough, the 11 imps gained on this board helped enable the amateur Canberra all-stars team-of-six beat their team-of-four opponents and qualify for the 2009 Bermuda Bowl. For Brazil a seventh Canberran expert is being augmented to the team as non- playing captain, one of my occasional Symmetric Relay team- mates, Roy Nixon (no relation to Richard Nixon, but equally canny as a team leader). Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Apr 23 10:05:50 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:05:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <49EF8CFC.5050802@verizon.net> Message-ID: <200904230805.n3N85nb6019785@mail10.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 05:27 PM 23/04/2009, you wrote: >Hirsch Davis: > > >Double, if I ever want partner to trust me again. Then again, I > >don't have any partnerships where a W double would not be negative. > >[snip] > > >I await the real problem with interest. > >Marv French: > >[snip] > > >If the partnership has an agreement to always balance with > >minimums, that is not a problem, but it should be disclosed > >beforehand. I love to trap such people, > >[snip] > > >I am not going to balance with a minimum hand, and certainly not > >with an off-shape double. > >Larry Bennett: > > >Yeah, "automatic" > > > >**************************** > >Cum homine de cane debeo congredi > >**************************** > >Richard Hills: > >Does it matter whether pard hesitates for a required 10 seconds or a >non-required 10 minutes? > >IF one plays negative doubles and IF pard's initial pass over South's >bid could be a Trap Pass and IF one holds ideal shape for a reopening >double THEN is that reopening double one's ONLY Logical Alternative? > >Will Cuppy, The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody, page 166: > >Either you like Henry VII or you don't. He has been much criticised One doesnt often get the chance to correct Richard, but I think we are talking of his son H VIII I was going to pass, I often bid a weak jump overcall with a strong hand just to keep the opponents honest Tony (Sydney) From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 23 10:52:25 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:52:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000901c9c3f0$d4cd4700$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>**************************** >>Cum homine de cane debeo congredi >>**************************** > > Will Cuppy, The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody, page 166: > > Either you like Henry VII or you don't. He has been much criticised > for beheading two of his wives.(2) In a way, he has only himself to > blame. Any man who beheads two of his wives must expect a little > talk. He shouldn't have done it, but you know how things are. As a > matter of fact, Henry merely let the law take its course, but some > people feel that a really thoughtful husband would have done > something about it. > > (2) He beheaded only two out of six, or thirty-three and a third per > cent. That's not a bad average, considering. > > Richard Hills: > > A chance of 33.3% meant that beheading his current wife would not have > been Henry's ONLY Logical Alternative. > +=+ As far as I am aware Henry VII married only Elizabeth of York who died in childbirth. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Apr 23 12:44:04 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:44:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <49EF8CFC.5050802@verizon.net> Message-ID: <000001c9c400$6c7d12b0$45773810$@com> [RH] Either you like Henry VII or you don't. He has been much criticised for beheading two of his wives. [DALB] Henry VII was much criticised for many things, but beheading two of his wives could not have been among them, since he married only once. Still, it is refreshing to find a post of Richard's that contains an I too few. David Burn London, England From james at kineticmind.com Thu Apr 23 13:22:17 2009 From: james at kineticmind.com (James Heneghan) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:22:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1227E459782B41539CBD15AB29FB477F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <49EF8CFC.5050802@verizon.net> <1227E459782B41539CBD15AB29FB477F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49F04F69.1050302@kineticmind.com> When you meet such people, does your partner (have to) alert this? Marvin L French wrote: > If the partnership has an agreement to always balance with minimums, > that is not a problem, but it should be disclosed beforehand. I love > to trap such people, but RHO's tempo often makes a trap ineffective > if balancing is not near-automatic. > > From wrgptfan at gmail.com Thu Apr 23 16:13:22 2009 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:13:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c9c400$6c7d12b0$45773810$@com> References: <49EF8CFC.5050802@verizon.net> <000001c9c400$6c7d12b0$45773810$@com> Message-ID: It is only April but this post has my nomination for "Best BLML Post of the Year". ...Dave Kent Sent from my iPhone On Apr 23, 2009, at 6:44 AM, "David Burn" wrote: > [RH] > > Either you like Henry VII or you don't. He has been much criticised > for > beheading two of his wives. > > [DALB] > > Henry VII was much criticised for many things, but beheading two of > his > wives could not have been among them, since he married only once. > Still, it > is refreshing to find a post of Richard's that contains an I too few. > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 23 18:26:10 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:26:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49EF8CFC.5050802@verizon.net><000001c9c400$6c7d12b0$45773810$@com> Message-ID: <001201c9c430$3857eb10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > It is only April but this post has my nomination for "Best BLML Post > of the Year". > > ...Dave Kent > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 23, 2009, at 6:44 AM, "David Burn" > wrote: > [RH] Either you like Henry VII or you don't. He has been much criticised for beheading two of his wives. [DALB] Henry VII was much criticised for many things, but beheading two of his wives could not have been among them, since he married only once. Still, it is refreshing to find a post of Richard's that contains an I too few. David Burn London, England +=+ We seem to give up on Monarch's names if we arrive at VIII. The VIIIs tend to go astray in one way or another. Well, the two we have had up to now were best known, anyway, for their marriages...... Did you know that in the last years of his life the only way Henry VIII could move about was with the assistance of mechanical lifting devices? Henry was the third husband Catherine Parr saw to his grave; her fourth outlived her and indulged in intimate relations with a young Elizabeth who subsequently became a virgin Queen. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 23 23:53:49 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:53:49 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2008 Boston non-NABC+ Three [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Matt Smith ... has been an assistant tournament director at several WBF Championships ... In a private email, a blmler asked: "TD rulings may not be overruled by an AC if it pertains to a point of law or regulation (L93B). Does that apply here?" Matt Smith, self-incriminating statement: "Many players don't understand the principles ... a first rate write-up that should be required reading for all directors and committee members." Richard Hills: It seems to me that Matt Smith and I are in agreement that the appeals panel ruling was in two parts: (a) a first rate write-up of the principles to be followed in the interpretation of Law 70C, required reading for all directors and committee members, then (b) application of the facts of the case to those principles to be followed in their interpretation of Law 70C, required reading for all directors and committee members. Law 93B - Procedures of Appeal - Appeals Committee Available: If a committee is available, 1. The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. His ruling may be appealed to the committee. 2. The Director in charge shall refer all other appeals to the committee for adjudication. 3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.) Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 24 00:41:36 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:41:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2008 Boston non-NABC+ Three [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:53:49 -0400, wrote: > Matt Smith ... has been an assistant tournament director at > several WBF Championships ... > > In a private email, a blmler asked: > > "TD rulings may not be overruled by an AC if it pertains to a > point of law or regulation (L93B). Does that apply here?" > > Matt Smith, self-incriminating statement: > > "Many players don't understand the principles ... a first rate > write-up that should be required reading for all directors and > committee members." > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that Matt Smith and I are in agreement that the > appeals panel ruling was in two parts: > > (a) a first rate write-up of the principles to be followed in > the interpretation of Law 70C, required reading for all > directors and committee members, then > > (b) application of the facts of the case to those principles > to be followed in their interpretation of Law 70C, required > reading for all directors and committee members. > > Law 93B - Procedures of Appeal - Appeals Committee Available: > > If a committee is available, > > 1. The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part > of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. His > ruling may be appealed to the committee. > > 2. The Director in charge shall refer all other appeals to the > committee for adjudication. > > 3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all > powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the > committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of > law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary > powers. (The committee may recommend to the Director in charge > that he change such a ruling.) Are you expressing an opinion? The committee did seem to be concerned with how to interpret the laws and unconcerned if that was their authority. I really don't know where that boundary is supposed to be. As I think we agree, the AC's logical analysis was faulty. Correct, there must be some time L70C2 applies, but there are more obvious situations for its application. I would have felt comfortable as a director turning down their recommendation, if that was all it was. But I am guessing that directors never do that. From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 24 01:04:22 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:04:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Isn't there a conflict in Law 93B? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000401c9c467$d760a300$8621e900$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au .................... I haven't noticed this before, but isn't there a conflict between L93B1 and L93B3?: > Law 93B - Procedures of Appeal - Appeals Committee Available: > > If a committee is available, > > 1. The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part > of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. His > ruling may be appealed to the committee. > > 2. The Director in charge shall refer all other appeals to the > committee for adjudication. > > 3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all > powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the > committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of > law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary > powers. (The committee may recommend to the Director in charge > that he change such a ruling.) > What is the logic in allowing a ruling that deals solely with Law or regulation to be appealed (L93B1) when the committee may not overrule the Director on this point? (L93B3) Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 24 03:02:44 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:02:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Not any conflict in Law 93B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c9c467$d760a300$8621e900$@no> Message-ID: Rumpole of the Bailey: "The glory of the advocate is to be opinionated, brash, fearless, partisan, hectoring, rude, cunning and unfair." Law 93B3, bracketed phrase: "(The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)" Sven Pran asked: >What is the logic in allowing a ruling that deals solely with Law >or regulation to be appealed (L93B1) when the committee may not >overrule the Director on this point? (L93B3) Richard Hills: Although an Appeals Committee may not over-rule an incorrect interpretation of Law perpetrated by a Belgian Director in charge, the Appeals Committee may indulge in opinionated, brash, fearless, partisan, hectoring, rude, cunning and unfair advocacy in an attempt (perhaps vain) to change the mind of that Belgian Director in charge. If the Belgian Director in charge obstinately continues to be Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Wrong. Utterly wrong. Richard Hills: in maintaining his incorrect interpretation of Law, then the Appeals Committee may use Law 93C2: "The Director in charge or the Appeals Committee may refer a matter for later consideration by the Regulating Authority. The Regulating Authority has authority to resolve any matter finally." Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 24 04:01:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:01:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Committee of Honour [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <64042E6F4A594ED384FE1EAF312DDD2C@JOHN> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >Hmm, Stevenson is almost as opaque as Grattan. It comes from >living in a part of England where they mispronounce most of the >vowels. It's very hard for them. Quite seriously, Burn would be a >much better choice, but he's a Londoner and I'll be accused of >prejudice.. > >Wahey, I am having a really xenophobic week here :) I'll tone it >down soon. >John Richard Hills: Yes, if Grattan Endicott should elect to take an early retirement from his role as Coordinator of the Drafting Committee for the 2018 Lawbook, then David Burn would be an excellent replacement as the 2018 Coordinator. Look at what wit and insight DALB provided when writing a paper on the theoretically ultra-boring topic of alerting doubles. David Burn: Appendix A to L&E Minutes Feb 11th 2008 Alerting doubles Still the world is wondrous large - seven seas from marge to marge - And it holds a vast of various kinds of man, And the wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of Kathmandu, And the crimes of Clapham chaste in Martaban. Rudyard Kipling At the last Laws and Ethics Committee meeting, I rashly undertook to set out some thoughts on the proposal that "only highly unusual doubles should be alerted". What follows are those thoughts. The purpose of an alert is not to comply with some set of regulations. The purpose of an alert is to inform the opponents that, in the words of Robert Zimmerman, "something is happening here but you don?t know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?" The recent changes to the alerting procedure were by and large in keeping with this purpose, but some - especially those relating to the alerting of doubles - were not. Particularly in England, where the practice of asking "unnecessary" questions about the auction is discouraged, providing information to the opponents without their having to ask for it is of primary importance. That is why we should be reluctant to adopt the policy that no doubles are alertable. If, for example, South opens 1NT and West doubles to show spades and another suit, North should be told that the double is not for penalty, not least because his methods may very well vary depending on whether the double is for penalty or not. If he asks a question, he may be placed through no fault of his own in the invidious position of having conveyed unauthorised information should he then pass. [big snip] After finishing this paper, I have read correspondence (on an internet forum) from Belgium, where it is said that since Belgium adopted the regulation "no double is alertable", players have been inventing peculiar meanings for doubles in an effort to trap unwary opponents. Whereas I am well aware that the reaction to this in certain circles may be "so that's why we fought the War, eh?" I consider that it provides at least some reinforcement for the idea that we should not adopt such a regulation. Again, I would stress that if we make new regulations, we should (as we did with the latest Orange Book) allow considerable leniency while they are absorbed. I would also urge once again that we abolish the stupid regulation discouraging people from exercising their legal right to ask questions during the auction. Et ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. David Burn 29th January 2008 Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Apr 24 06:34:43 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:34:43 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Isn't there a conflict in Law 93B? References: <000401c9c467$d760a300$8621e900$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote: > > What is the logic in allowing a ruling that deals solely with Law > or > regulation to be appealed (L93B1) when the committee may not > overrule the > Director on this point? (L93B3) > Read the last sentence:of L93B3: (The committee may recommend to the Director that he change such a ruling.) That's reason enough to appeal a ruling you think is wrong. As to this case, is there possibly more here than a "point of law"? An AC has the job of determining facts, and if there is evidence to be assessed they have the right to do that. The AC felt that the play and the claim statement sufficed to show that the claimer had not forgotten the outstanding trump.That is not a point of law, is it? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Apr 24 07:28:15 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:28:15 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD Message-ID: <108E2C9744374993965045A20C807202@MARVLAPTOP> Okay here's most of the story. The position of Chief Tournament Director is abolished. Rick Beye is out of Memphis and is now just another TD. He may have irritated some politico or the buddy of a politico, as he seemed to be very competent.. Read Bobby Wolff's excellent book The Lone Wolff for an insider's view of ACBL politics. About seven regional supervisors will be in charge of the ACBL TDs in their regions. Matt Smith is one of them. Rick Beye is not, I believe.. In addition there are two new positions: Head of Field Employees (TDs) - Jeff Johnson. I do not know his duties, but I think they are probably more administrative than technical. Jeff is a very capable guy who has been in charge of NABC equipment provisioning for years. I believe he is also a well-qualified TD. He's the one who got me a used Duplicate Machine some years ago, leading to the widespread practice of pre-duplicating boards in our District 22 sectionals and regionals as well as in the two San Diego clubs. Head of Office Employees - Barbara Varner. I do not know her duties either. DICs and AICs of the three NABCs have been determined: Spring - Chris Patrias and John Ashton Summer - Sol Weinstein and Doug Grove Fall - Millard Nachtwey and Gary Zeiger Chris was DIC at the Houston NABC, where I was disgusted to find that across-the-field (ATF) matchpointing was not practiced in non-NABC+ pair events, even the two-session regionally-rated events. When I asked Chris about this, he said the reason was that ATF scoring errors mean that multiple sections are affected and people do not like going to dinner and finding their good score reduced when they return. That is baloney, IMO, and the true reason is that TDs don't like running around to hang up revised scores for multiple sections. ACBLScore has the option of in-section session ranking, so that eliminates one old objection to ATF matchpointing. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 24 08:07:01 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:07:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <108E2C9744374993965045A20C807202@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Apocryphal quote from the Vietnam War: "We had to burn down the village in order to save it." Marvin French asserted: >Read Bobby Wolff's excellent book The Lone Wolff for an >insider's view... Richard Hills quibbles: "Read Bobby Wolff's curate's egg book The Lone Wolff for an unLawful view..." So my nutshell review of The Lone Wolff would be: "We had to burn down the Lawbook in order to save it." Blmler William ("Kojak") Schoder, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook and former WBF Chief Director, was so impressed with a very senior Appeals Committee Chair and sometime Director (not Rick Beye) choosing a Wolffish approach to applying the due process of Law in an international bridge tournament that Kojak wrote this blml posting (13th November 2008): >>The real professional is the one who acknowledges error on >>his part, and learns from it. That is what establishes >>respect from those he deals with. I have no comments on the >>AC decision on "appeal" 3 -- I do have serious reservations >>about departing from the laws, and then not having the guts >>to stand up and be counted. I continue to deplore creating >>situations which demean the role of the Director and the >>Laws, simply because "it feels right" "it saves time" "it >>makes no difference" "either side will appeal." This will >>quickly lead to destruction of respect for the game, the >>laws, the Directors, and the Administrators. [snip] Richard Hills notes: My readings of The Bridge World and the ACBL Appeals Casebooks over many years suggest that Rick Beye is a "real professional", rapidly acknowledging and correcting his (very rare) errors. Therefore I await Rick Beye's initial column in the ABDA Bulletin with interest; the value of the column will not hinge upon the author's formal title but rather upon the author's experience and intellect. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 24 08:58:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:58:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What Arjuna do you make? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49F04F69.1050302@kineticmind.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills, half success in quoting Will Cuppy: "Either you like Henry VII or you don't. He has been much criticised for beheading two of his wives." David Burn, wit: Henry VII was much criticised for many things, but beheading two of his wives could not have been among them, since he married only once. Still, it is refreshing to find a post of Richard's that contains an I too few. Dave Kent, wit connoisseur It is only April but this post has my nomination for "Best BLML Post of the Year". Marvin French, witting tactician: If the partnership has an agreement to always balance with minimums, that is not a problem, but it should be disclosed beforehand. I love to trap such people, but RHO's tempo often makes a trap ineffective if balancing is not near-automatic. James Heneghan, witting questioner: When you meet such people, does your partner (have to) alert this? Richard Hills, half-wit: Welcome to blml, James. Do you have any cats? In response to James' witting question, I naturally give the witless answer of "Yes and No". :-) :-) Maybe an alert, maybe a pre-alert, maybe an announcement, maybe merely a prominent statement on your partnership's system cards. It depends upon what James' local Regulating Authority has required. However, the answer to the deeper question is Yes, one is not allowed to have Concealed Partnership Understandings, even when a particular Partnership Understanding is created implicitly, merely by observation of the witting tactician sitting opposite. Law 40A - Partnership Understandings - Players' Systemic Agreements: 1. (a) Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players. (b) Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done. 2. Information conveyed to partner through such understandings must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal. Each player is entitled to take into account the legal auction and, subject to any exclusions in these laws, the cards he has seen. He is entitled to use information specified elsewhere in these laws to be authorized. (See Law 73C.) 3. A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1). Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From henk at ripe.net Fri Apr 24 08:10:17 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:10:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD In-Reply-To: <108E2C9744374993965045A20C807202@MARVLAPTOP> References: <108E2C9744374993965045A20C807202@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49F157C9.10107@ripe.net> Marvin L French wrote: > Read Bobby Wolff's excellent book The Lone Wolff for an > insider's view of ACBL politics. I never thought I'd see the words "excellent" and "The Lone Wolff" in one sentence. I'd put this book in the all time top 3 of worst bridge books ever written. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Apr 24 09:06:12 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:06:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD In-Reply-To: <49F157C9.10107@ripe.net> References: <108E2C9744374993965045A20C807202@MARVLAPTOP> <49F157C9.10107@ripe.net> Message-ID: <200904240706.n3O76AsK032556@mail11.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 04:10 PM 24/04/2009, you wrote: >Marvin L French wrote: > > Read Bobby Wolff's excellent book The Lone Wolff for an > > insider's view of ACBL politics. > >I never thought I'd see the words "excellent" and "The Lone Wolff" >in one sentence. I'd put this book in the all time top 3 of worst >bridge books ever written. > I think the excellent bid is simply about the internal ACBL politics which was an eye opener for me. The latest "Australian Bridge" says they have decided to ban the multi 2D, and it is apparent from Marvin's post that internal politics is behind the Beye dismissal Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >Henk > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net >RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk >P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 >1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 >The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no > hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Apr 24 10:39:55 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:39:55 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <48A7B37FB32647E1BDDACF58F0C5E849@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote: > Marvin French asserted: > >>Read Bobby Wolff's excellent book The Lone Wolff for an >>insider's view... > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > "Read Bobby Wolff's curate's egg book The Lone Wolff for an > unLawful view..." > > So my nutshell review of The Lone Wolff would be: > > "We had to burn down the Lawbook in order to save it." Yes, we all know that "The Bob" has wacky ideas about applying the laws, as documented in the casebooks over the years. The Lone Wolff was a great book in my opinion because it gave a unique behind-the-scenes look at ACBL political history during his stardom. He did not dwell on the laws much, actually. The best story was about how the ACBL BoD almost bought into a two million dollar program to be run by a non-bridge player. Wolff's successful effort to defeat this proposal saved the ACBL from great financial embarrassment. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Fri Apr 24 09:40:01 2009 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (Koen Grauwels) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:40:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] set delivery off Message-ID: Hello, I have 2 mail addresses subscribed to blml (1 for sending and 1 for receiving emails; wanting to avoid getting spam on the receiving email address). This worked fine with the old server, but with the new one the sending email address (the one I use now) is still getting the emails. I tried to send set delivery off command in subject and content, but it doesn't work. How can I switch off delivery to this email? Thanks, Koen _________________________________________________________________ Reageer op foto?s van je vrienden en bekijk hun reacties op de jouwe. Gegarandeerd hilariteit! http://www.microsoft.com/belux/nl/windows/windowslive/products/photos.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090424/20ae6701/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Apr 24 10:45:19 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:45:19 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD References: <108E2C9744374993965045A20C807202@MARVLAPTOP> <49F157C9.10107@ripe.net> Message-ID: <3900021A70D04DE5941EDAC97076183E@MARVLAPTOP> Henk wrote: > Marvin L French wrote: >> Read Bobby Wolff's excellent book The Lone Wolff for an >> insider's view of ACBL politics. > > I never thought I'd see the words "excellent" and "The Lone Wolff" > in one sentence. I'd put this book in the all time top 3 of worst > bridge books ever written. Well, I have a huge library of bridge books that I have accumulated over the last 50 years, and this one is high up on my list of enjoyables. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From henk at ripe.net Fri Apr 24 10:15:36 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:15:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] set delivery off In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49F17528.6050409@ripe.net> > How can I switch off delivery to this email? Go to the user page at: http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Scroll down, near the bottom you see "edit subscription options". Enter the address where you don't want mail, press the button. The first option allows you to set delivery to off. Henk > > Thanks, > Koen > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Voeg vrienden toe van LinkedIn & Facebook aan je Windows Live netwerk. > Zo heb je iedereen bij de hand. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From henk at ripe.net Fri Apr 24 10:44:00 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:44:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48A7B37FB32647E1BDDACF58F0C5E849@MARVLAPTOP> References: <48A7B37FB32647E1BDDACF58F0C5E849@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49F17BD0.1050705@ripe.net> Marvin L French wrote: > Yes, we all know that "The Bob" has wacky ideas about applying the > laws, as documented in the casebooks over the years. The Lone Wolff > was a great book in my opinion because it gave a unique > behind-the-scenes look at ACBL political history during his stardom. The problem is that some parts are a highly biased version of the events, with facts conveniently left out in order to support Mr. Wolff's point of view. If you really want to know, post to r.g.b. and wait for John Blubaugh to respond ;-) Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Apr 24 15:13:47 2009 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:13:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <108E2C9744374993965045A20C807202@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0904240613mfbf3351q739b9ec94af55e88@mail.gmail.com> > Richard Hills notes: > > My readings of The Bridge World and the ACBL Appeals Casebooks > over many years suggest that Rick Beye is a "real professional", > rapidly acknowledging and correcting his (very rare) errors. > > Therefore I await Rick Beye's initial column in the ABDA > Bulletin with interest; the value of the column will not hinge > upon the author's formal title but rather upon the author's > experience and intellect. Speaking as an individual who had the very dubious pleasure of living through Rick Beye's tenure as chief tournament director of the ACBL, I am thrilled to see him removed from any position of responsibility. I am much less concerned about Beye?s knowledge of the Laws as his administrative skills. From what I can tell, he failed miserably on this front. During Beye?s tenure, the ACBL issued a series of completely confused, contradictory rulings on a wide variety of subjects. The ACBL was completely incapable of issuing consistent guidance on dirt simple questions. (The classic example is whether or not methods like a Muiderberg 2H opening are legal at the GCC level. I have a lovely collection of opinions that various luminaries in Memphis issued on this one) Don?t get me started regarding the work that Beye did with the Conventions Committee?. Beye might have great perspective regarding the laws of game (I?m not in a position to judge this one). However, he was a dreadful choice for any kind of administrative position. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 24 16:11:00 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:11:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Isn't there a conflict in Law 93B? In-Reply-To: References: <000401c9c467$d760a300$8621e900$@no> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:34:43 -0400, Marvin L French wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: >> >> What is the logic in allowing a ruling that deals solely with Law >> or >> regulation to be appealed (L93B1) when the committee may not >> overrule the >> Director on this point? (L93B3) >> > Read the last sentence:of L93B3: > > (The committee may recommend to the Director that he change such a > ruling.) > > That's reason enough to appeal a ruling you think is wrong. > > As to this case, is there possibly more here than a "point of law"? > > An AC has the job of determining facts, and if there is evidence to > be assessed they have the right to do that. The AC felt that the > play and the claim statement sufficed to show that the claimer had > not forgotten the outstanding trump.That is not a point of law, is > it? It seems to me that there is a law -- was the player at all likely to be unaware of the outstanding trump? It needs to be interpreted. For example, I don't think a lie detector test is relevant. This leads to a standard. That's the director's job, right? Then there is a question of whether the player has met this standard. But there are precedents for doing that, which a good director will follow. The AC ruled "In general, if declarer has adopted a reasonable line of play and has attempted to draw trump at every opportunity unless there is a valid bridge reason for not doing so, he is allowed to accurately count trump." That sounds, to me, like writing the law. Also, according to this principle, the claimant loses a trick to an outstanding trump only when there was a time during the play where the claimer should have drawn trump and did not. That does not remotely resemble L70C2. From schoderb at msn.com Fri Apr 24 18:51:47 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:51:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <108E2C9744374993965045A20C807202@MARVLAPTOP> <2da24b8e0904240613mfbf3351q739b9ec94af55e88@mail.gmail.com> References: <108E2C9744374993965045A20C807202@MARVLAPTOP> <2da24b8e0904240613mfbf3351q739b9ec94af55e88@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Methinks this posting, which contains irrelevant basis for a personal attack, must come from one who revels in inaccurate and stupid invective or one who has more personal spite to regurgitate than is evident. Attacking Mr. Beye for his attempts to bring about organization, accountability, and unbiased management by ascribing to him the machinations of ACBL management, the Board of Directors, influential muck-de-mucks and those whose personal fiefdoms were affected and threatened by his presence, leaves little room for serious thought. Perhaps the facts of "......from what I can tell......" would give the reader a chance to evaluate this diatribe and perhaps come to a conclusion about its existence and purpose. It would certainly seem sensible to dwell upon those areas in which he is supposedly lacking ability. -- i.e. adminstration, with cogent and supportable detail. Instead, what I read exhibits a profound lack of knowledge of the scope and authority within which Mr. Beye was forced to operate as CTD. Could there be more reasons for Mr. Willey's posting, including his professional and/or personal relationship with Mr. Beye and others, or is it just plain ignorance of the subject he so poorly presents? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: richard willey To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills notes: > > My readings of The Bridge World and the ACBL Appeals Casebooks > over many years suggest that Rick Beye is a "real professional", > rapidly acknowledging and correcting his (very rare) errors. > > Therefore I await Rick Beye's initial column in the ABDA > Bulletin with interest; the value of the column will not hinge > upon the author's formal title but rather upon the author's > experience and intellect. Speaking as an individual who had the very dubious pleasure of living through Rick Beye's tenure as chief tournament director of the ACBL, I am thrilled to see him removed from any position of responsibility. I am much less concerned about Beye?s knowledge of the Laws as his administrative skills. From what I can tell, he failed miserably on this front. During Beye?s tenure, the ACBL issued a series of completely confused, contradictory rulings on a wide variety of subjects. The ACBL was completely incapable of issuing consistent guidance on dirt simple questions. (The classic example is whether or not methods like a Muiderberg 2H opening are legal at the GCC level. I have a lovely collection of opinions that various luminaries in Memphis issued on this one) Don?t get me started regarding the work that Beye did with the Conventions Committee?. Beye might have great perspective regarding the laws of game (I?m not in a position to judge this one). However, he was a dreadful choice for any kind of administrative position. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090424/e3766631/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 24 23:22:59 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:22:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Re 'simpler times' [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <108E2C9744374993965045A20C807202@MARVLAPTOP> <2da24b8e0904240613mfbf3351q739b9ec94af55e88@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000601c9c522$d96e3c50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Don?t get me started regarding the work that Beye did with the Conventions Committee?. Beye might have great perspective regarding the laws of game (I?m not in a position to judge this one). However, he was a dreadful choice for any kind of administrative position. +=+ I would not wish, of course, to come between conationals in an internecene war. However, I will be greatly interested to read Rick Beye with the shackles removed. ~ G ~ +=+ -- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Apr 25 01:30:23 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:30:23 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48A7B37FB32647E1BDDACF58F0C5E849@MARVLAPTOP> <49F17BD0.1050705@ripe.net> Message-ID: <3FAF05354B824197AF97FBB0122FB1BA@MARVLAPTOP> Henk wrote: > The problem is that some parts are a highly biased version of the > events, with facts conveniently left out in order to support Mr. > Wolff's > point of view. Ah, but the indisputable facts that were left in are what interested me. > If you really want to know, post to r.g.b. and wait > for John Blubaugh to respond ;-) I wouldn't pay attention to anything this person says about Wolff or the ACBL. Among other things, he was suspended from the ACBL for being a card cheat, caught on tv dealing the ace of spades to his partner's hand in the days before computerized dealing. Just Google his name and click on the link to greatbridgelinks.com . A very interesting article. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sat Apr 25 02:35:10 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:35:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3FAF05354B824197AF97FBB0122FB1BA@MARVLAPTOP> References: <48A7B37FB32647E1BDDACF58F0C5E849@MARVLAPTOP> <49F17BD0.1050705@ripe.net> <3FAF05354B824197AF97FBB0122FB1BA@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49F25ABE.1090003@talktalk.net> [Marvin French] I wouldn't pay attention to anything this person says about Wolff or the ACBL. Among other things, he was suspended from the ACBL for being a card cheat, caught on tv dealing the ace of spades to his partner's hand in the days before computerized dealing. Just Google his name and click on the link to greatbridgelinks.com. A very interesting article. [Nige1] IMO the article is interesting (another dire warning to would-be whistle-blowers) but It would be interesting to read answers to the following questions ... 1. It is natural that JB's lack of manual dexterity might arouse suspicion at first, but when doctors explained the *anatomical reason*, why did the ACBL disregard it? 2. JB's partners and opponents noticed nothing suspicious. The ACBL videotape is of poor quality. Viewers complain it is hard to see anything. Spectators often obscure the shot. A professional magician who analysed the videotape detected no evidence of cheating. Why should the ACBL's illusionist get special credence? 3. Instead of relying on this "evidence", why did the ACBL not hire a *better camera* and wait for a better opportunity? 4. Where are the *hand-records* to confirm that JB's partner held the SA on 4 consecutive hands? 5. There was no *bidding/play evidence" that JB took advantage of his alleged illicit knowledge. Could the ACBL find no deals to back up their allegation? 6. JB *performed badly* in the tournament, at which the ACBL claim to have caught him cheating. Surely a small edge would give an advantage to a successful professional, alleged to be a habitual cheat? 7. *Prior* to the surveillance, nobody predicted that JB would deal himself a particular card. *After* the event, it is easy to ascribe significance to any coincidence. Are the ACBL unaware that, to bridge players, any small set of hands is almost certain to have interesting common aspects? 8. Thus the "probabilities" that the ACBL quote are misleading at best. Why could the ACBL not find a consultant with Arithmetic expertise? 9. Previoasly, did JB formally criticise any of the ACBL officials who sat in judgement upon him? If so, did that ACBL official consider recusing himself? From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Apr 25 03:25:14 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:25:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49F25ABE.1090003@talktalk.net> References: <48A7B37FB32647E1BDDACF58F0C5E849@MARVLAPTOP> <49F17BD0.1050705@ripe.net> <3FAF05354B824197AF97FBB0122FB1BA@MARVLAPTOP> <49F25ABE.1090003@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0904241825l78e549f1g160e3f5a38429cec@mail.gmail.com> I have to agree with Nigel's analysis. The ACBL's "expert" probability estimate is pathetic, because he chose the sample and he assumed independence. Human shuffling is nowhere near perfect in the way he assumed. The evidence looks looks inadequate for the ACBL's conclusion. Accusations of cheating need better evidence than this. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090425/781ae05b/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 26 22:10:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:10:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] You may not have heard. Message-ID: <000a01c9c6ab$1af32760$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <438B82CA189141E9B46E7DE86A15DC3D@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49F4EC95.2010701@aol.com> Hola Marvin! Have just (finally) gotten around to downloading Boston. Has there been a slight change of format or have you left out the page with the list (and number) of cases? Ciao, JE Marvin L French schrieb: > Sorry all, I hadn't noticed until today that all the commentary has > been added to the Boston NABC appeals cases, making the casebook > complete. > > I have combined the cases into two pdf files, one for NABC+ cases > and one for Non-NABC+ cases (why not NABC-?) > > The result is on my Web site under Bridge Laws and Regulations. > > Let's start talking about these cases and let the claims discussions > die. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Apr 27 04:38:59 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:38:59 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Boston NABC 2009 Casebook References: <438B82CA189141E9B46E7DE86A15DC3D@MARVLAPTOP> <49F4EC95.2010701@aol.com> Message-ID: <3BCC774251ED476A8864055411F79E1C@MARVLAPTOP> Jeff, The contents are not a separate file like the cases are. I tried to copy & paste but the results aren't satisfactory. If you can make up a .rtf file of it and send it to me, I'll add it to both NABC+ and non-NABC+ pdf files. If I get the time I'll do it myself, but I've a lot of things on the fire right now. I see that there was not a content page in my pdf files for the Las Vegas cases, so no change of format. Marv > Hola Marvin! Have just (finally) gotten around to downloading > Boston. > Has there been a slight change of format or have you left out the > page > with the list (and number) of cases? Ciao, JE From henk at ripe.net Mon Apr 27 08:19:39 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:19:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3FAF05354B824197AF97FBB0122FB1BA@MARVLAPTOP> References: <48A7B37FB32647E1BDDACF58F0C5E849@MARVLAPTOP> <49F17BD0.1050705@ripe.net> <3FAF05354B824197AF97FBB0122FB1BA@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49F54E7B.60703@ripe.net> Marvin, >> If you really want to know, post to r.g.b. and wait >> for John Blubaugh to respond ;-) > > I wouldn't pay attention to anything this person says about Wolff or > the ACBL. Among other things, he was suspended from the ACBL for > being a card cheat, caught on tv dealing the ace of spades to his > partner's hand in the days before computerized dealing. It is the order of the events: Blubaugh was paid by the WBF and ACBL and noticed a number of issues that needed improvement. Basically, all related to how the membership's money was spent. He raised them with his bosses, they didn't like what he said, John left. I don't recall if he was fired or resigned himself, but that is hardly relevant here. He was indeed suspended for cheating years later, but that doesn't take away anything he said on WBF and ACBL operations. I agree with Nigel's analysis. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From wmevius at hotmail.com Mon Apr 27 16:55:59 2009 From: wmevius at hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:55:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad Message-ID: Teams vul vs non-vul s T85 h AT87 d Q764 c T6 bidding lho ... pd ... rho ... you 2H* ... pass . 2S .... pass pass .. dbl .. pass .. 2NT** pass .. 3H ... pass .. ? *= weak spades ** = good-bad/Lebensohl: asks pd to bid 3C which can be passed, or after which any bid on the 3 level shows a weak hand (a direct 3 level bid would be invitational) what does pd have now? what do you bid? You have no particular defence agreements agains this type of transfer preempt. Willem Mevius wmevius at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090427/cb63cb57/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 27 18:09:39 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:09:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] good-bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49F5D8C3.9010602@ulb.ac.be> Willem Mevius a ?crit : > > > Teams vul vs non-vul > > s T85 > h AT87 > d Q764 > c T6 > > bidding > > lho ... pd ... rho ... you > 2H* ... pass . 2S .... pass > pass .. dbl .. pass .. 2NT** > pass .. 3H ... pass .. ? > > *= weak spades > ** = good-bad/Lebensohl: asks pd to bid 3C which can be passed, or > after which any bid on the 3 level shows a weak hand (a direct 3 level > bid would be invitational) > > what does pd have now? AG : a strong hand, but not GF, with long hearts. Substract the first round of bidding. Too much to double 2H first (or perhaps he didn't dare to do it just in case I misunderstood it). * what do you bid? AG : what about 4H ? what would I have bid over a Benji 2C-2D-2H ? Facing a perfectly standard xx - KQJxx - AK - AQJx, or xx - KJ9xxx - Ax - AKQ, game is laydown. Notice that, if you both know you're playing lebensohl in this sequence, you can't claim having no agreements. Best regards Alain From james at kineticmind.com Mon Apr 27 18:37:24 2009 From: james at kineticmind.com (James Heneghan) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:37:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49F5DF44.4060807@kineticmind.com> Willem Mevius wrote: > > > Teams vul vs non-vul > > s T85 > h AT87 > d Q764 > c T6 > > bidding > > lho ... pd ... rho ... you > 2H* ... pass . 2S .... pass > pass .. dbl .. pass .. 2NT** > pass .. 3H ... pass .. ? > > *= weak spades > ** = good-bad/Lebensohl: asks pd to bid 3C which can be passed, or > after which any bid on the 3 level shows a weak hand (a direct 3 level > bid would be invitational) > > what does pd have now? what do you bid? > > You have no particular defence agreements agains this type of transfer > preempt. I think partner has 5h and 5 of a minor and that he not strong enough for bidding 4 of a minor showing 5 of that minor and 5 of the other major. I see no other bid than 4h even if my assessment of the situation is wrong. James. From adam at irvine.com Mon Apr 27 18:49:53 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:49:53 -0700 Subject: [BLML] good-bad In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:55:59 BST." Message-ID: <200904271636.JAA17612@mailhub.irvine.com> Willem Mevius (wmevius at hotmail.com) wrote: > Teams vul vs non-vul > > s T85 > h AT87 > d Q764 > c T6 > > bidding > > lho ... pd ... rho ... you > 2H* ... pass . 2S .... pass > pass .. dbl .. pass .. 2NT** > pass .. 3H ... pass .. ? > > *= weak spades > ** = good-bad/Lebensohl: asks pd to bid 3C which can be passed, or after > which any bid on the 3 level shows a weak hand (a direct 3 level bid would > be invitational) > > what does pd have now? Well, he doesn't want to bid 3C, presumably because he's too strong. When Lebensohl is used in this situation, opposite a partner of unlimited strength, the partner is not required to complete the relay to 3C and must bid something else with additional strength. (As opposed to Lebensohl by the partner of a 1NT opener; in that case opener's hand is limited and opener "always" bids 3C as requested.) I wouldn't interpret 3H as showing any extra length in hearts. Partner has to do *something* besides 3C, and maybe doesn't want to cue-bid 3S in case you're really weak and 3H is the last making contract. Without any additional agreements, I'll assume partner has four decent hearts, i.e. a normal takeout double but with extra strength (but not *too* much extra) and real hearts. > what do you bid? 4H seems clear. -- Adam From john at asimere.com Mon Apr 27 21:36:37 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:36:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD References: <108E2C9744374993965045A20C807202@MARVLAPTOP> <49F157C9.10107@ripe.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 7:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD > Marvin L French wrote: >> Read Bobby Wolff's excellent book The Lone Wolff for an >> insider's view of ACBL politics. > > I never thought I'd see the words "excellent" and "The Lone Wolff" > in one sentence. I'd put this book in the all time top 3 of worst > bridge books ever written. Bah, Do you mean The all time bottom three of worst bridge books ever written or do we get Herman to explain that it means something else entirely? > > > > > Henk > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no > hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Apr 27 22:09:22 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:09:22 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48A7B37FB32647E1BDDACF58F0C5E849@MARVLAPTOP> <49F17BD0.1050705@ripe.net><3FAF05354B824197AF97FBB0122FB1BA@MARVLAPTOP> <49F54E7B.60703@ripe.net> Message-ID: <76FDA1255BD94D06963DC0C4CCCE4251@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Henk Uijterwaal" > Marvin, > >>> If you really want to know, post to r.g.b. and wait >>> for John Blubaugh to respond ;-) >> >> I wouldn't pay attention to anything this person says about Wolff >> or >> the ACBL. Among other things, he was suspended from the ACBL for >> being a card cheat, caught on tv dealing the ace of spades to his >> partner's hand in the days before computerized dealing. > > It is the order of the events: Blubaugh was paid by the WBF and > ACBL > and noticed a number of issues that needed improvement. > Basically, > all related to how the membership's money was spent. He raised > them > with his bosses, they didn't like what he said, John left. I > don't > recall if he was fired or resigned himself, but that is hardly > relevant here. He was indeed suspended for cheating years later, > but that doesn't take away anything he said on WBF and ACBL > operations. > > I agree with Nigel's analysis. My point is that whatever he says about the ACBL after his advice was rejected or after he was suspended cannot be trusted as unbiased. I admit to being biased myself, as I just don't like the guy after reading his innumerable posts on rgb. You imply that his advice to the ACBL was valuable without providing evidence of that. The ACBL has had to reject many doubtful suggestions of this nature, rightly not wanting to risk the money of its members even when the suggestions are not obviously bad. As a longtime Patron Member and NABC attendee, I want the BoD and CEO to be very careful with my money, as CEO Jay Baum has been during his tenure. It seems like every time someone is found guilty of cheating by the ACBL, an apologist pops up to question the finding, reminding me of those who say Oswald did not kill Kennedy, or more pertinent, that Sion-Cokin were innocent (as claimed in a Danny Kleinman book). Call me naif, but the conspirational view of history just doesn't interest me. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Apr 27 23:57:28 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:57:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] good-bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49F62A48.2020502@t-online.de> Willem Mevius schrieb: > > > > Teams vul vs non-vul > > s T85 > h AT87 > d Q764 > c T6 > > bidding > > lho ... pd ... rho ... you > 2H* ... pass . 2S .... pass > pass .. dbl .. pass .. 2NT** > pass .. 3H ... pass .. ? > > *= weak spades > ** = good-bad/Lebensohl: asks pd to bid 3C which can be passed, or after which any bid on the 3 level shows a weak hand (a direct 3 level bid would be invitational) > > what does pd have now? I haven't the foggiest notion. He didn't bid 2S, he didn't bid 3H over 2H, he didn't double 2H. No partner of mine would have a strong (let alone weak) single - suiter for this sequence. My best guess is something like both minors with a H fragment, say 13(54), maybe even 2344, with no hint of a S stopper, weakish hearts, but good values in the minors, maybe 18 HCP or thereabouts. On second thought 2344 becomes more likely, as RHO bid only 2S. > what do you bid? Good question. 3NT is obviously out, 4H may make opposite Kxx in H but is not a favourite, 5D is a long way to go. I guess I would bid something of pass, 4D or 4H, depending on who my partner is, who my opps are, and the state of match. > > You have no particular defence agreements agains this type of transfer preempt. I need no "particular" agreement to know that 2S would be takeout of spades, double would show hearts, so would 3H, with double being lead-directing (but some sort of a genuine suit). This holds true for anyone I have a partnership with. For a casual partner that may be not so clear, but you can be sure I would have agreed something then. Best regards Matthias > > > > > Willem Mevius wmevius at hotmail.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 28 00:47:24 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:47:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] [blml] "No smoke without a fire" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >It seems like every time someone is found guilty of cheating by the >ACBL, an apologist pops up to question the finding, reminding me of >those who say Oswald did not kill Kennedy, or more pertinent, that >Sion-Cokin were innocent (as claimed in a Danny Kleinman book). >Call me naif, but the conspiratorial view of history just doesn't >interest me. Richard Hills: (Slightly off-topic quibble: my understanding is that no credible authority doubts the guilt of Steve Sion*, but rather Kleinman and others have doubts about the guilt of Dick Katz and Larry Cohen (the other Larry Cohen, not the recently retired younger American expert with the same name).) I am a sucker for a good romance novel and also a sucker for a good detective story, and Agatha Christie's classic novel "The Moving Finger" combines the two. One of the clues Agatha flaunts in front of her reader is "No smoke without a fire". At one point in his book The Lone Wolff, Bobby Wolff asserted that there never has been a miscarriage of bridge justice, thus never has an innocent player been convicted of cheating. Of course, as Mandy Rice-Davies said of John Profumo's denial of adultery, "He would say that, wouldn't he?", given that Wolff admitted to a casual approach regarding due process and natural justice in pursuit of players he "knew" were cheats. Yet, on pages 68-69 of The Lone Wolff, Wolff contradicted himself on his dogmatic assertion of "No smoke without a fire": >>Ron had a dark side, however. If you became his enemy -- and, one >>way or another, a lot of people fell prey to his wrath -- he tried >>to hurt you. One method was to spread tales about his enemies. You >>can get into a lot of trouble openly accusing someone of cheating, >>but Ron knew the ropes. By the time he got through with his subtle >>campaign, he could ruin a person's reputation. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets * The Lone Wolff, page 238: >>By contrast, Alan Cokin became a reformed man, devoting himself to >>expunging the blemish on his record, and has given a great deal >>back to the game. Prior to his recent bouts of ill-health, he has >>been much in demand as a coach, and has contributed enormously to >>the Junior program, pro bono. Richard Hills: Likewise, after his political disgrace, John Profumo devoted the rest of his long life to raising funds for charities. William Shakespeare: "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From wmevius at hotmail.com Tue Apr 28 00:53:57 2009 From: wmevius at hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:53:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for all the replies so far. It was a hand from the NIBU Spring congress in Armagh. This was the whole deal: ..... north ..... s Q9 ..... h K9652 ..... d AJT ..... c KQ9 s J76432 ... s AK h 43 ......... h QJ d K8 ......... d 9532 c A82 ....... c K9653 ..... s T85 ..... h AT87 ..... d Q764 ..... c T4 The problem was that North didn't take 2NT as Lebensohl/good-bad and didn't alert it as such. South passed the 3H bid and corrected before the opening lead. 3H went -1. The director was called by EW, claiming use of UI by South, but he didn't see anything wrong with the South's pass. The decision went to the appeals committee (the extra downtrick in a possible 4H contract was a VP difference, which could make a difference in the final ranking). NS claimed that it was clear that North had a weak hand as he would have done something over 2H directly otherwise, although they couldn't really give a good example of a hand with which North would break the transfer in this auction (perhaps a hand without clubs). EW claimed that although South's hand was poor, it wasn't clear that opposite a hand with which North could break the Lebensohl transfer it wasn't good enough for another bid, especially vulnerable. The appeal was turned down by the AC as a 'frivolous' appeal. Willem Mevius wmevius at hotmail.com From: wmevius at hotmail.com To: blml at rtflb.org Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:55:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad Teams vul vs non-vul s T85 h AT87 d Q764 c T6 bidding lho ... pd ... rho ... you 2H* ... pass . 2S .... pass pass .. dbl .. pass .. 2NT** pass .. 3H ... pass .. ? *= weak spades ** = good-bad/Lebensohl: asks pd to bid 3C which can be passed, or after which any bid on the 3 level shows a weak hand (a direct 3 level bid would be invitational) what does pd have now? what do you bid? You have no particular defence agreements agains this type of transfer preempt. Willem Mevius wmevius at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090427/f5499625/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Tue Apr 28 01:19:35 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:19:35 -0700 Subject: [BLML] good-bad In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:53:57 BST." Message-ID: <200904272305.QAA22761@mailhub.irvine.com> Willem wrote: > > Thanks for all the replies so far. It was a hand from the NIBU Spring > congress in Armagh. This was the whole deal: > > > > ..... north > > ..... s Q9 > > ..... h K9652 > > ..... d AJT > > ..... c KQ9 > > > > s J76432 ... s AK > > h 43 ......... h QJ > > d K8 ......... d 9532 > > c A82 ....... c K9653 > > > > ..... s T85 > > ..... h AT87 > > ..... d Q764 > > ..... c T4 > > > > The problem was that North didn't take 2NT as Lebensohl/good-bad and didn't > alert it as such. South passed the 3H bid and corrected before the opening > lead. 3H went -1. OK, who *really* had the king of clubs? If North had it, I don't see how 3H went down, so I guess North's clubs were really QJ7? > The director was called by EW, claiming use of UI by South, but he didn't > see anything wrong with the South's pass. The decision went to the appeals > committee (the extra downtrick in a possible 4H contract was a VP > difference, which could make a difference in the final ranking). > > NS claimed that it was clear that North had a weak hand as he would have > done something over 2H directly otherwise, although they couldn't really > give a good example of a hand with which North would break the transfer in > this auction (perhaps a hand without clubs). > > EW claimed that although South's hand was poor, it wasn't clear that > opposite a hand with which North could break the Lebensohl transfer it > wasn't good enough for another bid, especially vulnerable. > > The appeal was turned down by the AC as a 'frivolous' appeal. It's hard to form an opinion about this without additional information. Here in the US, transfer preempts are relatively uncommon; so the assertion that North would have "done something" with a hand that isn't a weak hand shouldn't be taken seriously. A pair that hadn't discussed what to do over transfer preempts wouldn't necessarily know whether a double would show hearts, be a takeout double of spades, show a strong balanced hand, or what; therefore, it is entirely conceivable that North could pass and wait with a good hand instead of making a call that could be misinterpreted. (However, in the ACBL, two-level transfer preempts are Mid-Chart and users need to supply a suggested defense. That would factor into the director's decision.) But I don't know what's common or typical in Northern Ireland. That NS assertion could well make a lot of sense there. -- Adam From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 03:16:13 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:16:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <76FDA1255BD94D06963DC0C4CCCE4251@MARVLAPTOP> References: <48A7B37FB32647E1BDDACF58F0C5E849@MARVLAPTOP> <49F17BD0.1050705@ripe.net> <3FAF05354B824197AF97FBB0122FB1BA@MARVLAPTOP> <49F54E7B.60703@ripe.net> <76FDA1255BD94D06963DC0C4CCCE4251@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0904271816y6670bf5dq743d324fca79d68a@mail.gmail.com> Marvin L French wrote: > > It seems like every time someone is found guilty of cheating by the > ACBL, an apologist pops up to question the finding, reminding me of > those who say Oswald did not kill Kennedy, or more pertinent, that > Sion-Cokin were innocent (as claimed in a Danny Kleinman book). Call > me naif, but the conspirational view of history just doesn't > interest me. > Well I hope Marv is not on the jury when I am accused of a crime. Some things we have been told are not true. I would have thought Marv knew that, given his usual tendency to think for himself. I am not sure that an ACBL jury has the same impartiality of a real jury, but even a real jury can err. Jerry Fusselman From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Apr 28 03:25:33 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:25:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <76FDA1255BD94D06963DC0C4CCCE4251@MARVLAPTOP> References: <48A7B37FB32647E1BDDACF58F0C5E849@MARVLAPTOP> <49F17BD0.1050705@ripe.net><3FAF05354B824197AF97FBB0122FB1BA@MARVLAPTOP> <49F54E7B.60703@ripe.net> <76FDA1255BD94D06963DC0C4CCCE4251@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49F65B0D.2020202@talktalk.net> [Marvin L French] It seems like every time someone is found guilty of cheating by the ACBL, an apologist pops up to question the finding, reminding me of those who say Oswald did not kill Kennedy, or more pertinent, that Sion-Cokin were innocent (as claimed in a Danny Kleinman book). Call me naif, but the conspirational view of history just doesn't interest me. [Nigel] Marvin implies that Rick Beye may have been a victim of covert ACBL politics; It seems inconsistent to deny the benefit of the doubt to JB. If you ignore conspiracy, then history becomes incomprehensible :) From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Apr 28 04:04:10 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:04:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49F6641A.4090907@talktalk.net> [Willem Mevius 1] Teams vul vs non-vul s T85 h AT87 d Q764 c T6 lho ... pd ... rho ... you 2H* ... pass . 2S .... pass pass .. dbl .. pass .. 2NT** pass .. 3H ... pass .. ? - 2H = weak spades - 2N = good-bad/Lebensohl: asks pd to bid 3C which can be passed, or after which any bid on the 3 level shows a weak hand (a direct 3 level bid would be invitational) what does pd have now? what do you bid? You have no particular defence agreements agains this type of transfer preempt. [Willem Mevius 2] The problem was that North didn't take 2NT as Lebensohl/good-bad and didn't alert it as such. South passed the 3H bid and corrected before the opening lead. 3H went -1. The director was called by EW, claiming use of UI by South, but he didn't see anything wrong with the South's pass. The decision went to the appeals committee (the extra downtrick in a possible 4H contract was a VP difference, which could make a difference in the final ranking). NS claimed that it was clear that North had a weak hand as he would have done something over 2H directly otherwise, although they couldn't really give a good example of a hand with which North would break the transfer in this auction (perhaps a hand without clubs). EW claimed that although South's hand was poor, it wasn't clear that opposite a hand with which North could break the Lebensohl transfer it wasn't good enough for another bid, especially vulnerable. The appeal was turned down by the AC as a 'frivolous' appeal. [Nigel] I agree with Alain Gottcheiner that the advantage of adopting a convention like Lebensohl is that you have a *detailed* *generic* defence that guides you on well-known tramlines through unfamiliar terrain. The meaning of this sequence depends on your version of Lebensohl/ A possible sensible agreement after 2N in this auction is... - 3C = Normal action. - 3D/3H/3S = Natural, highly invitational. - 3S = Force, often a stop ask or strong with clubs or both With this agreement or with no agreement 4H is a sensible bid. 3S is an (optimistic) logical alternative. For me, pass is not a logical alternative. The lack of alert changes the picture (although even without Lebensohl, 3H is a near force for many pairs). IMO, however, the TD and AC got it wrong. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Apr 28 06:15:01 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:15:01 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <43AB1DA1AB0043B7A48660031B278C04@MARVLAPTOP> The following was a stupid error on my part. Danny wrote a book exonerating Katz and Cohen, not Sion-Cokin. I have no opinion on the Katz-Cohen matter. > It seems like every time someone is found guilty of cheating by > the ACBL, an apologist pops up to question the finding, reminding > me of those who say Oswald did not kill Kennedy, or more > pertinent, that Sion-Cokin were innocent (as claimed in a Danny > Kleinman book). Call me naif, but the conspirational view of > history just doesn't interest me. > Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Apr 28 07:26:51 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:26:51 -0800 Subject: [BLML] [blml] "No smoke without a fire" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <4AB958C225BD4628AE2A20C3689DFFF0@MARVLAPTOP> Embarassing, I got it wrong. Katz and Cohen, yes. I hope Danny doesn't hear about this. I'll retract on BLML of course. > Yet, on pages 68-69 of The Lone Wolff, Wolff contradicted himself > on > his dogmatic assertion of "No smoke without a fire": > >>>Ron had a dark side, however. If you became his enemy -- and, one >>>way or another, a lot of people fell prey to his wrath -- he >>>tried >>>to hurt you. One method was to spread tales about his enemies. >>>You >>>can get into a lot of trouble openly accusing someone of >>>cheating, >>>but Ron knew the ropes. By the time he got through with his >>>subtle >>>campaign, he could ruin a person's reputation. I have heard such things from time to time, but give them no credence if the ACBL authorities take no action. Not worthy of the term "smoke." I think Wolff would agree. I myself have good evidence of cheating by notables, e.g., the despicable (Hamman's adjective) Ivan Erdos. He hired a guy named Monroe Groetsky to feed him information during a tournament, as Monroe himself told me. A client of Ivan's told me how Ivan stacked a deal in a BAM, back in the days when teammates started together at a table and shuffled a set of boards. His deal involved an easy 7S contract with a 3-0 trump split, Qxx offside. The good teams would bid it, resulting in either a 0 or 1/2 on the board. Clever. Playing against me he once suggested a curtailment of play when he saw he was going to get squeezed. "You have to lose a club, Marv." Wrong! Ivan was known for going to the water cooler frequently, copping a board or two on the way. Sad to think he represented the USA in a World Championship. I don't know if you call it cheating, but some top players practice what I call "the expert hitch" when following in a suit they have bid, with KJ.. in dummy on the left. Holding the queen they give a very slight hitch, so slight you can't call them on it. Of course they play smoothly with the ace. I got a very fine board in an NABC+ by reading that move. Thanks, Kit. Lew Mathe was one to ascribe cheating to some pairs, saying "They're wired." I don't know if he was right all the time. One thing I know is that he was responsible for a very high degree of ethical play among the top players in Southern California. No one wanted to get the "wired" label pinned on them by Lew. I used to go to the bar after a session, knowing he would be there. I remember one conversation in which he said that Toby Stone is a very great player, but Johnny Crawford is "just a crook." Did you see the Dutch film, Black Book? Long, but exciting all the way through. It was high up in all the aspects of filmography, IMO. Marv Marv . From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 28 09:49:46 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:49:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad References: <49F6641A.4090907@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000701c9c7d5$e9e96b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad > [Willem Mevius 1] > Teams vul vs non-vul s T85 h AT87 d Q764 c T6 > lho ... pd ... rho ... you > 2H* ... pass . 2S .... pass > pass .. dbl .. pass .. 2NT** > pass .. 3H ... pass .. ? > - 2H = weak spades > - 2N = good-bad/Lebensohl: asks pd to bid 3C which can be passed, or > after which any bid on the 3 level shows a weak hand (a direct 3 level > bid would be invitational) what does pd have now? what do you bid? You > have no particular defence agreements agains this type of transfer > preempt. > > [Willem Mevius 2] > The problem was that North didn't take 2NT as Lebensohl/good-bad and > didn't alert it as such. South passed the 3H bid and corrected before > the opening lead. 3H went -1. The director was called by EW, claiming > use of UI by South, but he didn't see anything wrong with the South's > pass. The decision went to the appeals committee (the extra downtrick in > a possible 4H contract was a VP difference, which could make a > difference in the final ranking). NS claimed that it was clear that > North had a weak hand as he would have done something over 2H directly > otherwise, although they couldn't really give a good example of a hand > with which North would break the transfer in this auction (perhaps a > hand without clubs). EW claimed that although South's hand was poor, it > wasn't clear that opposite a hand with which North could break the > Lebensohl transfer it wasn't good enough for another bid, especially > vulnerable. The appeal was turned down by the AC as a 'frivolous' appeal. > > [Nigel] > I agree with Alain Gottcheiner that the advantage of adopting a > convention like Lebensohl is that you have a *detailed* *generic* > defence that guides you on well-known tramlines through unfamiliar > terrain. > The meaning of this sequence depends on your version of Lebensohl/ A > possible sensible agreement after 2N in this auction is... > - 3C = Normal action. > - 3D/3H/3S = Natural, highly invitational. > - 3S = Force, often a stop ask or strong with clubs or both > With this agreement or with no agreement 4H is a sensible bid. 3S is an > (optimistic) logical alternative. For me, pass is not a logical > alternative. > The lack of alert changes the picture (although even without Lebensohl, > 3H is a near force for many pairs). > IMO, however, the TD and AC got it wrong. > _______________________________________________ < +=+ Is there not something missing here? Before we can form a view we need to know what call was appropriate "using the methods of the partnership" [Law 16B1(b)]. What conclusion did the appeals committee reach concerning this? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From henk at ripe.net Tue Apr 28 09:57:50 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:57:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <76FDA1255BD94D06963DC0C4CCCE4251@MARVLAPTOP> References: <48A7B37FB32647E1BDDACF58F0C5E849@MARVLAPTOP> <49F17BD0.1050705@ripe.net><3FAF05354B824197AF97FBB0122FB1BA@MARVLAPTOP> <49F54E7B.60703@ripe.net> <76FDA1255BD94D06963DC0C4CCCE4251@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49F6B6FE.2090005@ripe.net> Marvin L French wrote: > My point is that whatever he says about the ACBL after his advice > was rejected or after he was suspended cannot be trusted as > unbiased. I admit to being biased myself, as I just don't like the > guy after reading his innumerable posts on rgb. While this is correct, my point was about the same. Wolff was involved one way or another in many of the cases he describes, he gives his point of view in his book and leaves out both facts and other opinions when that supports his case. That makes for a nice read but for a final judgement, listen to what others have to say first. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Apr 28 13:49:58 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:49:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad In-Reply-To: <000701c9c7d5$e9e96b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49F6641A.4090907@talktalk.net> <000701c9c7d5$e9e96b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49F6ED66.7050208@talktalk.net> [Grattan] +=+ Is there not something missing here? Before we can form a view we need to know what call was appropriate "using the methods of the partnership" [Law 16B1(b)]. What conclusion did the appeals committee reach concerning this? [Nigel] I agree with Grattan that, ideally, we would like more information. When a correspondent submits a ruling problem, however, I assume that it includes available relevant information For example, here, the alleged offenders admitted to no agreement in this context, other than that specified. From wmevius at hotmail.com Tue Apr 28 15:09:02 2009 From: wmevius at hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:09:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad In-Reply-To: <49F6ED66.7050208@talktalk.net> References: <49F6641A.4090907@talktalk.net> <000701c9c7d5$e9e96b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49F6ED66.7050208@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Sorry I have no more information other than specified. North had QJ7 of clubs not KQ9. the transfer opening is rare in Ireland as well, but NS were an experienced pair and assumingly had some agreements, like 2S as a take-out dbl. They did not have any agreement about breaking the 2NT transfer with a hand that initially passed. Willem Mevius wmevius at hotmail.com > Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:49:58 +0100 > From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad > > [Grattan] > +=+ Is there not something missing here? Before we can form a view we > need to know what call was appropriate "using the methods of the > partnership" [Law 16B1(b)]. What conclusion did the appeals committee > reach concerning this? > > [Nigel] > I agree with Grattan that, ideally, we would like more information. When > a correspondent submits a ruling problem, however, I assume that it > includes available relevant information For example, here, the alleged > offenders admitted to no agreement in this context, other than that > specified. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090428/34458faa/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 29 02:53:58 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:53:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tom Lehrer (1928 - ), When You Are Old and Gray, interlude: An awful debility, A lessened utility, A loss of mobility Is a strong possibility. In all probability I'll lose my virility And you your fertility And desirability, And this liability Of total sterility Will lead to hostility And a sense of futility, So let's act with agility While we still have facility, For we'll soon reach senility And lose the ability. To semicelebrate my forthcoming semicentenary, I am reprinting some seminal sempiternal postings. First instalment attached. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets 21st April 2004: >Therefore, I have now adopted the personal ethic of nevermore >psyching against bunnies, while still maintaining that I have the >right to psyche against bunnies if I choose to (despite nevermore >choosing to). This reminds me very much of the Presbyterian doctrines of Free Will and Predestination which say: 1. You have complete freedom of choice 2. God already knows what choices you are going to make, so 3. Everything you are going to do is already known to him and so is predestined Richard James Hills: 1. Has complete freedom of choice to psyche against bunnies 2. I already know what choice he is going to make, so 3. Whether or not he will psyche against bunnies is predestined. Now I feel like I am back in Logic 101. Walt 10th May 2004: >>>>This is rubbish. It's GBK to psyche against Danny early in a >>>>long match. Even he knows it. >>>I didn't, until you brought it up. :-) >>Me neither. >> >>And I've played a match against him, partnering John. >> >>And John didn't psyche during the match. >+=+ So he has just now psyched....+=+ Furthermore, Gordon, who during that match reacted completely correct to each and every one of John's bids, has fielded this psyche by successfully failing to cater for psyches by John. I suggest we cite the Probst-Rainsford to the EBL for a red fielded psyche. We should then also oblige said partnership, next time they play Danny, to psyche, and then strike them from the register for pre- announced psyching. Don't worry, John, there's always a place in the Monty Python Bridge Team for you! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 29 03:35:15 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:35:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: George Orwell (1903-1950): "At age fifty, every man has the face he deserves." Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets 13th May 2004: >Edgar Kaplan asserted that tournament bridge would cease to be a >meaningful competition, unless contestants acted as best as they >could to win. > >A subsequent letter to The Bridge World satirised Kaplan's >position by postulating this hypothetical: > >"You notice an opponent in a team-of-four match choking on his >food. If he dies, you win the match by default." > >In his reply to the above scenario, Kaplan noted that while the >Bridge Laws were silent on whether to let an opponent choke to >death, he still deprecated such an action. At the Spring 4s the TDs could not decide whether killing a TD should incur a 3 imp fine, or merely a warning on the first occasion. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ 25th May 2004: >+=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far as I recall, >a regulation in any competition that actually says >"It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". Well, it is time there was one, and it was explained to my partners and team-mates. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ 3rd August 2004: >Furthermore, while 4C may not have been discussed explicitly, >there is a general presumption that a bid to which no >conventional meaning has been assigned (explicitly or implicitly) >is natural. I do not think so. If you are kidnapped and taken by demonic drug-runners to some strange outlandish place [New York, or Sydney, or somewhere] and play a game of bridge with perfect strangers and no agreements whatever, you still might guess in some few very common situations that to presume a natural meaning is not your best guess, for example 1NT Pass 2C. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ 5th August 2004: Grattan Endicott wrote >+=+ 1. Diamond 4; > 2. Diamond 9. > 3. Any green suit. Yep, that's the way he used to lead when we played together. The number of contracts he let through by leading hippogriffs ..... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 29 07:02:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:02:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49F65B0D.2020202@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asserted: >If you ignore conspiracy, then history becomes incomprehensible :) Senator John Faulkner, media statement 19th March 2002: A Stuff-Up - Not A Conspiracy For twenty-five years a great debate has raged in the Labor Party - who "stole" the Caucus minutes? Who had motive, means and opportunity? Suspicion often fell on Gough Whitlam, mostly promoted by embittered critics. Yet everyone knows, given the choice between a conspiracy and a stuff-up, go for the stuff-up every time. The minutes have been discovered. They were in the wrong box, in the wrong place but they were in the National Library - safe and sound. Almost certainly, the Minutes were mislaid in the confusion following the turbulent events of 11 November 1975, when the contents of Gough Whitlam's Parliament House office were transferred to the ALP National Secretariat. The missing minutes cover the period 7 September 1952 to 24 February 1969 and comprise 768 pages in one very large volume. The minutes record a period of repeated electoral defeat, growing internal criticism and recrimination, a disastrous split, further years in the wilderness and the recovery of Labor's fortunes at the Federal level. Their discovery restores an authentic record of these events and will be of material assistance to historians covering this period. Labor Party Caucus Minutes from 1901 to 1949 were published during the mid 1970's. The discovery of the Minutes from 1952 to 1969 will provide the opportunity for further publication of Caucus Minutes. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 29 08:27:27 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:27:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Rick Beye as ACBL CTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Henk Uijterwaal: >>I never thought I'd see the words "excellent" and "The Lone Wolff" >>in one sentence. I'd put this book in the all time top 3 of worst >>bridge books ever written. John (MadDog) Probst: >Bah, Do you mean "The all time bottom three of worst bridge books >ever written" or do we get Herman to explain that it means >something else entirely? Richard Hills: The third worst bridge book ever written -> The 1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge Poor policy in Law 25B, poor proofreading in Law 71, completely ineffective Law 40. And much more ambiguous than the 1975 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, showing the disadvantages of leaving the drafting almost entirely to merely one person (Edgar Kaplan) in that 22-year period. Not helped by Edgar's strategy of deliberately inserting some intentional ambiguities, so as to keep all of the stakeholders happy. The second worst bridge book ever written -> North American Bridge Championship: Reno 2004: Regional appeals edited by Richard Hills http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/appeals.htm The editor meretriciously attempts to insert humour into the deathly serious business of duplicate bridge appeals. The worst bridge book ever written -> The 1933 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge The powers-that-were attempted to jazz up our game by ridiculously increasing the quantum of penalties. So hugely unpopular that a superseding edition of The Fabulous Law Book was rapidly promulgated a mere two years later. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From henk at rtflb.org Wed Apr 29 07:55:40 2009 From: henk at rtflb.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 07:55:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Stop! (was Re: Final steps in the transition of the list) In-Reply-To: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> References: <49E8C0B8.3050203@rtflb.org> Message-ID: <49F7EBDC.9040008@rtflb.org> Hi all, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > That leaves one practical issue. The new server costs approximately > 20 euro's/year. If you want to contribute towards the costs, then > please transfer 10 euro cents, a US$ dime, 10 pence or something > equivalent in your local currency to my paypal account henk at ripe.net. > (Paypal is free for both sender and receiver, so nobody will be hit > by bank costs). Of course, if nobody pays, then I won't loose any > sleep over this either ;-) Should the balance hit 20 euro's, I > promise to say stop. We've reached this point, in fact, we have gone well over it. Operations of the list is now covered until 2012, so please stop sending money. Thanks to everybody who contributed. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)rtflb.org BLML Moderator http://www.rtflb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 29 09:12:53 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:12:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] I got to Kansas on a Friday [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: ACBL Appeals Casebook, Kansas City 2001: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks.html Bilbo Baggins, eleventy-first birthday speech: "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." Henk Uijterwaal: >...please stop sending money. Richard Hills, fiftieth birthday speech: The gifts at hobbits' birthday parties were not significant amounts of money, but rather infinitesimal gifts customised to the needs of the recipient (and often including a pointed joke). But one unusual feature of hobbits' birthday parties was that the birthday girl or boy gave away those customised presents, rather than receiving them. Ergo, as an infinitesimal footnote to "The second worst bridge book ever written", I am giving away copies of "The worst bridge Excel spreadsheet ever written", a meta-analysis of the first six cases in the ACBL Appeals Casebook for Kansas City 2001. Send me a private email if you wish to receive my birthday present, preciousss. And yes, my meta-commentary does include pointed jokes satirising the ACBL powers-that-be. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 29 09:38:04 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:38:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) References: <49F6641A.4090907@talktalk.net> <000701c9c7d5$e9e96b80$0302a8c0@Mildred><49F6ED66.7050208@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <002601c9c89d$70b54b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:49:58 +0100 > From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad > > [Grattan] > +=+ Is there not something missing here? Before we can form a view we > need to know what call was appropriate "using the methods of the > partnership" [Law 16B1(b)]. What conclusion did the appeals committee > reach concerning this? > > [Nigel] > I agree with Grattan that, ideally, we would like more information. When > a correspondent submits a ruling problem, however, I assume that it > includes available relevant information For example, here, the alleged > offenders admitted to no agreement in this context, other than that > specified. > +=+ So the appeals committee From karel at esatclear.ie Wed Apr 29 13:27:19 2009 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:27:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) In-Reply-To: <002601c9c89d$70b54b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49F6641A.4090907@talktalk.net> <000701c9c7d5$e9e96b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49F6ED66.7050208@talktalk.net> <002601c9c89d$70b54b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +++ could someone translate this please :> > ********************************** > " 'Coacervate': (noun) a colloid-rich viscous > liquid phase which may separate from a > colloidal solution on addition of a third > component." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +=+ In the absence of the further component we have > a coacervate where it is difficult to speculate upon the > mystery of its composition because we do not know > what it was at root that the AC decided. Speculation > is interesting but in our ignorance we merely condemn > what we set up in order to knock it down. > ? ? ? ?The AC evidently decided either that there was > no UI (unlikely) or that there was no logical alternative > action to the call made at the table that would have > been less successful. ?We do not know how they came > to this view; there are several possibilities. Speculators > on this list are saying something like "If 'x' was their > finding then we think 'y' of it". This is fair enough but > for the conditional opinion to become a judgement > one needs to know what it is one is judging. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > .......................................................................... From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 29 14:09:49 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:09:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) In-Reply-To: References: <49F6641A.4090907@talktalk.net> <000701c9c7d5$e9e96b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49F6ED66.7050208@talktalk.net> <002601c9c89d$70b54b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49F8438D.4070707@skynet.be> I believe Grattan set out to prove my English is not good enough. He succeeded. But then neither is the english of 99% of this list, excluding probably only David and Richard. Of course that is no news to the Americans, but when the Irish are having trouble ... Herman. Karel wrote: > +++ could someone translate this please :> > >> ********************************** >> " 'Coacervate': (noun) a colloid-rich viscous >> liquid phase which may separate from a >> colloidal solution on addition of a third >> component." >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> +=+ In the absence of the further component we have >> a coacervate where it is difficult to speculate upon the >> mystery of its composition because we do not know >> what it was at root that the AC decided. Speculation >> is interesting but in our ignorance we merely condemn >> what we set up in order to knock it down. >> The AC evidently decided either that there was >> no UI (unlikely) or that there was no logical alternative >> action to the call made at the table that would have >> been less successful. We do not know how they came >> to this view; there are several possibilities. Speculators >> on this list are saying something like "If 'x' was their >> finding then we think 'y' of it". This is fair enough but >> for the conditional opinion to become a judgement >> one needs to know what it is one is judging. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> .......................................................................... > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 29 13:45:25 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:45:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2008 Boston non-NABC+ Three [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000201c9c8c4$86c82a60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:43 AM Subject: [BLML] 2008 Boston non-NABC+ Three [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > +=+ I disagree with the suggestion that this is a value (1) > judgement. The question is one of fact. The standard > of proof required under Law 70C2 is high, indeed > I would say absolute since minimal doubt establishes > some degree of likelihood and the law says that the > opponents *shall* then be awarded a trick or tricks. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills sage-and-onions: > > (1) This may be Grattanic shorthand for "no way Jose a balance of > probabilities value judgement under Law 85A1". Is my translation > from Grattanese into plainer English correct, My Lord Endicott? > +=+ In the names of the martyred saints, what has 85A1 got to do with it? That law is about determining facts when the facts are not agreed. And Richard, by comparison with your contributions, at times, my language is as crystal clear as the limpid waters of a mountain brook. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 29 14:33:25 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:33:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) References: <49F6641A.4090907@talktalk.net><000701c9c7d5$e9e96b80$0302a8c0@Mildred><49F6ED66.7050208@talktalk.net><002601c9c89d$70b54b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000901c9c8c6$b2619830$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) +++ could someone translate this please :> > ********************************** > " 'Coacervate': (noun) a colloid-rich viscous > liquid phase which may separate from a > colloidal solution on addition of a third > component." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +=+ In the absence of the further component we have > a coacervate where it is difficult to speculate upon the > mystery of its composition because we do not know > what it was at root that the AC decided. Speculation > is interesting but in our ignorance we merely condemn > what we set up in order to knock it down. > The AC evidently decided either that there was > no UI (unlikely) or that there was no logical alternative > action to the call made at the table that would have > been less successful. We do not know how they came > to this view; there are several possibilities. Speculators > on this list are saying something like "If 'x' was their > finding then we think 'y' of it". This is fair enough but > for the conditional opinion to become a judgement > one needs to know what it is one is judging. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > .......................................................................... _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nbpfemu at bigpond.com Wed Apr 29 16:53:21 2009 From: nbpfemu at bigpond.com (Noel & Pamela) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:53:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) In-Reply-To: <000901c9c8c6$b2619830$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: So what this implies is that Committees should just rule without giving reasons and then we can never question them...... :-( regards, Noel [PS. Just like a Jury...you can speculate all you want, but they never speak (well they might in the US) - if they do here it is at their very great peril.] -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Grattan Sent: Wednesday, 29 April 2009 10:33 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) +++ could someone translate this please :> > ********************************** > " 'Coacervate': (noun) a colloid-rich viscous > liquid phase which may separate from a > colloidal solution on addition of a third > component." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +=+ In the absence of the further component we have > a coacervate where it is difficult to speculate upon the mystery of > its composition because we do not know what it was at root that the AC > decided. Speculation is interesting but in our ignorance we merely > condemn what we set up in order to knock it down. > The AC evidently decided either that there was > no UI (unlikely) or that there was no logical alternative > action to the call made at the table that would have > been less successful. We do not know how they came > to this view; there are several possibilities. Speculators > on this list are saying something like "If 'x' was their > finding then we think 'y' of it". This is fair enough but > for the conditional opinion to become a judgement > one needs to know what it is one is judging. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ........................................................................ .. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.6/2084 - Release Date: 04/29/09 06:37:00 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 30 00:21:21 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:21:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: G.T.W. Agnew, letter to The Canberra Times, 29th April 2009: .....Malone noted a reference in Cohan's book that "many of the key executives who contributed to Bear Stearns's crash were fanatical bridge players and even went off to bridge tournaments at various crisis points". Malone found this merely amusing, but it may well be the key to understanding the problem. As anyone who has tried to learn bridge knows only too well, most of the bridge bidding system is a pack of lies. You say things which you definitely do not mean; you are expected to utter words which do not describe the sort of contract you want to make. For anyone brought up on the direct relationship between bidding and contracts in Five Hundred or Solo, this indirect method of communication can feel like the symbolism of an exclusive religious sect. While all that is quite OK for playing a card game, it has a downside. The thought patterns and dedication to lying required for bridge have a bad habit of being used elsewhere - bridge is notorious for helping to break up friendships and marriages. The weird nonsense of making bad loans and then building an international finance system on top of them is remarkably comparable to such thought patterns and dedication to lying..... Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Apr 30 01:04:51 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:04:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) In-Reply-To: <000901c9c8c6$b2619830$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49F6641A.4090907@talktalk.net><000701c9c7d5$e9e96b80$0302a8c0@Mildred><49F6ED66.7050208@talktalk.net><002601c9c89d$70b54b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000901c9c8c6$b2619830$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49F8DD13.9070902@talktalk.net> [Grattan Endicott] We are missing a key element because we do not know the basis of this decision. So we may guess what led them to this, and then comment on what we think may have been the grounds for their ruling, but until we know about this for sure we are not entitled make definitive judgements as to the quality of the AC's decision. [Nigel] Again Grattan and I agree to differ. Rarely can we be privy to the detailed arguments and thought processes of directors and committee members. But Willem has provides us with the relevant facts that were available. I feel that this provides a basis for us to suggest a ruling even if our judgement differs from that of the TD or AC. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 30 08:23:21 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:23:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 10th August 2004: Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" from dummy. All other players followed suit with low diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real ace of diamonds. Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was called. How would you rule? 11th August 2004: >This is a very poor example, as I have yet to see a hand >whose choice of action depends on whether it is a limit >raise or a pre-emptive raise. Richard Hills: Ruritanian Bridge Union, national pairs championship. Your opponents arrive late to your table, so you merely have time to note that they play a version of Acol. Dlr: East Vul: None You, South, hold: 2 KQJT9876 32 32 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 2S(1) ?(2) (1) Half the Ruritanian Acol players employ the Acol Two style; the other half of the Ruritanian Acol players employ the Weak Two style. The Ruritanian alert reg states that neither style need to be alerted. (2) Looking at a system card then passing, or asking a question then passing, is deemed to be an infraction of Law 73A2 in Ruritania. The Ruritanian RA orders its TDs to apply an automatic PP for infractions of Law 73A2. Your partnership has an agreement, in accordance with the best textbooks, of "Don't preempt over an opposing preempt." Therefore, your system call over a weak 2S is to pass. Your system call over an Acol 2S is to preempt 4H. What Catch-22 action do you take? What Catch-22 action do you consider taking? Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 30 09:51:50 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:51:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) In-Reply-To: <49F8DD13.9070902@talktalk.net> References: <49F6641A.4090907@talktalk.net><000701c9c7d5$e9e96b80$0302a8c0@Mildred><49F6ED66.7050208@talktalk.net><002601c9c89d$70b54b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000901c9c8c6$b2619830$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49F8DD13.9070902@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49F95896.4090207@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Grattan Endicott] > We are missing a key element because we do not know the basis of this decision. So we may guess what led them to this, and then comment on what we think may have been the grounds for their ruling, but until we know about this for sure we are not entitled make definitive judgements as to the quality of the AC's decision. > > [Nigel] > Again Grattan and I agree to differ. Rarely can we be privy to the detailed arguments and thought processes of directors and committee members. But Willem has provides us with the relevant facts that were available. I feel that this provides a basis for us to suggest a ruling even if our judgement differs from that of the TD or AC. > AG : indeed, but giving a ruling on the basis of facts we've heard of is easy in comparison with understanding another person's ruling when we don't know which facts they had heard of. I still think it a bit futile to try and guess the other person's mental processes ; after all, that's what makes determining opponents' hands so difficult. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 30 10:45:02 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:45:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) References: <49F6641A.4090907@talktalk.net><000701c9c7d5$e9e96b80$0302a8c0@Mildred><49F6ED66.7050208@talktalk.net><002601c9c89d$70b54b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000901c9c8c6$b2619830$0302a8c0@Mildred><49F8DD13.9070902@talktalk.net> <49F95896.4090207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003701c9c970$f4805120$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Grattan Endicott] > We are missing a key element because we do not know the basis of this decision. So we may guess what led them to this, and then comment on what we think may have been the grounds for their ruling, but until we know about this for sure we are not entitled make definitive judgements as to the quality of the AC's decision. > > [Nigel] > Again Grattan and I agree to differ. Rarely can we be privy to the detailed arguments and thought processes of directors and committee members. But Willem has provides us with the relevant facts that were available. I feel that this provides a basis for us to suggest a ruling even if our judgement differs from that of the TD or AC. > [Alan] AG : indeed, but giving a ruling on the basis of facts we've heard of is easy in comparison with understanding another person's ruling when we don't know which facts they had heard of. I still think it a bit futile to try and guess the other person's mental processes ; after all, that's what makes determining opponents' hands so difficult. ........................................................................ +=+ I do not object to comment on the basis of limited information. It does irk me, however, when I read put-downs of ACs without knowing the facts they had in view or the view they took of them. Some committee chairmen do not commit this information to paper and that, I think, is unhelpful to the game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Thu Apr 30 11:26:40 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:26:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 7:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > 10th August 2004: > > Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of > hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, > declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" > from dummy. All other players followed suit with low > diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real > ace of diamonds. > > Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the > real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was > called. > > How would you rule? The HA was played. Everyone revoked so no penalty tricks; equity to be restored. Don't tell me there's another solution? :) John > > > 11th August 2004: > >>This is a very poor example, as I have yet to see a hand >>whose choice of action depends on whether it is a limit >>raise or a pre-emptive raise. > > Richard Hills: > > Ruritanian Bridge Union, national pairs championship. > > Your opponents arrive late to your table, so you merely > have time to note that they play a version of Acol. > > Dlr: East > Vul: None > > You, South, hold: > > 2 > KQJT9876 > 32 > 32 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 2S(1) ?(2) > > (1) Half the Ruritanian Acol players employ the Acol Two > style; the other half of the Ruritanian Acol players > employ the Weak Two style. The Ruritanian alert reg > states that neither style need to be alerted. > > (2) Looking at a system card then passing, or asking a > question then passing, is deemed to be an infraction of > Law 73A2 in Ruritania. The Ruritanian RA orders its TDs > to apply an automatic PP for infractions of Law 73A2. > > Your partnership has an agreement, in accordance with > the best textbooks, of "Don't preempt over an opposing > preempt." > > Therefore, your system call over a weak 2S is to pass. > Your system call over an Acol 2S is to preempt 4H. > > What Catch-22 action do you take? > What Catch-22 action do you consider taking? > > > Best wishes > > R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Apr 30 11:38:54 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:38:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49F971AE.3050206@t-online.de> John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 7:23 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> 10th August 2004: >> >> Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of >> hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, >> declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" >> from dummy. All other players followed suit with low >> diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real >> ace of diamonds. >> >> Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the >> real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was >> called. >> >> How would you rule? > > The HA was played. Everyone revoked so no penalty tricks; equity to be > restored. Don't tell me there's another solution? :) John > There always is another solution: behead dummy and the defender who held the Ace of diamonds. That, of course, is also "restoring equity", in a way. If this is viewed as too extreme I can live with your solution :-) Matthias From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 30 13:44:58 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:44:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49F971AE.3050206@t-online.de> References: <49F971AE.3050206@t-online.de> Message-ID: <49F98F3A.3070205@skynet.be> Matthias' Solution is only valid if the played card was the Queen of Hearts - "off with their heads!". Matthias Berghaus wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 7:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> 10th August 2004: >>> >>> Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of >>> hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, >>> declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" >>> from dummy. All other players followed suit with low >>> diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real >>> ace of diamonds. >>> >>> Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the >>> real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was >>> called. >>> >>> How would you rule? >> The HA was played. Everyone revoked so no penalty tricks; equity to be >> restored. Don't tell me there's another solution? :) John >> > > There always is another solution: behead dummy and the defender who held > the Ace of diamonds. That, of course, is also "restoring equity", in a > way. If this is viewed as too extreme I can live with your solution :-) > > Matthias > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 30 17:40:08 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:40:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49F971AE.3050206@t-online.de> <49F98F3A.3070205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c9c9a9$f6ddb230$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Matthias' Solution is only valid if the played card was the Queen of > Hearts - "off with their heads!". > +=+ So each tournament requires a supply of flamingos and hedgehogs. +=+ From john at asimere.com Thu Apr 30 20:59:00 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:59:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49F971AE.3050206@t-online.de> Message-ID: <3D2E00F81F744FA49A0E6A0D4E7459BA@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 7:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> 10th August 2004: >>> >>> Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of >>> hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, >>> declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" >>> from dummy. All other players followed suit with low >>> diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real >>> ace of diamonds. >>> >>> Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the >>> real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was >>> called. >>> >>> How would you rule? >> >> The HA was played. Everyone revoked so no penalty tricks; equity to be >> restored. Don't tell me there's another solution? :) John >> sorta begs the question; the defenders revoked twice and the declarer once. Does the "both sides" rule still apply. obviously it does, but should it? John > > There always is another solution: behead dummy and the defender who held > the Ace of diamonds. That, of course, is also "restoring equity", in a > way. If this is viewed as too extreme I can live with your solution :-) > > Matthias > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk Thu Apr 30 23:08:34 2009 From: clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk (Alan Hill) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:08:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) Message-ID: <729087.90265.qm@web27908.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> My guess is that they accepted the assertion that South knew North was not strong as they take action immediately with strong hands. Alan H --- On Wed, 29/4/09, Grattan wrote: > From: Grattan > Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Date: Wednesday, 29 April, 2009, 1:33 PM > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > " I am always very glad when Lord Salisbury > makes a great speech. It is sure to contain > at least one blazing indiscretion which it is a > delight to remember." > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? [3rd Earl of Morley 1843-1905] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > +=+ Hi Karel, > ? ? ???I was teasing. My point is > that when the AC > concluded that there should be no adjustment of > score, it did so because it believed that, playing > the methods of the partnership under examination, > there was no logical alternative action that would > be less successful.? . We are missing a key element > because we do not know the basis of this decision. > So we may guess what led them to this, and then > comment on what we think may have been the > grounds for their ruling, but until we know about > this for sure we are not entitled make definitive > judgements as to the quality of the AC's decision. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ???~ G > ~???+=+ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Karel" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:27 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) > > > +++ could someone translate this please :> > > > ********************************** > > " 'Coacervate': (noun) a colloid-rich viscous > > liquid phase which may separate from a > > colloidal solution on addition of a third > > component." > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > +=+ In the absence of the further component we have > > a coacervate where it is difficult to speculate upon > the > > mystery of its composition because we do not know > > what it was at root that the AC decided. Speculation > > is interesting but in our ignorance we merely condemn > > what we set up in order to knock it down. > > The AC evidently decided either that there was > > no UI (unlikely) or that there was no logical > alternative > > action to the call made at the table that would have > > been less successful. We do not know how they came > > to this view; there are several possibilities. > Speculators > > on this list are saying something like "If 'x' was > their > > finding then we think 'y' of it". This is fair enough > but > > for the conditional opinion to become a judgement > > one needs to know what it is one is judging. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > .......................................................................... > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >