From henk at ripe.net Sat Aug 1 01:01:03 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 01:01:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: <200907312301.n6VN13o3005299@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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 1 11:43:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:43:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? References: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no><20090730122533.14BE6485C116@relay2.webreus.nl> <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no><00ec01ca1126$3b99b900$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000301ca1138$ba3ea970$2ebbfc50$@no><006701ca116e$10b91440$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000f01ca11b2$5fccab20$1f660160$@no> Message-ID: <006001ca128c$8854ca20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? > On Behalf Of Grattan > ................. >> (WBFLC minute, 24th august 1998) >> "The Secretary drew attention to those who >> argued that where an action was stated in the laws >> (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions if >> not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The >> Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the >> Laws states that the laws define correct procedure >> and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, >> 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction >> of law if information deriving from it is used in the >> auction or play.". >> (Grattan) > > The way I understand this minute is that it addresses > actions not explicitly allowed in the laws and considers > any information derived from such actions extraneous > and unauthorized, but only for the offending side. I > cannot see that this minute denies a non-offending > side any rights they otherwise have, for instance from > Law 73D1? > +=+ The minute addressed the argument being made in 1998 that if something is not forbidden in the laws it is allowed. The WBFLC decision was of general application and established that for all players the use of such extraneous information is unlawful. It applied even before any other offence had occurred. Positive authorization is required for a call or play to be lawfully based. Law 16A1 applies generally, including before any offence has been committed, and Law 16A3 brings the 1998 decision into the law book in a specific statement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 1 20:21:24 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 14:21:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <006001ca128c$8854ca20$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no><20090730122533.14BE6485C116@relay2.webreus.nl> <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no><00ec01ca1126$3b99b900$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000301ca1138$ba3ea970$2ebbfc50$@no><006701ca116e$10b91440$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000f01ca11b2$5fccab20$1f660160$@no> <006001ca128c$8854ca20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48731.70.23.74.202.1249150884.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " A vacuum can only exist, I imagine, > by the things which enclose it." > ~ Zelda Fitzgerald (1932) > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 8:41 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? > > >> On Behalf Of Grattan >> ................. >>> (WBFLC minute, 24th august 1998) >>> "The Secretary drew attention to those who >>> argued that where an action was stated in the laws >>> (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions if >>> not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The >>> Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the >>> Laws states that the laws define correct procedure >>> and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, >>> 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction >>> of law if information deriving from it is used in the >>> auction or play.". >>> (Grattan) >> >> The way I understand this minute is that it addresses >> actions not explicitly allowed in the laws and considers >> any information derived from such actions extraneous >> and unauthorized, but only for the offending side. I >> cannot see that this minute denies a non-offending >> side any rights they otherwise have, for instance from >> Law 73D1? >> > +=+ The minute addressed the argument being made > in 1998 that if something is not forbidden in the laws > it is allowed. The WBFLC decision was of general > application and established that for all players the use > of such extraneous information is unlawful. It applied > even before any other offence had occurred. Positive > authorization is required for a call or play to be lawfully > based. > Law 16A1 applies generally, including before any > offence has been committed, and Law 16A3 brings > the 1998 decision into the law book in a specific > statement. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This opinion -- if it isn't in the laws, it isn't allowed -- assumes that the laws attempt to describe proper procedure. But do they? It is clear that the players can ask for an explanation. I don't see where it says that the opponents are required to *answer*. Of course, it is to their advantage to answer, which then raises the question if they are allowed to answer. Grattan's argument depends on the phrasing of this missing sentence. If it was "Players should give a complete and correct explanation when asked", that would support Grattan's position. If it was "Players then reply", that would not support his position. So perhaps we are arguing over the exact wording of a missing sentence. RECOMMENDED: Or you can take "..replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question" as implying, directly or indirectly that *replies* are proper procedure. Then, right or wrong, replies are part of the proper procedure of the game. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 2 00:11:15 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:11:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: Misinformation and UI?] In-Reply-To: <4A7294ED.30504@t-online.de> References: <4A71DD3D.5080802@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A725671.5050101@nhcc.net> <4A7294ED.30504@t-online.de> Message-ID: <44703.70.23.77.70.1249164675.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > Steve Willner schrieb: >>> From: Sven Pran >>> Opponents' mannerisms are certainly AI to me... >> >> I would have thought so too, but it isn't clear to me exactly which Law >> in the 2007 book makes it so. > > L73D1 and L16A1c > >> >> If I can no longer play KJT opposite Axx by leading the jack and >> watching what an opponent does, that is a revolutionary change in the >> game. Likewise if _anything_ an opponent voluntarily does is not AI to >> me. L16A1 *should* say, roughly 1. During play, the only AI from partner is partner's legal calls and plays. 2. Anything from the opponents is AI. Because it does not distinguish partner from opponents, there are several errors. Error #1a. You have to read the whole book to find out that opponent's frown is AI. But only when it accompanies a call or play (L73). Error #1b. Frowns and other mannerisms ocurring at other times (like when player opens his hand) are UI. Error #1c. Lack of hesitation (in Sven's situation of looking for the queen) presumably is UI. Error #2. If the opponent tells you he has a particular card, that's UI. As far as I can tell -- as noted you have to read the entire lawbook to apply L16A1(c) Error #3. Assuming the answers to explanations are part of the procedures of the game, they are AI to both sides. There are also situations that are not easily resolved. And of course the two rules above have exceptions. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 2 08:16:06 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 02:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] It's too late to discuss conventions when... Message-ID: <58391.70.23.75.140.1249193766.squirrel@email.powweb.com> I assume that "our opening 2 Di is Flannery" is AI to my partner if I say it in time. (L16A(d)) I get from the laws that I have to say it before my partner takes his hand out of the board. That lets me see my hand first. I am guessing no one actually rules that way. But is the deadline when either of us looks at our cards, or is the opponent making a call another deadline? From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Aug 2 12:10:09 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 12:10:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] It's too late to discuss conventions when... In-Reply-To: <58391.70.23.75.140.1249193766.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <20090802101022.2F8AC990C0F6@relay2.webreus.nl> I assume that "our opening 2 Di is Flannery" is AI to my partner if I say it in time. (L16A(d)) I get from the laws that I have to say it before my partner takes his hand out of the board. That lets me see my hand first. I am guessing no one actually rules that way. But is the deadline when either of us looks at our cards, or is the opponent making a call another deadline? ton: I think that the real 'deadline' is whether your partner knew it already before you said so. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 2 12:36:43 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 11:36:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: Misinformation and UI?] References: <4A71DD3D.5080802@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A725671.5050101@nhcc.net> <4A7294ED.30504@t-online.de> Message-ID: <002001ca135d$232fec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: Misinformation and UI?] > Steve Willner schrieb: From: Sven Pran Opponents' mannerisms are certainly AI to me... >> I would have thought so too, but it isn't clear to me exactly which Law in the 2007 book makes it so. > > L73D1 and L16A1c > > If I can no longer play KJT opposite Axx by leading the jack and watching what an opponent does, that is a revolutionary change in the game. Likewise if _anything_ an opponent voluntarily does is not AI to me. >> +=+ There was a problem with 'mannerisms'. Not being included in the law book Definitions, it had its dictionary meaning. Some players thought they could understand it to mean a single reaction or behavioural response to a situation or an occurrence. But this is not a mannerism. To be a mannerism the dictionary requires that it conform to the constant pattern of the individual's response to situations or events, part of his style, a characteristic peculiarity of manner. The word 'mannerisms' is now substituted with the word 'traits' which even more clearly requires that what the player relies on is characteristic of the opponent. L73D1 and L16A1(c) provide for the KJ10 ploy, and see 73D2, 74C7. In this regard I do not see that anything has changed from 1997. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 2 13:14:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 12:14:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] It's too late to discuss conventions when... References: <20090802101022.2F8AC990C0F6@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <002701ca1362$70308070$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] It's too late to discuss conventions when... > > > I assume that "our opening 2 Di is Flannery" is AI to my > partner if I say it in time. (L16A(d)) > > I get from the laws that I have to say it before my partner > takes his hand out of the board. That lets me see my hand > first. I am guessing no one actually rules that way. > > But is the deadline when either of us looks at our cards, > or is the opponent making a call another deadline? > > ton: > > I think that the real 'deadline' is whether your partner > knew it already before you said so. > +=+ This seems right to me, together with the possibility that you say it before any of these other 'deadliness' occurs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 2 19:39:09 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 13:39:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] It's too late to discuss conventions when... In-Reply-To: <20090802101022.2F8AC990C0F6@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090802101022.2F8AC990C0F6@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <49697.70.23.74.108.1249234749.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > > > I assume that "our opening 2 Di is Flannery" is AI to my partner if I say > it > in time. (L16A(d)) > > I get from the laws that I have to say it before my partner takes his hand > out of the board. That lets me see my hand first. I am guessing no one > actually rules that way. > > But is the deadline when either of us looks at our cards, or is the > opponent > making a call another deadline? > > ton: > > I think that the real 'deadline' is whether your partner knew it already > before you said so. Suppose my partner and I have not yet discussed the meaning of our 2 Di opening. It must be legal at some point for us to discuss this and use the information as AI -- that's what all partnerships do. My question is if we can have this discussion after an opponents has called. Suppose our opponent opens 1NT and we have not taken our hands out of the board. On one hand, it doesn't seem fair that we can now discuss our defenses to a 1NT opening; on the other hand, perhaps our opponent should have waited for us to look at our cards before opening the bidding. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 3 00:18:06 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 23:18:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] It's too late to discuss conventions when... References: <20090802101022.2F8AC990C0F6@relay2.webreus.nl> <49697.70.23.74.108.1249234749.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <000801ca13bf$1d9f7070$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] It's too late to discuss conventions when... My question is if we can have this discussion after an opponents has called. Suppose our opponent opens 1NT and we have not taken our hands out of the board. On one hand, it doesn't seem fair that we can now discuss our defenses to a 1NT opening; on the other hand, perhaps our opponent should have waited for us to look at our cards before opening the bidding. > +=+ Among the places one may look to resolve this question I can think of these: Law 73A1; and see Definitions - 'Auction' (1). Law 40A1(b) and any regulations authorized by it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 3 00:58:14 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 17:58:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Roger Pewick" Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 10:03 To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? > > > I ask that you place yourselves in the position of someone who has never > heard of bridge, read a column, seen it played, or anything. In other > words, have no preconceived notions, yet be aware of your knowledge. > > At that I want to point out that the ranking of suits is C, D, H, S. And > if > one thinks about it, they might have been ranked in any order except that > the alphabetic mnemonic holds a particular value and thus is a suitable > determining factor. > > However, there is the question as to what is the correct place for the > denomination of NT. And of particular interest is the why? Which is to > say > that suits being a class and non-suits being a class just what is the > logic > for fitting properly the two dissimilar groups together? > > A different way of putting it is to answer, why, or why shouldn't 1C out > rank 1N, or 1D, or 1H..? after all, suits are tangible while no-suit is a > concept. And who says 1C ought to be out ranked by 1no-suit? > > This query is based upon the premise that there are compelling reasons > that > it should be a particular way, other than it's always been that way. It > logically follows that given an appropriate ranking order, then an > appropriate scoring value can be assigned. > > As an example it is possible that 1C outranking 1NT can push players to > resort to OBM to resolve their dilemmas and thus be a reason that it ought > not be so. However, at this moment this is my preconceived notion and not > yet thought through as being valid or invalid. And for that matter, a > large > number of players resort to OBM where 1N outranks 1S, which leaves us > where? > > Thanks. > > And to thine own self be true. > roger pewick When I put forth my query I proposed as valid the hypothesis that the hierarchy of denominations should be ascertained first and then assign reward values, ostensibly the greater the difficulty the greater the reward [This being the most appropriate premise for a game]. Such befits nature's way and has the characteristic of natural justice. I thank those who took the time offer their comments. A veritable cornucopia of history evolved and some useful views- all quite valuable. In summary, over the years and throughout the globe a wide variety of suit symbols have been used with various orders of ranking. It has been pointed out that historically the highest rank has [where applicable] been afforded to NT. It has been suggested that NT is the particular denomination that is most difficult to achieve tricks [this view is a bit fuzzy as there are numerous angles of observation- such as the marginal difficulty or ease of successfully landing in a particular denomination]. Putting together all the data seems to suggest that there is no uniform direction. What seems clearest is the suggestion that the nature of suits is reasonably close to the preconceived notion that they ought to be ranked contiguously. I'll take a few moments and share some of my conclusions. The failure of finding a fundamental order in the ranking of denominations suggests that there is inadequate force behind the hypothesis that the denominations ought to first be ranked and then assigned rewards. Which suggests the converse hypothesis that once the system of rewards is fixed then the denominations can functionally be ordered. The strongest factor in the viability of deciding a final contract resides in the auction principle- the contract only advances, as distinct from recedes. In other words, the more auction steps available to investigate a contract the more likely a viable contract is found; or, in a different light, the fewer the available steps, the more difficult it is to arrive in a given denomination. If it is considered that the characteristic of trumps includes the possibility of expanding the number of tricks available via NT play due to [say] ruffing in the short hand or preventing the opponents' run of a suit then there is reasonable basis to order the difficulty of NT higher than suits contracts. And amongst the suits, the difficulty in arriving in a particular suit decreases with the increasing rank. And it seems clear that the most highly rewarded denomination must necessarily provide the fewest number of available auction steps, and so forth. Thank you all. regards roger pewick From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Aug 3 04:19:40 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 22:19:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Do you believe a claim of mispull? Message-ID: It seems to have become common that players who commit an infraction with a bidding box claim to have mispulled, rather than to have made a mental error. Should we treat this claim skeptically, as we do when a player who had unauthorized information claims that he had no logical alternative in his bidding system, or claims that he has an unmarked agreement and there was a misbid rather than misinformation? For example: W N E 1S 2D 2C When the director was called about the insufficient bid, East claimed to have mispulled, and thus South was not given a chance to accept the insufficient bid. This is certainly a reasonable mispull, but East's hand was rather weak to have intended a 3C bid. (I don't know whether N-S were damaged by denying South the opportunity to accept the 2C bid.) I have also seen players claim a mispull which was unlikely given the call; one player claimed to have mispulled a pass when he intended to make a bid (and not a skip bid; mispulling a pass when the intention was to pull the STOP card is reasonable). From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 3 08:31:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 07:31:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do you believe a claim of mispull? References: Message-ID: <001e01ca1403$fe25fbc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:19 AM Subject: [BLML] Do you believe a claim of mispull? It seems to have become common that players who commit an infraction with a bidding box claim to have mispulled, rather than to have made a mental error. Should we treat this claim skeptically, as we do when a player who had unauthorized information claims that he had no logical alternative in his bidding system, or claims that he has an unmarked agreement and there was a misbid rather than misinformation? > For example: > W N E 1S 2D 2C When the director was called about the insufficient bid, East claimed to have mispulled, and thus South was not given a chance to accept the insufficient bid. This is certainly a reasonable mispull, but East's hand was rather weak to have intended a 3C bid. (I don't know whether N-S were damaged by denying South the opportunity to accept the 2C bid.) I have also seen players claim a mispull which was unlikely given the call; one player claimed to have mispulled a pass when he intended to make a bid (and not a skip bid; mispulling a pass when the intention was to pull the STOP card is reasonable). > +=+ I would be interested to know what the bidding box regulations were that applied in this situation. Did they say anything, for example, about "without pause for thought"? The other question, of course, is exactly what the ruling was. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Aug 3 10:48:09 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:48:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do you believe a claim of mispull? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7E1C487C-3BBC-4334-AD1C-FE80BF8A6BBC@btinternet.com> On 3 Aug 2009, at 03:19, David Grabiner wrote: > It seems to have become common that players who commit an > infraction with a > bidding box claim to have mispulled, rather than to have made a > mental error. Directors need to take care to explain the distinction properly. > Should we treat this claim skeptically, as we do when a player who had > unauthorized information claims that he had no logical alternative > in his > bidding system, or claims that he has an unmarked agreement and > there was a > misbid rather than misinformation? > > For example: > > W N E > 1S 2D 2C > > When the director was called about the insufficient bid, East > claimed to have > mispulled, and thus South was not given a chance to accept the > insufficient bid. > This is certainly a reasonable mispull, but East's hand was rather > weak to have > intended a 3C bid. (I don't know whether N-S were damaged by > denying South the > opportunity to accept the 2C bid.) In practice some Souths would have already called over the 2C bid, before its "mechanical error" status had been claimed. > > I have also seen players claim a mispull which was unlikely given > the call; one > player claimed to have mispulled a pass when he intended to make a > bid (and not > a skip bid; mispulling a pass when the intention was to pull the > STOP card is > reasonable). From henk at ripe.net Mon Aug 3 12:04:03 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:04:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <200908031004.n73A43qi027070@cat.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for July 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 76 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 45 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 36 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 26 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 23 ehaa (at) starpower.net 17 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 14 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 13 blml (at) arcor.de 10 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 9 adam (at) irvine.com 8 swillner (at) nhcc.net 7 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 7 adam (at) tameware.com 7 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 6 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 5 svenpran (at) online.no 5 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 4 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 3 tedying (at) yahoo.com 3 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 3 gampas (at) aol.com 3 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 2 nigelguthrie (at) talktalk.net 2 karel (at) esatclear.ie 2 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 bobpark (at) consolidated.net 2 blml (at) bridgescore.de 2 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 2 Gampas (at) aol.com 1 wmevius (at) hotmail.com 1 nigel.guthrie41 (at) virginmedia.com 1 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 1 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 1 lapinjatka (at) jldata.fi 1 geller (at) nifty.com 1 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 3 13:09:37 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:09:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Do you believe a claim of mispull? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A76C571.6060203@ulb.ac.be> David Grabiner a ?crit : > It seems to have become common that players who commit an infraction with a > bidding box claim to have mispulled, rather than to have made a mental error. > Should we treat this claim skeptically, as we do when a player who had > unauthorized information claims that he had no logical alternative in his > bidding system, or claims that he has an unmarked agreement and there was a > misbid rather than misinformation? > > For example: > > W N E > 1S 2D 2C > > When the director was called about the insufficient bid, East claimed to have > mispulled, and thus South was not given a chance to accept the insufficient bid. > This is certainly a reasonable mispull, but East's hand was rather weak to have > intended a 3C bid. AG : 2C responses are so strong nowadays that I don't think there would be a big difference. > (I don't know whether N-S were damaged by denying South the > opportunity to accept the 2C bid.) > AG : this is indeed the only problem, because a rectification to 3C would most probably be allowed even using L25B. This raises an interesting point : IBs are one case where "pulling the case back to what would have happened had the infraction not occurred" isn't the main concern ; else, one would have to allow the player to bid 3C even if opponents wanted to accept the IB. Of course, the answer to your question is "the gestures and facial expression of the player will tell the truth", and of course we weren't there at the moment to see them. But I would be prone to accept the claim, because it doesn't damage NS, and this is as good a criterion as any. > I have also seen players claim a mispull which was unlikely given the call; one > player claimed to have mispulled a pass when he intended to make a bid (and not > a skip bid; mispulling a pass when the intention was to pull the STOP card is > reasonable). > AG : anything could happen. 1NT in lieu of 1C would seem suspicious (especially if they play variable NTs), but somme BBs have the 1NT card where others have 1C, and not every TD is conscious of that fact. A live case : 1H p 2H ...p p X XX What did responder want to bid ? Does anybody guess ? (response below) Best regards Alain He wanted to pull the TD card to signal the tempo. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Aug 4 05:36:57 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 23:36:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] It's too late to discuss conventions when... In-Reply-To: <000801ca13bf$1d9f7070$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090802101022.2F8AC990C0F6@relay2.webreus.nl> <49697.70.23.74.108.1249234749.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <000801ca13bf$1d9f7070$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <42989.70.23.75.144.1249357017.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " A vacuum can only exist, I imagine, > by the things which enclose it." > ~ Zelda Fitzgerald (1932) > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:39 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] It's too late to discuss conventions when... > > > My question is if we can have this discussion after an > opponents has called. Suppose our opponent opens > 1NT and we have not taken our hands out of the board. > On one hand, it doesn't seem fair that we can now > discuss our defenses to a 1NT opening; on the other > hand, perhaps our opponent should have waited for us > to look at our cards before opening the bidding. >> > +=+ Among the places one may look to resolve this > question I can think of these: > Law 73A1; and see Definitions - 'Auction' (1). > Law 40A1(b) and any regulations authorized by it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Thanks. That's a good answer. Maybe for 2017 the auction period should start whenever either player looks at his hand OR a call occurs. That works better for Ai/UI purposes and probably for exposed cards. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Aug 4 05:49:33 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 23:49:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] It's too late to discuss conventions when... In-Reply-To: <42989.70.23.75.144.1249357017.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <20090802101022.2F8AC990C0F6@relay2.webreus.nl> <49697.70.23.74.108.1249234749.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <000801ca13bf$1d9f7070$0302a8c0@Mildred> <42989.70.23.75.144.1249357017.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <58553.70.23.75.144.1249357773.squirrel@webmail.rfrick.info> >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> (also > perhaps permanently suspended) >> ********************************** >> " A vacuum can only exist, I imagine, >> by the things which enclose it." >> ~ Zelda Fitzgerald (1932) >> ********************************* >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:39 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] It's too late to discuss conventions when... >> >> >> My question is if we can have this discussion after an >> opponents has called. Suppose our opponent opens >> 1NT and we have not taken our hands out of the board. >> On one hand, it doesn't seem fair that we can now >> discuss our defenses to a 1NT opening; on the other >> hand, perhaps our opponent should have waited for us >> to look at our cards before opening the bidding. >>> >> +=+ Among the places one may look to resolve this >> question I can think of these: >> Law 73A1; and see Definitions - 'Auction' (1). >> Law 40A1(b) and any regulations authorized by it. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Thanks. That's a good answer. > > Maybe for 2017 the auction period should start whenever either player > looks at his hand OR a call occurs. That works better for Ai/UI purposes > and probably for exposed cards. Cancel that silly comment about exposed cards. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 4 08:28:57 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:28:57 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Revision of pig's ear. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002d01ca0f04$d4475190$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Herman De Wael changes his mind: >>>You see, I do change my mind sometimes, when it is pointed out to >>>me that I am wrong! Jeff Easterson, a Director with a hand record: >>How about hand records, distributed to the TDs before play begins? >>This is usual in most (all?) of the tournaments I direct. Ciao, JE Grattan Endicott without reason: >+=+ I have no reason to think it can be sound procedure for the >Director to make himself aware of the contents of the hand. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 13A with reason: "When the Director determines that one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 14) and a player with an incorrect hand has made a call, then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played the deal may be so played with no change of call. At the end of play the Director may award an adjusted score." Grattan Endicott changes his mind??? :-) :-) :-) Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, a Director with a hand record -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue Aug 4 09:13:02 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:13:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Revision of pig's ear. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000e01ca14d3$096947b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Revision of pig's ear. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Herman De Wael changes his mind: > >>>>You see, I do change my mind sometimes, when it is pointed out to >>>>me that I am wrong! > > Jeff Easterson, a Director with a hand record: > >>>How about hand records, distributed to the TDs before play begins? >>>This is usual in most (all?) of the tournaments I direct. Ciao, JE > > Grattan Endicott without reason: > >>+=+ I have no reason to think it can be sound procedure for the >>Director to make himself aware of the contents of the hand. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Law 13A with reason: > > "When the Director determines that one or more hands of the board > contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 14) and a player > with an incorrect hand has made a call, then when the Director deems > that the deal can be corrected and played the deal may be so played > with no change of call. At the end of play the Director may award an > adjusted score." > > > Grattan Endicott changes his mind??? > :-) :-) :-) > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, a Director with a hand record > +=+ Richard Hills, in hibernation, opens one eye to read a comment in isolation from its context. +=+ From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 4 18:09:57 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 18:09:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? Message-ID: <000801ca151e$0356e8f0$0a04bad0$@no> I have accidentally discovered a discrepancy in the 2007 law book: Definitions: Auction - 1. The process of determining the contract by means of successive calls. It begins when the first call is made. 2. The aggregate of calls made (see Law 17). Law 17: A. Auction Period Starts The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board. During the Norwegian Bridge Festival I had a player that exposed all her cards after withdrawing them from the board but before the first call on that board was made. I ruled according to Law 17 and Law 24 that all her cards were exposed during the auction period, and consider this the correct ruling in spite of what has been written in definitions about when the auction begins. But I certainly hope that this discrepancy will be resolved ASAP? (Grattan?) Regards Sven From blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 4 20:20:46 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 20:20:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <000801ca151e$0356e8f0$0a04bad0$@no> References: <000801ca151e$0356e8f0$0a04bad0$@no> Message-ID: <18445569.1249410046800.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> I don't see the problem. The "auction" is not the same as the "auction period". Thomas Sven Pran wrote: > I have accidentally discovered a discrepancy in the 2007 law book: > > Definitions: > > Auction - 1. The process of determining the contract by means of > successive calls. It begins when the first call is made. 2. The aggregate > of calls made (see Law 17). > > Law 17: > > A. Auction Period Starts > > The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner > withdraws > his cards from the board. > > During the Norwegian Bridge Festival I had a player that exposed all her > cards after withdrawing them from the board but before the first call on > that board was made. I ruled according to Law 17 and Law 24 that all her > cards were exposed during the auction period, and consider this the correct > ruling in spite of what has been written in definitions about when the > auction begins. > > But I certainly hope that this discrepancy will be resolved ASAP? > (Grattan?) > > Regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Plantschen oder Grog? Der Arcor-Wetterdienst weiss Bescheid! Wassertemperaturen f?r den Urlaub jetzt checken: www.arcor.de/rd/wetter_wasser From adam at irvine.com Tue Aug 4 20:41:25 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:41:25 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:20:46 +0200." <18445569.1249410046800.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <200908041836.LAA06448@mailhub.irvine.com> Thomas wrote: > I don't see the problem. The "auction" is not the same > as the "auction period". It's interesting to note that in the 1997 Laws, Law 24 applied when cards were exposed during the "auction"; while in the 2007 Laws, this was changed to "auction period". It looks to me as though the Lawmakers understood that these were distinct terms with distinct meanings, and deliberately changed this in 2007 (for the better, I assume; I'd guess that the real discrepancy was in the 1997 Laws). -- Adam > Thomas > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > I have accidentally discovered a discrepancy in the 2007 law book: > > > > Definitions: > > > > Auction - 1. The process of determining the contract by means of > > successive calls. It begins when the first call is made. 2. The aggregate > > of calls made (see Law 17). > > > > Law 17: > > > > A. Auction Period Starts > > > > The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner > > withdraws > > his cards from the board. > > > > During the Norwegian Bridge Festival I had a player that exposed all her > > cards after withdrawing them from the board but before the first call on > > that board was made. I ruled according to Law 17 and Law 24 that all her > > cards were exposed during the auction period, and consider this the correct > > ruling in spite of what has been written in definitions about when the > > auction begins. > > > > But I certainly hope that this discrepancy will be resolved ASAP? > > (Grattan?) From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 4 20:57:37 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 14:57:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <006001ca128c$8854ca20$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no><20090730122533.14BE6485C116@relay2.webreus.nl> <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no><00ec01ca1126$3b99b900$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000301ca1138$ba3ea970$2ebbfc50$@no><006701ca116e$10b91440$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000f01ca11b2$5fccab20$1f660160$@no> <006001ca128c$8854ca20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Aug 1, 2009, at 5:43 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Sven Pran" > >> On Behalf Of Grattan >> >>> (WBFLC minute, 24th august 1998) >>> "The Secretary drew attention to those who >>> argued that where an action was stated in the laws >>> (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions if >>> not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The >>> Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the >>> Laws states that the laws define correct procedure >>> and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, >>> 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction >>> of law if information deriving from it is used in the >>> auction or play.". >>> (Grattan) >> >> The way I understand this minute is that it addresses >> actions not explicitly allowed in the laws and considers >> any information derived from such actions extraneous >> and unauthorized, but only for the offending side. I >> cannot see that this minute denies a non-offending >> side any rights they otherwise have, for instance from >> Law 73D1? > > +=+ The minute addressed the argument being made > in 1998 that if something is not forbidden in the laws > it is allowed. The WBFLC decision was of general > application and established that for all players the use > of such extraneous information is unlawful. It applied > even before any other offence had occurred. Positive > authorization is required for a call or play to be lawfully > based. > Law 16A1 applies generally, including before any > offence has been committed, and Law 16A3 brings > the 1998 decision into the law book in a specific > statement. I come late to this thread, but it is apparent that some folks are hung up on minuted minutia and have lost the overall picture. Sven seems to be the one keeping the discussion on track. It is patently both absurd and dangerous to argue that an infraction of law can result in the imposition of L16 UI constraints on the non- offending side. Legal technicalities aside, this is nothing more than punishing players for their opponents' failure to follow the law. Nobody doubts that players are entitled to correct information about the opponents' methods. Nobody doubts that players are not entitled to know what an opponent thought his partner's call meant, whether or not it conformed to those methods. But "entitled" means that if you don't have the information, you may request it and expect to be given it. That's very different from "authorized", which means that if you do have it, you may use it (entitled or not). Nothing in law or precedent, with the possible exception of the only arguably relevant minute Grattan cites, suggests that any information you have that was freely volunteered by your opponents can ever be unauthorized. Grattan seems to think that if an opponent volunteers an incorrect explanation, and subsequently corrects it, the original explanation becomes UI for the NOS, which may then be subject to L16 constraints on the use of that information. This is doubly absurd; it not only suggests that the OS could gain advantage by failing to make the subsequent correction, but also that the OS could gain advantage by offering the incorrect explanation in the first place, planning to correct it, thus insuring that their opponents will be constrained in adjudication from "taking advantage" of freely volunteered information that they otherwise might readily have chosen to act on (at their own risk). Grattan's claims that his cited minute applies to *any* information not explicitly authorized in TFLB, including information revealed by an opponent's action. So... As I'm defending a deal, declarer exposes the HQ in his hand so I can see it (a procedural violation carrying no penalty). If Grattan's interpretation stands, this is UI to me. Doesn't that mean that if I now play declarer for the HQ, when would have been a perfectly logical alternative for me to play partner for it, I must, per L16C, make what I know to be the losing play, to avoid "using" the UI that declarer has it? That is how UI works, ne? How is that any different (with respect to the cited minute in particular) from, as I'm bidding a hand, an opponent tells me how he misinterpreted his partner's call. If Grattan is right, then, with the situation reversed, I should volunteer such UI every chance I get! Otherwise my opponents might decide from lesser, subtler clues (we call this "table feel") that I am having a misunderstanding, back their (correct) judgment, and punish me for it, whereas if I make it UI, the majesty of the law will prevent them from doing so and protect my score if they try. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Aug 4 21:25:39 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:25:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Error_in_the_Law_book=2C_Auction_begins_wh?= =?iso-8859-15?q?en=3F?= In-Reply-To: <200908041836.LAA06448@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200908041836.LAA06448@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <1MYPdj-1m8MT20@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> From: Adam Beneschan > > I don't see the problem. The "auction" is not the same > > as the "auction period". > > It's interesting to note that in the 1997 Laws, Law 24 applied when > cards were exposed during the "auction"; while in the 2007 Laws, this > was changed to "auction period". ?It looks to me as though the > Lawmakers understood that these were distinct terms with distinct > meanings, and deliberately changed this in 2007 (for the better, I > assume; I'd guess that the real discrepancy was in the 1997 Laws). I agree. But I found (there is) another place in the laws which was not transformed by the 2007 Laws. Law 73A1: "Communication between partners during the _auction_ and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays. " This laws makes it possible for me and my partner to withdraw our hands from the baord and start to talk ... > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > I have accidentally discovered a discrepancy in the 2007 law book: > > > > > > Definitions: > > > > > > Auction ?- 1. ?The process of determining the contract by means of > > > successive calls. It begins when the first call is made. ?2. The > > > aggregate of calls made (see Law 17). > > > > > > Law 17: > > > > > > A. Auction Period Starts > > > > > > The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner > > > withdraws > > > his cards from the board. > > > > > > During the Norwegian Bridge Festival I had a player that exposed > > > all her cards after withdrawing them from the board but before the > > > first call on that board was made. I ruled according to Law 17 and > > > Law 24 that all her cards were exposed during the auction period, > > > and consider this the correct ruling in spite of what has been > > > written in definitions about when the auction begins. > > > > > > But I certainly hope that this discrepancy will be resolved ASAP? > > > (Grattan?) From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 4 22:24:55 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:24:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: Misinformation and UI?] In-Reply-To: <002001ca135d$232fec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A71DD3D.5080802@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A725671.5050101@nhcc.net> <4A7294ED.30504@t-online.de> <002001ca135d$232fec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <54DF9EE3-1D05-4EF1-AACC-77EA758EDDF8@starpower.net> On Aug 2, 2009, at 6:36 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > > If I can no longer play KJT opposite Axx by > leading the jack and watching what an opponent > does, that is a revolutionary change in the game. > Likewise if _anything_ an opponent voluntarily > does is not AI to me. > > +=+ There was a problem with 'mannerisms'. Not being > included in the law book Definitions, it had its dictionary > meaning. Some players thought they could understand it > to mean a single reaction or behavioural response to a > situation or an occurrence. But this is not a mannerism. > To be a mannerism the dictionary requires that it conform > to the constant pattern of the individual's response to > situations or events, part of his style, a characteristic > peculiarity of manner. > The word 'mannerisms' is now substituted with the > word 'traits' which even more clearly requires that what > the player relies on is characteristic of the opponent. > L73D1 and L16A1(c) provide for the KJ10 ploy, > and see 73D2, 74C7. In this regard I do not see that > anything has changed from 1997. Say what? This is getting more absurd by the minute (pun intended). I lead my jack towards my ace, LHO hitches before playing small, I choose to play him for the queen and run the jack. Does Grattan really mean to say that this is legal only if my LHO regularly hitches over the jack with the queen (thus consitituting a "trait"), but is illegal, subject to L16 adjudication for "using UI" if he only hitched in this position just this once (thus not a "trait" or "mannerism"). That is what his first two paragraphs state. I guess that must mean that I will be held responsible for knowing whether an opponent's apparent "tell" is or isn't sufficiently "characteristic" to constitute a "trait" any time I want to try to read a position by table feel. Plain common sense says that it is absolutely ridiculous to interpret L16 in such a way that one may be constrained by it due solely to an *opponent's* infraction or violation of correct procedure. Under any circumstances. Bridge cannot be played that way. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Aug 4 22:31:59 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:31:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? References: <200908041836.LAA06448@mailhub.irvine.com> <1MYPdj-1m8MT20@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <002001ca1542$a25ae090$2401a8c0@p41600> If only....one day perhaps. lnb ********************** The 3 ages of man.tri-weekly; try weekly; try weakly. ********************** Law 73A1: "Communication between partners during the _auction_ and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays. " This laws makes it possible for me and my partner to withdraw our hands from the baord and start to talk ... -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 2378 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 4 22:33:06 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:33:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? References: <000801ca151e$0356e8f0$0a04bad0$@no> Message-ID: <003401ca1544$6e071dc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:09 PM Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? >I have accidentally discovered a discrepancy in the 2007 law book: > > Definitions: > > Auction - 1. The process of determining the contract by means of > successive calls. It begins when the first call is made. 2. The aggregate > of calls made (see Law 17). > > Law 17: > > A. Auction Period Starts > > The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner > withdraws > his cards from the board. > > During the Norwegian Bridge Festival I had a player that exposed all her > cards after withdrawing them from the board but before the first call on > that board was made. I ruled according to Law 17 and Law 24 that all her > cards were exposed during the auction period, and consider this the > correct > ruling in spite of what has been written in definitions about when the > auction begins. > > But I certainly hope that this discrepancy will be resolved ASAP? > (Grattan?) > > Regards Sven > +=+ The distinction between the commencement of the Auction Period and the commencement of the Auction was intentional. It was done by design. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 4 23:11:29 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:11:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? References: <200908041836.LAA06448@mailhub.irvine.com><1MYPdj-1m8MT20@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <002001ca1542$a25ae090$2401a8c0@p41600> Message-ID: <004201ca1548$23663590$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? > If only....one day perhaps. > > lnb > ********************** > The 3 ages of man.tri-weekly; try weekly; try > weakly. > ********************** > > Law 73A1: > "Communication between partners during the _auction_ > and play shall be effected only by means of calls > and plays. " > > This laws makes it possible for me and my partner to > withdraw our hands from the baord and start to talk > ... +=+ Yes. At this time you are not restricted to only calls and plays. Your opponents are at the table, which you may not now leave. Disclosure procedure is subject to regulation. All quite intentional - especially that regulation bit. And, of course, Law 73C is now in operation. To the best of my recollection there is no authorization in the laws for a player to communicate anything about the hand or partnership methods relating to it, see Law 16A3. Law 74A2 may be relevant. Please remember that information is extraneous if it is not specified in law or regulation to be authorized. (See Law 16A3) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Aug 4 23:13:18 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:13:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <1MYPdj-1m8MT20@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> References: <200908041836.LAA06448@mailhub.irvine.com> <1MYPdj-1m8MT20@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:25:39 -0400, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Adam Beneschan >> > I don't see the problem. The "auction" is not the same >> > as the "auction period". >> >> It's interesting to note that in the 1997 Laws, Law 24 applied when >> cards were exposed during the "auction"; while in the 2007 Laws, this >> was changed to "auction period". ?It looks to me as though the >> Lawmakers understood that these were distinct terms with distinct >> meanings, and deliberately changed this in 2007 (for the better, I >> assume; I'd guess that the real discrepancy was in the 1997 Laws). > > I agree. > But I found (there is) another place in the laws which was > not transformed by the 2007 Laws. > > Law 73A1: > "Communication between partners during the _auction_ > and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays. " > > This laws makes it possible for me and my partner to > withdraw our hands from the baord and start to talk ... I would guess not. Once your partner takes his hand from the board, I think anything you say to him will be extraneous information for him by Law 16A1. So the best you can do look at your hand and tell your partner what conventions you are playing *before* he takes his hand out of the board. Then it is AI. (Or tell the opponents instead and satisfy your L40A1(b) obligations).) I don't think any director will actually let you get away with it. > > >> > Sven Pran wrote: >> > > I have accidentally discovered a discrepancy in the 2007 law book: >> > > >> > > Definitions: >> > > >> > > Auction ?- 1. ?The process of determining the contract by means of >> > > successive calls. It begins when the first call is made. ?2. The >> > > aggregate of calls made (see Law 17). >> > > >> > > Law 17: >> > > >> > > A. Auction Period Starts >> > > >> > > The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner >> > > withdraws >> > > his cards from the board. >> > > >> > > During the Norwegian Bridge Festival I had a player that exposed >> > > all her cards after withdrawing them from the board but before the >> > > first call on that board was made. I ruled according to Law 17 and >> > > Law 24 that all her cards were exposed during the auction period, >> > > and consider this the correct ruling in spite of what has been >> > > written in definitions about when the auction begins. >> > > >> > > But I certainly hope that this discrepancy will be resolved ASAP? >> > > (Grattan?) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Aug 4 23:25:28 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:25:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: Misinformation and UI?] In-Reply-To: <54DF9EE3-1D05-4EF1-AACC-77EA758EDDF8@starpower.net> References: <4A71DD3D.5080802@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A725671.5050101@nhcc.net> <4A7294ED.30504@t-online.de> <002001ca135d$232fec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> <54DF9EE3-1D05-4EF1-AACC-77EA758EDDF8@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:24:55 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 2, 2009, at 6:36 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> From: "Matthias Berghaus" >> >> If I can no longer play KJT opposite Axx by >> leading the jack and watching what an opponent >> does, that is a revolutionary change in the game. >> Likewise if _anything_ an opponent voluntarily >> does is not AI to me. >> >> +=+ There was a problem with 'mannerisms'. Not being >> included in the law book Definitions, it had its dictionary >> meaning. Some players thought they could understand it >> to mean a single reaction or behavioural response to a >> situation or an occurrence. But this is not a mannerism. >> To be a mannerism the dictionary requires that it conform >> to the constant pattern of the individual's response to >> situations or events, part of his style, a characteristic >> peculiarity of manner. >> The word 'mannerisms' is now substituted with the >> word 'traits' which even more clearly requires that what >> the player relies on is characteristic of the opponent. >> L73D1 and L16A1(c) provide for the KJ10 ploy, >> and see 73D2, 74C7. In this regard I do not see that >> anything has changed from 1997. > > Say what? This is getting more absurd by the minute (pun intended). > > I lead my jack towards my ace, LHO hitches before playing small, I > choose to play him for the queen and run the jack. Does Grattan > really mean to say that this is legal only if my LHO regularly > hitches over the jack with the queen (thus consitituting a "trait"), > but is illegal, subject to L16 adjudication for "using UI" if he only > hitched in this position just this once (thus not a "trait" or > "mannerism"). That is what his first two paragraphs state. I guess > that must mean that I will be held responsible for knowing whether an > opponent's apparent "tell" is or isn't sufficiently "characteristic" > to constitute a "trait" any time I want to try to read a position by > table feel. > > Plain common sense says that it is absolutely ridiculous to interpret > L16 in such a way that one may be constrained by it due solely to an > *opponent's* infraction or violation of correct procedure. Under any > circumstances. Bridge cannot be played that way. The flaw in L16A1 is that almost everything the opponents do is AI, but that law doesn't mentin that. So you have to go digging through the laws, where you will find "Otherwise, to unintentionally vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from *such variation* may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at his own risk." (L73D1) So you can draw inferences from the hitch. This doesn't say you can use those inference or that they are AI. But I think it is reasonable to take this phrase as approving any unintentional variations in tempo or manner that accompany a play as AI. That still leaves (1) intentional variations in tempo or manner, and (2) variations in tempo or manner than do not accompany a call or play. So you really can't use the AI laws, you are better off just following common practice. IMO. From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 4 23:46:54 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 23:46:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <003401ca1544$6e071dc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000801ca151e$0356e8f0$0a04bad0$@no> <003401ca1544$6e071dc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001ca154d$16f76ea0$44e64be0$@no> Well, at least I have the satisfaction from law 24 that my ruling was correct because this law begins with the text: When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player's own error one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction period ends. And according to Law 17 "The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board". I find it very unfortunate (linguistic) that the term "Auction period" is not synonymous with the period during which the auction takes place, and beginning now I shall spend some time trying to find any part of the laws where the difference in starting times for "Auction" and for "Auction period" is significant. It is in my opinion unacceptable if (as asked by another poster) the effect is that both players in a partnership can remove their cards from the board, look at them, and then begin discussing their systemic agreements. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Grattan > Sent: 4. august 2009 22:33 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? > > > > Grattan Endicott temporarily or > perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " A vacuum can only exist, I imagine, > by the things which enclose it." > ~ Zelda Fitzgerald (1932) > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:09 PM > Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? > > > >I have accidentally discovered a discrepancy in the 2007 law book: > > > > Definitions: > > > > Auction - 1. The process of determining the contract by means of > > successive calls. It begins when the first call is made. 2. The aggregate > > of calls made (see Law 17). > > > > Law 17: > > > > A. Auction Period Starts > > > > The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner > > withdraws > > his cards from the board. > > > > During the Norwegian Bridge Festival I had a player that exposed all her > > cards after withdrawing them from the board but before the first call on > > that board was made. I ruled according to Law 17 and Law 24 that all her > > cards were exposed during the auction period, and consider this the > > correct > > ruling in spite of what has been written in definitions about when the > > auction begins. > > > > But I certainly hope that this discrepancy will be resolved ASAP? > > (Grattan?) > > > > Regards Sven > > > +=+ The distinction between the commencement of the Auction Period > and the commencement of the Auction was intentional. It was done by > design. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 5 01:24:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:24:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Revision of pig's ear. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01ca14d3$096947b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson, a Director with a hand record: How about hand records, distributed to the TDs before play begins? This is usual in most (all?) of the tournaments I direct. Ciao, JE Grattan Endicott stated: +=+ I have no reason to think it can be sound procedure for the Director to make himself aware of the contents of the hand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan Endicott clarified: +=+ Richard Hills, in hibernation, opens one eye to read a comment in isolation from its context. +=+ Grattan Endicott apparently intended this contextual statement: +=+ I have no reason to think it can be sound procedure When The Director Judges Whether Or Not The Specific Law 20F6 Applies for the Director to make himself aware of the contents of the hand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sven Pran with greater dogmatism in a universal context: The Director should never consult these [hand] records no more than he should look directly at the cards before making any judgment ruling during auction or play. He should in fact make it absolutely clear at the table that he will not act so that he can be suspected of having made any ruling based on knowledge of the actual cards. He may of course use such records to prepare himself for his possible subsequent ruling should that be called for. [snip] Monty Python's Life of Brian: "All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?" Richard Hills, a Director with a hand record: All right... all right... but apart from Law 6D2, Law 13A, Law 13D2(a), Law 13F, Law 66C and Law 67B2(a), the Director should never consult a hand record no more than the Director should look directly at the cards before making any judgment ruling during the auction or the play. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 5 02:20:01 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:20:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau hypothetical: As I'm defending a deal, declarer exposes the HQ in his hand so I can see it (a procedural violation carrying no penalty). If Grattan's interpretation stands, this is UI to me. Doesn't that mean that if I now play declarer for the HQ, when would have been a perfectly logical alternative for me to play partner for it, I must, per L16C, make what I know to be the losing play, to avoid "using" the UI that declarer has it? That is how UI works, ne? Law 74C5: The following are examples of violations of procedure: looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent's card*). * See Law 73D2 when a player may have shown his cards intentionally. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Wed Aug 5 03:52:29 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:52:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <004201ca1548$23663590$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <200908041836.LAA06448@mailhub.irvine.com> <1MYPdj-1m8MT20@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <002001ca1542$a25ae090$2401a8c0@p41600> <004201ca1548$23663590$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:11:29 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " A vacuum can only exist, I imagine, > by the things which enclose it." > ~ Zelda Fitzgerald (1932) > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Larry BENNETT" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:31 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction > begins > when? > > >> If only....one day perhaps. >> >> lnb >> ********************** >> The 3 ages of man.tri-weekly; try weekly; try >> weakly. >> ********************** >> >> Law 73A1: >> "Communication between partners during the _auction_ >> and play shall be effected only by means of calls >> and plays. " >> >> This laws makes it possible for me and my partner to >> withdraw our hands from the baord and start to talk >> ... > +=+ Yes. At this time you are not restricted to only calls and > plays. Your opponents are at the table, which you may not > now leave. Disclosure procedure is subject to regulation. > All quite intentional - especially that regulation bit. > And, of course, Law 73C is now in operation. To the > best of my recollection there is no authorization in the laws > for a player to communicate anything about the hand or > partnership methods relating to it, see Law 16A3. I think it is legal to discuss partnership agreements: "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion...." As part of the legal procedures of the game, that makes those communications AI (Law 16A1(c)). Furthermore, any information acquired before a player takes his hand from a board is AI. (Law16A1(d)). Assuming the laws do not preclude use of this information. Is there any prohibition in the law. Law 73A1 does a lot: "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays." That leaves the little window before the auction starts but after a player has seen his hand. And by the way, isn't L73A1 a little too thorough? Can't you try to prevent an irregularity or ask about a possible revoke? Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 5 04:12:25 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:12:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Canberra Claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: For the first time in a couple of years, I was invited to serve on a Canberra Bridge Club appeals committee. State Open Teams Qualifying, Match 6, Board 22, Dlr: East, Vul: EW QJ4 986 QT53 KQJ K6532 7 KQ74 A53 K6 A42 A6 T97532 AT98 JT2 J987 84 West declared 4H in the Moysian fit; a good decision by East-West since the alternative 3NT contract is down one on best defence. Details of the play are unavailable, but this was the four-card ending (declarer having previously won 8 tricks and lost 1 trick) with the lead in declarer's hand: --- --- QT QJ 65 --- 7 --- --- 4 6 T97 T --- J9 8 At this point declarer claimed, with the Law 68C statement, "Conceding a club". If this claim had occurred in a European Championship a decade ago, as Chief Director Antonio Riccardi how could (not would) you have ruled? If this claim had occurred in a European Championship a decade ago, as Appeals Committee member Grattan Endicott how could (not would) you have ruled? That is, is a split score of -620 NS / -100 EW ever conceivably legal under Law 70A's "as equitably as possible to both sides"??? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Wed Aug 5 05:51:34 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:51:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Canberra Claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908050351.n753pgTM028215@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 12:12 PM 5/08/2009, you wrote: >For the first time in a couple of years, I was invited to serve on >a Canberra Bridge Club appeals committee. > >State Open Teams Qualifying, Match 6, Board 22, Dlr: East, Vul: EW > > QJ4 > 986 > QT53 > KQJ >K6532 7 >KQ74 A53 >K6 A42 >A6 T97532 > AT98 > JT2 > J987 > 84 > >West declared 4H in the Moysian fit; a good decision by East-West >since the alternative 3NT contract is down one on best defence. > >Details of the play are unavailable, but this was the four-card >ending (declarer having previously won 8 tricks and lost 1 trick) >with the lead in declarer's hand: > > --- > --- > QT > QJ >65 --- >7 --- >--- 4 >6 T97 > T > --- > J9 > 8 > >At this point declarer claimed, with the Law 68C statement, >"Conceding a club". > >If this claim had occurred in a European Championship a decade >ago, as Chief Director Antonio Riccardi how could (not would) >you have ruled? > >If this claim had occurred in a European Championship a decade >ago, as Appeals Committee member Grattan Endicott how could (not >would) you have ruled? > >That is, is a split score of -620 NS / -100 EW ever conceivably >legal under Law 70A's "as equitably as possible to both sides"??? I give in, Richard must have missed something here. Declarer is lucky to make his last trump, so is 1 off. He is not going to be allowed to lead a spade. Cheers Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 5 06:24:50 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 14:24:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cat Among the Pigeons [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Agatha Christie, Cat Among the Pigeons: "Everybody always knows something," said Adam. David Burn: [big snip] >What I do mind very strongly is that cases are treated >differently depending on random factors such as whether an >offender knows and is prepared to abide by the Law... Richard Hills: The official WBF Laws Committee majority interpretation on how MI should be corrected is that Law 40 applies, the MI is deemed to have never occurred, and hence the opponents have not any non- random entitlement to know that a bidding misunderstanding has occurred, unless a ridiculous auction itself tells the opponents that a wheel has fallen off. An example of a wheel falling off from the "Sanity Klavs" thread: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Richard Klavs --- --- --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) 2C (2) 2D (3) Pass 2H Pass(4) 3D (5) Pass 4H (6) Pass(7) 5D X (8) Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 hcp, balanced (2) 9-14 hcp, unspecified single-suiter (Cappelletti convention) (3) Alerted, transfer to hearts (4) Sanity from Klavs, not doubling a likely mistake and then letting the opponents find a better, perhaps making, spot in a 3D partscore (5) Game invitational values with hearts and diamonds (6) Liking her maximum and double fit (7) Sanity from Klavs, not doubling a certain mistake and then letting the opponents find a better, perhaps making, spot in a 5D game (8) The only possible explanation for the ridiculous 5D bid is a wheel falling off, so I confidently doubled for +500 David Burn: >...or whether a player knows his opponent's system better than >they do. Richard Hills: Note that if I had memorised the opponents' system, I would still not have been aware that a wheel had fallen off until the 5D bid, since North had not given MI with an incorrect Alert, but rather South had entirely legally forgotten the North-South agreements. But if, in an alternative universe, South's recollection of the North-South agreements was correct, and if in that alternative universe I had also memorised the North-South agreements, then as soon as North alerted 2D I would be 99% certain that a wheel was about to fall off (the other 1% of the time both North and South would have mutually and congruently had the same forgetting of their system, so would complementarily misbid without any wheel falling off). It seems to me that such an alternative universe's random early awareness of a wheel falling off when 2D is alerted (due to memorisation of the opponents' system), but random early non- awareness (due to non-memorisation of the opponents' system) could be resolved by treating MI not as an infraction of Law 40, but rather as an infraction of Law 20F4: "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." Richard Hills: The Director could rule that the deemed Law 20F4 correction would occur at the most beneficial time for the non-offending side, for example when knowledge of a wheel falling off makes it easy for the NOS to unleash a penalty double. This concept of "most beneficial time for the NOS" is consistent with Law 84D: "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.B. 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 Aug 5 07:35:26 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:35:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cat Among the Pigeons [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Cat Among the Pigeons (2008 movie): Miss Bulstrode: Thank you once again for coming. Hercule Poirot: De rien. Miss Bulstrode: The mayor is blaming his ulcers, but I suspect foul play. Hercule Poirot: Comment? Miss Bulstrode: Arsenal versus Sheffield United; kick-off's at three. I know here His Worship's loyalties lie. Richard Hills: I wrote "The official WBF Laws Committee majority interpretation on how MI should be corrected...", but offlist a blmler requested a citation. Here it is -> WBF Laws Committee minutes, 9th November 2003: The committee considered the proposition that when there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive and adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received. The adjusted score, the Chairman suggested, should be assessed on the action likely to be taken by the non-offending side in the circumstances. It was observed that if given the correct information the partnership might or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, depending on the situation. There is, of course, the possibility of backing up the auction if declarer or dummy corrects an explanation as [1997] Law 75D requires (see also [1997] Law 21B). Best wishes R.J.B. 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Aug 5 08:41:34 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 08:41:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: Misinformation and UI?] In-Reply-To: <54DF9EE3-1D05-4EF1-AACC-77EA758EDDF8@starpower.net> Message-ID: <20090805064139.EDAFF990C15A@relay2.webreus.nl> > If I can no longer play KJT opposite Axx by leading the jack and > watching what an opponent does, that is a revolutionary change in the > game. > Likewise if _anything_ an opponent voluntarily does is not AI to me. ton: I still consider this to be one of the most difficult aspects of our game. Finding queens have created nice stories in bridge. The one I like most is the following: A young ambitious male pair playing in a acbl national has to find this queen, let us say with the holding shown above. The J is played and there is a hesitation on his left. He (of course?) plays the ace and finesses over his rho, his lho winning the trick. After which he screems: 'this has never occurred to me'. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Aug 5 09:34:06 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:34:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <000001ca154d$16f76ea0$44e64be0$@no> Message-ID: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl> I find it very unfortunate (linguistic) that the term "Auction period" is not synonymous with the period during which the auction takes place, and beginning now I shall spend some time trying to find any part of the laws where the difference in starting times for "Auction" and for "Auction period" is significant. It is in my opinion unacceptable if (as asked by another poster) the effect is that both players in a partnership can remove their cards from the board, look at them, and then begin discussing their systemic agreements. Regards Sven ton: Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing system when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite clear about that. Let me help you exploring the laws. In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong statement in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' which could be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without being that player's fault'. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 5 09:41:25 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:41:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills typo: [big snip] >>(g) In no circumstances before the Correction Period does the >>Director permit the enquiring side to receive two explanations >>from both partners. Richard Hills correction of Correction: Sorry, I should have written "before the Clarification Period" (for the declaring side) or "before the end of play" (for the defending side). Bob Park: >That seems reasonable. Is the practice still in force? Richard Hills: Therein lies the story. A relevant analogous issue was the 1997 Lawbook's use of an obscure word "inadvertent" in Law 25A and Law 45C4(b). Due to its Kaplanic ineluctability, the 1997-2007 WBF Laws Committee published a minute defining the Lawful meaning of "inadvertent". The 2007 Drafting Committee replaced the old 1997 word "inadvertent" with the more perspicuous new 2007 word "unintended", plus also adopted the definitional idea of the 1997-2007 WBF LC by adding a Definition of "unintended" to the 2007 edition of The Fabulous Law Book. Ergo, if the 2007 Drafting Committee thought that the highly detailed (a) to (g) protocol was a Good Thing, then the Drafting Committee could have adopted the detailed protocol into the 2007 version of Law 20F1. Instead the DC opted for this very succinct third sentence of 2007 Law 20F1: "Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question" perhaps because the DC stated in the 2007 Introduction: "Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers" so that the DC did not want to restrict Directors (and Regulating Authorities) in a 1997-2007 WBF LC (a) to (g) straitjacket. If this is a correct interpretation of the Drafting Committee's intent regarding the 2007 third sentence of Law 20F1, then the 1997-2007 WBF LC minute on Law 20F1 has been downgraded from: (x) a binding Official Interpretation of the 1997 Lawbook, to (y) a mere friendly suggestion about application of the 2007 Law 20F1 that a Director (or Regulating Authority) may freely ignore. Bob Park: >What I was more interested in, though, was the case where you >have heard partner's bid (or failure to alert) and think she may >have forgotten the system. Any explanation by you will now wake >her up. So can you ask her to leave the table while you explain? Richard Hills: No. No matter who the Director (or Regulating Authority), Bob's suggestion is directly contrary to the "indicate in any manner" criterion of Law 20F5: 5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. "Mistaken explanation" here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. (b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. Bob Park: >Or is this what you were addressing, and I just got lost while >trying to follow the genders of "the player" and "that player" >above? Richard Hills: As usual, my logorrhea makes it very easy to misinterpret my blml posts. The appropriate delayed times to correct Pard's errors of misexplanation and/or failure to Alert and/or incorrect Alert are delimited in Law 20F5(b)(i) and in Law 20F5(b)(ii). The (a) to (g) protocol described at inordinate length in my previous post is for Your explanation of pard's call when You know you have a mutual partnership understanding, but You have a senior moment and thus You have temporarily forgotten what it is. In that case You summon the Director, the Director sends You away from the table, thus You do not get UI from pard when pard explains your mutual partnership understanding about pard's call. What's the proboscis? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 5 11:03:56 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:03:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <003d01ca15ab$abf9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? > > > I find it very unfortunate (linguistic) that the term "Auction period" is > not synonymous with the period during which the auction takes place, and > beginning now I shall spend some time trying to find any part of the laws > where the difference in starting times for "Auction" and for "Auction > period" is significant. It is in my opinion unacceptable if (as asked by > another poster) the effect is that both players in a partnership can > remove > their cards from the board, look at them, and then begin discussing their > systemic agreements. > > Regards Sven > > ton: > > Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing system > when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite clear about > that. > Let me help you exploring the laws. > In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong > statement > in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' which could > be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without being that > player's fault'. > +=+ I consider the term 'auction' in 16C to be quite explicit. Whether we like what we read or not is immaterial. The split between 'auction period' and 'auction' was discussed in a meeting and not made blindly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Aug 5 11:47:10 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:47:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <9584BD38-032F-4A16-B0A7-E1A8B95CC15E@btinternet.com> On 5 Aug 2009, at 08:34, ton wrote: > > > Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing > system > when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite clear > about > that. > Let me help you exploring the laws. > In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong > statement > in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' > which could > be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without > being that > player's fault'. The law can hardly be said to be clear when its interpretation requires you to tell us that the words don't mean what they say. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090805/3c4f5614/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 5 11:52:29 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:52:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat Among the Pigeons [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A79565D.7070007@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > But if, in an alternative universe, South's recollection of the > North-South agreements was correct, and if in that alternative > universe I had also memorised the North-South agreements, then as > soon as North alerted 2D I would be 99% certain that a wheel was > about to fall off (the other 1% of the time both North and South > would have mutually and congruently had the same forgetting of > their system, so would complementarily misbid without any wheel > falling off). > > It seems to me that such an alternative universe's random early > awareness of a wheel falling off when 2D is alerted (due to > memorisation of the opponents' system), but random early non- > awareness (due to non-memorisation of the opponents' system) > could be resolved by treating MI not as an infraction of Law 40, > but rather as an infraction of Law 20F4: > Richard sees the correct problem, but finds the wrong solution. IMO, an opponent is not entitled to have two separate sources of information about the meaning of bidding. Then, he can never receive different explanations, and will never get the information that a wheel has come off. Translated to this example, this means that a player should have the right to tell his opponent(s): "I know you know our system better than we do, so I will not alert". Of course this leads to all sorts of other problems (such as - how does one alert to one opponent and not the other?), so maybe a little non-entitled information is the prize to pay for not knowing your system as well as your opponent does. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 5 11:56:21 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:56:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: References: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no><20090730122533.14BE6485C116@relay2.webreus.nl> <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no><00ec01ca1126$3b99b900$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000301ca1138$ba3ea970$2ebbfc50$@no><006701ca116e$10b91440$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000f01ca11b2$5fccab20$1f660160$@no> <006001ca128c$8854ca20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A795745.7020400@skynet.be> Eric is completely correct: Grattan is well off the ball when he suggests that non-entitled information should be non-authorized. Eric Landau wrote: [snip] > > Eric Landau From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 5 12:02:48 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:02:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A7958C8.6060100@skynet.be> Ton, you are criticizing Sven for finding a flaw in the laws, and the only thing you can say is that there is a mistake in the laws. Isn't that agreeing with Sven? ton wrote: > > > I find it very unfortunate (linguistic) that the term "Auction period" is > not synonymous with the period during which the auction takes place, and > beginning now I shall spend some time trying to find any part of the laws > where the difference in starting times for "Auction" and for "Auction > period" is significant. It is in my opinion unacceptable if (as asked by > another poster) the effect is that both players in a partnership can remove > their cards from the board, look at them, and then begin discussing their > systemic agreements. > > Regards Sven > > ton: > > Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing system > when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite clear about > that. > Let me help you exploring the laws. > In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong statement > in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' which could > be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without being that > player's fault'. > From geller at nifty.com Wed Aug 5 11:51:51 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:51:51 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <003d01ca15ab$abf9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <003d01ca15ab$abf9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <200908050951.AA19363@geller204.nifty.com> Grattan writes: >+=+ I consider the term 'auction' in 16C to be quite explicit. > Whether we like what we read or not is immaterial. > The split between 'auction period' and 'auction' was > discussed in a meeting and not made blindly. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The introduction of the term auction period in itself is sensible, but I suspect that the drafters did not go through the laws that weren't changed (i.e. that were carried over from the 1997 Laws intact) to search out each occurrence of the word "auction" to check whether or not it should be changed to "auction period" or left as is. This may be the case with other terms (i.e. contestant vs. player). May I suggest that sometime in the next two or three years a working group should be formed to check out little things like the above before the time pressure of the drafting of the 2017 Laws overwhelms all else. -Bob From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Aug 5 12:10:42 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:10:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <9584BD38-032F-4A16-B0A7-E1A8B95CC15E@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <20090805101046.582DF990C1BE@relay2.webreus.nl> _____ From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford Sent: woensdag 5 augustus 2009 11:47 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? On 5 Aug 2009, at 08:34, ton wrote: Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing system when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite clear about that. Let me help you exploring the laws. In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong statement in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' which could be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without being that player's fault'. The law can hardly be said to be clear when its interpretation requires you to tell us that the words don't mean what they say. ton: Isn't it possible that the laws are clear at one point but not at another? That is what I tried to tell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090805/6f7d815c/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Aug 5 12:15:59 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:15:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <003d01ca15ab$abf9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <20090805101602.DAEC2990C1A0@relay2.webreus.nl> > ton: > > Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing system > when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite clear about > that. > Let me help you exploring the laws. > In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong > statement > in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' which could > be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without being that > player's fault'. > +=+ I consider the term 'auction' in 16C to be quite explicit. Whether we like what we read or not is immaterial. The split between 'auction period' and 'auction' was discussed in a meeting and not made blindly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: I recognize your answer as your default position. But is no answer for the problem we are discussing. Please tell me what we decided to do when a player takes his cards out of the board and one them drops on the table faced up. We have this Law 16C and we have L17 combined with L24. What I do recall is that we decided to avoid L16C in such case and to apply L17 with L24. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 5 13:27:27 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:27:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? References: <20090805101602.DAEC2990C1A0@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <004a01ca15bf$b7decfd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? > > >> ton: >> >> Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing system >> when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite clear about >> that. >> Let me help you exploring the laws. >> In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong >> statement >> in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' which >> could >> be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without being that >> player's fault'. >> > +=+ I consider the term 'auction' in 16C to be quite explicit. > Whether we like what we read or not is immaterial. > The split between 'auction period' and 'auction' was > discussed in a meeting and not made blindly. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > ton: > > I recognize your answer as your default position. But is no answer for the > problem we are discussing. Please tell me what we decided to do when a > player takes his cards out of the board and one them drops on the table > faced up. We have this Law 16C and we have L17 combined with L24. > What I do recall is that we decided to avoid L16C in such case and to > apply > L17 with L24. > +=+ At *any* time before the *auction* begins Law 16C1 and 16C2 apply to an exposed card and information gained from sight of it. I do not see that any other interpretation is possible. What 'we decided' is not on record and in any case we a would be ill-advised if we were to say that black is white. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 5 13:55:29 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:55:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <004a01ca15bf$b7decfd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090805101602.DAEC2990C1A0@relay2.webreus.nl> <004a01ca15bf$b7decfd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000f01ca15c3$a1195b40$e34c11c0$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > >> Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing system > >> when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite clear about > >> that. > >> Let me help you exploring the laws. > >> In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong > >> statement > >> in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' which > >> could > >> be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without being that > >> player's fault'. > >> > > +=+ I consider the term 'auction' in 16C to be quite explicit. > > Whether we like what we read or not is immaterial. > > The split between 'auction period' and 'auction' was > > discussed in a meeting and not made blindly. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > ton: > > > > I recognize your answer as your default position. But is no answer for the > > problem we are discussing. Please tell me what we decided to do when a > > player takes his cards out of the board and one them drops on the table > > faced up. We have this Law 16C and we have L17 combined with L24. > > What I do recall is that we decided to avoid L16C in such case and to > > apply > > L17 with L24. > > > +=+ At *any* time before the *auction* begins Law 16C1 and 16C2 > apply to an exposed card and information gained from sight of it. I do > not see that any other interpretation is possible. What 'we decided' > is not on record and in any case we a would be ill-advised if we were > to say that black is white. I assume that once attention has been called to this situation the relevant texts in the laws may be discussed in the applicable bodies. In the meantime I should appreciate suggestions on how to handle the situation at the table in case it should occur again: A player exposes some of his cards after removing them from the board but before making any call. 1: I may rule Law 24 as it now stands 2: I may rule Law 16, i.e. the knowledge of the exposed cards is AI to opponents and UI to partner, but there is no other consequences 3: I may rule that the board has been damaged beyond repair. Does it in any way impact the ruling if: A: only one card or all thirteen cards have been exposed? B: the cards were just dropped or exposed more deliberately like when the player believed the board had already been played and exposed them)? C: an opponent has already made his first call? D: partner has already made his first call? Regards Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Aug 5 14:13:41 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:13:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: Misinformation and UI?] In-Reply-To: <20090805064139.EDAFF990C15A@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090805064139.EDAFF990C15A@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A797775.5090002@meteo.fr> ton a ?crit : >> If I can no longer play KJT opposite Axx by leading the jack and >> watching what an opponent does, that is a revolutionary change in the >> game. >> Likewise if _anything_ an opponent voluntarily does is not AI to me. > > > ton: > > I still consider this to be one of the most difficult aspects of our game. > Finding queens have created nice stories in bridge. The one I like most is > the following: > A young ambitious male pair playing in a acbl national has to find this > queen, let us say with the holding shown above. > The J is played and there is a hesitation on his left. He (of course?) plays > the ace and finesses over his rho, his lho winning the trick. After which he > screems: 'this has never occurred to me'. > my favorite: declarer plays the J, lho hesitates then follows with a small card, declarer finesses and wins the trick. later, lho asks his partner why he held up the queen. partner's answer: you hesitated so long that i was certain the Q was yours and i forgot it was in my hand. jpr > > -- _______________________________________________ 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 5 14:18:50 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:18:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <000f01ca15c3$a1195b40$e34c11c0$@no> References: <20090805101602.DAEC2990C1A0@relay2.webreus.nl> <004a01ca15bf$b7decfd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000f01ca15c3$a1195b40$e34c11c0$@no> Message-ID: <4A7978AA.4060602@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > I assume that once attention has been called to this situation the relevant > texts in the laws may be discussed in the applicable bodies. > > In the meantime I should appreciate suggestions on how to handle the > situation at the table in case it should occur again: > > A player exposes some of his cards after removing them from the board but > before making any call. > > 1: I may rule Law 24 as it now stands > > 2: I may rule Law 16, i.e. the knowledge of the exposed cards is AI to > opponents and UI to partner, but there is no other consequences > > 3: I may rule that the board has been damaged beyond repair. > AG : yes, all three are possible. But see below. (sorry, coming in in middle of the thread, so I apologize if all this was already said) > Does it in any way impact the ruling if: > > A: only one card or all thirteen cards have been exposed? > AG : yes, # 3 is more probable with all 13 cards exposed, # 2 with only one. But # 2 or # 3 are only usable IMHO a) before the auciton period begins b) if the OS isn't at this table, e.g. if one card was placed face up in the board or a kibitz bumped into your cards, (it is possible that a card placed.face up is only noticed after another player looked at one's cards) L24 covers the cas where the player does anything that results in the exposure of a card / cards during the bidding. > B: the cards were just dropped or exposed more deliberately like when the > player believed the board had already been played and exposed them)? > AG : I'd say there will be a difference in form of a penalty only. in the case you mention, it might be unplayable board + penalty, i.e. 60-30. > C: an opponent has already made his first call? > AG : No; the only question is, did anybody see one's cards ? According to my strong "save the board" orientation, if player A has seen a card / cards from player B, and B didn't, without any of them being faulty, I'd decide that the board be played turned, so that B's cards become A's. One possible case is one card being dropped on the floor while A brings the boards at the table. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 5 14:43:49 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:43:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? References: <20090805101602.DAEC2990C1A0@relay2.webreus.nl><004a01ca15bf$b7decfd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000f01ca15c3$a1195b40$e34c11c0$@no> Message-ID: <002001ca15ca$6674fb00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 12:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? > On Behalf Of Grattan > >> >> Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing > system >> >> when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite clear > about >> >> that. >> >> Let me help you exploring the laws. >> >> In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong >> >> statement >> >> in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' which >> >> could >> >> be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without being > that >> >> player's fault'. >> >> >> > +=+ I consider the term 'auction' in 16C to be quite explicit. >> > Whether we like what we read or not is immaterial. >> > The split between 'auction period' and 'auction' was >> > discussed in a meeting and not made blindly. >> > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > >> > ton: >> > >> > I recognize your answer as your default position. But is no answer for > the >> > problem we are discussing. Please tell me what we decided to do when a >> > player takes his cards out of the board and one them drops on the table >> > faced up. We have this Law 16C and we have L17 combined with L24. >> > What I do recall is that we decided to avoid L16C in such case and to >> > apply >> > L17 with L24. >> > >> +=+ At *any* time before the *auction* begins Law 16C1 and 16C2 >> apply to an exposed card and information gained from sight of it. I do >> not see that any other interpretation is possible. What 'we decided' >> is not on record and in any case we a would be ill-advised if we were >> to say that black is white. > > I assume that once attention has been called to this situation the > relevant > texts in the laws may be discussed in the applicable bodies. > > In the meantime I should appreciate suggestions on how to handle the > situation at the table in case it should occur again: > > A player exposes some of his cards after removing them from the board but > before making any call. > > 1: I may rule Law 24 as it now stands > > 2: I may rule Law 16, i.e. the knowledge of the exposed cards is AI to > opponents and UI to partner, but there is no other consequences > > 3: I may rule that the board has been damaged beyond repair. > > Does it in any way impact the ruling if: > > A: only one card or all thirteen cards have been exposed? > > B: the cards were just dropped or exposed more deliberately like when the > player believed the board had already been played and exposed them)? > +=+ It is for the Director to judge which of his four options (a) through (d) is the optimum to apply in the given circumstances of the incident. +=+ > > C: an opponent has already made his first call? > > D: partner has already made his first call? > +=+ In cases C and D see Law 16C3. This applies whether the call is legal or illegal. However, there is a well-established principle of law that a specific provision overrides the generality of the law. So my 'default position' (sic) is that Law 24 is specific to the auction period and overrides the generality of Law 16 when the circumstances it specifies obtain; Law 16C3 is specific to circumstances when the auction has commenced and where the conditions specified in Law 24 are not all present. In my view it is for the Director to rule what conditions exist and consequently which part of the laws to apply. Of course we are all mortals here and none of us has the kind of cult status that Kaplan had. We are toilers and toil is our lot. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Aug 5 14:46:21 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:46:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A797F1D.40408@consolidated.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills typo: > > [big snip] > > >>> (g) In no circumstances before the Correction Period does the >>> Director permit the enquiring side to receive two explanations >>> >> >from both partners. >> > > Richard Hills correction of Correction: > > Sorry, I should have written "before the Clarification Period" (for > the declaring side) or "before the end of play" (for the defending > side). > > Bob Park: > > >> That seems reasonable. Is the practice still in force? >> > > Richard Hills: > > Therein lies the story. > > A relevant analogous issue was the 1997 Lawbook's use of an obscure > word "inadvertent" in Law 25A and Law 45C4(b). Due to its Kaplanic > ineluctability, the 1997-2007 WBF Laws Committee published a minute > defining the Lawful meaning of "inadvertent". The 2007 Drafting > Committee replaced the old 1997 word "inadvertent" with the more > perspicuous new 2007 word "unintended", plus also adopted the > definitional idea of the 1997-2007 WBF LC by adding a Definition of > "unintended" to the 2007 edition of The Fabulous Law Book. > > Ergo, if the 2007 Drafting Committee thought that the highly > detailed (a) to (g) protocol was a Good Thing, then the Drafting > Committee could have adopted the detailed protocol into the 2007 > version of Law 20F1. Instead the DC opted for this very succinct > third sentence of 2007 Law 20F1: > > "Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given > by the partner of the player who made the call in question" > > perhaps because the DC stated in the 2007 Introduction: > > "Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers" > > so that the DC did not want to restrict Directors (and Regulating > Authorities) in a 1997-2007 WBF LC (a) to (g) straitjacket. > > If this is a correct interpretation of the Drafting Committee's > intent regarding the 2007 third sentence of Law 20F1, then the > 1997-2007 WBF LC minute on Law 20F1 has been downgraded from: > > (x) a binding Official Interpretation of the 1997 Lawbook, > > to > > (y) a mere friendly suggestion about application of the 2007 Law > 20F1 that a Director (or Regulating Authority) may freely ignore. > > Bob Park: > > >> What I was more interested in, though, was the case where you >> have heard partner's bid (or failure to alert) and think she may >> have forgotten the system. Any explanation by you will now wake >> her up. So can you ask her to leave the table while you explain? >> > > Richard Hills: > > No. No matter who the Director (or Regulating Authority), Bob's > suggestion is directly contrary to the "indicate in any manner" > criterion of Law 20F5: > I was thinking more of the case where her call is alertable, given the methods we are supposedly playing. I now have a duty to alert her call that surely overrides the "indicate in any manner" prohibition (I wasn't trying to suggest anything illegal). So can I ask her to leave the table so she won't hear what I say about her call? From what I gather from our associated discussion on this point, I think the answer is "No." But when I have done it in the past, it seemed to solve the problem nicely, and opponents were most appreciative. Is it possible that the rigor of the laws (as written) sometimes gets in the way of effective practice? Yes, sending her from the table will indicate that something is up, but surely this is less of an indication than if she sits there through my explanation of her call...as I understand we have agreed to play it. --Bob Park > 5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation > may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate > in any manner that a mistake has been made. "Mistaken explanation" > here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require > or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. > > (b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents > that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous (see > Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is > > (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. > (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. > > Bob Park: > > >> Or is this what you were addressing, and I just got lost while >> trying to follow the genders of "the player" and "that player" >> above? >> > > Richard Hills: > > As usual, my logorrhea makes it very easy to misinterpret my blml > posts. The appropriate delayed times to correct Pard's errors of > misexplanation and/or failure to Alert and/or incorrect Alert are > delimited in Law 20F5(b)(i) and in Law 20F5(b)(ii). > > The (a) to (g) protocol described at inordinate length in my > previous post is for Your explanation of pard's call when You > know you have a mutual partnership understanding, but You have a > senior moment and thus You have temporarily forgotten what it is. > > In that case You summon the Director, the Director sends You > away from the table, thus You do not get UI from pard when pard > explains your mutual partnership understanding about pard's call. > > What's the proboscis? > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090805/0b09c719/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 5 14:51:37 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:51:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: Misinformation and UI?] In-Reply-To: <4A797775.5090002@meteo.fr> References: <20090805064139.EDAFF990C15A@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A797775.5090002@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4A798059.2020009@ulb.ac.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > ton a ?crit : > >>> If I can no longer play KJT opposite Axx by leading the jack and >>> watching what an opponent does, that is a revolutionary change in the >>> game. >>> Likewise if _anything_ an opponent voluntarily does is not AI to me. >>> >> ton: >> >> I still consider this to be one of the most difficult aspects of our game. >> Finding queens have created nice stories in bridge. The one I like most is >> the following: >> A young ambitious male pair playing in a acbl national has to find this >> queen, let us say with the holding shown above. >> The J is played and there is a hesitation on his left. He (of course?) plays >> the ace and finesses over his rho, his lho winning the trick. After which he >> screems: 'this has never occurred to me'. >> >> > my favorite: declarer plays the J, lho hesitates then follows with a > small card, declarer finesses and wins the trick. later, lho asks his > partner why he held up the queen. partner's answer: you hesitated so > long that i was certain the Q was yours and i forgot it was in my hand. > AG : I would welcome a set of examples, perhaps even rules, to decide when a hesitation is deemed "legitimate bridge reason". It has already been written explicitly that deciding what signal to give isn't one.It has also been written that hesitating, in front of closed hand's KJ, with the Queen (rather than the Ace) can be legitimate (you might be thnking about unblocking, or avoiding partner being endplayed with AJ10). But where's the limit ? What about hesitating to play the 9 from J9x in possible throw-in situations ? What about declarer hesitating to play a honor which he knows won't take the trick, but might make it more difficult for defenders to find the true lie ? Etc. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 5 15:25:27 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:25:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:41:25 -0400, wrote: > Richard Hills typo: > > [big snip] > >>> (g) In no circumstances before the Correction Period does the >>> Director permit the enquiring side to receive two explanations >>> from both partners. > > Richard Hills correction of Correction: > > Sorry, I should have written "before the Clarification Period" (for > the declaring side) or "before the end of play" (for the defending > side). > > Bob Park: > >> That seems reasonable. Is the practice still in force? > > Richard Hills: > > Therein lies the story. > > A relevant analogous issue was the 1997 Lawbook's use of an obscure > word "inadvertent" in Law 25A and Law 45C4(b). Due to its Kaplanic > ineluctability, the 1997-2007 WBF Laws Committee published a minute > defining the Lawful meaning of "inadvertent". The 2007 Drafting > Committee replaced the old 1997 word "inadvertent" with the more > perspicuous new 2007 word "unintended", plus also adopted the > definitional idea of the 1997-2007 WBF LC by adding a Definition of > "unintended" to the 2007 edition of The Fabulous Law Book. > > Ergo, if the 2007 Drafting Committee thought that the highly > detailed (a) to (g) protocol was a Good Thing, then the Drafting > Committee could have adopted the detailed protocol into the 2007 > version of Law 20F1. Instead the DC opted for this very succinct > third sentence of 2007 Law 20F1: > > "Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given > by the partner of the player who made the call in question" > > perhaps because the DC stated in the 2007 Introduction: > > "Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers" > > so that the DC did not want to restrict Directors (and Regulating > Authorities) in a 1997-2007 WBF LC (a) to (g) straitjacket. > > If this is a correct interpretation of the Drafting Committee's > intent regarding the 2007 third sentence of Law 20F1, then the > 1997-2007 WBF LC minute on Law 20F1 has been downgraded from: > > (x) a binding Official Interpretation of the 1997 Lawbook, > > to > > (y) a mere friendly suggestion about application of the 2007 Law > 20F1 that a Director (or Regulating Authority) may freely ignore. > > Bob Park: > >> What I was more interested in, though, was the case where you >> have heard partner's bid (or failure to alert) and think she may >> have forgotten the system. Any explanation by you will now wake >> her up. So can you ask her to leave the table while you explain? > > Richard Hills: > > No. No matter who the Director (or Regulating Authority), Bob's > suggestion is directly contrary to the "indicate in any manner" > criterion of Law 20F5: > > 5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation > may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate > in any manner that a mistake has been made. "Mistaken explanation" > here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require > or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. Isn't this De Wael's position? From WBFLC, Beijing, "The words 'nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made' (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings." And from the same minutes: "the partnership agreement must be described accurately in response to lawful enquiry". My correction of partner's error during the auction is UI to him. Of course, that means that L25C5(a) never applies, which is an odd position. And it contradicts L25C5(b) for when you should correct partner's error. Could those be pre-DeWaelian parts of the law that we don't use anymore? Or maybe the WBFLC minute is somehow wrong, but then I don't know what it means. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Aug 5 15:43:29 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:43:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <004a01ca15bf$b7decfd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <20090805134403.B7291990C1D0@relay2.webreus.nl> > > >> ton: >> >> Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing system >> when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite clear about >> that. >> Let me help you exploring the laws. >> In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong >> statement >> in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' which >> could >> be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without being that >> player's fault'. >> > +=+ I consider the term 'auction' in 16C to be quite explicit. > Whether we like what we read or not is immaterial. > The split between 'auction period' and 'auction' was > discussed in a meeting and not made blindly. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > ton: > > I recognize your answer as your default position. But is no answer for the > problem we are discussing. Please tell me what we decided to do when a > player takes his cards out of the board and one them drops on the table > faced up. We have this Law 16C and we have L17 combined with L24. > What I do recall is that we decided to avoid L16C in such case and to > apply > L17 with L24. > +=+ At *any* time before the *auction* begins Law 16C1 and 16C2 apply to an exposed card and information gained from sight of it. I do not see that any other interpretation is possible. What 'we decided' is not on record and in any case we a would be ill-advised if we were to say that black is white. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: Dear Grattan, We, the drafting committee did say something similar to 'black is white'. You refuse to look at L 17 or you ignore it, but there we say that such card is shown during the auction period after which law 24 tells us how to deal with such card, which we call 'white'for a moment. Then 'black' is to do what law 16c describes in 2a to 2d. Your best answer to this problem is to leave this to Max Bavin and/or Kojak, they will know what to do, isn't it? From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 5 16:47:06 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:47:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <003d01ca15ab$abf9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl> <003d01ca15ab$abf9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> On Aug 5, 2009, at 5:03 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "ton" > >> I find it very unfortunate (linguistic) that the term "Auction >> period" is >> not synonymous with the period during which the auction takes >> place, and >> beginning now I shall spend some time trying to find any part of >> the laws >> where the difference in starting times for "Auction" and for "Auction >> period" is significant. It is in my opinion unacceptable if (as >> asked by >> another poster) the effect is that both players in a partnership can >> remove >> their cards from the board, look at them, and then begin >> discussing their >> systemic agreements. >> >> Regards Sven >> >> ton: >> >> Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing >> system >> when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite >> clear about >> that. >> Let me help you exploring the laws. >> In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong >> statement >> in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' >> which could >> be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without >> being that >> player's fault'. > > +=+ I consider the term 'auction' in 16C to be quite explicit. > Whether we like what we read or not is immaterial. > The split between 'auction period' and 'auction' was > discussed in a meeting and not made blindly. OK. We know now that the "auction" and the "auction period" are two different things, separately defined, and that the distinction between them is crucial to the proper application of a number of laws. This is, however, a rather fine point of law, requiring a rather close reading of much of TFLB to understand, and one that the casual player cannot be expected to know about. If the distinction was indeed "discussed in a meeting and not made blindly", why on Earth was "auction period" not included in "Definitions", immediately following "auction", so that even a casual reader of TFLB would be aware of the distinction? The committee may not have been blind to their own intention, but were obviously blind, as usual, to the need to communicate that intention to those whom they would bind by it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 5 17:08:19 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:08:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <004a01ca15bf$b7decfd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090805101602.DAEC2990C1A0@relay2.webreus.nl> <004a01ca15bf$b7decfd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <72D5EA4B-1261-4757-91B0-07CF8A7F09B6@starpower.net> On Aug 5, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Grattan wrote: >>> ton: >>> >>> Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing >>> system >>> when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite >>> clear about >>> that. >>> Let me help you exploring the laws. >>> In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong >>> statement >>> in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' which >>> could >>> be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without >>> being that >>> player's fault'. >> >> +=+ I consider the term 'auction' in 16C to be quite explicit. >> Whether we like what we read or not is immaterial. >> The split between 'auction period' and 'auction' was >> discussed in a meeting and not made blindly. >> >> ton: >> >> I recognize your answer as your default position. But is no answer >> for the >> problem we are discussing. Please tell me what we decided to do >> when a >> player takes his cards out of the board and one them drops on the >> table >> faced up. We have this Law 16C and we have L17 combined with L24. >> What I do recall is that we decided to avoid L16C in such case and to >> apply >> L17 with L24. > > +=+ At *any* time before the *auction* begins Law 16C1 and 16C2 > apply to an exposed card and information gained from sight of it. I do > not see that any other interpretation is possible. What 'we decided' > is not on record and in any case we a would be ill-advised if we were > to say that black is white. If Grattan doesn't see that any other interpretation is possible, he is not looking very hard at the laws Ton cites, especially given that it is Grattan himself who has recently schooled us in the "not blindly made" distinction between the terms "auction" and "auction period". L16C applies to cards exposed "before the auction begins", whereas L24 applies to cards exposed "during the auction period". Between the time when the cards are taken from the board (the start of the "auction period") and the time at which the first call is made (the start of the "auction"), both laws are equally applicable, but call for entirely different rectifications. TFLB offers no explicit indication as to which of these rectification procedures shall be used, which, absent some unknown secret minute locked in the leopard- loo, would have the effect of leaving the choice to the individual TD on the scene. Apparently "the split between 'auction period' and 'auction' was discussed in a meeting", although its implications in terms of existing law were not, "and not made blindly", but made rather myopically at the very least. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From schoderb at msn.com Wed Aug 5 17:12:17 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:12:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl><003d01ca15ab$abf9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl><003d01ca15ab$abf9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> Message-ID: It seems kind of silly to me that Mr. Landau complains about not giving the players a clear and complete definition of the "Auction Period" when it was clearly spelled out in it"s own Law. LaW 17. I would think that any player who found words in the laws which he needed further clarification would then go to the Definitions for such information - not go to the Definitions before reading the ad rem law. But then, horses have frequently been assigned to follow the cart instead of pulling it. Further I believe that "myopia" comments would be much more pertinent to his position than to that of the drafting committee. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? On Aug 5, 2009, at 5:03 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "ton" > > >> I find it very unfortunate (linguistic) that the term "Auction >> period" is >> not synonymous with the period during which the auction takes >> place, and >> beginning now I shall spend some time trying to find any part of >> the laws >> where the difference in starting times for "Auction" and for "Auction >> period" is significant. It is in my opinion unacceptable if (as >> asked by >> another poster) the effect is that both players in a partnership can >> remove >> their cards from the board, look at them, and then begin >> discussing their >> systemic agreements. >> >> Regards Sven >> >> ton: >> >> Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing >> system >> when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite >> clear about >> that. >> Let me help you exploring the laws. >> In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong >> statement >> in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' >> which could >> be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without >> being that >> player's fault'. > > +=+ I consider the term 'auction' in 16C to be quite explicit. > Whether we like what we read or not is immaterial. > The split between 'auction period' and 'auction' was > discussed in a meeting and not made blindly. OK. We know now that the "auction" and the "auction period" are two different things, separately defined, and that the distinction between them is crucial to the proper application of a number of laws. This is, however, a rather fine point of law, requiring a rather close reading of much of TFLB to understand, and one that the casual player cannot be expected to know about. If the distinction was indeed "discussed in a meeting and not made blindly", why on Earth was "auction period" not included in "Definitions", immediately following "auction", so that even a casual reader of TFLB would be aware of the distinction? The committee may not have been blind to their own intention, but were obviously blind, as usual, to the need to communicate that intention to those whom they would bind by it. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090805/723b42d5/attachment.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Aug 5 17:13:38 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:13:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl><003d01ca15ab$abf 9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A79A1A2.2090601@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 5, 2009, at 5:03 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> From: "ton" >> >>> I find it very unfortunate (linguistic) that the term "Auction >>> period" is >>> not synonymous with the period during which the auction takes >>> place, and >>> beginning now I shall spend some time trying to find any part of >>> the laws >>> where the difference in starting times for "Auction" and for "Auction >>> period" is significant. It is in my opinion unacceptable if (as >>> asked by >>> another poster) the effect is that both players in a partnership can >>> remove >>> their cards from the board, look at them, and then begin >>> discussing their >>> systemic agreements. >>> >>> Regards Sven >>> >>> ton: >>> >>> Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing >>> system >>> when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite >>> clear about >>> that. >>> Let me help you exploring the laws. >>> In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong >>> statement >>> in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' >>> which could >>> be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without >>> being that >>> player's fault'. >> +=+ I consider the term 'auction' in 16C to be quite explicit. >> Whether we like what we read or not is immaterial. >> The split between 'auction period' and 'auction' was >> discussed in a meeting and not made blindly. > > OK. We know now that the "auction" and the "auction period" are two > different things, separately defined, and that the distinction > between them is crucial to the proper application of a number of > laws. This is, however, a rather fine point of law, requiring a > rather close reading of much of TFLB to understand, and one that the > casual player cannot be expected to know about. they are 2 different things and moreover not on the same level. auction is a (string of) event(s); auction period is an interval of time. if the moment at which "auction" starts is not the same thing as the lower boundary of "auction period", there is something wrong and it will be difficult to understand what law writers meant. jpr > > If the distinction was indeed "discussed in a meeting and not made > blindly", why on Earth was "auction period" not included in > "Definitions", immediately following "auction", so that even a casual > reader of TFLB would be aware of the distinction? The committee may > not have been blind to their own intention, but were obviously blind, > as usual, to the need to communicate that intention to those whom > they would bind by it. > > > 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 ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 5 17:33:56 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:33:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: Misinformation and UI?] In-Reply-To: <4A798059.2020009@ulb.ac.be> References: <20090805064139.EDAFF990C15A@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A797775.5090002@meteo.fr> <4A798059.2020009@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:51 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I would welcome a set of examples, perhaps even rules, to decide > when a hesitation is deemed "legitimate bridge reason". > > It has already been written explicitly that deciding what signal to > give > isn't one.It has also been written that hesitating, in front of closed > hand's KJ, with the Queen (rather than the Ace) can be legitimate (you > might be thnking about unblocking, or avoiding partner being endplayed > with AJ10). > > But where's the limit ? What about hesitating to play the 9 from > J9x in > possible throw-in situations ? What about declarer hesitating to > play a > honor which he knows won't take the trick, but might make it more > difficult for defenders to find the true lie ? Etc. I'd worry that any "blessed" list of rules or examples would simply provide pro forma justifications for questionable hesitations. "Players should be particular careful when variations [in tempo] may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise... not in itself an infraction" [L73D1]. Thus the rule we need in these situations is L23, which applies to any "irregularity" even if it is not an "infraction" per se, and we know (presumably) how to deal with L23 situations. Note that L23, unlike L73F, does *not* require a finding of "no demonstrable bridge reason" to be invoked. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 5 17:35:20 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:35:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <4A79A1A2.2090601@meteo.fr> References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl> <003d01ca15ab$abf 9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> <4A79A1A2.2090601@meteo.fr> Message-ID: On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:13:38 -0400, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> On Aug 5, 2009, at 5:03 AM, Grattan wrote: >> >>> From: "ton" >>> >>>> I find it very unfortunate (linguistic) that the term "Auction >>>> period" is >>>> not synonymous with the period during which the auction takes >>>> place, and >>>> beginning now I shall spend some time trying to find any part of >>>> the laws >>>> where the difference in starting times for "Auction" and for "Auction >>>> period" is significant. It is in my opinion unacceptable if (as >>>> asked by >>>> another poster) the effect is that both players in a partnership can >>>> remove >>>> their cards from the board, look at them, and then begin >>>> discussing their >>>> systemic agreements. >>>> >>>> Regards Sven >>>> >>>> ton: >>>> >>>> Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing >>>> system >>>> when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite >>>> clear about >>>> that. >>>> Let me help you exploring the laws. >>>> In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong >>>> statement >>>> in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' >>>> which could >>>> be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without >>>> being that >>>> player's fault'. >>> +=+ I consider the term 'auction' in 16C to be quite explicit. >>> Whether we like what we read or not is immaterial. >>> The split between 'auction period' and 'auction' was >>> discussed in a meeting and not made blindly. >> >> OK. We know now that the "auction" and the "auction period" are two >> different things, separately defined, and that the distinction >> between them is crucial to the proper application of a number of >> laws. This is, however, a rather fine point of law, requiring a >> rather close reading of much of TFLB to understand, and one that the >> casual player cannot be expected to know about. > > they are 2 different things and moreover not on the same level. auction > is a (string of) event(s); auction period is an interval of time. if the > moment at which "auction" starts is not the same thing as the lower > boundary of "auction period", there is something wrong and it will be > difficult to understand what law writers meant. There is a existing concept of what, for a better word, I think of as tabula rosa. You start the board with all of the general knowledge you want, but you should no specific information about the board except dealer and vulnerability. Tabula rosa is broken when either player on a side looks at his cards or any call is made. Except for one small detail, that's the start of the auction or the start of the auction period, whichever comes first. It's an important concept for the AI laws. Any communication from partner before tabula rosa is broken is AI; any communication after is UI unless the laws specifically say it is AI. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 5 17:46:09 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:46:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: Misinformation and UI?] In-Reply-To: References: <20090805064139.EDAFF990C15A@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A797775.5090002@meteo.fr> <4A798059.2020009@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A79A941.40309@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> > > I'd worry that any "blessed" list of rules or examples would simply > provide pro forma justifications for questionable hesitations. > "Players should be particular careful when variations [in tempo] may > work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise... not in itself an > infraction" [L73D1]. Thus the rule we need in these situations is > L23, which applies to any "irregularity" even if it is not an > "infraction" per se, and we know (presumably) how to deal with L23 > situations. > > Note that L23, unlike L73F, does *not* require a finding of "no > demonstrable bridge reason" to be invoked. > AG : quite logical, as there would seldom exist any valid bridge reason to commit an infraction. The "bridge reason" mention is only for non-infractions. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 5 17:54:53 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:54:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl> <003d01ca15ab$abf 9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> <4A79A1A2.2090601@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4A79AB4D.90106@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > There is a existing concept of what, for a better word, I think of as > tabula rosa. You start the board with all of the general knowledge you > want, but you should no specific information about the board except dealer > and vulnerability. > > AG : there is a little bit more information, and I think one is allowed to use it. For example, the rank of the board at the other table. You might be aware that your teammates are prone to "do something" on an early board, not on a late one. This might affect your decisions, and I'd say it's AI. > Tabula rosa is broken when either player on a side looks at his cards (a) or > any call is made (b). > Except for one small detail, that's the start of theauction or the start of the auction period, whichever comes first. AG :I had never noticed that this means the auction period could be on for one pair and not for the other. This could occasionally lead to strange situations. > It's an important concept for the AI laws. Any communication from partner > before tabula rosa is broken is AI AG : nope. If one player makes a gesture meaning "I'll try to psyche something on this board", this is illegal information. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 5 18:47:40 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:47:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <4A79AB4D.90106@ulb.ac.be> References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl> <003d01ca15ab$abf 9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> <4A79A1A2.2090601@meteo.fr> <4A79AB4D.90106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:54:53 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >> There is a existing concept of what, for a better word, I think of as >> tabula rosa. You start the board with all of the general knowledge you >> want, but you should no specific information about the board except >> dealer >> and vulnerability. >> >> > AG : there is a little bit more information, and I think one is allowed > to use it. > For example, the rank of the board at the other table. You might be > aware that your teammates are prone to "do something" on an early board, > not on a late one. This might affect your decisions, and I'd say it's AI. I'll have to work on that. It also seems to be AI how the cards were randomized, and there could be conditions of contest like all the obvious passouts were eliminated. > >> Tabula rosa is broken when either player on a side looks at his cards >> (a) or >> any call is made (b). > > Except for one small detail, that's the start of theauction or the > start of the auction period, whichever comes first. > > AG :I had never noticed that this means the auction period could be on > for one pair and not for the other. This could occasionally lead to > strange situations. >> It's an important concept for the AI laws. Any communication from >> partner >> before tabula rosa is broken is AI > AG : nope. If one player makes a gesture meaning "I'll try to psyche > something on this board", this is illegal information. That sounds like communication of a partnership understanding. If it is legal to have that partnership agreement, then I would guess that as long as the opponents know about it, it is AI for the pair. A similar example would be "I am going to be aggressive/careful against this pair". From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 5 18:55:26 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:55:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl><003d01ca15ab$abf9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <73789250-5D2E-4C10-92AC-EC9097F06470@starpower.net> On Aug 5, 2009, at 11:12 AM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > It seems kind of silly to me that Mr. Landau complains about not > giving the players a clear and complete definition of the "Auction > Period" when it was clearly spelled out in it"s own Law. LaW 17. Where, one wonders, is it "clearly spelled out" that a player who would comprehend the distinction between the "auction" and the "auction period" should look at L17 in particular? Granted, this is not a problem for Mr. Schoder, nor for many of us who actively read BLML, who have law numbers at the tips of their tongues, but what about the ordinary everyday player? Is he not entitled to think that definitions that are absolutely crucial to understanding and applying the laws might just appear under "Definitions", even if Mr. Schoder doesn't need such assistance to know where to look? > I would think that any player who found words in the laws which he > needed further clarification would then go to the Definitions for > such information - not go to the Definitions before reading the ad > rem law. But then, horses have frequently been assigned to follow > the cart instead of pulling it. Surely Mr. Schoder does not expect a player with a specific question about the law to seek an answer by reading TFLB from cover to cover. Being unfamiliar with the individually numbered laws, the next logical place to look for such things, for someone who knows, as Mr. Schoder does, that the "Definitions" section cannot be counted on to supply critical defintions, would, of course be the table of contents. Where L17 is called "Duration of the Auction", but starts with "A. Auction period starts" and ends with "E. End of auction period". Anyone without Mr. Schoder's knowledge and insight would be rather hard pressed, after seeing this, to understand that anyone might take the "duration of the auction" as something other than the period from "auction period starts" to "end of auction period", yet that natural misunderstanding is directly crucial to the problem at hand. Unfortunately, purchasing a lawbook does not provide a player with a direct line to Mr. Schoder, or anyone else who has essentially memorized the lawbook, who could provide him with such critical hints to its interpretation as, "To find the defintion you need, ignore the Definitions section, ignore the table of contents, go directly to L17." > Further I believe that "myopia" comments would be much more > pertinent to his position than to that of the drafting committee. I call the drafting committee "myopic" because while they see quite clearly what is right in front of them -- their immediate intention as reflected directly in their words -- they miss the more "distant" implications, which include the need to modify affected laws so as to conform to that direct intention, and the need to communicate that intention to those whom they would bind by it. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Aug 5 19:17:52 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:17:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <73789250-5D2E-4C10-92AC-EC9097F06470@starpower.net> References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl><003d01ca15ab$abf9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> <73789250-5D2E-4C10-92AC-EC9097F06470@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4FF46364-139B-460C-8A2F-05D5F3449610@btinternet.com> On 5 Aug 2009, at 17:55, Eric Landau wrote: > the next > logical place to look for such things, for someone who knows, as Mr. > Schoder does, that the "Definitions" section cannot be counted on to > supply critical defintions, would, of course be the table of > contents. That would be of more help had it not been removed from the 2007 laws. Yes, I know the ACBL put them back in in their printing, but for those of us in the rest of the world we have to make do with the Index, which of course fulfills a different function. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090805/e20a151a/attachment-0001.html From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Aug 5 19:33:13 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:33:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl><003d01ca15ab$abf9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <43B6DD7F44704246A0C2FE79759EC3BF@NigelPC> [Eric Landau] The committee may not have been blind to their own intention, but were obviously blind, as usual, to the need to communicate that intention to those whom they would bind by it. [Nigel] Eric highlights a problem with TFLB. It is hard for the ordinary player (or director) to understand sophisticated, complex, subjective rules, let alone comply with them. We may also regard as unfair the inevitable inconsistenty of resulting rulings. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Aug 5 19:39:37 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:39:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl><003d01ca15ab$abf 9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred><16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net ><4A79A1A2.2090601@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4A79C3D9.60503@meteo.fr> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:13:38 -0400, Jean-Pierre Rocafort > wrote: > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> On Aug 5, 2009, at 5:03 AM, Grattan wrote: >>> >>>> From: "ton" >>>> >>>>> I find it very unfortunate (linguistic) that the term "Auction >>>>> period" is >>>>> not synonymous with the period during which the auction takes >>>>> place, and >>>>> beginning now I shall spend some time trying to find any part of >>>>> the laws >>>>> where the difference in starting times for "Auction" and for "Auction >>>>> period" is significant. It is in my opinion unacceptable if (as >>>>> asked by >>>>> another poster) the effect is that both players in a partnership can >>>>> remove >>>>> their cards from the board, look at them, and then begin >>>>> discussing their >>>>> systemic agreements. >>>>> >>>>> Regards Sven >>>>> >>>>> ton: >>>>> >>>>> Don't exaggerate. Of course that cannot be the effect (discussing >>>>> system >>>>> when the cards are known) and I think that the laws are quite >>>>> clear about >>>>> that. >>>>> Let me help you exploring the laws. >>>>> In L16 C it uses before 'the auction begins'. And that is a wrong >>>>> statement >>>>> in my opinion, it should be 'before the auction period begins' >>>>> which could >>>>> be combined with 'or seeing a card from another player without >>>>> being that >>>>> player's fault'. >>>> +=+ I consider the term 'auction' in 16C to be quite explicit. >>>> Whether we like what we read or not is immaterial. >>>> The split between 'auction period' and 'auction' was >>>> discussed in a meeting and not made blindly. >>> OK. We know now that the "auction" and the "auction period" are two >>> different things, separately defined, and that the distinction >>> between them is crucial to the proper application of a number of >>> laws. This is, however, a rather fine point of law, requiring a >>> rather close reading of much of TFLB to understand, and one that the >>> casual player cannot be expected to know about. >> they are 2 different things and moreover not on the same level. auction >> is a (string of) event(s); auction period is an interval of time. if the >> moment at which "auction" starts is not the same thing as the lower >> boundary of "auction period", there is something wrong and it will be >> difficult to understand what law writers meant. > > There is a existing concept of what, for a better word, I think of as > tabula rosa. You start the board with all of the general knowledge you > want, but you should no specific information about the board except dealer > and vulnerability. i didn't know this concept but an investigation led me to some philosophic concept named tabula rasa, devised by aristotle. an interesting reading for me. was it what you had in mind? jpr > > Tabula rosa is broken when either player on a side looks at his cards or > any call is made. Except for one small detail, that's the start of the > auction or the start of the auction period, whichever comes first. > > It's an important concept for the AI laws. Any communication from partner > before tabula rosa is broken is AI; any communication after is UI unless > the laws specifically say it is AI. > -- _______________________________________________ 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Aug 5 20:10:55 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:10:55 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Taking Players Away from the Table References: <1EF2F67A8F9546BFA01BA2F44FA75C1B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Been away from home, getting back to this subject -Marv > On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:05:03 -0400, Marvin L French > > wrote: > >> The ACBL TDs have a policy of taking players away from the table >> in >> MI cases, even when it's too late for a player to change the last >> call. > > Are you suggesting one procedure when it is not too late for a > player to > change a last call and a different procedure when it is too late? Yes. If it is too late, there is no valid purpose served by taking players away from the table, a procedure not mentioned in the Laws. > > >> The standard question is, "Would you have done anything >> different in the auction in the absence of the misinformation?" >> >> Wrong question, of course. It should be, "Would you have >> *considered* doing anything different in the absence of the >> misinformation?" > > "considered" is not a good word, as it is ambiguous in normal > conversation. (some thought versus seriously entertained -- if > your > reaction to bidding 3S was "ew, no way", did you consider 3S or > not?) > > But I still don't understand. There is damage only when the player > would > have made a different bid. So what is wrong with the first > question? If there were various possibilities: "I might have bid three spades or I might have doubled." then the TD may have to decide on actions on which to base a score adjustment. If an action yields the most unfavorable result "at all probable," then that is used for the offending side. If one yields the "most favorable result that was likely," then that is used for the non-offenders' score adjustment. The probablilty need only be 1/6 for the former and 1/3 for the latter. Let's say there are three possible actions, one with probability 20%, another with probability 35%, and a third with probability 45%. If the first is "the most unfavorable for the OS, they get it. If the second is the most favorable for the NOS, they get it. It doesn't matter if the third is judged more likely than the others. All that is in accordance with L12C1(e). Ergo, the TD has to find determine what action or actions might have been considered by the player. He may use the player's opinion, but generally that is automatically biased, hence irrelevant. The TD must do the work himself, going by what he can find out about their system, and what typical players in that event might do. He should not concentrate on the most likely action if there are other significant possibilities. >> >> Since there can be no change of call, this procedure wastes >> valuable >> playing time. The question can be asked later, if necessary (and >> usually there is no evidence of damage, making the answer moot). > > It is almost always to the player's benefit to say that they would > have > done something different, honest answer or not. There is, however, > some > small cost to being dishonest -- the director can eventually > notice that > you always say you would have done something different and you > frequently > say that with hands where the director thinks those are bad bids. > > If you ask after the hand is over, the player can balance that > small cost > against a certainy of gain. If you ask after the bidding, then the > expected gain is significantly smaller, hence there is more > incentive to > be honest. As I said, the player's unsubtantiated opinions are irrelevant. >> >> It is also unfair to force a player to give a spur-of-the moment >> answer to a hypothetical question, interfering with other >> concerns >> that may be occupying the player's mind. > > Even after the opening bid is faced, the auction is still on the > player's > minds, which is why they noticed that the dummy didn't have his > bid. This > is, IMO, the ideal time to ask them. If you wait until after the > hand, > they have to reconstruct the entire auction, which nonexpert > players might > find very difficult. As I said... >> >> The TDs justify this procedure by saying that it is the best >> opportunity to get good information before it is tainted by >> thinking >> time. One confessed that the main reason is to catch a player in >> a >> self-damaging statement that the TD would not have considered. > > I think it is true that players might, once they see the results, > invent > bids they otherwise wouldn't have thought of. I wouldn't rank this > as the > major reason for asking players what they would have done just > after the > faced opening lead. A high-ranking ACBL TD told me just that. > > I am not sure what self-damaging statement can occur. Except once > a player > said she would have bid 4D instead of her final pass, I explained > that she > actually could bid 4Di instead of her final pass, and so then she > did. 4Di > worked out horribly. It is possible that her saying that she would > bid 4Di > was not an honest answer which she then felt compelled to stand > behind. If > so, I do not feel sorry for her. Yes, if given the opportunity to change a call, any change is accepted. But if they can't decide, then the change is not made. That should not be the end of it if the TD decides there was damage, and that the player may well have made a more favorable call in the absence of the MI. ("the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" I realize this is debatable. Marv From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 5 22:37:31 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:37:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <4A79A1A2.2090601@meteo.fr> References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl><003d01ca15ab$abf 9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> <4A79A1A2.2090601@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <3F050D99-9BD8-4F5F-8929-18E54B15BCBE@starpower.net> On Aug 5, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> OK. We know now that the "auction" and the "auction period" are two >> different things, separately defined, and that the distinction >> between them is crucial to the proper application of a number of >> laws. This is, however, a rather fine point of law, requiring a >> rather close reading of much of TFLB to understand, and one that the >> casual player cannot be expected to know about. > > they are 2 different things and moreover not on the same level. > auction > is a (string of) event(s); auction period is an interval of time. > if the > moment at which "auction" starts is not the same thing as the lower > boundary of "auction period", there is something wrong and it will be > difficult to understand what law writers meant. They are not, and that's the problem that started the discussion. The "lower boundary of 'auction period'" is "for a side[,] when either partner withdraws his cards from the board" [L17A], while the "moment at which the 'auction' starts" is "when the first call is made" [Definitions: Auction]. That leaves a definite interval, after you have looked at your cards but before anyone has called, which is included in the "auction period" but not in the "auction". Thus, for example, the fate of a card exposed during that interval is governed by both L16C1 and L24, which require contradictory and incompatible rectifications. Bob has noted the incompatibility with accepted practice arising from "during the auction" (as opposed to "auction period") in L73A1, which would, in combination with L40A1(a) and given the distinction at issue, allow discussion of methods during the interval in question. I'd bet that if we look we'll find others. There is indeed something wrong, and it is indeed not merely difficult to understand what the law writers meant, but effectively impossible; absent the tutelage of the official wise men among us who can, off the tops of their heads, tell us where in TFLB we need to look, there is no reason why anyone would even suspect that there was anything there to be looked for. >> If the distinction was indeed "discussed in a meeting and not made >> blindly", why on Earth was "auction period" not included in >> "Definitions", immediately following "auction", so that even a casual >> reader of TFLB would be aware of the distinction? The committee may >> not have been blind to their own intention, but were obviously blind, >> as usual, to the need to communicate that intention to those whom >> they would bind by it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 6 02:41:08 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:41:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Useful redundancy (was Error) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak on silliness: >It seems kind of silly to me that Mr. Landau complains about not >giving the players a clear and complete definition of the "Auction >Period" when it was clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 17. [snip] Richard on redundancy: "Bid" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 18A, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Board" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 2, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Deal" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 6B, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Denomination" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 18E, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Double" is clearly spelled out in its own Laws, Law 19 and Law 77, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Dummy's hand" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 41D, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Game" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 77, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "International Matchpoint (IMP)" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 78B, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Lead" is clearly spelled out in its own Laws, Law 44A and Law 44G, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Matchpoint" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 78A, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Odd Trick" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 18A, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Opening Lead" is clearly spelled out in its own Laws, Law 41A and Law 41C, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Overtrick" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 77, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Pack" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 1, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Partscore" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 77, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Penalty" is clearly spelled out in its own Laws, Law 90 and Law 91, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Penalty card" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 50, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Premium points" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 77, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Redouble" is clearly spelled out in its own Laws, Law 19 and Law 77, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Rotation" is clearly spelled out in its own Laws, Law 6B, Law 17C and Law 44B, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Slam" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 77, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Sorted deck" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, the Law 6 footnote, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Suit" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 1, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Trick" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 44B, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Trick points" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 77, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Undertrick" is clearly spelled out in its own Law, Law 77, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. "Vulnerable" is clearly spelled out in its own Laws, Law 2 and Law 77, but is also usefully clearly spelled out in the Definitions. * * * Until recently the very experienced and highly competent Director Sven Pran was unaware of the distinction between "auction" (included in the Definitions) and "auction period" (not included in the Definitions). As the above examples show, there is not any tautological principle forbidding a definition of a Lawful concept from redundantly appearing twice in TFLB, once in the main body of the Laws and again in the Definitions. Ergo, I argue that it is Kojak who is silly for arguing that TFLB should lack redundancy, given that the vast majority of TDs are much less experienced and much less competent than Sven Pran. So I suggest that the internet version of TFLB be updated by this year's meeting of the Drafting Committee in Sao Paulo to include "auction period" in The Fabulous Law Book's Definitions. (And the Drafting Committee might also choose to restore TFLB's Table of Contents.) Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 6 03:37:01 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:37:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004201ca0aba$23033cd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ Could I have the reference for that, please, since (g) is expressed in pretty lousy English (and refers to the 'Clarification Period' instituted in 2007)? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ WBF LC meeting at Lille, 1st September 1998, items 8 and 14: 8. If a player knows that his partner's call is conventional but says he cannot recall what was actually agreed the Director may in his discretion send the player away from the table and allow the partner to tell opponents in his absence what the agreement is. The Director must be called and no action may be taken before he arrives. The partner continues in the action on the basis that the player has understood his call, and does not use the unauthorized information that his partner is uncertain of the meaning. The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is completed. This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does not apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there is no agreement. 14. The Committee?s attention was drawn to an internet discussion as to whether it is legitimate for a player to address a question to the player who has made the call asked about. This abnormal procedure can only be followed with the consent of the Director, who must be called, and at an appropriate time in the absence of the player's partner. Furthermore the Director must be persuaded that the circumstances require it: it is to be avoided absolutely that a player should be allowed to verify from player A (who made the bid) whether the explanation of his partner B was correct. Players must correct their partner's explanations voluntarily at the due time specified in the Laws. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 6 06:02:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:02:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 20F5: (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. "Mistaken explanation" here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. (b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008, page 4: "There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that partner's prior explanation was mistaken. The words 'nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made' (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings." Richard Hills: It seems to me that Bob Park and Robert Frick are confused about the official way to apply Law 20F5 since October 2008. (On the other hand, Herman De Wael understands but objects to the official October 2008 WBF LC interpretation of Law 20F5.) To simplify the discussion as far as possible, let us suppose this hypothetical scenario -> (1) As the third call of the auction you bid 2D, which by mutual partnership agreement has meaning (z). (2) In response to your LHO's enquiry, partner then incorrectly describes your 2D as having meaning (a). (3) In accordance with Law 20F5 you keep schtum, and do not yet correct partner's misexplanation of 2D. (4) As the fifth call of the auction partner bids 2NT, which by mutual partnership understanding has meaning (y). (5) In response to your RHO's enquiry, and consistent with Law 40B6(a) (which cross-references Law 20), you comply with the overriding requirement to truthfully describe the mutual partnership understanding of 2NT as having meaning (y). Law 40B6(a): When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to opponent's enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players. (6) It is irrelevant that, given partner's misexplanation, pard probably holds cards consistent with 2NT having meaning (b). (7) It is also irrelevant that a truthful explanation of 2NT having meaning (y) indirectly indicates in any manner to pard that she has misexplained, since Law 40B6(a) is an overriding exception to Law 20F5. Robert Frick: >My correction of partner's error during the auction is UI to >him. Richard Hills: Not quite le mot juste. Rather, your unexpected explanation of pard's 2NT as having meaning (y) is UI to pard. See Law 75A. Robert Frick: >Of course, that means that L20F5(a) never applies, which is an >odd position. And it contradicts L20F5(b) for when you should >correct partner's error. Richard Hills: 100% erroneous. Firstly, Law 20F5(a) always applies if the opponents never bother to ask you to explain a subsequent call by partner. Secondly, Law 40B6(a) only partially overrides Law 20F5. When RHO enquires about the meaning of pard's 2NT, it is appropriate to say, "2NT has meaning (y)", but totally inappropriate to say instead "2NT has meaning (y) because my previous 2D bid had meaning (z)". So thirdly, your full and comprehensive correction (rather than a mere indirect indication) of pard's misexplanation would still be deferred to the times specified in Law 20F5(b)(i) or Law 20F5(b)(ii), as appropriate. Robert Frick: >Or maybe the WBFLC minute is somehow wrong, but then I don't >know what it means. Richard Hills: What's the Procrustes? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 6 08:55:23 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:55:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A7A7E5B.2020109@skynet.be> Richard gives a correct description of this problem, including of my views on the matter. I thank him for the gratious nature by which this is done. However, he misses one small point: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Secondly, Law 40B6(a) only partially overrides Law 20F5. When > RHO enquires about the meaning of pard's 2NT, it is appropriate > to say, "2NT has meaning (y)", but totally inappropriate to say > instead "2NT has meaning (y) because my previous 2D bid had > meaning (z)". > Very minor point, Richard. Since you explicitely told us that partner's true meaning (a) and intended meaning (b) are different (and this is the case we are talking of, of course), the subsentence above is always present. You may be right in stating that you are not allowed to say it, but it will be implicitely there. Do you not consider it polite, maybe even obligatory, now that the cat is out of the bag, to inform your opponents of the colour of the cat? Will it not be obvious to partner what that colour is? Will he not be bound by law to tell the opponents of the mistake he has made? Why should you be defending that you are still following L20F5, when that law explicitely says "in any manner", which is something you have now (IYO legally) broken? Robert is quite right in saying that L20F5 is effectively scrapped from the lawbook by the Beijing interpretation. A sad state of affairs. > So thirdly, your full and comprehensive correction (rather than > a mere indirect indication) of pard's misexplanation would > still be deferred to the times specified in Law 20F5(b)(i) or > Law 20F5(b)(ii), as appropriate. > Only in theory, Richard, in practice it will become immediately obvious. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 6 12:22:50 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:22:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl> <003d01ca15ab$abf 9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> <4A79A1A2.2090601@meteo.fr> <4A79AB4D.90106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A7AAEFA.2060204@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:54:53 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > > >> Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >>> There is a existing concept of what, for a better word, I think of as >>> tabula rosa. You start the board with all of the general knowledge you >>> want, but you should no specific information about the board except >>> dealer >>> and vulnerability. >>> >>> >>> >> AG : there is a little bit more information, and I think one is allowed >> to use it. >> For example, the rank of the board at the other table. You might be >> aware that your teammates are prone to "do something" on an early board, >> not on a late one. This might affect your decisions, and I'd say it's AI. >> > > I'll have to work on that. It also seems to be AI how the cards were > randomized, and there could be conditions of contest like all the obvious > passouts were eliminated. > > > > Do they really do this ? What's an obvious passout ? Is 9-11 Nt disallowed ? > >>> Tabula rosa is broken when either player on a side looks at his cards >>> (a) or >>> any call is made (b). >>> >> > Except for one small detail, that's the start of theauction or the >> start of the auction period, whichever comes first. >> >> AG :I had never noticed that this means the auction period could be on >> for one pair and not for the other. This could occasionally lead to >> strange situations. >> >>> It's an important concept for the AI laws. Any communication from >>> partner >>> before tabula rosa is broken is AI >>> >> AG : nope. If one player makes a gesture meaning "I'll try to psyche >> something on this board", this is illegal information. >> > > That sounds like communication of a partnership understanding. If it is > legal to have that partnership agreement, then I would guess that as long > as the opponents know about it, it is AI for the pair. AG : yes, but an agreement to psyche as soon as possible is illegal. > A similar example > would be "I am going to be aggressive/careful against this pair". > AG : agree with this case. Happens frequently in my partnerships. From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 6 12:46:57 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:46:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick Message-ID: <000001ca1683$38e44010$aaacc030$@no> Norway: I have been asked how to rule when both defenders revoke in the same trick? (A heart was played from declarer, LHO discarded a small spade, RHO discarded a small club; they both still had hearts.) Both revokes became established (it must have been a spirited game). When laughter had finally ceased the players and the director began wondering exactly what law to apply and whether the WBF minute about multiple revokes on a board applies. Is this one revoke, two related revokes or two individual revokes? (In the latter case the rectification is of course two tricks if available.) I understand that they ruled a one trick revoke; I tend to agree, but we are interested in comments. regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 6 13:53:25 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 06:53:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick In-Reply-To: <000001ca1683$38e44010$aaacc030$@no> References: <000001ca1683$38e44010$aaacc030$@no> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Sven Pran" Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 05:46 To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick > Norway: > > I have been asked how to rule when both defenders revoke in the same > trick? > (A heart was played from declarer, LHO discarded a small spade, RHO > discarded a small club; they both still had hearts.) > > Both revokes became established (it must have been a spirited game). > > When laughter had finally ceased the players and the director began > wondering exactly what law to apply and whether the WBF minute about > multiple revokes on a board applies. > > Is this one revoke, two related revokes or two individual revokes? The latter > (In the > latter case the rectification is of course two tricks if available.) > I understand that they ruled a one trick revoke; I tend to agree, but we > are > interested in comments. > > regards Sven Adding details to the example to be clear- in a NT contract the revokes occur at T11 where LRHOs win only T13 the relevant law is 64A2: When a revoke is established: 2. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player* then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, after play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side. Each revoke satisfies 64A2 so one trick for each revoke is transferred, which equals 2 tricks for the hand. For those who have not been counting that is 14 tricks to declarer. regards roger pewick From Martin.Sinot at tridentmicro.com Thu Aug 6 14:05:30 2009 From: Martin.Sinot at tridentmicro.com (Martin Sinot) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:05:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick In-Reply-To: <000001ca1683$38e44010$aaacc030$@no> References: <000001ca1683$38e44010$aaacc030$@no> Message-ID: <6E0F64F36FB5874785F5010942DC61B91A10B8BF@eu-exh-01.EU.TRID.COM> There were two players who did not follow suit when they were able to, so it seems there were two individual revokes, in this case in the same trick. By applying 64A2 twice, you get two one-trick rectifications, for two tricks if available. Nowhere is it said in the rules that only one person's revoke in a single trick is rectified. Regards -- Martin Sinot -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:47 To: blml Subject: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick Norway: I have been asked how to rule when both defenders revoke in the same trick? (A heart was played from declarer, LHO discarded a small spade, RHO discarded a small club; they both still had hearts.) Both revokes became established (it must have been a spirited game). When laughter had finally ceased the players and the director began wondering exactly what law to apply and whether the WBF minute about multiple revokes on a board applies. Is this one revoke, two related revokes or two individual revokes? (In the latter case the rectification is of course two tricks if available.) I understand that they ruled a one trick revoke; I tend to agree, but we are interested in comments. regards Sven _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 6 14:17:57 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:17:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick In-Reply-To: References: <000001ca1683$38e44010$aaacc030$@no> Message-ID: <4A7AC9F5.5050306@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Sven Pran" > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 05:46 > To: "blml" > Subject: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick > >> Norway: >> >> I have been asked how to rule when both defenders revoke in the same >> trick? >> (A heart was played from declarer, LHO discarded a small spade, RHO >> discarded a small club; they both still had hearts.) >> >> Both revokes became established (it must have been a spirited game). >> >> When laughter had finally ceased the players and the director began >> wondering exactly what law to apply and whether the WBF minute about >> multiple revokes on a board applies. >> >> Is this one revoke, two related revokes or two individual revokes? > > The latter > >> (In the >> latter case the rectification is of course two tricks if available.) > >> I understand that they ruled a one trick revoke; I tend to agree, but we >> are >> interested in comments. >> >> regards Sven > > Adding details to the example to be clear- in a NT contract the revokes > occur at T11 where LRHOs win only T13 the relevant law is 64A2: > > When a revoke is established: > 2. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending > player* then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, after > play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side. > > Each revoke satisfies 64A2 so one trick for each revoke is transferred, > which equals 2 tricks for the hand. For those who have not been counting > that is 14 tricks to declarer. > I do not think so. When trick 13 is transferred because of the first revoke, it no longer belongs to the offending side and can thus not be transferred again. Otherwise I agree that two tricks shall be transferred. Herman. > regards > roger pewick > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Aug 6 15:47:46 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:47:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Revoke_from_both_defenders_in_the_same_tri?= =?iso-8859-15?q?ck?= In-Reply-To: <4A7AC9F5.5050306@skynet.be> References: <000001ca1683$38e44010$aaacc030$@no> <4A7AC9F5.5050306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1MZ3Jq-1rklQu0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Roger Pewick wrote: > > Each revoke satisfies 64A2 so one trick for each revoke is > > transferred, which equals 2 tricks for the hand. ?For those who have > > not been counting that is 14 tricks to declarer. > > I do not think so. When trick 13 is transferred because of the first > revoke, it no longer belongs to the offending side and can thus not be > transferred again. > Otherwise I agree that two tricks shall be transferred. I agree with Herman ;-) From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 6 15:52:22 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:52:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl> <003d01ca15ab$abf 9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> <4A79A1A2.2090601@meteo.fr> <4A79AB4D.90106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Aug 5, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:54:53 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >>> There is a existing concept of what, for a better word, I think >>> of as >>> tabula rosa. You start the board with all of the general >>> knowledge you >>> want, but you should no specific information about the board except >>> dealer >>> and vulnerability. >> >> AG : there is a little bit more information, and I think one is >> allowed >> to use it. >> For example, the rank of the board at the other table. You might be >> aware that your teammates are prone to "do something" on an early >> board, >> not on a late one. This might affect your decisions, and I'd say >> it's AI. > > I'll have to work on that. It also seems to be AI how the cards were > randomized, and there could be conditions of contest like all the > obvious > passouts were eliminated. In an example that actually came up and required a ruling, we noted that players in team matches were entitled to know who occupied their corresponding seats at the other table. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 6 13:34:42 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:34:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl><003d01ca15ab$abf 9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred><16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net><4A79A1A2.2090601@meteo.fr> <3F050D99-9BD8-4F5F-8929-18E54B15BCBE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002c01ca169d$cee7e160$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? On Aug 5, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> OK. We know now that the "auction" and the "auction period" are two >> different things, separately defined, and that the distinction >> between them is crucial to the proper application of a number of >> laws. This is, however, a rather fine point of law, requiring a >> rather close reading of much of TFLB to understand, and one that the >> casual player cannot be expected to know about. > > they are 2 different things and moreover not on the same level. > auction > is a (string of) event(s); auction period is an interval of time. > if the > moment at which "auction" starts is not the same thing as the lower > boundary of "auction period", there is something wrong and it will be > difficult to understand what law writers meant. They are not, and that's the problem that started the discussion. The "lower boundary of 'auction period'" is "for a side[,] when either partner withdraws his cards from the board" [L17A], while the "moment at which the 'auction' starts" is "when the first call is made" [Definitions: Auction]. That leaves a definite interval, after you have looked at your cards but before anyone has called, which is included in the "auction period" but not in the "auction". Thus, for example, the fate of a card exposed during that interval is governed by both L16C1 and L24, which require contradictory and incompatible rectifications. Bob has noted the incompatibility with accepted practice arising from "during the auction" (as opposed to "auction period") in L73A1, which would, in combination with L40A1(a) and given the distinction at issue, allow discussion of methods during the interval in question. I'd bet that if we look we'll find others. There is indeed something wrong, and it is indeed not merely difficult to understand what the law writers meant, but effectively impossible; absent the tutelage of the official wise men among us who can, off the tops of their heads, tell us where in TFLB we need to look, there is no reason why anyone would even suspect that there was anything there to be looked for. >> If the distinction was indeed "discussed in a meeting and not made >> blindly", why on Earth was "auction period" not included in >> "Definitions", immediately following "auction", so that even a casual >> reader of TFLB would be aware of the distinction? The committee may >> not have been blind to their own intention, but were obviously blind, >> as usual, to the need to communicate that intention to those whom >> they would bind by it. +=+ 1. A firm decision was made at a meeting to reduce the definitions to the minimum list desirable. So a principle was adopted that if the definition was clear from the text of the law the term need not be included in the Definitions*. The reason argued for this policy was reduction of the risk of conflicting statements. I have not searched to see the extent to which we adhered to this faithfully, but vigilant colleagues repeatedly pointed out terms that we did not need to define separately as we went through my initial list of suggested definitions. They did bypass one or two of the simpler terms, leaving them in. [* For example, it was noted that a definition for 'action' is not needed since the word is defined in Laws 16A1(b) and 16D.] 2. When we say that "that interval is governed by both L16C1 and L24" we should add that the basis for choosing one or the other is the principle that the specific overrides the general. So the Director must decide which of these applies specifically to the circumstances with which he is dealing. I have taken the view that the more extended list of conditions is in Law 24 and that if all of these are present then Law 24 has priority over Law 16C; this opinion is a personal opinion - see Law 81C2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 6 16:13:49 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:13:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <4FF46364-139B-460C-8A2F-05D5F3449610@btinternet.com> References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl><003d01ca15ab$abf9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> <73789250-5D2E-4C10-92AC-EC9097F06470@starpower.net> <4FF46364-139B-460C-8A2F-05D5F3449610@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <905785F3-23D3-4FFD-9504-22D0DE9FEDFF@starpower.net> On Aug 5, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > On 5 Aug 2009, at 17:55, Eric Landau wrote: > >> the next >> logical place to look for such things, for someone who knows, as Mr. >> Schoder does, that the "Definitions" section cannot be counted on to >> supply critical defintions, would, of course be the table of >> contents. > > That would be of more help had it not been removed from the 2007 laws. > > Yes, I know the ACBL put them back in in their printing, but for > those of us in the rest of the world we have to make do with the > Index, which of course fulfills a different function. And the index just as misleading as the restored table of contents, if not more so. "Auction" refers only to "DEFN" and then continues with "See also Auction period", while "Auction period" lists "Auction DEFN", with no other reference to "defined". Nobody reading that without a law guru close at hand would have any reason to think that "auction" and "auction period" were anything other than synonyms. This is hardly the first time that the drafting committee appears to have changed a particular law under the misimpression that everything else in the lawbook -- not just the other laws, but also the headings, table of contents and index -- would somehow magically change itself to conform to their revision. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Thu Aug 6 16:14:46 2009 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (Ciska Zuur) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:14:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick In-Reply-To: <4A7AC9F5.5050306@skynet.be> References: <000001ca1683$38e44010$aaacc030$@no> <4A7AC9F5.5050306@skynet.be> Message-ID: What about 64B7 ?? Ciska Zuur ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick > Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Sven Pran" >> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 05:46 >> To: "blml" >> Subject: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick >> >>> Norway: >>> >>> I have been asked how to rule when both defenders revoke in the same >>> trick? >>> (A heart was played from declarer, LHO discarded a small spade, RHO >>> discarded a small club; they both still had hearts.) >>> >>> Both revokes became established (it must have been a spirited game). >>> >>> When laughter had finally ceased the players and the director began >>> wondering exactly what law to apply and whether the WBF minute about >>> multiple revokes on a board applies. >>> >>> Is this one revoke, two related revokes or two individual revokes? >> >> The latter >> >>> (In the >>> latter case the rectification is of course two tricks if available.) >> >>> I understand that they ruled a one trick revoke; I tend to agree, but we >>> are >>> interested in comments. >>> >>> regards Sven >> >> Adding details to the example to be clear- in a NT contract the revokes >> occur at T11 where LRHOs win only T13 the relevant law is 64A2: >> >> When a revoke is established: >> 2. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the >> offending >> player* then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, >> after >> play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side. >> >> Each revoke satisfies 64A2 so one trick for each revoke is transferred, >> which equals 2 tricks for the hand. For those who have not been counting >> that is 14 tricks to declarer. >> > > I do not think so. When trick 13 is transferred because of the first > revoke, it no longer belongs to the offending side and can thus not be > transferred again. > Otherwise I agree that two tricks shall be transferred. > > Herman. > > >> regards >> roger pewick >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Martin.Sinot at tridentmicro.com Thu Aug 6 16:24:09 2009 From: Martin.Sinot at tridentmicro.com (Martin Sinot) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:24:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick In-Reply-To: References: <000001ca1683$38e44010$aaacc030$@no> <4A7AC9F5.5050306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6E0F64F36FB5874785F5010942DC61B91A10B987@eu-exh-01.EU.TRID.COM> Both defenders revoked, hence only one side revoked. 64B7 applies when both sides revoke. Regards -- Martin Sinot -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ciska Zuur Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 16:15 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick What about 64B7 ?? Ciska Zuur From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Thu Aug 6 16:24:38 2009 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (Ciska Zuur) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:24:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick In-Reply-To: <4A7AC9F5.5050306@skynet.be> References: <000001ca1683$38e44010$aaacc030$@no> <4A7AC9F5.5050306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <634F1221D0254137BE89B866781EE087@PCCiska> Sorry, I didn't read it properly. Both defenders. Ciska ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick > Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Sven Pran" >> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 05:46 >> To: "blml" >> Subject: [BLML] Revoke from both defenders in the same trick >> >>> Norway: >>> >>> I have been asked how to rule when both defenders revoke in the same >>> trick? >>> (A heart was played from declarer, LHO discarded a small spade, RHO >>> discarded a small club; they both still had hearts.) >>> >>> Both revokes became established (it must have been a spirited game). >>> >>> When laughter had finally ceased the players and the director began >>> wondering exactly what law to apply and whether the WBF minute about >>> multiple revokes on a board applies. >>> >>> Is this one revoke, two related revokes or two individual revokes? >> >> The latter >> >>> (In the >>> latter case the rectification is of course two tricks if available.) >> >>> I understand that they ruled a one trick revoke; I tend to agree, but we >>> are >>> interested in comments. >>> >>> regards Sven >> >> Adding details to the example to be clear- in a NT contract the revokes >> occur at T11 where LRHOs win only T13 the relevant law is 64A2: >> >> When a revoke is established: >> 2. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the >> offending >> player* then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, >> after >> play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side. >> >> Each revoke satisfies 64A2 so one trick for each revoke is transferred, >> which equals 2 tricks for the hand. For those who have not been counting >> that is 14 tricks to declarer. >> > > I do not think so. When trick 13 is transferred because of the first > revoke, it no longer belongs to the offending side and can thus not be > transferred again. > Otherwise I agree that two tricks shall be transferred. > > Herman. > > >> regards >> roger pewick >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 6 16:45:29 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:45:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <002c01ca169d$cee7e160$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl><003d01ca15ab$abf 9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred><16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net><4A79A1A2.2090601@meteo.fr> <3F050D99-9BD8-4F5F-8929-18E54B15BCBE@starpower.net> <002c01ca169d$cee7e160$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <91EFA5A9-247E-4005-AF04-5D1B842FAF13@starpower.net> On Aug 6, 2009, at 7:34 AM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ 1. A firm decision was made at a meeting to reduce the definitions > to the minimum list desirable. So a principle was adopted that if the > definition was clear from the text of the law the term need not be > included in the Definitions*. The reason argued for this policy was > reduction of the risk of conflicting statements. So -- let me get this straight -- a firm decision was made at a meeting to deliberately make the lawbook far less useful, far harder to understand, and almost impossible for readers not already familiar with its layout to find some of the most important definitions in it, in order to save the committee the bother of thoroughly editing their own work. Unfreakinbelievable. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 6 17:22:24 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:22:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl><003d01ca15ab$abf 9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred><16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net><4A79A1A2.2090601@meteo.fr><3F050D99-9BD8-4F5F-8929-18E54B15BCBE@starpower.net><002c01ca169d$cee7e160$0302a8c0@Mildred> <91EFA5A9-247E-4005-AF04-5D1B842FAF13@starpower.net> Message-ID: <004f01ca16a9$b6103500$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 3:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? > On Aug 6, 2009, at 7:34 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ 1. A firm decision was made at a meeting to reduce the definitions >> to the minimum list desirable. So a principle was adopted that if the >> definition was clear from the text of the law the term need not be >> included in the Definitions*. The reason argued for this policy was >> reduction of the risk of conflicting statements. > > So -- let me get this straight -- a firm decision was made at a > meeting to deliberately make the lawbook far less useful, far harder > to understand, and almost impossible for readers not already familiar > with its layout to find some of the most important definitions in it, > in order to save the committee the bother of thoroughly editing their > own work. Unfreakinbelievable. > +=+ No, that is not right. I did the editing work and presented a possible list of definitions. Following the committee decision the list was pruned. in a meeting. A few of my definitions were amended to the taste of the committee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Aug 6 18:06:32 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:06:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <905785F3-23D3-4FFD-9504-22D0DE9FEDFF@starpower.net> References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl><003d01ca15ab$abf 9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred><16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> <73789250-5D2E-4C10-92AC-EC909 7F06470@starpower.net><4FF46364-139B-460C-8A2F-05D5F3449610@btinternet.com> <905785F3-23D3-4FFD-9504-22D0DE9FEDFF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A7AFF88.7000903@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 5, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> On 5 Aug 2009, at 17:55, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> the next >>> logical place to look for such things, for someone who knows, as Mr. >>> Schoder does, that the "Definitions" section cannot be counted on to >>> supply critical defintions, would, of course be the table of >>> contents. >> That would be of more help had it not been removed from the 2007 laws. >> >> Yes, I know the ACBL put them back in in their printing, but for >> those of us in the rest of the world we have to make do with the >> Index, which of course fulfills a different function. > > And the index just as misleading as the restored table of contents, > if not more so. "Auction" refers only to "DEFN" and then continues > with "See also Auction period", while "Auction period" lists "Auction > DEFN", with no other reference to "defined". Nobody reading that > without a law guru close at hand would have any reason to think that > "auction" and "auction period" were anything other than synonyms. not my view: auction is an object and auction period a feature of this object, they can't be synonyms. what the reader could expect is that the auction in "auction" and the one in "auction period" have the same meaning. if it would be, the starting point of auction period would be the moment at which the auction begins. this is only logics, but it happens that the auction in "auction" is the string of calls and the auction in "auction period" is the act of seeing cards and making calls. a very unfortunate use of different meanings for the same word imho. jpr > ... > > > 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 Thu Aug 6 21:43:51 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:43:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <4A7AFF88.7000903@meteo.fr> References: <20090805073412.E682D990C172@relay2.webreus.nl> <003d01ca15ab$abf 9b4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <16E3C9FB-D79D-4DBF-9515-D51E3EE4C8D2@starpower.net> <73789250-5D2E-4C10-92AC-EC909 7F06470@starpower.net> <4FF46364-139B-460C-8A2F-05D5F3449610@btinternet.com> <905785F3-23D3-4FFD-9504-22D0DE9FEDFF@starpower.net> <4A7AFF88.7000903@meteo.fr> Message-ID: On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:06:32 -0400, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> On Aug 5, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>> On 5 Aug 2009, at 17:55, Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> the next >>>> logical place to look for such things, for someone who knows, as Mr. >>>> Schoder does, that the "Definitions" section cannot be counted on to >>>> supply critical defintions, would, of course be the table of >>>> contents. >>> That would be of more help had it not been removed from the 2007 laws. >>> >>> Yes, I know the ACBL put them back in in their printing, but for >>> those of us in the rest of the world we have to make do with the >>> Index, which of course fulfills a different function. >> >> And the index just as misleading as the restored table of contents, >> if not more so. "Auction" refers only to "DEFN" and then continues >> with "See also Auction period", while "Auction period" lists "Auction >> DEFN", with no other reference to "defined". Nobody reading that >> without a law guru close at hand would have any reason to think that >> "auction" and "auction period" were anything other than synonyms. > > not my view: auction is an object and auction period a feature of this > object, they can't be synonyms. what the reader could expect is that the > auction in "auction" and the one in "auction period" have the same > meaning. if it would be, the starting point of auction period would be > the moment at which the auction begins. this is only logics, but it > happens that the auction in "auction" is the string of calls and the > auction in "auction period" is the act of seeing cards and making calls. > a very unfortunate use of different meanings for the same word imho. Not very practical, but I found my example. Suppose everyone takes their hands out of the board but me, and then I turn the board upside down and everyone can see that I have a king. (You can identify kings through the slot in the back of the board.) It is reasonable to apply Law 24, exposed card my fault. Now suppose instead that my partner hasn't taken his hand out of the board either, and everyone can see we have two kings. Now, L24 doesn't apply, because the auction period hasn't started for us. That's the main point. Due to various flaws in L16A, according to L16A the kings are probably AI for me an my partner (information before either of us took our hands out of the board). That was the point I was trying to make before, but I couldn't figure out how there could be an exposed card without taking it out of the board. I am guessing the information is also AI to the opponents (L75C) assuming they unintentionally saw the card. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 7 01:28:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:28:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Index (was Error) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <905785F3-23D3-4FFD-9504-22D0DE9FEDFF@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau complained: >And the index just as misleading as the restored table of contents, >if not more so. "Auction" refers only to "DEFN" and then continues >with "See also Auction period", while "Auction period" lists >"Auction DEFN", with no other reference to "defined". Nobody >reading that without a law guru close at hand would have any reason >to think that "auction" and "auction period" were anything other >than synonyms. [snip] Richard Hills self-serving comment: The primary responsibility for the Index was mine, not the Drafting Committee as a whole (the DC merely ratified my indexing after checking for errors, while Eitan Levy helpfully found some errors post-publication, which now have been corrected). Ergo, Eric's complaint should be directed to me, not the Drafting Committee. And my self-serving belief is that Eric's complaint is invalid. Here are the two relevant Index listings. *Auction* DEFN See also *Auction Period* *Auction Period* 17 Auction DEFN Card exposed or led during 24 Cards taken from wrong board 17D Clarification Period 22B1 Commencement of auction DEFN Commencement of Auction Period 17A End of auction 17E, 22A End of Auction Period 17E, 22B Explanation of calls during 20F Procedure after 22B, 41 Review, after final pass 20C Review, before opening lead faced 41B Review, during Auction Period 20B Review, responded to by opponent 20D Successive calls 17C The primary topic of each Index grouping is in *bold*, with the secondary topics non-bolded and also indented. So it is clear that the main information about *Auction* is in the Definitions (DEFN), and it is also clear that the main information about *Auction Period* is in Law 17. Furthermore, a perusal of the *Auction Period* secondary topics reveals: Commencement of auction DEFN Commencement of Auction Period 17A End of auction 17E, 22A End of Auction Period 17E, 22B which would cause even the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate to wonder whether "auction" and "Auction Period" were two different concepts. Unfortunately the ACBL has partially ruined the Index by removing the bolding and unaligning the Law references (the ACBL did, however, retain the indenting). Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 7 02:17:32 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:17:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A7A7E5B.2020109@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael >Richard gives a correct description of this problem, including >of my views on the matter. I thank him for the gracious nature >by which this is done. However, he misses one small point: Richard Hills: [snip] >>Secondly, Law 40B6(a) only partially overrides Law 20F5. When >>RHO enquires about the meaning of pard's 2NT, it is appropriate >>to say, "2NT has meaning (y)", but totally inappropriate to say >>instead "2NT has meaning (y) because my previous 2D bid had >>meaning (z)". [snip] Herman De Wael: >Very minor point, Richard. Since you explicitly told us that >partner's true meaning (y) and intended meaning (b) are >different (and this is the case we are talking of, of course), >the sub-sentence above is always present. You may be right in >stating that you are not allowed to say it, but it will be >implicitly there. Do you not consider it polite, maybe even >obligatory, now that the cat is out of the bag, to inform your >opponents of the colour of the cat? Richard Hills: Actually a very major point, Herman. Politeness does not excuse illegality. One cannot describe the colour of the cat to the opponents when the residue of Law 20F5 still in force requires the opponents to temporarily continue to be colour-blind. Law 72B1 prohibits intentional infractions of Law, even if such an intentional infraction is designed to help the opponents. Herman De Wael: >Will it not be obvious to partner what that colour is? Richard Hills: Sometimes obvious, but not always obvious. We already know that partner is sleepwalking through the auction, since otherwise pard would not have misexplained our 2D bid. If there is a very trivial difference between "2NT has meaning (b)" and "2NT has meaning (y)", then our somnambulistic pard may not notice the UI, but would definitely notice the greater UI of the illegal statement "2NT has meaning (y) because my previous 2D bid had meaning (z)". Alternatively, if one simply states "2NT has meaning (y)" pard may not receive the UI because pard believes that we have mis- explained 2NT, but the illegal statement "2NT has meaning (y) because my previous 2D bid had meaning (z)" may cause pard to form the opposite opinion. Herman De Wael: >Will he not be bound by law to tell the opponents of the >mistake he has made? Richard Hills: Yes and no. No, if our indirect indication fails to wake up an inept somnambulist partner. Yes, if partner is ept, Law 20F4 now applies to partner: "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." Richard Hills: But only partner can invoke Law 20F4; it is illegal for us to prematurely invoke Law 20F4 on partner's behalf. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 7 02:50:52 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:50:52 -0700 Subject: [BLML] ACBL and the WBF Message-ID: <0816119575204CA3882C4C70A40320E4@MARVLAPTOP> I was shocked when one of the intelligent minority on the ACBLLC informed me that the ACBL is not a member of the WBF. So I went to the ACBL's Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, 2001 edition, and found the following: "ACBL activities include ....cooperation with other national bridge organizations through membership in the World Bridge Federation." That tells me the ACBL in 2001 was not only a Zonal Organization but also one of the 103 NBOs with membership in the WBF. In that same year, to comply with Olympic aspirations the WBF assumed the role of International Federation (IF) for the game of contract bridge, and all but one of the 103 NBOs became National Bridge Federations for Olympic purposes, not necessarily changing their names. The ACBL cleverly created a new organization for this purpose, the United States Bridge Federation (USBF). The USBF is a member of the WBF but does not include the ACBL, being completely independent of it. Take a look at usbf.org. The President of the WBF, Jose Damiani, seems to be unaware of all that, as he wrote me: "Indeed we formed the USBF in 2001 for the purpose of our Olympic policy. We need a national federation i.e. USBF to apply to the US Olympic Committee. Therefore the USBF is the body which represents the United States in the World Bridge Federation and naturally it has all the American players as members. [Marv] When you go to the USBF website, you see that it has its own membership that does not include the ACBL's American players. It is an independent organization, with its own board and by-laws. [Damiani] The ACBL is the Zonal organisation which has 3 countries members which is entitled to organise Zonal and national events and ACBL Laws Commission as Zonal organisation has some flexibility to interpret some laws. [Marv] Not to interpret, according to the WBF By-laws. Implement is the right word, with legal "elections" for Zonal Organizations and other options for Regulating Authorities provided by the WBFLC in the Laws. Elections are legal, and implementations can be ACBL-peculiar as long as the Laws are not changed thereby. [Damiani] But it is totally clear that the WBF Laws Commission leads and controls the Laws of Duplicate Bridge as published in 2007. (See attached) [Marv] The attachment was the foreword to the 2007 Laws. It says that it need not be included in other versions of the Laws, but concludes with the following: "Thus the WBF is happy to make its copyright freely available to the NBOs either in English or for translation into their own language. NBOs may utilise the text on the Web Site (and this foreword if they wish), but if they print in any format they are requested to put the following: The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 - Copyright World Bridge Federation" That foreword is not in the 2007 Laws on the WBF web site! So much for "totally clear." It is, however, included in the "official" edition on ecatsbridge.com. The 2008 ACBL edition of the Laws does not include it or any part of it. The French edition has the entire foreword, but I see that the "request" translation is milder: "...new serions heureux de les voir mentionner (we would be pleased to see mentioned...") So what? I don't know what. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Aug 7 02:51:58 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:51:58 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Useful redundancy (was Error) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: > Richard Hills: > Ergo, I argue that it is Kojak who is silly for arguing that TFLB > should lack redundancy, given that the vast majority of TDs are > much > less experienced and much less competent than Sven Pran. So I > suggest > that the internet version of TFLB be updated by this year's > meeting of > the Drafting Committee in Sao Paulo to include "auction period" in > The > Fabulous Law Book's Definitions. (And the Drafting Committee > might > also choose to restore TFLB's Table of Contents.) As the ACBL LC has done in its version of the 2008 (sic) Laws, so they did at least one thing right in their "mistranslations." The title of the table of contents is of course just "Contents," not "Table of Contents." :-)) Unlike the WBF, the ACBL says of its copyrighted 2008 version: "No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the ACBL." Evidently they don't like the idea of their 2008 Laws edition being circulated among players. So of course I downloaded it from the ACBL Web site and put it on mine. So sue me. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 7 02:59:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:59:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >This takes directing to a new level. A player makes a insufficient >bid, which is then accepted. It never crossed my mind to apply Law >23! Same thing for any lead out of turn. [snip] Richard Hills: Obviously Robert has led a pure and holy life. The fact that a lead out of turn has been accepted under Law 53A does not preclude the Director later adjusting the score under Law 23. This is the classic coffee-house -> (1) After a few tricks in a 3NT contract, declarer is in his hand. (2) Dummy has lots of established winners, but no entry. (3) Declarer thinks for seven minutes, while his bored RHO occupies her time by powdering her nose. (4) Declarer "unintentionally" leads a winner from dummy. (5) The Soporific Coup sees RHO automatically follow suit to the lead out of turn from dummy, Law 53A. +630 for declarer, instead of scoring -300 without the irregularity. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 7 06:22:04 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 14:22:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Karl Popper (1902-1994): "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you." From: Max Bavin To: EBU Laws & Ethics Committee Law 27: Insufficient Bids "The WBF Laws Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non-offending side has been damaged)." Max Bavin May 2009 EBU Law and Ethics Committee, May 19th 2009: We (the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee) have agreed to adopt this approach. Herein are four examples of a more liberal policy in operation, which I hope will help clarify the issue. i), ii) and iii) are ALLOWED. iv) is NOT ALLOWED. i) West North East 1C 1S 1H (not having seen the 1S overcall) 1H without the overcall shows 5+ HCP and 4+ hearts. East has the replacement bid of "double" available which also shows 5+ HCP and 4+ hearts, so superficially all is well. However, a hand with (say) 4H & 5D would have responded 1D to 1C had there been no overcall, but would double after the overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this replacement cannot be allowed as West will be in receipt of the additional information that partner does not hold a longer side suit. With a more liberal approach, this change is OK. In other words the TD need no longer delve too deeply into these sort of subtle negative inferences. ii) West North East 1NT 2S 2D (not having seen the 2S overcall) 2D without the overcall is a transfer to hearts. East has a replacement bid of 3H available which would be natural and forcing, so superficially all is well. However, game forcing hands with 4S and 5H would have responded 2C (Stayman) had there been no overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this replacement cannot be allowed (without rectification) as West will be in receipt of the additional information that partner does not hold four spades. But with a more liberal approach, this change is OK. Again, the TD is encouraged to ignore this sort of subtle negative inference. iii) West North East 1C (1) 1S 1D (not having seen the 1S overcall) (1) Precision 1D without the overcall is a negative bid (0-7 HCP). East has a replacement call of "double" available to show 5-7 HCP, so superficially all is well. However, hands in the 5-7 range with a 6+ card major would have responded 2H/2S had there been no overcall, but would be constrained to having to double after the overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this replacement cannot be allowed, as West will be in receipt of the additional information that partner does not hold a 6+ card major. But with a more liberal approach, this change is OK. iv) West North East 2NT Pass 2C East thought that he was responding to 1NT (in which case 2C would be Stayman). East has a replacement bid of 3C available which is also Stayman. A liberal approach will allow this change. However there are some hands which would use 3C Stayman which wouldn't have used 2C Stayman. Because of the possible difference in point ranges, the change IS NOT ALLOWED. Summary There is not yet sufficient precedent to allow an exact definition of where the line is between replacement calls allowed with 27B1b under the more liberal regime and those still not permitted. A guiding principle is that if there is a small number of very specific hands included in the replacement call that were not part of the original then the substitution should usually be allowed without penalty (examples i, ii and iii above). If however the replacement call gives significant additional information about the general strength or distribution of the hand then a correction under 27B1b should not be permitted. The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has the same basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already fully incorporated within, the original call. He does not need to delve into the multitude of potential subtle negative inferences that may be available. But the stretch does not extend so far as to allow things that are plainly different, for example in respect of suit length or point range - these are still subject to the strict interpretation of Law 27 as written in the law book. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 7 09:42:33 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 03:42:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:22:04 -0400, wrote: > > Karl Popper (1902-1994): > > "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way > that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who > misunderstand you." > > From: Max Bavin > To: EBU Laws & Ethics Committee > Law 27: Insufficient Bids > > "The WBF Laws Committee has noted an increasing inclination > among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial > correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the > set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of > hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee > favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities > that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of > Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. > At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the > Director judges that the outcome could well have been different > without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in > consequence the non-offending side has been damaged)." > > Max Bavin > May 2009 > > EBU Law and Ethics Committee, May 19th 2009: > > We (the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee) have agreed to adopt > this approach. Herein are four examples of a more liberal > policy in operation, which I hope will help clarify the issue. > > i), ii) and iii) are ALLOWED. iv) is NOT ALLOWED. > > i) West North East > 1C 1S 1H (not having seen the 1S overcall) > > 1H without the overcall shows 5+ HCP and 4+ hearts. East has > the replacement bid of "double" available which also shows 5+ > HCP and 4+ hearts, so superficially all is well. However, a > hand with (say) 4H & 5D would have responded 1D to 1C had there > been no overcall, but would double after the overcall. > Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this replacement > cannot be allowed as West will be in receipt of the additional > information that partner does not hold a longer side suit. With > a more liberal approach, this change is OK. In other words the > TD need no longer delve too deeply into these sort of subtle > negative inferences. > > ii) West North East > 1NT 2S 2D (not having seen the 2S overcall) > > 2D without the overcall is a transfer to hearts. East has a > replacement bid of 3H available which would be natural and > forcing, so superficially all is well. However, game forcing > hands with 4S and 5H would have responded 2C (Stayman) had > there been no overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 > this replacement cannot be allowed (without rectification) as > West will be in receipt of the additional information that > partner does not hold four spades. But with a more liberal > approach, this change is OK. Again, the TD is encouraged to > ignore this sort of subtle negative inference. > > iii) West North East > 1C (1) 1S 1D (not having seen the 1S overcall) > > (1) Precision > > 1D without the overcall is a negative bid (0-7 HCP). East has a > replacement call of "double" available to show 5-7 HCP, so > superficially all is well. However, hands in the 5-7 range with > a 6+ card major would have responded 2H/2S had there been no > overcall, but would be constrained to having to double after the > overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this > replacement cannot be allowed, as West will be in receipt of the > additional information that partner does not hold a 6+ card > major. But with a more liberal approach, this change is OK. > > iv) West North East > 2NT Pass 2C > > East thought that he was responding to 1NT (in which case 2C > would be Stayman). East has a replacement bid of 3C available > which is also Stayman. A liberal approach will allow this > change. However there are some hands which would use 3C Stayman > which wouldn't have used 2C Stayman. Because of the possible > difference in point ranges, the change IS NOT ALLOWED. > > Summary > > There is not yet sufficient precedent to allow an exact > definition of where the line is between replacement calls > allowed with 27B1b under the more liberal regime and those still > not permitted. A guiding principle is that if there is a small > number of very specific hands included in the replacement call > that were not part of the original then the substitution should > usually be allowed without penalty (examples i, ii and iii > above). If however the replacement call gives significant > additional information about the general strength or > distribution of the hand then a correction under 27B1b should > not be permitted. > > The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls > and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has > the same basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already > fully incorporated within, the original call. He does not need > to delve into the multitude of potential subtle negative > inferences that may be available. But the stretch does not > extend so far as to allow things that are plainly different, for > example in respect of suit length or point range - these are > still subject to the strict interpretation of Law 27 as written > in the law book. I had that problem come up today: 1C P 1S P 1NT 2D 2D 2D was new minor forcing, hence artificial. I took the 1NT opener aside and asked her about replacement bids. She was a good player and a tournament director. She suggested that 3D would work. I said that 2D showed 5 spades and 3D did not. She said she would show 3-card support over 3D. I said I wasn't giving it to her and that whatever the IBer did, her partner was barred. My rule of thumb is that if I can detect the difference in the bids, I don't allow it. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 7 10:16:31 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:16:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A7BE2DF.20404@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael > >> Richard gives a correct description of this problem, including >> of my views on the matter. I thank him for the gracious nature >> by which this is done. However, he misses one small point: > > Richard Hills: > > [snip] > >>> Secondly, Law 40B6(a) only partially overrides Law 20F5. When >>> RHO enquires about the meaning of pard's 2NT, it is appropriate >>> to say, "2NT has meaning (y)", but totally inappropriate to say >>> instead "2NT has meaning (y) because my previous 2D bid had >>> meaning (z)". > > [snip] > > Herman De Wael: > >> Very minor point, Richard. Since you explicitly told us that >> partner's true meaning (y) and intended meaning (b) are >> different (and this is the case we are talking of, of course), >> the sub-sentence above is always present. You may be right in >> stating that you are not allowed to say it, but it will be >> implicitly there. Do you not consider it polite, maybe even >> obligatory, now that the cat is out of the bag, to inform your >> opponents of the colour of the cat? > > Richard Hills: > > Actually a very major point, Herman. > > Politeness does not excuse illegality. One cannot describe the > colour of the cat to the opponents when the residue of Law 20F5 > still in force requires the opponents to temporarily continue to > be colour-blind. Law 72B1 prohibits intentional infractions of > Law, even if such an intentional infraction is designed to help > the opponents. > My problem with that statement is that the opponents will ask about the colour. Since both you and your partner (presumably) know that colour, can you really hide behind L20F5a to keep it from them? > Herman De Wael: > >> Will it not be obvious to partner what that colour is? > > Richard Hills: > > Sometimes obvious, but not always obvious. We already know that > partner is sleepwalking through the auction, since otherwise pard > would not have misexplained our 2D bid. If there is a very > trivial difference between "2NT has meaning (b)" and "2NT has > meaning (y)", then our somnambulistic pard may not notice the UI, > but would definitely notice the greater UI of the illegal > statement "2NT has meaning (y) because my previous 2D bid had > meaning (z)". > Richard, if the two meanings are so close together that you can hide the misunderstanding by shading your explanation in such a way that partner does not notice, then: a) you are using DWS principles (by the shading) b) it is a case not like the one we are talking about, where the explanation clearly shows the misunderstanding. So we should not be discussing. Now partner may be sleepwalking and misexplain but surely he's not asleep and does not hear your consequent inconsistent explanation? > Alternatively, if one simply states "2NT has meaning (y)" pard > may not receive the UI because pard believes that we have mis- > explained 2NT, but the illegal statement "2NT has meaning (y) > because my previous 2D bid had meaning (z)" may cause pard to > form the opposite opinion. It may, but I prefer to believe that in the majority of cases it will not. > > Herman De Wael: > >> Will he not be bound by law to tell the opponents of the >> mistake he has made? > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and no. > > No, if our indirect indication fails to wake up an inept > somnambulist partner. > See above. We are not talking about a "sleep"walker, just an errant walker. He misexplained, that does not mean he needs to be asleep. > Yes, if partner is ept, Law 20F4 now applies to partner: > > "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation > was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director > immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." > > Richard Hills: > > But only partner can invoke Law 20F4; it is illegal for us to > prematurely invoke Law 20F4 on partner's behalf. > That is true. So let's agree: we shall (when employing MS principles) simply say "2 aces", without adding "because 4NT was Blackwood", but we shall stand ready, both us and partner, to add "apparently 4NT was Blackwood" when opponents ask why he's replying aces to a minor ask. Anyway, the opponents will be informed that 4NT was Blackwood after all. > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > Herman. From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Fri Aug 7 10:48:20 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:48:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:22:04 -0400, wrote: > >> >> Karl Popper (1902-1994): >> >> "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way >> that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who >> misunderstand you." >> >> From: Max Bavin >> To: EBU Laws & Ethics Committee >> Law 27: Insufficient Bids >> >> "The WBF Laws Committee has noted an increasing inclination >> among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial >> correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the >> set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of >> hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee >> favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities >> that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of >> Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. >> At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the >> Director judges that the outcome could well have been different >> without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in >> consequence the non-offending side has been damaged)." >> >> Max Bavin >> May 2009 >> >> EBU Law and Ethics Committee, May 19th 2009: >> >> We (the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee) have agreed to adopt >> this approach. Herein are four examples of a more liberal >> policy in operation, which I hope will help clarify the issue. >> >> i), ii) and iii) are ALLOWED. iv) is NOT ALLOWED. >> >> i) West North East >> 1C 1S 1H (not having seen the 1S overcall) >> >> 1H without the overcall shows 5+ HCP and 4+ hearts. East has >> the replacement bid of "double" available which also shows 5+ >> HCP and 4+ hearts, so superficially all is well. However, a >> hand with (say) 4H & 5D would have responded 1D to 1C had there >> been no overcall, but would double after the overcall. >> Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this replacement >> cannot be allowed as West will be in receipt of the additional >> information that partner does not hold a longer side suit. With >> a more liberal approach, this change is OK. In other words the >> TD need no longer delve too deeply into these sort of subtle >> negative inferences. >> >> ii) West North East >> 1NT 2S 2D (not having seen the 2S overcall) >> >> 2D without the overcall is a transfer to hearts. East has a >> replacement bid of 3H available which would be natural and >> forcing, so superficially all is well. However, game forcing >> hands with 4S and 5H would have responded 2C (Stayman) had >> there been no overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 >> this replacement cannot be allowed (without rectification) as >> West will be in receipt of the additional information that >> partner does not hold four spades. But with a more liberal >> approach, this change is OK. Again, the TD is encouraged to >> ignore this sort of subtle negative inference. >> >> iii) West North East >> 1C (1) 1S 1D (not having seen the 1S overcall) >> >> (1) Precision >> >> 1D without the overcall is a negative bid (0-7 HCP). East has a >> replacement call of "double" available to show 5-7 HCP, so >> superficially all is well. However, hands in the 5-7 range with >> a 6+ card major would have responded 2H/2S had there been no >> overcall, but would be constrained to having to double after the >> overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this >> replacement cannot be allowed, as West will be in receipt of the >> additional information that partner does not hold a 6+ card >> major. But with a more liberal approach, this change is OK. >> >> iv) West North East >> 2NT Pass 2C >> >> East thought that he was responding to 1NT (in which case 2C >> would be Stayman). East has a replacement bid of 3C available >> which is also Stayman. A liberal approach will allow this >> change. However there are some hands which would use 3C Stayman >> which wouldn't have used 2C Stayman. Because of the possible >> difference in point ranges, the change IS NOT ALLOWED. >> >> Summary >> >> There is not yet sufficient precedent to allow an exact >> definition of where the line is between replacement calls >> allowed with 27B1b under the more liberal regime and those still >> not permitted. A guiding principle is that if there is a small >> number of very specific hands included in the replacement call >> that were not part of the original then the substitution should >> usually be allowed without penalty (examples i, ii and iii >> above). If however the replacement call gives significant >> additional information about the general strength or >> distribution of the hand then a correction under 27B1b should >> not be permitted. >> >> The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls >> and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has >> the same basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already >> fully incorporated within, the original call. He does not need >> to delve into the multitude of potential subtle negative >> inferences that may be available. But the stretch does not >> extend so far as to allow things that are plainly different, for >> example in respect of suit length or point range - these are >> still subject to the strict interpretation of Law 27 as written >> in the law book. > > I had that problem come up today: > > 1C P 1S P > 1NT 2D 2D > > 2D was new minor forcing, hence artificial. I took the 1NT opener aside > and asked her about replacement bids. She was a good player and a > tournament director. Interesting - "I took thr 1NT bidder aside" I would have taken the IBber aside She suggested that 3D would work. I said that 2D > showed 5 spades and 3D did not. She said she would show 3-card support > over 3D. I said I wasn't giving it to her and that whatever the IBer did, > her partner was barred. My rule of thumb is that if I can detect the > difference in the bids, I don't allow it. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Aug 7 12:46:53 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:46:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <002c01ca169d$cee7e160$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <20090807104652.DF987990C088@relay2.webreus.nl> 2. When we say that "that interval is governed by both L16C1 and L24" we should add that the basis for choosing one or the other is the principle that the specific overrides the general. So the Director must decide which of these applies specifically to the circumstances with which he is dealing. I have taken the view that the more extended list of conditions is in Law 24 and that if all of these are present then Law 24 has priority over Law 16C; this opinion is a personal opinion - see Law 81C2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It seems that eventually Grattan conquered his blindness in reading my mails which is a step in the right direction. It was already on my agenda for Sao Paulo before this thread commenced. ton From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 7 14:22:45 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:22:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 04:48:20 -0400, Mike Amos wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:42 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:22:04 -0400, wrote: >> >>> >>> Karl Popper (1902-1994): >>> >>> "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way >>> that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who >>> misunderstand you." >>> >>> From: Max Bavin >>> To: EBU Laws & Ethics Committee >>> Law 27: Insufficient Bids >>> >>> "The WBF Laws Committee has noted an increasing inclination >>> among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial >>> correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the >>> set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of >>> hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee >>> favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities >>> that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of >>> Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. >>> At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the >>> Director judges that the outcome could well have been different >>> without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in >>> consequence the non-offending side has been damaged)." >>> >>> Max Bavin >>> May 2009 >>> >>> EBU Law and Ethics Committee, May 19th 2009: >>> >>> We (the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee) have agreed to adopt >>> this approach. Herein are four examples of a more liberal >>> policy in operation, which I hope will help clarify the issue. >>> >>> i), ii) and iii) are ALLOWED. iv) is NOT ALLOWED. >>> >>> i) West North East >>> 1C 1S 1H (not having seen the 1S overcall) >>> >>> 1H without the overcall shows 5+ HCP and 4+ hearts. East has >>> the replacement bid of "double" available which also shows 5+ >>> HCP and 4+ hearts, so superficially all is well. However, a >>> hand with (say) 4H & 5D would have responded 1D to 1C had there >>> been no overcall, but would double after the overcall. >>> Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this replacement >>> cannot be allowed as West will be in receipt of the additional >>> information that partner does not hold a longer side suit. With >>> a more liberal approach, this change is OK. In other words the >>> TD need no longer delve too deeply into these sort of subtle >>> negative inferences. >>> >>> ii) West North East >>> 1NT 2S 2D (not having seen the 2S overcall) >>> >>> 2D without the overcall is a transfer to hearts. East has a >>> replacement bid of 3H available which would be natural and >>> forcing, so superficially all is well. However, game forcing >>> hands with 4S and 5H would have responded 2C (Stayman) had >>> there been no overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 >>> this replacement cannot be allowed (without rectification) as >>> West will be in receipt of the additional information that >>> partner does not hold four spades. But with a more liberal >>> approach, this change is OK. Again, the TD is encouraged to >>> ignore this sort of subtle negative inference. >>> >>> iii) West North East >>> 1C (1) 1S 1D (not having seen the 1S overcall) >>> >>> (1) Precision >>> >>> 1D without the overcall is a negative bid (0-7 HCP). East has a >>> replacement call of "double" available to show 5-7 HCP, so >>> superficially all is well. However, hands in the 5-7 range with >>> a 6+ card major would have responded 2H/2S had there been no >>> overcall, but would be constrained to having to double after the >>> overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this >>> replacement cannot be allowed, as West will be in receipt of the >>> additional information that partner does not hold a 6+ card >>> major. But with a more liberal approach, this change is OK. >>> >>> iv) West North East >>> 2NT Pass 2C >>> >>> East thought that he was responding to 1NT (in which case 2C >>> would be Stayman). East has a replacement bid of 3C available >>> which is also Stayman. A liberal approach will allow this >>> change. However there are some hands which would use 3C Stayman >>> which wouldn't have used 2C Stayman. Because of the possible >>> difference in point ranges, the change IS NOT ALLOWED. >>> >>> Summary >>> >>> There is not yet sufficient precedent to allow an exact >>> definition of where the line is between replacement calls >>> allowed with 27B1b under the more liberal regime and those still >>> not permitted. A guiding principle is that if there is a small >>> number of very specific hands included in the replacement call >>> that were not part of the original then the substitution should >>> usually be allowed without penalty (examples i, ii and iii >>> above). If however the replacement call gives significant >>> additional information about the general strength or >>> distribution of the hand then a correction under 27B1b should >>> not be permitted. >>> >>> The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls >>> and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has >>> the same basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already >>> fully incorporated within, the original call. He does not need >>> to delve into the multitude of potential subtle negative >>> inferences that may be available. But the stretch does not >>> extend so far as to allow things that are plainly different, for >>> example in respect of suit length or point range - these are >>> still subject to the strict interpretation of Law 27 as written >>> in the law book. >> >> I had that problem come up today: >> >> 1C P 1S P >> 1NT 2D 2D >> >> 2D was new minor forcing, hence artificial. I took the 1NT opener aside >> and asked her about replacement bids. She was a good player and a >> tournament director. > > Interesting - "I took thr 1NT bidder aside" > > I would have taken the IBber aside I eventually had to do take the IBer aside to make sure the 2D bid was New Minor Forcing. But if anyone was going to find a different bid with a same or more precise meaning, it was the good player who was also a tournament player. (Her partner was a client.) > > > She suggested that 3D would work. I said that 2D >> showed 5 spades and 3D did not. She said she would show 3-card support >> over 3D. I said I wasn't giving it to her and that whatever the IBer >> did, >> her partner was barred. My rule of thumb is that if I can detect the >> difference in the bids, I don't allow it. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 mikeamostd at btinternet.com Fri Aug 7 14:52:47 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:52:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 04:48:20 -0400, Mike Amos > wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:42 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:22:04 -0400, wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Karl Popper (1902-1994): >>>> >>>> "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way >>>> that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who >>>> misunderstand you." >>>> >>>> From: Max Bavin >>>> To: EBU Laws & Ethics Committee >>>> Law 27: Insufficient Bids >>>> >>>> "The WBF Laws Committee has noted an increasing inclination >>>> among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial >>>> correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the >>>> set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of >>>> hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee >>>> favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities >>>> that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of >>>> Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. >>>> At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the >>>> Director judges that the outcome could well have been different >>>> without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in >>>> consequence the non-offending side has been damaged)." >>>> >>>> Max Bavin >>>> May 2009 >>>> >>>> EBU Law and Ethics Committee, May 19th 2009: >>>> >>>> We (the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee) have agreed to adopt >>>> this approach. Herein are four examples of a more liberal >>>> policy in operation, which I hope will help clarify the issue. >>>> >>>> i), ii) and iii) are ALLOWED. iv) is NOT ALLOWED. >>>> >>>> i) West North East >>>> 1C 1S 1H (not having seen the 1S overcall) >>>> >>>> 1H without the overcall shows 5+ HCP and 4+ hearts. East has >>>> the replacement bid of "double" available which also shows 5+ >>>> HCP and 4+ hearts, so superficially all is well. However, a >>>> hand with (say) 4H & 5D would have responded 1D to 1C had there >>>> been no overcall, but would double after the overcall. >>>> Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this replacement >>>> cannot be allowed as West will be in receipt of the additional >>>> information that partner does not hold a longer side suit. With >>>> a more liberal approach, this change is OK. In other words the >>>> TD need no longer delve too deeply into these sort of subtle >>>> negative inferences. >>>> >>>> ii) West North East >>>> 1NT 2S 2D (not having seen the 2S overcall) >>>> >>>> 2D without the overcall is a transfer to hearts. East has a >>>> replacement bid of 3H available which would be natural and >>>> forcing, so superficially all is well. However, game forcing >>>> hands with 4S and 5H would have responded 2C (Stayman) had >>>> there been no overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 >>>> this replacement cannot be allowed (without rectification) as >>>> West will be in receipt of the additional information that >>>> partner does not hold four spades. But with a more liberal >>>> approach, this change is OK. Again, the TD is encouraged to >>>> ignore this sort of subtle negative inference. >>>> >>>> iii) West North East >>>> 1C (1) 1S 1D (not having seen the 1S overcall) >>>> >>>> (1) Precision >>>> >>>> 1D without the overcall is a negative bid (0-7 HCP). East has a >>>> replacement call of "double" available to show 5-7 HCP, so >>>> superficially all is well. However, hands in the 5-7 range with >>>> a 6+ card major would have responded 2H/2S had there been no >>>> overcall, but would be constrained to having to double after the >>>> overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this >>>> replacement cannot be allowed, as West will be in receipt of the >>>> additional information that partner does not hold a 6+ card >>>> major. But with a more liberal approach, this change is OK. >>>> >>>> iv) West North East >>>> 2NT Pass 2C >>>> >>>> East thought that he was responding to 1NT (in which case 2C >>>> would be Stayman). East has a replacement bid of 3C available >>>> which is also Stayman. A liberal approach will allow this >>>> change. However there are some hands which would use 3C Stayman >>>> which wouldn't have used 2C Stayman. Because of the possible >>>> difference in point ranges, the change IS NOT ALLOWED. >>>> >>>> Summary >>>> >>>> There is not yet sufficient precedent to allow an exact >>>> definition of where the line is between replacement calls >>>> allowed with 27B1b under the more liberal regime and those still >>>> not permitted. A guiding principle is that if there is a small >>>> number of very specific hands included in the replacement call >>>> that were not part of the original then the substitution should >>>> usually be allowed without penalty (examples i, ii and iii >>>> above). If however the replacement call gives significant >>>> additional information about the general strength or >>>> distribution of the hand then a correction under 27B1b should >>>> not be permitted. >>>> >>>> The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls >>>> and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has >>>> the same basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already >>>> fully incorporated within, the original call. He does not need >>>> to delve into the multitude of potential subtle negative >>>> inferences that may be available. But the stretch does not >>>> extend so far as to allow things that are plainly different, for >>>> example in respect of suit length or point range - these are >>>> still subject to the strict interpretation of Law 27 as written >>>> in the law book. >>> >>> I had that problem come up today: >>> >>> 1C P 1S P >>> 1NT 2D 2D >>> >>> 2D was new minor forcing, hence artificial. I took the 1NT opener aside >>> and asked her about replacement bids. She was a good player and a >>> tournament director. >> >> Interesting - "I took thr 1NT bidder aside" >> >> I would have taken the IBber aside > > > I eventually had to do take the IBer aside to make sure the 2D bid was New > Minor Forcing. But if anyone was going to find a different bid with a same > or more precise meaning, it was the good player who was also a tournament > player. (Her partner was a client.) > > Sorry Robert I think this is just wrong It's the IBber who has to come up with the rectification bid - you are just spreading UI by the pitchfork load Ask the IBber what the insufficient bid meant and if there is a rectification bid (explaining if necessary) available IMHO (Ok not-so-humble) :) what you did is simply wrong - we don't even know if the 2D bidder knows that 2D was New Minor Forcing -ugh or what was in the player's mind when 2D was bid - No sorry cannot do it like this Mike > >> >> >> She suggested that 3D would work. I said that 2D >>> showed 5 spades and 3D did not. She said she would show 3-card support >>> over 3D. I said I wasn't giving it to her and that whatever the IBer >>> did, >>> her partner was barred. My rule of thumb is that if I can detect the >>> difference in the bids, I don't allow it. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Aug 7 14:56:41 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:56:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Minute improvement Message-ID: <9473DD7680D2466B8B8318442EC4E9DD@NigelPC> A little change in the way that the WBF publish legal disambiguations and corrections could increase public awareness: Currently, the WBF publishes its "interpretations" in minutes but rigidly resists the idea of itself incorporating such changes into an up-to-date version of the law-book. As a result, few directors and hardly any players are aware of them. The proposal is: as an *addendum* to each official minute, the WBF adds "clarified" versions of affected law(s). This would allow any local legislature that could be bothered, to keep its own on-line version of the law-book up-to-date, by replacing relevant laws. Hence, more directors and players would be aware of amendments. Ton Kooijman could also modify his examples to show how changes work in practice. This would be small enhancement but not a complete solution. Like most players, I find some of the current laws too sophisticated to understand. However much I want to comply with them, no amount of "interpretation" is likely to help me. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 7 15:22:25 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:22:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:52:47 -0400, Mike Amos wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 1:22 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 04:48:20 -0400, Mike Amos >> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:42 AM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:22:04 -0400, wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Karl Popper (1902-1994): >>>>> >>>>> "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way >>>>> that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who >>>>> misunderstand you." >>>>> >>>>> From: Max Bavin >>>>> To: EBU Laws & Ethics Committee >>>>> Law 27: Insufficient Bids >>>>> >>>>> "The WBF Laws Committee has noted an increasing inclination >>>>> among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial >>>>> correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the >>>>> set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of >>>>> hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee >>>>> favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities >>>>> that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of >>>>> Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. >>>>> At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the >>>>> Director judges that the outcome could well have been different >>>>> without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in >>>>> consequence the non-offending side has been damaged)." >>>>> >>>>> Max Bavin >>>>> May 2009 >>>>> >>>>> EBU Law and Ethics Committee, May 19th 2009: >>>>> >>>>> We (the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee) have agreed to adopt >>>>> this approach. Herein are four examples of a more liberal >>>>> policy in operation, which I hope will help clarify the issue. >>>>> >>>>> i), ii) and iii) are ALLOWED. iv) is NOT ALLOWED. >>>>> >>>>> i) West North East >>>>> 1C 1S 1H (not having seen the 1S overcall) >>>>> >>>>> 1H without the overcall shows 5+ HCP and 4+ hearts. East has >>>>> the replacement bid of "double" available which also shows 5+ >>>>> HCP and 4+ hearts, so superficially all is well. However, a >>>>> hand with (say) 4H & 5D would have responded 1D to 1C had there >>>>> been no overcall, but would double after the overcall. >>>>> Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this replacement >>>>> cannot be allowed as West will be in receipt of the additional >>>>> information that partner does not hold a longer side suit. With >>>>> a more liberal approach, this change is OK. In other words the >>>>> TD need no longer delve too deeply into these sort of subtle >>>>> negative inferences. >>>>> >>>>> ii) West North East >>>>> 1NT 2S 2D (not having seen the 2S overcall) >>>>> >>>>> 2D without the overcall is a transfer to hearts. East has a >>>>> replacement bid of 3H available which would be natural and >>>>> forcing, so superficially all is well. However, game forcing >>>>> hands with 4S and 5H would have responded 2C (Stayman) had >>>>> there been no overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 >>>>> this replacement cannot be allowed (without rectification) as >>>>> West will be in receipt of the additional information that >>>>> partner does not hold four spades. But with a more liberal >>>>> approach, this change is OK. Again, the TD is encouraged to >>>>> ignore this sort of subtle negative inference. >>>>> >>>>> iii) West North East >>>>> 1C (1) 1S 1D (not having seen the 1S overcall) >>>>> >>>>> (1) Precision >>>>> >>>>> 1D without the overcall is a negative bid (0-7 HCP). East has a >>>>> replacement call of "double" available to show 5-7 HCP, so >>>>> superficially all is well. However, hands in the 5-7 range with >>>>> a 6+ card major would have responded 2H/2S had there been no >>>>> overcall, but would be constrained to having to double after the >>>>> overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this >>>>> replacement cannot be allowed, as West will be in receipt of the >>>>> additional information that partner does not hold a 6+ card >>>>> major. But with a more liberal approach, this change is OK. >>>>> >>>>> iv) West North East >>>>> 2NT Pass 2C >>>>> >>>>> East thought that he was responding to 1NT (in which case 2C >>>>> would be Stayman). East has a replacement bid of 3C available >>>>> which is also Stayman. A liberal approach will allow this >>>>> change. However there are some hands which would use 3C Stayman >>>>> which wouldn't have used 2C Stayman. Because of the possible >>>>> difference in point ranges, the change IS NOT ALLOWED. >>>>> >>>>> Summary >>>>> >>>>> There is not yet sufficient precedent to allow an exact >>>>> definition of where the line is between replacement calls >>>>> allowed with 27B1b under the more liberal regime and those still >>>>> not permitted. A guiding principle is that if there is a small >>>>> number of very specific hands included in the replacement call >>>>> that were not part of the original then the substitution should >>>>> usually be allowed without penalty (examples i, ii and iii >>>>> above). If however the replacement call gives significant >>>>> additional information about the general strength or >>>>> distribution of the hand then a correction under 27B1b should >>>>> not be permitted. >>>>> >>>>> The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls >>>>> and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has >>>>> the same basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already >>>>> fully incorporated within, the original call. He does not need >>>>> to delve into the multitude of potential subtle negative >>>>> inferences that may be available. But the stretch does not >>>>> extend so far as to allow things that are plainly different, for >>>>> example in respect of suit length or point range - these are >>>>> still subject to the strict interpretation of Law 27 as written >>>>> in the law book. >>>> >>>> I had that problem come up today: >>>> >>>> 1C P 1S P >>>> 1NT 2D 2D >>>> >>>> 2D was new minor forcing, hence artificial. I took the 1NT opener >>>> aside >>>> and asked her about replacement bids. She was a good player and a >>>> tournament director. >>> >>> Interesting - "I took thr 1NT bidder aside" >>> >>> I would have taken the IBber aside >> >> >> I eventually had to do take the IBer aside to make sure the 2D bid was >> New >> Minor Forcing. But if anyone was going to find a different bid with a >> same >> or more precise meaning, it was the good player who was also a >> tournament >> player. (Her partner was a client.) >> >> > Sorry Robert I think this is just wrong You may be correct. I had not thought about it that way. To use the classic example, partner opens one of a minor, LHO bids an unseen 1Sp, and the IBer bids 1He insufficient because he didn't see the 1 Sp call. You are saying that I am supposed to make the IBer propose the negative double rather than just telling the IBer that the negative double is nonbarring. I note that this is inconsistent with the practice of first telling LHO whether or not the IBer has any nonbarring replacement bids. But I don't agree with that practice and I think you don't either. It works really well on the club level to just figure out for the player what the nonbarring bids will be. For example, "If you correct your 2C (natural) to 3C (natural), everything keeps going. If you choose any other bid, your partner will be barred for the rest of the auction." > > It's the IBber who has to come up with the rectification bid - you are > just > spreading UI by the pitchfork load This I do not understand at all. About giving away any UI talking to players away from the table. > Ask the IBber what the insufficient bid meant and if there is a > rectification bid (explaining if necessary) available Part of the problem at the club level is explaining. If I am going to leave it up to the player, then I have to read *and explain* L27B1(a) and L27B1(b). > > IMHO (Ok not-so-humble) :) what you did is simply wrong - we don't even > know if the 2D bidder knows that 2D was New Minor Forcing > -ugh or what was > in the player's mind when 2D was bid I don't understand this. She said she meant it as New Minor Forcing. I can't do any better than that for getting into her mind for when 2Di was bid. > - No sorry cannot do it like this The only upset player at the table was the IBer who didn't like the ruling because had to guess at the final contract. I think she was used to having a nonbarring substitution. Any suggestions on that? > > Mike > > > > > > > > >> >>> >>> >>> She suggested that 3D would work. I said that 2D >>>> showed 5 spades and 3D did not. She said she would show 3-card support >>>> over 3D. I said I wasn't giving it to her and that whatever the IBer >>>> did, >>>> her partner was barred. My rule of thumb is that if I can detect the >>>> difference in the bids, I don't allow it. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 7 15:48:26 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:48:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL and the WBF In-Reply-To: <0816119575204CA3882C4C70A40320E4@MARVLAPTOP> References: <0816119575204CA3882C4C70A40320E4@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Aug 6, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > I was shocked when one of the intelligent minority on the ACBLLC > informed me that the ACBL is not a member of the WBF. So I went to > the ACBL's Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, 2001 edition, and found > the following: > > "ACBL activities include ....cooperation with other national bridge > organizations through membership in the World Bridge Federation." > > That tells me the ACBL in 2001 was not only a Zonal Organization but > also one of > the 103 NBOs with membership in the WBF. > > In that same year, to comply with Olympic aspirations the WBF > assumed the role of International Federation (IF) for the game of > contract bridge, and all but one of the 103 NBOs became National > Bridge Federations for Olympic purposes, not necessarily changing > their names. The ACBL cleverly created a new organization for this > purpose, the United States Bridge Federation (USBF). The USBF is a > member of the WBF but does not include the ACBL, being completely > independent of it. Take a look at usbf.org. > > The President of the WBF, Jose Damiani, seems to be unaware of all > that, as he wrote me: > > "Indeed we formed the USBF in 2001 for the purpose of our Olympic > policy. We need a national federation i.e. USBF to apply to the US > Olympic Committee. Therefore the USBF is the body which represents > the United States in the World Bridge Federation and naturally it > has all the American players as members. > > [Marv] > When you go to the USBF website, you see that it has its own > membership that does not include the ACBL's American players. It is > an independent organization, with its own board and by-laws. > > [Damiani] > The ACBL is the Zonal organisation which has 3 countries members > which is entitled to organise Zonal and national events and ACBL > Laws Commission as Zonal organisation has > some flexibility to interpret some laws. The USBF was formed in 2001 as part of the effort to get bridge recognized as an Olympic sport because the ACBL, which is a multi- country organization, was not eligible for recognition as the representative of U.S. bridge. Up to that time, the ACBL's participation in international events was controlled by the ACBL directly; the committee charged with that responsibility was effectively split off as a separate organization, whose nominal membership now includes U.S. members of both the ACBL and the ABA (the latter, founded in the pre-Civil-Rights-Act era as an organization of black players, still exists, but is not a significant force in organized bridge in the U.S.). It's officers and directors come from the same in-group that regularly supplies officers and directors to the ACBL. The precise relationship between the WBF, the ACBL and the USBF has never been fully defined. A couple of years ago, I put that question to the ACBL CEO (at an ACBL Board of Governors meeting), but he was unable to produce a coherent answer. The rationale for the existence of the USBF is long since gone, but bureaucracies never die. Today there is no reason why international participation couldn't be handled just as effectively, if not more so, by a standing committee of the ACBL, as it was before Olympic ambition hysteria came and went, and no apparent reasom for the USBF to continue to exist. But it is a wholely separate organization, with a wholely separate set of titles, powers and perqs for TPTB to distribute among themselves, and which they are understandably loath to give up, useful or not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 7 16:08:33 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:08:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <353175C2-5BF2-4C66-87A7-F1DF1B5446AC@starpower.net> On Aug 7, 2009, at 12:22 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > EBU Law and Ethics Committee, May 19th 2009: > > We (the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee) have agreed to adopt > this approach. Herein are four examples of a more liberal > policy in operation, which I hope will help clarify the issue. > > i), ii) and iii) are ALLOWED. iv) is NOT ALLOWED. > > i) West North East > 1C 1S 1H (not having seen the 1S overcall) > > 1H without the overcall shows 5+ HCP and 4+ hearts. East has > the replacement bid of "double" available which also shows 5+ > HCP and 4+ hearts, so superficially all is well. However, a > hand with (say) 4H & 5D would have responded 1D to 1C had there > been no overcall, but would double after the overcall. > Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this replacement > cannot be allowed as West will be in receipt of the additional > information that partner does not hold a longer side suit. With > a more liberal approach, this change is OK. In other words the > TD need no longer delve too deeply into these sort of subtle > negative inferences. > > ii) West North East > 1NT 2S 2D (not having seen the 2S overcall) > > 2D without the overcall is a transfer to hearts. East has a > replacement bid of 3H available which would be natural and > forcing, so superficially all is well. However, game forcing > hands with 4S and 5H would have responded 2C (Stayman) had > there been no overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 > this replacement cannot be allowed (without rectification) as > West will be in receipt of the additional information that > partner does not hold four spades. But with a more liberal > approach, this change is OK. Again, the TD is encouraged to > ignore this sort of subtle negative inference. > > iii) West North East > 1C (1) 1S 1D (not having seen the 1S overcall) > > (1) Precision > > 1D without the overcall is a negative bid (0-7 HCP). East has a > replacement call of "double" available to show 5-7 HCP, so > superficially all is well. However, hands in the 5-7 range with > a 6+ card major would have responded 2H/2S had there been no > overcall, but would be constrained to having to double after the > overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this > replacement cannot be allowed, as West will be in receipt of the > additional information that partner does not hold a 6+ card > major. But with a more liberal approach, this change is OK. > > iv) West North East > 2NT Pass 2C > > East thought that he was responding to 1NT (in which case 2C > would be Stayman). East has a replacement bid of 3C available > which is also Stayman. A liberal approach will allow this > change. However there are some hands which would use 3C Stayman > which wouldn't have used 2C Stayman. Because of the possible > difference in point ranges, the change IS NOT ALLOWED. In an earlier thread, we failed to fully resolve the question of whether it is necessary for a TD, in order to properly apply L27B1 (b), to ascertain and take into account the nature of the specific misperception which led the IBer to make the IB. These examples, in which that information is specifically noted and referred to in the subsequent analyses, clearly answer that question in the affirmative. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Aug 7 16:15:48 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 16:15:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Minute improvement In-Reply-To: <9473DD7680D2466B8B8318442EC4E9DD@NigelPC> Message-ID: <20090807141548.1DA0D990C098@relay2.webreus.nl> Nigel: The proposal is: as an *addendum* to each official minute, the WBF adds "clarified" versions of affected law(s). However much I want to comply with them, no amount of "interpretation" is likely to help me. ton: I consider Nigel's remarks as imortant and constructive, a rare combination, not just restricted to blml. I will bring your request into our meeting(s) and would really like to know which laws can't be understood even with your help of interpretation. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Aug 7 16:21:05 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 16:21:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20090807142104.6F178990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> Mike: My rule of thumb is that if I can detect the > difference in the bids, I don't allow it. ton: If this is what you really do your interpretation is not what we wanted the law to mean. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 7 16:40:28 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:40:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20090807142104.6F178990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090807142104.6F178990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:21:05 -0400, ton wrote: > Mike: > > My rule of thumb is that if I can detect the >> difference in the bids, I don't allow it. > > ton: > > If this is what you really do your interpretation is not what we wanted > the > law to mean. Well, the actual law now is that the replacement bid has to, in my judgment, have the same meaning or a more precise meaning than the intended bid, except I should be unstrict and mildly liberal. In other words, the line was moved slightly, to some vague unspecifiable place. If anyone is supposed to get more out of it than that, I am surprised. The examples given originally try to clarify about where the line should be drawn (because no verbal description is possible?). My principle seems to follow those examples, though it is hard to know for sure without a blind test. Meanwhile, it's a line I can draw. In this case, it allowed me to make a quick decision which (so far) no one has challenged. I could easily see that 2Di promised 5 spades and 3Di did not. I guess I am saying that I found a line in the wilderness and it seems to be at about the right place. I would be happy to hear more about where the line should really be or why this line isn't right. From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Fri Aug 7 19:13:09 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 18:13:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20090807142104.6F178990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090807142104.6F178990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Wasn't me but Robert who wrote the words below This is me Mike > Mike: > > My rule of thumb is that if I can detect the >> difference in the bids, I don't allow it. > > ton: > > If this is what you really do your interpretation is not what we wanted > the > law to mean. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Aug 7 21:37:44 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 20:37:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <20090807142104.6F178990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <000001ca1796$8988d620$9c9a8260$@com> [RF] In this case, it allowed me to make a quick decision which (so far) no one has challenged. I could easily see that 2Di promised 5 spades and 3Di did not. [DALB] Ich bin dieser Niemand - ich leugne es gerade zu. (Lessing) As far as I can gather, the auction went 1C - Pass - 1S - Pass - 1NT - 2D - 2D. Now, the first 2D bid was a trifle strange from a hand that had passed over 1C, and no doubt the bidder of the second 2D was not expecting it, which is why she continued with her plan to bid 2D (New Minor Forcing). The question appears to be whether a correction to 3D is permitted under L27. Robert appears to say that if 2D were New Minor Forcing it would guarantee five spades, but I can see no earthly reason why it should. New Minor Forcing might very well be used on a strong balanced hand with four spades, particularly one that wanted to investigate a slam in a possible 4-4 club fit (in order to bid a forcing 3C, one must go via 2D). The holder of such a hand might very well want to bid 3D if she had noticed the 2D bid, and although there are hands that might have bid 2D NMF but would not want to bid 3D now, it is very difficult to say at once what hand types might fit that description. One could argue that the opening bidder would know when 2D was replaced by 3D that his partner did not have a penalty double of diamonds, whereas 2D NMF might well contain both length and strength in diamonds, and one could disallow the replacement under L27 on those grounds - but not on the grounds that Robert suggests. David Burn London, England From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Aug 8 10:58:29 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 10:58:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20090808085817.886F4990C0D6@relay2.webreus.nl> Wasn't me but Robert who wrote the words below This is me Mike > Mike: > > My rule of thumb is that if I can detect the >> difference in the bids, I don't allow it. > > ton: > > If this is what you really do your interpretation is not what we > wanted the law to mean. > ton: Hi Mike, Sorry, then 'you' is 'Robert' From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Sat Aug 8 12:08:10 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 11:08:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> --- On Fri, 7/8/09, David Burn wrote: From: David Burn Subject: Re: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Date: Friday, 7 August, 2009, 8:37 PM [RF] In this case, it allowed me to make a quick decision which (so far) no one has challenged. I could easily see that 2Di promised 5 spades and 3Di did not. [DALB] Ich bin dieser Niemand - ich leugne es gerade zu. (Lessing) As far as I can gather, the auction went 1C - Pass - 1S - Pass - 1NT - 2D - 2D. Now, the first 2D bid was a trifle strange from a hand that had passed over 1C, and no doubt the bidder of the second 2D was not expecting it, which is why she continued with her plan to bid 2D (New Minor Forcing). The question appears to be whether a correction to 3D is permitted under L27. Robert appears to say that if 2D were New Minor Forcing it would guarantee five spades, but I can see no earthly reason why it should. New Minor Forcing might very well be used on a strong balanced hand with four spades, particularly one that wanted to investigate a slam in a possible 4-4 club fit (in order to bid a forcing 3C, one must go via 2D). The holder of such a hand might very well want to bid 3D if she had noticed the 2D bid, and although there are hands that might have bid 2D NMF but would not want to bid 3D now, it is very difficult to say at once what hand types might fit that description. One could argue that the opening bidder would know when 2D was replaced by 3D that his partner did not have a penalty double of diamonds, whereas 2D NMF might well contain both length and strength in diamonds, and one could disallow the replacement under L27 on those grounds - but not on the grounds that Robert suggests. David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml David suggests that 3D might show less hands than 2D (ie not penalty double of Diamonds) surely this is ok - 3D is more precise Im not an expert on NMF so I'd have to ask the IBber some questions but as I understand it 2D does show much except a desire to continue the bidding and asks partner to tell something more - 3D after 2D seesm to fit the same sort of description and it is my inclination to allow 3D as a rectification call Robert's case is quite an interesting one because the IBber's intentions are probaly clear to all, The intention was to bid 2D and the overcall was not noticed I'd take the IBber away from the table. I ask a deliberately vague question like "What's going on? Why did you bid 2D? If IBber says "Didn't notice 2D. Thought I was bidding 2D NMF" I will explain that this means that 2D is artificial and explain that the IBber may make any sufficient call or Pass but Partner will be forced to pass for the remainder of the auction (and there may be Lead Penalties) UNLESS there is a call or calls which will have the same or more precise meaning than the 2D NMF call in which case if the IBber chooses that then there will be no further rectification and the auction will continue (all this of course after I have given RHO the benefit of an explanation and the right to accept the IB) I don't think it's the TD's job to tell the IBber what calls will be rectification calls, but I do say something like "Is there a call you could make now that would have the same or more precise meaning than your 2D NMF call." I thinkit's very important that the IBber knows they still have a choice they don't have to choose the rectification bid and RHO has to accept or cancel the IB without knowing what IBber is going to do. (eg in Robert's example I can imagine some hands where the IBber might just prefer to bid 3NT and not mess about with 3D) Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090808/14886891/attachment.html From cibor at poczta.fm Sat Aug 8 12:43:48 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 12:43:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> Message-ID: <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- >David suggests that 3D might show less hands than 2D If he does then he is wrong. >(ie not penalty double of Diamonds) surely this is ok - 3D is more precise No, it isn't. 1C - 1S 1NT (2D) - ? Axxxx Kx AQJx xx Over 1NT you would have bid 2D (NMF) but now over the 2D overcall you want to double 2D. Axxx KQJ xxx Axx 1C - 1S 1NT (2D) - ? Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you wouldn't have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of hands for both bids includes the other. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Szukasz pracy? Sprawd? nasze oferty! http://link.interia.pl/f22b8 From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 8 12:47:15 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 11:47:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> Message-ID: <004401ca1815$d6667860$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <004501ca1815$d68f0f00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? > > 2. When we say that "that interval is governed by both L16C1 > and L24" we should add that the basis for choosing one or the other > is the principle that the specific overrides the general. So the Director > must decide which of these applies specifically to the circumstances > with which he is dealing. I have taken the view that the more extended > list of conditions is in Law 24 and that if all of these are present then > Law 24 has priority over Law 16C; this opinion is a personal opinion > - see Law 81C2. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > It seems that eventually Grattan conquered his blindness in reading my > mails > which is a step in the right direction. > > It was already on my agenda for Sao Paulo before this thread commenced. > > ton < +=+ Perhaps failing to understand your statements. ~ G ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Aug 8 12:59:37 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 12:59:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Error in the Law book, Auction begins when? In-Reply-To: <004501ca1815$d68f0f00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <20090808105924.E2AE9990C0CE@relay2.webreus.nl> > I have taken the view that the more extended > list of conditions is in Law 24 and that if all of these are present then > Law 24 has priority over Law 16C; this opinion is a personal opinion > - see Law 81C2. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > It seems that eventually Grattan conquered his blindness in reading my > mails > which is a step in the right direction. > > It was already on my agenda for Sao Paulo before this thread commenced. > > ton < +=+ Perhaps failing to understand your statements. ~ G ~ +=+ ton: No problem, I am joining you in the conclusion that you failed to understand my statements From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 8 16:43:54 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 10:43:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20090807142104.6F178990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090807142104.6F178990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:21:05 -0400, ton wrote: > Mike: > > My rule of thumb is that if I can detect the >> difference in the bids, I don't allow it. > > ton: > > If this is what you really do your interpretation is not what we wanted > the > law to mean. Still searching for the line in the wilderness. Or probably it was already found. I think my method ('if I can't see the difference in meaning, it is close enough') fits with two sentences from the summary from Richard's original posting: "The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has the same basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already fully incorporated within, the original call. He does not need to delve into the multitude of potential subtle negative inferences that may be available." IN MY WORDS If I open 1C and partner bids 1H and the opponents ask what that means, I will say 4 or more hearts and 6 or more points. That is probably our verbal agreement (or, more precisely, the standard verbal description). That is *exactly* the same description as I would give for a negative double (when I open 1C, LHO bids 1S, and partner doubles), and the verbal agreements I am aware of are exactly the same. Is that be sufficient justification for me, as director, to allow the negative double as a nonbarring replacement for the insufficient 1 He? Meanwhile, in my example, the 2 Di as new minor forcing and the 3 Di cue bid would be explained differently to the opponents and have different verbal agreements. (2 Di is build to show a 5-card major and 3 Di does not.) Could that be justification for me, as director, to not allow the 3 Di replacement. A LOT MORE THEORETICAL After players have made verbal agreements, they are left with holes (hands that cannot follow the agreements) and overlaps (hands that can be bid more than one way). The holes and overlaps lead to a meaning of the bids within the system being slightly different from the agreed meanings. In the first case, there is an overlap that a player can bid either 1 Sp or 1 He if the player has more than four of both, and this is usually resolved by bidding 1 Sp with 5 spades and 4 hearts. So, technically, the 1 He response to 1 Sp also denies longer spades than hearts. I think the opps are entitled to that information, but I would not easily think to provide it and they usually wouldn't need it. This is what I think was meant by "subtle negative inferences". That means that there is a small discrepancy between the 1 He bid and the negative double. But we are asked to overlook that in applying L27B1(b). In the second example, it is nice to verify that the difference in description corresponds to an actual difference in bidding. David starts to add complexity, which I think needs to be considered to get the proper ruling. But as Konrad noted, there are hands with 4-card majors where you would bid 3 Di (asking) but not 2 Di (tending to show a 5-card major). To finish matching these up, I am replacing "basic meaning" with either "verbal agreements before resolving overlaps" or "how the bid would be explained to the opponents". From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sat Aug 8 17:51:02 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 16:51:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Minute improvement In-Reply-To: <20090807141548.1DA0D990C098@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090807141548.1DA0D990C098@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <8465A2DA707646989C3AE750A224DA40@NigelPC> [ton] I consider Nigel's remarks as important and constructive, a rare combination, not just restricted to blml. [nigel] shome mishtake surely? Thanks Ton! :) [ton] I will bring your request into our meeting(s) and would really like to know which laws can't be understood even with your help of interpretation. [nigel] Thanks again Ton. OK :) [A] Most players and directors only read the laws and regulations. A shallow trawl of BLML would catch many laws about which BLMLers disagree. But that is ducking Ton's question. What if ordinary players and directors were, somehow, made aware of official clarifications? [B] A *few* BLMLers seem unable to get to grips with the official interpretation of most laws. But that, too, is a cop-out because there are always people who cannot or will not bow to authority. [C] There still remain *some* laws where it is clear that *many* experienced BLMLers cannot understand the *official* interpretation. Examples are the laws about illegal calls (like insufficient bids and calls out of turn). There has been extensive official clarification from Max Bavin and Grattan Endicott. Nevertheless, BLMLers disagree about ... [1] How flexible the director should be in allowing replacement calls? [2] What agreements are allowed by either side that depend on options chosen? This is a real can of worms! Start with the simplest basic case: where the local legislature bans such agreements. Your LHO opens 4H out of turn. The director explains the options to your partner. Partner elects to double. Had the 4H bid not been out of turn, your agreement is that the double would have been for takeout. Are you allowed to use common sense to reassess that agreement, in these special circumstances? If not, would ordinary players understand? [D] Some say that the WBFLC have purposely left such such gray areas to director judgment. But that is a severe indictment of law-makers: it implies that law-makers unnecessarily and deliberately encourage inconsistent rulings by directors and a perception of unfairness by players. [E] So far, we have been talking about differences of interpretation by BLML legal *experts*. Obviously it is much harder for ordinary players to understand the law. Furthermore, some interpretations still present practical conceptual difficulties, even when understood. A recent instance: Grattan says information from opponent's wrong explanation is unauthorized to you, if the opponent subsequently corrects it. [i] But for you to lean over backwards, to choose an option not so suggested, would require a mental agility of which few are capable. [ii] This interpretation is also hard to understand because it is unfair: you would be better off if your opponent had not broken the law. [F] That all players understand the law and comply with it is an impossible dream. IMO, however, clearer and simpler rules would cause fewer nightmares. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 8 23:56:30 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:56:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <4A730766.2090503@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A730766.2090503@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A7DF48E.2070808@nhcc.net> >>> From: Sven Pran >>> Opponents' mannerisms are certainly AI to me... SW> I would have thought so too, but it isn't clear to me exactly which SW> Law in the 2007 book makes it so. > From: Matthias Berghaus > L73D1 and L16A1c L73D1 covers variations in tempo but not such things as posture, eye contact, gestures, remarks, etc. L16A1c just authorizes anything that's mentioned somewhere else. It looks very much as though the 2007 Laws have an important lacuna. From: Grattan > Some players thought they could understand it > to mean a single reaction or behavioural response to a > situation or an occurrence. But this is not a mannerism. > To be a mannerism the dictionary requires that it conform > to the constant pattern of the individual's response I don't find "mannerism" (of an opponent) authorized anywhere, but where the word is used, the context seems to me more consistent with "mannerism" meaning a single indication, not necessarily a habit. For example, L76B3 doesn't prohibit gestures unless they constitute "mannerisms." Does anyone think informative gestures by spectators are legal? From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 9 13:46:28 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 13:46:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <4A7DF48E.2070808@nhcc.net> References: <4A730766.2090503@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A7DF48E.2070808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000901ca18e7$095c8210$1c158630$@no> My general position is that any information I receive from what opponents do or doesn't do is authorized for me and my partner so long as it is not a consequence (whether direct or indirect) of an irregularity committed by my partner or me. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steve > Willner > Sent: 8. august 2009 23:57 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? > > >>> From: Sven Pran Opponents' mannerisms are > >>> certainly AI to me... > > SW> I would have thought so too, but it isn't clear to me exactly which > SW> Law in the 2007 book makes it so. > > > From: Matthias Berghaus > > L73D1 and L16A1c > > L73D1 covers variations in tempo but not such things as posture, eye contact, > gestures, remarks, etc. L16A1c just authorizes anything that's mentioned > somewhere else. > > It looks very much as though the 2007 Laws have an important lacuna. > > From: Grattan > > Some players thought they could understand it to mean a single > > reaction or behavioural response to a situation or an occurrence. But > > this is not a mannerism. > > To be a mannerism the dictionary requires that it conform to the > > constant pattern of the individual's response > > I don't find "mannerism" (of an opponent) authorized anywhere, but where the > word is used, the context seems to me more consistent with "mannerism" meaning > a single indication, not necessarily a habit. For example, L76B3 doesn't prohibit > gestures unless they constitute "mannerisms." Does anyone think informative > gestures by spectators are legal? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 9 14:45:51 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 08:45:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <000901ca18e7$095c8210$1c158630$@no> References: <4A730766.2090503@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A7DF48E.2070808@nhcc.net> <000901ca18e7$095c8210$1c158630$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 07:46:28 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > My general position is that any information I receive from what > opponents do > or doesn't do is authorized for me and my partner so long as it is not a > consequence (whether direct or indirect) of an irregularity committed by > my > partner or me. Hi Sven. That's an interesting position. What if... 1. You give a wrong explanation of partner's bid, that causes the opponents to look at your convention card, and their looking at the convention card causes you to wake up to the fact that you made a wrong bid? 2. You are playing in a team game, the boards were played at the other table, and your cards come sorted in the order that they were played. Can you use that information? It's just a technical detail, but you need the exception of seeing how the opponents arrange their cards. > > Regards Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of > Steve >> Willner >> Sent: 8. august 2009 23:57 >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? >> >> >>> From: Sven Pran Opponents' mannerisms are >> >>> certainly AI to me... >> >> SW> I would have thought so too, but it isn't clear to me exactly which >> SW> Law in the 2007 book makes it so. >> >> > From: Matthias Berghaus >> > L73D1 and L16A1c >> >> L73D1 covers variations in tempo but not such things as posture, eye > contact, >> gestures, remarks, etc. L16A1c just authorizes anything that's >> mentioned >> somewhere else. >> >> It looks very much as though the 2007 Laws have an important lacuna. >> >> From: Grattan >> > Some players thought they could understand it to mean a single >> > reaction or behavioural response to a situation or an occurrence. But >> > this is not a mannerism. >> > To be a mannerism the dictionary requires that it conform to the >> > constant pattern of the individual's response >> >> I don't find "mannerism" (of an opponent) authorized anywhere, but where > the >> word is used, the context seems to me more consistent with "mannerism" > meaning >> a single indication, not necessarily a habit. For example, L76B3 >> doesn't > prohibit >> gestures unless they constitute "mannerisms." Does anyone think > informative >> gestures by spectators are legal? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Sun Aug 9 15:38:19 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 15:38:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: References: <4A730766.2090503@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A7DF48E.2070808@nhcc.net> <000901ca18e7$095c8210$1c158630$@no> Message-ID: <000d01ca18f6$aa186f70$fe494e50$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 07:46:28 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > My general position is that any information I receive from what > > opponents do or doesn't do is authorized for me and my partner so long > > as it is not a consequence (whether direct or indirect) of an > > irregularity committed by my partner or me. > > Hi Sven. That's an interesting position. What if... > > > 1. You give a wrong explanation of partner's bid, that causes the opponents to > look at your convention card, and their looking at the convention card causes you > to wake up to the fact that you made a wrong bid? That would of course be information received from something opponents did as a consequence of me giving misinformation, i.e. an irregularity committed by me. > > 2. You are playing in a team game, the boards were played at the other table, and > your cards come sorted in the order that they were played. Can you use that > information? Yes, of course - at my own risk. As I never know why the cards were sorted I never chance using this "information" for any purpose. > > > It's just a technical detail, but you need the exception of seeing how the opponents > arrange their cards. Regards Sven From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Aug 9 20:59:51 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 11:59:51 -0700 Subject: [BLML] ACBL and the WBF References: <0816119575204CA3882C4C70A40320E4@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote: > > The rationale for the existence of the USBF is long since gone, > but > bureaucracies never die. Today there is no reason why > international > participation couldn't be handled just as effectively, if not more > so, by a standing committee of the ACBL, as it was before Olympic > ambition hysteria came and went, and no apparent reasom for the > USBF > to continue to exist. But it is a wholely separate organization, > with a wholely separate set of titles, powers and perqs for TPTB > to > distribute among themselves, and which they are understandably > loath > to give up, useful or not. SFIK, every one of the other National Bridge Organizations (102) controls all bridge activities within its boundaries, while also controlling the qualifying of contestants for extra-NBO competition. The USBF is the only NBO that has only the latter reponsibility. There is no great harm in having a USBF if it were to include the ACBL as its governing organization, as Damiani says it does. In fact, it seems like a good idea to have an internal organization so dedicated in an organization as large as the ACBL. I continually get the argument that the ACBL has its own Constitution and By-laws that say it has reponsibility for the Laws's content and interpretation in ACBL-land. That's true, but the WBF By-laws say otherwise. If the ACBL is a member of the WBF it should have to abide by the WBF By-laws. Dan Morse, WBFLC and ACBLLC member, archly informed me that the ACBL "has the license for the Laws" in its zone, didn't I know that?. I don't know where "license" comes from. The ACBL has authority only to "promulgate" the Laws in its zone, a word that carries no implication of authority over their essential content. Going back through the various editions of the ACBL editions of the Laws, I see none that fail to at least imply that the WBF is the sole authority for the Laws. For instance the 1975 ACBL edition includes this language in its Preface to the American Edition: "In 1971 the World Bridge Federation established a WBF Laws Commission. This is the first edition to carry the endorsement of that body, thus the first truly world-wide code. This American Edition is substantially identical to the new International Code; however, there is a considerable difference in form. The new format has necessitated occasional minor changes in wording, but in no instance is there a change of substance." The same approach was used in the 1987/1990 and the 1997/1999 American Editions of the Laws. Now we have a ACBL LC co-chair, who is also the vice-chair of WBF LC, saying that the WBF version of the Laws need only be used as a "guide" by the ACBL, which is the ultimate authority for the Laws in ACBL-land. With the USA well-represented on the WBFLC (8 out of 17 or 18) and the Drafting Committee (4 out of 8) for the 2007 Laws, it is very bad form for the ACBLLC to decide that it should write and interpret the Laws independently of those bodies. I wondered what the Canadians would think of all this, inasmuch as they are governed by the American Edition of the Laws. However, Canadian George Retek, vice-president of the WBF Executive Council, upheld the ACBLLC's position when I talked with him at the Washington DC NABC recently. Ditto for Al Levy, WBFLC member from the USA, with whom I also talked there.. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 9 18:31:33 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 17:31:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. Message-ID: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: Karl Popper (1902-1994): "No matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white." Max Bavin, May 2009: "The WBF Laws Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non-offending side has been damaged)." Lawful figleaf provided by these clauses of Laws 27B1(a) and (b): "...in the Director's opinion...". EBU Law and Ethics Committee, May 19th 2009: >We (the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee) have agreed to adopt this >approach. Herein are four examples of a more liberal policy in >operation, which I hope will help clarify the issue. > >i), ii) and iii) are ALLOWED. iv) is NOT ALLOWED. Richard Hills, August 10th 2009: i) is NOT ALLOWED. ii), iii) and iv) are ALLOWED. EBU Law and Ethics Committee, May 19th 2009: >i) West North East > 1C 1S 1H (not having seen the 1S overcall) > >1H without the overcall shows 5+ HCP and 4+ hearts. East has the >replacement bid of "double" available which also shows 5+ HCP and >4+ hearts, so superficially all is well. However, a hand with >(say) 4H & 5D would have responded 1D to 1C had there been no >overcall, but would double after the overcall. [snip] Richard Hills, August 10th 2009: A hand with five spades and four hearts would have responded 1S to 1C had there been no overcall, but would often double after the overcall. Since the distributional dissonances are of such high frequency, I rule that i) is Not Allowed a Law 27B1 replacement call, but instead a Law 27B2 replacement call applies. EBU Law and Ethics Committee, May 19th 2009: >iv) West North East > 2NT Pass 2C > >East thought that he was responding to 1NT (in which case 2C >would be Stayman). East has a replacement bid of 3C available >which is also Stayman. A liberal approach will allow this change. >However there are some hands which would use 3C Stayman which >wouldn't have used 2C Stayman. Because of the possible difference >in point ranges, the change IS NOT ALLOWED. Richard Hills, August 10th 2009: Firstly, there is not any minimum Milton Work point count required for the use of Stayman. If the responder to 1NT holds a complete yarborough with four spades, four hearts, four diamonds, and one club, then all the standard bidding textbooks recommend using Stayman with the intent to pass whatever rebid partner makes. Secondly, the argument of the majority of the EBU L&EC is presumably that some of the time Stayman in response to 1NT will be made with game-invitational values or better, so that the weighted probabilistic HCP expectation of Stayman in response to 1NT is greater than the weighted probabilistic HCP expectation of Stayman in response to 2NT. Points-schmoints, so what? If a tiny difference in potential distribution does not preclude a non- barring replacement call under Law 27B1(b) in cases ii) and iii), why should a tiny weighted probabilistic HCP expectation preclude a non-barring replacement call under Law 27B1(b) in this case iv)? Thirdly, "...in the Director's opinion..." should in my opinion take into account the Nature of the potential Law 27B1(b) non- barring replacement call. Stayman is technically a relay bid, seizing captaincy of the auction, so even if Insufficient Stayman provided significant UI to the 2NT opener, the opener would almost always be unable to use that hypothetical UI. Plus, still available as a safety net is Law 27D: "If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred." Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 10 01:43:12 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:43:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ABDA Bulletin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: The Bulletin of the Australian Bridge Directors Association is about to be revived, edited by Aussie National Director (and blml lurker) Laurie Kelso in conjunction with his wife Sue. I have just received the attached message sent by Sue Kelso to ABDA members requesting articles for the Bulletin. Note that non- Australians may join the ABDA. To do so, contact the ABDA Treasurer Michael Phillips at: mike at thephillips.com.au Whether or not a blmler joins the ABDA, instead of a blmler writing about Directing and the Laws merely for blml, that blmler may wish to write about Directing and the Laws for the ABDA Bulletin. Such articles should be sent to: Sue Kelso Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets * * * Laurie and I are about to launch another series of Bulletins for the ABDA and would like your input. I would like you to tell me what you are prepared to do for these bulletins, which will help less experienced directors than yourself and allow healthy debate about contentious issues. Please let me know if you will: (a) write an article, or (b) write a paragraph about a topic we supply to a number of directors for comment, or (c) suggest a topic you think ought to be covered, or (d) all three above. To make this new series work, we will need ongoing input from all experienced directors. I know that it will take some effort, but it will be appreciated by all the other directors around Australia and New Zealand. Regards Sue Kelso -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Aug 10 03:33:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:33:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936), Just-So Stories: "I am the cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me." Richard Hills: >>Politeness does not excuse illegality. One cannot describe the >>colour of the cat to the opponents when the residue of Law 20F5 >>still in force requires the opponents to temporarily continue to >>be colour-blind. Law 72B1 prohibits intentional infractions of >>Law, even if such an intentional infraction is designed to help >>the opponents. Herman De Wael: >My problem with that statement is that the opponents will ask about >the colour. Since both you and your partner (presumably) know that >colour, can you really hide behind L20F5(a) to keep it from them? Richard Hills: If Herman's presumption about partner now realising that she has incorrectly described the colour of the cat is true, then there is not any problem. Law 20F4 uses the word "immediately" in requiring pard to summon the Director. It is irrelevant that it is not pard's turn to call. Likewise it is irrelevant that UI prompted pard to invoke Law 20F4 (although pard's choice among logical alternatives is still restricted by Law 75A). Richard Hills: >>If there is a very trivial difference between "2NT has meaning (b)" >>and "2NT has meaning (y)", then our somnambulistic pard may not >>notice the UI, but would definitely notice the greater UI of the >>illegal statement "2NT has meaning (y) because my previous 2D bid >>had meaning (z)". Herman De Wael: >Richard, if the two meanings are so close together that you can hide >the misunderstanding by shading your explanation in such a way that >partner does not notice, then: >a) you are using DWS principles (by the shading) Richard Hills: In Aussie English, "shading" is not le mot juste for legally, fully and correctly explaining partner's call but also avoiding illegally explaining one's own prior call. As for Belgian English, I agree that the annulled De Wael School was shaded cat-grey in its interpretation of Law. Herman De Wael: >b) it is a case not like the one we are talking about, where the >explanation clearly shows the misunderstanding. > >So we should not be discussing. Richard Hills: Actually we should be discussing, since a significant part of my previous post was disputing the De Wael assertion that "2NT has meaning (y)" provides one-to-one identical UI compared to "2NT has meaning (y) because my previous 2D bid had meaning (z)". I argued that the second statement often provided greater UI, which was one reason to avoid it. Of course, the primary reason to avoid the second statement was that it was contrary to Law. Us LHO Pard RHO 4NT (1)Pass 5D ?(2) (1) 4NT you believe incorrectly described by pard as both minors. (2) 5D you believe correctly described by us as two aces. RHO now asks a supplementary question, "What does 4NT really mean?" Herman De Wael: >...simply say "2 aces", without adding "because 4NT was Blackwood", >but we shall stand ready, both us and partner, to add "apparently >4NT was Blackwood" when opponents ask why he's replying aces to a >minor ask. Richard Hills: Incorrect. Law 20F1 states that, "Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question", so you are still precluded from stating that the meaning of your own bid is Blackwood. Herman De Wael: >Anyway, the opponents will be informed that 4NT was Blackwood after >all. Richard Hills: Incorrect. Although you have the firm belief that pard has stuffed up the auction, pard may have the equally firm belief that you have stuffed up the auction. If so, pard's firm belief precludes pard using Law 20F4 and the resolution of the stuff-up will be delayed until the time specified in Law 20F5(b)(i) or Law 20F5(b)(ii). Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 10 05:46:52 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:46:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott incidentally notes: [snip] > Incidentally, someone here suggested that the definition >of 'bid' is in Law 18 but it should be noted that Law 18 does >not define the term as fully as do the Definitions.+=+ [snip] Law 18A, less full definition of "bid": "A bid designates a number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six), from one to seven, and a denomination. (Pass, double and redouble are calls but not bids.)" Definitions, more full definition of "bid": "Bid - an undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination." Someone Here quibbles: Que? How is the definition of "bid" in the Definitions more full than the definition of "bid" in Law 18A? The only trivial difference that I can see between the two definitions is "undertaking to win", in which case I am acting unLawfully whenever I elect a 4S preemptive overcall -- I am usually not "undertaking to win" 10 tricks, but rather acting on the belief that it is advantageous to score -300 declaring 4Sx instead of -620 defending 4H. Neither is Stayman an "undertaking to win" 8 tricks in clubs. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Mon Aug 10 12:13:38 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:13:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Clarification needed in Law 17D2? Message-ID: <000501ca19a3$3ac51a80$b04f4f80$@no> Following a situation at the Norwegian Bridge Festival I have become aware of an inaccurate translation for law 17D2 in the Norwegian version of the laws and subsequently of a point in this law that I believe needs some clarification: Law 17D2 says: After looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point. If offender's LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender's substituted call differs* from his cancelled call (offender's LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender's partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call. Literally the word "subsequently" in the last sentence refers to the moment when offender's LHO (in case) has called over the cancelled call. I have a strong feeling that the intention of WBFLC is that this part of the law shall apply whenever the offender's partner has called after the cancelled call and not only when offender's LHO has first called after the cancelled call. As Law 17D2 is written Law 29 seems to apply in the strange case when offender's partner calls (out of turn) after the offender's call without awaiting a call from offender's LHO, a consequence that I cannot believe has been intended. Another question for Sao Paulo? Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 10 12:16:20 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:16:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A7FF374.30400@skynet.be> Hello Richard. It seems that, yet again, Ozzie English and Belgian English are not on the same wavelength. I do not like to pull rank, but as a European, of course my English is the correct one. Let's see how far we disagree (apart from those things that we agree to disagree on) - not very much, actually. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936), Just-So Stories: > > "I am the cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me." > > Richard Hills: > >>> Politeness does not excuse illegality. One cannot describe the >>> colour of the cat to the opponents when the residue of Law 20F5 >>> still in force requires the opponents to temporarily continue to >>> be colour-blind. Law 72B1 prohibits intentional infractions of >>> Law, even if such an intentional infraction is designed to help >>> the opponents. > > Herman De Wael: > >> My problem with that statement is that the opponents will ask about >> the colour. Since both you and your partner (presumably) know that >> colour, can you really hide behind L20F5(a) to keep it from them? > > Richard Hills: > > If Herman's presumption about partner now realising that she has > incorrectly described the colour of the cat is true, then there is > not any problem. Please re-read my statement: Since both you and your partner (presumably) know that colour. That is a condition. Of course if the condition is not met, I have said nothing. So really there is no problem. OK? > Law 20F4 uses the word "immediately" in requiring > pard to summon the Director. It is irrelevant that it is not pard's > turn to call. Likewise it is irrelevant that UI prompted pard to > invoke Law 20F4 (although pard's choice among logical alternatives > is still restricted by Law 75A). > Yes, is that not what I actually said? > Richard Hills: > >>> If there is a very trivial difference between "2NT has meaning (b)" >>> and "2NT has meaning (y)", then our somnambulistic pard may not >>> notice the UI, but would definitely notice the greater UI of the >>> illegal statement "2NT has meaning (y) because my previous 2D bid >>> had meaning (z)". > > Herman De Wael: > >> Richard, if the two meanings are so close together that you can hide >> the misunderstanding by shading your explanation in such a way that >> partner does not notice, then: >> a) you are using DWS principles (by the shading) > > Richard Hills: > > In Aussie English, "shading" is not le mot juste for legally, fully > and correctly explaining partner's call but also avoiding illegally > explaining one's own prior call. I don't know what is "le mot juste" to describe a colour in a slightly different way. Shading seems like the mot juste to me. And again, note the word "If" in the sentence. IF you shade, you are useing DWS principles. I do not say that you would shade, nor did I say that that would be the right thing to do or the correct Ozzie word to describe it. > As for Belgian English, I agree > that the annulled De Wael School was shaded cat-grey in its > interpretation of Law. > Now go back to your prior sentence. Since you will not use the DWS principles, and you will not "shade" your explanation, then your explanation will be so accurate that it is impossible not to notice the discrepancy between the previous explanation and the correct one. What I was trying to say to you, Richard, was that it is impossible to act as you describe higher, except when using DWS principles. So either the difference is "very trivial", and then your very correct explanation will still wake up partner, or it is "totally non-existant" and then we are no longer in the case we are discussing. > Herman De Wael: > >> b) it is a case not like the one we are talking about, where the >> explanation clearly shows the misunderstanding. >> >> So we should not be discussing. > > Richard Hills: > > Actually we should be discussing, No we should not. If the meanings x and y are so close together that you cannot, even when using total disclosure and MS principles, distinguish between them, then there are no two meanings but only one. Then both you and I will explain the same thing and there will be no UI to partner. So there can be no discussion. > since a significant part of my > previous post was disputing the De Wael assertion that "2NT has > meaning (y)" provides one-to-one identical UI compared to "2NT has > meaning (y) because my previous 2D bid had meaning (z)". I argued > that the second statement often provided greater UI, which was one > reason to avoid it. Of course, the primary reason to avoid the > second statement was that it was contrary to Law. > Richard, if (x) and (y) are not the same, the explanation (y) WILL carry, to partner, even when he is asleep, some UI. The partner will never be able to prove to the director that he was asleep, or that he did not interpret the UI as meaning that his previous explanation was wrong; nor will he be able to satisfactorily prove that, knowing that his explanation was incorrect, he did not know realize what the right information then was. So, as far as the TD is concerned, the UI that he will credit partner with WILL be the complete one: both that his explanation was incorrect and what the correct explanation then is. Also, as far as the TD is concerned, the UI that partner now possesses is EI to opponents: they should also hear it. So, IMO, the statement: "that means (y)" is incomplete and should be accompanied, by either partner, by a statement explaining the meaning (a). And yes, this is against L20F5a. But so is the statement "that means (y)". > Us LHO Pard RHO > 4NT (1)Pass 5D ?(2) > > (1) 4NT you believe incorrectly described by pard as both minors. > (2) 5D you believe correctly described by us as two aces. RHO now > asks a supplementary question, "What does 4NT really mean?" > > Herman De Wael: > >> ...simply say "2 aces", without adding "because 4NT was Blackwood", >> but we shall stand ready, both us and partner, to add "apparently >> 4NT was Blackwood" when opponents ask why he's replying aces to a >> minor ask. > > Richard Hills: > > Incorrect. Law 20F1 states that, "Except on the instruction of the > Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who > made the call in question", so you are still precluded from stating > that the meaning of your own bid is Blackwood. > > Herman De Wael: > >> Anyway, the opponents will be informed that 4NT was Blackwood after >> all. > > Richard Hills: > > Incorrect. Although you have the firm belief that pard has stuffed > up the auction, pard may have the equally firm belief that you have > stuffed up the auction. If so, pard's firm belief precludes pard > using Law 20F4 and the resolution of the stuff-up will be delayed > until the time specified in Law 20F5(b)(i) or Law 20F5(b)(ii). > Yes, but in that case there was no MI in the first place, was there? > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 10 12:28:10 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:28:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] another strange one Message-ID: <4A7FF63A.30706@skynet.be> My partner passed. (in the middle of the auction) Then, for a long time, nothing happened. We ordered drinks. Then, my partner passed. That is a pass out of turn. According to L30B3, this is a change of call. L25 applies. L25B says that the replacement pass may be accepted, or that the original pass must stand. L16D applies. So, no problem. You see, the laws are not always inadequate. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 10 13:12:04 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:12:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] another strange one In-Reply-To: <4A7FF63A.30706@skynet.be> References: <4A7FF63A.30706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A800084.1060809@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > My partner passed. (in the middle of the auction) > Then, for a long time, nothing happened. We ordered drinks. > Then, my partner passed. > That is a pass out of turn. > According to L30B3, this is a change of call. L25 applies. > L25B says that the replacement pass may be accepted, or that the > original pass must stand. > L16D applies. > > So, no problem. > As a matter of fact, if a replacement call isn't accepted, there are severe limitations on partner's actions, so spplying the law as you say would cause some problems. But of course partner had been induced by the timing to think that he didn't already pass, so I'd rule that the error was induced by LHO's infraction to L74C7 (old) : no penalty, the new pass stands. Why do I have a strange feeling that we're nit-picking ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 10 16:03:59 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:03:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel In-Reply-To: <000001ca1796$8988d620$9c9a8260$@com> References: <20090807142104.6F178990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> <000001ca1796$8988d620$9c9a8260$@com> Message-ID: <5CCBDDD9-A04F-4A36-A30D-F6595D594784@starpower.net> On Aug 7, 2009, at 3:37 PM, David Burn wrote: > [RF] > > In this case, it allowed me to make a quick decision which (so far) > no one > has challenged. I could easily see that 2Di promised 5 spades and > 3Di did > not. Apparently L27B1(b) continues to give trouble to the best of us. > [DALB] > > Ich bin dieser Niemand - ich leugne es gerade zu. (Lessing) > > As far as I can gather, the auction went 1C - Pass - 1S - Pass - > 1NT - 2D - > 2D. > > Now, the first 2D bid was a trifle strange from a hand that had > passed over > 1C, and no doubt the bidder of the second 2D was not expecting it, > which is > why she continued with her plan to bid 2D (New Minor Forcing). The > question > appears to be whether a correction to 3D is permitted under L27. > > Robert appears to say that if 2D were New Minor Forcing it would > guarantee > five spades, but I can see no earthly reason why it should. New Minor > Forcing might very well be used on a strong balanced hand with four > spades, > particularly one that wanted to investigate a slam in a possible > 4-4 club > fit (in order to bid a forcing 3C, one must go via 2D). This appears correct. NMF, in its "standard" form, does not guarantee five spades. How this affects the L27B1(b) position on the 3D replacement call isn't clear; indeed, that's what this thread is about. And, of course, Bob's pair may have had a non-standard agreement in which 2D did promise five spades. > The holder of such a hand might very well want to bid 3D if she had > noticed > the 2D bid, and although there are hands that might have bid 2D NMF > but > would not want to bid 3D now, it is very difficult to say at once > what hand > types might fit that description. One could argue that the opening > bidder > would know when 2D was replaced by 3D that his partner did not have a > penalty double of diamonds, whereas 2D NMF might well contain both > length > and strength in diamonds, and one could disallow the replacement > under L27 > on those grounds - but not on the grounds that Robert suggests. This last, however, is wrong. That the 3D RC reveals the lack of a penalty double of diamonds makes it *more* precise than the 2D IB, which is the criterion for allowability. Remember: Fewer hand types equals more precise; more hand types equals less precise. What "poisons" an RC is for the IB to add information to what is revealed by the RC, not the other way around. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 10 16:20:23 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:20:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel In-Reply-To: <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> References: <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> Message-ID: <9548671E-FA9E-47E8-B1BD-0FDF53CECA1B@starpower.net> On Aug 8, 2009, at 6:08 AM, Mike Amos wrote: > David suggests that 3D might show less hands than 2D (ie not > penalty double of Diamonds) surely this is ok - 3D is more precise > > Im not an expert on NMF so I'd have to ask the IBber some questions > but as I understand it 2D does show much except a desire to > continue the bidding and asks partner to tell something more - 3D > after 2D seesm to fit the same sort of description and it is my > inclination to allow 3D as a rectification call > > Robert's case is quite an interesting one because the IBber's > intentions are probaly clear to all, The intention was to bid 2D > and the overcall was not noticed > > I'd take the IBber away from the table. I ask a deliberately vague > question like "What's going on? Why did you bid 2D? If IBber says > "Didn't notice 2D. Thought I was bidding 2D NMF" I will explain > that this means that 2D is artificial and explain that the IBber > may make any sufficient call or Pass but Partner will be forced to > pass for the remainder of the auction (and there may be Lead > Penalties) UNLESS there is a call or calls which will have the same > or more precise meaning than the 2D NMF call in which case if the > IBber chooses that then there will be no further rectification and > the auction will continue (all this of course after I have given > RHO the benefit of an explanation and the right to accept the IB) > > I don't think it's the TD's job to tell the IBber what calls will > be rectification calls, but I do say something like "Is there a > call you could make now that would have the same or more precise > meaning than your 2D NMF call." I thinkit's very important that > the IBber knows they still have a choice they don't have to choose > the rectification bid and RHO has to accept or cancel the IB > without knowing what IBber is going to do. (eg in Robert's example > I can imagine some hands where the IBber might just prefer to bid > 3NT and not mess about with 3D) This may be correct, but I find it troubling. ISTM that a player who is less than fully cognizant of the details of the IB rules (or any others, for that matter) should be able to question the TD along the lines of, "If I take action X, will it be considered an irregularity with resulting consequences?" It just doesn't seem right that the TD's job requires him to answer this with, in effect, "I'm not going to tell you; try it and find out." One might even argue (as I have in the past) that L10C1 ("the Director shall explain all the options available") entitles the player to be informed of the legal consequences of any potential action after an irregularity. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 10 16:41:44 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:41:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel In-Reply-To: <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> References: <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> On Aug 8, 2009, at 6:43 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > >> David suggests that 3D might show less hands than 2D > > If he does then he is wrong. > >> (ie not penalty double of Diamonds) surely this is ok - 3D is >> more precise > > No, it isn't. > > 1C - 1S > 1NT (2D) - ? > > Axxxx > Kx > AQJx > xx > > Over 1NT you would have bid 2D (NMF) but now over the 2D overcall > you want > to double 2D. If "now... you want to double 2D", go right ahead. We're talking about hands on which you want to bid 3D. if you don't want to bid 3D, who cares whether it would be without penalty? > Axxx > KQJ > xxx > Axx > > 1C - 1S > 1NT (2D) - ? > > Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you wouldn't > have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. But you already tried to bid 2D over 1NT, so you perforce do not hold a hand that "wouldn't have" done so. > 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of > hands for > both bids > includes the other. I really don't see how either of Konrad's examples are in any way relevant to the current discussion. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 10 17:00:35 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:00:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <4A7DF48E.2070808@nhcc.net> References: <4A730766.2090503@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A7DF48E.2070808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Aug 8, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >>>> From: Sven Pran >>>> Opponents' mannerisms are certainly AI to me... > > SW> I would have thought so too, but it isn't clear to me exactly > which > SW> Law in the 2007 book makes it so. > >> From: Matthias Berghaus >> L73D1 and L16A1c > > L73D1 covers variations in tempo but not such things as posture, eye > contact, gestures, remarks, etc. L16A1c just authorizes anything > that's > mentioned somewhere else. > > It looks very much as though the 2007 Laws have an important lacuna. > > From: Grattan >> Some players thought they could understand it >> to mean a single reaction or behavioural response to a >> situation or an occurrence. But this is not a mannerism. >> To be a mannerism the dictionary requires that it conform >> to the constant pattern of the individual's response > > I don't find "mannerism" (of an opponent) authorized anywhere, but > where > the word is used, the context seems to me more consistent with > "mannerism" meaning a single indication, not necessarily a habit. For > example, L76B3 doesn't prohibit gestures unless they constitute > "mannerisms." Does anyone think informative gestures by spectators > are > legal? Of course it must mean a single indication! Otherwise a player observing such a mannerism becomes responsible by law for knowing whether it is a "single reaction" or part of a "constant pattern" if he wishes to note it at all, subject to retroactively revealed constraints on his subsequent bidding (hence a potential score adjustment) if he guesses wrongly. The alternative is ludicrous. It would mean that if my opponent shows clear signs of distress at his partner's having bid too much, I must bend over backwards to avoid doubling unless I have no logical alternative, or unless I know that he regularly reacts inappropriately when his partner overbids! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 10 17:06:26 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:06:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: References: <4A730766.2090503@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A7DF48E.2070808@nhcc.net> <000901ca18e7$095c8210$1c158630$@no> Message-ID: <80A684E7-5D9A-4207-863B-6A24E3C6FE2D@starpower.net> On Aug 9, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 07:46:28 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > >> My general position is that any information I receive from what >> opponents do >> or doesn't do is authorized for me and my partner so long as it is >> not a >> consequence (whether direct or indirect) of an irregularity >> committed by >> my >> partner or me. > > Hi Sven. That's an interesting position. What if... > > 1. You give a wrong explanation of partner's bid, that causes the > opponents to look at your convention card, and their looking at the > convention card causes you to wake up to the fact that you made a > wrong > bid? "You give a wrong explanation of partner's bid" surely qualifies as "an irregularity committed by my partner or me", hence doesn't contradict Sven's position. > 2. You are playing in a team game, the boards were played at the other > table, and your cards come sorted in the order that they were > played. Can > you use that information? That information comes from the next table, not "from what opponents do or [don't] do", hence doesn't contradict Sven's position. > It's just a technical detail, but you need the exception of seeing > how the > opponents arrange their cards. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 10 17:08:38 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:08:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> References: <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> Axxx >> KQJ >> xxx >> Axx >> >> 1C - 1S >> 1NT (2D) - ? >> >> Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you wouldn't >> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. >> > > But you already tried to bid 2D over 1NT, so you perforce do not hold > a hand that "wouldn't have" done so. > > >> 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of >> hands for >> both bids >> includes the other. >> > > I really don't see how either of Konrad's examples are in any way > relevant to the current discussion. > AG : I don't see who's arguing in which direction, but the case is obvious. As that last example shows, some possible hands that bid 3D are excluded by the fact that you tried to bid 2D. Which shows that 3D isn't included in 2D. Partner knows more about 3D than he is allowed to know (you don't hold the example hand). Hence 3D shouldn't be allowed. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 10 17:19:32 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:19:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: References: <4A730766.2090503@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A7DF48E.2070808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4A803A84.4080002@ulb.ac.be> Steve Wilner a ?crit : >> >>> Some players thought they could understand it >>> to mean a single reaction or behavioural response to a >>> situation or an occurrence. But this is not a mannerism. >>> To be a mannerism the dictionary requires that it conform >>> to the constant pattern of the individual's response >>> Problem is, 'mannerism' seems to have two different meanings : - element of style (your interpretation) - specific action beyond the ordinary (most probably the interpretation of TFLB). Why can't it be the former ? Because you can't be asked to know how the player used to react before you met him. (Eric) > The alternative is ludicrous. It would mean that if my opponent > shows clear signs of distress at his partner's having bid too much, I > must bend over backwards to avoid doubling unless I have no logical > alternative. I see no reason to limit your actions because an opponent has reacted in such or such way, simple or complex or habitual. See L73D. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 10 17:21:52 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:21:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <80A684E7-5D9A-4207-863B-6A24E3C6FE2D@starpower.net> References: <4A730766.2090503@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A7DF48E.2070808@nhcc.net> <000901ca18e7$095c8210$1c158630$@no> <80A684E7-5D9A-4207-863B-6A24E3C6FE2D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A803B10.90909@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> 2. You are playing in a team game, the boards were played at the other >> table, and your cards come sorted in the order that they were >> played. Can >> you use that information? >> > > That information comes from the next table, not "from what opponents > do or [don't] do", hence doesn't contradict Sven's position. > > AG : unless strange things happened, the player that held your cards at the other table is onre of your opponents. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 10 17:38:01 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:38:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net> On Aug 9, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Grattan wrote: > Grattan - 21st September 2007. > Concerning the definitions > I have formed the following opinions: > > I agree that anything clearly defined in a law should not have the > definition repeated in the Definitions. The Index points to it. > > Where the 1997 Laws had 'Chief Director' we have opted for > 'Director in charge' and this is self-explanatory. > > The view of 'auction' is fine. We have settled the 'Auction > Period' to include the areas that were left as no-man's-lands > in the 1997 Laws. This tightens the laws and needs no further > definition. > > There is no requirement to include 'offence' in the Definitions. > > One point is unclear to me. The word 'deliberate' is in the > definition. I need convincing that what is in the draft > is inadequate. However, in place of 'deliberate' more > precise (and better English style) would be 'purposeful'. > > Being synonymous neither 'retract' nor 'withdraw' call for > definition in themselves. There is a need to say that a > 'cancelled' action is a withdrawn action for the application > of the laws since this is not synonymous with the foregoing. > > I think 'revoke' is well enough defined in the laws (and > includes some situations not clearly included in the draft > definition). The Index suffices. > > Any attempt to define 'similar' would be a false step. What > is 'similar' should be resolved by jurisprudence and RA > advice. > > We do not need to define 'Tournament Committee'. And > anyway, is the term now anywhere used in the laws? > > The idea of adding 'Bid' to the definition has my support. > I think this should read: "Bid - An undertaking to win at > least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of > six) in a contract of the specified denomination." > And take it away from Law 18. > > Re 'Convention' - I think the statement in the Law now > suffices since 'Conventions' are a subset of 'Special > Partnership Understandings' and the mention is no more > than a safety net for regulations that continue to refer to > them. Under the new code RA's are in a position to clarify > any such reference. > > 'Correction Period': remove from the Definitions. Rely > on the Index. The inclusion of this in the 'Auction Period', > as distinct from the Auction is a major advance. > > 'Proof': the Index suffices under the revision agreed. > 'Play Period' needs to extend until the board ceases > to be 'live'. If, for any reason, the board can be rolled > back, the 'Play Period' has not ended. I do think that > the point should perhaps be when all four players > have removed their cards from the slots on the > subsequent board - or it could be a player of each > side. (I do not want quick removal by one side to > terminate another side's rights.) > > Rotation - the mention in the definitions does not > link to the specific mention of consecutiveness in > the laws where it occurs. Actions may be consecutive > but not in rotation. This is a point that needs to be > understood. > > In the dictionary 'Involuntary'/'involuntarily' > precisely match our desired meaning where the > laws refer to unintended actions. > > For 'action' see draft Law 16D. This disgusts me. Remove, remove, remove. Anything that would be removed, especially in Definitions, makes the lawbook that much harder to navigate for any reader not already closely familiar with it. Even -- no, makes that "especially" -- if the information is redundant to something written elsewhere but not as readily located. Our lawwriters should be looking for ways to add verbiage that would enhance the utility of the written law, not ways to remove useful stuff from it. TFLB serves primarily as a technical manual for TDs and others who would adjudicate the game, and any decent technical writer will tell you that appropriate, informative redundancy is a must for clarity, not something to be avoided or expunged. If, as Grattan has suggested, the point of this nonsense is to avoid contradictions creeping in to words that should be merely redundant, I have a suggestion for the committee: Get a decent editor. It is unconscionable to justify such elisions, as Grattan does above, by explaining how this will make the job easier on the writers, with no regard for the consequences to its readers. Tables of contents, definitions listings, headings and the like should be written and edited carefully with the objective of helping the reader understand the contents, not eliminated just so that no one need bother taking a bit of care with them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 10 18:42:45 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:42:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> References: <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >>> Axxx >>> KQJ >>> xxx >>> Axx >>> >>> 1C - 1S >>> 1NT (2D) - ? >>> >>> Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you wouldn't >>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. >> >> But you already tried to bid 2D over 1NT, so you perforce do not hold >> a hand that "wouldn't have" done so. >> >>> 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of >>> hands for >>> both bids >>> includes the other. >> >> I really don't see how either of Konrad's examples are in any way >> relevant to the current discussion. > > AG : I don't see who's arguing in which direction, but the case is > obvious. > > As that last example shows, some possible hands that bid 3D are > excluded > by the fact that you tried to bid 2D. > Which shows that 3D isn't included in 2D. > Partner knows more about 3D than he is allowed to know (you don't hold > the example hand). > Hence 3D shouldn't be allowed. I still don't get it. What we are given above includes "the fact that you tried to bid 2D" over 1NT *and* the fact that "you wouldn't have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised...". Am I really the only one who sees those "facts" as self-contradictory? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 10 19:03:55 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:03:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Landau" Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 10:38 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. > On Aug 9, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Grattan wrote: > >> Grattan - 21st September 2007. >> Concerning the definitions >> For 'action' see draft Law 16D. > > This disgusts me. Remove, remove, remove. Anything that would be > removed, especially in Definitions, makes the lawbook that much > harder to navigate for any reader not already closely familiar with > it. Even -- no, makes that "especially" -- if the information is > redundant to something written elsewhere but not as readily located. > Our lawwriters should be looking for ways to add verbiage that would > enhance the utility of the written law, not ways to remove useful > stuff from it. TFLB serves primarily as a technical manual for TDs > and others who would adjudicate the game, and any decent technical > writer will tell you that appropriate, informative redundancy is a > must for clarity, not something to be avoided or expunged. > > If, as Grattan has suggested, the point of this nonsense is to avoid > contradictions creeping in to words that should be merely redundant, > I have a suggestion for the committee: Get a decent editor. > > It is unconscionable to justify such elisions, as Grattan does above, > by explaining how this will make the job easier on the writers, with > no regard for the consequences to its readers. Tables of contents, > definitions listings, headings and the like should be written and > edited carefully with the objective of helping the reader understand > the contents, not eliminated just so that no one need bother taking a > bit of care with them. Eric, I'm not sure if the lack of tempering of your response has masked your vision a bit. Good editing goes far in making certain of consistency, avoiding contradictions and redundancies. But good editing accomplishes little without first having the right answers to the right questions. For certain, when jargon is scattered amongst numerous passages a great amount is accomplished by putting its definition in a central place. and when it is desired to define a jargon within a passage then the former can best be accomplished by putting an entry in the central place accompanied by "see L13F2a1" regards roger pewick > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Mon Aug 10 20:26:56 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:26:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> References: <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > >>> Axxx > >>> KQJ > >>> xxx > >>> Axx > >>> > >>> 1C - 1S > >>> 1NT (2D) - ? > >>> > >>> Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you wouldn't > >>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. > >> > >> But you already tried to bid 2D over 1NT, so you perforce do not hold > >> a hand that "wouldn't have" done so. > >> > >>> 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of > >>> hands for > >>> both bids > >>> includes the other. > >> > >> I really don't see how either of Konrad's examples are in any way > >> relevant to the current discussion. > > > > AG : I don't see who's arguing in which direction, but the case is > > obvious. > > > > As that last example shows, some possible hands that bid 3D are > > excluded > > by the fact that you tried to bid 2D. > > Which shows that 3D isn't included in 2D. > > Partner knows more about 3D than he is allowed to know (you don't hold > > the example hand). > > Hence 3D shouldn't be allowed. > > I still don't get it. What we are given above includes "the fact > that you tried to bid 2D" over 1NT *and* the fact that "you wouldn't > have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised...". Am I really the > only one who sees those "facts" as self-contradictory? Eric, the point is that the set of hands that would choose the substitute bid in the actual auction must be a subset of the hands shown by the insufficient bid. Thomas Plantschen oder Grog? Der Arcor-Wetterdienst weiss Bescheid! Wassertemperaturen f?r den Urlaub jetzt checken: www.arcor.de/rd/wetter_wasser From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Aug 10 21:39:31 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:39:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC> [Eric Landau] This disgusts me. Remove, remove, remove. Anything that would be removed, especially in Definitions, makes the law book that much harder to navigate for any reader not already closely familiar with it. Even -- no, makes that "especially" -- if the information is redundant to something written elsewhere but not as readily located. Our law writers should be looking for ways to add verbiage that would enhance the utility of the written law, not ways to remove useful stuff from it. TFLB serves primarily as a technical manual for TDs and others who would adjudicate the game, and any decent technical writer will tell you that appropriate, informative redundancy is a must for clarity, not something to be avoided or expunged. If, as Grattan has suggested, the point of this nonsense is to avoid contradictions creeping in to words that should be merely redundant, I have a suggestion for the committee: Get a decent editor. It is unconscionable to justify such elisions, as Grattan does above, by explaining how this will make the job easier on the writers, with no regard for the consequences to its readers. Tables of contents, definitions listings, headings and the like should be written and edited carefully with the objective of helping the reader understand the contents, not eliminated just so that no one need bother taking a bit of care with them. [Nigel] IMO: Grattan correctly states that the *primary* qualities of a rule-book are accuracy and unambiguity; but Eric Landau is right that ease of understanding and application are close in importance; moreover, with a decade before the next TFLB edition and the hard work of a skilled committee, these aims may not be mutually exclusive. Eric says "TFLB serves primarily as a technical manual for TDs...". I hope that most BLMLers agree with my hope that, in future, TFLB can be made simple enough for ordinary players to understand it and to comply with it. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 10 22:23:07 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:23:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F1323@starpower.net> On Aug 10, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> >>>>> Axxx >>>>> KQJ >>>>> xxx >>>>> Axx >>>>> >>>>> 1C - 1S >>>>> 1NT (2D) - ? >>>>> >>>>> Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you >>>>> wouldn't >>>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. >>>> >>>> But you already tried to bid 2D over 1NT, so you perforce do not >>>> hold >>>> a hand that "wouldn't have" done so. >>>> >>>>> 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of >>>>> hands for >>>>> both bids >>>>> includes the other. >>>> >>>> I really don't see how either of Konrad's examples are in any way >>>> relevant to the current discussion. >>> >>> AG : I don't see who's arguing in which direction, but the case is >>> obvious. >>> >>> As that last example shows, some possible hands that bid 3D are >>> excluded >>> by the fact that you tried to bid 2D. >>> Which shows that 3D isn't included in 2D. >>> Partner knows more about 3D than he is allowed to know (you don't >>> hold >>> the example hand). >>> Hence 3D shouldn't be allowed. >> >> I still don't get it. What we are given above includes "the fact >> that you tried to bid 2D" over 1NT *and* the fact that "you wouldn't >> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised...". Am I really the >> only one who sees those "facts" as self-contradictory? > > Eric, the point is that the set of hands that would choose the > substitute bid in the actual auction must be a subset of > the hands shown by the insufficient bid. But, but... what insufficient bid? What replacement call? The example reads, "you wouldn't have bid 2D over 1NT -- you would have raised to 3NT" (which seems right). So if you thought, incorrectly or not, that you were bidding over 1NT, you wouldn't have bid 2D -- you would have raised to 3NT -- and you wouldn't have an IB in need of an RC. The example says explicitly that you would have bid 3NT on 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-P-?, so it follows absolutely that you would have bid 3NT on 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-2D-? if you misheard the 2D bid as a pass, doesn't it? Last I heard, 3NT is not an IB over 2D. What are we talking about? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From wrgptfan at gmail.com Mon Aug 10 22:17:24 2009 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:17:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> References: <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6D328316-7A2F-45FF-A4EB-0260A5A0AC98@gmail.com> Sent from my iPhone On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:42, Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >>>> Axxx >>>> KQJ >>>> xxx >>>> Axx >>>> >>>> 1C - 1S >>>> 1NT (2D) - ? >>>> >>>> Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you >>>> wouldn't >>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. >>> >>> But you already tried to bid 2D over 1NT, so you perforce do not >>> hold >>> a hand that "wouldn't have" done so. >>> >>>> 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of >>>> hands for >>>> both bids >>>> includes the other. >>> >>> I really don't see how either of Konrad's examples are in any way >>> relevant to the current discussion. >> >> AG : I don't see who's arguing in which direction, but the case is >> obvious. >> >> As that last example shows, some possible hands that bid 3D are >> excluded >> by the fact that you tried to bid 2D. >> Which shows that 3D isn't included in 2D. >> Partner knows more about 3D than he is allowed to know (you don't >> hold >> the example hand). >> Hence 3D shouldn't be allowed. > > I still don't get it. What we are given above includes "the fact > that you tried to bid 2D" over 1NT *and* the fact that "you wouldn't > have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised...". Am I really the > only one who sees those "facts" as self-contradictory? > > No. I had the same reaction. > 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 ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 10 22:28:05 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:28:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net> <5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC> Message-ID: <0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net> On Aug 10, 2009, at 3:39 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Eric says "TFLB serves primarily as a technical manual for TDs...". > I hope > that most BLMLers agree with my hope that, in future, TFLB can be made > simple enough for ordinary players to understand it and to comply > with it. Well, making it simple enough for ordinary game directors and appeals committee members to understand it and to comply with it would be a pretty good start in the right direction. Which is why I may get a bit exercised at the suggestion that the drafting committee are working in quite the opposite one. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 10 22:31:19 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:31:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F1323@starpower.net> References: <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F1323@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:23:07 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 10, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>>> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>>> >>>>>> Axxx >>>>>> KQJ >>>>>> xxx >>>>>> Axx >>>>>> >>>>>> 1C - 1S >>>>>> 1NT (2D) - ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you >>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. >>>>> >>>>> But you already tried to bid 2D over 1NT, so you perforce do not >>>>> hold >>>>> a hand that "wouldn't have" done so. >>>>> >>>>>> 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of >>>>>> hands for >>>>>> both bids >>>>>> includes the other. >>>>> >>>>> I really don't see how either of Konrad's examples are in any way >>>>> relevant to the current discussion. >>>> >>>> AG : I don't see who's arguing in which direction, but the case is >>>> obvious. >>>> >>>> As that last example shows, some possible hands that bid 3D are >>>> excluded >>>> by the fact that you tried to bid 2D. >>>> Which shows that 3D isn't included in 2D. >>>> Partner knows more about 3D than he is allowed to know (you don't >>>> hold >>>> the example hand). >>>> Hence 3D shouldn't be allowed. >>> >>> I still don't get it. What we are given above includes "the fact >>> that you tried to bid 2D" over 1NT *and* the fact that "you wouldn't >>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised...". Am I really the >>> only one who sees those "facts" as self-contradictory? >> >> Eric, the point is that the set of hands that would choose the >> substitute bid in the actual auction must be a subset of >> the hands shown by the insufficient bid. > > But, but... what insufficient bid? What replacement call? The > example reads, "you wouldn't have bid 2D over 1NT -- you would have > raised to 3NT" (which seems right). So if you thought, incorrectly > or not, that you were bidding over 1NT, you wouldn't have bid 2D -- > you would have raised to 3NT -- and you wouldn't have an IB in need > of an RC. The example says explicitly that you would have bid 3NT on > 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-P-?, so it follows absolutely that you would have bid > 3NT on 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-2D-? if you misheard the 2D bid as a pass, > doesn't it? Last I heard, 3NT is not an IB over 2D. What are we > talking about? The auction was 1C P 1S P 1NT 2D 2D If you let the player correct to 3D, the 2D insufficient bid contains information -- the player probably has 5 spades (or they are misusing the convention or are interested in slam). It contains information because the set of hands you would bid 3D with includes hands that you would not bid 2D with. Primarily, this is 4 spades and no diamond stopper. The law does not allow corrections if the meaning of 3D is not the same or more precise than the meaning of 2D. Here, NMF is used to check for a 5-3 major suit fit (though the responses allow other things to happen). From blml at arcor.de Mon Aug 10 22:38:12 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:38:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F1323@starpower.net> References: <52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F1323@starpower.net> <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1988015.1249936692720.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 10, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> > >>> Eric Landau a ?crit : > >>> > >>>>> Axxx > >>>>> KQJ > >>>>> xxx > >>>>> Axx > >>>>> > >>>>> 1C - 1S > >>>>> 1NT (2D) - ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you > >>>>> wouldn't > >>>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. > >>>> > >>>> But you already tried to bid 2D over 1NT, so you perforce do not > >>>> hold > >>>> a hand that "wouldn't have" done so. > >>>> > >>>>> 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of > >>>>> hands for > >>>>> both bids > >>>>> includes the other. > >>>> > >>>> I really don't see how either of Konrad's examples are in any way > >>>> relevant to the current discussion. > >>> > >>> AG : I don't see who's arguing in which direction, but the case is > >>> obvious. > >>> > >>> As that last example shows, some possible hands that bid 3D are > >>> excluded > >>> by the fact that you tried to bid 2D. > >>> Which shows that 3D isn't included in 2D. > >>> Partner knows more about 3D than he is allowed to know (you don't > >>> hold > >>> the example hand). > >>> Hence 3D shouldn't be allowed. > >> > >> I still don't get it. What we are given above includes "the fact > >> that you tried to bid 2D" over 1NT *and* the fact that "you wouldn't > >> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised...". Am I really the > >> only one who sees those "facts" as self-contradictory? > > > > Eric, the point is that the set of hands that would choose the > > substitute bid in the actual auction must be a subset of > > the hands shown by the insufficient bid. > > But, but... what insufficient bid? What replacement call? The > example reads, "you wouldn't have bid 2D over 1NT -- you would have > raised to 3NT" (which seems right). So if you thought, incorrectly > or not, that you were bidding over 1NT, you wouldn't have bid 2D -- > you would have raised to 3NT -- and you wouldn't have an IB in need > of an RC. The example says explicitly that you would have bid 3NT on > 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-P-?, so it follows absolutely that you would have bid > 3NT on 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-2D-? if you misheard the 2D bid as a pass, > doesn't it? Last I heard, 3NT is not an IB over 2D. What are we > talking about? We are talking about an insuffient 2D bid being replaced with 3D. The example hand Axxx,KQJ,xxx,Axx would bid 3D in the auction 1C pass 1S pass 1NT 2D ??? It would NOT bid 2D NMF in this auction 1C pass 1S pass 1NT pass ??? but would bid 3NT instead. Thus if somebody bids 1C pass 1S pass 1NT 2D 2D <--- IB here, intended as NMF and then replaces the 2D IB with 3D, the exception from L27A1(b) "has the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning* does not apply, as the 3D bid contains hands like the above that would have bid 3NT rather than 2D NMF. Thomas Plantschen oder Grog? Der Arcor-Wetterdienst weiss Bescheid! Wassertemperaturen f?r den Urlaub jetzt checken: www.arcor.de/rd/wetter_wasser From bobpark at consolidated.net Mon Aug 10 23:33:26 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:33:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A809226.407@consolidated.net> Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> >>> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> >>> >>>>> Axxx >>>>> KQJ >>>>> xxx >>>>> Axx >>>>> >>>>> 1C - 1S >>>>> 1NT (2D) - ? >>>>> >>>>> Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you wouldn't >>>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. >>>>> >>>> But you already tried to bid 2D over 1NT, so you perforce do not hold >>>> a hand that "wouldn't have" done so. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of >>>>> hands for >>>>> both bids >>>>> includes the other. >>>>> >>>> I really don't see how either of Konrad's examples are in any way >>>> relevant to the current discussion. >>>> >>> AG : I don't see who's arguing in which direction, but the case is >>> obvious. >>> >>> As that last example shows, some possible hands that bid 3D are >>> excluded >>> by the fact that you tried to bid 2D. >>> Which shows that 3D isn't included in 2D. >>> Partner knows more about 3D than he is allowed to know (you don't hold >>> the example hand). >>> Hence 3D shouldn't be allowed. >>> >> I still don't get it. What we are given above includes "the fact >> that you tried to bid 2D" over 1NT *and* the fact that "you wouldn't >> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised...". Am I really the >> only one who sees those "facts" as self-contradictory? >> > > Eric, the point is that the set of hands that would choose the > substitute bid in the actual auction must be a subset of > the hands shown by the insufficient bid. > It seems strange to me that the laws should allow an insufficient bidder to gain advantage by substituting a call that adds precision to the the meaning of his insufficient action. So I presume that if by ruling out some hand(s), his new call helps get his side to a good spot, the directors among us would find a way to adjust the result? Would NOS amateurs know that they should call the director here after play is completed? If not, perhaps the old laws were better here. At least people seemed to understand them. And less that fully skilled directors seemed to do OK. --Bob Park > > Thomas > > Plantschen oder Grog? Der Arcor-Wetterdienst weiss Bescheid! > Wassertemperaturen f?r den Urlaub jetzt checken: www.arcor.de/rd/wetter_wasser > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090810/71d097c1/attachment.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Aug 10 23:34:10 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:34:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <1988015.1249936692720.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F1323@starpower.net> <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <1988015.1249936692720.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <000301ca1a02$4d110be0$e73323a0$@com> [TD] We are talking about an insufficient 2D bid being replaced with 3D. The example hand Axxx KQJ xxx Axx would bid 3D in the auction 1C pass 1S pass 1NT 2D ??? It would NOT bid 2D NMF in this auction 1C pass 1S pass 1NT pass ??? but would bid 3NT instead. Thus if somebody bids 1C pass 1S pass 1NT 2D 2D <--- IB here, intended as NMF and then replaces the 2D IB with 3D, the exception from L27A1(b) "has the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning* does not apply, as the 3D bid contains hands like the above that would have bid 3NT rather than 2D NMF. [DALB] I think Eric's contention is that this does not matter, because such a hand would not bid 2D by mistake if its owner had not seen the 2D bid; instead, it would bid 3NT. Thus, one would not bid 2D "intended as NMF" in this auction with that hand. Of course, one might bid 2D over 2D thinking that this asked for a diamond guard (quite an economical way to play). The question then arises: should the TD determine in front of everyone whether the player was bidding 2D to ask for a guard, or whether she was bidding 2D NMF, or whether there was some other reason she bid 2D? Or should the TD merely ask her "do you now have a 3D bid in your methods that would be made only on [some subset of] hands that would bid 2D in your methods if your RHO had passed?" Or should the TD not even do that, instead reading the Law and inviting the player to choose an action without informing her of the repercussions thereof? David Burn London, England From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Aug 11 00:19:07 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:19:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper References: <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be><2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <4A809226.407@consolidated.net> Message-ID: >It seems strange to me that the laws should allow an insufficient bidder >to gain advantage by substituting a call that adds precision to the the >meaning of his insufficient action. What advantage? If you substitute an insufficient call by a call that contains a subset of hands of the insufficient call then you are _exactly_ in the same position as if you made that second call in the first place. The insufficient bid didn't give your side any additional information. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Szukasz pracy? Sprawd? nasze oferty! http://link.interia.pl/f22b8 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 11 00:34:16 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:34:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A7FF374.30400@skynet.be> Message-ID: Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997), bridge player and Chinese Emperor: "It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." Us LHO Pard RHO 4NT (1)Pass 5D ?(2) (1) 4NT you believe incorrectly described by pard as both minors. (2) 5D you believe correctly described by us as two aces. RHO now asks a supplementary question, "What does 4NT really mean?" [snip] Herman De Wael: >>>Anyway, the opponents will be informed that 4NT was Blackwood >>>after all. Richard Hills: >>Incorrect. Although you have the firm belief that pard has >>stuffed up the auction, pard may have the equally firm belief >>that you have stuffed up the auction. If so, pard's firm belief >>precludes pard using Law 20F4 and the resolution of the stuff-up >>will be delayed until the time specified in Law 20F5(b)(i) or Law >>20F5(b)(ii). Herman De Wael: >Yes, but in that case there was no MI in the first place, was >there? Richard Hills: Incorrect. If both partners have a firm belief that they have given a correct explanation, this does not necessarily correspond to a reality where each and every partner has avoided giving MI. In this scenario it is 99% certain that at least one partner has given MI. Only in the 1% case where, by mutual pre-existing partnership agreement, one's partnership has the strange understanding that 4NT shows both minors, and that a 5D response shows two aces, has no MI been given. Of course, it is also possible that both partners have given MI. For example, the true explanation of 4NT and 5D could be, "We have neither an explicit nor implicit pre-existing mutual partnership agreement." Another example could be that 4NT is indeed Blackwood by mutual pre-existing partnership agreement (not both minors, as erroneously explained by pard), but the same mutual pre-existing partnership agreement defines 5D as showing one ace (not two aces, as erroneously explained by us). What's the problem? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 bobpark at consolidated.net Tue Aug 11 00:40:19 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:40:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: References: <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be><2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <4A809226.407@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <4A80A1D3.6070703@consolidated.net> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> It seems strange to me that the laws should allow an insufficient bidder >> to gain advantage by substituting a call that adds precision to the the >> meaning of his insufficient action. >> > > What advantage? If you substitute an insufficient call by a call > that contains a subset of hands of the insufficient call > then you are _exactly_ in the same position as if you made that > second call in the first place. The insufficient bid didn't give your > side any additional information. > So...if the substituted call is a more precise call than the insufficient bid, why didn't you make it in the first place? Surely some information has been added here. --Bob Park > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Szukasz pracy? Sprawd? nasze oferty! > http://link.interia.pl/f22b8 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090810/ef0a33af/attachment.html From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Aug 11 00:59:25 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:59:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper References: <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be><2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <4A809226.407@consolidated.net> <4A80A1D3.6070703@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <0006FA0C5D3D42F9ACCB5E1809B0D5B2@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Park To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:40 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper Konrad Ciborowski wrote: It seems strange to me that the laws should allow an insufficient bidder to gain advantage by substituting a call that adds precision to the the meaning of his insufficient action. What advantage? If you substitute an insufficient call by a call that contains a subset of hands of the insufficient call then you are _exactly_ in the same position as if you made that second call in the first place. The insufficient bid didn't give your side any additional information. >So...if the substituted call is a more precise call than the insufficient >bid, why didn't you make it in the first place? It doesn't matter why. What does matter is whether when you subsitute the insufficient call for a legal one there is any UI created by it or not. >Surely some information has been added here. No, it hasn't. Let's say that there are two identical sequences. At my table my partner first bids X (insufficient call) which can contain hands A, B or C and then replaces it with Y (same as at the other table) that can contain hands only A or B. So I know my partner can have A or B. At the other table the guy with my partner's hands bids Y directly (which can contain hands A or B). So at the end of the day I know that partner can have A or B. The guy with my cards at the other table knows his partner can hold hands A or B. There is no advantage. OK, my pair wasn't punished by the insufficient bid but, true, but there is no advantage. OTOH if the sitiation were reversed and the new call contained a bigger set of hands then you would gain an advantage. Say my partner bids X (insufficeint) which can contain hands A or B and then subsitutes it for Y which can contain A, B or C. Now I have additional information that for his Y call my partner has hands A or B only. At the other table where Y is bid directly the man with my cards has to consider his partner having A, B or C. It the new call is _less specific_ then the original call then the insufficient bid provides extra information, not the other way round. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Szukasz pracy? Sprawd? nasze oferty! http://link.interia.pl/f22b8 From taigabridge at hotmail.com Tue Aug 11 01:09:56 2009 From: taigabridge at hotmail.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:09:56 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I must say that Grattan's posting was most informative as to how we got into the state we are in now. While it is true that Eric Landau's comments might have been worded more politely... his sentiments are right on the mark. There are quite a few of us who feel that the 2007 revision did more damage to the law book than a lifetime's worth of Edgar Kaplan's oblique phrasings ever did. It may well be part of why we are seeing the renewed assertions about the ACBLLC not being subservient to the WBFLC. (That and the assault on our beloved L12C2.) This quote from Grattan gets right to the nub of it: > anything clearly defined in a law should not have the > definition repeated in the Definitions. The Index points to it. To me, the obvious policy would have been "anything clearly defined in a law must also appear in the definitions, with an identical definition given." Presumably this same misguided principle is wher the !@#$%^ idea of not having a table of contents came from. I am very thankful the ACBL printing ignored that particular piece of advice. GRB _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009 From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 11 01:16:20 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:16:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <006f01ca1a10$9562cec0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. >> If, as Grattan has suggested, the point of this nonsense is to avoid > contradictions creeping in to words that should be merely redundant, > I have a suggestion for the committee: Get a decent editor. > > It is unconscionable to justify such elisions, as Grattan does above, > +=+ 1. I do not seek to justify, merely to inform. 2. The comment above that is tosh. Any editor would still be responsive to the consensual decisions of the drafting committee. If the committee decides that a slim list of definitions is what they want that is what you will get. The problem is not with ensuring the definition reflects the intention of the law; but rather an anxiety syndrome arising through not wishing to be exposed to the flailing of 'Disgusted' from Silver Spring. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 11 01:33:53 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:33:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. References: Message-ID: <008301ca1a13$085c7be0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. I must say that Grattan's posting was most informative as to how we got into the state we are in now. While it is true that Eric Landau's comments might have been worded more politely... his sentiments are right on the mark. There are quite a few of us who feel that the 2007 revision did more damage to the law book than a lifetime's worth of Edgar Kaplan's oblique phrasings ever did. It may well be part of why we are seeing the renewed assertions about the ACBLLC not being subservient to the WBFLC. (That and the assault on our beloved L12C2.) This quote from Grattan gets right to the nub of it: > anything clearly defined in a law should not have the > definition repeated in the Definitions. The Index points to it. To me, the obvious policy would have been "anything clearly defined in a law must also appear in the definitions, with an identical definition given." Presumably this same misguided principle is where the !@#$%^ idea of not having a table of contents came from. I am very thankful the ACBL printing ignored that particular piece of advice. GRB +=+ Those who have read attentively will have understood that a list of such proportions was put on the table and then pruned by the committee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 11 02:29:17 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:29:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Drafting Committee consensus: >>...anything clearly defined in a law should not have the >>definition repeated in the Definitions. The Index points to it. Gordon Bower asserted: >To me, the obvious policy would have been "anything clearly >defined in a law must also appear in the definitions, with an >identical definition given." Richard Hills quibbles: Must??? I think that Gordon over-eggs his pudding. The phrase "logical alternative(s)" appears only in Law 16, and is defined in Law 16. Repeating the definition of "logical alternative" in the Definitions is totally unnecessary, since a Director will not stumble across "logical alternative" unless the Director is considering a Law 16 ruling. And yes, the Index points to the Law 16B1(b) definition of "logical alternative". Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Tue Aug 11 07:04:45 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:04:45 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC> <0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> Eric says "TFLB serves primarily as a technical manual for >> TDs...". >> I hope >> that most BLMLers agree with my hope that, in future, TFLB can be >> made >> simple enough for ordinary players to understand it and to comply >> with it. [Eric] > > Well, making it simple enough for ordinary game directors and > appeals > committee members to understand it and to comply with it would be > a > pretty good start in the right direction. Larry R. Harris, with the help of Technical Advisor Gary S. Zeiger (high-level ACBL TD) has made a good effort in that direction. The title is Laws of Duplicate Bridge Through the Eyes of the Player, published by Baron Barclay Bridge Supply www.baronbarclay.com. $12.95 It is very well-formatted, with funny cartoons, helpful sidebars, a few flow charts, and other good things. I was disappointed, however, in seeing that it constitutes not only a rule book for players, but also for TDs. There is no need for players to know what the TD is supposed to do to "rectify" an irregularity. Someone makes an insufficient bid? Define that and then end with an instruction to call the TD instead of devoting two large pages to this complicated subject. There are some rulings included that are questionable, IMO. An Alert Matrix is included, taking up four large pages. It's better than the ACBL version, that's all I will say as I haven't studied it. The book ends with three great sections: (1) A self-appraisal quiz on the contents of the book (2) "Wacky Wordies"--73 graphics expressing 73 common bridge terms as visual puzzles. For instance "ton" alone in a box is what? A simpleton? No, a singleton. Lotsa fun (3) Full-page descriptions of nine unattractive TDs and one good one: Commentator (who talks too much); Rottentater (scuzzy); Dictator (mean know-it-all); Potentater (self-important ); Hesitater (do-nothing); Cheapskater (obvious from the name); Spectator (incompetent); Agitator (big mouth); Imitator (hates rectifying); and Facilitator (the ideal TD) Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Aug 11 08:00:09 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:00:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <008301ca1a13$085c7be0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <008301ca1a13$085c7be0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A8108E9.3030405@t-online.de> Grattan schrieb: > > > +=+ Those who have read attentively will have understood > that a list of such proportions was put on the table and then > pruned by the committee. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > It seems to me that the committee would have done well to regard the needs of the club TD, who does not know the lawbook by heart and who has to look for the passage he needs. It is all very well that EBL and WBF and ABA and whatever directorss do not need a table of contents. Those directors are spread somewhat thin. There was much criticism in Germany for leaving the table of contents out, in fact such a table was produced by players in a format compatible with the size of our lawbook, so it can be put in easily. I do not need a table of contents (the index is nice, though), but that makes me and a handful others the exceptions hereabouts. 98% of club TDs have no idea where the law they need is located if the case is more complex than a revoke or a LOOT. A table of contents helps to find things you need ( as does an index). Maybe it would be nice if it were an requirement for LC members to teach TD courses at different (and especially at lower) levels, to get themselves aquainted with the state of things outside the World Championship playing area. The world is not exactly filled to the brim with Max Bavins, Kojaks and the like. Wish that it were, but the day-to-day club TD is far from approaching that level, his needs are completely different from theirs. Best regards Matthias From blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 11 08:22:34 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:22:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <000301ca1a02$4d110be0$e73323a0$@com> References: <000301ca1a02$4d110be0$e73323a0$@com> <52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F1323@starpower.net> <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <1988015.1249936692720.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <23493998.1249971754236.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> David Burn > [TD] > > We are talking about an insufficient 2D bid being replaced with 3D. The > example hand Axxx KQJ xxx Axx would bid 3D in the auction > > 1C pass 1S pass > 1NT 2D ??? > > It would NOT bid 2D NMF in this auction > > 1C pass 1S pass > 1NT pass ??? > > but would bid 3NT instead. > > Thus if somebody bids > > 1C pass 1S pass > 1NT 2D 2D <--- IB here, intended as NMF > > and then replaces the 2D IB with 3D, the exception from L27A1(b) "has the > same meaning as, or a more precise meaning* does not apply, as the 3D bid > contains hands like the above that would have bid 3NT rather than 2D NMF. > > [DALB] > > I think Eric's contention is that this does not matter, because such a hand > would not bid 2D by mistake if its owner had not seen the 2D bid; instead, > it would bid 3NT. Thus, one would not bid 2D "intended as NMF" in this > auction with that hand. It does matter, because by bidding 2D (insufficient) substituted by 3D the 3D bid denies hands with exactly four spades and no D stopper, whereas 3D bid without the 2D insufficient bid does not deny such hands. The Law does not allow such an "insufficient bid coup" in the excemption from L27A1(b). Thomas Plantschen oder Grog? Der Arcor-Wetterdienst weiss Bescheid! Wassertemperaturen f?r den Urlaub jetzt checken: www.arcor.de/rd/wetter_wasser From blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 11 08:35:36 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:35:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <4A8108E9.3030405@t-online.de> References: <4A8108E9.3030405@t-online.de> <008301ca1a13$085c7be0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <1362697.1249972536746.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Grattan schrieb: > > > > > > +=+ Those who have read attentively will have understood > > that a list of such proportions was put on the table and then > > pruned by the committee. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > It seems to me that the committee would have done well to regard the > needs of the club TD, who does not know the lawbook by heart and who has > to look for the passage he needs. It is all very well that EBL and WBF > and ABA and whatever directorss do not need a table of contents. Those > directors are spread somewhat thin. There was much criticism in Germany > for leaving the table of contents out, in fact such a table was produced > by players in a format compatible with the size of our lawbook, so it > can be put in easily. > > I do not need a table of contents (the index is nice, though), but that > makes me and a handful others the exceptions hereabouts. 98% of club TDs > have no idea where the law they need is located if the case is more > complex than a revoke or a LOOT. A table of contents helps to find > things you need ( as does an index). > > Maybe it would be nice if it were an requirement for LC members to teach > TD courses at different (and especially at lower) levels, to get > themselves aquainted with the state of things outside the World > Championship playing area. The world is not exactly filled to the brim > with Max Bavins, Kojaks and the like. Wish that it were, but the > day-to-day club TD is far from approaching that level, his needs are > completely different from theirs. TDs at the club level frequently are not paid semi-professionals. They are volunteers from the local players, they once in a while assume the role of the TD so that the club can play at all, resp. does not have to charge large fees for playing. Thomas Plantschen oder Grog? Der Arcor-Wetterdienst weiss Bescheid! Wassertemperaturen f?r den Urlaub jetzt checken: www.arcor.de/rd/wetter_wasser From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 11 08:36:19 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:36:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Julian Huxley (1887-1975): "Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." The names of the Director and Appeals Committee are suppressed to protect the guilty. Swiss matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: North-South West North East South --- --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S Pass 4S X (3) Pass 4NT Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 (2) Spades and another suit (3) Break in tempo Result: 4NT by West, 6 tricks, +200 NS / -200 EW The places of the 52 cards are suppressed to protect the guilty. Director's Cheshire Cat adjustment: 50% of 5Hx East-West, +800 NS / -800 EW 50% of 4S North-South, +420 NS / -420 EW Appeals Committee's Cheshire Cat adjustment: 50% of 4NT East-West, +200 NS / -200 EW 50% of 4S North-South, +420 NS / -420 EW What is wrong with these smiles of Cheshire Cats? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Tue Aug 11 09:24:31 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:24:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/8/11 : > Julian Huxley (1887-1975): > > "Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but > the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." > > The names of the Director and Appeals Committee are suppressed > to protect the guilty. > > Swiss matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > West ? ? ?North ? ? East ? ? ?South > --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? Pass ? ? ?Pass > 1NT(1) ? ?2D (2) ? ?2H ? ? ? ?3S > Pass ? ? ?4S ? ? ? ?X (3) ? ? Pass > 4NT ? ? ? Pass ? ? ?Pass ? ? ?Pass > > (1) 12-14 > (2) Spades and another suit > (3) Break in tempo > > Result: 4NT by West, 6 tricks, +200 NS / -200 EW > > The places of the 52 cards are suppressed to protect the guilty. > > Director's Cheshire Cat adjustment: > > 50% of 5Hx East-West, ?+800 NS / -800 EW > 50% of 4S North-South, +420 NS / -420 EW > > Appeals Committee's Cheshire Cat adjustment: > > 50% of 4NT East-West, ?+200 NS / -200 EW > 50% of 4S North-South, +420 NS / -420 EW > > What is wrong with these smiles of Cheshire Cats? > > I've got a problem understanding why there's no +590s NS in the weighting. Maybe there was a logical reasoning behind the decisions, or, more probably, Richard has omitted an important part of the story.... -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > Best wishes > > R.J.B. 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 jkljkl at gmx.de Tue Aug 11 09:28:44 2009 From: jkljkl at gmx.de (Stefan Filonardi) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:28:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <4A8108E9.3030405@t-online.de> References: <008301ca1a13$085c7be0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A8108E9.3030405@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A811DAC.1040007@gmx.de> Hello, Matthias Berghaus schrieb: > Maybe it would be nice if it were an requirement for LC members > to teach TD courses at different (and especially at lower) > levels, to get themselves aquainted with the state of things > outside the World Championship playing area. The world is not > exactly filled to the brim with Max Bavins, Kojaks and the like. > Wish that it were, but the day-to-day club TD is far from > approaching that level, his needs are completely different from > theirs. I can imagine that some of them do. For instance Maurizio Di Sacco does answer a lot of questions on the homepage of the figb. So surely many of them will say "I am in touch with low level TDs". (Which does not have to translate automatically to: taken into consideration redacting the laws) But I ask myself if they are equally aware of the state of things outside of their national federation? All members of the WBFLC come from 5 federations that are miles and miles and miles ahead when it comes to how they form and support their TDs. No wonder that we got that selfmade blinder: "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them." With best regards, stefan filonardi germany PS here the members of the WBFLC Chairman Ton KOOIJMAN Netherlands Vice Chairman Chip MARTEL U.S.A. Secretary Grattan ENDICOTT England Members Max BAVIN England Claude DADOUN France David DAVENPORT England Maurizio DI SACCO Italy Joan Levy GERARD U.S.A. Bertrand GIGNOUX France Amalya KEARS U.S.A. Jim KIRKHAM U.S.A. Alvin LEVY U.S.A. Jeanne van den MEIRACKER Netherlands Dan MORSE U.S.A. Jaime ORTIZ-PATINO England Jeffrey POLISNER U.S.A. William J.(Kojak) SCHODER U.S.A. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 11 10:32:37 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:32:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997), bridge player and Chinese Emperor: > > "It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it > catches mice." > > Us LHO Pard RHO > 4NT (1)Pass 5D ?(2) > > (1) 4NT you believe incorrectly described by pard as both minors. > (2) 5D you believe correctly described by us as two aces. RHO now > asks a supplementary question, "What does 4NT really mean?" > > [snip] > > Herman De Wael: > >>>> Anyway, the opponents will be informed that 4NT was Blackwood >>>> after all. > > Richard Hills: > >>> Incorrect. No Richard, correct. >>> Although you have the firm belief that pard has >>> stuffed up the auction, pard may have the equally firm belief >>> that you have stuffed up the auction. If so, pard's firm belief >>> precludes pard using Law 20F4 and the resolution of the stuff-up >>> will be delayed until the time specified in Law 20F5(b)(i) or Law >>> 20F5(b)(ii). > > Herman De Wael: > >> Yes, but in that case there was no MI in the first place, was >> there? > > Richard Hills: > > Incorrect. No Richard, correct. 4NT was explained as "minors". The bidder meant it as Blackwood. 5Di was made on a hand containing diamonds, and an unknown number of aces. When 5Di is explained as "1 ace", the opponents know that 4NT was intended as Blackwood. This is of course quite evident, but I agree that this is only because of the simplicity of this particular case. I believe the knowledge is global, even. My reason for believing this is that the first misexplainer will hear the second explanation, and will be deemed to be able to conclude what the correct first explanation should have been. I don't see Richard complaining about that conclusion. It is a simple following of the UI laws. Now the problem is whether the correct first explanation should be told to the opponents as well. I believe it should, and I cited as proof for this the fact that incorrect explainer now knows/should know the correct explanation, and he should tell the opponents this. Richard retorts by saying that maybe the incorrect explainer believes his first explanation to be the correct one. Now, there are two possibilities: either, he is wrong, and in that case my proof stands; or, he is right, and the TD accepts that he is right. In that case, the original explanation was the right one, and opponents are not entitled (never were) to the wrong explanation. But that is not the DWS case. > If both partners have a firm belief that they have > given a correct explanation, this does not necessarily correspond > to a reality where each and every partner has avoided giving MI. > > In this scenario it is 99% certain that at least one partner has > given MI. Only in the 1% case where, by mutual pre-existing > partnership agreement, one's partnership has the strange > understanding that 4NT shows both minors, and that a 5D response > shows two aces, has no MI been given. > That is not a 1% case - that is a 0% case. > Of course, it is also possible that both partners have given MI. > > For example, the true explanation of 4NT and 5D could be, "We have > neither an explicit nor implicit pre-existing mutual partnership > agreement." > Or it might be Josephine. > Another example could be that 4NT is indeed Blackwood by mutual > pre-existing partnership agreement (not both minors, as erroneously > explained by pard), but the same mutual pre-existing partnership > agreement defines 5D as showing one ace (not two aces, as > erroneously explained by us). > > What's the problem? > none that I have not seen for ten years already! > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Herman. workstation 1. Herman's firm. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 11 10:56:52 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:56:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> References: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A813254.5000208@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > My reason for believing this is that the first misexplainer will hear > the second explanation, and will be deemed to be able to conclude what > the correct first explanation should have been. I don't see Richard > complaining about that conclusion. It is a simple following of the UI laws. > AG : perhaps he will be able to understand what happened, but this is a very specific case. Usually, it won't be the case. 1C* p 1D** p 1H*** * alerted and explained : includes all 18-20 NT hands as well as normal 1C openings ** alerted and eexplained as possibly a weak relay *** alerted as possibly 3 cards in a 12-14 NT type, because 1NT would show 18-20 From this, it is difficult to know (or guess) that 1D in fact showed 4 hearts (T-Walsh) ; the ensuing meaning of 1H is coherent with both interpretations of 1D. Notice that the explanation conforms to the 'Polish' explanation of 1D, and therefore constitutes use of dWS principles. The right explanation would have been that 1H shows 3 cards more often than 4. And this is a simple case. Here is another, less classical one, from my own pet system. 1D* 1H** 1S# 2C# 2NT## * either natural or a very strong hand ** possibily a weak relay ; else natural # not alerted ## explained as 16-17 How on Earth can you guess that 2NT means 16-17 because our '4th suit' is /inter alia/ used for sub-limit raises in diamonds (the '2? diamonds' hand) ? From the (erroneous) non-alert, you would deduce that 2C was natural and weak, explaining why 2NT is a strong bid. When ruling, or suggesting new rules, or suggesting new interpretations of rules, you have to take as basis a medium-difficulty auction, not the one and only one which will enable guessing, and see whether your suggestions still works. I don't say it doesn't ; I'm only suggesting that your methodology is biased. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 11 11:02:29 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:02:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is this an error in Law 17D2? In-Reply-To: <000501ca19a3$3ac51a80$b04f4f80$@no> References: <000501ca19a3$3ac51a80$b04f4f80$@no> Message-ID: <000601ca1a62$7483eac0$5d8bc040$@no> Law 17D2 says: After looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point. If offender's LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender's substituted call differs* from his cancelled call (offender's LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender's partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call. How shall we handle the curious situation if (for whatever reason) offender's partner makes a subsequent call without awaiting a call from offender's LHO? Literally the second part of Law 17D2 (beginning with the words: "If offender's LHO has called over the cancelled call") does not apply unless offender's LHO has called. Furthermore my (limited) understanding of the English language tells me that the last six words in L17D2 (beginning with the words: "subsequently called") mean "subsequently to the call made by offender's LHO over the cancelled call". Is it the intention that we shall apply Law 29 on partner's call out of turn? (And if so: HOW?) My belief is that the second part of Law 17D2 should be rewritten, or at least clarified (in Sao Paulo?) so that partner's call subsequent to the cancelled call should have the same effect whether or not offender's LHO has first called over the cancelled call. Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 11 10:38:00 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:38:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002101ca1a63$45f29250$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Drafting Committee consensus: > >>>...anything clearly defined in a law should not have the >>>definition repeated in the Definitions. The Index points to it. > > Gordon Bower asserted: > >>To me, the obvious policy would have been "anything clearly >>defined in a law must also appear in the definitions, with an >>identical definition given." > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Must??? I think that Gordon over-eggs his pudding. > > The phrase "logical alternative(s)" appears only in Law 16, and > is defined in Law 16. Repeating the definition of "logical > alternative" in the Definitions is totally unnecessary, since a > Director will not stumble across "logical alternative" unless the > Director is considering a Law 16 ruling. > > And yes, the Index points to the Law 16B1(b) definition of > "logical alternative". > +=+ Yes Richard, it is the opinion of some on here that the Definitions should comprise a comprehensive list in which the definitions in the laws are repeated. That opinion did not prevail in the committee, two reasons being expressed against it - (a) risk of slight deviation and consequent confusion (not a serious risk in my opinion), and (b) experience that Directors, for whom the laws are primarily written (see Law 81C2) tend to go direct to the relevant law and sometimes overlook any information in the definitions. I think that debate is inconsequential eight years in advance of the next review. The committee may produce some interpretations year by year, but revised text of a law is extremely unlikely. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 11 10:44:10 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:44:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. References: <008301ca1a13$085c7be0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A8108E9.3030405@t-online.de> Message-ID: <002201ca1a63$461b28f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. >>>> > Maybe it would be nice if it were an requirement for LC members to teach > TD courses at different (and especially at lower) levels, to get > themselves aquainted with the state of things outside the World > Championship playing area. The world is not exactly filled to the brim > with Max Bavins, Kojaks and the like. Wish that it were, but the > day-to-day club TD is far from approaching that level, his needs are > completely different from theirs. > > Best regards > Matthias > +=+ EBL seminars are designed to prepare those who will guide other TDs in their NBO. The process should filter guidance down through the various levels of Directors. I assume that other Zones have similar processes tailored to their particular circumstances. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 11 10:55:01 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:55:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002301ca1a63$46439880$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > 2009/8/11 : >> Julian Huxley (1887-1975): >> >> "Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but >> the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." >> >> The names of the Director and Appeals Committee are suppressed >> to protect the guilty. >> >> Swiss matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: East >> Vul: North-South >> >> West North East South >> --- --- Pass Pass >> 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S >> Pass 4S X (3) Pass >> 4NT Pass Pass Pass >> >> (1) 12-14 >> (2) Spades and another suit >> (3) Break in tempo >> >> Result: 4NT by West, 6 tricks, +200 NS / -200 EW >> >> The places of the 52 cards are suppressed to protect the guilty. >> >> Director's Cheshire Cat adjustment: >> >> 50% of 5Hx East-West, +800 NS / -800 EW >> 50% of 4S North-South, +420 NS / -420 EW >> >> Appeals Committee's Cheshire Cat adjustment: >> >> 50% of 4NT East-West, +200 NS / -200 EW >> 50% of 4S North-South, +420 NS / -420 EW >> >> What is wrong with these smiles of Cheshire Cats? >> >> > I've got a problem understanding why there's no +590s NS in the weighting. > Maybe there was a logical reasoning behind the decisions, or, more > probably, Richard has omitted an important part of the story.... > +=+ What surprises me more is that if the logical alternative (Pass) is substituted for 4NT the result is 100% of 4SX. IMO there are no grounds for weighting. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 11 11:06:05 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:06:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. References: <008301ca1a13$085c7be0$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A8108E9.3030405@t-online.de> <4A811DAC.1040007@gmx.de> Message-ID: <002401ca1a63$466e7910$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. > Hello, > > Matthias Berghaus schrieb: > >> Maybe it would be nice if it were an requirement for LC members >> to teach TD courses at different (and especially at lower) >> levels, to get themselves aquainted with the state of things >> outside the World Championship playing area. The world is not >> exactly filled to the brim with Max Bavins, Kojaks and the like. >> Wish that it were, but the day-to-day club TD is far from >> approaching that level, his needs are completely different from >> theirs. > > I can imagine that some of them do. For instance Maurizio Di Sacco > does answer a lot of questions on the homepage of the figb. > So surely many of them will say "I am in touch with low level TDs". > (Which does not have to translate automatically to: taken into > consideration redacting the laws) > But I ask myself if they are equally aware of the state of things > outside of their national federation? > > All members of the WBFLC come from 5 federations that are miles and > miles and miles ahead when it comes to how they form and support > their TDs. > > No wonder that we got that selfmade blinder: > "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise > and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new > Code by the increased responsibilities given to them." > > With best regards, > stefan filonardi > germany > > > > PS > here the members of the WBFLC > > Chairman Ton KOOIJMAN Netherlands > Vice Chairman Chip MARTEL U.S.A. > Secretary Grattan ENDICOTT England > > Members Max BAVIN England > Claude DADOUN France > David DAVENPORT England > Maurizio DI SACCO Italy > Joan Levy GERARD U.S.A. > Bertrand GIGNOUX France > Amalya KEARS U.S.A. > Jim KIRKHAM U.S.A. > Alvin LEVY U.S.A. > Jeanne van den MEIRACKER Netherlands > Dan MORSE U.S.A. > Jaime ORTIZ-PATINO England > Jeffrey POLISNER U.S.A. > William J.(Kojak) SCHODER U.S.A. > _______________________________________________ > +=+ At least five of the above read what is written on blml. Several of them particpate in Zonal and other seminars on the laws. Both ton and I receive privately requests from all round the world for help in understanding the application of laws. Frankly I think you underestimate the amount of communication we have with followers of the game and NBOs at large. n.b. Amalya Kearse is a Judge of the US Courts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 11 11:33:22 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:33:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A813254.5000208@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> <4A813254.5000208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A813AE2.2010506@skynet.be> Alain gives an example I had also already thought of, when I thought of explaining better what I wanted to say to Richard in some other post. This is what I mean "shading" the colour of the cat. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> My reason for believing this is that the first misexplainer will hear >> the second explanation, and will be deemed to be able to conclude what >> the correct first explanation should have been. I don't see Richard >> complaining about that conclusion. It is a simple following of the UI laws. >> > AG : perhaps he will be able to understand what happened, but this is a > very specific case. Usually, it won't be the case. > > 1C* p 1D** p > 1H*** > > * alerted and explained : includes all 18-20 NT hands as well as normal > 1C openings > ** alerted and eexplained as possibly a weak relay > *** alerted as possibly 3 cards in a 12-14 NT type, because 1NT would > show 18-20 > > From this, it is difficult to know (or guess) that 1D in fact showed 4 > hearts (T-Walsh) ; the ensuing meaning of 1H is coherent with both > interpretations of 1D. The reason why it is difficult to guess that 1D showed hearts is because the explanation of 1H was incomplete. Under MS guidelines, a full explanation should include "3-card heart support". Without the word "support" it is indeed impossible to guess that 1D showed 4 hearts. What this explainer is doing is "shading" his explanation so that it conforms to what has been previously told. IOW, a "consistent" explanation, IOW, DWS principles. Now what we were talking about, Richard and I, were firm MS explanations, and whether or not they showed the nature and the existence of the misunderstanding. As such, this example of Alain's is unhelpful. > Notice that the explanation conforms to the 'Polish' explanation of 1D, > and therefore constitutes use of dWS principles. The right explanation > would have been that 1H shows 3 cards more often than 4. > exactly! > And this is a simple case. > Here is another, less classical one, from my own pet system. > > 1D* 1H** > 1S# 2C# > 2NT## > > * either natural or a very strong hand > ** possibily a weak relay ; else natural > # not alerted > ## explained as 16-17 > > How on Earth can you guess that 2NT means 16-17 because our '4th suit' > is /inter alia/ used for sub-limit raises in diamonds (the '2? diamonds' > hand) ? > From the (erroneous) non-alert, you would deduce that 2C was natural > and weak, explaining why 2NT is a strong bid. > > > When ruling, or suggesting new rules, or suggesting new interpretations > of rules, you have to take as basis a medium-difficulty auction, not the > one and only one which will enable guessing, and see whether your > suggestions still works. I don't say it doesn't ; I'm only suggesting > that your methodology is biased. > I agree with that last bit. However, I cannot prove an absolute statement. I can only issue it, and hope someone comes up with a counter-example. Until then, allow me to use simple examples to show what I am trying to prove, so that you can find counter-examples. But make the counter-examples correct, and in the same circumstances as we're actually discussing, which was, MS with complete disclosure. > Best regards > > > Alain > _______________________________________________ Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 11 12:50:12 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:50:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A813AE2.2010506@skynet.be> References: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> <4A813254.5000208@ulb.ac.be> <4A813AE2.2010506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A814CE4.2030500@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> AG : perhaps he will be able to understand what happened, but this is a >> very specific case. Usually, it won't be the case. >> >> 1C* p 1D** p >> 1H*** >> >> * alerted and explained : includes all 18-20 NT hands as well as normal >> 1C openings >> ** alerted and eexplained as possibly a weak relay >> *** alerted as possibly 3 cards in a 12-14 NT type, because 1NT would >> show 18-20 >> >> From this, it is difficult to know (or guess) that 1D in fact showed 4 >> hearts (T-Walsh) ; the ensuing meaning of 1H is coherent with both >> interpretations of 1D. >> > > The reason why it is difficult to guess that 1D showed hearts is because > the explanation of 1H was incomplete. Under MS guidelines, a full > explanation should include "3-card heart support". Without the word > "support" it is indeed impossible to guess that 1D showed 4 hearts. > AG : I don't think you're compelled, under present majority idea, to state that 3 hearts constitute support. I explain partner's Bergen bids as '4+ spades in such-and-such range', not ''4-card support'. Using the word support, after partner's erroneous explanation, would be IMNSHO an obvious attempt to transmit Ui, rather than the fortuitous UI which MS exponents claim is unavoidable. therefore, it would be penalizable even under current rules. > >> And this is a simple case. >> Here is another, less classical one, from my own pet system. >> >> 1D* 1H** >> 1S# 2C# >> 2NT## >> >> * either natural or a very strong hand >> ** possibily a weak relay ; else natural >> # not alerted >> ## explained as 16-17 >> >> How on Earth can you guess that 2NT means 16-17 because our '4th suit' >> is /inter alia/ used for sub-limit raises in diamonds (the '2? diamonds' >> hand) ? >> From the (erroneous) non-alert, you would deduce that 2C was natural >> and weak, explaining why 2NT is a strong bid. >> >> >> When ruling, or suggesting new rules, or suggesting new interpretations >> of rules, you have to take as basis a medium-difficulty auction, not the >> one and only one which will enable guessing, and see whether your >> suggestions still works. I don't say it doesn't ; I'm only suggesting >> that your methodology is biased. >> >> > > I agree with that last bit. > However, I cannot prove an absolute statement. I can only issue it, and > hope someone comes up with a counter-example. Until then, allow me to > use simple examples to show what I am trying to prove, so that you can > find counter-examples. > But make the counter-examples correct, and in the same circumstances as > we're actually discussing, which was, MS with complete disclosure. > I think the second example, herre above, fits the requirement Perhapsone should say, to be 100% coimplete "2NT 16-17 and suggesting to play in NT' but for the rest I don't see what's wrong in the explanations. But that's not my point. My point is that the determination of the right way to act, and rule, needs consideration of both 'obvious' and 'non-obvious' cases, and a statement from you as to whether you'd use the same rule in both the 4NT and the 2C case, and whether it's fair. You see, the fact that the information may, or may not, be used is one thing, but the fact that it is available or not is more important. In fact, my main qualm about disallowing the use of the knowledge that they misunderstood eachother is that, sometimes, you'll know that, not from the explanation, but because you know their system better (yes, I can cite many cases) and then who can disallow you this information ? Best regards alain From blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 11 12:54:27 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:54:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24230590.1249988067092.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Julian Huxley (1887-1975): > > "Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but > the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." > > The names of the Director and Appeals Committee are suppressed > to protect the guilty. > > Swiss matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > West North East South > --- --- Pass Pass > 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S > Pass 4S X (3) Pass > 4NT Pass Pass Pass > > (1) 12-14 > (2) Spades and another suit > (3) Break in tempo > > Result: 4NT by West, 6 tricks, +200 NS / -200 EW > > The places of the 52 cards are suppressed to protect the guilty. > > Director's Cheshire Cat adjustment: > > 50% of 5Hx East-West, +800 NS / -800 EW > 50% of 4S North-South, +420 NS / -420 EW > > Appeals Committee's Cheshire Cat adjustment: > > 50% of 4NT East-West, +200 NS / -200 EW > 50% of 4S North-South, +420 NS / -420 EW > > What is wrong with these smiles of Cheshire Cats? I cannot comment on the circumstances under which weighted scores can be assigned in Oz. 4SX, +590 NS/-590 EW apparently is a "likely" result had the irregularity (W chose an LA demonstrably suggested by the BIT) not occured. 4S was not a possible result at all, as E doubled 4S, thus a correct ruling cannot contain 4S undoubled as the final contract. Thomas Plantschen oder Grog? Der Arcor-Wetterdienst weiss Bescheid! Wassertemperaturen f?r den Urlaub jetzt checken: www.arcor.de/rd/wetter_wasser From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 11 13:15:15 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:15:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Is this an error in Law 17D2? References: <000501ca19a3$3ac51a80$b04f4f80$@no> <000601ca1a62$7483eac0$5d8bc040$@no> Message-ID: <004701ca1a76$1177afc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:02 AM Subject: [BLML] Is this an error in Law 17D2? > > Furthermore my (limited) understanding of the English language tells me > that > the last six words in L17D2 (beginning with the words: "subsequently > called") mean "subsequently to the call made by offender's LHO over the > cancelled call". > +=+ I understand the intention of the words to be 'subsequently to the cancelled call'. I agree that a WBFLC interpretation would help by establishing that this applies whether partner's call is in rotation or not. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 11 14:09:15 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:09:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A814CE4.2030500@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> <4A813254.5000208@ulb.ac.be> <4A813AE2.2010506@skynet.be> <4A814CE4.2030500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A815F6B.909@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >> The reason why it is difficult to guess that 1D showed hearts is because >> the explanation of 1H was incomplete. Under MS guidelines, a full >> explanation should include "3-card heart support". Without the word >> "support" it is indeed impossible to guess that 1D showed 4 hearts. >> > AG : I don't think you're compelled, under present majority idea, to > state that 3 hearts constitute support. > I explain partner's Bergen bids as '4+ spades in such-and-such range', > not ''4-card support'. > However, there is a huge difference between bidding a 3-card suit because no other suit is longer, and bidding a 3-card suit in support, when not bidding it would even deny it. The first one is 4+(3), whereas the second is 3+. That difference is something the opponents are entitled to, and whether you show it with the words "support" or others is immaterial. As to the Bergen "4+spades", there is no need to mention "support" if the previous bid was explained as spades. But suppose you play transfer openings, and 1H shows spades. If you play Bergen raises on this, then 3C shows "4+spades". If you explain it simply like that, people will think it shows long spades, starting from 4, but then probably AKJT. Whereas if you explain it as 4-card spade support, it will be clear that 6542 will be sufficient. Again, there is a big difference between the two explanations and using the first is simply hiding the minsunderstanding, as a good DWS supporter should in fact do. But it's not MS! > Using the word support, after partner's erroneous explanation, would be > IMNSHO an obvious attempt to transmit Ui, rather than the fortuitous UI > which MS exponents claim is unavoidable. therefore, it would be > penalizable even under current rules. > Of course it is UI, of course it is forbidden by L20F5a, of course it is using DWS, of course it is forbidden by the Beijing interpretation. But yet again, we are talking MS here, in which all these forbidden things are not forbidden but obligatory. It is not I who is advocating forbidden things, it is the WBF! Herman. From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 11 14:17:56 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:17:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Is this an error in Law 17D2? In-Reply-To: <004701ca1a76$1177afc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000501ca19a3$3ac51a80$b04f4f80$@no> <000601ca1a62$7483eac0$5d8bc040$@no> <004701ca1a76$1177afc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000801ca1a7d$c25c3f20$4714bd60$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:02 AM > Subject: [BLML] Is this an error in Law 17D2? > > > > > > Furthermore my (limited) understanding of the English language tells me > > that > > the last six words in L17D2 (beginning with the words: "subsequently > > called") mean "subsequently to the call made by offender's LHO over the > > cancelled call". > > > +=+ I understand the intention of the words to be 'subsequently to the > cancelled call'. I agree that a WBFLC interpretation would help by > establishing that this applies whether partner's call is in rotation or not. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Precisely the purpose of my posting. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 11 14:22:04 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:22:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A815F6B.909@skynet.be> References: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> <4A813254.5000208@ulb.ac.be> <4A813AE2.2010506@skynet.be> <4A814CE4.2030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A815F6B.909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A81626C.5030502@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>> The reason why it is difficult to guess that 1D showed hearts is because >>> the explanation of 1H was incomplete. Under MS guidelines, a full >>> explanation should include "3-card heart support". Without the word >>> "support" it is indeed impossible to guess that 1D showed 4 hearts. >>> >>> >> AG : I don't think you're compelled, under present majority idea, to >> state that 3 hearts constitute support. >> I explain partner's Bergen bids as '4+ spades in such-and-such range', >> not ''4-card support'. >> >> > > However, there is a huge difference between bidding a 3-card suit > because no other suit is longer, and bidding a 3-card suit in support, > when not bidding it *would even deny it*. AG : Who said that ? When playing T-Walsh with weak NTs, the rebid with 3H and a balanced 15-17 will be 1NT more often than not. > The first one is 4+(3), whereas > the second is 3+. That difference is something the opponents are > entitled to, and whether you show it with the words "support" or others > is immaterial. > AG : nope. If I use the word 'support', I deliberately give UI. I thought you werre sensitive to such things ? > As to the Bergen "4+spades", there is no need to mention "support" if > the previous bid was explained as spades. But suppose you play transfer > openings, and 1H shows spades. If you play Bergen raises on this, then > 3C shows "4+spades". If you explain it simply like that, people will > think it shows long spades, starting from 4, but then probably AKJT. > AG : if 1H was alerted (uncommon at best), and 3D too, and if they asked only about 3D, they committed a serious error in procedure, didn't they ? A similar problem would only arise if partner forgot to alert 1H. > Of course it is UI, of course it is forbidden by L20F5a, of course it is > using DWS, of course it is forbidden by the Beijing interpretation. > But yet again, we are talking MS here, in which all these forbidden > things are not forbidden but obligatory. > AG : I understand MS as the statement that transmitting UI is allowed only when it is unavoidable. Can some MS exponent confirm ? I won't take Herman's word about his enemies' opinion. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 11 14:35:24 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:35:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <24230590.1249988067092.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <005c01ca1a80$465df820$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Julian Huxley (1887-1975): > > "Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but > the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." > > The names of the Director and Appeals Committee are suppressed > to protect the guilty. > > Swiss matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > West North East South > --- --- Pass Pass > 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S > Pass 4S X (3) Pass > 4NT Pass Pass Pass > > (1) 12-14 > (2) Spades and another suit > (3) Break in tempo > > Result: 4NT by West, 6 tricks, +200 NS / -200 EW > > The places of the 52 cards are suppressed to protect the guilty. > > Director's Cheshire Cat adjustment: > > 50% of 5Hx East-West, +800 NS / -800 EW > 50% of 4S North-South, +420 NS / -420 EW > > Appeals Committee's Cheshire Cat adjustment: > > 50% of 4NT East-West, +200 NS / -200 EW > 50% of 4S North-South, +420 NS / -420 EW > > What is wrong with these smiles of Cheshire Cats? I cannot comment on the circumstances under which weighted scores can be assigned in Oz. 4SX, +590 NS/-590 EW apparently is a "likely" result had the irregularity (W chose an LA demonstrably suggested by the BIT) not occured. 4S was not a possible result at all, as E doubled 4S, thus a correct ruling cannot contain 4S undoubled as the final contract. Thomas +=+ So far as the law is concerned the Director/AC is free to include or not include a proportion of 4NT in a weighted score. Law 12B1 places no restriction on the content of an adjusted score - the aim is to restore the probabilities of the outcome had the infraction not occurred. . Zone 1 policy is currently not to include any result reached via the offending call and, in practice under an English CTD, it does not happen in WBF Championships. However, my view of the example is that 4NT is not a logical action absent the UI and the contract would be 4SX 100% of the time. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 11 14:57:54 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:57:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: References: <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F1323@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Aug 10, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:23:07 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Aug 10, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>>> Axxx >>>>>>> KQJ >>>>>>> xxx >>>>>>> Axx >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1C - 1S >>>>>>> 1NT (2D) - ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you >>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. >>>>>> >>>>>> But you already tried to bid 2D over 1NT, so you perforce do not >>>>>> hold >>>>>> a hand that "wouldn't have" done so. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of >>>>>>> hands for >>>>>>> both bids >>>>>>> includes the other. >>>>>> >>>>>> I really don't see how either of Konrad's examples are in any way >>>>>> relevant to the current discussion. >>>>> >>>>> AG : I don't see who's arguing in which direction, but the case is >>>>> obvious. >>>>> >>>>> As that last example shows, some possible hands that bid 3D are >>>>> excluded >>>>> by the fact that you tried to bid 2D. >>>>> Which shows that 3D isn't included in 2D. >>>>> Partner knows more about 3D than he is allowed to know (you don't >>>>> hold >>>>> the example hand). >>>>> Hence 3D shouldn't be allowed. >>>> >>>> I still don't get it. What we are given above includes "the fact >>>> that you tried to bid 2D" over 1NT *and* the fact that "you >>>> wouldn't >>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised...". Am I really the >>>> only one who sees those "facts" as self-contradictory? >>> >>> Eric, the point is that the set of hands that would choose the >>> substitute bid in the actual auction must be a subset of >>> the hands shown by the insufficient bid. >> >> But, but... what insufficient bid? What replacement call? The >> example reads, "you wouldn't have bid 2D over 1NT -- you would have >> raised to 3NT" (which seems right). So if you thought, incorrectly >> or not, that you were bidding over 1NT, you wouldn't have bid 2D -- >> you would have raised to 3NT -- and you wouldn't have an IB in need >> of an RC. The example says explicitly that you would have bid 3NT on >> 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-P-?, so it follows absolutely that you would have bid >> 3NT on 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-2D-? if you misheard the 2D bid as a pass, >> doesn't it? Last I heard, 3NT is not an IB over 2D. What are we >> talking about? > > The auction was > > 1C P 1S P > 1NT 2D 2D > > If you let the player correct to 3D, the 2D insufficient bid contains > information -- the player probably has 5 spades (or they are > misusing the > convention or are interested in slam). It contains information > because the > set of hands you would bid 3D with includes hands that you would > not bid > 2D with. Primarily, this is 4 spades and no diamond stopper. > > The law does not allow corrections if the meaning of 3D is not the > same or > more precise than the meaning of 2D. > > Here, NMF is used to check for a 5-3 major suit fit (though the > responses > allow other things to happen). No, the auction (see above) was given as 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-2D-?, and we are then told that "you wouldn't have bid 2D over 1NT". So, if that you thought you were bidding over 1NT, you wouldn't have bid 2D (we are told that you would have bid 3NT). And if you had noticed RHO's 2D bid, you obviously would not bid 2D, deliberately insufficient (we are told that you would have bid 3D). Indeed, the problem hand appears to have been constructed to be obviously unsuitable for 2D NMF over 1NT, so as to be consistent with the conditions. So where did the 2D IB come from? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 11 15:16:30 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:16:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A81626C.5030502@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> <4A813254.5000208@ulb.ac.be> <4A813AE2.2010506@skynet.be> <4A814CE4.2030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A815F6B.909@skynet.be> <4A81626C.5030502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A816F2E.8020408@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> The first one is 4+(3), whereas >> the second is 3+. That difference is something the opponents are >> entitled to, and whether you show it with the words "support" or others >> is immaterial. >> > AG : nope. If I use the word 'support', I deliberately give UI. I > thought you werre sensitive to such things ? > I am, but I'm not talking DWS here, but MS. Under MS, deliberately giving UI is not a crime, but giving MI is. I consider omitting the word "support" as being MI. So, under MS principles, it should be added. >> As to the Bergen "4+spades", there is no need to mention "support" if >> the previous bid was explained as spades. But suppose you play transfer >> openings, and 1H shows spades. If you play Bergen raises on this, then >> 3C shows "4+spades". If you explain it simply like that, people will >> think it shows long spades, starting from 4, but then probably AKJT. >> > AG : if 1H was alerted (uncommon at best), and 3D too, and if they asked > only about 3D, they committed a serious error in procedure, didn't they ? > A similar problem would only arise if partner forgot to alert 1H. > Yes, I forgot to mention that 1H was not alerted. >> Of course it is UI, of course it is forbidden by L20F5a, of course it is >> using DWS, of course it is forbidden by the Beijing interpretation. >> But yet again, we are talking MS here, in which all these forbidden >> things are not forbidden but obligatory. >> > AG : I understand MS as the statement that transmitting UI is allowed > only when it is unavoidable. Can some MS exponent confirm ? I won't take > Herman's word about his enemies' opinion. > Best not to, indeed. But as I understand MS, the main objective is to give correct information. I believe that to shade an explanation in such a way as to avoid giving UI to partner is not giving correct information. Hence, not according to MS principles. > > Best regards > > Alain Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 11 15:38:50 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:38:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <1988015.1249936692720.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F1323@starpower.net> <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <1988015.1249936692720.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Aug 10, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Aug 10, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>>> Axxx >>>>>>> KQJ >>>>>>> xxx >>>>>>> Axx >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1C - 1S >>>>>>> 1NT (2D) - ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you >>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. >>>>>> >>>>>> But you already tried to bid 2D over 1NT, so you perforce do not >>>>>> hold >>>>>> a hand that "wouldn't have" done so. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of >>>>>>> hands for >>>>>>> both bids >>>>>>> includes the other. >>>>>> >>>>>> I really don't see how either of Konrad's examples are in any way >>>>>> relevant to the current discussion. >>>>> >>>>> AG : I don't see who's arguing in which direction, but the case is >>>>> obvious. >>>>> >>>>> As that last example shows, some possible hands that bid 3D are >>>>> excluded >>>>> by the fact that you tried to bid 2D. >>>>> Which shows that 3D isn't included in 2D. >>>>> Partner knows more about 3D than he is allowed to know (you don't >>>>> hold >>>>> the example hand). >>>>> Hence 3D shouldn't be allowed. >>>> >>>> I still don't get it. What we are given above includes "the fact >>>> that you tried to bid 2D" over 1NT *and* the fact that "you >>>> wouldn't >>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised...". Am I really the >>>> only one who sees those "facts" as self-contradictory? >>> >>> Eric, the point is that the set of hands that would choose the >>> substitute bid in the actual auction must be a subset of >>> the hands shown by the insufficient bid. >> >> But, but... what insufficient bid? What replacement call? The >> example reads, "you wouldn't have bid 2D over 1NT -- you would have >> raised to 3NT" (which seems right). So if you thought, incorrectly >> or not, that you were bidding over 1NT, you wouldn't have bid 2D -- >> you would have raised to 3NT -- and you wouldn't have an IB in need >> of an RC. The example says explicitly that you would have bid 3NT on >> 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-P-?, so it follows absolutely that you would have bid >> 3NT on 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-2D-? if you misheard the 2D bid as a pass, >> doesn't it? Last I heard, 3NT is not an IB over 2D. What are we >> talking about? > > We are talking about an insuffient 2D bid being replaced with 3D. > The example hand Axxx,KQJ,xxx,Axx would bid 3D in the auction > > 1C pass 1S pass > 1NT 2D ??? > > It would NOT bid 2D NMF in this auction > 1C pass 1S pass > 1NT pass ??? > but would bid 3NT instead. But it thought that that's what the auction was, so it still would have bid 3NT "instead". > Thus if somebody bids > 1C pass 1S pass > 1NT 2D 2D <--- IB here, intended as NMF Somebody? Who? The point of the constructed hand is that it is totally unsuitable for 2D intended as NMF. > and then replaces the 2D IB with 3D, the exception > from L27A1(b) "has the same > meaning as, or a more precise meaning* > does not apply, as the 3D bid contains hands > like the above that would have bid 3NT rather > than 2D NMF. Is this one of *those* problems? Did someone forget the obligatory, "You are pressed into service to replace a stranger who has fallen ill in mid-hand, only to discover that before you arrived he has, totally inexplicably,..." No, can't be; this started out as a question about the TD's actions, not the player's. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 11 15:49:36 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:49:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <000301ca1a02$4d110be0$e73323a0$@com> References: <52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F1323@starpower.net> <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <1988015.1249936692720.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <000301ca1a02$4d110be0$e73323a0$@com> Message-ID: <9AA6DD31-EC6D-429B-A54A-8D891F549976@starpower.net> On Aug 10, 2009, at 5:34 PM, David Burn wrote: > [TD] > > We are talking about an insufficient 2D bid being replaced with 3D. > The > example hand Axxx KQJ xxx Axx would bid 3D in the auction > > 1C pass 1S pass > 1NT 2D ??? > > It would NOT bid 2D NMF in this auction > > 1C pass 1S pass > 1NT pass ??? > > but would bid 3NT instead. > > Thus if somebody bids > > 1C pass 1S pass > 1NT 2D 2D <--- IB here, intended as NMF > > and then replaces the 2D IB with 3D, the exception from L27A1(b) > "has the > same meaning as, or a more precise meaning* does not apply, as the > 3D bid > contains hands like the above that would have bid 3NT rather than > 2D NMF. > > [DALB] > > I think Eric's contention is that this does not matter, because > such a hand > would not bid 2D by mistake if its owner had not seen the 2D bid; > instead, > it would bid 3NT. Thus, one would not bid 2D "intended as NMF" in this > auction with that hand. > > Of course, one might bid 2D over 2D thinking that this asked for a > diamond > guard (quite an economical way to play). The question then arises: > should > the TD determine in front of everyone whether the player was > bidding 2D to > ask for a guard, or whether she was bidding 2D NMF, or whether > there was > some other reason she bid 2D? Or should the TD merely ask her "do > you now > have a 3D bid in your methods that would be made only on [some > subset of] > hands that would bid 2D in your methods if your RHO had passed?" Or > should > the TD not even do that, instead reading the Law and inviting the > player to > choose an action without informing her of the repercussions thereof? The recent examples posited by the WBF to elucidate its interpretation of L27B1(b) make it clear that to rule correctly, the TD must determine the reason for the player bidding 2D. AFAIK, the jury is still out on the question of whether he should (or may) do so "in front of everyone". Personally, I think he should, so as not to give an advantage to opponents who are sufficiently familiar with the IB laws to, in many cases, infer the answer from the ruling on the bid actually chosen. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 11 15:57:03 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:57:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <4A80A1D3.6070703@consolidated.net> References: <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be><2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <4A809226.407@consolidated.net> <4A80A1D3.6070703@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <13AF26BD-5E0B-46BE-B97B-1B927C9F872E@starpower.net> On Aug 10, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Robert Park wrote: > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >>> It seems strange to me that the laws should allow an insufficient >>> bidder to gain advantage by substituting a call that adds >>> precision to the the meaning of his insufficient action. >> >> What advantage? If you substitute an insufficient call by a call >> that contains a subset of hands of the insufficient call then you >> are _exactly_ in the same position as if you made that second call >> in the first place. The insufficient bid didn't give your side any >> additional information. > > So...if the substituted call is a more precise call than the > insufficient bid, why didn't you make it in the first place? Because you misheard the auction, of course. The IB rules are not designed for intentional IBs, which are far more serious violations with far more serious consequences. > Surely some information has been added here. Yes, but it was added *by* the RC *to* the information already available from the IB, which means that you perforce gain no advantage from having made the IB. It is when the original IB adds information to the information now (legally) available from the RC that you gain from having made the IB in the first place, and thus are not permitted to make the RC without penalty. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 11 16:05:12 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:05:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: References: <52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F1323@starpower.net> <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <1988015.1249936692720.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <28000252.1249999512318.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 10, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> On Aug 10, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> > >>> Eric Landau wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Eric Landau a ?crit : > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Axxx > >>>>>>> KQJ > >>>>>>> xxx > >>>>>>> Axx > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1C - 1S > >>>>>>> 1NT (2D) - ? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you > >>>>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But you already tried to bid 2D over 1NT, so you perforce do not > >>>>>> hold > >>>>>> a hand that "wouldn't have" done so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of > >>>>>>> hands for > >>>>>>> both bids > >>>>>>> includes the other. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I really don't see how either of Konrad's examples are in any way > >>>>>> relevant to the current discussion. > >>>>> > >>>>> AG : I don't see who's arguing in which direction, but the case is > >>>>> obvious. > >>>>> > >>>>> As that last example shows, some possible hands that bid 3D are > >>>>> excluded > >>>>> by the fact that you tried to bid 2D. > >>>>> Which shows that 3D isn't included in 2D. > >>>>> Partner knows more about 3D than he is allowed to know (you don't > >>>>> hold > >>>>> the example hand). > >>>>> Hence 3D shouldn't be allowed. > >>>> > >>>> I still don't get it. What we are given above includes "the fact > >>>> that you tried to bid 2D" over 1NT *and* the fact that "you > >>>> wouldn't > >>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised...". Am I really the > >>>> only one who sees those "facts" as self-contradictory? > >>> > >>> Eric, the point is that the set of hands that would choose the > >>> substitute bid in the actual auction must be a subset of > >>> the hands shown by the insufficient bid. > >> > >> But, but... what insufficient bid? What replacement call? The > >> example reads, "you wouldn't have bid 2D over 1NT -- you would have > >> raised to 3NT" (which seems right). So if you thought, incorrectly > >> or not, that you were bidding over 1NT, you wouldn't have bid 2D -- > >> you would have raised to 3NT -- and you wouldn't have an IB in need > >> of an RC. The example says explicitly that you would have bid 3NT on > >> 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-P-?, so it follows absolutely that you would have bid > >> 3NT on 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-2D-? if you misheard the 2D bid as a pass, > >> doesn't it? Last I heard, 3NT is not an IB over 2D. What are we > >> talking about? > > > > We are talking about an insuffient 2D bid being replaced with 3D. > > The example hand Axxx,KQJ,xxx,Axx would bid 3D in the auction > > > > 1C pass 1S pass > > 1NT 2D ??? > > > > It would NOT bid 2D NMF in this auction > > 1C pass 1S pass > > 1NT pass ??? > > but would bid 3NT instead. > > But it thought that that's what the auction was, so it still would > have bid 3NT "instead". > > > Thus if somebody bids > > 1C pass 1S pass > > 1NT 2D 2D <--- IB here, intended as NMF > > Somebody? Who? The point of the constructed hand is that it is > totally unsuitable for 2D intended as NMF. Exactly. The constructed hand is totally unsuitable for a 2D intended as NMF, but suitable as a 3D bid over RHO's 2D overcall. > > and then replaces the 2D IB with 3D, the exception > > from L27A1(b) "has the same > > meaning as, or a more precise meaning* > > does not apply, as the 3D bid contains hands > > like the above that would have bid 3NT rather > > than 2D NMF. > > Is this one of *those* problems? Did someone forget the obligatory, > "You are pressed into service to replace a stranger who has fallen > ill in mid-hand, only to discover that before you arrived he has, > totally inexplicably,..." No, can't be; this started out as a > question about the TD's actions, not the player's. No, it is not "one of those problems". The question is whether a 2D insufficient bid may be replaced without further penalty with a 3D bid. Per L27A1(b), the requirement for that is that all hands that would bid 3D over RHO's 2D would have bid 2D NMF if RHO had passed. If that requirement did not exist, the weasel could deliberately bid 2D insufficient, and then 3D, to provide extra information to his partner. It is a variation of the "Does this show real clubs?" topic, just a bid more complicated. Hands like the example hand with exactly four spades and no D stopper would have raised directly to 3NT, rather than bid 2D NMF. The condition from L27A1(b) is not fulfilled, there is a significant percentage of hands that would bid 3D over 2D, but not 2D NMF over pass. Thus a 2D insufficient bid over RHO's 2D may not be replaced with a 3D bid without further penalties applying. Thomas Plantschen oder Grog? Der Arcor-Wetterdienst weiss Bescheid! Wassertemperaturen f?r den Urlaub jetzt checken: www.arcor.de/rd/wetter_wasser From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 11 17:15:37 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:15:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A816F2E.8020408@skynet.be> References: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> <4A813254.5000208@ulb.ac.be> <4A813AE2.2010506@skynet.be> <4A814CE4.2030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A815F6B.909@skynet.be> <4A81626C.5030502@ulb.ac.be> <4A816F2E.8020408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A818B19.2060605@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > Best not to, indeed. > But as I understand MS, the main objective is to give correct information. > I believe that to shade an explanation in such a way as to avoid giving > UI to partner is not giving correct information. > Pardon me, Herman, but I'd rather listen to somebody who agrees with MS when I need to know what MS says. Opponents have good reasons to paint it a darker shade of black than it is. (am I far enough from her and others ?) AFAIC, MS seems to say that 'when non-MI and non-UI are contradictory, favor non-MI', but also 'when non-MI is consistent with non-UI, avoid UI'. Which means that it would be entirely proper to give information (complete, of course) in such a way as to avoid UI. If I can explain my partner's 2C answer to 1C as 'GF with 5+ clubs and no 5-card major' without telling partner whether my 1C opening was natural or strong, so much the better. If I deliberately add a range for the 2C bid (either 12+ or 9+ according to the meaning of my opening), it doesn't fit with my interpretation of MS, but it fits with yours, so I'd like to know. (yes, deliberately simple example ;-) Best regards Alain From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Aug 11 17:56:52 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:56:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <1362697.1249972536746.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <4A8108E9.3030405@t-online.de> <008301ca1a13$085c7be0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <1362697.1249972536746.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A8194C4.6090705@t-online.de> Thomas Dehn schrieb: > TDs at the club level frequently are not paid semi-professionals. > They are volunteers from the local players, they once in a while > assume the role of the TD so that the club can play at all, resp. > does not have to charge large fees for playing. Yes, and that is why they _need_ all the help they can get to find the proper law, and find it fast. Best regards Matthias > > > Thomas > > Plantschen oder Grog? Der Arcor-Wetterdienst weiss Bescheid! > Wassertemperaturen f?r den Urlaub jetzt checken: www.arcor.de/rd/wetter_wasser > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Aug 11 18:26:59 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:26:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: References: <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net><487720.1756 9.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com><31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC>< 3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1><13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-68 0CEBED4E2A@starpower.net><4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be><2376165.1249928816075.J avaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net><52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F 1323@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A819BD3.8070200@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 10, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:23:07 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Aug 10, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> >>>> Eric Landau wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Axxx >>>>>>>> KQJ >>>>>>>> xxx >>>>>>>> Axx >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1C - 1S >>>>>>>> 1NT (2D) - ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you >>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. >>>>>>> But you already tried to bid 2D over 1NT, so you perforce do not >>>>>>> hold >>>>>>> a hand that "wouldn't have" done so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of >>>>>>>> hands for >>>>>>>> both bids >>>>>>>> includes the other. >>>>>>> I really don't see how either of Konrad's examples are in any way >>>>>>> relevant to the current discussion. >>>>>> AG : I don't see who's arguing in which direction, but the case is >>>>>> obvious. >>>>>> >>>>>> As that last example shows, some possible hands that bid 3D are >>>>>> excluded >>>>>> by the fact that you tried to bid 2D. >>>>>> Which shows that 3D isn't included in 2D. >>>>>> Partner knows more about 3D than he is allowed to know (you don't >>>>>> hold >>>>>> the example hand). >>>>>> Hence 3D shouldn't be allowed. >>>>> I still don't get it. What we are given above includes "the fact >>>>> that you tried to bid 2D" over 1NT *and* the fact that "you >>>>> wouldn't >>>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised...". Am I really the >>>>> only one who sees those "facts" as self-contradictory? >>>> Eric, the point is that the set of hands that would choose the >>>> substitute bid in the actual auction must be a subset of >>>> the hands shown by the insufficient bid. >>> But, but... what insufficient bid? What replacement call? The >>> example reads, "you wouldn't have bid 2D over 1NT -- you would have >>> raised to 3NT" (which seems right). So if you thought, incorrectly >>> or not, that you were bidding over 1NT, you wouldn't have bid 2D -- >>> you would have raised to 3NT -- and you wouldn't have an IB in need >>> of an RC. The example says explicitly that you would have bid 3NT on >>> 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-P-?, so it follows absolutely that you would have bid >>> 3NT on 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-2D-? if you misheard the 2D bid as a pass, >>> doesn't it? Last I heard, 3NT is not an IB over 2D. What are we >>> talking about? >> The auction was >> >> 1C P 1S P >> 1NT 2D 2D >> >> If you let the player correct to 3D, the 2D insufficient bid contains >> information -- the player probably has 5 spades (or they are >> misusing the >> convention or are interested in slam). It contains information >> because the >> set of hands you would bid 3D with includes hands that you would >> not bid >> 2D with. Primarily, this is 4 spades and no diamond stopper. >> >> The law does not allow corrections if the meaning of 3D is not the >> same or >> more precise than the meaning of 2D. >> >> Here, NMF is used to check for a 5-3 major suit fit (though the >> responses >> allow other things to happen). > > No, the auction (see above) was given as 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-2D-?, and we > are then told that "you wouldn't have bid 2D over 1NT". So, if that > you thought you were bidding over 1NT, you wouldn't have bid 2D (we > are told that you would have bid 3NT). And if you had noticed RHO's > 2D bid, you obviously would not bid 2D, deliberately insufficient (we > are told that you would have bid 3D). Indeed, the problem hand > appears to have been constructed to be obviously unsuitable for 2D > NMF over 1NT, so as to be consistent with the conditions. So where > did the 2D IB come from? i think you have a blind spot. absent the IB, when opener sees the auction: 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-2D-3D, he knows partner may have hand A (4333, 3 low D) or hand B (5332 GF), or some other hands. when he has supplementary information that partner would have bid 2D if lho had passed, he knows that partner may have hand B but no more hand A. this is the undue information coming from the IB that pollutes the auction and rightly results in that the IB can't be replaced without penalty. unfortunately there are hands (ex. A) that are worth 3D but would not have been worth 2D absent lho's overcall: quite elementary enforcement of L27b1. jpr > > > 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 tedying at yahoo.com Tue Aug 11 18:37:16 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <4A819BD3.8070200@meteo.fr> References: <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net><487720.1756 9.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com><31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC>< 3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1><13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-68 0CEBED4E2A@starpower.net><4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be><2376165.1249928816075.J avaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net><52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F 1323@starpower.net> <4A819BD3.8070200@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <340913.75032.qm@web53301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ________________________________ From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:26:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 10, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:23:07 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Aug 10, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> >>>> Eric Landau wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Axxx >>>>>>>> KQJ >>>>>>>> xxx >>>>>>>> Axx >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1C - 1S >>>>>>>> 1NT (2D) - ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now you want to bid 3D asking for a diamond stopper but you >>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised to 3NT. >>>>>>> But you already tried to bid 2D over 1NT, so you perforce do not >>>>>>> hold >>>>>>> a hand that "wouldn't have" done so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3D is neither more or less precise than 2D NMF - niether set of >>>>>>>> hands for >>>>>>>> both bids >>>>>>>> includes the other. >>>>>>> I really don't see how either of Konrad's examples are in any way >>>>>>> relevant to the current discussion. >>>>>> AG : I don't see who's arguing in which direction, but the case is >>>>>> obvious. >>>>>> >>>>>> As that last example shows, some possible hands that bid 3D are >>>>>> excluded >>>>>> by the fact that you tried to bid 2D. >>>>>> Which shows that 3D isn't included in 2D. >>>>>> Partner knows more about 3D than he is allowed to know (you don't >>>>>> hold >>>>>> the example hand). >>>>>> Hence 3D shouldn't be allowed. >>>>> I still don't get it. What we are given above includes "the fact >>>>> that you tried to bid 2D" over 1NT *and* the fact that "you >>>>> wouldn't >>>>> have bid 2D over 1NT - you would have raised...". Am I really the >>>>> only one who sees those "facts" as self-contradictory? >>>> Eric, the point is that the set of hands that would choose the >>>> substitute bid in the actual auction must be a subset of >>>> the hands shown by the insufficient bid. >>> But, but... what insufficient bid? What replacement call? The >>> example reads, "you wouldn't have bid 2D over 1NT -- you would have >>> raised to 3NT" (which seems right). So if you thought, incorrectly >>> or not, that you were bidding over 1NT, you wouldn't have bid 2D -- >>> you would have raised to 3NT -- and you wouldn't have an IB in need >>> of an RC. The example says explicitly that you would have bid 3NT on >>> 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-P-?, so it follows absolutely that you would have bid >>> 3NT on 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-2D-? if you misheard the 2D bid as a pass, >>> doesn't it? Last I heard, 3NT is not an IB over 2D. What are we >>> talking about? >> The auction was >> >> 1C P 1S P >> 1NT 2D 2D >> >> If you let the player correct to 3D, the 2D insufficient bid contains >> information -- the player probably has 5 spades (or they are >> misusing the >> convention or are interested in slam). It contains information >> because the >> set of hands you would bid 3D with includes hands that you would >> not bid >> 2D with. Primarily, this is 4 spades and no diamond stopper. >> >> The law does not allow corrections if the meaning of 3D is not the >> same or >> more precise than the meaning of 2D. >> >> Here, NMF is used to check for a 5-3 major suit fit (though the >> responses >> allow other things to happen). > > No, the auction (see above) was given as 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-2D-?, and we > are then told that "you wouldn't have bid 2D over 1NT". So, if that > you thought you were bidding over 1NT, you wouldn't have bid 2D (we > are told that you would have bid 3NT). And if you had noticed RHO's > 2D bid, you obviously would not bid 2D, deliberately insufficient (we > are told that you would have bid 3D). Indeed, the problem hand > appears to have been constructed to be obviously unsuitable for 2D > NMF over 1NT, so as to be consistent with the conditions. So where > did the 2D IB come from? i think you have a blind spot. absent the IB, when opener sees the auction: 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-2D-3D, he knows partner may have hand A (4333, 3 low D) or hand B (5332 GF), or some other hands. when he has supplementary information that partner would have bid 2D if lho had passed, he knows that partner may have hand B but no more hand A. this is the undue information coming from the IB that pollutes the auction and rightly results in that the IB can't be replaced without penalty. unfortunately there are hands (ex. A) that are worth 3D but would not have been worth 2D absent lho's overcall: quite elementary enforcement of L27b1. jpr ===== Hmmm...I've been lurking on this thread for a while and I apologize if I did not quite get everything since some of the responses have arrived out-of-order. To me, this hand seems as if it should be one of the auctions that is unaffected by the new ruling. Here on the east coast of the US, the auction 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-P-2D is a normal new minor forcing situation. However, 1C-P-1S-P-1NT-2D-3D is not the same bid or even a subset of the new minor situations. In this case, many players play it as some form of forcing bid with an implication of including a western cuebid asking for a stopper in diamonds being one of the key elements. Without a diamond stopper, the opener should find an alternative bid. The responder has many types of hands, but the 3D cuebid includes and asks for more information than a typical new minor forcing situation would handle. In this case, from what I can tell by the new language, regardless of what information it conveys about the responder's hand, the fact that it can ask a question of opener that could not have been asked had the overcaller not called, means that the cuebid is NOT a subset of the hands that could have been shown. Since both New Minor Forcing and Western cuebids are conventional, then I think once you have the IB, then responder is under the old familiar constraints of being able to change his/her call but barring the opener from the remainder of the auction. Another 3 cents (adjusted for inflation). -Ted Ying. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Aug 11 18:52:03 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:52:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <002201ca1a63$461b28f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <008301ca1a13$085c7be0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A8108E9.3030405@t-online.de> <002201ca1a63$461b28f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A81A1B3.3000702@t-online.de> Grattan schrieb: > > +=+ EBL seminars are designed to prepare those who will guide > other TDs in their NBO. The process should filter guidance down > through the various levels of Directors. Well, maybe it should, but it doesn't, because these volunteer TDs (and "volunteer" often is very euphemistic, let's call them people thrown into cold water who didn't immediately drown and try again) can't absorb what guidance we EBL TDs and NBO International TDs and whatever titles we carry are not in a situation where we can teach these people for a couple of days. Those TDs simply do not have the time. Still, they have to direct the vast majority of tournaments, because those with the benefit of guidance are a small group, live far apart, and have to earn a living (sometimes through directing tournaments, often not). I have attended 3 EBL TD courses, and the information gathered there would easily suffice to teach a course for a whole week, if I manage to restrict me to the absolutely necessary. Shame that the time I have is about 12 hours over two days (officially, I always manage to stretch it out, but there are limits), and this is needed for _basics_, not for finer points. If I were to filter down guidance about the discussion we had here some days ago re general and specific laws, these people would point out to me that they have to find the right law _now_, because they have to play a hand, not being paid directors, and that they cannot afford the time to compare several laws in order to find out which one to apply. This may not be the way we want our directors to be, but it is reality. Those volunteers simply do not understand the way the laws are written, because they are fairly incomprehensible to anyone who has not dedicated more time to them than these people can afford. Not to mention the fact that the EBL courses are on a level where even the more successful have to struggle mightily, while some less successful applicants described the test in 2006 as "arrogant". I can name names, but will do so only in private (and after asking for permission), if you want to check back with these people. Not all of them used a word as polite as "arrogant". So much for guidance. Fighting to keep your head above the water and being guided is not the same thing. I managed to score fairly well on all three occasions, but I doubt that all TDs who attended found those courses as enlightening as I did. Of course one cannot fail to learn from these courses, of course they raise the level of directing, of course they are necessary, but what is taught there is of no help wwhatsoever to people who have to direct at the local club, often because no one else dares to try. To think that much guidance filters down to the lowest levels is wishful thinking. Even now, when the internet gives us unprecedented opportunities to reach people and spread the good word, and the level of directing is indeed higher than ever before, even now the discussions here (even the saner ones) would go far above the heads of the people who want to learn directing, and so does all the stuff from EBL TD courses. They want to learn about the type of case that happens all the time, to rule a LOOT fast and correct, not the ones that have to be taken from tournaments on the other side of the world, because they are too rare to happen in the vicinity in the foreseeable future. Best regards Matthias > I assume that other Zones have similar processes tailored to > their particular circumstances. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 11 19:24:57 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:24:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <28000252.1249999512318.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> References: <52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F1323@starpower.net> <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <1988015.1249936692720.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <28000252.1249999512318.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <44DA6A64-04CA-443E-B9F8-64BA48A6E8F6@starpower.net> On Aug 11, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> Is this one of *those* problems? Did someone forget the obligatory, >> "You are pressed into service to replace a stranger who has fallen >> ill in mid-hand, only to discover that before you arrived he has, >> totally inexplicably,..." No, can't be; this started out as a >> question about the TD's actions, not the player's. > > No, it is not "one of those problems". > > The question is whether a 2D insufficient bid may be replaced > without further penalty with a 3D bid. > > Per L27A1(b), the requirement for that is that all hands that would > bid 3D over RHO's 2D would have bid 2D NMF if RHO > had passed. If that requirement did not exist, the weasel > could deliberately bid 2D insufficient, and then 3D, to provide > extra information to his partner. It is a variation of the > "Does this show real clubs?" topic, just a bid more complicated. So it is indeed "one of those problems". I see little relevant distinction between "a stranger... has, totally inexplicably..." and "the weasel... deliberately..." > Hands like the example hand with exactly four spades and > no D stopper would have raised directly to 3NT, rather than bid 2D > NMF. The condition > from L27A1(b) is not fulfilled, there is a significant percentage > of hands > that would bid 3D over 2D, but not 2D NMF over pass. Thus a 2D > insufficient bid over RHO's 2D > may not be replaced with a 3D bid without further penalties applying. This was my original point: the example makes no sense unless we postulate that the IB was made deliberately. I do not believe that the rules governing IBs were written, or are adequate, to deal with intentional IBs; those would violate far stronger laws with far more serious consequences. I do not think we advance the discussion of how L27B was intended to work with examples that could only arise if someone is proactively trying to cheat, which is the only way we can get to considering a player who holds that hand "trying" to bid 2D NMF. If he were to actually do that, we would use L72B1 and L91, not L27B. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 11 19:45:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:45:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> <4A813254.5000208@ulb.ac.be> <4A813AE2.2010506@skynet.be> <4A814CE4.2030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A815F6B.909@skynet.be> <4A81626C.5030502@ulb.ac.be><4A816F2E.8020408@skynet.be> <4A818B19.2060605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <006001ca1aab$89dea4c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > Best not to, indeed. > But as I understand MS, the main objective is to give correct information. > I believe that to shade an explanation in such a way as to avoid giving > UI to partner is not giving correct information. > Pardon me, Herman, but I'd rather listen to somebody who agrees with MS when I need to know what MS says. Opponents have good reasons to paint it a darker shade of black than it is. (am I far enough from her and others ?) AFAIC, MS seems to say that 'when non-MI and non-UI are contradictory, favor non-MI', but also 'when non-MI is consistent with non-UI, avoid UI'. Which means that it would be entirely proper to give information (complete, of course) in such a way as to avoid UI. If I can explain my partner's 2C answer to 1C as 'GF with 5+ clubs and no 5-card major' without telling partner whether my 1C opening was natural or strong, so much the better. If I deliberately add a range for the 2C bid (either 12+ or 9+ according to the meaning of my opening), it doesn't fit with my interpretation of MS, but it fits with yours, so I'd like to know. (yes, deliberately simple example ;-) +=+ Law 20 requires that an explanation given must be a correct and complete account (see 20F4) of the partnership understanding about calls actually made, relevant alternative calls available but not made, and inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding (see20F1). Further information as to the WBF stance may be derived from the following extract from the Code of Practice: "It is not an offence to convey unauthorized information to partner in complying with a requirement of the laws. For example it is an offence not to give correct information as to the partnership understanding in response to opponent's enquiry under Law 20 but it is not an offence to convey unauthorized information to partner in doing so; it is an offence for partner to make use of such information. The player's responsibility is set out in Law 75. This provides within the laws an interpretation of them. It is made clear that opponents are entitled to a correct explanation of the partnership understanding and that it is therefore an infraction if the player who has UI from a misexplanation by partner does not give the correct explanation of the partnership agreement as to the meaning of his partner's call. Since the player is colluding in his partner's prior infraction the offence is aggravated. It is also the case that if the player hides the partnership understanding as a matter of habit it makes the call the subject of a Concealed Partnership Understanding, ergo illegal - see Laws 40A, 40B4 and 40C3(b). Concerning Law 20F5(a) - "indicate in any manner" - the requirement is that while giving a correct explanation of the partnership understanding the player shall not point to (i.e. draw attention to) the fact of his partner's misexplanation. The fact that opponent may be able to deduce this is not the outcome of a purposeful indication by the player but merely the by-product of his compliance with law. Thus any information used as a basis for a call or play must be 'authorized'. For information to be deemed authorized there must be an indication from the laws or regulations that the use of that information is intended. Authorization does not follow automatically from a lack of prohibition. Unless there is an express prohibition it is lawful to use information that is given to the players for the procedures of the game, as described in the laws. Also, information is 'authorized' when the laws state it to be so. A player is permitted to make and use judgements about the abilities and tendencies of opponents and about the inclinations ('style') of his partner in matters where the partner's decisions are spontaneous rather than habitual or systemic. A player's habitual practices form part of his method and his partner's awareness of them is legitimate information; but such method is subject to any regulations governing partnership agreements and to the requisite disclosure. Habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated. Not to disclose knowledge of partner's habits and practices is a violation of Law 40 (and thus illegal) when the call is made." ...................................................... Highlighting delineates changes in the 2008 edition from the previous (2001) edition. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 11 19:55:21 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:55:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey In-Reply-To: <4A818B19.2060605@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> <4A813254.5000208@ulb.ac.be> <4A813AE2.2010506@skynet.be> <4A814CE4.2030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A815F6B.909@skynet.be> <4A81626C.5030502@ulb.ac.be> <4A816F2E.8020408@skynet.be> <4A818B19.2060605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0A3CA6D7-8395-49F2-913D-283B1B6CE056@starpower.net> On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : > >> Best not to, indeed. >> But as I understand MS, the main objective is to give correct >> information. >> I believe that to shade an explanation in such a way as to avoid >> giving >> UI to partner is not giving correct information. > > Pardon me, Herman, but I'd rather listen to somebody who agrees > with MS > when I need to know what MS says. Opponents have good reasons to paint > it a darker shade of black than it is. > (am I far enough from her and others ?) > > AFAIC, MS seems to say that 'when non-MI and non-UI are contradictory, > favor non-MI', but also 'when non-MI is consistent with non-UI, > avoid UI'. > Which means that it would be entirely proper to give information > (complete, of course) in such a way as to avoid UI. > > If I can explain my partner's 2C answer to 1C as 'GF with 5+ clubs > and > no 5-card major' without telling partner whether my 1C opening was > natural or strong, so much the better. If I deliberately add a > range for > the 2C bid (either 12+ or 9+ according to the meaning of my > opening), it > doesn't fit with my interpretation of MS, but it fits with yours, > so I'd > like to know. > (yes, deliberately simple example ;-) We seem to be overlooking the fact that correct procedure is, as it always has been, for "a player [to] request... an explanation of the opponents' prior auction" [L20F1]. T 2008 FLB makes it clear (in L20F3) that the previously denigrated procedure of asking about an individual call is not an infraction per se, but also makes it clear from context that a player who chooses this approach, rather than requesting a proper explanation of the entire auction, acts at his own risk. If he ignores the meaning of the auction up to the point of his question, asks only about the meaning of the last call, and receives an answer that describes only the meaning of the last call, that he may be misled by his own failure to understand the previous calls, due to his own failure to ask about them, is his own problem, not his opponents'. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 11 22:17:08 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:17:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey References: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> <4A813254.5000208@ulb.ac.be> <4A813AE2.2010506@skynet.be> <4A814CE4.2030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A815F6B.909@skynet.be> <4A81626C.5030502@ulb.ac.be><4A816F2E.8020408@skynet.be> <4A818B19.2060605@ulb.ac.be> <0A3CA6D7-8395-49F2-913D-283B1B6CE056@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002501ca1ac0$b6db2a60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] At night all cats are grey We seem to be overlooking the fact that correct procedure is, as it always has been, for "a player [to] request... an explanation of the opponents' prior auction" [L20F1]. T 2008 FLB makes it clear (in L20F3) that the previously denigrated procedure of asking about an individual call is not an infraction per se, but also makes it clear from context that a player who chooses this approach, rather than requesting a proper explanation of the entire auction, acts at his own risk. If he ignores the meaning of the auction up to the point of his question, asks only about the meaning of the last call, and receives an answer that describes only the meaning of the last call, that he may be misled by his own failure to understand the previous calls, due to his own failure to ask about them, is his own problem, not his opponents'. +=+ Perhaps I am missing something. Would not the System Card provide the information without need for a question? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 11 23:11:18 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:11:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <44DA6A64-04CA-443E-B9F8-64BA48A6E8F6@starpower.net> References: <52E663A0-29FD-44CD-9C67-E9B62A9F1323@starpower.net> <1D592053-538F-482A-9333-46D2BAFB3215@starpower.net> <487720.17569.qm@web86308.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <31E96F6F20014207B05B957ACCEB9805@mikePC> <3A68BE6FC5D547A5BC410938369D1D96@sfora4869e47f1> <13AC374F-66EA-4C89-912D-680CEBED4E2A@starpower.net> <4A8037F6.20501@ulb.ac.be> <2376165.1249928816075.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <1988015.1249936692720.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <28000252.1249999512318.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <44DA6A64-04CA-443E-B9F8-64BA48A6E8F6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000801ca1ac8$4546f520$cfd4df60$@com> [EL] {The auction has been 1C-Pass-1S-Pass-1NT-2D-2D} This was my original point: the example makes no sense unless we postulate that the IB was made deliberately. [DALB] That depends on what you mean by "deliberately". If you mean that the player may have bid 2D knowing it to be insufficient and hoping to gain by having a correction to 3D permitted, then I agree with you that such conduct is an offence against sundry Laws other than L27, and should be dealt with in part under those Laws. It is, however, absurd that we need to rely on those other Laws to obtain redress for the non-offending side because L27 will not do so by itself. The Laws of a game should protect the innocent just as securely from the actions of the malefactor as from the actions of the incompetent. But there are other ways in which a player might deliberately, or purposefully, bid 2D while temporarily not conscious of the fact that 2D is insufficient. These include but are not limited to: [1] She may not have noticed (because she was not expecting) the 2D overcall. In that case she "deliberately" bids 2D New Minor Forcing. [2] She may have noticed the 2D overcall, and thought to herself "that's odd, I wonder why he didn't bid 1D over 1C". Lost in contemplation of this mystery, she becomes convinced that she is in fact dealing with a 1D overcall, and "deliberately" bids 2D to ask for a diamond guard. Now, for the purposes of administering Law 27: [A] Should the Director determine which of [1] and [2] (or indeed [3]...[aleph-null]) is the actual case? If so, should he do so in the hearing of all four players, or should he privately consult the 2D bidder? [B] If the answer to [A] is "yes", will the outcome of his deliberations influence the replacement calls available without rectification to: [B1] a player who bid 2D in case [1] above; [B2] a player who bid 2D in case [2] above, assuming that in both cases the meaning of 2D without intervention is New Minor Forcing, and that the meaning of 3D following a 2D overcall is that primarily, it asks for a diamond guard? David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 12 01:13:08 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:13:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Julian Huxley (1887-1975): "Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." Swiss matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: North-South West North East South --- --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) 2D (2) 2H 3S Pass 4S X (3) Pass 4NT Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 (2) Spades and another suit (3) Break in tempo Result: 4NT by West, 6 tricks, +200 NS / -200 EW Director's Cheshire Cat adjustment: 50% of 5Hx East-West, +800 NS / -800 EW 50% of 4S North-South, +420 NS / -420 EW Appeals Committee's Cheshire Cat adjustment: 50% of 4NT East-West, +200 NS / -200 EW 50% of 4S North-South, +420 NS / -420 EW What is wrong with these smiles of Cheshire Cats? Richard Hills: There is, of course, a trivial error in the vulnerability in the write-up of this appeal (the 50% +420s awarded were actually 50% +620s awarded). However, more significant is... "Well! I've often seen a double without 4S," thought Alice; "but 4S without a double! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!" Yes, If West's 4NT was an infraction of Law 73C, Then that hypothetical infraction occurred After the double of 4S, So an undoubled 4S contract should Never be part of the Law 12 rectification. Grattan Endicott: +=+ So far as the law is concerned the Director/AC is free to include or not include a proportion of 4NT in a weighted score. Law 12B1 places no restriction on the content of an adjusted score - the aim is to restore the probabilities of the outcome had the infraction not occurred. Richard Hills: It seems to me that Grattan is perpetrating a Hermanic paradox, since If West's 4NT was the infraction which is deemed Not to have occurred under Law 12B1, Then a proportion of 4NT may Not be included in the Law 12B1 adjusted score. Grattan Endicott: >Zone 1 policy is currently not to include any result reached >via the offending call and, in practice under an English CTD, >it does not happen Richard Hills: This case had an English TD and an English AC erring in their application of Zone 1 policy. Grattan Endicott: >in WBF Championships. However, my view of the example is >that 4NT is not a logical action absent the UI and the >contract would be 4Sx 100% of the time. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: 100% ??? What if West took advantage of the matchpoints scoring method, the favourable vulnerability and being in third seat to take the percentage action of opening a 12-14 1NT on: --- QT7 KT2 KT76432 The EBU Appeals Committee correctly ruled that passing 4Sx was not a logical alternative for West, but then the AC failed to make the sole consequential ruling of "table result stands". Best wishes R.J.B. 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 swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 12 02:58:45 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:58:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <200907221551.n6MFp866024533@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200907221551.n6MFp866024533@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A8213C5.4070004@nhcc.net> > From: "Robert Frick" > The words "nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been > made" (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to compliance with the overriding > requirement of the > laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct > explanations of the partnership understandings. It might be worth pointing out that this requirement is "overriding" only because the WBFLC says it is. Given the ACBL's views on other matters, I'm not sure the WBFLC guidance is official here in North America. Of course in practice, ACBL rulings are pretty random, so anything can happen in a given case. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 12 01:44:39 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:44:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000201ca1ae0$6db75b90$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that Grattan is perpetrating a Hermanic > paradox, since If West's 4NT was the infraction which is > deemed Not to have occurred under Law 12B1, Then a > proportion of 4NT may Not be included in the Law 12B1 > adjusted score. > +=+ 4NT is *not* the infraction. The infraction is *bidding* 4NT when the action is assisted by the UI and there is a logical alternative. With no UI, 4NT is a legal bid and if in a clean auction some might choose it the law does not preclude its inclusion in a weighted adjusted score - it stands part of "the expectation had the infraction not occurred" (12B1). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 12 03:14:08 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:14:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: It's too late to discuss conventions when...] In-Reply-To: <4A7858AB.6040904@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A7858AB.6040904@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A821760.8050809@nhcc.net> > From: rfrick at rfrick.info > Maybe for 2017 the auction period should start whenever either player > looks at his hand OR a call occurs. The logical rule would be for the auction period to start for each side when either member of that side looks at his cards. Prior to that, there's no logical reason discussion of methods, for example, should be forbidden. The rule we have now is more stringent: once someone takes his cards out of the board, the auction period has started for that side. I can sort of understand the thinking behind that -- once the cards are out, who can say for sure they haven't been seen? -- but it delays the game when discussion of methods is needed. (Why shouldn't we discuss methods or anything else while counting our cards, for example?) Letting one side start the auction period _for the other side_ by making a call or otherwise seems unfair. (NS: "We play multi." East, before EW have taken cards out of board: "What's our defense, partner?" North, putting bid card out: "Sorry, too late!") There does appear to be a drafting error in L73B1, which should say "auction period" instead of "auction." Right now, as Robert indicated, it appears to be legal to discuss methods after seeing one's cards but before the first call of the auction. Am I missing something? From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 12 03:17:24 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:17:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Do you believe a claim of mispull?] In-Reply-To: <4A773101.5020007@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A773101.5020007@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A821824.7070702@nhcc.net> > From: David Grabiner > It seems to have become common that players who commit an infraction with a > bidding box claim to have mispulled, rather than to have made a mental > error. > Should we treat this claim skeptically, Better, in my opinion, would be to change the Laws so the player's intent is irrelevant. Sadly, that will have to wait until 2017 at least. In the meantime, I think the Director just has to do the best he can to rule whether the change comes under L25 A or B. Frankly, I don't see how such rulings can ever be consistently accurate. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 12 03:22:30 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:22:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Popper goes the weasel In-Reply-To: <4A7C8355.3050608@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A7C8355.3050608@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A821956.40406@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > In an earlier thread, we failed to fully resolve the question of > whether it is necessary for a TD, in order to properly apply L27B1 > (b), to ascertain and take into account the nature of the specific > misperception which led the IBer to make the IB. These examples, in > which that information is specifically noted and referred to in the > subsequent analyses, clearly answer that question in the affirmative. That guidance (from the EBU L&EC) is official in the EBU and (I think, given Max Bavin's position) the EBL but so far as I know not elsewhere. I don't think we have any official guidance in the ACBL, nor do I have much hope of seeing any. Given that I have not yet seen a 2007 L27 ruling in the ACBL that is even remotely correct, this is no doubt a minor problem. (Admittedly my sample is only four or five cases.) From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 12 03:26:11 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:26:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <4A803702.7020705@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A803702.7020705@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A821A33.20504@nhcc.net> > From: Sven Pran > My general position is that any information I receive from what > opponents do > or doesn't do is authorized for me and my partner so long as it is not a > consequence (whether direct or indirect) of an irregularity committed by my > partner or me. That's what the rules ought to say and (I believe) did say up until 2007. Alas, the 2007 FLB appears to say something different. No doubt it was an oversight, and in practice no one will play to the rules as written (nor can they be enforced), but BLML seems to be an appropriate forum to point out the discrepancy. From bridge.bohnsack at t-online.de Wed Aug 12 02:36:00 2009 From: bridge.bohnsack at t-online.de (bridge.bohnsack at t-online.de) Date: 12 Aug 2009 00:36 GMT Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper Message-ID: <1Mb1ni-21nbCy0@fwd01.t-online.de> According the Max Bavin WBFLC message to the EBU L&E C: "... The Committee (WBFLC) favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director judges ..." and given the EBU L&E C examples cited in the same posting, the replacement of 2D (=NMF IB) by 3D (=cue of opps suit) should IMO clearly be permitted. In the words of the EBU L&E C it might read as: v) West North East South 1C pass 1S pass 1NT 2D 2D (not having seen the 2D overcall) 2D without the overcall is NMF, at least inviting game and asking opener for spade support. East has a replacement bid of 3D available which would be forcing to game, still asking opener for spade support, so superficially all is well. However, game forcing, balanced hands without 5S and without a D stop would have responded 3NT had there been no overcall. Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this replacement cannot be allowed (without rectification) as West will be in receipt of the additional information that partner does not hold four spades in a balanced hand without a D stop. But with a more liberal approach, this change is OK. Again, the TD is encouraged to ignore this sort of subtle negative inference. Note, that with 5S East uses opps suit to ask for S support as well as East does with 2D NMF. The main difference is that NMF shows at least, say 10HCP, whilst 3D at least, say 12HCP. Did anyone think of how to "show" 5 spades after the 2D- intervention by RHO? As I believe, both, the 2D (=NMF) and the 3D (=cue) rather do not "show", but a s k . If E-W now try to stop in 3S making, I may assess 4S-1 according to 27.D. And if W now bids S without a D stop, having only 2S, I may assess 3NT-x. To me, this more liberal ruling seems more relaxing. Henning Bohnsack, Germany From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 12 03:31:53 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:31:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <4A809990.7020604@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A809990.7020604@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A821B89.6030503@nhcc.net> > From: Robert Park > It seems strange to me that the laws should allow an insufficient bidder > to gain advantage by substituting a call that adds precision to the the > meaning of his insufficient action. As I think others have pointed out, this is the wrong end of the stick. As long as the IBer does nothing he couldn't have done in a legal auction, there's no harm. The problem comes when _the IB_ adds information to what would have been available if the IB had not occurred, not the other way around. To take an extreme example, if I have a legal bid that shows the exact 13 cards I hold, having made a previous IB shouldn't stop me from making it (unless LHO accepts the IB, of course). From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 12 03:34:57 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:34:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <4A818CBC.6040009@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A818CBC.6040009@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A821C41.2090001@nhcc.net> > From: Grattan > Both ton and I receive privately requests > from all round the world for help in understanding the > application of laws. Anyone who knows to write to you or Ton is already in the top 5% of TDs; this is far from a fair sample. If an ACBL director writes, he's probably in the top 1% within the ACBL (alas not a high standard). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 12 03:09:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:09:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201ca1ae0$6db75b90$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Graham Greene (1904-1991): "Human nature is not black and white but black and grey." Richard Hills: >>It seems to me that Grattan is perpetrating a Hermanic >>paradox, since If West's 4NT was the infraction which is >>deemed Not to have occurred under Law 12B1, Then a >>proportion of 4NT may Not be included in the Law 12B1 >>adjusted score. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ 4NT is *not* the infraction. The infraction is *bidding* >4NT when the action is assisted by the UI and there is a >logical alternative. With no UI, 4NT is a legal bid and if >in a clean auction some might choose it the law does not >preclude its inclusion in a weighted adjusted score - it >stands part of "the expectation had the infraction not >occurred" (12B1). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The problem is that the Westminster principle of cabinet solidarity requires Grattan to defend the indefensible. Grattan was a member of the WBF Appeals Committee a number of years ago when the majority irrationally decided to permit so- called "Reveley Rulings". In accordance with the Westminster principle Grattan does not reveal whether or not he voted with the majority on "Reveley Rulings", but also in accordance with the Westminster principle Grattan enunciates the fallacious logic of the majority. The enthymeme in Grattan's paradox is "With no UI ... in a clean auction" which implies that The Creation Of UI is a part of The Use Of UI infraction of Law 73C. This is not so, as Law 73D1 makes clear and as the WBF Code of Practice makes clearer. A "Reveley Ruling" is not only logically wrong but also morally grey (hence the Zone 1 decision to differ with the WBF Appeals Committee and prohibit "Reveley Rulings" in Zone 1). A player who meticulously obeys Law 73C will get a worse score than a much less meticulous coffee-houser, since the much less meticulous coffee-houser benefits from a grey "Reveley Ruling" weighted score which includes part or all of their coffee- house infraction of Law 73C: "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 12 03:41:31 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:41:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ogden Nash (1902-1971): The trouble with a kitten is THAT Eventually it becomes a CAT. Steve Willner: >It might be worth pointing out that this requirement is "over- >riding" only because the WBFLC says it is. Given the ACBL's >views on other matters, I'm not sure the WBFLC guidance is >official here in North America. Of course in practice, ACBL >rulings are pretty random, so anything can happen in a given >case. Richard Hills: Until the ACBL kitten disaffiliates from the WBF cat, the ACBL kitten is bound by the WBF Constitution, which states that the WBF Laws Committee is the ultimate authority for interpreting The Fabulous Law Book. But the ACBL Constitution states that it is the cat-like tread of the ACBL Laws Commission which is the ultimate authority for interpreting The Fabulous Law Book. After the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in October 2008, the ACBL Laws Commission then examined the WBF LC minutes. The ACBL LC adopted some of the WBF LC minutes, but rejected at least one of the WBF LC minutes. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 12 05:30:28 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:30:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Willmott Lewis (1877-1950), Washington correspondent of The Times: "I think it well to remember that, when writing for blml, we are writing for an elderly lady in Hastings who has two cats of which she is passionately fond. Unless our blml posts can successfully compete for her interest with those cats, they are no good." Marv French, book review with white-hot enthusiasm: >Larry R. Harris, with the help of Technical Advisor Gary S. >Zeiger (high-level ACBL TD) has made a good effort in that >direction. The title is Laws of Duplicate Bridge Through the Eyes >of the Player, published by Baron Barclay Bridge Supply >www.baronbarclay.com. $12.95 > >It is very well-formatted, Bruce Altshuler (TBW July 2009), book review with grey nuance: ".....The material is presented in an informal, almost conversational, style that would be better suited to lectures than to book form. The organization appears to be haphazard. For example, there is a section on Auctions, but Hesitations, Unauthorized Information, Irregularities, Skip Bid and alerts are under 'More Laws.'....." Marv French, book review with white-hot enthusiasm: >with funny cartoons, helpful sidebars, a few flow charts, and >other good things. [snip] >An Alert Matrix is included, taking up four large pages. It's >better than the ACBL version, that's all I will say as I haven't >studied it. Bruce Altshuler (TBW July 2009), book review with grey nuance: ".....The text explains the Laws correctly, but further examples would have made the book more appealing.....Unfortunately, this book contains too few of these pieces of shared wisdom; it will not make any player into a feared rule-savvy bridge force, or even a better bridge lawyer." Marv French, book review with white-hot enthusiasm: >The book ends with three great sections: > >(1) A self-appraisal quiz on the contents of the book. > >(2) "Wacky Wordies"--73 graphics expressing 73 common bridge >terms as visual puzzles. For instance "ton" alone in a box is >what? A simpleton? No, a singleton. Lotsa fun. > >(3) Full-page descriptions of nine unattractive TDs and one good >one: Commentator (who talks too much); Rottentater (scuzzy); >Dictator (mean know-it-all); Potentater (self-important); >Hesitater (do-nothing); Cheapskater (obvious from the name); >Spectator (incompetent); Agitator (big mouth); Imitator (hates >rectifying); and Facilitator (the ideal TD). Bruce Altshuler (TBW July 2009), book review with grey nuance: ".....A long Appendix with bridge ditties and illustrated humor is of no value to anyone seeking instruction on the Laws. Excerpts from rules referenced elsewhere would have been helpful....." Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 12 06:06:09 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:06:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ABDA Bulletin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: +=+ At least five of the above [WBF LC members] read what is written on blml. Several of them participate in Zonal and other seminars on the laws. Both ton and I receive privately requests from all round the world for help in understanding the application of laws. Frankly I think you underestimate the amount of communication we have with followers of the game and NBOs at large. n.b. Amalya Kearse is a Judge of the US Courts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: When the ABDA Bulletin is revived in the near future, I believe that it will be the only bridge magazine in the world whose target audience is restricted to Tournament Directors and others interested in Laws, movements and scoring. As mentioned earlier, Rick Beye (the former CTD of the ACBL) will be a columnist, so the new incarnation of the ABDA Bulletin will lack the Rest-Of-The-World skewing of its previous iteration. Matthias Berghaus: [snip] To think that much guidance filters down to the lowest levels is wishful thinking. Even now, when the internet gives us unprecedented opportunities to reach people and spread the good word, and the level of directing is indeed higher than ever before, even now the discussions here [on blml] (even the saner ones) would go far above the heads of the people who want to learn directing, [snip] Richard Hills: The revived ABDA Bulletin will be for all classes of Director, even an elderly lady in Hastings who has two cats. For example, in a previous edition of the ABDA Bulletin a low-level Club Director nevertheless had an article published, his Stationary Rover movement for 7.5 tables. (Which was a transposition of the standard Roving North-South movement for 7.5 tables, but had the physical advantage of permitting all North-Souths to remain in their seats throughout. This is helpful if any North-South player is in a wheelchair or otherwise has limited mobility.) Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Wed Aug 12 06:17:42 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:17:42 -0700 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Richard Hills> > Marv French, book review with white-hot enthusiasm: > >>Larry R. Harris, with the help of Technical Advisor Gary S. >>Zeiger (high-level ACBL TD) has made a good effort in that >>direction. The title is Laws of Duplicate Bridge Through the Eyes >>of the Player, published by Baron Barclay Bridge Supply >>www.baronbarclay.com. $12.95 "A good effort" is not white-hot, it is lukewarm. I criticized the inclusion of TD actions, which players need not know. Was that "white-hot enthusiasm"? >> >>It is very well-formatted, > > Bruce Altshuler (TBW July 2009), book review with grey nuance: > > ".....The material is presented in an informal, almost > conversational, style that would be better suited to lectures than > to book form. The organization appears to be haphazard. For > example, there is a section on Auctions, but Hesitations, > Unauthorized Information, Irregularities, Skip Bid and alerts are > under 'More Laws.'....." I fail to see what is wrong with an "informal, almost conversational style." Eddie Kantar does okay with that style. Formatting is not synonymous with organization. I liked the fonts and the page layouts, which constitute formatting. I doubt that readers will be distressed with the organization . > > Bruce Altshuler (TBW July 2009), book review with grey nuance: > > ".....The text explains the Laws correctly, but further examples > would have made the book more appealing.....Unfortunately, this > book contains too few of these pieces of shared wisdom; it will > not make any player into a feared rule-savvy bridge force, or even > a better bridge lawyer." It might make some take a look at the Laws, better than nothing. Al Levy tells me it is too big, no one will buy it or read it. He's probably right, but Bruce thinks it should be bigger. > > Marv French, book review with white-hot enthusiasm: > >>The book ends with three great sections: >> >>(1) A self-appraisal quiz on the contents of the book. >> >>(2) "Wacky Wordies"--73 graphics expressing 73 common bridge >>terms as visual puzzles. For instance "ton" alone in a box is >>what? A simpleton? No, a singleton. Lotsa fun. >> >>(3) Full-page descriptions of nine unattractive TDs and one good >>one: Commentator (who talks too much); Rottentater (scuzzy); >>Dictator (mean know-it-all); Potentater (self-important); >>Hesitater (do-nothing); Cheapskater (obvious from the name); >>Spectator (incompetent); Agitator (big mouth); Imitator (hates >>rectifying); and Facilitator (the ideal TD). > > Bruce Altshuler (TBW July 2009), book review with grey nuance: > > ".....A long Appendix with bridge ditties and illustrated humor is > of no value to anyone seeking instruction on the Laws. Excerpts > from rules referenced elsewhere would have been helpful....." > Players want entertainment along with instruction, or they won't go to school. Anyway, I enjoyed these pages, and I believe most players who buy the book will too.. Since no one else has made much of an effort in this direction, I commend Mr. Harris for doing so. I could also do some extensive nit-picking, but will leave that to the Bruces of the world. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 12 08:14:27 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:14:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A815F6B.909@skynet.be> Message-ID: Tennessee Williams (1911-1983), Cat on a Hot Tin Roof: Brick: Well, they say nature hates a vacuum, Big Daddy. Big Daddy: That's what they say, but sometimes I think that a vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that Herman replaces it with. Herman De Wael: [big snip] >>Of course it is UI, of course it is forbidden by L20F5a, of course >>it is using DWS, of course it is forbidden by the Beijing >>interpretation. >> >>But yet again, we are talking MS here, in which all these forbidden >>things are not forbidden but obligatory. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : I understand MS as the statement that transmitting UI is >allowed only when it is unavoidable. Can some MS exponent confirm ? >I won't take Herman's word about his enemies' opinion. Richard Hills replies: First let us define our terms. Originally the word "Bolshevik" was Russian for "majority party", but "bolshie" is now an English slang term synonymous with "truculent". Likewise "Majority School", abbreviated "MS", has been obsolete since the October 2008 meeting of the WBF Laws Committee. Ergo, "MS" now perhaps should be renamed "Official School", abbreviated "OS". Hmmm, using OS might cause unintentional ambiguity; although perhaps Herman De Wael may think that the OS abbreviation is apposite. :-) :-) Herman De Wael: >>It is not I who is advocating forbidden things, it is the WBF! Richard Hills: Okay, instead of using "OS", how about using the alternative name of "Lawful Advocates", abbreviated "LAs"? The LAs permit almost unlimited creation and transmission of UI. "Bridge is a thinking game." The exceptions covered by "almost" would be always avoiding creation and transmission of UI ***by design*** (Laws 73A and 73B, see also the WBF Code of Practice), plus almost always avoiding creation and transmission of UI during a Law 20F5 time frame. The exception covered by the Law 20F5 "almost" would be the over- riding requirement to obey Law 40B6(a) in response to an opponent's legal Law 20 enquiry. What's the problem? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Wed Aug 12 08:42:27 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:42:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: It's too late to discuss conventions when...] In-Reply-To: <4A821760.8050809@nhcc.net> References: <4A7858AB.6040904@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A821760.8050809@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000301ca1b18$0f3d4880$2db7d980$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: 12. august 2009 03:14 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: It's too late to discuss conventions when...] > > > From: rfrick at rfrick.info > > Maybe for 2017 the auction period should start whenever either player > > looks at his hand OR a call occurs. > > The logical rule would be for the auction period to start for each side when either > member of that side looks at his cards. Prior to that, there's no logical reason > discussion of methods, for example, should be forbidden. The rule we have now > is more stringent: once someone takes his cards out of the board, the auction > period has started for that side. I can sort of understand the thinking behind that - > - once the cards are out, who can say for sure they haven't been seen? -- but it > delays the game when discussion of methods is needed. (Why shouldn't we > discuss methods or anything else while counting our cards, for example?) For the purpose of defining the period during which players can still legally exchange information about agreements and also are responsible for their cards I prefer this period to begin for both sides when either player at the table withdraws his cards from the board and to end when play has been completed. > Letting one side start the auction period _for the other side_ by making a call or > otherwise seems unfair. (NS: "We play multi." East, before EW have taken cards > out of board: "What's our defense, partner?" North, putting bid card out: "Sorry, > too late!") Absolutely. And the best way to avoid this possibility is to ban any such exchange of information for both sides during the auction period as I suggest above.. > > There does appear to be a drafting error in L73B1, which should say "auction > period" instead of "auction." Right now, as Robert indicated, it appears to be legal > to discuss methods after seeing one's cards but before the first call of the auction. > Am I missing something? You sure mean L73A1? On looking back in previous laws I find it obvious that the term "Auction period" must have been intended here. I consider it unfortunate to have laws where the term "Auction period" refers to anything else than the period during which the auction takes place, however I recognize the need for a term designating the aggregate of calls made. Could not simply using the word "calls" in the laws for this purpose have avoided the existing confusion between "Auction" and "Auction period"? Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 12 08:54:11 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:54:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Do you believe a claim of mispull?] In-Reply-To: <4A821824.7070702@nhcc.net> References: <4A773101.5020007@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A821824.7070702@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000401ca1b19$b2b9bdd0$182d3970$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steve > Willner > Sent: 12. august 2009 03:17 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] [Fwd: Do you believe a claim of mispull?] > > > From: David Grabiner It seems to have > > become common that players who commit an infraction with a bidding box > > claim to have mispulled, rather than to have made a mental error. > > Should we treat this claim skeptically, > > Better, in my opinion, would be to change the Laws so the player's intent is > irrelevant. Sadly, that will have to wait until 2017 at least. In the meantime, I think > the Director just has to do the best he can to rule whether the change comes > under L25 A or B. Frankly, I don't see how such rulings can ever be consistently > accurate. I always describe the distinction between "slip of the mind" and "change of the mind" for the players at the table, telling them that I have to rely on their honest statements about their impressions on how this irregularity appeared. Till this day I have never had any difficulty reaching a decision accepted by both sides on whether L25A or L25B is the applicable law. (And I have had to make many such decisions over the years!) Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 12 08:57:37 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:57:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <4A821A33.20504@nhcc.net> References: <4A803702.7020705@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A821A33.20504@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000501ca1b1a$2d20e2b0$8762a810$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > > From: Sven Pran > > My general position is that any information I receive from what > > opponents do or doesn't do is authorized for me and my partner so long > > as it is not a consequence (whether direct or indirect) of an > > irregularity committed by my partner or me. > > That's what the rules ought to say and (I believe) did say up until 2007. Alas, the > 2007 FLB appears to say something different. No doubt it was an oversight, and > in practice no one will play to the rules as written (nor can they be enforced), but > BLML seems to be an appropriate forum to point out the discrepancy. I may have overlooked something but I cannot remember having seen anywhere in the 2007 laws saying anything different on what is AI and what is UI? Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 12 08:58:56 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:58:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006001ca1aab$89dea4c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> <4A813254.5000208@ulb.ac.be> <4A813AE2.2010506@skynet.be> <4A814CE4.2030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A815F6B.909@skynet.be> <4A81626C.5030502@ulb.ac.be><4A816F2E.8020408@skynet.be> <4A818B19.2060605@ulb.ac.be> <006001ca1aab$89dea4c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A826830.4090907@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > > +=+ Law 20 requires that an explanation given must be a correct > and complete account (see 20F4) of the partnership understanding > about calls actually made, relevant alternative calls available but > not made, and inferences from the choice of action where these > are matters of partnership understanding (see20F1). > Further information as to the WBF stance may be derived > from the following extract from the Code of Practice: > > "It is not an offence to convey unauthorized information > to partner in complying with a requirement of the laws. > > etc. True, but it doesn't answer my question. My question was : if, in order to comply with your obligation to give full disclosure, it is possible to use a sentence which doesn't give information to your partner, is it proper to choose a formulation which does ? In other words, if UI there must be, then let it be, but if you can avoid it, should you strive to avoid it ? I think you should. Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 12 09:03:20 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:03:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002501ca1ac0$b6db2a60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Tennessee Williams (1911-1983), Cat on a Hot Tin Roof: "What is the victory of a cat on a hot tin roof? - I wish I knew ... Just staying on it, I guess, as long as she can." Law 20F3: "Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply." Eric Landau: [big snip] >>that he may be misled by his own failure to understand the >>previous calls, due to his own failure to ask about them, is his >>own problem, not his opponents'. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Perhaps I am missing something. Would not the System Card >provide the information without need for a question? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: If Grattan used Law 20F3 to ask Hashmat Ali about my seventh relay response, then Grattan would be missing something. There is only room on the ABF System Card for opening bids and initial relay responses. (However, at Aussie national championships I bring along the complete 28 pages of Ali-Hills system notes, permitting astute opponents who also use relay methods to follow our game force relay auctions call by call.) While most Regulating Authorities believe that it is black-and-white to prohibit the use of destructive methods from some events (hence no Brown Sticker conventions in the qualifying rounds of World Championships), it is much more a cat-grey problem as to whether a Regulating Authority should permit game forcing but unusual methods. Simply because a pair is using an unusual method, even if that unusual method applies only in a game forcing auction, then that pair gains an unfair advantage. For example, after half of a totally incomprehensible game force relay auction, Hashmat Ali bid a duly alerted 3D. Hashmat's LHO, an Aussie Internationalist, held KJT9 of diamonds, so equally duly stuck in a lead-directing double. But had the Aussie Internationalist comprehended our totally incomprehensible game force relay auction, she would have eschewed the double, since she would have known that Hashmat had promised a five-card diamond suit. Since I held the outstanding four diamonds, the final contract was 3Dxx, for +1240 to the good guys. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Wed Aug 12 10:21:10 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:21:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A827B76.6060506@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > What's the problem? > That you haven't understood a word I said, and consequently I don't understand anything in your latest post. But that's not necessarily new. Herman. From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Wed Aug 12 10:34:33 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:34:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <1Mb1ni-21nbCy0@fwd01.t-online.de> References: <1Mb1ni-21nbCy0@fwd01.t-online.de> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper > According the Max Bavin WBFLC message to the EBU L&E C: > > "... The Committee (WBFLC) > favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities > that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of > Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. > At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the > Director judges ..." > > and given the EBU L&E C examples cited in the same posting, > > the replacement of 2D (=NMF IB) by 3D (=cue of opps suit) > should IMO clearly be permitted. > In the words of the EBU L&E C it might read as: > > v) West North East South > 1C pass 1S pass > 1NT 2D 2D (not having seen the 2D overcall) > > 2D without the overcall is NMF, at least inviting game and > asking opener for spade support. East has a replacement bid > of 3D available which would be forcing to game, still asking > opener for spade support, so superficially all is well. > However, game forcing, balanced hands without 5S and without > a D stop would have responded 3NT had there been no overcall. > Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this replacement > cannot be allowed (without rectification) as West will be in > receipt of the additional information that partner does not > hold four spades in a balanced hand without a D stop. > But with a more liberal approach, this change is OK. Again, > the TD is encouraged to ignore this sort of subtle negative > inference. > > Note, that with 5S East uses opps suit to ask for S support > as well as East does with 2D NMF. The main difference is that > NMF shows at least, say 10HCP, whilst 3D at least, say 12HCP. > > Did anyone think of how to "show" 5 spades after the 2D- > intervention by RHO? > > As I believe, both, the 2D (=NMF) and the 3D (=cue) rather > do not "show", but a s k . > > If E-W now try to stop in 3S making, I may assess 4S-1 > according to 27.D. And if W now bids S without a D stop, > having only 2S, I may assess 3NT-x. > > To me, this more liberal ruling seems more relaxing. > > Henning Bohnsack, Germany > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Henning seems to have summed up nicely. It might be worth considering practical issues here too. (It is my opinion of course that the Law is impractical and unworkable especially at Club Level, where the poor playing TD has almost no hope whatsoever of being able to sort this out. However we have to try. ) If we followed the letter of the Law, almost no rectification calls would be allowed. In its infinite wisdom the WBFLC said "Hang on that isn't what we meant to say. We like you to be more liberal" Max Bavin tried to offer some guidance and asked The EBU's L&E Committee to consider his examples and put forward these as assistance for TDs in England. The result of this discussion has been widely published and presented here. This is not a judgement ruling where as TD can consult a long list of colleagues or make some phone-calls or send out a batch of emails for opinions. The TD has very little time or will have to cancel the remaining boards for this round and perhaps the next as well. So as Henning suggests I think, that on the basis that 2D NMF = "asking for more information" and the cuebid of 3D over a 2D overcall similarly requests further information, it would be my inclination (working in England) to allow this. In Club Bridge (ie 9x.xx% of all bridge played - supply your own figures) the majority of players will have no clue about the subtle nuances beeing discussed here. In some ways I think the discussion counter-productive. This is a poorly conceived Law and 2007 changes made Law27 worse not better. I've tried hard to work out how to approach the players at the table and how to talk to them and explain. We need a quick fix and to move on. If anything really bad happens we can use 27D, Mike From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Wed Aug 12 10:46:11 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:46:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <4A821B89.6030503@nhcc.net> References: <4A809990.7020604@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A821B89.6030503@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5F0F919392484309B6D9C20E63326B19@mikePC> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper >> From: Robert Park >> It seems strange to me that the laws should allow an insufficient bidder >> to gain advantage by substituting a call that adds precision to the the >> meaning of his insufficient action. > > As I think others have pointed out, this is the wrong end of the stick. > As long as the IBer does nothing he couldn't have done in a legal > auction, there's no harm. The problem comes when _the IB_ adds > information to what would have been available if the IB had not > occurred, not the other way around. > > To take an extreme example, if I have a legal bid that shows the exact > 13 cards I hold, having made a previous IB shouldn't stop me from making > it (unless LHO accepts the IB, of course). > ___________________________________ and if you make a bid that's completely meaningless almost anything you do now will be more precise I may have given this example before - but this really happened to me on the very first day, on the very first round, on the very first boars where I used the 2007 Lawbook. Puppet Stayman unopposed Auction 2NT 3C (asks for 4 / 5 card Major) 3D No 5 but at least one 4 card major 3D TD When I asked the player concerned (away from the Table!!) he told me that he had intended to bid 3H to show a 4 card Spade suit (The system bid) He had "mispulled". IMHO 3D is meaningless as it has no meaning in this sequence. This was not a Law25A problem as no attempt to change had occurred. I told the player concerned that I would allow 3H as a rectification call. The IB was not accepted and the player chose to bid 3H - all the players seemed happy. And so was I. (Until now when you all are going to shout at me and tell me I'm an idiot) Mike mike ____________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 12 11:51:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:51:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: It's too late to discuss conventions when...] References: <4A7858AB.6040904@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A821760.8050809@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <006e01ca1b38$24fe6210$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: It's too late to discuss conventions when...] > The logical rule would be for the auction period to start for each side when either member of that side looks at his cards. Prior to that, there's no logical reason discussion of methods, for example, should be forbidden. < +=+ A sweeping assertion. It is, of course, far simpler for the Director and the players to determine whether a player has removed his cards from the board than it is to determine whether he has looked at them. In addition the Counting Period is not left in limbo. Apparently Steve has found an instance to argue that such simplicity is undesirable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 12 12:00:56 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:00:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Do you believe a claim of mispull?] References: <4A773101.5020007@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A821824.7070702@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <006f01ca1b38$2526d1a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] [Fwd: Do you believe a claim of mispull?] > Better, in my opinion, would be to change the Laws > so the player's > intent is irrelevant. Sadly, that will > have to wait until 2017 at least. In the meantime, I > think the Director just has to do the best he can to > rule whether the change comes under L25 A or B. > Frankly, I don't see how such rulings can ever be > consistently accurate. > +=+ Bidding box regulations may be changed at any time. This is not a question of law. In some constituencies when playing without screens 'pause fior thought' is assessed from the time when the bidding card is removed from the box, with screens when it is laid and released. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 12 12:14:52 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:14:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. References: <4A818CBC.6040009@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A821C41.2090001@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <007001ca1b38$254f6840$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. >> From: Grattan >> Both ton and I receive privately requests >> from all round the world for help in understanding the >> application of laws. > > Anyone who knows to write to you or Ton is already > in the top 5% of TDs; this is far from a fair sample. If > an ACBL director writes, he's probably in the top 1% > within the ACBL (alas not a high standard). > +=+ In the case of the USA or Canada a Director who writes to me is almost certainly a reader of blml - or has been invited to write to me by one such. But for the rest of the world the level is far lower - they may be included in Anna Gudge's circulation list of tournament directors, they may pick up my name from the law book; also, those who contact me include the editors in the 'Far East' and other parts of the world of local bridge publications. . This is not a question that you know much about. +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 12 12:22:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:22:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007101ca1b38$25758de0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > The problem is that the Westminster principle of cabinet solidarity requires Grattan to defend the indefensible. > +=+ Just read what the law says objectively, without adding to it the colour of your own desires. The aim of score adjustment is stated explicitly and with no restrictions. RAs will give policy guidance if they choose, but you, Richard, should not misrepresent the Law itself. +=+ From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Aug 12 12:38:47 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:38:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <1Mb1ni-21nbCy0@fwd01.t-online.de> References: <1Mb1ni-21nbCy0@fwd01.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A829BB7.4060402@consolidated.net> bridge.bohnsack at t-online.de wrote: > According the Max Bavin WBFLC message to the EBU L&E C: > > "... The Committee (WBFLC) > favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities > that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of > Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. > At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the > Director judges ..." > > and given the EBU L&E C examples cited in the same posting, > > the replacement of 2D (=NMF IB) by 3D (=cue of opps suit) > should IMO clearly be permitted. > In the words of the EBU L&E C it might read as: > > v) West North East South > 1C pass 1S pass > 1NT 2D 2D (not having seen the 2D overcall) > > 2D without the overcall is NMF, at least inviting game and > asking opener for spade support. East has a replacement bid > of 3D available which would be forcing to game, still asking > opener for spade support, so superficially all is well. > However, game forcing, balanced hands without 5S and without > a D stop would have responded 3NT had there been no overcall. > Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this replacement > cannot be allowed (without rectification) as West will be in > receipt of the additional information that partner does not > hold four spades in a balanced hand without a D stop. > But with a more liberal approach, this change is OK. Again, > the TD is encouraged to ignore this sort of subtle negative > inference. > > Note, that with 5S East uses opps suit to ask for S support > as well as East does with 2D NMF. The main difference is that > NMF shows at least, say 10HCP, whilst 3D at least, say 12HCP. > > Did anyone think of how to "show" 5 spades after the 2D- > intervention by RHO? > > As I believe, both, the 2D (=NMF) and the 3D (=cue) rather > do not "show", but a s k . > > If E-W now try to stop in 3S making, I may assess 4S-1 > according to 27.D. And if W now bids S without a D stop, > having only 2S, I may assess 3NT-x. > > To me, this more liberal ruling seems more relaxing. > But doesn't Law 27b1(a) require both 2D and 3D to be "incontrovertibly not artificial" for the auction to continue? How is it that 2D NMF and a 3D cue bid, neither of which are offers to play in diamonds, have become not artificial? This seems a bit more than a "mildly liberal" interpretation of "not artificial." Are there guidelines for "mildly liberal" anywhere that mere mortals can understand and apply? If not, is the Laws committee not delinquent in its duties here? --Bob Park > Henning Bohnsack, Germany > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 12 12:42:31 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:42:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007701ca1b39$9a6f6d40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Willmott Lewis (1877-1950), Washington correspondent of The Times: > > "I think it well to remember that, when writing for blml, we are > writing for an elderly lady in Hastings who has two cats of which > she is passionately fond. Unless our blml posts can successfully > compete for her interest with those cats, they are no good." > > Marv French, book review with white-hot enthusiasm: > >>Larry R. Harris, with the help of Technical Advisor Gary S. >>Zeiger (high-level ACBL TD) has made a good effort in that >>direction. The title is Laws of Duplicate Bridge Through the Eyes >>of the Player, published by Baron Barclay Bridge Supply >>www.baronbarclay.com. $12.95 >> +=+ From your description of it I assume a proportion of its contents apply only in ABCL-land? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 12 12:57:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:57:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> <4A813254.5000208@ulb.ac.be> <4A813AE2.2010506@skynet.be> <4A814CE4.2030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A815F6B.909@skynet.be> <4A81626C.5030502@ulb.ac.be><4A816F2E.8020408@skynet.be> <4A818B19.2060605@ulb.ac.be><006001ca1aab$89dea4c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A826830.4090907@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00a601ca1b40$ffd05260$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Grattan a ?crit : > > > +=+ Law 20 requires that an explanation given must be a correct > and complete account (see 20F4) of the partnership understanding > about calls actually made, relevant alternative calls available but > not made, and inferences from the choice of action where these > are matters of partnership understanding (see20F1). > Further information as to the WBF stance may be derived > from the following extract from the Code of Practice: > > "It is not an offence to convey unauthorized information > to partner in complying with a requirement of the laws. > > etc. True, but it doesn't answer my question. My question was : if, in order to comply with your obligation to give full disclosure, it is possible to use a sentence which doesn't give information to your partner, is it proper to choose a formulation which does ? In other words, if UI there must be, then let it be, but if you can avoid it, should you strive to avoid it ? I think you should. +=+ In the example you gave you denied opponents information to which they were entitled. The law requires you to tell them the points range of your 2C bid. If you fail to do so your explanation incomplete. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 12 13:13:06 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:13:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper References: <1Mb1ni-21nbCy0@fwd01.t-online.de> Message-ID: <00a701ca1b40$fffda3f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper > > In some ways I think the discussion counter-productive. > This is a poorly conceived Law and 2007 changes made > Law27 worse not better. I've tried hard to work out > how to approach the players at the table and how to > talk to them and explain. We need a quick fix and to > move on. If anything really bad happens we can use 27D, > > Mike > +=+ This fits with the WBFLC view. In doubt allow the replacement call and resort to 27D later if it goes wrong. Max has tried to resolve a proportion of the doubts, but for the club director and some others there will be those uncertainties. I do not think you would find a Drafting Committee member who does not agree we entered upon a slippery slope, or it could be the Ride to the Abyss, when we endeavoured to give form to the relaxation of stringency in Law 27 that was suggested. However, as Mike now observes, we are where we are. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 12 13:23:38 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:23:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper References: <4A809990.7020604@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A821B89.6030503@nhcc.net> <5F0F919392484309B6D9C20E63326B19@mikePC> Message-ID: <00a801ca1b41$00263a90$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper > When I asked the player concerned (away from the Table!!) he told me that he had intended to bid 3H to show a 4 card Spade suit (The system bid) He had "mispulled". IMHO 3D is meaningless as it has no meaning in this sequence. This was not a Law25A problem as no attempt to change had occurred. I told the player concerned that I would allow 3H as a rectification call. The IB was not accepted and the player chose to bid 3H - all the players seemed happy. And so was I. (Until now when you all are going to shout at me and tell me I'm an idiot) > > Mike > +=+ Oh, Mike, do stay happy. Criticism here is mere opinion, and in the opinion of many of the WBFLC often ill-informed. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 12 13:35:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:35:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper References: <1Mb1ni-21nbCy0@fwd01.t-online.de> <4A829BB7.4060402@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <00a901ca1b41$004eaa20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper > But doesn't Law 27b1(a) require both 2D and 3D to be "incontrovertibly > not artificial" for the auction to continue? How is it that 2D NMF and a > 3D cue bid, neither of which are offers to play in diamonds, have become > not artificial? > > This seems a bit more than a "mildly liberal" interpretation of "not > artificial." Are there guidelines for "mildly liberal" anywhere that > mere mortals can understand and apply? If not, is the Laws committee not > delinquent in its duties here? > +=+ The answer to Bob's question is 'yes'. The rider to be added is that no such requirement is present in Law 27B1(b). The example is an application of the latter. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 12 14:11:55 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:11:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: It's too late to discuss conventions when...] In-Reply-To: <4A821760.8050809@nhcc.net> References: <4A7858AB.6040904@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A821760.8050809@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:14:08 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: rfrick at rfrick.info >> Maybe for 2017 the auction period should start whenever either player >> looks at his hand OR a call occurs. > > The logical rule would be for the auction period to start for each side > when either member of that side looks at his cards. Prior to that, > there's no logical reason discussion of methods, for example, should be > forbidden. The rule we have now is more stringent: once someone takes > his cards out of the board, the auction period has started for that > side. I can sort of understand the thinking behind that -- once the > cards are out, who can say for sure they haven't been seen? -- but it > delays the game when discussion of methods is needed. (Why shouldn't we > discuss methods or anything else while counting our cards, for example?) > > Letting one side start the auction period _for the other side_ by making > a call or otherwise seems unfair. (NS: "We play multi." East, before EW > have taken cards out of board: "What's our defense, partner?" North, > putting bid card out: "Sorry, too late!") In the ACBL, pre-alerts have to be made before cards are taken out of the boards. L73A1 actually bans communication during the auction. So if you take that law seriously, the above scenario is correct -- the players cannot discuss their defense once North has made a call. The problem with taking L73A1 too seriously is that there is legal communication other than calls and plays. One is asking about an irregularity. A second is that most blmlers believe that partner's explanations of one's bids can be used to wake oneself up for the purpose of explaining partner's bids. That's for during the auction; it would be noncontrovsial for during the clarification period. Are partner's decisions in response to an irregularity AI? Hmm. Calling for a card from dummy? > > There does appear to be a drafting error in L73B1, which should say > "auction period" instead of "auction." Right now, as Robert indicated, > it appears to be legal to discuss methods after seeing one's cards but > before the first call of the auction. Am I missing something? It would have to be one-way communication -- your partner can't use the information once your partner pulls his cards out of the board (L161(d)) From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 12 14:17:57 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:17:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: It's too late to discuss conventions when...] In-Reply-To: <006e01ca1b38$24fe6210$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A7858AB.6040904@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A821760.8050809@nhcc.net> <006e01ca1b38$24fe6210$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:51:40 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " But which was which he could never make out, > Despite his best endeavour, > Of that there was no shadow of doubt, > No possible doubt whatever." > Sir W.S.Gilbert. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:14 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: It's too late to discuss > conventions when...] > > >> > The logical rule would be for the auction period to start for each side > when either member of that side looks at his cards. Prior to that, > there's no logical reason discussion of methods, for example, should be > forbidden. > < > +=+ A sweeping assertion. It is, of course, far simpler for the Director > and the players to determine whether a player has removed his cards > from the board than it is to determine whether he has looked at them. > In addition the Counting Period is not left in limbo. Apparently Steve > has found an instance to argue that such simplicity is undesirable. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ If a pair has not looked at their hands (and the auction has not started) they probably think that they can still discuss conventions, and I wouldn't blame them for thinking that -- they are being logical and the law is not. So if I tried to enforce that, they would have less respect for the laws. If the pair should be starting play, it is convenient if I can ban them from talking about their conventions. But that's a different issue and should be handled differently. From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Aug 12 14:32:25 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:32:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <00a901ca1b41$004eaa20$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <1Mb1ni-21nbCy0@fwd01.t-online.de> <4A829BB7.4060402@consolidated.net> <00a901ca1b41$004eaa20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A82B659.9000707@consolidated.net> Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " But which was which he could never make out, > Despite his best endeavour, > Of that there was no shadow of doubt, > No possible doubt whatever." > Sir W.S.Gilbert. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Park" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:38 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper > > > >> But doesn't Law 27b1(a) require both 2D and 3D to be "incontrovertibly >> not artificial" for the auction to continue? How is it that 2D NMF and a >> 3D cue bid, neither of which are offers to play in diamonds, have become >> not artificial? >> >> This seems a bit more than a "mildly liberal" interpretation of "not >> artificial." Are there guidelines for "mildly liberal" anywhere that >> mere mortals can understand and apply? If not, is the Laws committee not >> delinquent in its duties here? >> >> > +=+ The answer to Bob's question is 'yes'. The rider to be added > is that no such requirement is present in Law 27B1(b). The example > is an application of the latter. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > But 27b1(b) starts: "if, except as in (a), ..." This seems to say that (a) is clearly meant to dominate (b). Are you now saying that the laws committee has had a change in heart? Does not the "except" in the lead-in to (b) mean what it says? --Bob Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090812/b1e3cff3/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 12 14:30:25 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:30:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <5F0F919392484309B6D9C20E63326B19@mikePC> References: <4A809990.7020604@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A821B89.6030503@nhcc.net> <5F0F919392484309B6D9C20E63326B19@mikePC> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:46:11 -0400, Mike Amos wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:31 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper > > >>> From: Robert Park >>> It seems strange to me that the laws should allow an insufficient >>> bidder >>> to gain advantage by substituting a call that adds precision to the the >>> meaning of his insufficient action. >> >> As I think others have pointed out, this is the wrong end of the stick. >> As long as the IBer does nothing he couldn't have done in a legal >> auction, there's no harm. The problem comes when _the IB_ adds >> information to what would have been available if the IB had not >> occurred, not the other way around. >> >> To take an extreme example, if I have a legal bid that shows the exact >> 13 cards I hold, having made a previous IB shouldn't stop me from making >> it (unless LHO accepts the IB, of course). >> ___________________________________ > > and if you make a bid that's completely meaningless almost anything you > do > now will be more precise > > I may have given this example before - but this really happened to me on > the very first day, on the very first round, on the very first boars > where I > used the 2007 Lawbook. > > Puppet Stayman unopposed Auction > > 2NT 3C (asks for 4 / 5 card Major) > 3D No 5 but at least one 4 card major > > 3D TD > > When I asked the player concerned (away from the Table!!) he told me > that he > had intended to bid 3H to show a 4 card Spade suit (The system bid) He > had > "mispulled". IMHO 3D is meaningless as it has no meaning in this > sequence. > This was not a Law25A problem as no attempt to change had occurred. I > told > the player concerned that I would allow 3H as a rectification call. The > IB > was not accepted and the player chose to bid 3H - all the players seemed > happy. And so was I. (Until now when you all are going to shout at me > and > tell me I'm an idiot) All insufficient bids are meaningless. So the question becomes the intended meaning. In this case, the intended meaning was to show 4 spades. So 3He is a perfectly acceptable. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 12 14:48:40 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:48:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: References: <1Mb1ni-21nbCy0@fwd01.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:34:33 -0400, Mike Amos wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:36 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper > > >> According the Max Bavin WBFLC message to the EBU L&E C: >> >> "... The Committee (WBFLC) >> favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities >> that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of >> Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. >> At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the >> Director judges ..." >> >> and given the EBU L&E C examples cited in the same posting, >> >> the replacement of 2D (=NMF IB) by 3D (=cue of opps suit) >> should IMO clearly be permitted. >> In the words of the EBU L&E C it might read as: >> >> v) West North East South >> 1C pass 1S pass >> 1NT 2D 2D (not having seen the 2D overcall) >> >> 2D without the overcall is NMF, at least inviting game and >> asking opener for spade support. East has a replacement bid >> of 3D available which would be forcing to game, still asking >> opener for spade support, so superficially all is well. >> However, game forcing, balanced hands without 5S and without >> a D stop would have responded 3NT had there been no overcall. >> Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this replacement >> cannot be allowed (without rectification) as West will be in >> receipt of the additional information that partner does not >> hold four spades in a balanced hand without a D stop. >> But with a more liberal approach, this change is OK. Again, >> the TD is encouraged to ignore this sort of subtle negative >> inference. >> >> Note, that with 5S East uses opps suit to ask for S support >> as well as East does with 2D NMF. The main difference is that >> NMF shows at least, say 10HCP, whilst 3D at least, say 12HCP. >> >> Did anyone think of how to "show" 5 spades after the 2D- >> intervention by RHO? >> >> As I believe, both, the 2D (=NMF) and the 3D (=cue) rather >> do not "show", but a s k . >> >> If E-W now try to stop in 3S making, I may assess 4S-1 >> according to 27.D. And if W now bids S without a D stop, >> having only 2S, I may assess 3NT-x. >> >> To me, this more liberal ruling seems more relaxing. >> >> Henning Bohnsack, Germany >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > Henning seems to have summed up nicely. > > It might be worth considering practical issues here too. > > (It is my opinion of course that the Law is impractical and unworkable > especially at Club Level, where the poor playing TD has almost no hope > whatsoever of being able to sort this out. However we have to try. ) > > If we followed the letter of the Law, almost no rectification calls > would be > allowed. In its infinite wisdom the WBFLC said "Hang on that isn't > what we > meant to say. We like you to be more liberal" > > Max Bavin tried to offer some guidance and asked The EBU's L&E Committee > to > consider his examples and put forward these as assistance for TDs in > England. The result of this discussion has been widely published and > presented here. > > This is not a judgement ruling where as TD can consult a long list of > colleagues or make some phone-calls or send out a batch of emails for > opinions. The TD has very little time or will have to cancel the > remaining > boards for this round and perhaps the next as well. > > So as Henning suggests I think, that on the basis that 2D NMF = "asking > for > more information" and the cuebid of 3D over a 2D overcall similarly > requests > further information, it would be my inclination (working in England) to > allow this. In Club Bridge (ie 9x.xx% of all bridge played - supply your > own figures) the majority of players will have no clue about the subtle > nuances beeing discussed here. > > In some ways I think the discussion counter-productive. This is a poorly > conceived Law and 2007 changes made Law27 worse not better. I've tried > hard > to work out how to approach the players at the table and how to talk to > them > and explain. We need a quick fix and to move on. If anything really bad > happens we can use 27D, > > Mike Hi Mike. I still like L27B1(b), and I find it workable at the club level. You advocate trying to explain L27B1(b) and let the player take it from there. I agree that is unworkable; even some blmler's are still not getting it. Legally, if they bid 1He over a 1Sp overcall, and now they don't want to convert that to a negative double (holding the perfect hand for a negative double), I think they probably haven't understood the law. Second choice is that they are not adept in using the law. So am required, as director, to keep explaining until they realize that that is a good call. Perhaps? They could in theory just ask me one by one if each possible call was nonbarring; more practically, they can ask me if any of the bids they want to make is nonbarring. Max's instructions suggest focusing on basic meaning. The basic meaning of the two bids (2Di as NMF and 3Di cue bid) are different. I am not sure what Max meant by basic meaning, but I would explain the two bids differently to opponents. From tedying at yahoo.com Wed Aug 12 15:04:39 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: References: <1Mb1ni-21nbCy0@fwd01.t-online.de> Message-ID: <643710.56465.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mike Amos > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:34:33 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper > > It might be worth considering practical issues here too. > > (It is my opinion of course that the Law is impractical and unworkable > especially at Club Level, where the poor playing TD has almost no hope > whatsoever of being able to sort this out. However we have to try. ) > > If we followed the letter of the Law, almost no rectification calls would be > allowed. In its infinite wisdom the WBFLC said "Hang on that isn't what we > meant to say. We like you to be more liberal" > > Max Bavin tried to offer some guidance and asked The EBU's L&E Committee to > consider his examples and put forward these as assistance for TDs in > England. The result of this discussion has been widely published and > presented here. > > This is not a judgement ruling where as TD can consult a long list of > colleagues or make some phone-calls or send out a batch of emails for > opinions. The TD has very little time or will have to cancel the remaining > boards for this round and perhaps the next as well. > > So as Henning suggests I think, that on the basis that 2D NMF = "asking for > more information" and the cuebid of 3D over a 2D overcall similarly requests > further information, it would be my inclination (working in England) to > allow this. In Club Bridge (ie 9x.xx% of all bridge played - supply your > own figures) the majority of players will have no clue about the subtle > nuances beeing discussed here. > > In some ways I think the discussion counter-productive. This is a poorly > conceived Law and 2007 changes made Law27 worse not better. I've tried hard > to work out how to approach the players at the table and how to talk to them > and explain. We need a quick fix and to move on. If anything really bad > happens we can use 27D, > > Mike Well, I agree that not only is this impractical and unworkable at the club level, this makes the director look capricious and whimsical if we allow some rectification bids and not others. I already have cases where the law is clear about different options and players accuse me of applying the laws inconsistently or have problems because different directors apply certain laws differently than others. If the law is vague about situations where sometimes a bid is correctable and sometimes it isn't and the directors do not apply them uniformly, the players will complain about this and I'm not sure that they wouldn't be justified. When player A makes an error and they are not allowed a rectification, but then later in the night, their opponents makes one that is allowed, it can be disruptive when player A then raises a stink about it being allowed for their opponent but not for them. Truly impractical. And unless carefully applied, makes the director look bad. -Ted Ying. From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Wed Aug 12 15:15:18 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:15:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <4A829BB7.4060402@consolidated.net> References: <1Mb1ni-21nbCy0@fwd01.t-online.de> <4A829BB7.4060402@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <24DCE4555F9B4DCAAC9E3644CF262F00@mamoslaptop> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Park" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper > bridge.bohnsack at t-online.de wrote: >> According the Max Bavin WBFLC message to the EBU L&E C: >> >> "... The Committee (WBFLC) >> favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities >> that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of >> Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. >> At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the >> Director judges ..." >> >> and given the EBU L&E C examples cited in the same posting, >> >> the replacement of 2D (=NMF IB) by 3D (=cue of opps suit) >> should IMO clearly be permitted. >> In the words of the EBU L&E C it might read as: >> >> v) West North East South >> 1C pass 1S pass >> 1NT 2D 2D (not having seen the 2D overcall) >> >> 2D without the overcall is NMF, at least inviting game and >> asking opener for spade support. East has a replacement bid >> of 3D available which would be forcing to game, still asking >> opener for spade support, so superficially all is well. >> However, game forcing, balanced hands without 5S and without >> a D stop would have responded 3NT had there been no overcall. >> Therefore, on a strict reading of Law 27 this replacement >> cannot be allowed (without rectification) as West will be in >> receipt of the additional information that partner does not >> hold four spades in a balanced hand without a D stop. >> But with a more liberal approach, this change is OK. Again, >> the TD is encouraged to ignore this sort of subtle negative >> inference. >> >> Note, that with 5S East uses opps suit to ask for S support >> as well as East does with 2D NMF. The main difference is that >> NMF shows at least, say 10HCP, whilst 3D at least, say 12HCP. >> >> Did anyone think of how to "show" 5 spades after the 2D- >> intervention by RHO? >> >> As I believe, both, the 2D (=NMF) and the 3D (=cue) rather >> do not "show", but a s k . >> >> If E-W now try to stop in 3S making, I may assess 4S-1 >> according to 27.D. And if W now bids S without a D stop, >> having only 2S, I may assess 3NT-x. >> >> To me, this more liberal ruling seems more relaxing. >> > > > But doesn't Law 27b1(a) require both 2D and 3D to be "incontrovertibly > not artificial" for the auction to continue? How is it that 2D NMF and a > 3D cue bid, neither of which are offers to play in diamonds, have become > not artificial? > Law 27 B 1 (b) is the relevant Law Mike > This seems a bit more than a "mildly liberal" interpretation of "not > artificial." Are there guidelines for "mildly liberal" anywhere that > mere mortals can understand and apply? If not, is the Laws committee not > delinquent in its duties here? > > --Bob Park > > >> Henning Bohnsack, Germany >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Wed Aug 12 15:44:04 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:44:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper References: <1Mb1ni-21nbCy0@fwd01.t-online.de> <4A829BB7.4060402@consolidated.net><00a901ca1b41$004eaa20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A82B659.9000707@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <002f01ca1b52$f6f21950$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper But doesn't Law 27b1(a) require both 2D and 3D to be "incontrovertibly not artificial" for the auction to continue? How is it that 2D NMF and a 3D cue bid, neither of which are offers to play in diamonds, have become not artificial? This seems a bit more than a "mildly liberal" interpretation of "not artificial." Are there guidelines for "mildly liberal" anywhere that mere mortals can understand and apply? If not, is the Laws committee not delinquent in its duties here? +=+ The answer to Bob's question is 'yes'. The rider to be added is that no such requirement is present in Law 27B1(b). The example is an application of the latter. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ But 27b1(b) starts: "if, except as in (a), ..." This seems to say that (a) is clearly meant to dominate (b). Are you now saying that the laws committee has had a change in heart? Does not the "except" in the lead-in to (b) mean what it says? --Bob Park ........................................................................................................ +=+ I fear you are reading the English incorrectly. The qualification 'except as in (a) 'relates to the immediately succeeding 'the insufficient bid is corrected".. The qualification you mention attaches to the power to correct given in (a) but once the correction is not made as in (a) it does not attach to the separate power of correction in (b). When the whole of (a) is discarded because that power is not used the phrase 'except as in (a)' removes the whole of (a) from relevance to the fresh power in (b). There is no change of heart. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 12 16:18:45 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:18:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a601ca1b40$ffd05260$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A812CA5.3020305@skynet.be> <4A813254.5000208@ulb.ac.be> <4A813AE2.2010506@skynet.be> <4A814CE4.2030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A815F6B.909@skynet.be> <4A81626C.5030502@ulb.ac.be><4A816F2E.8020408@skynet.be> <4A818B19.2060605@ulb.ac.be><006001ca1aab$89dea4c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A826830.4090907@ulb.ac.be> <00a601ca1b40$ffd05260$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A82CF45.3050504@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " But which was which he could never make out, > Despite his best endeavour, > Of that there was no shadow of doubt, > No possible doubt whatever." > Sir W.S.Gilbert. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:58 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan a ?crit : > >> +=+ Law 20 requires that an explanation given must be a correct >> and complete account (see 20F4) of the partnership understanding >> about calls actually made, relevant alternative calls available but >> not made, and inferences from the choice of action where these >> are matters of partnership understanding (see20F1). >> Further information as to the WBF stance may be derived >> from the following extract from the Code of Practice: >> >> "It is not an offence to convey unauthorized information >> to partner in complying with a requirement of the laws. >> >> >> > etc. > > True, but it doesn't answer my question. > > My question was : if, in order to comply with your obligation to give > full disclosure, it is possible to use a sentence which doesn't give > information to your partner, is it proper to choose a formulation which > does ? > In other words, if UI there must be, then let it be, but if you can > avoid it, should you strive to avoid it ? > > I think you should. > > +=+ In the example you gave you denied opponents information > to which they were entitled. The law requires you to tell them the > points range of your 2C bid. Which line please ? But anyway the question stands, and I don't understand why you don't give any oinion. Or did i open a can of worms ? From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Aug 12 17:49:10 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:49:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? Message-ID: <558EDE6C4F3A4D768DAF800D1E24C60D@NigelPC> This thread is for put-downs - an area of genuine BLML expertise :) Two of the best: :) "What's the problem?" (Richard Hills about irreconcilable opinions) :) "They have always been with us, see the megalomaniacs of the past few centuries, and will continue to make flatulent noises without having the slightest idea of what they are talking about." (typical Kojak) From blml at arcor.de Wed Aug 12 19:33:46 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:33:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: It's too late to discuss conventions when...] In-Reply-To: <000301ca1b18$0f3d4880$2db7d980$@no> References: <000301ca1b18$0f3d4880$2db7d980$@no> <4A7858AB.6040904@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A821760.8050809@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <3945610.1250098426995.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Sven Pran wrote: > For the purpose of defining the period during which players can still > legally exchange information about agreements and also are responsible for > their cards I prefer this period to begin for both sides when either player > at the table withdraws his cards from the board and to end when play has > been completed. This does not look right to me. We arrive at the table. We look at opponents' convention card. We notice that they play some methods against which we have a special defense. We recapitulate that special defense. I don't think that opponents should be able to abort that by taking cards from the board. Thomas Plantschen oder Grog? Der Arcor-Wetterdienst weiss Bescheid! Wassertemperaturen f?r den Urlaub jetzt checken: www.arcor.de/rd/wetter_wasser From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Aug 12 19:51:28 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:51:28 -0700 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <12E56FBB58A84BDC84FE07B3246D0DC4@MARVLAPTOP> => Richard Hills: > > Until the ACBL kitten disaffiliates from the WBF cat, the ACBL > kitten is bound by the WBF Constitution, which states that the > WBF Laws Committee is the ultimate authority for interpreting > The Fabulous Law Book. > > But the ACBL Constitution states that it is the cat-like tread > of the ACBL Laws Commission which is the ultimate authority for > interpreting The Fabulous Law Book. > > After the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in October 2008, the > ACBL Laws Commission then examined the WBF LC minutes. The ACBL > LC adopted some of the WBF LC minutes, but rejected at least one > of the WBF LC minutes. The ACBL was a member of the WBF until 2001, acting as both a Zonal Authorityh and an NBO, when it slipped in the United States Bridge Federation as an NBO in its place. It is only a ZA since then, and ZAs are not members of the WBF. Contrary to Damiani's belief, the ACBL is not included in the USBF. The two organizations are quite separate, with their own boards, by-laws, and membership. The ACBL acts like an NBO, sending in dues as if it were one, but it isn't one. The ACBL is therefore no longer bound by the WBF By-laws. As to the 2007 Laws, dubbed 2008 by the ACBL in its edition, the only restraint is that the WBF Laws are copyrighted, and those wishing to download and translate them must not do anything illegal, like changing them in significant ways. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Aug 12 20:02:20 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:02:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Re : Popper In-Reply-To: <002f01ca1b52$f6f21950$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <1Mb1ni-21nbCy0@fwd01.t-online.de> <4A829BB7.4060402@consolidated.net><00a901ca1b41$004eaa20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A82B659.9000707@consolidated.net> <002f01ca1b52$f6f21950$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A8303AC.7020208@consolidated.net> Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " But which was which he could never make out, > Despite his best endeavour, > Of that there was no shadow of doubt, > No possible doubt whatever." > Sir W.S.Gilbert. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Park > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper > > > Grattan wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Park" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:38 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Re : Popper > > > > But doesn't Law 27b1(a) require both 2D and 3D to be "incontrovertibly > not artificial" for the auction to continue? How is it that 2D NMF and a > 3D cue bid, neither of which are offers to play in diamonds, have become > not artificial? > > This seems a bit more than a "mildly liberal" interpretation of "not > artificial." Are there guidelines for "mildly liberal" anywhere that > mere mortals can understand and apply? If not, is the Laws committee not > delinquent in its duties here? > > +=+ The answer to Bob's question is 'yes'. The rider to be added > is that no such requirement is present in Law 27B1(b). The example > is an application of the latter. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > But 27b1(b) starts: "if, except as in (a), ..." This seems to say that (a) > is > clearly meant to dominate (b). Are you now saying that the laws > committee has had a change in heart? Does not the "except" in the > lead-in to (b) mean what it says? > > --Bob Park > ........................................................................................................ > +=+ I fear you are reading the English incorrectly. The qualification > 'except as in (a) 'relates to the immediately succeeding 'the insufficient > bid is corrected".. The qualification you mention attaches to the power > to correct given in (a) but once the correction is not made as in (a) it > does not attach to the separate power of correction in (b). When the > whole of (a) is discarded because that power is not used the phrase > 'except as in (a)' removes the whole of (a) from relevance to the fresh > power in (b). There is no change of heart. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I must be intolerably dense, because the case that was being discussed had an artificial bid (3D, cue) being substituted for and artificial insufficient bid (2D, NMF)...something that 27b1(a) seems explicitly to prohibit. Now you say that (b) overrides (a) if the meanings are essentially the same. If that is so, then what meaning is left in (a)? It sounds to me that what you are trying to do is to strip the phrase ", except as in (a)," from (b) so that it reads "(b) if ... the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director?s opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following." --Bob Park From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Aug 12 20:48:18 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:48:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Popper?= In-Reply-To: <4A8303AC.7020208@consolidated.net> References: <1Mb1ni-21nbCy0@fwd01.t-online.de> <4A829BB7.4060402@consolidated.net><00a901ca1b41$004eaa20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A82B659.9000707@consolidated.net> <002f01ca1b52$f6f21950$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A8303AC.7020208@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <1MbIry-1LNfSS0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> From: Robert Park > Grattan wrote: > > From: Robert Park > > But doesn't Law 27b1(a) require both 2D and 3D to be > > "incontrovertibly not artificial" for the auction to continue? How > > is it that 2D NMF and a 3D cue bid, neither of which are offers to > > play in diamonds, have become not artificial? > > > > This seems a bit more than a "mildly liberal" interpretation of "not > > artificial." Are there guidelines for "mildly liberal" anywhere that > > mere mortals can understand and apply? If not, is the Laws committee > > not delinquent in its duties here? > > > > +=+ The answer to Bob's question is 'yes'. The rider to be added is > > that no such requirement is present in Law 27B1(b). The example is > > an application of the latter. > > ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > > > > But 27b1(b) starts: "if, except as in (a), ..." This seems to say > > that (a) is > > clearly meant to dominate (b). Are you now saying that the laws > > committee has had a change in heart? Does not the "except" in the > > lead-in to (b) mean what it says? > > > > --Bob Park > > ........................................................................................................ > > +=+ I fear you are reading the English incorrectly. The > > qualification 'except as in (a) 'relates to the immediately > > succeeding 'the insufficient bid is corrected".. ?The qualification > > you mention attaches to the power to correct given in (a) but once > > the correction is not made as in (a) it does not attach to the > > separate power of correction in (b). When the whole of (a) is > > discarded because that power is not used the phrase 'except as in > > (a)' removes the whole of (a) from relevance to the fresh power in > > (b). ?There is no change of heart. > > ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > > I must be intolerably dense, because the case that was being discussed > had an artificial bid (3D, cue) being substituted for and artificial > insufficient bid (2D, NMF)...something that 27b1(a) seems explicitly > to prohibit. Now you say that (b) overrides (a) if the meanings are > essentially the same. If that is so, then what meaning is left in (a)? > > It sounds to me that what you are trying to do is to strip the phrase > ", except as in (a)," from (b) so that it reads > > "(b) if ... the insufficient bid is corrected > with a legal call that in the Director?s opinion has the same > meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient > bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible > meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without > further rectification, but see D following." Yesssssssss, you got it; that's the meaning of "except as in (a)". There are some conditions in (a) as "not artificial (insufficient) bids" and "corrected by the lowest sufficient bid ..." in which case (a) leads to "no further rectification". If those conditions are not satisfied, because either bid may be artificial _or _ is not corrected by the lowest ... then (perhaps !) (b) might apply, giving some more (and stronger) conditions in which case (b) also leads to "no further rectification". From schoderb at msn.com Wed Aug 12 20:53:35 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:53:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? In-Reply-To: <558EDE6C4F3A4D768DAF800D1E24C60D@NigelPC> References: <558EDE6C4F3A4D768DAF800D1E24C60D@NigelPC> Message-ID: Did I really say that? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Nigel Guthrie To: BLML Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:49 AM Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? This thread is for put-downs - an area of genuine BLML expertise :) Two of the best: :) "What's the problem?" (Richard Hills about irreconcilable opinions) :) "They have always been with us, see the megalomaniacs of the past few centuries, and will continue to make flatulent noises without having the slightest idea of what they are talking about." (typical Kojak) _______________________________________________ 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/20090812/05ae42e4/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 12 21:03:56 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:03:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey In-Reply-To: <12E56FBB58A84BDC84FE07B3246D0DC4@MARVLAPTOP> References: <12E56FBB58A84BDC84FE07B3246D0DC4@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <1A162200-BB6E-4EAF-B20D-6622B3512460@starpower.net> On Aug 12, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > The ACBL was a member of the WBF until 2001, acting as both a Zonal > Authorityh and an NBO, when it slipped in the United States Bridge > Federation as an NBO in its place. It is only a ZA since then, and > ZAs are not members of the WBF. Contrary to Damiani's belief, the > ACBL is not included in the USBF. The two organizations are quite > separate, with their own boards, by-laws, and membership. The ACBL > acts like an NBO, sending in dues as if it were one, but it isn't > one. There is no way for a U.S. player to join either the ACBL or the USBF without simultaneously becoming a member of the other, which leaves me wondering whether the folks who run them know what the word "separate" means. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 13 01:11:43 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:11:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <558EDE6C4F3A4D768DAF800D1E24C60D@NigelPC> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >This thread is for put-downs - an area of genuine BLML >expertise :) > >Two of the best: > >:) "They have always been with us, see the megalomaniacs of >the past few centuries, and will continue to make flatulent >noises without having the slightest idea of what they are >talking about." (typical Kojak) Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "hyperbole, n. Rhetorical exaggeration" Nigel Guthrie: >:) "What's the problem?" (Richard Hills about irreconcilable >opinions) Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "irony, n. Expression of one's meaning by language of opposite or different tendency" Herman De Wael: >>>It is not I who is advocating forbidden things, it is the >>>WBF! Richard Hills, ironical: >>What's the problem? Herman De Wael: >That you haven't understood a word I said..... Richard Hills, non-ironical: Okay, there is a fundamental problem of philosophy here in the meta-logical interpretation of the Rules of a Game. In every Game except Duplicate Bridge, there is a fundamental principle that the Rules, no matter how badly written, must be interpreted in a consistent way. That is, the Rules of a Game must not be interpreted so as to leave a player and/or umpire without any legal way to continue the Game. (An exception to this meta-logical principle is when the lack of a legal way to continue the Game is one of the ways to end the Game, for example the stalemate Rule in Chess.) So in a recent minor discussion about the Rules of Cricket between Grattan >>>>Aussie victory by an innings and 80 runs! Endicott and myself, Grattan noted that the Rules of Cricket prohibited a third umpire deciding whether a ball bowled was a No Ball, while I noted that if an appeal for a catch is referred to the third umpire, the Rules of Cricket require the third umpire to determine whether the batsman was out Caught. The inconsistency, as cricket fanatic Herman De Wael is well aware (but perhaps blml baseball fanatics are not aware) is that a batsman cannot be given out Caught if the ball bowled was a No Ball. In every Game except Duplicate Bridge, such inconsistencies are resolved by the Authorities stating that one apparently inconsistent Rule is an over-riding exception to the other apparently inconsistent Rule. So in the Rules of Cricket example, accuracy by a third umpire in determining whether or not the batsman is Caught is an over-riding exception to the normal prohibition on the third umpire determining whether or not the ball bowled is a No Ball. But for the Game of Duplicate Bridge, Herman De Wael for many years argued that an apparent inconsistency in the Laws should not be resolved by the Authorities, but rather that (in a common situation) every possible action by Herman should remain illegal, so therefore Herman could choose the illegal action most beneficial to his side, that of giving intentional MI to his opponents. Eventually the Authorities for the Game of Duplicate Bridge differed with Herman De Wael. Consistent with the meta-logical principle used for the interpretation of the Rules of all other Games, they decided that Duplicate Bridge Law 40B6(a) is an over-riding exception to Duplicate Bridge Law 20F5. Herman De Wael: >>>It is not I who is advocating forbidden things, it is the >>>WBF! Richard Hills: How so? The WBF Executive are the Authorities empowered to promulgate the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge (after considering advice from the WBF Drafting Committee). The WBF Executive are the Authorities empowered to promulgate the 2008 Official Interpretations of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge (after considering advice from the WBF Laws Committee). Problem the what's? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 yahoo.co.uk Thu Aug 13 01:25:29 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:25:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net> <03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC> [Marvin French] Larry R. Harris, with the help of Technical Advisor Gary S. Zeiger (high-level ACBL TD) has made a good effort in that direction. The title is Laws of Duplicate Bridge Through the Eyes of the Player, published by Baron Barclay Bridge Supply www.baronbarclay.com. $12.95. It is very well-formatted, with funny cartoons, helpful sidebars, a few flow charts, and other good things. I was disappointed, however, in seeing that it constitutes not only a rule book for players, but also for TDs. There is no need for players to know what the TD is supposed to do to "rectify" an irregularity. Someone makes an insufficient bid? Define that and then end with an instruction to call the TD instead of devoting two large pages to this complicated subject. [Nigel] BLML is awash with examples that demonstrate how important it is for the ordinary player to know how the law-book tells a director to deal with an infraction. Thus, a player may exploit "secretary bird" advantages. IMO, Marvin's insufficient bid law provides a font of such opportunities. And there are others, For instance ... When you suspect opponents of misinformation or unauthorized information, it may pay you to ask about the bidding. Furthermore, you must avoid an action, quite normal for you, that may seem wild and gambling to a director. Finally you must avoid stupid mistakes, even if they have little effect on the result. A recent case from BLML: Due to misinformation from opponents, you end up defending a low-level doubled non-vulnerable partscore (down a few hundred) rather than bidding your vulnerable grand-slam (worth thousands). In your despair, you misdefend badly -- slipping a few hundred points hardly affects the resulting disaster. The director denies you redress! And most BLMLers agree that he was right, according to the law. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Aug 13 02:16:05 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:16:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP> <22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC> Message-ID: "Nigel Guthrie" writes: > A recent case from BLML: > > Due to misinformation from opponents, you end up defending a low-level > doubled non-vulnerable partscore (down a few hundred) rather than bidding > your vulnerable grand-slam (worth thousands). In your despair, you misdefend > badly -- slipping a few hundred points hardly affects the resulting > disaster. The director denies you redress! And most BLMLers agree that he > was right, according to the law. Is this the consensus? I thought that most posters believed that you are entitled to redress if the infraction prevented you from recovering equity. My own position is that you lose redress for that portion of the damage which was self-inflicted; if you misdefended for +500 rather than +800 but you would have been +2210 without the infraction, then you receive the score for +2210, minus the difference between +500 and +800. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Aug 13 02:32:46 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:32:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6BE95959271D474F87EF91C110E9943A@NigelPC> [Herman De Wael] It is not I who is advocating forbidden things, it is the WBF! [Richard Hills, ironical] What's the problem? [Nigel] Irony makes a firm put-down but it may suffer from fatigue with over-use -- Check the frequency of Richard's mantra in BLML threads about unresolved controversies :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 13 02:35:50 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:35:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007101ca1b38$25758de0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: A.S.J. Tessimond (1902-1962), British poet: Cats, no less liquid than their shadows, Offer no angles to the wind. Grattan Endicott, no less liquid: >+=+ Just read what the law says objectively, without >adding to it the colour of your own desires. The aim >of score adjustment is stated explicitly and with no >restrictions. RAs will give policy guidance if they >choose, but you, Richard, should not misrepresent >the Law itself. +=+ Law 12B1: "....Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred...." Grattan Endicott, no angles to the wind: >>....With no UI, 4NT is a legal bid and if in a >>clean auction some might choose it the law does not >>preclude its inclusion in a weighted adjusted score >> - it stands part of "the expectation had the >>infraction not occurred" (12B1). >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills, cat-grey shadows: No. Grattan is misreading Law 12B1, adding to it the grey colour of someone else's desires. In effect, Grattan is rewriting Law 12B1 to state: "....Damage exists when, because of an infraction and possibly some other stuff (for example, the earlier non-infraction of UI), an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction and possibly some other stuff (for example, the earlier non-infraction of UI) not occurred...." Best wishes R.J.B. 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 yahoo.co.uk Thu Aug 13 02:40:00 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:40:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC> Message-ID: [Nigel] A recent case from BLML: Due to misinformation from opponents, you end up defending a low-level doubled non-vulnerable partscore (down a few hundred) rather than bidding your vulnerable grand-slam (worth thousands). In your despair, you misdefend badly -- slipping a few hundred points hardly affects the resulting disaster. The director denies you redress! And most BLMLers agree that he was right, according to the law. [Richard Grabiner] Is this the consensus? I thought that most posters believed that you are entitled to redress if the infraction prevented you from recovering equity. My own position is that you lose redress for that portion of the damage which was self-inflicted; if you misdefended for +500 rather than +800 but you would have been +2210 without the infraction, then you receive the score for +2210, minus the difference between +500 and +800. [Nigel] That's my recollection of the consensus; but I'm unable to check. Have BLML archives been deleted? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 13 02:50:24 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:50:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] BLML archives [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: >Have BLML archives been deleted? Richard Hills answers: No, once again archival material dating back to the founding of BLML in the previous millennium is available. See: http://www.rtflb.org/ What's the problem? What's the problem? What's the problem? What's the problem? What's the problem? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 13 03:52:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:52:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Mr. Popper's Penguins [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <643710.56465.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies (1945): "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." Mike Amos: >>This is a poorly conceived Law Richard Hills: True. David Burn has suggested two equally simple Law 27 alternatives for the 2018 Drafting Committee to consider. Mike Amos: >>and 2007 changes made Law 27 worse not better. Richard Hills: False. The 1997 Law 27 was much worse than the current 2008 Law 27, superseded in badness only by the 1997 Law 25B. Ted Ying: >Well, I agree that not only is this impractical and >unworkable at the club level ..... Richard Hills: False. Law 27B1 has worked very well at the less-than-expert South Canberra Bridge Club, since the Directors have been careful to give the players the rationale for Law 27B1 -> the reduction of arbitrary barring of the IBer's partner when the auction can be put back on track with zero or minimal UI. Ted Ying: >..... have problems because different directors apply certain >laws differently ..... the players will complain about this >and I'm not sure that they wouldn't be justified ..... Richard Hills: False. It is the nature of the beast that different Directors will differ on judgement rulings. Only if different Directors differ on interpretation (rather than application) of Law is there a problem. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 13 05:21:59 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:21:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo Message-ID: Richard was comparing cricket to bridge, for laws. I don't know how much care goes into constructing the laws for cricket. I would like to know more about the process of constructing the laws of bridge. Is there an agenda for the WBFLC in Sao Paulo? Is that public anywhere? I would think that the drafting committee would invite comments. Do the members of the WBFLC have a copy of it? Or is the agenda not constructed yet? For example, consider the changes to L20F1. Did no one notice that the law applies to insufficient bids? Or, why did the ACBL members of the WBFLC accept this change? I mean, if you read it, it sounds innocuous. But if the purpose was explained to them, were they just not paying attention? Bob From Beijing, 2008: 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents? prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An ?alternative? call is not the same call with another meaning ? for example, if the reply to an opponent is that ?5D shows diamonds preference?, any reply to a further question ?what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 13 06:21:10 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:21:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >Richard was comparing cricket to bridge, for laws. I don't know >how much care goes into constructing the laws for cricket. Spirit of Cricket: Preamble to the Laws Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains. 1. There are two Laws which place responsibility for the team's conduct firmly on the captain. Responsibility of captains The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit of the Game as well as within the Laws. Player's conduct In the event of a player failing to comply with instructions by an umpire, or criticising by word or action the decision of an umpire, or showing dissent, or generally behaving in a manner which might bring the game into disrepute, the umpire concerned shall in the first place report the matter to the other umpire and to the player's captain, and instruct the latter to take action. 2. Fair and unfair play According to the Laws the umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play. The umpires may intervene at any time and it is the responsibility of the captain to take action where required. 3. The umpires are authorised to intervene in cases of: * Time wasting * Damaging the pitch * Dangerous or unfair bowling * Tampering with the ball * Any other action that they consider to be unfair 4. The Spirit of the Game involves RESPECT for: * Your opponents * Your own captain * The roles of the umpires * The game's traditional values 5. It is against the Spirit of the Game: * To dispute an umpire's decision by word, action or gesture * To direct abusive language towards an opponent or umpire * To indulge in cheating or any sharp practice, for instance: (a) to appeal knowing that the batsman is not out (b) to advance towards an umpire in an aggressive manner when appealing (c) to seek to distract an opponent either verbally or by harassment with persistent clapping or unnecessary noise under the guise of enthusiasm and motivation of one's own side 6. Violence There is no place for any act of violence on the field of play. 7. Players Captains and umpires together set the tone for the conduct of a cricket match. Every player is expected to make an important contribution towards this. ? Marylebone Cricket Club Robert Frick: >I would like to know more about the process of constructing the >laws of bridge. WBF Alert Policy: "They [players] are also expected to observe the spirit of the Laws as well as the letter." WBF Code of Practice: "This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents..." Robert Frick: >Is there an agenda for the WBFLC in Sao Paulo? Richard Hills: Yes. Robert Frick: >Is that public anywhere? Richard Hills: No. Robert Frick: >I would think that the drafting committee would invite comments. [snip] Richard Hills: Firstly, since at least five members of the WBF Laws Committee are passionately fond of reading blml, preferring blml posts to their cats, the sane blml ideas have already been filtered out for WBF LC discussion at Sao Paulo. Indeed, as happened last year, some insane blml ideas may also have been filtered out so that the WBF LC can give guidance to RAs, TOs and TDs by formally refuting them. Secondly, the WBF Drafting Committee (which designs the Lawbook subject to WBF Executive ratification) is distinct from the WBF Laws Committee (which interprets the Lawbook subject to WBF Executive ratification). Since the next decennial revision of the Lawbook is not due until 2017 or 2018, it is possible that the WBF Drafting Committee will decide at Sao Paulo to not yet convene, but to defer its next formal meeting until perhaps 2014 or 2015. What's the irony? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 13 07:33:23 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:33:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a601ca1b40$ffd05260$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >>>If I can explain my partner's 2C answer to 1C as 'GF with 5+ >>>clubs and no 5-card major' without telling partner whether my 1C >>>opening was natural or strong, so much the better. If I >>>deliberately add a range for the 2C bid (either 12+ or 9+ >>>according to the meaning of my opening), it doesn't fit with my >>>interpretation of MS, but it fits with yours, so I'd like to >>>know. >>>(yes, deliberately simple example ;-) Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ In the example you gave you denied opponents information to >>which they were entitled. The law requires you to tell them the >>points range of your 2C bid. If you fail to do so your explanation >>is incomplete. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Alain Gottcheiner: >Which line please ? Richard Hills: The line where you said you had a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding that partner's 2C response systemically showed either 12+ hcp or 9+ hcp, but you infracted the "disclose all" requirement of Law 40B6(a) by failing to inform the opponents of the relevant minimum Milton Work point count. Alain Gottcheiner: >But anyway the question stands, and I don't understand why you >don't give any opinion. Or did I open a can of worms ? Ogden Nash (1902-1971): If called by a panther Don't anther. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Thu Aug 13 09:00:24 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:00:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net> <5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC> <0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net> <03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP> <22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC> Message-ID: 2009/8/13 Nigel Guthrie : > [Nigel] > A recent case from BLML: Due to misinformation from opponents, you end up > defending a low-level doubled non-vulnerable partscore (down a few hundred) > rather than bidding your vulnerable grand-slam (worth thousands). In your > despair, you misdefend badly -- slipping a few hundred points hardly affects > the resulting disaster. The director denies you redress! And most BLMLers > agree that he was right, according to the law. > > [Richard Grabiner] > Is this the consensus? ?I thought that most posters believed that you are > entitled to redress if the infraction prevented you from recovering equity. > My > own position is that you lose redress for that portion of the damage which > was > self-inflicted; if you misdefended for +500 rather than +800 but you would > have > been +2210 without the infraction, then you receive the score for +2210, > minus > the difference between +500 and +800. > > [Nigel] > That's my recollection of the consensus; but I'm unable to check. Have BLML > archives been deleted? Consensus?? That's LAW; L12C1(b), to be specific. (And that's how we ruled in the EBL and at least some European NBOs, Norway included, for some time prior to the 2007 laws.) -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Aug 13 11:52:55 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:52:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC> Message-ID: <6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> [Nige1] Due to misinformation from opponents, you end up defending a low-level doubled non-vulnerable partscore (down a few hundred) rather than bidding your vulnerable grand-slam (worth thousands). In your despair, you misdefend badly -- slipping a few hundred points hardly affects the resulting disaster. The director denies you redress! And most BLMLers agree that he was right, according to the law. [David Grabiner] Is this the consensus? I thought that most posters believed that you are entitled to redress if the infraction prevented you from recovering equity. My own position is that you lose redress for that portion of the damage which was self-inflicted; if you misdefended for +500 rather than +800 but you would have been +2210 without the infraction, then you receive the score for +2210, minus the difference between +500 and +800. [Harald Skj?ran] Consensus?? That's LAW; L12C1(b), to be specific. (And that's how we ruled in the EBL and at least some European NBOs, Norway included, for some time prior to the 2007 laws.) [Nige2] OK. But, to get his rights, the player must still defend accurately, whereas, were he ignorant of the nuances of the law, he might not bother. And that was my point: Ordinary players need a detailed knowledge of the law - not just what the infractions are -- but also, how directors are meant to rule. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 13 13:33:11 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:33:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A83F9F7.4040802@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > A > Richard Hills: > > The line where you said you had a pre-existing mutual partnership > understanding that partner's 2C response systemically showed either > 12+ hcp or 9+ hcp, but you infracted the "disclose all" requirement > of Law 40B6(a) by failing to inform the opponents of the relevant > minimum Milton Work point count. > > Wrong. the bid is defined as "game force", not as a range, which is a consequence of the range for the 1C bid, and can be deduced on "general bridge knowledge". We never define unbalanced bids by point-count, but as signoff, encouraging, game-try, game forcing etc. And that's allowed here. If they demand that we state a range, we comply, but I don't like this. If I spontaneously give a range for a bid that isn't defined by its range, and if it helps partner understand my bid, I don't feel at ease with ethics. Recently, somebody asked the difference between our 4D and 4S openings. I replied that 4S means that one wants to play the contract, and that 4D means that one lets partner play the contract. That's how they're written, not in point count or number of side honours or suit quality or ... If they can't see what could influence opener's choice, too bad. Notice that the answer could just be "he's angry". Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Aug 13 13:34:24 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:34:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net> <5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC> <0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net> <03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP> <22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC> <6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> Message-ID: 2009/8/13 Nigel Guthrie : > [Nige1] > Due to misinformation from opponents, you end up defending a low-level > doubled non-vulnerable partscore (down a few hundred) rather than bidding > your vulnerable grand-slam (worth thousands). In your despair, you misdefend > badly -- slipping a few hundred points hardly affects the resulting > disaster. The director denies you redress! And most BLMLers agree that he > was right, according to the law. > > [David Grabiner] > Is this the consensus? ?I thought that most posters believed that you are > entitled to redress if the infraction prevented you from recovering equity. > My > own position is that you lose redress for that portion of the damage which > was > self-inflicted; if you misdefended for +500 rather than +800 but you would > have > been +2210 without the infraction, then you receive the score for +2210, > minus > the difference between +500 and +800. > > [Harald Skj?ran] > Consensus?? That's LAW; L12C1(b), to be specific. (And that's how we ruled > in the EBL and at least some European NBOs, Norway included, for some time > prior to the 2007 laws.) > > [Nige2] > OK. But, to get his rights, the player must still defend accurately, No, he must not. He must avoid wild and gambling actions, and continue to play bridge. Yoy won't be damadged by minor mistakes or any other actions you can reasonably "defend". If the TD is competent, that is. I'm aware that this might vary from NBO to NBO. We're more lenient with players in this position in Norway than they are in Sweden, for example. Or, more correct, how they used to rule in Sweden. I don't know if they might have changed in this regard lately. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > whereas, were he ignorant of the nuances of the law, he might not bother. > And that was my point: > > Ordinary players need a detailed knowledge of the law - not just what the > infractions are -- but also, how directors are meant to rule. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 13 13:53:17 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:53:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A83F9F7.4040802@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A83F9F7.4040802@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A83FEAD.6060709@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> A >> Richard Hills: >> >> The line where you said you had a pre-existing mutual partnership >> understanding that partner's 2C response systemically showed either >> 12+ hcp or 9+ hcp, but you infracted the "disclose all" requirement >> of Law 40B6(a) by failing to inform the opponents of the relevant >> minimum Milton Work point count. >> >> > Wrong. the bid is defined as "game force", not as a range, which is a > consequence of the range for the 1C bid, and can be deduced on "general > bridge knowledge". > We never define unbalanced bids by point-count, but as signoff, > encouraging, game-try, game forcing etc. And that's allowed here. If > they demand that we state a range, we comply, but I don't like this. > You see? you comply - which means you believe they are entitled to the information. The same can be said for your argument about GBK. I have alays seen GBK as something which you can be excused for not saying, believing your opponents also know it - not as something they are not entitled to. Which brings me back to my point. If you are deliberately keeping from your opponents something which they are entitled to, in order to keep them from learning something they are not entitled to, then you are acting as a DWS adept (which I personally find very commendable). But if, as the Beijing decision suggests, the principle of full disclosure applies more prominently, then you are bound, IMO to add the point range to your description. > If I spontaneously give a range for a bid that isn't defined by its > range, and if it helps partner understand my bid, I don't feel at ease > with ethics. > Neither do I, but then the Beijing decision has altered the ethics. > Recently, somebody asked the difference between our 4D and 4S openings. > I replied that 4S means that one wants to play the contract, and that 4D > means that one lets partner play the contract. That's how they're > written, not in point count or number of side honours or suit quality or > ... If they can't see what could influence opener's choice, too bad. > Notice that the answer could just be "he's angry". > > Again, you believe you are not obliged to tell them, but you are wrong. You are excused from not telling them because you assume (quite probably correctly) that they know it too. But if they are beginners, you will answer their stares with a further explanation ("he may well have KJ in some suit, so that it is better if he plays the contract - that way you cannot hurt him by leading through that suit"). > > Best regards > > > Alain Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 13 15:11:37 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:11:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000b01ca1c17$99f95400$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:35 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > A.S.J. Tessimond (1902-1962), British poet: > > Cats, no less liquid than their shadows, > Offer no angles to the wind. > > Grattan Endicott, no less liquid: > >>+=+ Just read what the law says objectively, without >>adding to it the colour of your own desires. The aim >>of score adjustment is stated explicitly and with no >>restrictions. RAs will give policy guidance if they >>choose, but you, Richard, should not misrepresent >>the Law itself. +=+ > > Law 12B1: > > "....Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an > innocent side obtains a table result less favourable > than would have been the expectation had the > infraction not occurred...." > > Grattan Endicott, no angles to the wind: > >>>....With no UI, 4NT is a legal bid and if in a >>>clean auction some might choose it the law does not >>>preclude its inclusion in a weighted adjusted score >>> - it stands part of "the expectation had the >>>infraction not occurred" (12B1). >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills, cat-grey shadows: > > No. > > Grattan is misreading Law 12B1, adding to it the grey > colour of someone else's desires. In effect, Grattan > is rewriting Law 12B1 to state: > > "....Damage exists when, because of an infraction and > possibly some other stuff (for example, the earlier > non-infraction of UI), an innocent side obtains a > table result less favourable than would have been the > expectation had the infraction and possibly some other > stuff (for example, the earlier non-infraction of UI) > not occurred...." > +=+ It can certainly be argued fairly that since creating UI is not an infraction but using it is an infraction, Law 12B1 should be applied after creation of the UI and before it is used by the offender. In my personal capacity I favour this view. But I was dealing with the WBF position. Here the WBFLC has made no pronouncement, effectively leaving it to RAs to determine the interpretation. Some years ago the WBF Appeals Committee adopted a stance allowing of sequences via the cancelled call if they would have occurred in an auction free of any irregularity. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 13 16:01:06 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:01:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 12, 2009, at 11:21 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > From Beijing, 2008: 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the > auction > and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the > opponents? prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an > explanation > only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not > made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the > choice > of action among the foregoing. (An ?alternative? call is not the > same call > with another meaning ? for example, if the reply to an opponent is > that > ?5D shows diamonds preference?, any reply to a further question ?what > would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not > as a > requirement of Law 20F1.) Did this example really come from Beijing? It sounds awfully wrong. It is totally contrary to both the "Kaplan paradigm" of full disclosure and the well-established common view of what L20F inquiries are supposed to be for. In an ideal world, all of one's agreements would be set forth in detail on one's CC. But there is no way to get every last detail of one's agreements onto a CC, and some pairs fill them far more meticulously than others. The point of allowing inquiries is to "fill in the gaps" in the information on the CC that, in the ideal world, would not exist. If the example above is correct, it means that the law gives a significant advantage to those who provide only the absolute required minimum on their CCs over those who attempt to provide as much helpful information as they can. Should one's opponents really be "entitled" to know what your responses to Blackwood are if you were helpful enough to write them down, but not permitted to obtain the same information if you didn't bother to? L40A1(b) requires "each partnership... to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them". That is equivalent to requiring the completion of an "ideal world" convention card, and equally impossible. This law makes sense only in conjunction with a sensible interpretation of L20F1 as being there to fill in the gaps. The only way the requirements of L40A1(b) can be fulfilled is for "each partnership" to provide some basic information about their methods up front with the understanding the disclosure of the remainder may be deferred until the opponents request it. In my view, the question, "What would 5D mean in reply to Blackwood?" must be answered, not as a requirement of L20F1, but as a requirement of L40A1(b). L20F1 doesn't give you license to violate L40A1(b); it merely gives you permission to fulfill its requirements retroactively rather than literally "before commencing play". Edgar Kaplan, who was the driving force behind our current system of disclosure, offered a simple paradigm for interpreting the disclosure laws: the object of these laws is to emulate as closely as possible the ideal situation in which every player would have access to complete, fully detailed written explanations of all of their opponents' partnership understandings, both explicit and implicit, and could examine them at any time without anyone else at the table being aware of it. Have our lawmakers really decided to abandon this paradigm? One would hope that if they genuinely chose to do so, they would be prepared to offer something equally clear and simple in its place. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 13 16:41:43 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:41:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net> <5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC> <0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net> <03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP> <22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC> Message-ID: <21246FDD-818F-4767-A30C-08551B344B9E@starpower.net> On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:00 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2009/8/13 Nigel Guthrie : > >> A recent case from BLML: Due to misinformation from opponents, you >> end up >> defending a low-level doubled non-vulnerable partscore (down a few >> hundred) >> rather than bidding your vulnerable grand-slam (worth thousands). >> In your >> despair, you misdefend badly -- slipping a few hundred points >> hardly affects >> the resulting disaster. The director denies you redress! And most >> BLMLers >> agree that he was right, according to the law. >> >> [Richard Grabiner] >> Is this the consensus? I thought that most posters believed that >> you are >> entitled to redress if the infraction prevented you from >> recovering equity. >> My >> own position is that you lose redress for that portion of the >> damage which >> was >> self-inflicted; if you misdefended for +500 rather than +800 but >> you would >> have >> been +2210 without the infraction, then you receive the score for >> +2210, >> minus >> the difference between +500 and +800. >> >> [Nigel] >> That's my recollection of the consensus; but I'm unable to check. >> Have BLML >> archives been deleted? > > Consensus?? That's LAW; L12C1(b), to be specific. > (And that's how we ruled in the EBL and at least some European NBOs, > Norway included, for some time prior to the 2007 laws.) I think Nigel was asking a subtler question: Opponents' MI puts you in a contract so inferior that you decide -- correctly! -- that the result at your table will not affect your score on the board. Knowing that, you decide to let your guard down for a bit so as to save that precious mental energy for those boards on which you might be able to affect the outcome. So you play sloppily, and take a couple fewer tricks than you would have had you been paying normal attention to the hand, which, indeed, makes no difference to the outcome in matchpoints or IMPs. Let us even stipulate that you played *very* sloppily, badly enough to constitute egregious error had you been in a normal contract where your result might matter. Under those circumstances, can your play be reasonably considered a "serious error"? Was it really "unrelated to the infraction"? It's far from clear that L12C1(b) should apply here. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 13 16:54:08 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:54:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC> <6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> Message-ID: On Aug 13, 2009, at 5:52 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Harald Skj?ran] > Consensus?? That's LAW; L12C1(b), to be specific. (And that's how > we ruled > in the EBL and at least some European NBOs, Norway included, for > some time > prior to the 2007 laws.) > > [Nige2] > OK. But, to get his rights, the player must still defend accurately, Let's not get carried away here. There's a huge gap between "defend accurately" on one hand and "serious error... or... wild or gambling action" [L12C1(b)] on the other. So huge, I would argue, that the vast majority of hands fall into it. Our "rights" will be pretty useless to us if in order to get them we must defend accurately. > whereas, were he ignorant of the nuances of the law, he might not > bother. > And that was my point: > > Ordinary players need a detailed knowledge of the law - not just > what the > infractions are -- but also, how directors are meant to rule. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 13 17:02:52 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:02:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> Eric says it with so much elegance that I hope this gets read in S?o Paulo and the relevant Beijing interpretation altered. I urge everyone (especially the WBFLC members) to re-read this and make their judgment on what is written here. Herman. Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 12, 2009, at 11:21 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> From Beijing, 2008: 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the >> auction >> and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the >> opponents? prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an >> explanation >> only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not >> made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the >> choice >> of action among the foregoing. (An ?alternative? call is not the >> same call >> with another meaning ? for example, if the reply to an opponent is >> that >> ?5D shows diamonds preference?, any reply to a further question ?what >> would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not >> as a >> requirement of Law 20F1.) > > Did this example really come from Beijing? It sounds awfully wrong. > It is totally contrary to both the "Kaplan paradigm" of full > disclosure and the well-established common view of what L20F > inquiries are supposed to be for. > > In an ideal world, all of one's agreements would be set forth in > detail on one's CC. But there is no way to get every last detail of > one's agreements onto a CC, and some pairs fill them far more > meticulously than others. The point of allowing inquiries is to > "fill in the gaps" in the information on the CC that, in the ideal > world, would not exist. > > If the example above is correct, it means that the law gives a > significant advantage to those who provide only the absolute required > minimum on their CCs over those who attempt to provide as much > helpful information as they can. Should one's opponents really be > "entitled" to know what your responses to Blackwood are if you were > helpful enough to write them down, but not permitted to obtain the > same information if you didn't bother to? > > L40A1(b) requires "each partnership... to make available its > partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play > against them". That is equivalent to requiring the completion of an > "ideal world" convention card, and equally impossible. This law > makes sense only in conjunction with a sensible interpretation of > L20F1 as being there to fill in the gaps. The only way the > requirements of L40A1(b) can be fulfilled is for "each partnership" > to provide some basic information about their methods up front with > the understanding the disclosure of the remainder may be deferred > until the opponents request it. > > In my view, the question, "What would 5D mean in reply to Blackwood?" > must be answered, not as a requirement of L20F1, but as a > requirement of L40A1(b). L20F1 doesn't give you license to violate > L40A1(b); it merely gives you permission to fulfill its requirements > retroactively rather than literally "before commencing play". > > Edgar Kaplan, who was the driving force behind our current system of > disclosure, offered a simple paradigm for interpreting the disclosure > laws: the object of these laws is to emulate as closely as possible > the ideal situation in which every player would have access to > complete, fully detailed written explanations of all of their > opponents' partnership understandings, both explicit and implicit, > and could examine them at any time without anyone else at the table > being aware of it. Have our lawmakers really decided to abandon this > paradigm? One would hope that if they genuinely chose to do so, they > would be prepared to offer something equally clear and simple in its > place. > > > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 13 17:02:19 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:02:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A83FEAD.6060709@skynet.be> References: <4A83F9F7.4040802@ulb.ac.be> <4A83FEAD.6060709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A842AFB.1060109@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >>> A >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> The line where you said you had a pre-existing mutual partnership >>> understanding that partner's 2C response systemically showed either >>> 12+ hcp or 9+ hcp, but you infracted the "disclose all" requirement >>> of Law 40B6(a) by failing to inform the opponents of the relevant >>> minimum Milton Work point count. >>> >>> >>> >> Wrong. the bid is defined as "game force", not as a range, which is a >> consequence of the range for the 1C bid, and can be deduced on "general >> bridge knowledge". >> We never define unbalanced bids by point-count, but as signoff, >> encouraging, game-try, game forcing etc. And that's allowed here. If >> they demand that we state a range, we comply, but I don't like this. >> >> > > You see? you comply - which means you believe they are entitled to the > information. So you mean that I have to state spontaneously a HCP range even if I know that this criterion wasn't used by partner ? Isn't that lying about the system ? They're entitled to complete description of my sytem. In many cases, point ranges aren't part of my system, but people insist that I give them, thinkling (wrongly, in most cases) that this can help them. Apparently, I'm compelled to state a range if asked (several contributors have said that), and in HCP only, but this isn't part of my system. Of course, since we use mainly LTC, the range for a limit raise of a major will be something like 4-12. Not very helpful. But if they want it, let them have it. The problem is, if I spontaneously say '4-12', I will mislead them into believing that the bid shows a very wide range. It doesn't - in LTs. Saying 'limit raise' will be understandable and more useful facing moderately competent players. > Which brings me back to my point. If you are deliberately keeping from > your opponents something which they are entitled to, in order to keep > them from learning something they are not entitled to, then you are > acting as a DWS adept (which I personally find very commendable). > But if, as the Beijing decision suggests, the principle of full > disclosure applies more prominently, then you are bound, IMO to add the > point range to your description. > AG : not if it isn't part of the system. >> Recently, somebody asked the difference between our 4D and 4S openings. >> I replied that 4S means that one wants to play the contract, and that 4D >> means that one lets partner play the contract. That's how they're >> written, not in point count or number of side honours or suit quality or >> ... If they can't see what could influence opener's choice, too bad. >> Notice that the answer could just be "he's angry". >> >> >> > > Again, you believe you are not obliged to tell them, but you are wrong. > You are excused from not telling them because you assume (quite probably > correctly) that they know it too. But if they are beginners, you will > answer their stares with a further explanation ("he may well have KJ in > some suit, so that it is better if he plays the contract - that way you > cannot hurt him by leading through that suit"). > > AG : I'm sorry, but that's your guess. Usually, you'll be wrong. I won't explicit the reason, because I don't know it. There may be many answers, and, as I said before, the most probable is machism or anger. Since this is neither part of our system nor even GBK ... Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 13 17:40:26 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:40:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A8433EA.6040105@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> In an ideal world, all of one's agreements would be set forth in >> detail on one's CC. But there is no way to get every last detail of >> one's agreements onto a CC, and some pairs fill them far more >> meticulously than others. The point of allowing inquiries is to >> "fill in the gaps" in the information on the CC that, in the ideal >> world, would not exist. >> >> If the example above is correct, it means that the law gives a >> significant advantage to those who provide only the absolute required >> minimum on their CCs over those who attempt to provide as much >> helpful information as they can. Should one's opponents really be >> "entitled" to know what your responses to Blackwood are if you were >> helpful enough to write them down, but not permitted to obtain the >> same information if you didn't bother to? >> AG : I see the point, but surely there would be some impossible-to-solve problems when answering the question. What about this dialogue ? - what would 5S mean if 4NT were asking ? - we don't play asking bids in these circumstances because there ain't any known trump suit. - yes, but if you did ? - then it would show two Aces and trump Queen.. - which Queen ? - well, you see the problem now ... - okay, what would it mean if it was an answer to 4-key BW then ? - we don't play 4-key BW. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 13 22:04:49 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:04:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <4A8433EA.6040105@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> <4A8433EA.6040105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A8471E1.1040606@skynet.be> Sorry Alain, I see your point, but you have the situation quite wrong. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> In an ideal world, all of one's agreements would be set forth in >>> detail on one's CC. But there is no way to get every last detail of >>> one's agreements onto a CC, and some pairs fill them far more >>> meticulously than others. The point of allowing inquiries is to >>> "fill in the gaps" in the information on the CC that, in the ideal >>> world, would not exist. >>> >>> If the example above is correct, it means that the law gives a >>> significant advantage to those who provide only the absolute required >>> minimum on their CCs over those who attempt to provide as much >>> helpful information as they can. Should one's opponents really be >>> "entitled" to know what your responses to Blackwood are if you were >>> helpful enough to write them down, but not permitted to obtain the >>> same information if you didn't bother to? >>> > AG : I see the point, but surely there would be some impossible-to-solve > problems when answering the question. > > What about this dialogue ? > > - what would 5S mean if 4NT were asking ? > - we don't play asking bids in these circumstances because there ain't > any known trump suit. > - yes, but if you did ? > - then it would show two Aces and trump Queen.. > - which Queen ? > - well, you see the problem now ... > - okay, what would it mean if it was an answer to 4-key BW then ? > - we don't play 4-key BW. > You got the situation wrong in the sense that this discourse could not take place. After all, this happens only when 4NT is explained as Blackwood at the table (well, it might happen at some other time too, in which case "we don't ever play Blackwood" should be a valid answer). If one player explains a 4NT as Blackwood, then surely the pair must have some agreement concerning Blackwood. Surely the 5Sp bidder must have meant something, probably misunderstanding that the trump suit had been agreed or not. All that is surely knowledge to which the opponents are entitled. And anyway, the problem we are discussing is if the question is allowed and if the answer must be given. If there is no sensible answer, then so be it, but that does not mean the question cannot be asked in the 99.99% of cases when there is a clearcut, simple answer. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 14 00:57:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:57:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: It's too late to discuss conventions when...] References: <4A7858AB.6040904@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A821760.8050809@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001401ca1c69$cb61d290$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: It's too late to discuss conventions when...] >>> From: rfrick at rfrick.info >> Letting one side start the auction period _for the other side_ by making >> a call or otherwise seems unfair. (NS: "We play multi." East, before EW >> have taken cards out of board: "What's our defense, partner?" North, >> putting bid card out: "Sorry, too late!") > >> There does appear to be a drafting error in L73B1, which should say >> "auction period" instead of "auction." Right now, as Robert indicated, >> it appears to be legal to discuss methods after seeing one's cards but >> before the first call of the auction. Am I missing something? > +=+ I have not yet examined this proposition in depth. However, it occurs to me that as East in the above scenario I would summon the Direxctor and inform him that I believed my opponents may be in breach of Law 40A1(b). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Aug 14 01:19:31 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:19:31 -0700 Subject: [BLML] ACBL and the WBF Message-ID: <549A7D24CDFE4BADBCD88DB32D1AF0BD@MARVLAPTOP> A member of the WBF LC has clarified for me the WBF-ACBL situation. It is very strange, and I don't understand it fully. First, the ACBL is indeed not a member of the WBF. It is the Zonal Authority (ZA) for Zone 2 of the WBF, and as such is the governing body for organized bridge activities and promotion on the North American continent. Despite the fact that ZA's cannot be members of the WBF, the ACBL was one until 2001, but nobody cared. In 2001 the United States Bridge Federation (USBF) was created. It is entirely separate from the ACBL, with the sole purpose of selecting and supporting United States teams in international competition. Even so, it is a member of the WBF, thereby freeing the ACBL from the burden (ignored) of the WBF By-laws, which say the WBFLC writes and interprets the Laws (ergo, no members can do that). The ACBL comprises the National Federations of three member countries: the Canadian Bridge Federation (CBF), the Federacion Mexicana de Bridge (FMB), and USBF. Another name for such organizations is National Bridge Organization (NBO) Unlike the 100 other NBOs (I'm told, I don't know), the NBOs in Zone 2 do not pay dues to the WBF. Rather, their members pay dues to the ZA, the ACBL, which in turn pays dues to the WBF for all of Zone 2 . The reason is that Canada and Mexico are an integral part of the ACBL, not merely NBOs under its jurisdiction. The 25 ACBL districts, each providing a representative on the ACBL Board of Directors, include two that are entirely in Canada, two that straddle the US-Canada border, extending far into both countries, and one that includes all of Mexico and most of Texas. Do Canadians get a fair shake in the two shared districts?. Yes, for District 18, with a Canadian ACBL rep for the last 18 years. Maybe not for District 19 (British Columbia and the more populous state of Washington), which has not had a Canadian rep on the ACBL BoD in recent memory. Canadians and Mexicans can join the ACBL, which makes them eligible for ACBL Masterpoints. Canadians can add $12 to the ACBL dues to get membership in the CBF. Or, they can join the CBF only for $15. I don't know about Mexicans, as the FMB doesn't seem to have a Web site. Since only members of the WBF pay dues to the WBF, the ACBL is acting like a member, but isn't one. Maybe they put the dues into a USBF account, and write checks on that. That would explain why Damiani thinks the ACBL is included in the USBF and that therefore the WBF has total control of the Laws. Unlike the 102 other NBOs, the USBF is not the governing body for organized bridge activities within its country (USA), as that role is assumed by the ACBL. The USBF membership is quite small, not the large number shown for it on the WBF Web site, which is actually the ACBL membership number minus the number of ACBL members in Canada and Mexico. Since the 2007 Laws are copyrighted by the WBF, it doesn't seem legal for the ACBL to download them, make unauthorized changes, and publish them as the 2008 Laws of Duplicate Bridge for North America. The authority to "promulgate" does not include the right to make significant changes. Many "elections" are allowed, and RAs are given much freedom in the implementation of various Laws. That should be enough. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 14 01:24:20 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:24:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01ca1c17$99f95400$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Groucho Marx, Duck Soup (1933): "Why, a four-year-old child could understand this report. Run out and find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head or tail of it." Grattan Endicott, personal opinion: >+=+ It can certainly be argued fairly that since creating UI is >not an infraction but using it is an infraction, Law 12B1 should >be applied after creation of the UI and before it is used by the >offender. In my personal capacity I favour this view. Law 12B1, first sentence: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non- offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction." Grattan Endicott, WBF position: >But I was dealing with the WBF position. Here the WBFLC has made >no pronouncement, effectively leaving it to RAs to determine the >interpretation. Some years ago the WBF Appeals Committee adopted >a stance allowing of sequences via the cancelled call if they >would have occurred in an auction free of any irregularity. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: While a four-year-old child could understand the WBF Appeals Committee's stance adopted under the less effective 1997 Lawbook, a four-year-old child who carefully reads the more effective 2007 Lawbook will realise that the WBF Appeals Committee's stance has now been invalidated. Firstly, under the 1997 Lawbook "free of any irregularity" could mean "free of any creation of UI". But a new Definition in the 2007 Lawbook means that if the creation of UI was without design, so that the creation of UI was not an infraction, then that creation of UI was also not an irregularity. Secondly, the WBF Appeals Committee's stance was adopted under the 1997 Law 12C3, which merely required that appeals committees give rulings in accordance with the undefined word "equity". But the WBF Appeals Committee's stance is clearly contrary to the new 2007 Law 12B1 requirement "to take away ***any*** advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction". So thirdly, if a Regulating Authority chooses to adopt the "ultra vires" precedent set by the WBF Appeals Committee, that Regulating Authority may be sued in a real court for infracting Law 80B2(f): "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Fri Aug 14 01:30:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:30:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Edgar Kaplan, who was the driving force behind our current system of disclosure, offered a simple paradigm for interpreting the disclosure laws: the object of these laws is to emulate as closely as possible the ideal situation in which every player would have access to complete, fully detailed written explanations of all of their opponents' partnership understandings, both explicit and implicit, and could examine them at any time without anyone else at the table being aware of it. Have our lawmakers really decided to abandon this paradigm? One would hope that if they genuinely chose to do so, they would be prepared to offer something equally clear and simple in its place. > +=+ In Law 20F1 the word 'relevant' appears in two places. It will be for the Director to judge what is relevant in each of these connections. I think it would occasion some surprise if information about an action that has no place in the partnership's methods were considered 'relevant' and one would be inclined to enquire as to its relevance. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 14 01:13:58 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:13:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Definitions = some opinions. References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> Message-ID: <005901ca1c6f$2a630340$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. Let's not get carried away here. There's a huge gap between "defend accurately" on one hand and "serious error... or... wild or gambling action" [L12C1(b)] on the other. So huge, I would argue, that the vast majority of hands fall into it. Our "rights" will be pretty useless to us if in order to get them we must defend accurately. +=+ Directors and TACs must judge the application of the law in each instance, in my opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Aug 14 01:54:43 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:54:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> Message-ID: <3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> [David Grabiner] No, he must not. He must avoid wild and gambling actions, and continue to play bridge. You won't be damaged by minor mistakes or any other actions you can reasonably "defend". If the TD is competent, that is. [Nige1] David and I agree to differ. I regard it as "playing bridge", to save my energies for hands where the defence matters. I confess that my attention may wander when I'm defending a non-vulnerable partscore when I should be making a vulnerable grand slam. I still maintain that a player ignorant of the nuances of the law, would be unaware of the special circumstances of the example case. Incidentally, the victim may be deprived of redress hased on the director's *subjective opinion* of the player's subsequent action. Hence directors' rulings differ. Worse -- when cases are discussed in fora like this -- it sometimes seems that a commentator's harsh ruling simply advertises his expertise. He seems oblivious to the fact, that, at the table, single-dummy, the player's mistake is quite understandable. Finally, what annoys me most about such laws is that they are *unnecessary*. They encourage law-breaking, cause headaches for directors, and foster resentment among the victims of infractions; but they add no value whatsoever to the game. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Aug 14 01:59:25 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:59:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BLML archives [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: >Have BLML archives been deleted? Richard Hills answers: No, once again archival material dating back to the founding of BLML in the previous millennium is available. See: http://www.rtflb.org/ What's the problem? What's the problem? What's the problem? What's the problem? What's the problem? [Nige2] :) Thank you Richard ! :) From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 08:52:54 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:52:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net> <03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP> <22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC> <6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> <3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> Message-ID: 2009/8/14 Nigel Guthrie : > [David Grabiner] > No, he must not. He must avoid wild and gambling actions, and continue > to play bridge. You won't be damaged by minor mistakes or any other > actions you can reasonably "defend". If the TD is competent, that is. Those are not David's words, they're mine. > > [Nige1] > David and I agree to differ. I regard it as "playing bridge", to save my > energies for hands where the defence matters. I confess that my attention > may wander when I'm defending a non-vulnerable partscore when I should be > making a vulnerable grand slam. If you're defending a non-vulneralbe partscore instead of playing a grand slam, I really don't think there'll be any difference in your MP score whether you beat it 300 or 500. At IMPs it might cost you an IMP though. Anyway, I expect a TD to understand this, and not take your slippery defence into account. >I still maintain that a player ignorant of > the nuances of the law, would be unaware of the special circumstances of the > example case. > > Incidentally, the victim may be deprived of redress hased on the ?director's > *subjective opinion* of the player's subsequent ?action. Hence directors' > rulings differ. Worse -- when cases are discussed in fora like this -- it > sometimes seems that a commentator's harsh ruling simply advertises his > expertise. He seems oblivious to the fact, that, at the table, single-dummy, > the player's mistake is quite understandable. > > Finally, what annoys me most about such laws is that they are *unnecessary*. > They encourage law-breaking, cause headaches for directors, and foster > resentment among the victims of infractions; but they add no value > whatsoever to the game. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 14 10:15:58 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:15:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A851D3E.8000902@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " But which was which he could never make out, > Despite his best endeavour, > Of that there was no shadow of doubt, > No probable, possible shadow of doubt, > No possible doubt whatever." > Sir W.S.Gilbert. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > > > Edgar Kaplan, who was the driving force behind our > current system of disclosure, offered a simple paradigm > for interpreting the disclosure laws: the object of these > laws is to emulate as closely as possible the ideal situation > in which every player would have access to complete, > fully detailed written explanations of all of their > opponents' partnership understandings, both explicit and > implicit, and could examine them at any time without > anyone else at the table being aware of it. Have our > lawmakers really decided to abandon this paradigm? > One would hope that if they genuinely chose to do so, > they would be prepared to offer something equally clear > and simple in its place. > +=+ In Law 20F1 the word 'relevant' appears in two > places. It will be for the Director to judge what is > relevant in each of these connections. I think it would > occasion some surprise if information about an action > that has no place in the partnership's methods were > considered 'relevant' and one would be inclined to > enquire as to its relevance. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Rest assured Grattan, that in the case in question, relevance was not in doubt. Anyway, why do you defend a Beijing declaration that does not speak of relevance, by defending the resulting ruling on the basis of relevance? If the questions were irrelevant in the first place, you don't need the Beijing decision to rule the question illegal. So please consider that they are relevant, and then tell us why the WBFLC choses to decide as it did? Herman. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Aug 14 10:14:29 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:14:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC><3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> Message-ID: [Harald Skj?ran] Those are not David's words, they're mine. [No, he must not. He must avoid wild and gambling actions, and continue to play bridge. You won't be damaged by minor mistakes or any other actions you can reasonably "defend". If the TD is competent, that is.] [Nige1] David and I agree to differ. I regard it as "playing bridge", to save my energies for hands where the defence matters. I confess that my attention may wander when I'm defending a non-vulnerable partscore when I should be making a vulnerable grand slam. [Harald Skj?ran] If you're defending a non-vulneralbe partscore instead of playing a grand slam, I really don't think there'll be any difference in your MP score whether you beat it 300 or 500. At IMPs it might cost you an IMP though. Anyway, I expect a TD to understand this, and not take your slippery defence into account. [Nige2] Sorry about the mistaken attribution. In the original thread, as far as I remember, most BLML experts denied redress to the victims because of their "egregious" error. In practice, I fear, few directors would adopt Harald's enlightened interpretation and take the practical realities of the situation into account. Perhaps, we shouldn't waste more time discussing this because the underlying law is so daft. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 14 11:00:24 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:00:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A8527A8.6040108@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " But which was which he could never make out, > Despite his best endeavour, > Of that there was no shadow of doubt, > No probable, possible shadow of doubt, > No possible doubt whatever." > Sir W.S.Gilbert. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > > > > Edgar Kaplan, who was the driving force behind our > current system of disclosure, offered a simple paradigm > for interpreting the disclosure laws: the object of these > laws is to emulate as closely as possible the ideal situation > in which every player would have access to complete, > fully detailed written explanations of all of their > opponents' partnership understandings, both explicit and > implicit, and could examine them at any time without > anyone else at the table being aware of it. Have our > lawmakers really decided to abandon this paradigm? > One would hope that if they genuinely chose to do so, > they would be prepared to offer something equally clear > and simple in its place. > > +=+ In Law 20F1 the word 'relevant' appears in two > places. It will be for the Director to judge what is > relevant in each of these connections. I think it would > occasion some surprise if information about an action > that has no place in the partnership's methods were > considered 'relevant' and one would be inclined to > enquire as to its relevance. > I see one problem with the Kaplan definition : it allows the "pro question". From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 14 11:02:06 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:02:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <4A8471E1.1040606@skynet.be> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> <4A8433EA.6040105@ulb.ac.be> <4A8471E1.1040606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A85280E.7000808@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Sorry Alain, I see your point, but you have the situation quite wrong. > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>>> In an ideal world, all of one's agreements would be set forth in >>>> detail on one's CC. But there is no way to get every last detail of >>>> one's agreements onto a CC, and some pairs fill them far more >>>> meticulously than others. The point of allowing inquiries is to >>>> "fill in the gaps" in the information on the CC that, in the ideal >>>> world, would not exist. >>>> >>>> If the example above is correct, it means that the law gives a >>>> significant advantage to those who provide only the absolute required >>>> minimum on their CCs over those who attempt to provide as much >>>> helpful information as they can. Should one's opponents really be >>>> "entitled" to know what your responses to Blackwood are if you were >>>> helpful enough to write them down, but not permitted to obtain the >>>> same information if you didn't bother to? >>>> >>>> >> AG : I see the point, but surely there would be some impossible-to-solve >> problems when answering the question. >> >> What about this dialogue ? >> >> - what would 5S mean if 4NT were asking ? >> - we don't play asking bids in these circumstances because there ain't >> any known trump suit. >> - yes, but if you did ? >> - then it would show two Aces and trump Queen.. >> - which Queen ? >> - well, you see the problem now ... >> - okay, what would it mean if it was an answer to 4-key BW then ? >> - we don't play 4-key BW. >> >> > > You got the situation wrong in the sense that this discourse could not > take place. After all, this happens only when 4NT is explained as > Blackwood at the table (well, it might happen at some other time too, in > which case "we don't ever play Blackwood" should be a valid answer). If > one player explains a 4NT as Blackwood, then surely the pair must have > some agreement concerning Blackwood. Surely the 5Sp bidder must have > meant something, probably misunderstanding that the trump suit had been > agreed or not. All that is surely knowledge to which the opponents are > entitled. > AG : and what about : "1 Ace if diamonds are trumps, 0 if clubs, but here none are so I don't know" ; it won't be very helpful. ? From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 14 11:05:09 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:05:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC><3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> Message-ID: <4A8528C5.9030304@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > [Nige2] > Sorry about the mistaken attribution. In the original thread, as far as I > remember, most BLML experts denied redress to the victims because of their > "egregious" error. In practice, I fear, few directors would adopt Harald's > enlightened interpretation and take the practical realities of the situation > into account. Perhaps, we shouldn't waste more time discussing this because > the underlying law is so daft. > Please note that the law says "... does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted ...". This does mean that the score adjustmen could be to: (score for +2220) minus (score for +500) plus (score for +300). In the sense that the example clearly shows that 500 and 300 are close together (if not equal) in scores, the "wild or gambling" nature of the subsequent action is not really that important. Herman. From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Aug 14 11:47:08 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:47:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net> <03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP> <22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC> <6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> <3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> Message-ID: <000601ca1cc4$3409ddb0$9c1d9910$@nl> Suppose it is Matchpoints: Your grand slam would be worth 85% Defending accurately would be worth 10% You misdefended badly and get 0% Now if the director adjusts the score back to the grandslam the opponents get 15% (100-15) If it is judged you made a serious error you loose the 10% (10-0), but still get 75% (85-10) This is how it should work. Of course I could imagine that the director would not judge this misdefense a serous error under the circumstances, but the idea you get no compensation at all when making a serious error is just plain wrong. Hans van Staveren -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran Sent: vrijdag 14 augustus 2009 8:53 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. 2009/8/14 Nigel Guthrie : > [David Grabiner] > No, he must not. He must avoid wild and gambling actions, and continue > to play bridge. You won't be damaged by minor mistakes or any other > actions you can reasonably "defend". If the TD is competent, that is. Those are not David's words, they're mine. > > [Nige1] > David and I agree to differ. I regard it as "playing bridge", to save my > energies for hands where the defence matters. I confess that my attention > may wander when I'm defending a non-vulnerable partscore when I should be > making a vulnerable grand slam. If you're defending a non-vulneralbe partscore instead of playing a grand slam, I really don't think there'll be any difference in your MP score whether you beat it 300 or 500. At IMPs it might cost you an IMP though. Anyway, I expect a TD to understand this, and not take your slippery defence into account. >I still maintain that a player ignorant of > the nuances of the law, would be unaware of the special circumstances of the > example case. > > Incidentally, the victim may be deprived of redress hased on the director's > *subjective opinion* of the player's subsequent action. Hence directors' > rulings differ. Worse -- when cases are discussed in fora like this -- it > sometimes seems that a commentator's harsh ruling simply advertises his > expertise. He seems oblivious to the fact, that, at the table, single-dummy, > the player's mistake is quite understandable. > > Finally, what annoys me most about such laws is that they are *unnecessary*. > They encourage law-breaking, cause headaches for directors, and foster > resentment among the victims of infractions; but they add no value > whatsoever to the game. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Aug 14 11:57:31 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:57:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> <3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> Message-ID: <000701ca1cc5$a41ab830$ec502890$@nl> [Nigel] Finally, what annoys me most about such laws is that they are *unnecessary*. They encourage law-breaking, cause headaches for directors, and foster resentment among the victims of infractions; but they add no value whatsoever to the game. [Hans] If implemented correctly, see my other message, this law is absolutely necessary. We do not want double shots. If someone is damaged he gets his score back, but we are not going to allow him any crazy stuff. Simple example, matchpoints: You bid 6H, NV, which would make, 980 Opps bid 6S again NV in an illegal fashion, you double and defend. Now if you assume that the director will rule back to 980 if you are damaged, that is get them less than 5 down, you will underlead aces at will to try to get 1100. Basically you are playing a lottery without noughts. No way that we want that to happen. Just defend more or less normally. Should you slip a trick no director will accuse you of a serious error. At the end, if defending more or less normally you have 1100, congratulations, you can keep it. If you have 800 director will give you back 980. At no point is it necessary for you to know anything special about the laws. Just keep playing more or less decent bridge. Hans From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 14 12:20:17 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:20:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000c01ca1cc9$8885e140$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Groucho Marx, Duck Soup (1933): > > "Why, a four-year-old child could understand this report. Run > out and find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head or tail > of it." > > Grattan Endicott, personal opinion: > >>+=+ It can certainly be argued fairly that since creating UI is >>not an infraction but using it is an infraction, Law 12B1 should >>be applied after creation of the UI and before it is used by the >>offender. In my personal capacity I favour this view. > > Law 12B1, first sentence: > > "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non- > offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an > offending side through its infraction." > > Grattan Endicott, WBF position: > >>But I was dealing with the WBF position. Here the WBFLC has made >>no pronouncement, effectively leaving it to RAs to determine the >>interpretation. Some years ago the WBF Appeals Committee adopted >>a stance allowing of sequences via the cancelled call if they >>would have occurred in an auction free of any irregularity. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > While a four-year-old child could understand the WBF Appeals > Committee's stance adopted under the less effective 1997 Lawbook, > a four-year-old child who carefully reads the more effective 2007 > Lawbook will realise that the WBF Appeals Committee's stance has > now been invalidated. > > Firstly, under the 1997 Lawbook "free of any irregularity" could > mean "free of any creation of UI". But a new Definition in the > 2007 Lawbook means that if the creation of UI was without design, > so that the creation of UI was not an infraction, then that > creation of UI was also not an irregularity. > > Secondly, the WBF Appeals Committee's stance was adopted under the > 1997 Law 12C3, which merely required that appeals committees give > rulings in accordance with the undefined word "equity". But the > WBF Appeals Committee's stance is clearly contrary to the new 2007 > Law 12B1 requirement "to take away ***any*** advantage gained by an > offending side through its infraction". > > So thirdly, if a Regulating Authority chooses to adopt the "ultra > vires" precedent set by the WBF Appeals Committee, that Regulating > Authority may be sued in a real court for infracting Law 80B2(f): > > "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: > to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, > these Laws." > +=+ Erudite but incomplete. The WBF Appeals Committee was much influenced by a member who observed that where the UI derives from an irregularity - viz. extraneous remark, gesture, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, inappropriate alert, - it is frequently collusive not unintentional, ergo infractive. The Director may judge this to be the case. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml at arcor.de Fri Aug 14 12:26:20 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:26:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <000701ca1cc5$a41ab830$ec502890$@nl> References: <000701ca1cc5$a41ab830$ec502890$@nl> <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> <3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> Message-ID: <30743502.1250245580534.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Hans van Staveren wrote: > [Nigel] > Finally, what annoys me most about such laws is that they are > *unnecessary*. > > They encourage law-breaking, cause headaches for directors, and foster > resentment among the victims of infractions; but they add no value > whatsoever to the game. > > [Hans] > If implemented correctly, see my other message, this law is absolutely > necessary. We do not want double shots. > If someone is damaged he gets his score back, but we are not going to allow > him any crazy stuff. > > Simple example, matchpoints: > You bid 6H, NV, which would make, 980 > > Opps bid 6S again NV in an illegal fashion, you double and defend. > Now if you assume that the director will rule back to 980 if you are > damaged, that is get them less than 5 down, you will underlead aces at will > to try to get 1100. Basically you are playing a lottery without noughts. > > No way that we want that to happen. Just defend more or less normally. > Should you slip a trick no director will accuse you of a serious error. At > the end, if defending more or less normally you have 1100, congratulations, > you can keep it. If you have 800 director will give you back 980. > > At no point is it necessary for you to know anything special about the > laws. > Just keep playing more or less decent bridge. I think this example is flawed. If you expect the normal score to be 980, and opponents find a 6S sacrifice, then at MPs you have to try for 1100, because 1100 beats 980 while 800 does not. This includes underleading aces etc. 800 vs. 500 will not make much of a difference, as the bulk of the other tables will write 980, 480, or possibly -50. The fact that opponents reached 6S only via some irregularity cannot result in the defenders not being allowed to apply normal matchpoint tactics, which includes taking considerable risks to convert a poor score into a good score. Thomas Plantschen oder Grog? Der Arcor-Wetterdienst weiss Bescheid! Wassertemperaturen f?r den Urlaub jetzt checken: www.arcor.de/rd/wetter_wasser From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Aug 14 12:37:39 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:37:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <30743502.1250245580534.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> References: <000701ca1cc5$a41ab830$ec502890$@nl> <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> <3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> <30743502.1250245580534.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <000e01ca1ccb$3fc1ba40$bf452ec0$@nl> Agreed, in part. If any normal matchpoint player would underlead that Ace, you can do too. But in real life a sacrifice might well be a normal result, although at your table it was not reached normally. If you are defending 6S doubled, while it is reasonable to assume a substantial part of the field might play there you risk points when doing crazy stuff. We just do not want you to take risks with no downside. If you would normally see an 800 result, with a 10% chance of 1100 by doing something wild, with the risk of say 6S doubled making, you would not take this particular gamble. So we do not want you to take this particular gamble now either. It is extremely rare that a director would rule serious error if someone took reasonable risks. If it is reasonable for you to assume you are the only pair defending 6S!, and everybody else playing 6H, no action from you trying for 1100 can be deemed serious. But this is hypothetical. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dehn Sent: vrijdag 14 augustus 2009 12:26 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. Hans van Staveren wrote: > [Nigel] > Finally, what annoys me most about such laws is that they are > *unnecessary*. > > They encourage law-breaking, cause headaches for directors, and foster > resentment among the victims of infractions; but they add no value > whatsoever to the game. > > [Hans] > If implemented correctly, see my other message, this law is absolutely > necessary. We do not want double shots. > If someone is damaged he gets his score back, but we are not going to allow > him any crazy stuff. > > Simple example, matchpoints: > You bid 6H, NV, which would make, 980 > > Opps bid 6S again NV in an illegal fashion, you double and defend. > Now if you assume that the director will rule back to 980 if you are > damaged, that is get them less than 5 down, you will underlead aces at will > to try to get 1100. Basically you are playing a lottery without noughts. > > No way that we want that to happen. Just defend more or less normally. > Should you slip a trick no director will accuse you of a serious error. At > the end, if defending more or less normally you have 1100, congratulations, > you can keep it. If you have 800 director will give you back 980. > > At no point is it necessary for you to know anything special about the > laws. > Just keep playing more or less decent bridge. I think this example is flawed. If you expect the normal score to be 980, and opponents find a 6S sacrifice, then at MPs you have to try for 1100, because 1100 beats 980 while 800 does not. This includes underleading aces etc. 800 vs. 500 will not make much of a difference, as the bulk of the other tables will write 980, 480, or possibly -50. The fact that opponents reached 6S only via some irregularity cannot result in the defenders not being allowed to apply normal matchpoint tactics, which includes taking considerable risks to convert a poor score into a good score. Thomas Plantschen oder Grog? Der Arcor-Wetterdienst weiss Bescheid! Wassertemperaturen f?r den Urlaub jetzt checken: www.arcor.de/rd/wetter_wasser _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 14 14:59:46 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:59:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01ca1cc9$8885e140$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000c01ca1cc9$8885e140$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A855FC2.7020304@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > The WBF Appeals Committee was much > influenced by a member who observed that where the UI derives from > an irregularity - viz. extraneous remark, gesture, undue emphasis, > inflection, haste or hesitation, inappropriate alert, - it is frequently > collusive not unintentional, ergo infractive. The Director may judge > this to be the case. > AG : agree with the general theme. However, one should be cautious not to let this derive into "if it raises an eyebrow, shoot it". The fact that UI might well be intentional, /a fortiori/ collusive, should be judged on a case-per-case basis (and taking frequency into account), not as automatical "L73 B". Oriented questions and extraneous remarks are much more likely to be voluntary than facial expressions or tempi. You can't consider tempi /a priori/ infractive, else it would void L73D1 of its clever subtleties. But the TD (and AC) are inded allowed to consider some specific gesture / face / remark / ... as intentional. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 14 15:08:19 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:08:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <4A8433EA.6040105@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> <4A8433EA.6040105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1460AC1D-9BC2-400E-A544-5119C0CDE8B4@starpower.net> On Aug 13, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : > >>> In an ideal world, all of one's agreements would be set forth in >>> detail on one's CC. But there is no way to get every last detail of >>> one's agreements onto a CC, and some pairs fill them far more >>> meticulously than others. The point of allowing inquiries is to >>> "fill in the gaps" in the information on the CC that, in the ideal >>> world, would not exist. >>> >>> If the example above is correct, it means that the law gives a >>> significant advantage to those who provide only the absolute >>> required >>> minimum on their CCs over those who attempt to provide as much >>> helpful information as they can. Should one's opponents really be >>> "entitled" to know what your responses to Blackwood are if you were >>> helpful enough to write them down, but not permitted to obtain the >>> same information if you didn't bother to? > > AG : I see the point, but surely there would be some impossible-to- > solve > problems when answering the question. > > What about this dialogue ? > > - what would 5S mean if 4NT were asking ? > - we don't play asking bids in these circumstances because there ain't > any known trump suit. > - yes, but if you did ? > - then it would show two Aces and trump Queen.. > - which Queen ? > - well, you see the problem now ... > - okay, what would it mean if it was an answer to 4-key BW then ? > - we don't play 4-key BW. "What would 5S mean if 4NT were asking?" "Our agreement is that it would show two aces and the queen of the agreed trump suit. We have no understanding as to what it would show when there is no agreed trump suit." WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 14 15:51:14 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:51:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net> On Aug 13, 2009, at 7:30 PM, Grattan wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > Edgar Kaplan, who was the driving force behind our > current system of disclosure, offered a simple paradigm > for interpreting the disclosure laws: the object of these > laws is to emulate as closely as possible the ideal situation > in which every player would have access to complete, > fully detailed written explanations of all of their > opponents' partnership understandings, both explicit and > implicit, and could examine them at any time without > anyone else at the table being aware of it. Have our > lawmakers really decided to abandon this paradigm? > One would hope that if they genuinely chose to do so, > they would be prepared to offer something equally clear > and simple in its place. > > +=+ In Law 20F1 the word 'relevant' appears in two > places. It will be for the Director to judge what is > relevant in each of these connections. I think it would > occasion some surprise if information about an action > that has no place in the partnership's methods were > considered 'relevant' and one would be inclined to > enquire as to its relevance. That says nothing. "An action that has no place in the partnership's methods" is not subject to the disclosure protocols, which relate exclusively to the partnership's methods, and is not covered by L40A1 (b) ("its partnership understandings"). An agreement that doesn't exist is perforce not "relevant" to the events at the table. The question on the table is the extent to which a pair's entitlement to disclosure of their opponents' actual agreements covers those agreements which were not exercised during the auction in progress when making a L20F1 request for an explanation of the auction. My view is that relevance is in the eye of the beholder, so that if a players believes that knowledge of any of his opponents' partnership understandings will aid his understanding of the auction in progress, that makes it, by defintion, relevant to him, and entitles him to have it disclosed. The legal justification for this view rests on the disclosure obligations set forth in L40A1(b), and the recognition that every pair that has ever played a hand of duplicate bridge did so in technical violation of that law. In general, these violations have no effect at all on the individual deals, nobody cares, and we ignore them. But when a player wants a specific piece of information, which was previously not given to him in violation of L40A1(b), we redress that no-longer-merely-technical infraction and restore equity by requiring that the information be provided retroactively. "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them" [L40A1(b)], and must not be allowed to gain any advantage by failing to fulfill that duty on a timely basis, notwithstanding our acknowledgement of the impossibility of doing so. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 14 16:06:55 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:06:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <005901ca1c6f$2a630340$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> <005901ca1c6f$2a630340$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Aug 13, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > > Let's not get carried away here. There's a huge gap between "defend > accurately" on one hand and "serious error... or... wild or gambling > action" [L12C1(b)] on the other. So huge, I would argue, that the > vast majority of hands fall into it. > > Our "rights" will be pretty useless to us if in order to get them we > must defend accurately. > > +=+ Directors and TACs must judge the application of the law > in each instance, in my opinion. Well, sure, but don't we have some sense that in doing so they must be somehow constrained by the actual words of the law? I argue merely that treating "serious error... or... wild or gambling action" as synoymous with "failure to defend accurately" goes well beyond judging the application of the law, to rewriting it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 14 16:28:24 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:28:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> <3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> Message-ID: On Aug 13, 2009, at 7:54 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [David Grabiner] > No, he must not. He must avoid wild and gambling actions, and continue > to play bridge. You won't be damaged by minor mistakes or any other > actions you can reasonably "defend". If the TD is competent, that is. > > [Nige1] > David and I agree to differ. I regard it as "playing bridge", to > save my > energies for hands where the defence matters. I confess that my > attention > may wander when I'm defending a non-vulnerable partscore when I > should be > making a vulnerable grand slam. I still maintain that a player > ignorant of > the nuances of the law, would be unaware of the special > circumstances of the > example case. > > Incidentally, the victim may be deprived of redress hased on the > director's > *subjective opinion* of the player's subsequent action. Hence > directors' > rulings differ. Worse -- when cases are discussed in fora like this > -- it > sometimes seems that a commentator's harsh ruling simply advertises > his > expertise. He seems oblivious to the fact, that, at the table, > single-dummy, > the player's mistake is quite understandable. > > Finally, what annoys me most about such laws is that they are > *unnecessary*. > They encourage law-breaking, cause headaches for directors, and foster > resentment among the victims of infractions; but they add no value > whatsoever to the game. Unfortunately, such laws are necessary, as they prevent players from taking deliberate "double shots" in an attempt to gain extra-legal advantage from an opponent's infraction, and were incorporated into the laws for that particular purpose. Were it not for this practice, I might well support Nigel's evaluation of L12C1(b) as "unnecessary". That suggests that at TD or AC should avoid the application lf L12C1 (b) in circumstances in which they are certain that there was no possibility that the player in question was attempting a deliberate double shot. L12C1(b) is about anti-percentage actions taken with the knowledge that if they produce a worse result than playing normally would have the difference is likely to be returned in adjudication. It's not about sloppy play undertaken with the knowledge that an extra overtrick or undertrick or two isn't going to significantly affect the resulting matchpoint score. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 14 17:11:14 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:11:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <4A8527A8.6040108@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A8527A8.6040108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3EF1AE79-81B9-4655-85D2-9007C8D78521@starpower.net> On Aug 14, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Grattan a ?crit : > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> Edgar Kaplan, who was the driving force behind our >> current system of disclosure, offered a simple paradigm >> for interpreting the disclosure laws: the object of these >> laws is to emulate as closely as possible the ideal situation >> in which every player would have access to complete, >> fully detailed written explanations of all of their >> opponents' partnership understandings, both explicit and >> implicit, and could examine them at any time without >> anyone else at the table being aware of it. Have our >> lawmakers really decided to abandon this paradigm? >> One would hope that if they genuinely chose to do so, >> they would be prepared to offer something equally clear >> and simple in its place. >> >> +=+ In Law 20F1 the word 'relevant' appears in two >> places. It will be for the Director to judge what is >> relevant in each of these connections. I think it would >> occasion some surprise if information about an action >> that has no place in the partnership's methods were >> considered 'relevant' and one would be inclined to >> enquire as to its relevance. > > I see one problem with the Kaplan definition : it allows the "pro > question". What Kaplan offered, and I have paraphrased, is *not* a definition of full disclosure, but rather a paradigm, which measures the extent to which a particular definition would meet its objective. It doesn't "allow" or "disallow" anything. The extant definition of full disclosure is determined by what's in TFLB. The paradigm says nothing whatsoever about questions. The point of having a paradigm is that a particular type of question should be allowed or disallowed depending on whether or not it brings the disclosure rules, collectively, closer to or further from the ideal state set forth in it. Indeed, the paradigm clearly suggests that the "pro question" should not be allowed. The paradigm has two key aspects. First, the player in question (the pro) ideally would have access to a full written explanation of the opponents' agreement; this is effectively satisfied by the fact that he is already in possession of that knowledge. Second, the other players at the table ideally would be unaware that he had accessed that explanation; this is obviously satisfied only by his keeping his equivalent prior knowledge, and his "pro question", to himself. Keep in mind that Kaplan's paradigm requires only that players *have access to* complete explanations of the opponents' understandings. It does not presume that they have actually read or remembered them. If it did, then it would suggest that "pro questions" be legal. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 14 17:30:36 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:30:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey In-Reply-To: <000c01ca1cc9$8885e140$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000c01ca1cc9$8885e140$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2009, at 6:20 AM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ Erudite but incomplete. The WBF Appeals Committee was much > influenced by a member who observed that where the UI derives from > an irregularity - viz. extraneous remark, gesture, undue emphasis, > inflection, haste or hesitation, inappropriate alert, - it is > frequently > collusive not unintentional, ergo infractive. The Director may judge > this to be the case. In my world, a Director who "judge[d it] to be the case" that the transmission of UI between partners was "collusive not unintentional" would be expected to refer the offending pair to a Conduct and Ethics Committee forthwith. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 15 01:32:15 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:32:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A851D3E.8000902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001601ca1d8b$2780e9e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo >> ----- Original Message ----- >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo >> > Rest assured Grattan, that in the case in question, relevance > was not in doubt. Anyway, why do you defend a Beijing > declaration that does not speak of relevance, by defending > the resulting ruling on the basis of relevance? If the questions > were irrelevant in the first place, you don't need the Beijing > decision to rule the question illegal. So please consider that > they are relevant, and then tell us why the WBFLC choses > to decide as it did? > > Herman. > +=+ Herman, I fail to understand what "Beijing decision" you mean. Please be specific in quoting the WBFLC words that you have in mind. For the rest, I may explain a WBFLC statement; the committee does not ask me to "defend" its decisions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 15 11:48:45 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:48:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net> Message-ID: <003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > > > My view is that relevance is in the eye of the beholder < +=+ My view is that relevance is in the eye of the Director. I base my opinion on Law 81C2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 15 11:55:53 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:55:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Definitions = some opinions. References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC><005901ca1c6f$2a630340$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <003301ca1d92$0ec5b870$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 3:06 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. > On Aug 13, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Grattan wrote: > >> From: "Eric Landau" >> >> Let's not get carried away here. There's a huge gap between "defend >> accurately" on one hand and "serious error... or... wild or gambling >> action" [L12C1(b)] on the other. So huge, I would argue, that the >> vast majority of hands fall into it. >> >> Our "rights" will be pretty useless to us if in order to get them we >> must defend accurately. >> >> +=+ Directors and TACs must judge the application of the law >> in each instance, in my opinion. > > Well, sure, but don't we have some sense that in doing so they must > be somehow constrained by the actual words of the law? > > I argue merely that treating "serious error... or... wild or gambling > action" as synoymous with "failure to defend accurately" goes well > beyond judging the application of the law, to rewriting it. > +=+ It is a matter of degree. Mere inaccuracy is not 'serious error' or 'wild or gambling'. When it gets to be failure to do the obviously essential the complexion of it has changed. It is for the Director to draw the boundary between them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 15 12:04:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:04:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC><3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> Message-ID: <003401ca1d92$0eee2800$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> [Nige1] I regard it as "playing bridge", to save my energies for hands where the defence matters. , I confess that my attention may wander when I'm defending a non-vulnerable partscore when I should be making a vulnerable grand slam. I still maintain that a player ignorant of the nuances of the law, would be unaware of the special circumstances of the example case. >> +=+ Confession is said to be good for the soul. However it does not absolve us from compliance with the law, so if the Director finds Nigel not to have met with the standards of the law he will have a price to pay for his negligence. It is evidently a price he is willing to pay. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 15 12:18:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:18:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey References: <000c01ca1cc9$8885e140$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <003501ca1d92$0f16bea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 4:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] At night all cats are grey > On Aug 14, 2009, at 6:20 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ Erudite but incomplete. The WBF Appeals Committee was much >> influenced by a member who observed that where the UI derives from >> an irregularity - viz. extraneous remark, gesture, undue emphasis, >> inflection, haste or hesitation, inappropriate alert, - it is frequently >> collusive not unintentional, ergo infractive. The Director may judge >> this to be the case. > > In my world, a Director who "judge[d it] to be the case" that the > transmission of UI between partners was "collusive not unintentional" > would be expected to refer the offending pair to a Conduct and Ethics > Committee forthwith. > +=+ However, you would perhaps not be surprised were you to learn that the member's hometown lay within 2500 miles of Silver Spring, and I think he actually said 'probably to be the case'. (By the way, is Silver Spring as pretty as its name?) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 15 13:26:39 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:26:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net> <003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 05:48:45 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " But which was which he could never make out, > Despite his best endeavour, > Of that there was no shadow of doubt, > No probable, possible shadow of doubt, > No possible doubt whatever." > Sir W.S.Gilbert. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 2:51 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > > >> >> >> My view is that relevance is in the eye of the beholder > < > +=+ My view is that relevance is in the eye of the Director. > I base my opinion on Law 81C2. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ relevant: might be useful for guiding calls, plays, or other legal actions. Players can self-select for relevance. If I think my request for information is relevant, then it probably is. I shouldn't have to explain the opponents why it is relevant. I shouldn't have to explain to the director why it is relevant, though obviously I am willing to upon request. If it isn't relevant, then who does it hurt if the opponents explain it anyway? If I was director and a player was asking an obviously irrelevant question, and the opponents called me, I would just ask if they could explain it anyway. And if they didn't want to, then we are in petty-dispute territory. Ha, this only works in ACBL-land where you are allowed to ask about all relevant information. Obviously, this could be used to harass or annoy the opponents. So can humming. Let's just have a law against annoying or harassing the opponents and not try to list all of the ways this can be done. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 15 14:42:55 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 08:42:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] pettiness (a day in the life) Message-ID: The last time I directed, South complains that North (at the next higher table) is throwing the boards to his little table between the big tables when he passes them. The tables are light plastic things, and he says it is disturbing his coffee. I observe that North is indeed throwing the boards. I ask him if he could gently place them down. Of course not. South has his small table right next to him. North asked him to move his table closer to the center. South has refused. They are sitting about a yard-meter apart. I put another small plastic table in between them, as close to the center as I can get it. Problem solved? South moves this new table close to him, and for the remainder of the game, places the boards closer to himself than to North at the next table. I can now appreciate Waiting for Godot as a commentary on human life. I am sorely tempted to explain to North next week that if he has a physical disability that prevents him from passing the boards, we can give him an East-West. But he is a regular paying customer. I am explaining what it is like to direct at the club level. But there is a general point you cannot make a law against every way players can have a petty fight. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sat Aug 15 15:14:32 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:14:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] pettiness (a day in the life) References: Message-ID: <001801ca1daa$5c506960$2401a8c0@p41600> Make them both go and stand in the corner for one round and threaten them with extra homework. Good griiiief, and you put up with it ????? lnb ********************** The 3 ages of man.tri-weekly; try weekly; try weakly. ********************** > > The last time I directed, South complains that North (at the next higher > table) is throwing the boards to his little table between the big tables > when he passes them. The tables are light plastic things, and he says it > is disturbing his coffee. > > I observe that North is indeed throwing the boards. I ask him if he could > gently place them down. > > Of course not. South has his small table right next to him. North asked > him to move his table closer to the center. South has refused. They are > sitting about a yard-meter apart. > > I put another small plastic table in between them, as close to the center > as I can get it. Problem solved? > > South moves this new table close to him, and for the remainder of the > game, places the boards closer to himself than to North at the next table. > > I can now appreciate Waiting for Godot as a commentary on human life. I am > sorely tempted to explain to North next week that if he has a physical > disability that prevents him from passing the boards, we can give him an > East-West. But he is a regular paying customer. > > I am explaining what it is like to direct at the club level. But there is > a general point you cannot make a law against every way players can have a > petty fight. > _______________________________________________ > 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: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2304 - Release Date: 08/15/09 06:10:00 -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 2681 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Aug 15 15:18:21 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:18:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <001601ca1d8b$2780e9e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A851D3E.8000902@skynet.be> <001601ca1d8b$2780e9e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A86B59D.9010809@skynet.be> If you would have threaded your posts, you could have found that we were talking about the decision that to answer the question what 5Di meant "if 4NT had been Blackwood" need not be answered. If you continue to pick at individual posts without seeing the whole picture, Grattan, we may be going around in circles. Herman. Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " But which was which he could never make out, > Despite his best endeavour, > Of that there was no shadow of doubt, > No probable, possible shadow of doubt, > No possible doubt whatever." > Sir W.S.Gilbert. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 9:15 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo >>> >> Rest assured Grattan, that in the case in question, relevance >> was not in doubt. Anyway, why do you defend a Beijing >> declaration that does not speak of relevance, by defending >> the resulting ruling on the basis of relevance? If the questions >> were irrelevant in the first place, you don't need the Beijing >> decision to rule the question illegal. So please consider that >> they are relevant, and then tell us why the WBFLC choses >> to decide as it did? >> >> Herman. >> > +=+ Herman, I fail to understand what "Beijing decision" you > mean. Please be specific in quoting the WBFLC words that > you have in mind. > For the rest, I may explain a WBFLC statement; the > committee does not ask me to "defend" its decisions. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 16 01:40:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:40:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A851D3E.8000902@skynet.be><001601ca1d8b$2780e9e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A86B59D.9010809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005001ca1e03$71a367f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > If you would have threaded your posts, you could have found > that we were talking about the decision that to answer the > question what 5Di meant "if 4NT had been Blackwood" need > not be answered. > > If you continue to pick at individual posts without seeing the > whole picture, Grattan, we may be going around in circles. > > Herman. > +=+ I knew what question was being discussed. I did not know how it could be suggested the Beijing minute re Law 20F1 had in some way changed the effect of the law. The intention of the minute is merely to reaffirm what the law says and this is all that it does. Without the minute this is still what the law means. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 16 11:59:58 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:59:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net><003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > Players can self-select for relevance. If I think my request for information is relevant, then it probably is. I shouldn't have to explain the opponents why it is relevant. I shouldn't have to explain to the director why it is relevant, though obviously I am willing to upon request. If it isn't relevant, then who does it hurt if the opponents explain it anyway? > +=+ The Beijing minute does not say that the opponent is forbidden to reply to the question. It says the opponent has the option whether to give the information or not. When a player seeks to ask a question and opponent claims it is irrelevant the decision whether it is a relevant question is decided by the Director. As for whom it may hurt if the opponent explains it anyway, the law leaves to the opponent the decisions whether it may hurt to answer the question and whether he wishes to answer. I realize that some would like the law to be different, but it isn't. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 16 14:57:12 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:57:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <005001ca1e03$71a367f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A851D3E.8000902@skynet.be><001601ca1d8b$2780e9e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A86B59D.9010809@skynet.be> <005001ca1e03$71a367f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A880228.2010503@skynet.be> Yes Grattan, that is indeed what an "interpretation" is for, not to change the law, but to clarify it. However, Eric believes that clarification goes against what has been done in the past, with the "Kaplan engine". With a Kaplan engine, a player has the possibility to look up anything he wants to know, for whatever reason. This interpretation makes the process of asking less than a Kaplan engine, because all of a sudden, relevancy becomes a factor. Eric believes this is a sad development, and I agree with that sentiment. Mind you Grattan, this is totally different from time wasting and harassment, both of which may be said to be infracted when irrelevant questions are asked. But those are different laws. I see no reason why "relevance" should be an issue. Let me give an example of that last one: During the play, declarer asks one defender how they lead from five small. "but he's lead an ace", responds the RHO. "so I don't see the relevance". Now we could all construct some example in which this question could be relevant. But do we really want the Director to be called, and he judging the relevance, before the simple question will be answered? As we often see in American court room drama's: "I'll allow it, but please come to the point quickly". Herman. Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " But which was which he could never make out, > Despite his best endeavour, > Of that there was no shadow of doubt, > No probable, possible shadow of doubt, > No possible doubt whatever." > Sir W.S.Gilbert. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:18 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > > >> If you would have threaded your posts, you could have found >> that we were talking about the decision that to answer the >> question what 5Di meant "if 4NT had been Blackwood" need >> not be answered. >> >> If you continue to pick at individual posts without seeing the >> whole picture, Grattan, we may be going around in circles. >> >> Herman. >> > +=+ I knew what question was being discussed. I did not know > how it could be suggested the Beijing minute re Law 20F1 had > in some way changed the effect of the law. The intention of the > minute is merely to reaffirm what the law says and this is all that > it does. Without the minute this is still what the law means. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 16 14:58:24 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:58:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net><003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A880270.6020309@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " But which was which he could never make out, > Despite his best endeavour, > Of that there was no shadow of doubt, > No probable, possible shadow of doubt, > No possible doubt whatever." > Sir W.S.Gilbert. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:26 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > > > Players can self-select for relevance. If I think my > request for information is relevant, then it probably > is. I shouldn't have to explain the opponents why it > is relevant. I shouldn't have to explain to the director > why it is relevant, though obviously I am willing to > upon request. If it isn't relevant, then who does it > hurt if the opponents explain it anyway? > +=+ The Beijing minute does not say that the > opponent is forbidden to reply to the question. > It says the opponent has the option whether to > give the information or not. When a player > seeks to ask a question and opponent claims > it is irrelevant the decision whether it is a > relevant question is decided by the Director. > As for whom it may hurt if the opponent > explains it anyway, the law leaves to the > opponent the decisions whether it may hurt > to answer the question and whether he wishes > to answer. I realize that some would like the > law to be different, but it isn't. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > And could you explain to us, Grattan, under which law the WBFLC have issued this clarification? Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 16 16:15:19 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:15:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <005001ca1e03$71a367f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A851D3E.8000902@skynet.be> <001601ca1d8b$2780e9e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A86B59D.9010809@skynet.be> <005001ca1e03$71a367f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:40:03 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " But which was which he could never make out, > Despite his best endeavour, > Of that there was no shadow of doubt, > No probable, possible shadow of doubt, > No possible doubt whatever." > Sir W.S.Gilbert. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:18 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > > >> If you would have threaded your posts, you could have found >> that we were talking about the decision that to answer the >> question what 5Di meant "if 4NT had been Blackwood" need >> not be answered. >> >> If you continue to pick at individual posts without seeing the >> whole picture, Grattan, we may be going around in circles. >> >> Herman. >> > +=+ I knew what question was being discussed. I did not know > how it could be suggested the Beijing minute re Law 20F1 had > in some way changed the effect of the law. The intention of the > minute is merely to reaffirm what the law says and this is all that > it does. Without the minute this is still what the law means. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Correct me if I am wrong. My partner opens 1S and my RHO bids 1C. It is obvious to all that RHO did not see the 1S bid. I would like to know the partnership understandings concerning a 1C opening. Does Law 20F1 entitle me to that information? In the 2007 laws, I am entitled to know: 1. About calls actually made. The opponents hopefully have not assigned a meaning to the 1C overcall of 1S. 2. alternative calls that were available but not made. The 1C opening was not available. 3. relevant inferences from the choice of action. Bingo! The opponent choose to bid 1C, and I can know the relevant inferences from that. I am entitled to that information. Now consider Beijing. 3. and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action *among the foregoing*. That adds "among the foregoing". The "forgoing" are #1 and #2, which as noted do not apply. So player as not entitled to ask about the possible meaning of an insufficient bid. That is one reason I think that L20F1 was rewritten. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 16 16:27:43 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:27:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net> <003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:59:58 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " But which was which he could never make out, > Despite his best endeavour, > Of that there was no shadow of doubt, > No probable, possible shadow of doubt, > No possible doubt whatever." > Sir W.S.Gilbert. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:26 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > > >> > Players can self-select for relevance. If I think my > request for information is relevant, then it probably > is. I shouldn't have to explain the opponents why it > is relevant. I shouldn't have to explain to the director > why it is relevant, though obviously I am willing to > upon request. If it isn't relevant, then who does it > hurt if the opponents explain it anyway? >> > +=+ The Beijing minute does not say that the > opponent is forbidden to reply to the question. It should not be the responsibility of the players to cover up errors in the law. Richard is not fond of players granting the opponents advantages they do not deserve, such as ignoring a revoke. I am not that fond of his position. But are you advocating the opposite? > It says the opponent has the option whether to > give the information or not. When a player > seeks to ask a question and opponent claims > it is irrelevant the decision whether it is a > relevant question is decided by the Director. > As for whom it may hurt if the opponent > explains it anyway, the law leaves to the > opponent the decisions whether it may hurt > to answer the question and whether he wishes > to answer. I realize that some would like the > law to be different, but it isn't. I don't think anyone is complaining about the law. It is the Beijing opinion that many people don't like. I think you rewrote L20F1. At best you clarified an ambiguity, choosing what was probably the minority view, choosing an impractical and unpopular point of view. And now I have to live with it. Which means ignoring it, right? I can't enforce it. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 16 16:31:07 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:31:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <4A880270.6020309@skynet.be> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net> <003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A880270.6020309@skynet.be> Message-ID: What is an infringement? I mean, suppose we know that a player's pass is an infringement. What now? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 16 19:34:52 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:34:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net><003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred><002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <002001ca1e97$e055ba10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:26 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo >> > >> It says the opponent has the option whether to >> give the information or not. When a player >> seeks to ask a question and opponent claims >> it is irrelevant the decision whether it is a >> relevant question is decided by the Director. >> As for whom it may hurt if the opponent >> explains it anyway, the law leaves to the >> opponent the decisions whether it may hurt >> to answer the question and whether he wishes >> to answer. I realize that some would like the >> law to be different, but it isn't. > > I don't think anyone is complaining about the > law. It is the Beijing opinion that many people > don't like. > > I think you rewrote L20F1. At best you clarified > an ambiguity, choosing what was probably the > minority view, choosing an impractical and unpopular > point of view. And now I have to live with it. Which > means ignoring it, right? I can't enforce it. > +=+ If you ignore the correct application of the law as specified by the WBRFLC every such decision should be overturned upon appeal. The Beijing minute does not change the law. The meaning of the law is unambiguous. The minute serves only to put it beyond false arguments such as you try to bring. You are simply trying to avoid the correct application because you want the law to be different from what it is. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 16 19:54:29 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:54:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net><003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A880270.6020309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002901ca1e9a$a50fe680$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo >>> > > And could you explain to us, Grattan, under which > law the WBFLC have issued this clarification? > > Herman. > +=+ Herman, I believe you are already aware of the duties and powers of the WBFLC as noted hereunder Extract from the By-Laws of the World Bridge Federation, agreed to by and binding upon all member NBOs: "The function and duty of this (the WBF Laws) Committee shall be to consider and take account of all matters relating to the international laws of bridge. The Committee shall make whatever changes in the laws it deems appropriate, subject to approval by the Executive. The Committee shall interpret the laws; shall, periodically review the laws; and at least once each decade shall make a comprehensive study and updating of the entire laws structure. The Laws Committee shall fix its own rules of procedure and shall, act as provided by such rules or by direction of the Executive." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 16 20:12:13 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:12:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <002901ca1e9a$a50fe680$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net><003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A880270.6020309@skynet.be> <002901ca1e9a$a50fe680$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A884BFD.2090207@skynet.be> I am sorry Grattan, I used a wrong phrase. What I wanted to know is under which bridge law this interpretation falls. Herman. Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " But which was which he could never make out, > Despite his best endeavour, > Of that there was no shadow of doubt, > No probable, possible shadow of doubt, > No possible doubt whatever." > Sir W.S.Gilbert. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 1:58 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > > >> And could you explain to us, Grattan, under which >> law the WBFLC have issued this clarification? >> >> Herman. >> > +=+ Herman, I believe you are already aware of the duties > and powers of the WBFLC as noted hereunder > Extract from the By-Laws of the World Bridge Federation, > agreed to by and binding upon all member NBOs: > "The function and duty of this (the WBF Laws) Committee > shall be to consider and take account of all matters relating > to the international laws of bridge. The Committee shall > make whatever changes in the laws it deems appropriate, > subject to approval by the Executive. The Committee shall > interpret the laws; shall, periodically review the laws; and at > least once each decade shall make a comprehensive study > and updating of the entire laws structure. > The Laws Committee shall fix its own rules of procedure > and shall, act as provided by such rules or by direction of > the Executive." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 16 23:20:33 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:20:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <002001ca1e97$e055ba10$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net> <003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002001ca1e97$e055ba10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:34:52 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " But which was which he could never make out, > Despite his best endeavour, > Of that there was no shadow of doubt, > No probable, possible shadow of doubt, > No possible doubt whatever." > Sir W.S.Gilbert. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:27 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > > >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:26 PM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo >>> >> >>> It says the opponent has the option whether to >>> give the information or not. When a player >>> seeks to ask a question and opponent claims >>> it is irrelevant the decision whether it is a >>> relevant question is decided by the Director. >>> As for whom it may hurt if the opponent >>> explains it anyway, the law leaves to the >>> opponent the decisions whether it may hurt >>> to answer the question and whether he wishes >>> to answer. I realize that some would like the >>> law to be different, but it isn't. >> >> I don't think anyone is complaining about the >> law. It is the Beijing opinion that many people >> don't like. >> >> I think you rewrote L20F1. At best you clarified >> an ambiguity, choosing what was probably the >> minority view, choosing an impractical and unpopular >> point of view. And now I have to live with it. Which >> means ignoring it, right? I can't enforce it. >> > +=+ If you ignore the correct application of the law > as specified by the WBRFLC every such decision > should be overturned upon appeal. I bid 2Di, not noticing that the player in front of me has bid 2 Di. The opponents would like to know what my 2Di bid means. I tell them we do not have any assigned meaning to insufficient bids. They laugh, or think I am an asshole, then ask what 2 Di would have meant had there not been the intervening overcall. I refuse to tell them. Now they definitely think asshole, they get angry, and they call the director. A major goal of the laws should be to avoid conflict and anger. Explanation available upon request if that isn't obvious. The laws have actually managed to create conflict and anger. Thank you laws. The director almost surely will rule against me. He will not say what he is thinking, but he is thinking the same thing as the opponents. Now to the committee. I am unlikely to get a favorable ruling based on just the laws. They will think "relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding" applies. So I have to some how supply the Beijing 2008 interpretation. I am not sure how I am going to do that. And if I manage to convince the committee that I am right, which is doubtful, what will that player think? He will think that the laws are unfair. He will realize that the laws are much more difficult to understand than he would like. If you are trying to earn his respect for the laws, you have failed. > The Beijing minute does not change the law. The > meaning of the law is unambiguous. The minute serves > only to put it beyond false arguments such as you try > to bring. You are simply trying to avoid the correct > application because you want the law to be different > from what it is. I would like laws that reduce conflict and anger. I would like laws that make bridge as enjoyable for the players as possible. I would like laws that deserve respect and can be explained to the players as being fair and good. I am standing there as director, a player asks what the insufficient 2 Di bid would have meant had their not been an overcall, and I intrude and explain that the opponents don't have to answer that. The will anyway, because *no one wants to play bridge that way*. Nice law. But suppose the opponents celebrate their good fortune. The NOS will be angry at me. Thank you, laws. They will complain to the bridge club owner (the person who hires and pays me). The bridge club owner will think I am a lunatic for that ruling. We will check with the ACBL, which might not answer or might not support me. If the ACBL supports me, the owners will ask me not to make that particular ruling again. They want their customers to be happy. The bridge laws should not be in conflict with this goal. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 17 02:08:42 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:08:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The erudite and compleat Zsa Zsa Gabor (Newsweek, 28th March 1960): "A man in love is incomplete until he has married. Then he's finished." The erudite Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Erudite but incomplete. The WBF Appeals Committee was much >>influenced by a member who observed that where the UI derives from >>an irregularity - viz. extraneous remark, gesture, undue emphasis, >>inflection, haste or hesitation, inappropriate alert, - it is >>frequently collusive not unintentional, ergo infractive. The >>Director may judge this to be the case. The compleat Eric Landau: >In my world, a Director who "judge[d it] to be the case" that the >transmission of UI between partners was "collusive not >unintentional" would be expected to refer the offending pair to a >Conduct and Ethics Committee forthwith. Incompletely quoted WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees: "If it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that a player has intended to act in a way that will give unauthorized information to his partner, the Director in charge should be consulted as to the provisions of Law 73B1. If it is proven that such action has been prearranged with partner the committee consults the Director in charge concerning Law 73B2." Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 17 03:04:14 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:04:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008, page 4: 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents' prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An "alternative" call is not the same call with another meaning - for example, if the reply to an opponent is that "5D shows diamonds preference", any reply to a further question "what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood?" is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.) Grattan Endicott: +=+ The Beijing minute does not say that the opponent is forbidden to reply to the question. It says the opponent has the option whether to give the information or not. When a player seeks to ask a question and opponent claims it is irrelevant the decision whether it is a relevant question is decided by the Director. As for whom it may hurt if the opponent explains it anyway, the law leaves to the opponent the decisions whether it may hurt to answer the question and whether he wishes to answer. I realize that some would like the law to be different, but it isn't. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ACBL Laws Commission minutes, 22nd November 2008, page 2: Al Levy presented the issue of Law 20F1 as it concerns asking questions about calls that were not made but were relevant and alternative or from which inferences may have been drawn where these are matters of partnership understanding. The specific example considered was an auction where North bid 4N and South responded 5D. The partnership agreement was that 4N asked for better minor (so 5D showed longer diamonds by agreement). However, South took 4N as blackwood, so the issue was whether EW were entitled to know how many aces (or key cards) 5D showed. A particular point was that North would know what South was showing if he misinterpreted 4N as blackwood (and thus even if better minor was the agreement, showing aces was obviously at least a possible meaning of the response). The clear majority view held that it was more important to be very liberal in allowing a question (e.g. what is a 5D response to Blackwood here) - especially when the answer will make understanding the information from the auction equally available to all players at the table. Whether or not the subject of the question was a matter of partnership understanding is secondary to the matter of relevancy. A minority view held that if the question did not relate to an actual agreement of the side to which the question was asked that it did not have to be answered. Allan Falk volunteered to create a proposal to be discussed by e-mail to reach a consensus. Until a consensus is reached, tournament directors should be reasonably liberal in allowing questions without permitting inquisitions and as the practically of time permits. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 17 03:31:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:31:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003501ca1d92$0f16bea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>>...The WBF Appeals Committee was much influenced by a member >>>...frequently collusive not unintentional, ergo infractive. >>>The Director may judge this to be the case. Eric Landau (Silver Spring, Maryland): >>...refer the offending pair to a Conduct and Ethics Committee >>forthwith. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ However, you would perhaps not be surprised were you to >learn that the member's hometown lay within 2500 miles of >Silver Spring, and I think he actually said 'probably to be >the case'. (By the way, is Silver Spring as pretty as its >name?) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Noel Coward (1899-1973): There are bad times just around the corner, There are dark clouds travelling through the sky And it's no good whining About a silver lining For we know from experience that they won't roll by. Richard Hills: But yes, a Silver Spring lining has rolled by in Zone 2. If an ACBL Director judges collusion "probably" to be the case, so lacking the evidence to forthwith refer the offending side to a Conduct and Ethics Committee, the non-offending side will no longer be deprived of their so-called "windfall" in ACBL-land when the ACBL Director rules under Laws 16 and 12. ACBL Laws Commission, 25th July 2009, page 3: Next the commission discussed Unauthorized Information in the context of Law 12c1(e). Adam Wildavsky moved that "When considering a score adjustment for a violation of Law 16B, the irregularity referred to by Law 12c1(e) is the action that may have been influenced by the unauthorized information." The motion carried. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 17 04:04:27 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:04:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Eye Wood [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: P.G. Wodehouse, The Code of the Woosters (1938): "It is no use telling me that there are bad aunts and good aunts. At the core, they are all alike. Sooner or later, out pops the cloven hoof." Robert Frick, The Code of the Eye Wood (2009): >I would like laws that reduce conflict and anger. > >I would like laws that make bridge as enjoyable for the players >as possible. > >I would like laws that deserve respect and can be explained to >the players as being fair and good. Law 74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." Richard Hills, The Code of the Anagram (2009): Battler hemp's how? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 17 06:01:50 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:01:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." Robert Frick asked: >What is an infringement? Pocket Oxford Dictionary: infringe, v.t. Transgress (law etc.). infringement, n. infraction, n. Infringement. Richard Hills answers: A keyword search of The Fabulous Law Book shows that the only appearance of infringe(ment) is in Law 72B1. The Law 72B1 word "infringe" has the dictionary meaning of "transgress a Law". The dictionary also states that "infringement" is the definition of "infraction". Ergo, the simple solution to Bob's question is for Bob to remove the word "infringe" from Law 72B1 and for Bob to instead substitute the synonym "infract". Almost all Laws contain rectifications for their own infractions. Those few Laws which do not contain rectifications for their own infractions may still have any damage rectified by Law 12A1. Robert Frick asked: >I mean, suppose we know that a player's pass is an infringement. >What now? Richard Hills answers: Plus complementary to Law 72B1's clause "must not infringe a law intentionally" is Law 23's clause "offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage" and Law 23's footnote "as, for example, by partner's enforced pass". Ablest whet morph? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Aug 17 10:31:15 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:31:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Sao_Paulo?= In-Reply-To: References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net> <003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002001ca1e97$e055ba10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <1McxcZ-0HwZsW0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> From: "Robert Frick" > > From: "Robert Frick" > > > I don't think anyone is complaining about the > > > law. It is the Beijing opinion that many people > > > don't like. > > > > > > I think you rewrote L20F1. At best you clarified > > > an ambiguity, choosing what was probably the > > > minority view, choosing an impractical and unpopular > > > point of view. And now I have to live with it. Which > > > means ignoring it, right? I can't enforce it. > > > > Grattan Endicott > +=+ If you ignore the correct application of the law > > as specified by the WBRFLC every such decision > > should be overturned upon appeal. > > I bid 2Di, not noticing that the player in front of me has bid 2 Di. > The opponents would like to know what my 2Di bid means. I tell them we > do not have any assigned meaning to insufficient bids. They laugh, or > think I am an asshole, then ask what 2 Di would have meant had there > not been the intervening overcall. > > I refuse to tell them. Now they definitely think asshole, they get > angry, and they call the director. [snip] From: 2008 EBL TD Seminar, Lesson about Insufficient bids, by Max Bavin "B] Recommended Tournament Director procedure [...] 3. The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the Law from the Tournament Director). [...]" For _me_ it's different, whether opponents ask for an explanation according to Law 20 F1 or whether there is the case of an IB. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 17 10:57:51 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:57:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <1McxcZ-0HwZsW0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be> <005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net> <003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002001ca1e97$e055ba10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <1McxcZ-0HwZsW0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A891B8F.9070708@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>>> I don't think anyone is complaining about the >>>> law. It is the Beijing opinion that many people >>>> don't like. >>>> >>>> I think you rewrote L20F1. At best you clarified >>>> an ambiguity, choosing what was probably the >>>> minority view, choosing an impractical and unpopular >>>> point of view. And now I have to live with it. Which >>>> means ignoring it, right? I can't enforce it. >>>> >> Grattan Endicott>> +=+ If you ignore the correct application of the law >>> as specified by the WBRFLC every such decision >>> should be overturned upon appeal. >> I bid 2Di, not noticing that the player in front of me has bid 2 Di. >> The opponents would like to know what my 2Di bid means. I tell them we >> do not have any assigned meaning to insufficient bids. They laugh, or >> think I am an asshole, then ask what 2 Di would have meant had there >> not been the intervening overcall. >> >> I refuse to tell them. Now they definitely think asshole, they get >> angry, and they call the director. > > [snip] > > From: 2008 EBL TD Seminar, Lesson about Insufficient bids, > by Max Bavin > > "B] Recommended Tournament Director procedure > [...] > 3. The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying > to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). > However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents > system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is > entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the > Law from the Tournament Director). > [...]" > > For _me_ it's different, whether opponents ask for an > explanation according to Law 20 F1 or whether there > is the case of an IB. > Is it Peter? The only thing Max is saying above is that the opponents are entitled to the full description of the system, as per L40. The way they get that description is not of Max' concern, but he applies L20 in saying that they may ask. If Grattan's interpretation prevails, then Max's quote above (he ca ask supplementary questions) is equally wrong. And Max's words carry less value than the Beijing decision. So you would be wrong in saying that the IB case is solved, and that it is different from the MI4NT case. I don't think I've been totally clear in this, but I hope you understand what I mean. Yes indeed, Robert's example is a valid counterargument for why this particular Beijing interpretation is wrong. Have you noted this, Grattan? Should you not ask the WBF to rescind (or at least reconsider) this particular interpretation? Questions about system should be limitless, or only limited by other considerations, such as harassment and time wasting, which are dealt with in other, quite satisfactory, laws. Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 17 15:35:18 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:35:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net> <003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4F7CA6C9-CAFE-40FF-9301-025BC3ABBA6B@starpower.net> On Aug 15, 2009, at 5:48 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> My view is that relevance is in the eye of the beholder > > +=+ My view is that relevance is in the eye of the Director. > I base my opinion on Law 81C2. L81C2 allows the director to "interpret these laws", not to re- interpret the English language. If a piece of information affects a player's decision, then it is relevant to that decision by definition, whether or not it might have affected the director's, or anyone else's, decision had they been in the player's seat at the time. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 17 15:40:20 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:40:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey In-Reply-To: <003501ca1d92$0f16bea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000c01ca1cc9$8885e140$0302a8c0@Mildred> <003501ca1d92$0f16bea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Aug 15, 2009, at 6:18 AM, Grattan wrote: > (By the way, is Silver Spring as pretty as > its name?) The original silver spring -- preserved in a small park in the middle of town -- is, but the town itself is just another suburb. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 17 16:25:42 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:25:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net><003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <58FA5C3E-9776-4AEF-B681-19093ACDA3A9@starpower.net> On Aug 16, 2009, at 5:59 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" > > Players can self-select for relevance. If I think my > request for information is relevant, then it probably > is. I shouldn't have to explain the opponents why it > is relevant. I shouldn't have to explain to the director > why it is relevant, though obviously I am willing to > upon request. If it isn't relevant, then who does it > hurt if the opponents explain it anyway? > > +=+ The Beijing minute does not say that the > opponent is forbidden to reply to the question. > It says the opponent has the option whether to > give the information or not. When a player > seeks to ask a question and opponent claims > it is irrelevant the decision whether it is a > relevant question is decided by the Director. > As for whom it may hurt if the opponent > explains it anyway, the law leaves to the > opponent the decisions whether it may hurt > to answer the question and whether he wishes > to answer. I realize that some would like the > law to be different, but it isn't. (1) So what do we tell a player who, on discovering that he may not be able to obtain desired information about his opponents' methods in mid-auction, insists on exercising his law-given right to ask all those questions that he might conceivably want the answers to but not be allowed to ask about during the auction "before commencing play against them" [L40A1(b)]? Rather than reschedule our tournaments to allow an hour per two-board round, we have been telling them that they should hold their questions until they're "relevant" (as defined in the dictionary, and by Bob), and will lose no rights by doing so. I would argue that by limiting the amount of information to be exchanged "before commencing play" and providing a mid-auction question-and-answer protocol constitutes an implicit decision by the RA that "the manner in which this [the exercise of one's L40A1(b) rights] shall be done" includes a retroactive component. Would TPTB really prefer us to allow an hour per two-board round, so each partnership can realistically fulfill its "duty to make available its partnership understandings... before commencing play"? (2) We teach our beginners that their opponents are entitled to know "as much about your bidding agreements as you do", and encourage them to be as helpful and forthcoming to their opponents as they can. We explain the basic idea behind L75. We teach them to answer their opponents' questions about their agreements. We even teach the "Kaplan paradigm" (without using the term). Apparently we have been teaching wrongly. Do TPTB really want us to change our syllabus? Should we now tell our beginners that when asked about their bidding agreements, they should answer only those questions that are directly about some bid that they actually made during the auction in progress, otherwise they should call the director to find out whether or not to answer? Is this a road we really want to send our next generation of players down? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 17 16:54:54 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:54:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <4A880228.2010503@skynet.be> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A851D3E.8000902@skynet.be><001601ca1d8b$2780e9e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A86B59D.9010809@skynet.be> <005001ca1e03$71a367f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A880228.2010503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <78517E01-5F40-4960-B099-29136A190E28@starpower.net> On Aug 16, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Yes Grattan, that is indeed what an "interpretation" is for, not to > change the law, but to clarify it. > > However, Eric believes that clarification goes against what has been > done in the past, with the "Kaplan engine". With a Kaplan engine, a > player has the possibility to look up anything he wants to know, for > whatever reason. This interpretation makes the process of asking less > than a Kaplan engine, because all of a sudden, relevancy becomes a > factor. > Eric believes this is a sad development, and I agree with that > sentiment. > > Mind you Grattan, this is totally different from time wasting and > harassment, both of which may be said to be infracted when irrelevant > questions are asked. But those are different laws. I see no reason why > "relevance" should be an issue. > > Let me give an example of that last one: During the play, declarer > asks > one defender how they lead from five small. "but he's lead an ace", > responds the RHO. "so I don't see the relevance". Now we could all > construct some example in which this question could be relevant. > But do > we really want the Director to be called, and he judging the > relevance, > before the simple question will be answered? I don't, especially because we're discussing a general case. If we (correctly, as Herman notes) ignore cases of deliberate "time wasting [or] harassment", then, by definition, any question asked is one that the asker believes to be relevant. If, however, he is legally permitted to ask only questions that somebody else would judge to be "logically" or "properly" or "appropriately" or whatever (although I see no such word in L20F) relevant, then his own judgment of relevance is (ahem) irrelevant, and he can remain properly within the law only by calling on the director to make that determination for him every time he has a question about an "alternative call... not made". Grattan's rather odd notion that instead of calling the director every time, we should give the opponents the opportunity to make the first judgment as to relevance, and call the director only if we don't like their opinion, seems inimical to the idea of a game played by its laws. Since when are we allowed to ask our opponents whether they mind if we break the law as written, and then so as we please based on their permission? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 17 16:56:49 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:56:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net> <003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002001ca1e97$e055ba10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <1McxcZ-0HwZsW0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> <4A891B8F.9070708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002001ca1f4b$221e4da0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo >> From: 2008 EBL TD Seminar, Lesson about Insufficient bids, >> by Max Bavin >> >> "B] Recommended Tournament Director procedure >> [...] >> 3. The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying >> to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). >> However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents >> system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is >> entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the >> Law from the Tournament Director). >> [...]" >> The only thing Max is saying above is that the opponents are entitled to the full description of the system, as per L40. The way they get that description is not of Max' concern, but he applies L20 in saying that they may ask. If Grattan's interpretation prevails, then Max's quote above (he can ask supplementary questions) is equally wrong. And Max's words carry less value than the Beijing decision. > +=+ A supplementary question is to clarify the answer given to the previous question. A question about something outside of the opponents' system is not a supplementary as Max intends and Max remains within the decision of the WBFLC in Beijing. He was in fact present at the meeting in Beijing as a member of the WBFLC and agreed with the ruling of the committee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 17 17:03:52 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:03:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey References: <000c01ca1cc9$8885e140$0302a8c0@Mildred><003501ca1d92$0f16bea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <004001ca1f4d$fce1a6b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] At night all cats are grey > On Aug 15, 2009, at 6:18 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> (By the way, is Silver Spring as pretty as >> its name?) > > The original silver spring -- preserved in a small park in the middle > of town -- is, but the town itself is just another suburb. > > +=+ Ah, a bit like the laws of bridge? +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 17 17:17:51 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:17:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A851D3E.8000902@skynet.be><001601ca1d8b$2780e9e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A86B59D.9010809@skynet.be><005001ca1e03$71a367f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A880228.2010503@skynet.be> <78517E01-5F40-4960-B099-29136A190E28@starpower.net> Message-ID: <004101ca1f4d$fd13b330$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > > Grattan's rather odd notion that instead of calling the director every time, we should give the opponents the opportunity to make the first judgment as to relevance, and call the director only if we don't like their opinion, seems inimical to the idea of a game played by its laws. Since when are we allowed to ask our opponents whether they mind if we break the law as written, and then so as we please based on their permission? > +=+ In practice you ask the question, opponent says 'I am not required to answer that' and the Director is summoned. If you find the Committee's opinion, which I am merely reciting, to be an 'odd notion' so be it. You can read the minute just as readily as I can. Nothing is altered by your reluctance to accept their dictum. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 17 17:25:38 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:25:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <002001ca1e97$e055ba10$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net><003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred><002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002001ca1e97$e055ba10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <06E70D8C-9F10-40C0-8B5D-8C5D928B3761@starpower.net> On Aug 16, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ If you ignore the correct application of the law > as specified by the WBRFLC every such decision > should be overturned upon appeal. > The Beijing minute does not change the law. The > meaning of the law is unambiguous. The minute serves > only to put it beyond false arguments such as you try > to bring. You are simply trying to avoid the correct > application because you want the law to be different > from what it is. That's pretty strong language from Grattan. And most disturbing. Because the Beijing minute explicitly rejects the Kaplan paradigm. And because I don't believe our lawmakers are stupid or ignorant. Or that they eschew clear legal principles in favor of a chaotic law the details of which can only be arbitrarily decreed, as it were, minute by minute. So if, as Grattan insists, the meaning of the law is unambiguous, and is not in any way changed by the minute, that must mean that the authors of that law made a conscious and deliberate decision to abandon the Kaplan paradigm, despite knowing that for the past 35 years it has been used worldwide, at every level, as a simple and clear guideline for interpretation of all of our laws and various regulations controlling disclosure of methods. The idea that they might have done this without some compelling reason or rationale, and with no idea what they might replace such a firmly established principle with, is directly contrary to my belief that they are neither stupid nor ignorant. So I await with full confidence someone's explanation of why they chose to take this huge step, and of the principles and guidelines we are to use in the future, in place of those now abandoned, to consistently interpret our disclosure rules. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 17 17:35:19 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:35:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <002001ca1f4b$221e4da0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net> <003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002001ca1e97$e055ba10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <1McxcZ-0HwZsW0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> <4A891B8F.9070708@skynet.be> <002001ca1f4b$221e4da0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A8978B7.6050507@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " .... the marble eyelids are not wet, > If it could weep it could arise and go." > ('Grief' - E.B.Browning.) > "When there are no tears in the eyes > the pain is inside." > (Child sitting in the rubble of her > Gaza home, interviewed on TV) > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 9:57 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > > >>> From: 2008 EBL TD Seminar, Lesson about Insufficient bids, >>> by Max Bavin >>> >>> "B] Recommended Tournament Director procedure >>> [...] >>> 3. The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying >>> to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). >>> However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents >>> system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is >>> entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the >>> Law from the Tournament Director). >>> [...]" >>> > The only thing Max is saying above is that the opponents are > entitled to the full description of the system, as per L40. The > way they get that description is not of Max' concern, but he > applies L20 in saying that they may ask. If Grattan's interpretation > prevails, then Max's quote above (he can ask supplementary > questions) is equally wrong. And Max's words carry less value > than the Beijing decision. > +=+ A supplementary question is to clarify the answer given to > the previous question. A question about something outside of the > opponents' system is not a supplementary as Max intends and > Max remains within the decision of the WBFLC in Beijing. He > was in fact present at the meeting in Beijing as a member of the > WBFLC and agreed with the ruling of the committee. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > So, according to Grattan, when Max writes: he is entitled to know full details of his opponents system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) he means that only supplementary questions can be asked, not (?)Primary(?) ones? And the supplementary questions shall be answered, but not the primary ones? Come off it, Grattan, you do understand what Robert was trying to convey, but you are unwilling to admit that you may have led the WBFLC astray. I would really like you to put on the agenda, in S?o Paulo, this point, and give to your members the original text of this interpretation and the text that Robert wrote at the beginning of this thread. You may title this "Whatever happened to full disclosure?". Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 17 17:55:40 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:55:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <002001ca1f4b$221e4da0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net> <003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002001ca1e97$e055ba10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <1McxcZ-0HwZsW0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> <4A891B8F.9070708@skynet.be> <002001ca1f4b$221e4da0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <59577.24.46.179.117.1250524540.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " .... the marble eyelids are not wet, > If it could weep it could arise and go." > ('Grief' - E.B.Browning.) > "When there are no tears in the eyes > the pain is inside." > (Child sitting in the rubble of her > Gaza home, interviewed on TV) > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 9:57 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paulo > > >>> From: 2008 EBL TD Seminar, Lesson about Insufficient bids, >>> by Max Bavin >>> >>> "B] Recommended Tournament Director procedure >>> [...] >>> 3. The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying >>> to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). >>> However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents >>> system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is >>> entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the >>> Law from the Tournament Director). >>> [...]" >>> > The only thing Max is saying above is that the opponents are > entitled to the full description of the system, as per L40. The > way they get that description is not of Max' concern, but he > applies L20 in saying that they may ask. If Grattan's interpretation > prevails, then Max's quote above (he can ask supplementary > questions) is equally wrong. And Max's words carry less value > than the Beijing decision. >> > +=+ A supplementary question is to clarify the answer given to > the previous question. A question about something outside of the > opponents' system is not a supplementary as Max intends and > Max remains within the decision of the WBFLC in Beijing. He > was in fact present at the meeting in Beijing as a member of the > WBFLC and agreed with the ruling of the committee. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Max was allowing the opponents to ask a question about a bid they could not have made. That does not fit Beijing L20F1. It takes time, effort, scrutiny, and luck to spot potential errors in the laws. If the members of the WBFLC are given the agenda weeks in advance, then they have some responsibility for their approval. If they are not, then their approval is superficial. As far as I know, the implications for this law for insufficient bids came to light during the period for public comment, which of course was after the meeting. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 17 18:35:05 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:35:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <002001ca1f4b$221e4da0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A842B1C.8080505@skynet.be><005a01ca1c6f$2a8b72d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2614A1E9-6A6B-4D75-92DF-107E1C48BC91@starpower.net> <003201ca1d92$0e9d21d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002501ca1e58$7fd1ed60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002001ca1e97$e055ba10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <1McxcZ-0HwZsW0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> <4A891B8F.9070708@skynet.be> <002001ca1f4b$221e4da0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Aug 17, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >>> From: 2008 EBL TD Seminar, Lesson about Insufficient bids, >>> by Max Bavin >>> >>> "B] Recommended Tournament Director procedure >>> [...] >>> 3. The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying >>> to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). >>> However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents >>> system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is >>> entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the >>> Law from the Tournament Director). >>> [...]" > > The only thing Max is saying above is that the opponents are > entitled to the full description of the system, as per L40. The > way they get that description is not of Max' concern, but he > applies L20 in saying that they may ask. If Grattan's interpretation > prevails, then Max's quote above (he can ask supplementary > questions) is equally wrong. And Max's words carry less value > than the Beijing decision. > > +=+ A supplementary question is to clarify the answer given to > the previous question. A question about something outside of the > opponents' system is not a supplementary as Max intends and > Max remains within the decision of the WBFLC in Beijing. He > was in fact present at the meeting in Beijing as a member of the > WBFLC and agreed with the ruling of the committee. Disclosure rules operate in a universe of partnership understandings and apply to them exclusively. "A question about something outside of the opponents' system" is entirely outside the scope of the disclosure rules, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the question on the table. We are discussing questions about the opponent's partnership understandings, information fully known to and understood by them, which happen not to have actually come up in the auction in progress. We are wondering why the WBF has chosen to make an exception to the principle of "they're entitled to know everything about your bidding that you do". "Supplementary" means "added to complete a thing, make up for a deficiency, or extend or strenghen the whole" [AHD], and is not redefined in TFLB. There is nothing in L20F1 to suggest that a "supplementary question" must be "supplementary" to some previous given answer to some specific previous question, rather than to the (IMO obvious in context) "explanation of the opponents' prior auction" which is the subject of that partcular law. Is there some WBF minute locked in the leopard-loo that says that "a supplementary question is [determined to be] to clarify the answer given to the [sic, not "a"] previous question", or is that merely Grattan's interpretation? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 17 18:42:33 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:42:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey In-Reply-To: <004001ca1f4d$fce1a6b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000c01ca1cc9$8885e140$0302a8c0@Mildred><003501ca1d92$0f16bea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <004001ca1f4d$fce1a6b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <3172810E-6708-4B5E-A1F1-A935CD630B3C@starpower.net> On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Aug 15, 2009, at 6:18 AM, Grattan wrote: >> >>> (By the way, is Silver Spring as pretty as >>> its name?) >> >> The original silver spring -- preserved in a small park in the middle >> of town -- is, but the town itself is just another suburb. > > +=+ Ah, a bit like the laws of bridge? +=+ Indeed so. From an aesthetic perspective, the laws of bridge would surely be vastly improved by reverting to the original 1928 code. But like our town's getting its drinking water from that pretty little spring, no longer practical. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Aug 17 20:35:54 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:35:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo Message-ID: <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> Am I missing something? Player 1 asks question. Obviously he thinks it is relevant. (We are, for the moment, ignoring harassment and consummate stupidity.) Either player 2 agrees that it is relevant and responds, or perhaps responds although he doesn't think it is relevant (or doesn't even consider the question). Then no problem. Player 2 refuses to answer (?gal why). Then, obviously the TD is called (in my experience this is pretty rare). The TD decides if player 2 must answer the question. As far as I can see no problem here either. The TD bases his decision on (his knowledge and interpretation of) the laws and relevant minutes. If player 2 still disagrees he must answer the question but can appeal. No problem here that I can see. So why are we going on for days and days about this? JE From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 17 22:33:40 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:33:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> References: <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> Message-ID: <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> On Aug 17, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Am I missing something? > > Player 1 asks question. Obviously he thinks it is relevant. (We are, > for the moment, ignoring harassment and consummate stupidity.) > Either player 2 agrees that it is relevant and responds, or perhaps > responds although he doesn't think it is relevant (or doesn't even > consider the question). Then no problem. > Player 2 refuses to answer (?gal why). Then, obviously the TD is > called > (in my experience this is pretty rare). The TD decides if player 2 > must > answer the question. As far as I can see no problem here either. The > TD bases his decision on (his knowledge and interpretation of) the > laws > and relevant minutes. If player 2 still disagrees he must answer the > question but can appeal. No problem here that I can see. > So why are we going on for days and days about this? Because many of us do not want it to be the case that the legal and properly WBF-minuted attitude of players towards answering questions is to tell their friends whatever they wish to know, whilst refusing, pending a full-dress director call and ruling, subject to appeal, to answer those same questions when put to them by those they'd prefer to antagonize. And because for 35 years we have had a perfectly clear, concise and consistent guideline for understanding how the disclosure rules -- all of them, from the WBF-given Laws to the house rules of individual clubs -- are to be interpreted, and we do not wish to have it taken from us unless and until we are given some clue as to what we are to use in its place. There are other reasons too, but these seem to be the most offered so far. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Aug 18 05:42:43 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:42:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:01:50 -0400, wrote: > > Law 72B1: > > "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is > a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." > > Robert Frick asked: > >> What is an infringement? > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > infringe, v.t. Transgress (law etc.). infringement, n. > > infraction, n. Infringement. > > Richard Hills answers: > > A keyword search of The Fabulous Law Book shows that the only > appearance of infringe(ment) is in Law 72B1. The Law 72B1 word > "infringe" has the dictionary meaning of "transgress a Law". The > dictionary also states that "infringement" is the definition of > "infraction". > > Ergo, the simple solution to Bob's question is for Bob to remove > the word "infringe" from Law 72B1 and for Bob to instead > substitute the synonym "infract". > > Almost all Laws contain rectifications for their own infractions. > Those few Laws which do not contain rectifications for their own > infractions may still have any damage rectified by Law 12A1. I am trying to understand "When applying Law 17E, passes following the first pass out of rotation are cancelled and only the first pass out of rotation is an infringement." (Beijing, 2008) And why they said infringement rather than infraction or irregularity. You seem to be saying that the dictionary definition equates infringement with infraction. But the dictionary might not be using "infraction" in the technical way used in the laws. Meanwhile, a logical reading of L72B1, to me, is that players shouldn't intentionally commit an irregularity. Thanks for finding that, but doesn't that then equate infringe with committing an irregularity? Bob From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Aug 18 10:07:32 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:07:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> References: <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> Hola Eric! Thanks for the response. It has never occurred to me to rule differently when dealing with friends but I suppose it could be, theoretically, a possibility. Judging from your concern it may be a real (not theoretical) one. I have only very rarely encountered such cases and then the tendency has been to be stricter with friends. But, especially at the club level I suppose there is a danger. I can well understand your concern (second paragraph). This would seem to me to be a function of the new tendency to give more leeway to RAs and TDs. Perhaps reasonable at the top level but surely a disaster (waiting to occur?) at lower levels. Ciao, JE Eric Landau schrieb: > On Aug 17, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> Am I missing something? >> >> Player 1 asks question. Obviously he thinks it is relevant. (We are, >> for the moment, ignoring harassment and consummate stupidity.) >> Either player 2 agrees that it is relevant and responds, or perhaps >> responds although he doesn't think it is relevant (or doesn't even >> consider the question). Then no problem. >> Player 2 refuses to answer (?gal why). Then, obviously the TD is >> called >> (in my experience this is pretty rare). The TD decides if player 2 >> must >> answer the question. As far as I can see no problem here either. The >> TD bases his decision on (his knowledge and interpretation of) the >> laws >> and relevant minutes. If player 2 still disagrees he must answer the >> question but can appeal. No problem here that I can see. >> So why are we going on for days and days about this? > > Because many of us do not want it to be the case that the legal and > properly WBF-minuted attitude of players towards answering questions > is to tell their friends whatever they wish to know, whilst refusing, > pending a full-dress director call and ruling, subject to appeal, to > answer those same questions when put to them by those they'd prefer > to antagonize. > > And because for 35 years we have had a perfectly clear, concise and > consistent guideline for understanding how the disclosure rules -- > all of them, from the WBF-given Laws to the house rules of individual > clubs -- are to be interpreted, and we do not wish to have it taken > from us unless and until we are given some clue as to what we are to > use in its place. > > There are other reasons too, but these seem to be the most offered so > far. > > > 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 blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 18 11:19:29 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:19:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> Message-ID: <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> I think the bigger problem are those players who are trying to gain an advantage by not fully disclosing their methods. Thomas Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola Eric! Thanks for the response. It has never occurred to me to > rule differently when dealing with friends but I suppose it could be, > theoretically, a possibility. Judging from your concern it may be a > real (not theoretical) one. I have only very rarely encountered such > cases and then the tendency has been to be stricter with friends. But, > especially at the club level I suppose there is a danger. > I can well understand your concern (second paragraph). This would seem > to me to be a function of the new tendency to give more leeway to RAs > and TDs. Perhaps reasonable at the top level but surely a disaster > (waiting to occur?) at lower levels. Ciao, JE > > Eric Landau schrieb: > > On Aug 17, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > > > >> Am I missing something? > >> > >> Player 1 asks question. Obviously he thinks it is relevant. (We are, > >> for the moment, ignoring harassment and consummate stupidity.) > >> Either player 2 agrees that it is relevant and responds, or perhaps > >> responds although he doesn't think it is relevant (or doesn't even > >> consider the question). Then no problem. > >> Player 2 refuses to answer (?gal why). Then, obviously the TD is > >> called > >> (in my experience this is pretty rare). The TD decides if player 2 > >> must > >> answer the question. As far as I can see no problem here either. The > >> TD bases his decision on (his knowledge and interpretation of) the > >> laws > >> and relevant minutes. If player 2 still disagrees he must answer the > >> question but can appeal. No problem here that I can see. > >> So why are we going on for days and days about this? > > > > Because many of us do not want it to be the case that the legal and > > properly WBF-minuted attitude of players towards answering questions > > is to tell their friends whatever they wish to know, whilst refusing, > > pending a full-dress director call and ruling, subject to appeal, to > > answer those same questions when put to them by those they'd prefer > > to antagonize. > > > > And because for 35 years we have had a perfectly clear, concise and > > consistent guideline for understanding how the disclosure rules -- > > all of them, from the WBF-given Laws to the house rules of individual > > clubs -- are to be interpreted, and we do not wish to have it taken > > from us unless and until we are given some clue as to what we are to > > use in its place. > > > > There are other reasons too, but these seem to be the most offered so > > far. > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Plantschen oder Grog? Der Arcor-Wetterdienst weiss Bescheid! Wassertemperaturen f?r den Urlaub jetzt checken: www.arcor.de/rd/wetter_wasser From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 18 11:27:59 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:27:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003901ca1fe6$69ed77f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:01:50 -0400, wrote: > >> >> Law 72B1: >> >> "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is >> a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." >> >> Robert Frick asked: >> >>> What is an infringement? >> >> Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >> >> infringe, v.t. Transgress (law etc.). infringement, n. >> >> infraction, n. Infringement. >> >> Richard Hills answers: >> >> A keyword search of The Fabulous Law Book shows that the only >> appearance of infringe(ment) is in Law 72B1. The Law 72B1 word >> "infringe" has the dictionary meaning of "transgress a Law". The >> dictionary also states that "infringement" is the definition of >> "infraction". >> >> Ergo, the simple solution to Bob's question is for Bob to remove >> the word "infringe" from Law 72B1 and for Bob to instead >> substitute the synonym "infract". >> >> Almost all Laws contain rectifications for their own infractions. >> Those few Laws which do not contain rectifications for their own >> infractions may still have any damage rectified by Law 12A1. > > I am trying to understand "When applying Law 17E, passes following the > first pass out of rotation are cancelled and only the first pass out of > rotation is an infringement." (Beijing, 2008) And why they said > infringement rather than infraction or irregularity. > > You seem to be saying that the dictionary definition equates infringement > with infraction. But the dictionary might not be using "infraction" in the > technical way used in the laws. Meanwhile, a logical reading of L72B1, to > me, is that players shouldn't intentionally commit an irregularity. Thanks > for finding that, but doesn't that then equate infringe with committing an > irregularity? > +=+ An 'infringement' is a violation of law or regulation. It surprises me that there should be any doubt about the definition of this word. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 18 11:46:24 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:46:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> References: <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> Message-ID: <4A8A7870.6080501@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Am I missing something? > > Player 1 asks question. Obviously he thinks it is relevant. (We are, > for the moment, ignoring harassment and consummate stupidity.) > Either player 2 agrees that it is relevant and responds, or perhaps > responds although he doesn't think it is relevant (or doesn't even > consider the question). Then no problem. > Player 2 refuses to answer (?gal why). Then, obviously the TD is called > (in my experience this is pretty rare). The TD decides if player 2 must > answer the question. As far as I can see no problem here either. The > TD bases his decision on (his knowledge and interpretation of) the laws > and relevant minutes. If player 2 still disagrees he must answer the > question but can appeal. No problem here that I can see. > So why are we going on for days and days about this? JE We are going on for days and days because sometimes the TD will decide the question is not relevant (?gal why) and the player did want to know the answer. Robert, quite correctly IMO, said that this is in breach of long-established principles which say that the opponents are entitled to know everything about the system. If they can only ask about things the TD considers relevant, then that principle is no longer ture. Some of us are sad about that development, and would like the WBFLC to reconsider. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 18 11:51:43 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:51:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > I think the bigger problem are those players who are trying to gain > an advantage by not fully disclosing their methods. > > > Thomas > I don't think that is a concern. The real reason why we are discussing this is because Grattan was trying to counter an argument of mine in favour of the DWS. I said that (in the common example), the DWS answer of "1 ace" would also have to be given (among other things said) by a MS adept, since that player would certainly receive (after saying other things) the question "what are your Blackwood responses". Grattan told us that he believed that question need not be answered, and he had the WBFLC stamp that belief. Robert and Eric are now fighting back against that WBFLC decision, mostly by focusing on another question that would be outlawed by it, namely "what does that IB show, if the interfering bid was not there to make it insufficient?". That too, seems to be outlawed according to the Beijing decision, and that seems a wrong development to many. Herman. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 18 13:00:04 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:00:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001ca1ff3$0b7a5140$226ef3c0$@com> [HdW] >I said that (in the common example), the DWS answer of "1 ace" would also have to be given (among other things said) by a MS adept, since that player would certainly receive (after saying other things) the question "what are your Blackwood responses". Grattan told us that he believed that question need not be answered, and he had the WBFLC stamp that belief. [DALB] My LHO opens 1C, alerted, and my RHO bids 1D, also alerted. I discover that 1C is natural or balanced, and that 1D shows hearts. Am I allowed to ask "what would 1D mean if 1C were Precision?" If not, why should I be allowed to ask "what would 5D mean if 4NT were Blackwood?" David Burn London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 18 14:36:50 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:36:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <000001ca1ff3$0b7a5140$226ef3c0$@com> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <000001ca1ff3$0b7a5140$226ef3c0$@com> Message-ID: <4A8AA062.1010703@skynet.be> Hello David, David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > >> I said that (in the common example), the DWS answer of "1 ace" would also > have to be given (among other things said) by a MS adept, since that player > would certainly receive (after saying other things) the question "what are > your Blackwood responses". Grattan told us that he believed that question > need not be answered, and he had the WBFLC stamp that belief. > > [DALB] > > My LHO opens 1C, alerted, and my RHO bids 1D, also alerted. I discover that > 1C is natural or balanced, and that 1D shows hearts. Am I allowed to ask > "what would 1D mean if 1C were Precision?" > Why would you want to ask that question, unless you are trying to extract something special? But regardless, why should you not be able to ask that question? I fear that the response is going to be "we have never played precision, so I would not know". But of course this may be a player of whom you know that he has played this in the past, so the reply would be something different. Anyway, what is your point? In both the examples given so far, there is a good reason for asking the question. You give a nonsense example, trying to prove, what, exactly? > If not, why should I be allowed to ask "what would 5D mean if 4NT were > Blackwood?" > Well, considering that I'd allow your question, that is rather moot, isn't it? But if I would not allow the question - possibly because of "harassment" or "time wasting", then the answer would be that the one harasses, while the other doesn't. > David Burn > London, England > From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Aug 18 14:55:47 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:55:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003901ca1fe6$69ed77f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <003901ca1fe6$69ed77f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:27:59 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " .... the marble eyelids are not wet, > If it could weep it could arise and go." > ('Grief' - E.B.Browning.) > "When there are no tears in the eyes > the pain is inside." > (Child sitting in the rubble of her > Gaza home, interviewed on TV) > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:42 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:01:50 -0400, wrote: >> >>> >>> Law 72B1: >>> >>> "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is >>> a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." >>> >>> Robert Frick asked: >>> >>>> What is an infringement? >>> >>> Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >>> >>> infringe, v.t. Transgress (law etc.). infringement, n. >>> >>> infraction, n. Infringement. >>> >>> Richard Hills answers: >>> >>> A keyword search of The Fabulous Law Book shows that the only >>> appearance of infringe(ment) is in Law 72B1. The Law 72B1 word >>> "infringe" has the dictionary meaning of "transgress a Law". The >>> dictionary also states that "infringement" is the definition of >>> "infraction". >>> >>> Ergo, the simple solution to Bob's question is for Bob to remove >>> the word "infringe" from Law 72B1 and for Bob to instead >>> substitute the synonym "infract". >>> >>> Almost all Laws contain rectifications for their own infractions. >>> Those few Laws which do not contain rectifications for their own >>> infractions may still have any damage rectified by Law 12A1. >> >> I am trying to understand "When applying Law 17E, passes following the >> first pass out of rotation are cancelled and only the first pass out of >> rotation is an infringement." (Beijing, 2008) And why they said >> infringement rather than infraction or irregularity. >> >> You seem to be saying that the dictionary definition equates >> infringement >> with infraction. But the dictionary might not be using "infraction" in >> the >> technical way used in the laws. Meanwhile, a logical reading of L72B1, >> to >> me, is that players shouldn't intentionally commit an irregularity. >> Thanks >> for finding that, but doesn't that then equate infringe with committing >> an >> irregularity? >> > +=+ An 'infringement' is a violation of law or regulation. It surprises > me that there should be any doubt about the definition of this word. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ So almost the same as an irregularity? I think it was reasonable for Richard to find infract as a synonym in his dictionary and think it was the same as an infraction. And I still don't get the difference between an infringement and an irregularity. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 18 15:01:03 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:01:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> References: <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> Message-ID: <405E12CE-F6A6-45F9-8E64-B8063CF7D3D6@starpower.net> On Aug 18, 2009, at 4:07 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola Eric! Thanks for the response. It has never occurred to me to > rule differently when dealing with friends but I suppose it could be, > theoretically, a possibility. Judging from your concern it may be a > real (not theoretical) one. I have only very rarely encountered such > cases and then the tendency has been to be stricter with friends. But, > especially at the club level I suppose there is a danger. > I can well understand your concern (second paragraph). This would > seem > to me to be a function of the new tendency to give more leeway to RAs > and TDs. Perhaps reasonable at the top level but surely a disaster > (waiting to occur?) at lower levels. Ciao, JE I fear Jeff has misunderstood me. I have no concern at all that directors might rule differently when dealing with friends. I was concerned with players at the table. Scenario 1, N-S and E-W friendly: "What would 5D have shown if 4NT has been Blackwood?" "One or four key cards." Scenario 2, N-S and E-W less than friendly: "What would 5D have shown if 4NT has been Blackwood?" "I'm not required to tell you." "Director!" Listens to both sides, makes ruling. Pair ruled against appeals. Committee meeting. Hard feelings all around. I do not wish to give a free choice between these scenarios to the player being asked the question. > Eric Landau schrieb: > >> On Aug 17, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: >> >>> Am I missing something? >>> >>> Player 1 asks question. Obviously he thinks it is relevant. (We >>> are, >>> for the moment, ignoring harassment and consummate stupidity.) >>> Either player 2 agrees that it is relevant and responds, or perhaps >>> responds although he doesn't think it is relevant (or doesn't even >>> consider the question). Then no problem. >>> Player 2 refuses to answer (?gal why). Then, obviously the TD is >>> called >>> (in my experience this is pretty rare). The TD decides if player 2 >>> must >>> answer the question. As far as I can see no problem here >>> either. The >>> TD bases his decision on (his knowledge and interpretation of) the >>> laws >>> and relevant minutes. If player 2 still disagrees he must answer >>> the >>> question but can appeal. No problem here that I can see. >>> So why are we going on for days and days about this? >> >> Because many of us do not want it to be the case that the legal and >> properly WBF-minuted attitude of players towards answering questions >> is to tell their friends whatever they wish to know, whilst refusing, >> pending a full-dress director call and ruling, subject to appeal, to >> answer those same questions when put to them by those they'd prefer >> to antagonize. >> >> And because for 35 years we have had a perfectly clear, concise and >> consistent guideline for understanding how the disclosure rules -- >> all of them, from the WBF-given Laws to the house rules of individual >> clubs -- are to be interpreted, and we do not wish to have it taken >> from us unless and until we are given some clue as to what we are to >> use in its place. >> >> There are other reasons too, but these seem to be the most offered so >> far. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 18 15:07:08 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:07:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paolo >> The real reason why we are discussing this is because Grattan was trying to counter an argument of mine in favour of the DWS. I said that (in the common example), the DWS answer of "1 ace" would also have to be given (among other things said) by a MS adept, since that player would certainly receive (after saying other things) the question "what are your Blackwood responses". Grattan told us that he believed that question need not be answered, and he had the WBFLC stamp that belief. > Robert and Eric are now fighting back against that WBFLC decision, mostly by focusing on another question that would be outlawed by it, namely "what does that IB show, if the interfering bid was not there to make it insufficient?". That too, seems to be outlawed according to the Beijing decision, and that seems a wrong development to many. > +=+ The WBFLC minute reads: '"20F1 defines the manner in which during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents' prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understandings as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An "alternative" call is not the same call with another meaning - for example, if the reply to an opponent is that "5D shows diamond preference" any reply to a further question "what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?" is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.'" The 'development', if there were any, occurred with the inception of the 2007 laws, not with the explicatory minute. It also appears some contributors to blml have not realized that for a question to be 'supplementary' it must relate to the answer just given and be asked to complete or enhance it. A supplementary question does not open up a further field of enquiry. Furthermore there is no authority for asking a question concerning a call that was not available systemically in place of the call actually made. The 2009 Beijing minute corrects any misconceptions. However, the suggested relevance to the question about the IB seems bizarre. A replacement call (Law 27B1) conveys no extra meaning and I do not see how a normal enquiry about the meaning of the legal auction incorporating the replacement call fails to meet the inquirer's entitlement or indeed needs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 18 15:25:31 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:25:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <000001ca1ff3$0b7a5140$226ef3c0$@com> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <000001ca1ff3$0b7a5140$226ef3c0$@com> Message-ID: On Aug 18, 2009, at 7:00 AM, David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > I said that (in the common example), the DWS answer of "1 ace" > would also > have to be given (among other things said) by a MS adept, since > that player > would certainly receive (after saying other things) the question > "what are > your Blackwood responses". Grattan told us that he believed that > question > need not be answered, and he had the WBFLC stamp that belief. > > [DALB] > > My LHO opens 1C, alerted, and my RHO bids 1D, also alerted. I > discover that > 1C is natural or balanced, and that 1D shows hearts. Am I allowed > to ask > "what would 1D mean if 1C were Precision?" You are allowed to ask questions about your opponents' partnership understandings. You are not allowed to ask questions that have nothing to do with your opponents' partnership understandings (well, you can ask, but you won't get meaningful answers). They don't have any partnership understandings about systems or methods they don't play. This could conceivably be a legitimate question, however. If your opponents were, for example, playng as described when not vul but playing Precision vul, "What would 1D mean if you were vulnerable?" is a legitimate question about a specific partnership understanding that is part of their methods. > If not, why should I be allowed to ask "what would 5D mean if 4NT were > Blackwood? Because, presumably, they do play Blackwood, so you are asking about a specific partnership understanding that is part of their methods. If they didn't play Blackwood, this would be comparable to David's first example. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Aug 18 15:24:02 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:24:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:51:43 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: >> I think the bigger problem are those players who are trying to gain >> an advantage by not fully disclosing their methods. >> >> >> Thomas >> > > I don't think that is a concern. > > The real reason why we are discussing this is because Grattan was trying > to counter an argument of mine in favour of the DWS. I said that (in the > common example), the DWS answer of "1 ace" would also have to be given > (among other things said) by a MS adept, since that player would > certainly receive (after saying other things) the question "what are > your Blackwood responses". Grattan told us that he believed that > question need not be answered, and he had the WBFLC stamp that belief. > > Robert and Eric are now fighting back against that WBFLC decision, > mostly by focusing on another question that would be outlawed by it, > namely "what does that IB show, if the interfering bid was not there to > make it insufficient?". > That too, seems to be outlawed according to the Beijing decision, and > that seems a wrong development to many. Hi Herman. To me, they are different issues. The WBFLC somehow managed to outlaw a well-accepted practice. I am wondering if the WBFLC could use a better process for making their decisions, to avoid problems like these. (I am thinking more open.) That's my agenda. As Grattan has noted, that decision was made and we now have to live with it. No problem, everyone just ignores it. That seems eminently practical to me. (If the WBFLC doesn't want people ignoring them, then see #1 above.) A single sentence at the next WBFLC could allow questions about insufficient bids but not bidding misunderstandings. That would miss the point that "entitled to everything relevant" is simple to understand and remember, and it is friendly. There are more important things than simplicity, but they aren't working here -- the WBFLC chose a difficult-to-remember unfriendly law with no other redeeming value I can see. It makes the WBFLC seem out-of-touch, at least with the typical player here in ACBL-land. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 18 15:45:29 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:45:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <000001ca1ff3$0b7a5140$226ef3c0$@com> Message-ID: <4A8AB079.30601@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 18, 2009, at 7:00 AM, David Burn wrote: > > >> [HdW] >> >> I said that (in the common example), the DWS answer of "1 ace" >> would also >> have to be given (among other things said) by a MS adept, since >> that player >> would certainly receive (after saying other things) the question >> "what are >> your Blackwood responses". Grattan told us that he believed that >> question >> need not be answered, and he had the WBFLC stamp that belief. >> >> [DALB] >> >> My LHO opens 1C, alerted, and my RHO bids 1D, also alerted. I >> discover that >> 1C is natural or balanced, and that 1D shows hearts. Am I allowed >> to ask >> "what would 1D mean if 1C were Precision?" >> > > You are allowed to ask questions about your opponents' partnership > understandings. You are not allowed to ask questions that have > nothing to do with your opponents' partnership understandings AG : take this for granted, and explain how I can guess whether the question and answer have something to do with partnerships understandings. A live case : N 1NT p 2NTa p 3C Now E asks. Is told that 2NT is a transfer to diamonds. Asks what 3C means. Is told "plain completion of the transfer" (implying 2NT shows clubs). Accoring to many, one is now allowed to know what 3C would have meant if 2NT was a transfer to diamonds. South can't explain, because that isn't part of the methods. East insists 'but surely he meant *something*'. How do you rule ? NB : the truth is very simple : North had a slip of the tongue, not of the mind, and meant 'to clubs', so he indeed completed the transfer. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 18 16:01:14 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:01:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <55325FE8-64BD-4065-9645-4B74F6FF0856@starpower.net> On Aug 18, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > > The real reason why we are discussing this is because Grattan was > trying to counter an argument of mine in favour of the DWS. I said > that (in the common example), the DWS answer of "1 ace" would > also have to be given (among other things said) by a MS adept, > since that player would certainly receive (after saying other things) > the question "what are your Blackwood responses". Grattan told > us that he believed that question need not be answered, and he > had the WBFLC stamp that belief. > > Robert and Eric are now fighting back against that WBFLC > decision, mostly by focusing on another question that would be > outlawed by it, namely "what does that IB show, if the interfering > bid was not there to make it insufficient?". > That too, seems to be outlawed according to the Beijing decision, > and that seems a wrong development to many. JFTR, I have had nothing to say on the specific legal issue of L20 questions regarding IBs. IMO, IBs are governed by their own subset of the laws, and it's not at all clear to me that L20F1 is relevant to them. I have argued that one should be entitled to that information, but have based that argument on official examples and discussion regarding L27. My personal fight is to convince the WBFLC that if it is true, as Grattan assures us, that they have deliberately and knowingly chosen to abandon the Kaplan paradigm, which has guided the interpretation of the disclosure rules since the invention of alerts, they owe us the revelation of the new set of guiding principles for disclosure that have taken its place. Although no longer relevant, if the Kaplan paradigm still worked it would, of course, permit the IB-related question. > +=+ The WBFLC minute reads: > '"20F1 defines the manner in which during the auction and > play, > a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents' > prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only > of calls > actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any > partnership understandings as to inferences from the choice of action > among the foregoing. (An "alternative" call is not the same call with > another meaning - for example, if the reply to an opponent is that "5D > shows diamond preference" any reply to a further question "what > would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?" is given voluntarily and > not as a requirement of Law 20F1.'" > > The 'development', if there were any, occurred with the > inception of the 2007 laws, not with the explicatory minute. It > also appears some contributors to blml have not realized that for > a question to be 'supplementary' it must relate to the answer just > given and be asked to complete or enhance it. Who says? Not my dictionary. Not a lawbook-specific definition in Definitions. Not the quoted minute. My L20F1 starts with, "...any player may request... an explanation of the opponents' prior auction." The subsequent reference to "supplementary question" can only refer to questions that are supplementary to the "explanation of the opponents' prior auction". Individual calls aren't even mentioned until we get to L20F3, so it requires some rather convoluted logic to interpret a question or answer about an individual call as being the object of a reference in L20F1. > A supplementary > question does not open up a further field of enquiry. Furthermore > there is no authority for asking a question concerning a call that > was not available systemically in place of the call actually made. > The 2009 Beijing minute corrects any misconceptions. > However, the suggested relevance to the question about the > IB seems bizarre. A replacement call (Law 27B1) conveys no > extra meaning and I do not see how a normal enquiry about > the meaning of the legal auction incorporating the replacement > call fails to meet the inquirer's entitlement or indeed needs. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 18 16:14:26 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:14:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> [GE] A replacement call (Law 27B1) conveys no extra meaning and I do not see how a normal enquiry about the meaning of the legal auction incorporating the replacement call fails to meet the inquirer's entitlement or indeed needs. [DALB] That may not be the problem, or at any rate not the entire problem. Suppose the insufficient bidder does not have available, or does not choose to make, a replacement call that allows the auction to continue without rectification. May the opponents know what the insufficient bid would have meant had it been sufficient? For example, West opens 1H, North bids 1NT and East, who has not seen this, bids 1S. He plays that this is like a forcing no trump (1NT would show 5+ spades). If he replaces 1S with pass, may the opponents know [a] that he did not see 1NT and [b] what 1H-1S means in the East-West methods? David Burn London, England From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Aug 18 16:26:21 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:26:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <4A8A7870.6080501@skynet.be> References: <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <4A8A7870.6080501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A8ABA0D.2020104@aol.com> Okay, I can follow your reasoning and see your complaint/problem/understand your position. But then wouldn't it be reasonable to write to the WBFLC? I can understand a short explanation or discussion on blml but the length of this one makes me ask about the effectiveness. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Am I missing something? >> >> Player 1 asks question. Obviously he thinks it is relevant. (We are, >> for the moment, ignoring harassment and consummate stupidity.) >> Either player 2 agrees that it is relevant and responds, or perhaps >> responds although he doesn't think it is relevant (or doesn't even >> consider the question). Then no problem. >> Player 2 refuses to answer (?gal why). Then, obviously the TD is called >> (in my experience this is pretty rare). The TD decides if player 2 must >> answer the question. As far as I can see no problem here either. The >> TD bases his decision on (his knowledge and interpretation of) the laws >> and relevant minutes. If player 2 still disagrees he must answer the >> question but can appeal. No problem here that I can see. >> So why are we going on for days and days about this? JE > > We are going on for days and days because sometimes the TD will decide > the question is not relevant (?gal why) and the player did want to know > the answer. > Robert, quite correctly IMO, said that this is in breach of > long-established principles which say that the opponents are entitled to > know everything about the system. If they can only ask about things the > TD considers relevant, then that principle is no longer ture. Some of us > are sad about that development, and would like the WBFLC to reconsider. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 18 16:54:03 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:54:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> Message-ID: <4A8AC08B.6010800@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [GE] > > A replacement call (Law 27B1) conveys no extra meaning and I do not see how > a normal enquiry about the meaning of the legal auction incorporating the > replacement call fails to meet the inquirer's entitlement or indeed needs. > > [DALB] > > That may not be the problem, or at any rate not the entire problem. Suppose > the insufficient bidder does not have available, or does not choose to make, > a replacement call that allows the auction to continue without > rectification. May the opponents know what the insufficient bid would have > meant had it been sufficient? > > For example, West opens 1H, North bids 1NT and East, who has not seen this, > bids 1S. He plays that this is like a forcing no trump (1NT would show 5+ > spades). If he replaces 1S with pass, may the opponents know [a] that he did > not see 1NT and [b] what 1H-1S means in the East-West methods? > AG : (a), "what did you intend ?" is the right quesiton. Without (a), (b) has no sense. This raises the usual dilemma : answering to (a) gives out UI. But I'd answer the are entitled to know this in the absence of the IBer's partner, whence little risk of UI.. But in this case one will have to rephrase the question. It isn't "what would 1S have meant if it had been sufficient ?". It isn't sufficient, full stop. It's like asking 'how fast would an elephant fly if it was a swallow ?" (Hmm ... African or Asian ?) The right question is "what would have meant 1S in the situation you thought you were in ?" ; or better "what situation did you think you were in, and in that situation what does 1S mean ?" Here there are few possible cases ; but 2C (3NT) 3S could be, in the mind of the IBer, any of : 2C 2NT 3S 1C 2NT 3S 2C 3D 3S 2C 3H 3S 2C p 3S 2C 3NT 4S Ah yes, matter nearly unrelated : I forgot to mention this to those who said that it was impossible to double OOT because one wanted to pull the Alert card : it just happened to my opponent last wednesday. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 18 16:55:52 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:55:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A8AC0F8.8050908@skynet.be> I believe what Grattan is trying to say here is that it is not allowed, after a bid of 1Cl, to ask, "what are your 2-openings like?" in order to start discussing with partner the defences to such openings. That would seem to be a valid reason for this law, and it's interpretation. However, again, there is no reason to justify a pair being witheld prior information to an opponent's system. If he wants to use the time his opponents are giving him in a complicated relay system by studying the rest of their system rather than the current auction, we should allow him that. If the question disturbs the opponents, then rule against the question on the basis of L74B2. But I really don't see the need to prohibit correct questions, at the correct time, that a player feels he needs to know the answer to in order to decide what to do next. And I really don't like the TD being called in order to decide whether a question is relevant or not. Herman. Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " .... the marble eyelids are not wet, > If it could weep it could arise and go." > ('Grief' - E.B.Browning.) > "When there are no tears in the eyes > the pain is inside." > (Child sitting in the rubble of her > Gaza home, interviewed on TV) > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:51 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paolo > > > The real reason why we are discussing this is because Grattan was > trying to counter an argument of mine in favour of the DWS. I said > that (in the common example), the DWS answer of "1 ace" would > also have to be given (among other things said) by a MS adept, > since that player would certainly receive (after saying other things) > the question "what are your Blackwood responses". Grattan told > us that he believed that question need not be answered, and he > had the WBFLC stamp that belief. > Robert and Eric are now fighting back against that WBFLC > decision, mostly by focusing on another question that would be > outlawed by it, namely "what does that IB show, if the interfering > bid was not there to make it insufficient?". > That too, seems to be outlawed according to the Beijing decision, > and that seems a wrong development to many. > +=+ The WBFLC minute reads: > '"20F1 defines the manner in which during the auction and play, > a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents' > prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls > actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any > partnership understandings as to inferences from the choice of action > among the foregoing. (An "alternative" call is not the same call with > another meaning - for example, if the reply to an opponent is that "5D > shows diamond preference" any reply to a further question "what > would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?" is given voluntarily and > not as a requirement of Law 20F1.'" > > The 'development', if there were any, occurred with the > inception of the 2007 laws, not with the explicatory minute. It > also appears some contributors to blml have not realized that for > a question to be 'supplementary' it must relate to the answer just > given and be asked to complete or enhance it. A supplementary > question does not open up a further field of enquiry. Furthermore > there is no authority for asking a question concerning a call that > was not available systemically in place of the call actually made. > The 2009 Beijing minute corrects any misconceptions. > However, the suggested relevance to the question about the > IB seems bizarre. A replacement call (Law 27B1) conveys no > extra meaning and I do not see how a normal enquiry about > the meaning of the legal auction incorporating the replacement > call fails to meet the inquirer's entitlement or indeed needs. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 18 16:58:58 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:58:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> Message-ID: <4A8AC1B2.6060707@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [GE] > > A replacement call (Law 27B1) conveys no extra meaning and I do not see how > a normal enquiry about the meaning of the legal auction incorporating the > replacement call fails to meet the inquirer's entitlement or indeed needs. > > [DALB] > > That may not be the problem, or at any rate not the entire problem. Suppose > the insufficient bidder does not have available, or does not choose to make, > a replacement call that allows the auction to continue without > rectification. May the opponents know what the insufficient bid would have > meant had it been sufficient? > > For example, West opens 1H, North bids 1NT and East, who has not seen this, > bids 1S. He plays that this is like a forcing no trump (1NT would show 5+ > spades). If he replaces 1S with pass, may the opponents know [a] that he did not see 1NT NO But they are of course allowed to deduce that, or guess that this was the case, at their own risk. > and [b] what 1H-1S means in the East-West methods? > YES This is something which they are entitled to know before play starts, so why should they not be allowed to ask for it now, and to get their question answered. > David Burn > London, England > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 18 17:01:02 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:01:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <4A8ABA0D.2020104@aol.com> References: <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <4A8A7870.6080501@skynet.be> <4A8ABA0D.2020104@aol.com> Message-ID: <4A8AC22E.7030309@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Okay, I can follow your reasoning and see your > complaint/problem/understand your position. But then wouldn't it be > reasonable to write to the WBFLC? > I can understand a short explanation or discussion on blml but the > length of this one makes me ask about the effectiveness. JE > I was indeed intending to write to the WBFLC. S?o Paulo is getting nearer though. But maybe this case can be written down by Robert or Eric, who have written some great texts about this. I particularly like the reference to Kaplan. Herman. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Aug 18 17:14:06 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:14:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-5 35D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.n gmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be><00cb01ca2004 $d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> Message-ID: <4A8AC53E.1030407@meteo.fr> David Burn a ?crit : > [GE] > > A replacement call (Law 27B1) conveys no extra meaning and I do not see how > a normal enquiry about the meaning of the legal auction incorporating the > replacement call fails to meet the inquirer's entitlement or indeed needs. > > [DALB] > > That may not be the problem, or at any rate not the entire problem. Suppose > the insufficient bidder does not have available, or does not choose to make, > a replacement call that allows the auction to continue without > rectification. May the opponents know what the insufficient bid would have > meant had it been sufficient? > > For example, West opens 1H, North bids 1NT and East, who has not seen this, > bids 1S. He plays that this is like a forcing no trump (1NT would show 5+ > spades). If he replaces 1S with pass, may the opponents know > [a] that he did not see 1NT? they are not entitled to know but opponents' mannierism may make them know > [b] what 1H-1S means in the East-West methods? of course, they only have to read opponents' cc. jpr > > David Burn > London, England > -- _______________________________________________ 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 18 17:16:07 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:16:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be><00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> Message-ID: <005e01ca2016$d2165a10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paolo > [GE] > > A replacement call (Law 27B1) conveys no extra meaning > and I do not see how a normal enquiry about the meaning > of the legal auction incorporating the replacement call fails > to meet the inquirer's entitlement or indeed needs. > > [DALB] > That may not be the problem, or at any rate not the entire problem. Suppose the insufficient bidder does not have available, or does not choose to make, a replacement call that allows the auction to continue without rectification. May the opponents know what the insufficient bid would have meant had it been sufficient? > For example, West opens 1H, North bids 1NT and East, who has not seen this, bids 1S. He plays that this is like a forcing no trump (1NT would show 5+ spades). If he replaces 1S with pass, may the opponents know [a] that he did not see 1NT and [b] what 1H-1S means in the East-West methods? > +=+ Earlier I quoted Max Bavin: >> From: 2008 EBL TD Seminar, Lesson about Insufficient bids, >> by Max Bavin >> >> "B] Recommended Tournament Director procedure >> [...] >> 3. The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying >> to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). >> However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents >> system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is >> entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the >> Law from the Tournament Director). >> [...]" >> (Someone) The only thing Max is saying above is that the opponents are entitled to the full description of the system, as per L40. The way they get that description is not of Max' concern, but he applies L20 in saying that they may ask. If Grattan's interpretation prevails, then Max's quote above (he can ask supplementary questions) is equally wrong. And Max's words carry less value than the Beijing decision. > (Grattan) +=+ A supplementary question is to clarify* the answer given to the previous question. A question about something outside of the opponents' system is not a supplementary as Max intends and Max remains within the decision of the WBFLC in Beijing. He was in fact present at the meeting in Beijing as a member of the WBFLC and agreed with the ruling of the committee. .......................................................................................... [* the dictionary says "to complete or enhance" the answer. It is not put to open up a fresh question. He can ask a new question on the same basis as the first. ] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Aug 18 18:07:53 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:07:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <4A8AC53E.1030407@meteo.fr> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-5 35D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.n gmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <00cb01ca2004 $d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> <4A8AC53E.1030407@meteo.fr> Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:14:06 -0400, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > David Burn a ?crit : >> [GE] >> >> A replacement call (Law 27B1) conveys no extra meaning and I do not see >> how >> a normal enquiry about the meaning of the legal auction incorporating >> the >> replacement call fails to meet the inquirer's entitlement or indeed >> needs. >> >> [DALB] >> >> That may not be the problem, or at any rate not the entire problem. >> Suppose >> the insufficient bidder does not have available, or does not choose to >> make, >> a replacement call that allows the auction to continue without >> rectification. May the opponents know what the insufficient bid would >> have >> meant had it been sufficient? >> >> For example, West opens 1H, North bids 1NT and East, who has not seen >> this, >> bids 1S. He plays that this is like a forcing no trump (1NT would show >> 5+ >> spades). If he replaces 1S with pass, may the opponents know >> [a] that he did not see 1NT? > they are not entitled to know but opponents' mannierism may make them > know > >> [b] what 1H-1S means in the East-West methods? > of course, they only have to read opponents' cc. One issue is if all desired information is on the convention card. Do the players use convention-card information *at their own risk*? I don't know the status of players using information they are not entitled to know about. (L20F1 lists what the opponents are entitled to *know* about; Beijing 2008 limits this to calls actually made and available alternative calls). For example, we play a hand and afterwards discover that our opps filled out their convention card wrong. The forgot to check NMF, which was completely irrelevant to the actual hand. We would receive no rectification; they would be told probably just to fill out their card correctly. Suppose now that NMF again doesn't come up in reality, but there was a IB that we decided (correctly) arose from not seeing the previous bid, then make the wrong inferences because the card was filled out incorrectly. Same ruling? We were misinformed, but only about information we were not entitled to know. I am just curious about the correct legal ruling. This question could not occur if the opponents were entitled to all relevant information. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Aug 18 18:29:39 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:29:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com><7DEA77E7-5 35D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower. net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.n gmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><4A 8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be><00cb01ca2004 $d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred><000c01ca 200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> <4A8AC53E.1030407@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4A8AD6F3.7060009@meteo.fr> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:14:06 -0400, Jean-Pierre Rocafort > wrote: > >> David Burn a ?crit : >>> [GE] >>> >>> A replacement call (Law 27B1) conveys no extra meaning and I do not see >>> how >>> a normal enquiry about the meaning of the legal auction incorporating >>> the >>> replacement call fails to meet the inquirer's entitlement or indeed >>> needs. >>> >>> [DALB] >>> >>> That may not be the problem, or at any rate not the entire problem. >>> Suppose >>> the insufficient bidder does not have available, or does not choose to >>> make, >>> a replacement call that allows the auction to continue without >>> rectification. May the opponents know what the insufficient bid would >>> have >>> meant had it been sufficient? >>> >>> For example, West opens 1H, North bids 1NT and East, who has not seen >>> this, >>> bids 1S. He plays that this is like a forcing no trump (1NT would show >>> 5+ >>> spades). If he replaces 1S with pass, may the opponents know >>> [a] that he did not see 1NT? >> they are not entitled to know but opponents' mannierism may make them >> know >> >>> [b] what 1H-1S means in the East-West methods? >> of course, they only have to read opponents' cc. > > One issue is if all desired information is on the convention card. 1S like a forcing nt? you must be kidding. > > Do the players use convention-card information *at their own risk*? I > don't know the status of players using information they are not entitled > to know about. (L20F1 lists what the opponents are entitled to *know* > about; Beijing 2008 limits this to calls actually made and available > alternative calls). but players are entitled to know everything about partnership understandings (L40A1b). what they can't do is harassing opponents and losing time with frivolous questionning. L20F1 is only about manners, ... as i read it. jpr > > For example, we play a hand and afterwards discover that our opps filled > out their convention card wrong. The forgot to check NMF, which was > completely irrelevant to the actual hand. We would receive no > rectification; they would be told probably just to fill out their card > correctly. Suppose now that NMF again doesn't come up in reality, but > there was a IB that we decided (correctly) arose from not seeing the > previous bid, then make the wrong inferences because the card was filled > out incorrectly. Same ruling? We were misinformed, but only about > information we were not entitled to know. > > I am just curious about the correct legal ruling. This question could not > occur if the opponents were entitled to all relevant information. -- _______________________________________________ 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 axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 18 19:06:41 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:06:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Grattan" Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 08:07 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paolo ..... > However, the suggested relevance to the question about the > IB seems bizarre. A replacement call (Law 27B1) conveys no > extra meaning .... > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Such assertion would be much less bold if the law required as a condition of L27B1 remedy that the substituted call be systemic for the cards held. When a player makes an IB the meaning [via system] or meanings conveyed to pard will depend upon which points of view are possible from pard's vantage point. For example, IBer might not have noticed all or part of the previous bidding, have pulled the wrong card, had a brain fart. For instance; 1C-3S-3H could have the following vantage points for pard: [a] 1C-P-3H 3H might systemically be [1a] splinter; or, [1b] preemptive, or [1c]?? for instance, depending on system [b] 1C-1D-3H 3H might systemically be [1a] splinter; or, [1b] preemptive, or [1c]?? for instance, depending on system [c] 1C-1S-3H 3H might systemically be [1a] mini splinter; or, [1b] preemptive, or [1c]?? for instance, depending on system [d] 1C-2S-3H 3H natural, forward going, and forcing, for instance Thus, the meaning to pard ascribed to 3H is not merely one of [a], [b],[c], [d] but all of [a,b,c,d] in spite of the logic that IBer rationally could intend but one of those meanings. But the rub comes from which meaning pard believed prior to the substitution. regards roger pewick From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 18 20:58:56 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:58:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <4A8AB079.30601@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <000001ca1ff3$0b7a5140$226ef3c0$@com> <4A8AB079.30601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <9BD3A334-D710-4BA5-89CC-F6F01ACD9A40@starpower.net> On Aug 18, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> You are allowed to ask questions about your opponents' partnership >> understandings. You are not allowed to ask questions that have >> nothing to do with your opponents' partnership understandings > > AG : take this for granted, and explain how I can guess whether the > question and answer have something to do with partnerships > understandings. WTP? If you aren't sure, ask your question. They'll tell you whether or not they have an understanding. How is this different from asking before the auction starts when you don't know whether they have an understanding? > A live case : > > N > > 1NT p 2NTa p > 3C > > Now E asks. Is told that 2NT is a transfer to diamonds. Asks what 3C > means. Is told "plain completion of the transfer" (implying 2NT shows > clubs). > > Accoring to many, one is now allowed to know what 3C would have > meant if > 2NT was a transfer to diamonds. South can't explain, because that > isn't > part of the methods. East insists 'but surely he meant *something*'. One is now allowed to know what 3C would have meant if 2NT was a transfer to diamonds if and only if 2NT as a transfer to diamonds is part of their agreed methods. You're allowed to be informed of their partnership understandings. They have no obligation to inform you of matters that have nothing to do with their partnership understandings. Is this hard? > How do you rule ? First, of course, I ascertain what actually happened. > NB : the truth is very simple : North had a slip of the tongue, not of > the mind, and meant 'to clubs', so he indeed completed the transfer. L20F4. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Aug 18 22:09:43 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:09:43 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language Message-ID: The ACBL's illegal addition of "had the irregularity not occurred" to L12C1(e)(ii), OS score adjustment, had an effect on a recent club ruling here. In a competitive auction, a player jumped to 5D. LHO hesitated much more than is required, and RHO doubled with very doubtful values. The contract went off one for -100, declarer having committed an extremely serious error (yes, for that class of player), when the contract was cold with rational play. The TD changed the result to -50/+50, but should have given the OS -550 (the most unfavorable result that was at all probable), since the serious error ought not to have been included in the OS score adjustment, per L12C1(b). But wait! "Had the irregularity not occurred," the result would have been -50/+50, so the ruling was correct in ACBL-land. Is this really what you want, Adam? Now it appears to me that the ACBL language conflicts with L12C1(b). If so, which law dominates? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 18 22:14:56 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:14:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <4A8AC53E.1030407@meteo.fr> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-5 35D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.n gmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be><00cb01ca2004 $d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> <4A8AC53E.1030407@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <71CF8B07-7291-44AC-A93D-455F420540C5@starpower.net> On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > David Burn a ?crit : > >> [b] what 1H-1S means in the East-West methods? > > of course, they only have to read opponents' cc. Which is the flaw in the WBFLC interpretation of L20F1 as Grattan has explained it to us. Either they are entitled to know what it means or they're not. If they are, they can ask. If they're not, they cannot be permitted to obtain the answer from the CC. Whether or not they're entitled is a matter of (disputed) law; it's not up to their opponents to make that decision when they fill out their CC. In Grattan's world, I can examine my opponent's CC, find a sloppily written entry that I can't quite make out, ask my opponent, "What does that say?" and be told, "Sorry, I don't have to answer that; it's not relevant to the auction in progress." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 18 22:41:22 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:41:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84EA1B46-6458-44E8-A9EF-4A2F2C878EB6@starpower.net> On Aug 18, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > The ACBL's illegal addition of "had the irregularity not occurred" > to L12C1(e)(ii), OS score adjustment, had an effect on a recent club > ruling here. > > In a competitive auction, a player jumped to 5D. LHO hesitated much > more than is required, and RHO doubled with very doubtful values. > > The contract went off one for -100, declarer having committed an > extremely serious error (yes, for that class of player), when the > contract was cold with rational play. > > The TD changed the result to -50/+50, but should have given the > OS -550 (the most unfavorable result that was at all probable), > since the serious error ought not to have been included in the OS > score adjustment, per L12C1(b). > > But wait! "Had the irregularity not occurred," the result would have > been -50/+50, so the ruling was correct in ACBL-land. Is this really > what you want, Adam? I can't speak for Adam, but for myself, yes. Why should -550 come into the picture when declarer went down through no fault of the OS? > Now it appears to me that the ACBL language conflicts with L12C1(b). > If so, which law dominates? I don't see the conflict. The NOS's "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)" just cost them 600 points over and above the 50 they recovered, and the OS received "the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only" based on the result. Assuming, of course, that there's no reason to think that declarer might have been more likely to make the contract had he not been doubled, otherwise it's a very different story. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Aug 19 01:59:45 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:59:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be><00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> Message-ID: <232D230497B6427D8A20D8D1FD31F04E@erdos> "David Burn" writes: > That may not be the problem, or at any rate not the entire problem. Suppose > the insufficient bidder does not have available, or does not choose to make, > a replacement call that allows the auction to continue without > rectification. May the opponents know what the insufficient bid would have > meant had it been sufficient? > > For example, West opens 1H, North bids 1NT and East, who has not seen this, > bids 1S. He plays that this is like a forcing no trump (1NT would show 5+ > spades). If he replaces 1S with pass, may the opponents know [a] that he did > not see 1NT and [b] what 1H-1S means in the East-West methods? The TD needs to know the meaning of an insufficient bid in order to impose the correct lead restrictions under L26, and therefore its meaning must also be authorized to the opponents. If 1S shows spades and North or South becomes the declarer, the declarer can require or forbid a spade lead from West. If 1S does not relate to any specific suit, the declarer can forbid any suit but cannot require a suit. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 19 01:14:47 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:14:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com><7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801ca20a8$40820da0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paolo >>> > > There are more important things than simplicity, but they > aren't working here -- the WBFLC chose a difficult-to- > remember unfriendly law with no other redeeming value > I can see. It makes the WBFLC seem out-of-touch, at > least with the typical player here in ACBL-land. > +=+ 2007 Law 20F1 repeats the provisions of Law 20F1 in 1997. Law 20F2 in 2007 is more liberally expressed than the 1997 Law 20F2. but we are in the same territory. Therefore unless the guidance is the same guidance the Laws Committee has confirmed to be correct, it is hard to justify an assertion that "for 35 years we have had a perfectly clear, concise and consistent guideline for understanding how the disclosure rules are to be interpreted".(sic). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 19 15:40:16 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:40:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <232D230497B6427D8A20D8D1FD31F04E@erdos> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be><00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> <232D230497B6427D8A20D8D1FD31F04E@erdos> Message-ID: On Aug 18, 2009, at 7:59 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > "David Burn" writes: > >> That may not be the problem, or at any rate not the entire >> problem. Suppose >> the insufficient bidder does not have available, or does not >> choose to make, >> a replacement call that allows the auction to continue without >> rectification. May the opponents know what the insufficient bid >> would have >> meant had it been sufficient? >> >> For example, West opens 1H, North bids 1NT and East, who has not >> seen this, >> bids 1S. He plays that this is like a forcing no trump (1NT would >> show 5+ >> spades). If he replaces 1S with pass, may the opponents know [a] >> that he did >> not see 1NT and [b] what 1H-1S means in the East-West methods? > > The TD needs to know the meaning of an insufficient bid in order to > impose the > correct lead restrictions under L26, and therefore its meaning must > also be > authorized to the opponents. > > If 1S shows spades and North or South becomes the declarer, the > declarer can > require or forbid a spade lead from West. If 1S does not relate to > any specific > suit, the declarer can forbid any suit but cannot require a suit. David reinforces a point I've been trying to make since we began discussing the new L27. In the typical case of a L27B1(b) replacement call, the intended meaning of the IB will be made apparent by the nature of the penalty-free RC. David G. points out that this information may be similarly revealed by the imposition of a lead penalty, or the failure to impose one, in L21B2-3 cases. Since the TD will so often "reveal" the meaning of the IB in such cases, for reasons entirely beyond the control of the NOS, it doesn't seem fair that some NOSs should benefit from this knowledge while others do not. To keep the playing field level in the interest of achieving equity, I would argue that the NOS should be entitled to this information in all cases. David gives us a nice reducto ad absurdum argument. If the meaning of the IB is considered to be extraneous information, we would have here a player who is legally entitled to require or forbid a spade lead from his LHO, but is not legally entitled to play the hand using the knowledge that RHO showed spades. That's just silly from a legal perspective, and not even close to enforceable. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 19 14:39:22 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:39:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be><00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred><000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com> <232D230497B6427D8A20D8D1FD31F04E@erdos> Message-ID: <008801ca20d4$77375130$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paolo > > The TD needs to know the meaning of an insufficient > bid in order to impose the correct lead restrictions > under L26, and therefore its meaning must also be > authorized to the opponents. > +=+ It is not automatically the case that a player is entitled to know something that the Director knows. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 19 15:52:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:52:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language References: Message-ID: <008901ca20d4$775fc0c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:09 PM Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language > > Now it appears to me that the ACBL language conflicts > with L12C1(b). If so, which law dominates? > +=+ This is not a debate to which I wish to add a personal contribution. Members of the Drafting Committee were surprised to learn of the inclusion of additional words in this law in Zone 2. The 27th August 2002 WBFLC minute reads "The interpretation of Law 12C2 was discussed. Mr Wildavsky put his view that this law should be interpreted as though it read "for a non-offending side the most favourable that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side he most unfavourable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred". It was drawn to the attention of the committee that on a previous occasion the subject had been discussed and the Committee had agreed that the law does not attach this limitation to the adjustment for the offending side. The Committee found no reason to reconsider that decision." The intention of the law, as it is and as it has been since the 1987 code was promulgated, is that if the offending side is headed via the irregularity for its worst result that is at all probable, that is the result determining its award under the Law 12C1(e)(ii). Mr. Wildavsky would perhaps have been well placed to assist recognition of this by the ACBL, out of his experience as a guest of the meeting in Montreal, 2002. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 19 16:05:42 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:05:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <000801ca20a8$40820da0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com><7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <000801ca20a8$40820da0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <62839841-1A1D-40D3-B99C-BCF70538F9D7@starpower.net> On Aug 18, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" > >> There are more important things than simplicity, but they >> aren't working here -- the WBFLC chose a difficult-to- >> remember unfriendly law with no other redeeming value >> I can see. It makes the WBFLC seem out-of-touch, at >> least with the typical player here in ACBL-land. > > +=+ 2007 Law 20F1 repeats the provisions of Law 20F1 > in 1997. Law 20F2 in 2007 is more liberally expressed > than the 1997 Law 20F2. but we are in the same territory. > Therefore unless the guidance is the same guidance the > Laws Committee has confirmed to be correct, it is hard > to justify an assertion that "for 35 years we have had a > perfectly clear, concise and consistent guideline for > understanding how the disclosure rules are to be > interpreted".(sic). That statement needs no justification; it is an observed fact, notwithstanding that it may not conform to current WBF doctrine. The man who wrote the original disclosure rules thoughtfully provided us with the principles on which they were based and justified -- and, unlike TPTB in the WBF, actually saw the merit in publishing them in a magazine read by actual bridge players, which probably went a long way towards their widespread dissemination. The WBF has never formally rejected or modified those principles, nor chosen to address them when making blatant and complexifying exceptions to them. Although one might conclude from this history that the WBF created these exceptions in ignorance or disregard of these underlying principles, Grattan repeatedly reassures us that they did so in full knowledge and with explicit intention. If "the guidance is the same guidance" and all that, one can only wonder why the WBF won't explain it to us. By that I mean explaining the principles on which it is based and justified, not merely offering examples of its application. If the WBF has abandoned Mr. Kaplan's fundamental paradigm entirely, they owe it to us to tell us what they've put in its place. If they have modified it, they owe it to us to tell us under what circumstances it no longer applies, and what alternative principles we are to apply in those circumstances. If they did it in full knowledge and with explicit intention, they should be perfectly capable of explaining their reasoning. So why haven't they? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 19 18:00:19 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:00:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language In-Reply-To: <008901ca20d4$775fc0c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <008901ca20d4$775fc0c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:52:03 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > " It may be true that the law cannot make > a man love me, but it can keep him from > lynching me, and I think that's pretty > important." > ~ Martin Luther King Jr. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin L French" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:09 PM > Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language >> >> Now it appears to me that the ACBL language conflicts >> with L12C1(b). If so, which law dominates? >> > +=+ This is not a debate to which I wish to add a personal > contribution. Members of the Drafting Committee were > surprised to learn of the inclusion of additional words in this > law in Zone 2. > The 27th August 2002 WBFLC minute reads > "The interpretation of Law 12C2 was discussed. > Mr Wildavsky put his view that this law should be interpreted > as though it read "for a non-offending side the most favourable > that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an > offending side he most unfavourable result that was at all > probable had the irregularity not occurred". It was drawn to > the attention of the committee that on a previous occasion the > subject had been discussed and the Committee had agreed > that the law does not attach this limitation to the adjustment > for the offending side. The Committee found no reason to > reconsider that decision." > The intention of the law, as it is and as it has been since > the 1987 code was promulgated, is that if the offending side > is headed via the irregularity for its worst result that is at all > probable, that is the result determining its award under the > Law 12C1(e)(ii). Mr. Wildavsky would perhaps have been > well placed to assist recognition of this by the ACBL, out of > his experience as a guest of the meeting in Montreal, 2002. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > To be fair to Adam, and perhaps the ACBL, there is a way of calculating probabilities in use as far as I know by every director in the world, which leads to the missing phrase being irrelevant and misleading. This standard method of calculating probabilities uses all available information. It comes to conclusions such as: If the result for 5 diamonds doubled was down 1, then the likely result for 5 diamonds doubled is down 1. Grattan has proposed a different method of calculating probabilities. In that method, the table events subsequent to the irregularity are ignored. Call this population method of calculating probabilities (which is how Grattan actually described the method). Using the population method, even when the table result is 5 Di doubled down 1, the expected result for 5 Di doubled can making 5 when that's what the population (most players of similar ability) are doing. To give an extreme example, suppose an irregularity prevents a likely double. Declarer now has to guess for a queen, guesses wrong, and goes down one. He claims damage from the lack of double! Everyone agrees that the presence or absence of the double is irrelevant to the play. If you ignore the table result, the chance of making the doubled contract is 50%. So the table result is less favorable than would have been the expectation had the irregularity not occurred, satisfying L12B1. The outcome is 50% for down one doubled and 50% for making the contract doubled (L12C1(c)). AFAIK, no director has ever ruled this way and no AC has ever accepted this argument. Bob, who has not seen an agenda for Sao Paulo and worries that it contains some innocuous-sounding method for calculating probabilities From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 19 18:27:55 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:27:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <000801ca20a8$40820da0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <000801ca20a8$40820da0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:14:47 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " Led up the garden path by a red herring" > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 2:24 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paolo > > >>>> >> >> There are more important things than simplicity, but they >> aren't working here -- the WBFLC chose a difficult-to- >> remember unfriendly law with no other redeeming value >> I can see. It makes the WBFLC seem out-of-touch, at >> least with the typical player here in ACBL-land. >> > +=+ 2007 Law 20F1 repeats the provisions of Law 20F1 > in 1997. I thought 1997 was interesting only to me. 2007 does not just repeat 1997. The quetion to ask if if the 1997 laws allowed questions about insufficient bids. 1997 L20F1: "Any player... may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made)..." Is the list in parentheses a complete list or just examples? I don't know. "only" (after asked) wasn't added until Beijing 2008. That probably gave the 1997 laws some flexibility in interpretation. Second, 2007 changes "relevant calls available but not made" to "relevant *alternative* calls available that were not made". The addition of "alternative" rules out asking about insufficient bids. Without that word, I don't think the 1997 laws necessarily rule out asking about insufficient bids -- they are calls available when the auction started, but they are not alternatives to the call that was made. So I am sympathetic to your argument that asking about insufficient bids was not allowed by the 1997 laws. But I can also see how one could interpret them as allowing players to ask about the meaning of insufficient bids. But 2007 also added a third category, "relevant inferences from the choice of action..." To me, it seemed clear that this entitled questions about the insufficient bid. Beijing 2008 of course essentially took this category away, demoting it to only information to be supplied about bids made and available alternatives. > Law 20F2 in 2007 is more liberally expressed > than the 1997 Law 20F2. but we are in the same territory. > Therefore unless the guidance is the same guidance the > Laws Committee has confirmed to be correct, it is hard > to justify an assertion that "for 35 years we have had a > perfectly clear, concise and consistent guideline for > understanding how the disclosure rules are to be > interpreted".(sic). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Aug 19 19:55:31 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:55:31 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language References: <84EA1B46-6458-44E8-A9EF-4A2F2C878EB6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D59D67CB9A44393B370F8D2FF0473B7@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > On Aug 18, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > >> The ACBL's illegal addition of "had the irregularity not >> occurred" >> to L12C1(e)(ii), OS score adjustment, had an effect on a recent >> club >> ruling here. >> >> In a competitive auction, a player jumped to 5D. LHO hesitated >> much >> more than is required, and RHO doubled with very doubtful values. >> >> The contract went off one for -100, declarer having committed an >> extremely serious error (yes, for that class of player), when the >> contract was cold with rational play. >> >> The TD changed the result to -50/+50, but should have given the >> OS -550 (the most unfavorable result that was at all probable), >> since the serious error ought not to have been included in the OS >> score adjustment, per L12C1(b). >> >> But wait! "Had the irregularity not occurred," the result would >> have >> been -50/+50, so the ruling was correct in ACBL-land. Is this >> really >> what you want, Adam? > > I can't speak for Adam, but for myself, yes. > > Why should -550 come into the picture when declarer went down > through > no fault of the OS? > >> Now it appears to me that the ACBL language conflicts with >> L12C1(b). >> If so, which law dominates? > > I don't see the conflict. The NOS's "serious error (unrelated to > the > infraction)" just cost them 600 points over and above the 50 they > recovered, and the OS received "the score that it would have been > allotted as the consequence of its infraction only" based on the > result. L12C1(a) says that the NOS in a score adjustment must keep that part of the damage that was subsequent (self-inflicted), not consequent. L12C1(b) says that the subsequent damage is not to be included in a score adjustment for the OS. Ergo, "serious error" in the play is not assumed in the OS score adjustment. Not very clear, is it? I have argued for years that the play of the cards should not be changed (unless affected by the infraction) when determining the OS score adjustment, to no avail. How can it be right to take one or more tricks away from the OS when those tricks (e.g., from a revoke) had nothing to do with the infraction? The principles of L12C1(a) and (b) seem to echo the WBFLC minutes in Lille, 1998: "A change was made in the interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is to be applied so that advantage gained by an offender (see L72B1), provided it is related to the infraction and not obtained by good table play of the offenders, shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction [only] if redress is to be given in an adjusted score." Also not very clear. Clarity does not seem to be important to the WBFLC. The reference to L72B1 looks doubtful. It said the TD awards an adjusted score "if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity." As to the conflict I mentioned, L12C1(b) says without qualification that the OS score adjustment is based on consequent damage following the infraction, while not including the benefit of any merely subsequent damage. The ACBL says the adjustment is based on what would have happened had the irregularity not occurred, which means the OS keeps the benefit of any "serious error" by the NOS. That looks like a conflict to me. Another issue is whether L12 should be applied for the NOS when they weren't actually damaged by the infraction, as when an illegal contract is allowed to make only because of a revoke. L16B3: "If there is a violation of this law causing damage, the Director adjusts the score in accordance with L12C." To me that says L12C does not apply for the NOS if damage was self-inflicted and not caused by the violation. No one seems to agree with me on that. L12C applies to the OS, of course, because for them "damage" is defined by the WBFLC as an advantage in the table score consequent or subsequent to the infraction. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 19 20:48:59 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:48:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com><7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be><000801ca20a8$40820da0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <62839841-1A1D-40D3-B99C-BCF70538F9D7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002901ca20fe$3a3d7a50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paolo . > If "the guidance is the same guidance" and all that, one can only wonder why the WBF won't explain it to us. By that I mean explaining the principles on which it is based and justified, not merely offering examples of its application. If the WBF has abandoned Mr. Kaplan's fundamental paradigm entirely, they owe it to us to tell us what they've put in its place. If they have modified it, they owe it to us to tell us under what circumstances it no longer applies, and what alternative principles we are to apply in those circumstances. If they did it in full knowledge and with explicit intention, they should be perfectly capable of explaining their reasoning. So why haven't they? > +=+ As his Vice Chairman I was in a good position to learn Edgar's methods. He made it clear to me that he presented material differently in the ACBL from the way in which he presented it to the world federation. You may have lived in a cocoon of ABCL practice but you are not entitled to assert that such practice held true in all things in the WBF or elsewhere. I have to live in the present now with the decisions and attitudes of the current committee. It is very different with not only Edgar but also Ralph Cohen and Antonio Riccardi no longer at meetings. But it is no use hiding in the past, the world moves on and my first duty is to serve the committee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at tameware.com Wed Aug 19 21:39:36 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:39:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language In-Reply-To: <008901ca20d4$775fc0c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <008901ca20d4$775fc0c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <694eadd40908191239y63d4c14gd62b6dc0bd037576@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > " It may be true that the law cannot make > a man love me, but it can keep him from > lynching me, and I think that's pretty > important." > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Martin Luther King Jr. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin L French" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:09 PM > Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language > > > > Now it appears to me that the ACBL language conflicts > > with L12C1(b). ?If so, which law dominates? > > > +=+ This is not a debate to which I wish to add a personal > contribution. Members of the Drafting Committee were > surprised to learn of the inclusion of additional words in this > law in Zone 2. > ? ? ? The 27th August 2002 WBFLC minute reads > ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"The interpretation of Law 12C2 was discussed. > Mr Wildavsky put his view that this law should be interpreted > as though it read "for a non-offending side the most favourable > that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an > offending side he most unfavourable result that was at all > probable had the irregularity not occurred". It was drawn to > the attention of the committee that on a previous occasion the > subject had been discussed and the Committee had agreed > that the law does not attach this limitation to the adjustment > for the offending side. The Committee found no reason to > reconsider that decision." > ? ? ? ?The intention of the law, as it is and as it has been since > the 1987 code was promulgated, is that if the offending side > is headed via the irregularity for its worst result that is at all > probable, that is the result determining its award under the > Law 12C1(e)(ii). ?Mr. Wildavsky would perhaps have been > well placed to assist recognition of this by the ACBL, out of > his experience as a guest of the meeting in ?Montreal, 2002. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ I've been putting off commenting on this issue because I am devoting every spare minute to preparing for the Bermuda Bowl. It's probably a character flaw, but I can't help myself from weighing in now. I did make the ACBL LC aware of the minute from Montreal, and of my presence there. My interpretation of our action in changing the text of the law is that not one of us could understand it as it stood, and the WBF's minute made no sense to us. Nor have I been able to comprehend your postings on the subject to date. It is clear that there is a chasm between the two sides in this issue. One advantage of the wording in the ACBL is that it has a clear interpretation. I don't understand the position of a Solon who discovers that a law can be misinterpreted and does not do everything within his power to remove the potential for ambiguity. One thing that seems clear to me about the WBF interpretation is that it is poorly understood by many and in any case will seldom be applicable. The purpose of the law is to provide an incentive for correct procedure. I don't think that a vague and seldom applied provision will provide a significant disincentive. Thus I don't see how the WBF interpretation would be useful even if I could understand it. On the other hand, I do see how it could be used to advantage or disadvantage certain players for political reasons. This would be a legalized lynching, so Grattan's quote above seems apropos. -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 19 22:20:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:20:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language References: <008901ca20d4$775fc0c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <006c01ca210a$a195a950$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language > On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:52:03 -0400, Grattan wrote: > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> " It may be true that the law cannot make >> a man love me, but it can keep him from >> lynching me, and I think that's pretty >> important." >> ~ Martin Luther King Jr. >> ********************************* >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Marvin L French" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:09 PM >> Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language >>> >>> Now it appears to me that the ACBL language conflicts >>> with L12C1(b). If so, which law dominates? >>> >> +=+ This is not a debate to which I wish to add a personal >> contribution. Members of the Drafting Committee were >> surprised to learn of the inclusion of additional words in this >> law in Zone 2. >> The 27th August 2002 WBFLC minute reads >> "The interpretation of Law 12C2 was discussed. >> Mr Wildavsky put his view that this law should be interpreted >> as though it read "for a non-offending side the most favourable >> that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an >> offending side he most unfavourable result that was at all >> probable had the irregularity not occurred". It was drawn to >> the attention of the committee that on a previous occasion the >> subject had been discussed and the Committee had agreed >> that the law does not attach this limitation to the adjustment >> for the offending side. The Committee found no reason to >> reconsider that decision." >> The intention of the law, as it is and as it has been since >> the 1987 code was promulgated, is that if the offending side >> is headed via the irregularity for its worst result that is at all >> probable, that is the result determining its award under the >> Law 12C1(e)(ii). Mr. Wildavsky would perhaps have been >> well placed to assist recognition of this by the ACBL, out of >> his experience as a guest of the meeting in Montreal, 2002. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > To be fair to Adam, and perhaps the ACBL, there is a way of calculating > probabilities in use as far as I know by every director in the world, > which leads to the missing phrase being irrelevant and misleading. > > This standard method of calculating probabilities uses all available > information. It comes to conclusions such as: If the result for 5 diamonds > doubled was down 1, then the likely result for 5 diamonds doubled is down > 1. > > Grattan has proposed a different method of calculating probabilities. In > that method, the table events subsequent to the irregularity are ignored. > Call this population method of calculating probabilities (which is how > Grattan actually described the method). Using the population method, even > when the table result is 5 Di doubled down 1, the expected result for 5 Di > doubled can making 5 when that's what the population (most players of > similar ability) are doing. > > To give an extreme example, suppose an irregularity prevents a likely > double. Declarer now has to guess for a queen, guesses wrong, and goes > down one. He claims damage from the lack of double! Everyone agrees that > the presence or absence of the double is irrelevant to the play. > > If you ignore the table result, the chance of making the doubled contract > is 50%. So the table result is less favorable than would have been the > expectation had the irregularity not occurred, satisfying L12B1. The > outcome is 50% for down one doubled and 50% for making the contract > doubled (L12C1(c)). AFAIK, no director has ever ruled this way and no AC > has ever accepted this argument. > > Bob, who has not seen an agenda for Sao Paulo and worries that it contains > some innocuous-sounding method for calculating probabilities > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 20 00:09:29 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:09:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ivy Compton-Burnett (1884-1969), English novelist: "There is more difference within the sexes than between them." Robert Frick: [snip] >And I still don't get the difference between an infringement >and an irregularity. Richard Hills: Apply a bit of Euclidean logic, things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other, and Bob's statement equals: "And I still don't get the difference between an infraction and an irregularity." 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, Definitions: "Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 20 00:59:47 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:59:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001001ca2121$1e279b70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Ivy Compton-Burnett (1884-1969), English novelist: > > "There is more difference within the sexes than between them." > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > >>And I still don't get the difference between an infringement >>and an irregularity. > > Richard Hills: > > Apply a bit of Euclidean logic, things which are equal to the > same thing are equal to each other, and Bob's statement equals: > > "And I still don't get the difference between an infraction and > an irregularity." > > 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, Definitions: > > "Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive > of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a > player." > +=+ There is also a definition of 'infraction', and it may help if we take into account the paragraph about 'established usage' in the Introduction - see 'may do' and 'does'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 01:18:54 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:18:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001001ca2121$1e279b70$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001001ca2121$1e279b70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0908191618j3783ed68sfde75881dba109b5@mail.gmail.com> > +=+ There is also a definition of 'infraction', and it may help > if we take into account the paragraph about 'established usage' > in the Introduction - see 'may do' and 'does'. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ Is `infringement' officially the same as `infraction'? Is the use of definitionless `infringe' in Law 72B1 an intentional deviation from the defined `infract', or accidental? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 20 02:00:50 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:00:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <84EA1B46-6458-44E8-A9EF-4A2F2C878EB6@starpower.net> Message-ID: Marvin French: >>The ACBL's illegal addition of "had the irregularity not occurred" >>to L12C1(e)(ii), OS score adjustment, had an effect on a recent >>club ruling here. >> >>In a competitive auction, a player jumped to 5D. LHO hesitated much >>more than is required, and RHO doubled with very doubtful values. >> >>The contract went off one for -100, declarer having committed an >>extremely serious error (yes, for that class of player), when the >>contract was cold with rational play. >> >>The TD changed the result to -50/+50, but should have given the OS >>-550 (the most unfavorable result that was at all probable), since >>the serious error ought not to have been included in the OS score >>adjustment, per L12C1(b). >> >>But wait! "Had the irregularity not occurred," the result would >>have been -50/+50, so the ruling was correct in ACBL-land. Is this >>really what you want, Adam? Eric Landau: >I can't speak for Adam, but for myself, yes. > >Why should -550 come into the picture when declarer went down >through no fault of the OS? Richard Hills: Why indeed? Because the Laws say so. Even in those Regulating Authorities which use Law 12C1(c) weighted scores, Law 12C1(b) specifies a split score when "the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action". So for all Regulating Authorities, ACBL or otherwise, the correct club ruling in Marv's example would be NOS -50 and OS -550. Marvin French: >>Now it appears to me that the ACBL language conflicts with L12C1(b). >>If so, which law dominates? Eric Landau: >I don't see the conflict. The NOS's "serious error (unrelated to the >infraction)" just cost them 600 points over and above the 50 they >recovered, and the OS received [-50 from the actual TD] "the score >that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction >only" based on the result. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, both the actual TD and also Eric have misinterpreted Law 12C1(b). The illegal double of 5D by the OS caused negative damage to the NOS, improving the normal expectation of the NOS from +400 to +550. Ergo, the normal consequence of the illegal OS double is a score of -550. The final word of Law 12C1(b) is "only", so the OS gets "only" -550, no matter how badly the NOS subsequently (not consequently) mangles the play in 5Dx. Note that this 2007 Law 12C1(b) is a significant change from previous Kaplanesque views of "subsequent" and "consequent". If a 1997 or earlier edition of The Fabulous Law Book had been in effect, Marv's TD (and Eric Landau) would have been correct to rule NOS -50 and OS +50. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 20 03:04:39 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:04:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0908191618j3783ed68sfde75881dba109b5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Danny Kaye, The Court Jester (1955): "The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle. The chalice from the palace has the brew that is true." Jerry Fusselman: >Is "infringement" officially the same as "infraction"? Richard Hills: The question is moot. The noun "infringement" does not appear anywhere in the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Jerry Fusselman: >Is the use of definitionless "infringe" in Law 72B1 an >intentional deviation from the defined "infract", or accidental? Richard Hills: Jerry is begging the question, petitio principii. Firstly, the verb "infract" does not appear anywhere in the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Secondly, the verb "infringe" is not definitionless. Words which are not given a special significance by the Definitions of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, for example the routine word "but" (which appears 92 times in the Laws), take upon their common-or- garden dictionary definition. Since a common-or-garden dictionary defines the verbs "infract" and "infringe" as synonyms, what's the common-or-garden problem? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 swillner at nhcc.net Thu Aug 20 04:23:08 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:23:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: It's too late to discuss conventions when...]] In-Reply-To: <4A82DF15.1040702@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A82DF15.1040702@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A8CB38C.9030904@nhcc.net> > From: Sven Pran >> For the purpose of defining the period during which players can still > legally exchange information about agreements and also are responsible for > their cards I prefer this period to begin for both sides when either player > at the table withdraws his cards from the board and to end when play has > been completed. The WBFLC agrees with you, though there's no obvious harm in discussing agreements as long as neither partner has seen his own cards. >> Letting one side start the auction period _for the other side_ by >> making a call or otherwise seems unfair. > Absolutely. And the best way to avoid this possibility is to ban any such > exchange of information for both sides during the auction period as I > suggest above.. Someone suggested that a call should start the auction period _for both sides_. I'm glad we agree that that is unfair. > You sure mean L73A1? Yes, sorry for the typo. > On looking back in previous laws I find it obvious that > the term "Auction period" must have been intended here. That's what I think, but it's not what my copy of TFLB actually says. >> Right now, as Robert indicated, >> it appears to be legal to discuss methods after seeing one's cards but >> before the first call of the auction. From: Grattan > It is, of course, far simpler for the Director > and the players to determine whether a player has removed his cards > from the board than it is to determine whether he has looked at them. No doubt so, and I suggested that in my earlier message. I just wish the LC valued ease of enforcement for other Laws. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Aug 20 04:32:58 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:32:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] At night all cats are grey In-Reply-To: <4A857A05.8070502@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A857A05.8070502@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A8CB5DA.1000907@nhcc.net> > From: Grattan >>> +=+ It can certainly be argued fairly that since creating UI is >>> not an infraction but using it is an infraction, Law 12B1 should >>> be applied after creation of the UI and before it is used by the >>> offender. In my personal capacity I favour this view. I hope you will encourage official adoption of this view. (I believe it is the official one in the EBU, but you would know better than I.) >>> But I was dealing with the WBF position. From: >> Firstly, under the 1997 Lawbook "free of any irregularity" could >> mean "free of any creation of UI". But a new Definition in the >> 2007 Lawbook means that if the creation of UI was without design, >> so that the creation of UI was not an infraction, then that >> creation of UI was also not an irregularity. > +=+ Erudite but incomplete. The WBF Appeals Committee was much > influenced by a member who observed that where the UI derives from > an irregularity - viz. extraneous remark, gesture, undue emphasis, > inflection, haste or hesitation, inappropriate alert, - it is frequently > collusive not unintentional, ergo infractive. Even if not collusive, L73A1 or L73B1 could be relevant. However, the _effect_ of using these laws may be that the NOS get a _worse_ score than if only the subsequent use of UI were adjusted. That seems a bad idea. The real problem is that TFLB gives no general procedure for handling multiple infractions. However, as I understand past practice (to the extent it's coherent), the general approach is to give the NOS the L12C1 result for the most favorable combination of infractions occurring and not. In the present case, this would often mean adjusting as if the UI was created but not "used," the view Grattan favours. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Aug 20 04:46:07 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:46:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <4A82DF44.4020205@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A82DF44.4020205@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A8CB8EF.6080005@nhcc.net> > From: Sven Pran >> > My general position is that any information I receive from what >> > opponents do or doesn't do is authorized for me and my partner so long >> > as it is not a consequence (whether direct or indirect) of an >> > irregularity committed by my partner or me. >> 2007 FLB appears to say something different. > I may have overlooked something but I cannot remember having seen anywhere > in the 2007 laws saying anything different on what is AI and what is UI? Huh?! One of the most spectacular changes in the 2007 Laws is L16A, which purports to list all possible sources of AI. Nowhere are opponents gestures, remarks, etc. listed. We do have L73D1, but it is limited actions in the process of making a call or play and even then specifically to "unintentionally to vary." I very well remember a deal from some years ago, where there were two passes to me in third seat, and I had my usual garbage. The person in fourth seat was sitting up attentively, looking happily at her cards. Even dense as I am, it was pretty obvious what kind of hand she held. If this should happen today, it appears to be illegal for me to use LHO's appearance to choose my call. Of course enforcing any such restriction won't be easy. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Aug 20 04:52:27 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:52:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Do you believe a claim of mispull? In-Reply-To: <4A82E085.60803@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A82E085.60803@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A8CBA6B.8000909@nhcc.net> >> Better, in my opinion, would be to change the Laws >> so the player's > intent is irrelevant. > From: Grattan > +=+ Bidding box regulations may be changed at any > time. This is not a question of law. Bidding box regulations don't have anything to do with the legal principle, though sensible regulations can make the question rarer in practice. If a call is not "made" under whatever regulations apply, then it can be changed for any reason, including a change of mind. The question at hand is what to do after the call is made, when it can still be changed but only if (among other things) it was "unintended." This requires mind reading. Some directors claim to be good at it, but I wonder how they would ever know if they are mistaken. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Aug 20 05:01:57 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:01:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <4A8474B5.8090406@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A8474B5.8090406@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A8CBCA5.3070301@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > Edgar Kaplan, who was the driving force behind our current system of > disclosure, offered a simple paradigm for interpreting the disclosure > laws: Unfortunately, the 2007 Laws weakened this principle considerably, as I believe I pointed out several months ago. Eric is to be commended for his creative reference to L40A1b, but the second sentence limits its scope. What that second sentence does, though, is give any RA that wants to retain the Kaplan paradigm full license to do so. I believe the ACBL has done just that, among other places in its "Alert Procedures" document, but of course that doesn't apply outside the ACBL and specifically not in WBF play. From: Jeff Easterson > Player 2 refuses to answer ... Then, obviously the TD is called > (in my experience this is pretty rare). The TD decides if player 2 must > answer the question. The problem is that many of us think there should be no valid grounds for refusing to answer other than limits on time wasting and harassment. Apparently the WBFLC now insists there are other grounds for refusing, though the exact scope of those grounds is unclear. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Aug 20 05:08:52 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:08:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: Definitions = some opinions.] In-Reply-To: <4A847600.30003@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A847600.30003@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A8CBE44.7080006@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > Opponents' MI puts you > in a contract so inferior that you decide -- correctly! -- that the > result at your table will not affect your score on the board. > ... So you play sloppily, and take a > couple fewer tricks than you would have had you been paying normal > attention to the hand, which, indeed, makes no difference to the > outcome in matchpoints or IMPs. If there is no difference in MP or IMPs, then no part of the damage is self-inflicted, and careless play or even serious error should not affect an eventual adjustment. If serious error does lose an IMP or two after all, you don't get that back. There are countless stories of experts being in silly contracts but still playing carefully to minimize the damage. Victims of infractions are not required to do that, but they are required not to give up altogether -- at least when giving up costs anything. From blml at arcor.de Thu Aug 20 05:07:29 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:07:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <29829995.1250737649261.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Danny Kaye, The Court Jester (1955): > > "The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle. > The chalice from the palace has the brew that is true." Griselda: Right. But there's been a change: they broke the chalice from the palace! Hawkins: They *broke* the chalice from the palace? Griselda: And replaced it with a flagon. Hawkins: A flagon...? Griselda: With the figure of a dragon. Hawkins: Flagon with a dragon. Griselda: Right. Hawkins: But did you put the pellet with the poison in the vessel with the pestle? Griselda: No! The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon! The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true! Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 20 05:53:47 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:53:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0908191618j3783ed68sfde75881dba109b5@mail.gmail.com> References: <001001ca2121$1e279b70$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0908191618j3783ed68sfde75881dba109b5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:18:54 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> +=+ There is also a definition of 'infraction', and it may help >> if we take into account the paragraph about 'established usage' >> in the Introduction - see 'may do' and 'does'. >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > > Is `infringement' officially the same as `infraction'? Is the use of > definitionless `infringe' in Law 72B1 an intentional deviation from > the defined `infract', or accidental? I am guessing stylistic. "A player must not infringe a law intentionally" versus "A player must not commit an iregularity intentionally". It may be an unfortunate choice. According to my calculations, "infringe" almost certain refers to irregularities -- how likely is it that L72B1 would allow a player to commit an irregularity as long as it was not an infraction? But it is possible to read L72B1 as referring to just infractions. The stylistic explanation doesn't work for the Beijing minutes. {"When applying Law 17E, passes following the first pass out of rotation are cancelled and only the first pass out of rotation is an infringement.") Maybe infringement was chosen instead of infraction because there is no rectification for the first pass. But I don't really understand what this minute is trying to say. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 20 06:15:44 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:15:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Kaplan pair of dimes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Peter Steiner, caption to his New Yorker cartoon, July 1993: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Eric Landau: >...the Kaplan paradigm, which has guided the interpretation >of the disclosure rules since the invention of alerts... Richard Hills: Edgar Kaplan did change his mind on the interpretation of the disclosure rules since the invention of alerts. Edgar Kaplan's original position was that an alert was always authorised information to the alerter's partner. But the unintended consequence of Edgar Kaplan's original position was that uncertain partnerships could create agreements during the auction by judicious use of alerts and non-alerts. So Edgar Kaplan's revised paradigm is now incorporated in these Law 16B1(a) and Law 73C phrases: "...an unexpected* alert or failure to alert... * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." As for the other Edgar Kaplan paradigm -- the idea that a player must necessarily be entitled to ALL authorised information at ALL times -- a year ago this was pushed to reductio ad absurdum by the recovering John (MadDog) Probst. MadDog argued on blml that since the imp table was Law 78B, a player with a decision to make in an imp event could then request the Director to recite the Law 78B imp table and/or request the Director to recite the Law 78D Conditions of Contest. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008, page 4: "16A1(d) allows the player use of his memory of information in the laws and regulations. It does not authorize him to look during the auction and play at the printed regulations, the law book, or anyone's scorecard or the backs of bidding cards etc. as (Law 40C3(a)) an aid to memory. For system card and notes see Law 20G2. Neither does 78D authorize players to consult during the auction and play printed copies of the information given them under this law." Richard Hills: Hypothetical auction and hypothetical pair of dimes questions. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Ali --- --- --- Pass 1H Pass 1S (1) Pass 2C Pass 2D (2) (3) (4) (1) Alerted. (2) South asks me, "Do you play fourth-suit as an artificial one-round force, or is it an artificial game force?" (3) I respond to South, "Both of Hashmat's bids are natural and non-forcing, hence the alert of the unusual 1S bid." (4) South now asks me a supplementary question, "If you were playing your other main system, Dorothy Acol, is fourth- suit an artificial one-round force, or is it an artificial game force?" South believes that her supplementary question is relevant, because South believes that my approach to designing bidding systems gives hints about my approach to declarer play. Knowledge of the Dorothy Acol fourth-suit method was indeed authorised information to South when she previously played against Dorothy Jesner and myself. But it seems to me that South's supplementary question -- although it is consistent with the Edgar Kaplan paradigm -- need Not be answered, as South is attempting to bypass Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 20 07:34:27 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:34:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick, confused calculations: [snip] >It may be an unfortunate choice. According to my calculations, >"infringe" almost certain refers to irregularities -- how likely >is it that L72B1 would allow a player to commit an irregularity >as long as it was not an infraction? But it is possible to read >L72B1 as referring to just infractions. [snip] Richard Hills, conjugal clarification: Perhaps a Venn diagram will help. According to the Definitions of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, there is a vast array of "irregularities". Fully contained within that Venn circle is a smaller Venn circle of "irregularities by a player". And that smaller Venn circle has a second name of "infractions". So it is a contradiction in terms (the irresistible force meeting the immovable object) for "a player to commit an irregularity as long as it was not an infraction". Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 20 10:44:02 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:44:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Kaplan pair of dimes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A8D0CD2.5010505@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > Hypothetical auction and hypothetical pair of dimes questions. > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hills Ali > --- --- --- Pass > 1H Pass 1S (1) Pass > 2C Pass 2D (2) > (3) (4) > > (1) Alerted. > > (2) South asks me, "Do you play fourth-suit as an artificial > one-round force, or is it an artificial game force?" > > (3) I respond to South, "Both of Hashmat's bids are natural > and non-forcing, hence the alert of the unusual 1S bid." > > (4) South now asks me a supplementary question, "If you were > playing your other main system, Dorothy Acol, is fourth- > suit an artificial one-round force, or is it an artificial > game force?" > > South believes that her supplementary question is relevant, > because South believes that my approach to designing bidding > systems gives hints about my approach to declarer play. > I don't understand the reasoning you ascribe to South, but if I change it a little, then it becomes: South believes that I have designed the bidding system according to a previously played system. Now, either this last bit is true, in which case the question is relevant, or it is not true, in which case you reply "the previous system did not influence my design here"; which makes the question also relevant. Basically, South is asking for your point ranges, and she tries a roundabout approach to that question. I believe she is entitled to that question, and to an answer. If hte answer is "irrelecant", then so be it, but the question was asked and answered! I really don't see why any questions should be outlawed (barring harrassment and time-wasting). Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 20 15:41:24 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:41:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net> On Aug 19, 2009, at 8:00 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Marvin French: > >>> The ACBL's illegal addition of "had the irregularity not occurred" >>> to L12C1(e)(ii), OS score adjustment, had an effect on a recent >>> club ruling here. >>> >>> In a competitive auction, a player jumped to 5D. LHO hesitated much >>> more than is required, and RHO doubled with very doubtful values. >>> >>> The contract went off one for -100, declarer having committed an >>> extremely serious error (yes, for that class of player), when the >>> contract was cold with rational play. >>> >>> The TD changed the result to -50/+50, but should have given the OS >>> -550 (the most unfavorable result that was at all probable), since >>> the serious error ought not to have been included in the OS score >>> adjustment, per L12C1(b). >>> >>> But wait! "Had the irregularity not occurred," the result would >>> have been -50/+50, so the ruling was correct in ACBL-land. Is this >>> really what you want, Adam? > > Eric Landau: > >> I can't speak for Adam, but for myself, yes. >> >> Why should -550 come into the picture when declarer went down >> through no fault of the OS? > > Richard Hills: > > Why indeed? Because the Laws say so. Even in those Regulating > Authorities which use Law 12C1(c) weighted scores, Law 12C1(b) > specifies a split score when "the non-offending side has contributed > to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) > or by wild or gambling action". > > So for all Regulating Authorities, ACBL or otherwise, the correct > club ruling in Marv's example would be NOS -50 and OS -550. > > Marvin French: > >>> Now it appears to me that the ACBL language conflicts with L12C1(b). >>> If so, which law dominates? > > Eric Landau: > >> I don't see the conflict. The NOS's "serious error (unrelated to the >> infraction)" just cost them 600 points over and above the 50 they >> recovered, and the OS received [-50 from the actual TD] "the score >> that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction >> only" based on the result. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, both the actual TD and also Eric have misinterpreted > Law 12C1(b). The illegal double of 5D by the OS caused negative > damage to the NOS, improving the normal expectation of the NOS from > +400 to +550. Ergo, the normal consequence of the illegal OS double > is a score of -550. The final word of Law 12C1(b) is "only", so the > OS gets "only" -550, no matter how badly the NOS subsequently (not > consequently) mangles the play in 5Dx. > > Note that this 2007 Law 12C1(b) is a significant change from previous > Kaplanesque views of "subsequent" and "consequent". If a 1997 or > earlier edition of The Fabulous Law Book had been in effect, Marv's TD > (and Eric Landau) would have been correct to rule NOS -50 and OS +50. Based on what I've learned from discussions in this forum, Richard seems to be entirely in accord with the WBFLC on this. The problem confronted by Marv, Adam and myself, among others, is that the ACBLLC sees things differently. In the WBF's version of the lawbook, L12C1 (e) essentially repeats the language of the previous L12C2, and L12C1 (b) represents a significant addition to the specified protocol. But the ACBLLC version has a substantively altered version of L12C1(e) (ii) (which adds the words "had the irregularity not occurred"), putting the protocol specification in L12C1(e)(ii) into apparent conflict with L12C1(b). It's not entirely clear what the ACBLLC's motivation was, but there seems to be a broad-based assumption that ACBL officials are to continue to rule under the terms of an unchanged election (1997 L12C3, 2008 L12C1(e)) -- an election which the ACBL justifiably considers "its own" -- unaffected by whatever changes the WBFLC has introduced into the protocol used by those who decline the election. IOW, I think Marv and I are doing what our RA expects of us when we continue to rule on L12C cases as we would have under the 1997 laws, notwithstanding that practices elsewhere in the world, where the "ACBL election" isn't in force, have changed. The ACBLLC, IMO, would be justified in assuming that the WBFLC, in making changes to the law outside of ACBLland, never intended to change the rules for the ACBL election, that the apparent conflict Richard notes between "our" L12C1(e) and L12C1(b) is an unintended consequence of insufficient or ineffective editing, and that by doing it as they always intended to they are following the intent of the authors, who included the election in TFLB, at their behest, just so they could. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Aug 20 16:08:30 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:08:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <008801ca20d4$77375130$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com><4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net><19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be><00cb01ca2004$d01b0470$0302a8c0@Mildred><000c01ca200e$31912ff0$94b38fd0$@com><232D230497B6427D8A20D8D1FD31F04E@erdos> <008801ca20d4$77375130$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <7C72C18EFA404EAD8CB2013579E7A695@erdos> Grattan Endicott writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Grabiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:59 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paolo > >> The TD needs to know the meaning of an insufficient >> bid in order to impose the correct lead restrictions >> under L26, and therefore its meaning must also be >> authorized to the opponents. >> > +=+ It is not automatically the case that a player is > entitled to know something that the Director knows. This is true in general. However, in this situation, what the TD knows must be told to the players. If the TD says, "Should the offender's partner be on lead on defense, you may forbid or require a spade lead," then it is AI that the insufficient bid showed spades. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 20 16:14:10 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:14:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo In-Reply-To: <4A8CBCA5.3070301@nhcc.net> References: <4A8474B5.8090406@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A8CBCA5.3070301@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Aug 19, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> Edgar Kaplan, who was the driving force behind our current system of >> disclosure, offered a simple paradigm for interpreting the disclosure >> laws: > > Unfortunately, the 2007 Laws weakened this principle considerably, > as I > believe I pointed out several months ago. Eric is to be commended for > his creative reference to L40A1b, but the second sentence limits its > scope. I don't think so. The second sentence leaves it to the RA to specify "the manner" of the disclosure, but not its extent. If the Law wanted each partnership to have a duty to make available to its opponents only such partnership understandings as the RA might specify, it would say so. If you are charged with traveling to another city in whatever manner you choose, that doesn't give you the option of staying home. > What that second sentence does, though, is give any RA that > wants to retain the Kaplan paradigm full license to do so. I believe > the ACBL has done just that, among other places in its "Alert > Procedures" document, but of course that doesn't apply outside the > ACBL > and specifically not in WBF play. I agree. The ACBL's definitive guideline for players answering questions is, "Be as helpful and forthcoming as you can." *That* is totally consistent with the Kaplan doctrine. And totally inconsistent with, "I know the answer but I refuse to tell it to you because if it's not relevant to the auction in progress I don't have to" ("Director!"). If other RAs think that the latter is desirable in their games, let 'em. Where I come from, the obvious corollary to, "Be as helpful and forthcoming as you can," is, "Just answer the ^*&$%# question." > From: Jeff Easterson >> Player 2 refuses to answer ... Then, obviously the TD is called >> (in my experience this is pretty rare). The TD decides if player >> 2 must >> answer the question. > > The problem is that many of us think there should be no valid grounds > for refusing to answer other than limits on time wasting and > harassment. > Apparently the WBFLC now insists there are other grounds for refusing, > though the exact scope of those grounds is unclear. We think that a player is entitled to know as much about his opponents' partnership understandings as they do. It's that simple. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 20 16:55:08 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:55:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Kaplan pair of dimes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0FF519D7-748E-4B5C-A519-BDB8D1BF6676@starpower.net> On Aug 20, 2009, at 12:15 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > >> ...the Kaplan paradigm, which has guided the interpretation >> of the disclosure rules since the invention of alerts... > > Richard Hills: > > Edgar Kaplan did change his mind on the interpretation of the > disclosure rules since the invention of alerts. Edgar > Kaplan's original position was that an alert was always > authorised information to the alerter's partner. > > But the unintended consequence of Edgar Kaplan's original > position was that uncertain partnerships could create > agreements during the auction by judicious use of alerts and > non-alerts. > > So Edgar Kaplan's revised paradigm is now incorporated in > these Law 16B1(a) and Law 73C phrases: > > "...an unexpected* alert or failure to alert... > * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." That is a misunderstanding of what a paradigm is. Mr. Kaplan knew and acknowledged from the start that, absent serious magic, his ideal state could never be achieved. The motivating paradigm could at best be roughly approximated by even the most propitious actual rules, and Mr. Kaplan did not pretend to know what those were. He regularly changed his mind about what the rules ought to be and how the extant ones ought to be interpreted. But those changes of opinion were in every case guided by the paradigm, designed to place us in closer approximation to the ideal state. A key element of the paradigm is that one obtains information about the opponents' methods without partner being aware that one has done so. In retrospect, it seems obvious that we can approximate this more closely if an alert isn't always AI to the alerter's partner. Mr. Kaplan was breaking new ground when he invented the alert protocol, and was not infallible. That he proposed or supported rule changes, as he often did, doesn't mean he gave up his underlying principles. > As for the other Edgar Kaplan paradigm -- the idea that a > player must necessarily be entitled to ALL authorised > information at ALL times -- a year ago this was pushed to > reductio ad absurdum by the recovering John (MadDog) Probst. In Mr. Kaplan's seminal writings on the subject, he describes a correct and complete written description of all of one's current opponents' partnership understandings, both explicit and implicit. If he ever had anything to say about "ALL authorized information at ALL times" he didn't bother saying it in The Bridge World any time after 1969 or so (the writings on disclosure I refer to date from later than that). As for "the other Edgar Kaplan paradigm", that might be a nice label for something of concern to John and Richard, but it's nothing Edgar Kaplan would have recognized, and in any case nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is disclosure of partnership understandings. > MadDog argued on blml that since the imp table was Law 78B, a > player with a decision to make in an imp event could then > request the Director to recite the Law 78B imp table and/or > request the Director to recite the Law 78D Conditions of > Contest. > > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008, page 4: > > "16A1(d) allows the player use of his memory of information > in the laws and regulations. It does not authorize him to > look during the auction and play at the printed regulations, > the law book, or anyone's scorecard or the backs of bidding > cards etc. as (Law 40C3(a)) an aid to memory. For system > card and notes see Law 20G2. > Neither does 78D authorize players to consult during the > auction and play printed copies of the information given them > under this law." > > Richard Hills: > > Hypothetical auction and hypothetical pair of dimes questions. > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hills Ali > --- --- --- Pass > 1H Pass 1S (1) Pass > 2C Pass 2D (2) > (3) (4) > > (1) Alerted. > > (2) South asks me, "Do you play fourth-suit as an artificial > one-round force, or is it an artificial game force?" > > (3) I respond to South, "Both of Hashmat's bids are natural > and non-forcing, hence the alert of the unusual 1S bid." > > (4) South now asks me a supplementary question, "If you were > playing your other main system, Dorothy Acol, is fourth- > suit an artificial one-round force, or is it an artificial > game force?" > > South believes that her supplementary question is relevant, > because South believes that my approach to designing bidding > systems gives hints about my approach to declarer play. > > Knowledge of the Dorothy Acol fourth-suit method was indeed > authorised information to South when she previously played > against Dorothy Jesner and myself. But it seems to me that > South's supplementary question -- although it is consistent > with the Edgar Kaplan paradigm -- need Not be answered, as > South is attempting to bypass Law 40C3(a): > > "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not > entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to > his memory, calculation or technique." It is in no way consistent. The paradigm describes access to a correct and complete description of your current opponents' partnership understandings. Not your previous opponents' or your future opponents' or anyone else's. Not what someone might bid on a different occasion with a different partner. Not anything your opponents happen to know about bridge. Just their (notional) current system notes, with no mistakes or omissions, implicit understandings included. It's really not that tough a concept. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bobpark at consolidated.net Thu Aug 20 17:25:30 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:25:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Asking partner to leave the table (revisited) Message-ID: <4A8D6AEA.9090908@consolidated.net> Yesterday afternoon, playing in a Hunt Valley KO against Bill & Marlene Passell, Marlene asked Bill to leave the table so that she could ask questions about our bidding. Bill complied, Marlene asked, we explained, Bill returned, and we proceeded...with everyone happy and ethically satisfied. Question 1: Does anyone have a problem with this practice? Question 2: If the above practice is fine in your eyes, do you see a significant difference here with the cases (described previously) where I asked my partner to leave the table while I provided a complete explanation of her (alerted) bid? I did get the impression then that a substantial amount of disapproval was expressed concerning my actions. --Bob Park From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Aug 20 18:12:42 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:12:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Asking_partner_to_leave_the_table_=28revis?= =?iso-8859-15?q?ited=29?= In-Reply-To: <4A8D6AEA.9090908@consolidated.net> References: <4A8D6AEA.9090908@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <1MeAFm-0Nlu8u0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> From: Robert Park > Yesterday afternoon, playing in a Hunt Valley KO against Bill & > Marlene Passell, Marlene asked Bill to leave the table so that she > could ask questions about our bidding. Bill complied, Marlene asked, > we explained, Bill returned, and we proceeded...with everyone happy > and ethically satisfied. > > Question 1: Does anyone have a problem with this practice? Yes, me. I strongly disagree with this practice. If anyone sends anyone off the table it is only the TD and only in _his_ discretion. And why should the TD do so? > Question 2: If the above practice is fine in your eyes, do you see a > significant difference here with the cases (described previously) > where I asked my partner to leave the table while I provided a > complete explanation of her (alerted) bid? I did get the impression > then that a substantial amount of disapproval was expressed concerning > my actions. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Aug 20 18:39:22 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:39:22 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Asking partner to leave the table (revisited) References: <4A8D6AEA.9090908@consolidated.net> Message-ID: From: "Robert Park" > Yesterday afternoon, playing in a Hunt Valley KO against Bill & > Marlene > Passell, Marlene asked Bill to leave the table so that she could > ask > questions about our bidding. Bill complied, Marlene asked, we > explained, > Bill returned, and we proceeded...with everyone happy and > ethically > satisfied. > > Question 1: Does anyone have a problem with this practice? ACBL TDs have discouraged this practice, which was very common in the old days. I don't see why we should be compelled to create unnecessary UI. Now when an opponent asks my partner a question that may get a stumbling answer, I feign a big thirst and leave the table to get a drink of water. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Aug 20 19:40:11 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:40:11 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language References: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net> Message-ID: From: "Eric Landau >> Richard Hills: >> >> In my opinion, both the actual TD and also Eric have >> misinterpreted >> Law 12C1(b). The illegal double of 5D by the OS caused negative >> damage to the NOS, improving the normal expectation of the NOS >> from >> +400 to +550. Ergo, the normal consequence of the illegal OS >> double >> is a score of -550. The final word of Law 12C1(b) is "only", so >> the >> OS gets "only" -550, no matter how badly the NOS subsequently >> (not >> consequently) mangles the play in 5Dx. Thank you, Richard >> >> Note that this 2007 Law 12C1(b) is a significant change from >> previous >> Kaplanesque views of "subsequent" and "consequent". If a 1997 or >> earlier edition of The Fabulous Law Book had been in effect, >> Marv's TD >> (and Eric Landau) would have been correct to rule NOS -50 and OS >> +50. Perhaps. But that is a score adjustment, changing -100/+100 to -50/+50. Law 12C1(b) offers no "election" regarding it, so the ACBL adjustment should be -50/-400 > > But > the ACBLLC version has a substantively altered version of L12C1(e) > (ii) (which adds the words "had the irregularity not occurred"), > putting the protocol specification in L12C1(e)(ii) into apparent > conflict with L12C1(b). > > It's not entirely clear what the ACBLLC's motivation was, I can tell you that. Adam argued strongly that "had the irregularity not occurred" in the NOS adjustment was by grammatical logic to be understood for the OS adjustment. I didn't understand his reasoning, something about subjunctive usage. When I complained to another LC member about this addition, he said, "We were given the impression that this was just a clarification of the law's intent." I was of the same opinion many years ago, but thanks to BLML and a close look at the language, I changed that opinion. I'm sure Adam did not realize the drastic effect this addition could have on some cases. He challenged BLML to show where it could make any difference. I provided one or more instances, which had no effect on his thinking. It seems likely that the rest of the LC went along with his "understood" argument without considering the consequences, and were ignorant of the WBFLC's rejection of that argument long ago. but there > seems to be a broad-based assumption that ACBL officials are to > continue to rule under the terms of an unchanged election (1997 > L12C3, 2008 L12C1(e)) -- an election which the ACBL justifiably > considers "its own" -- unaffected by whatever changes the WBFLC > has > introduced into the protocol used by those who decline the > election. There is no authorized election regarding the language of the law, only an election to adopt it as-is instead of the messy "weighting of a number of potential results," for which I congratulate them. > > IOW, I think Marv and I are doing what our RA expects of us when > we > continue to rule on L12C cases as we would have under the 1997 > laws, > notwithstanding that practices elsewhere in the world, where the > "ACBL election" isn't in force, have changed. Yes, but L12C1(b) must be observed, as there is no election provided for it. > > The ACBLLC, IMO, would be justified in assuming that the WBFLC, in > making changes to the law outside of ACBLland, never intended to > change the rules for the ACBL election, that the apparent conflict > Richard notes between "our" L12C1(e) and L12C1(b) is an unintended > consequence of insufficient or ineffective editing, and that by > doing > it as they always intended to they are following the intent of the > authors, who included the election in TFLB, at their behest, just > so > they could. They could keep their illegal addition to L12C1(e)(ii) while still following L12C1(b). In fact they must, going by the ACBL edition of the Laws. I was wrong in saying there was a conflict, as both laws can be followed without a problem. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From tedying at yahoo.com Thu Aug 20 20:00:31 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Asking partner to leave the table (revisited) In-Reply-To: <4A8D6AEA.9090908@consolidated.net> References: <4A8D6AEA.9090908@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <789248.91631.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I may be alone on this, but I think the two situations are different. In the case from yesterday, your one opponent had questions, but asked her partner to leave the table while she asked them. The fact that she had questions about an auction by an opponent pair is not particularly significant UI. By excusing her partner, she was able to ask more pointed questions without conveying any UI to her partner and possibly suggesting any type of defense. I think that is acceptable. In the case you mentioned from before, the problem is that you asked your partner to leave while conveying information about your own auction. This does convey the information that something in your auction may not be as standard as reading from the system notes. It conveys that there may be information that he has done something wrong, implied something he didn't intend to, made a systemically impossible bid or something like that. It can wake partner up to the fact that there may be something to notice in the auction. I personally think that if the opponents ask, you have to provide them the information that they request. If it creates UI, it creates UI. I do not think that excusing partner from the table at all avoids the UI situation. I think this is very different than yesterday's case. -Ted. ----- Original Message ---- From: Robert Park To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:25:30 AM Subject: [BLML] Asking partner to leave the table (revisited) Yesterday afternoon, playing in a Hunt Valley KO against Bill & Marlene Passell, Marlene asked Bill to leave the table so that she could ask questions about our bidding. Bill complied, Marlene asked, we explained, Bill returned, and we proceeded...with everyone happy and ethically satisfied. Question 1: Does anyone have a problem with this practice? Question 2: If the above practice is fine in your eyes, do you see a significant difference here with the cases (described previously) where I asked my partner to leave the table while I provided a complete explanation of her (alerted) bid? I did get the impression then that a substantial amount of disapproval was expressed concerning my actions. --Bob Park _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Aug 20 20:21:21 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:21:21 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language References: <008901ca20d4$775fc0c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <694eadd40908191239y63d4c14gd62b6dc0bd037576@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >I did make the ACBL LC aware of the minute from Montreal, and of my presence there. My interpretation of our action in changing the text of the law is that not one of us could understand it as it stood, and the WBF's minute made no sense to us. Not surprising. > Nor have I been able to comprehend your postings on the subject to date. It is clear that there is a chasm between the two sides in this issue. One advantage of the wording in the ACBL is that it has a clear interpretation. I don't understand the position of a Solon who discovers that a law can be misinterpreted and does not do everything within his power to remove the potential for ambiguity. The law was indeed unclear to some (including me, at first) in the 1997 Laws, putting the two criteria for NOS and OS score adjustments in the same sentence. But the 2007 Laws have put the two criteria in separate paragraphs (i) and (ii), thereby removing any possible ambiguity. >One thing that seems clear to me about the WBF interpretation is >that it is poorly understood by many and in any case will seldom be applicable. That is no longer true. I'm beginning to think Adam did not realize the WBF had removed the so-called ambiguity in the 2007 Laws. > >The purpose of the law is to provide an incentive for correct procedure. I don't think that a vague and seldom applied provision will provide a significant disincentive. Thus I don't see how the WBF interpretation would be useful even if I could understand it. On the other hand, I do see how it could be used to advantage or disadvantage certain players for political reasons. This would be a legalized lynching. If that's the way you feel, why didn't you attempt to get your version incorporated when the Drafting Committee sent drafts around for LC scrutiny? Or ask Drafting Committee members Joan Gerard, Jeff Polisner, and Kojak to do that? Instead, the appearance is that you snuck it in when TD (!) Gary Blaiss wrote up a version of the 2007 Laws for the ACBL (renaming them the 2008 Laws), and the rubber-stamping LC went along with it. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 20 23:43:57 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:43:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language In-Reply-To: References: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:40:11 -0400, Marvin L French wrote: > > From: "Eric Landau >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> In my opinion, both the actual TD and also Eric have >>> misinterpreted >>> Law 12C1(b). The illegal double of 5D by the OS caused negative >>> damage to the NOS, improving the normal expectation of the NOS >>> from >>> +400 to +550. Ergo, the normal consequence of the illegal OS >>> double >>> is a score of -550. The final word of Law 12C1(b) is "only", so >>> the >>> OS gets "only" -550, no matter how badly the NOS subsequently >>> (not >>> consequently) mangles the play in 5Dx. > > Thank you, Richard >>> >>> Note that this 2007 Law 12C1(b) is a significant change from >>> previous >>> Kaplanesque views of "subsequent" and "consequent". If a 1997 or >>> earlier edition of The Fabulous Law Book had been in effect, >>> Marv's TD >>> (and Eric Landau) would have been correct to rule NOS -50 and OS >>> +50. > > Perhaps. But that is a score adjustment, changing -100/+100 > to -50/+50. Law 12C1(b) offers no "election" regarding it, so the > ACBL adjustment should be -50/-400 >> >> But >> the ACBLLC version has a substantively altered version of L12C1(e) >> (ii) (which adds the words "had the irregularity not occurred"), >> putting the protocol specification in L12C1(e)(ii) into apparent >> conflict with L12C1(b). >> >> It's not entirely clear what the ACBLLC's motivation was, > > I can tell you that. Adam argued strongly that "had the irregularity > not occurred" in the NOS adjustment was by grammatical logic to be > understood for the OS adjustment. I didn't understand his reasoning, > something about subjunctive usage. When I complained to another LC > member about this addition, he said, "We were given the impression > that this was just a clarification of the law's intent." I was of > the same opinion many years ago, but thanks to BLML and a close look > at the language, I changed that opinion. > > I'm sure Adam did not realize the drastic effect this addition could > have on some cases. He challenged BLML to show where it could make > any difference. I provided one or more instances, which had no > effect on his thinking. It seems likely that the rest of the LC went > along with his "understood" argument without considering the > consequences, and were ignorant of the WBFLC's rejection of that > argument long ago. I cannot speak for Adam, but I am pretty sure.... "For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable." We know the outcome for when the irregularity occurred. And we know that outcome was favorable for the OS (or else we wouldn't be to this point in L12). So the only question is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable if the irregularity had not occurred. So the ACBL version is functionally equivalent, and clearer. There are ways of avoiding this conclusion. AFAIK, they involve choosing suboptimal methods of determining probabilities (you have to throw away information to get a probability for a known event), which cannot be easily justified (because how do you justify which information you throw away and which information you keep) and which are AFAIK inconsistent with how directors currently rule (because they normally don't throw away the useful information you are going to have to throw away). I am happy to try to explain anything further, or listen to proposals, or whatever. But this discussion seems to unavoidably involve the philosophy of probabilities, a difficult topic that most people do not know. > > but there >> seems to be a broad-based assumption that ACBL officials are to >> continue to rule under the terms of an unchanged election (1997 >> L12C3, 2008 L12C1(e)) -- an election which the ACBL justifiably >> considers "its own" -- unaffected by whatever changes the WBFLC >> has >> introduced into the protocol used by those who decline the >> election. > > There is no authorized election regarding the language of the law, > only an election to adopt it as-is instead of the messy "weighting > of a number of potential results," for which I congratulate them. >> >> IOW, I think Marv and I are doing what our RA expects of us when >> we >> continue to rule on L12C cases as we would have under the 1997 >> laws, >> notwithstanding that practices elsewhere in the world, where the >> "ACBL election" isn't in force, have changed. > > Yes, but L12C1(b) must be observed, as there is no election provided > for it. >> >> The ACBLLC, IMO, would be justified in assuming that the WBFLC, in >> making changes to the law outside of ACBLland, never intended to >> change the rules for the ACBL election, that the apparent conflict >> Richard notes between "our" L12C1(e) and L12C1(b) is an unintended >> consequence of insufficient or ineffective editing, and that by >> doing >> it as they always intended to they are following the intent of the >> authors, who included the election in TFLB, at their behest, just >> so >> they could. > > They could keep their illegal addition to L12C1(e)(ii) while still > following L12C1(b). In fact they must, going by the ACBL edition of > the Laws. I was wrong in saying there was a conflict, as both laws > can be followed without a problem. > > 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 21 00:07:36 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:07:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:34:27 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick, confused calculations: > > [snip] > >> It may be an unfortunate choice. According to my calculations, >> "infringe" almost certain refers to irregularities -- how likely >> is it that L72B1 would allow a player to commit an irregularity >> as long as it was not an infraction? But it is possible to read >> L72B1 as referring to just infractions. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills, conjugal clarification: > > Perhaps a Venn diagram will help. According to the Definitions > of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, there is a vast array of > "irregularities". Fully contained within that Venn circle is a > smaller Venn circle of "irregularities by a player". And that > smaller Venn circle has a second name of "infractions". > > So it is a contradiction in terms (the irresistible force meeting > the immovable object) for "a player to commit an irregularity as > long as it was not an infraction". It think I got it. Just to check, it is synonymous to say a player commits an irregularity, infraction, or infringement. I also have a guess at the meaning of the minute in question. "When applying Law 17E, passes following the first pass out of rotation are cancelled and only the first pass out of rotation is an infringement." So the auction is 2H _ P P P Now the last two passes are cancelled, but the first one is not, yielding 2H _ P Biding now reverts to the player who lost his bid, who say doubles. The next player has already passed (it was not cancelled), so the auction becomes 2H X P Bob, who today had 3-4 revokes, 2 leads out of turn, 2 fouled boards, a UI auction to analyze, an opening bid out of turn, a misbid and misinformation for the same bid leading to a claim of damage, a pair who played a board they were not supposed to play, and best of all, an informationless insufficient bid allowing any nonbarring correction. Not to mention the harmless UI such as telling partner that isn't what his bid meant. Oh, and I played to fill in for a player who did not show up. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 21 01:51:31 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:51:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] As king partner to leaf [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <789248.91631.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: G.K. Chesterton, The Innocence of Father Brown (1911): After the first silence the small man said to the other: "Where does a wise man hide a pebble?" And the tall man answered in a low voice: "On the beach." The small man nodded, and after a short silence said: "Where does a wise man hide a leaf?" And the other answered: "In the forest." Bob Park: >>Yesterday afternoon, playing in a Hunt Valley KO against Bill & >>Marlene Passell, Marlene asked Bill to leave the table so that she >>could ask questions about our bidding. Bill complied, Marlene asked, >>we explained, Bill returned, and we proceeded...with everyone happy >>and ethically satisfied. Richard Hills: A quick Google search suggests that Bill Passell is an ACBL expert. I am surprised that an ACBL expert considers intentionally infracting the Laws as "ethically satisfactory". A short list of the Laws ripped up include Law 74C4, Law 74C8, Law 81B1, Law 81C1, Law 81C2, Law 82A and Law 90B2. Bob Park: >>Question 1: Does anyone have a problem with this practice? Richard Hills: No problems -- as such -- with this practice. Obviously the Tournament Organizer lacked the funds to provide screens for this KO. But, if it chose, the Tournament Organizer could use Law 80B2(e) to create a semi- screen regulation, whereby a questioner's partner would Always leave the table during the Q & A. (Of course, the Tournament Organizer would then be faced with the consequential problem of session times doubling from three-and-a-half hours to seven hours.) However, the players have zero majesty to make up their own rules. Bob Park: >>Question 2: If the above practice is fine in your eyes, do you see a >>significant difference here with the cases (described previously) >>where I asked my partner to leave the table while I provided a >>complete explanation of her (alerted) bid? I did get the impression >>then that a substantial amount of disapproval was expressed concerning >>my actions. Ted Ying: >I may be alone on this, but I think the two situations are different. > >In the case from yesterday, your one opponent had questions, but asked >her partner to leave the table while she asked them. The fact that she >had questions about an auction by an opponent pair is not particularly >significant UI. By excusing her partner, she was able to ask more >pointed questions without conveying any UI to her partner and possibly >suggesting any type of defense. I think that is acceptable. Richard Hills: Sure, finger signals are much less acceptable than imitating a Director and ordering partner away from the table. But both actions are illegal. The illegal ordering of partner away from the table is helpful to the opponents if and only if partner is unethical, since partner now gains less UI to unethically use. However ..... If partner is ethical, then illegally ordering partner away from the table will possibly damage the opponents, by possibly helping partner to avoid the constraints of Law 75A. Law 75 - Mistaken Explanation or Mistaken Call After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents the responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are as illustrated by the consequences of this following example: North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2D, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West's inquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits. A. Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North's explanation, knows that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is "unauthorized information" (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorized information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 geller at nifty.com Fri Aug 21 02:13:38 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:13:38 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A8DE6B2.7000500@nifty.com> Robert Frick writes: > It think I got it. Just to check, it is synonymous to say a player commits > an irregularity, infraction, or infringement. I believe you are incorrect. As Richard already pointed out, infractions are a subset of irregularities. For example, forgetting to count your cards when you take them out of the board is an irregularity, but not an infraction. On the other hand infraction is a noun without a corresponding verb. Since you can't say A player must not infract a law intentionally... the Law says A player must not infringe a law intentionally... What's the problem? Of course it also would have been possible to say A player must not intentionally commit an infraction of a law... but that seems porrly worded. In other places where the distinctions are more technical (e.g. player vs. contestant) I believe the lawmakers could and should have been more careful, but I really don't see a problem here. -Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 21 02:41:58 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:41:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Asking partner to leave the table (revisited) In-Reply-To: <4A8D6AEA.9090908@consolidated.net> References: <4A8D6AEA.9090908@consolidated.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:25:30 -0400, Robert Park wrote: > Yesterday afternoon, playing in a Hunt Valley KO against Bill & Marlene > Passell, Marlene asked Bill to leave the table so that she could ask > questions about our bidding. Bill complied, Marlene asked, we explained, > Bill returned, and we proceeded...with everyone happy and ethically > satisfied. > > Question 1: Does anyone have a problem with this practice? Someone does. Not me. Happy is good. > > Question 2: If the above practice is fine in your eyes, do you see a > significant difference here with the cases (described previously) where > I asked my partner to leave the table while I provided a complete > explanation of her (alerted) bid? I did get the impression then that a > substantial amount of disapproval was expressed concerning my actions. You might just get more answers from people who disapprove. I don't see a difference. Happy is good. I don't see any injustice. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Aug 21 02:53:29 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:53:29 -0700 Subject: [BLML] As king partner to leaf [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <25C9BEBC7FF3442DBA2BE000C6D1E882@MARVLAPTOP> Bob Park: > >>>Question 1: Does anyone have a problem with this practice? > > Richard Hills: > > No problems -- as such -- with this practice. Obviously the > Tournament > Organizer lacked the funds to provide screens for this KO. But, > if it > chose, the Tournament Organizer could use Law 80B2(e) to create a > semi- > screen regulation, whereby a questioner's partner would Always > leave > the table during the Q & A. (Of course, the Tournament Organizer > would > then be faced with the consequential problem of session times > doubling > from three-and-a-half hours to seven hours.) I sometimes create a virtual screen by shutting my eyes tight and putting my hands over my ears when partner is forced to create UI. No time wasted, UI avoided. Anything wrong with that? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Aug 21 03:00:33 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:00:33 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A8DE6B2.7000500@nifty.com> Message-ID: <5207BE255115411DBFA47CB9718AEC82@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Robert Geller" < > Robert Frick writes: >> It think I got it. Just to check, it is synonymous to say a >> player commits >> an irregularity, infraction, or infringement. > > On the other hand infraction is a noun without a corresponding > verb. > Since you can't say > A player must not infract a law intentionally... > the Law says > A player must not infringe a law intentionally... > What's the problem? "Infract" is a perfectly good verb. The trouble with "infringe" is that many people don't know its meaning exactly, thinking that the "fringe" part of the word implies a minor transgression. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 21 03:01:16 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:01:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] You shall not pass! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: I am a servant of the secret fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Ud?n! Go back to the shadow! You shall not pass! Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: North-South WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S Pass(1) Pass(2) Pass(3) (4) (5) 7NT Pass Pass Pass (6) (1) Holding a complete yarborough, South is disinclined to pay much attention to the auction, so she passes out of turn. (2) Having psyched her 1S opening bid with just three jacks, West willingly adopts her Law 29A option to accept South's pass. (3) North also holds a complete yarborough, so she passes out. (4) Holding a balanced 37 hcp, East is miffed that she never had a chance to bid. However... Law 17E2: "When a call has been followed by three passes the auction does not end if one of those passes was out of rotation, depriving a player of his right to call at that turn. When this occurs the auction reverts to the player who missed his turn, all subsequent passes are cancelled and the auction proceeds normally. Law 16D applies to the cancelled calls, any player who has passed out of rotation being an offender." (5) Since "the auction reverts to the player who missed her turn", in this case East, it seems that the passes of South and West are cancelled, but that the pass of North cannot be cancelled (since otherwise it would still not be the turn of East to call). However, North's pass was chronologically subsequent to the passes of South and West. The solution has to be that under Law 17E2 North is now deemed to pass in rotation, so Law 17E2 considers North's pass to be prior to East's rightful call, not subsequent to it. (6) 7NT was claimed for +1520 to East-West, but East forgot to state a Law 68C line of play, so South again summoned the Director. However, since it was impossible for East to revoke, the Director allowed the claim. Now South asked for an adjusted score, on the grounds that both sides - South and West - created this Law 17E2 infraction. But the Director was a well-read nerd. Minutes of the WBF Laws Committee, 10th October 2008, page 2: "When applying Law 17E, passes following the first pass out of rotation are cancelled and only the first pass out of rotation is an infringement." Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 21 03:13:07 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:13:07 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language References: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net> Message-ID: <7DD1806A73CF4A3DAE885848FD2363DE@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Robert Frick" >>> > We know the outcome for when the irregularity occurred. And we > know that > outcome was favorable for the OS (or else we wouldn't be to this > point in > L12). So the only question is the most unfavourable result that > was at all > probable if the irregularity had not occurred. > > So the ACBL version is functionally equivalent, and clearer. And that is baloney. I open 1S, partner bids 2S, and next hesitates way too long. I pass and LHO bids 3H. That would go off 200, but my partner bids a reasonable 3S instead of letting me decide. 3S goes off one. The official version of the 2007 laws says the OS gets -200 (maybe -500!), while the ACBL says the OS gets -140, the result had the irregularity not occurred. Do you consider that "functionally equivalent?" Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 21 03:45:52 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:45:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] As king partner to leaf [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <25C9BEBC7FF3442DBA2BE000C6D1E882@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Last words of King George V (1865-1936): "Bugger Bognor." Law 20F5(b): "The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction." Marvin French: >I sometimes create a virtual screen by shutting my eyes tight and >putting my hands over my ears when partner is forced to create UI. >No time wasted, UI avoided. Anything wrong with that? Richard Hills: I note that Law 20F5(b) uses "must", which the 2007 Introduction describes as "the strongest word, a serious matter indeed". A person who chooses to avoid hearing partner's mangled statements about their system by putting his hand over his ears "must" be "seriously" bognored, since he now lacks the necessary knowledge to give a Law 20F5(b) correction at the appropriate time. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Fri Aug 21 03:49:01 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 02:49:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language References: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net> <7DD1806A73CF4A3DAE885848FD2363DE@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <002001ca2201$9199ae00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 2:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language > > From: "Robert Frick" >>> > >> We know the outcome for when the irregularity occurred. And we >> know that >> outcome was favorable for the OS (or else we wouldn't be to this >> point in >> L12). So the only question is the most unfavourable result that >> was at all >> probable if the irregularity had not occurred. >> >> So the ACBL version is functionally equivalent, and clearer. > > And that is baloney. I open 1S, partner bids 2S, and next hesitates > way too long. I pass and LHO bids 3H. That would go off 200, but my > partner bids a reasonable 3S instead of letting me decide. 3S goes > off one. > > The official version of the 2007 laws says the OS gets -200 > (maybe -500!), while the ACBL says the OS gets -140, the result had > the irregularity not occurred. > > Do you consider that "functionally equivalent?" > +=+ I think it should be noted that in respect of the OS the 2007 law is in the same terms as the 1997 and 1987 laws. None of them includes the phrase that the ACBL has added. In all these Codes those words are present with reference only to the NOS.. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 21 04:23:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:23:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] As king partner to leaf [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rudyard Kipling, "Mandalay" (1892): Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, Where there ain't no Ten Commandments an' a man can raise a thirst. Marvin French: [snip] >Now when an opponent asks my partner a question that may get >a stumbling answer, I feign a big thirst and leave the table >to get a drink of water. Commandment 74C8: "The following are examples of violations of procedure: leaving the table needlessly before the round is called." Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 21 05:59:50 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:59:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language In-Reply-To: <7DD1806A73CF4A3DAE885848FD2363DE@MARVLAPTOP> References: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net> <7DD1806A73CF4A3DAE885848FD2363DE@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:13:07 -0400, Marvin L French wrote: > > From: "Robert Frick" >>> > >> We know the outcome for when the irregularity occurred. And we >> know that >> outcome was favorable for the OS (or else we wouldn't be to this >> point in >> L12). So the only question is the most unfavourable result that >> was at all >> probable if the irregularity had not occurred. >> >> So the ACBL version is functionally equivalent, and clearer. > > And that is baloney. I open 1S, partner bids 2S, and next hesitates > way too long. I pass and LHO bids 3H. That would go off 200, but my > partner bids a reasonable 3S instead of letting me decide. 3S goes > off one. > > The official version of the 2007 laws says the OS gets -200 > (maybe -500!), while the ACBL says the OS gets -140, the result had > the irregularity not occurred. > > Do you consider that "functionally equivalent?" Had the irregularity not occurred, you would have played 2S making 2. That seems to be a given of this problem. In the case of the irregularity occurring, you play in 3S down 1. So you were damaged by the irregularity and get +110. In the ACBL version, the opponents get -110. In the WBFLC version, they get the worst of -110 and +50 (or +100), which is of course still -110. That's using all information. There is a path to -200, but you and your opponents weren't going there. It makes sense to ask the probability of Obama winning the election if McCain chose a different running mate. It makes sense to ask the probability of Obama winning the election if the economy was better. The problem comes when you ask the probability of Obama winning the election if nothing was any different from what it was. That is a very strange question to ask. There are ways to get to the answer that Obama almost certainly would have lost had everything been the same. They are just strange ways, leading usually (at least) to foolish answers, and they won't correspond to the intelligent things you were trying to do when you tried to answer the first two questions. I hope you see the analogy to the bridge laws. What would have happened had there been an irregularity? There was an irregularity, so it is a strange question. The best answer is the table result. There are ways of getting to other answers, but they require ignoring information, which is foolish if you want the best answer. Those methods can be how you sometimes answer the question of what would have happened had the irregularity not occurred, but better methods are used when they are available (e.g., the route to +110 on this problem). From adam at tameware.com Fri Aug 21 06:13:31 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:13:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language In-Reply-To: References: <008901ca20d4$775fc0c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <694eadd40908191239y63d4c14gd62b6dc0bd037576@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40908202113x137bdb81jbec13e982da4c75a@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > > Adam Wildavsky: >> One thing that seems clear to me about the WBF interpretation is that >> it is poorly understood by many and in any case will seldom be >> applicable. > That is no longer true. I'm beginning to think Adam did not realize > the WBF had removed the so-called ambiguity in the 2007 Laws. You don't give me much credit, Marv. I have pursued the issue this long only because there is more to it than I think you understand. I'll try to make this as clear as I can. I have tried before, but I have not yet despaired of communicating with a group of individuals I know to be reasonable. The 1997 12C2 read: "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable." This was ambiguous in two respects. First of all, it was unclear whether the phrase "had the irregularity not occurred" should be implicitly understood for the offending side. Second of all, if it was to be understood, it was and remains unclear to me and many others what that should mean. In the 2007 code the WBF LC removed the first ambiguity but not the second. You and others in your camp do not seem to realize that your interpretation, even if perfectly logical and consistent, does no good if it cannot be understood and consistently implemented by directors and committees. It thus behooves you to explain it to those in my camp. I know you've tried to give examples elsewhere in this thread -- I'll reply to those in a separate post. >> The purpose of the law is to provide an incentive for >> correct procedure. I don't think that a vague and seldom applied >> provision will provide a significant disincentive. Thus I don't see >> how the WBF interpretation would be useful even if I could >> understand >> it. On the other hand, I do see how it could be used to advantage or >> disadvantage certain players for political reasons. This would be a >> legalized lynching. > > If that's the way you feel, why didn't you attempt to get your > version incorporated when the Drafting Committee sent drafts around > for LC scrutiny? What makes you think I did not? > Instead, the appearance is that you > snuck it in when TD (!) Gary Blaiss wrote up a version of the 2007 > Laws for the ACBL (renaming them the 2008 Laws), and the > rubber-stamping LC went along with it. I hope that a perusal of the ACBL LC minutes would disabuse you of that notion. In any case I assure you that this was discussed by the LC and that I have no more special influence there than I do here. My ideas stand or fall on their own merits. -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From geller at nifty.com Fri Aug 21 06:22:27 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:22:27 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language In-Reply-To: References: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net> <7DD1806A73CF4A3DAE885848FD2363DE@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4A8E2103.2000903@nifty.com> Robert Frick writes: > What would have happened > had there been an irregularity? I think the above is a typo. One of the questions that must be addrssed by the appeals committee or director is : "What would have happened had there NOT been an irregularity?" (caps for emphasis) > There was an irregularity, so it is a > strange question. The best answer is the table result. There are ways of > getting to other answers, but they require ignoring information, which is > foolish if you want the best answer. Those methods can be how you > sometimes answer the question of what would have happened had the > irregularity not occurred, but better methods are used when they are > available (e.g., the route to +110 on this problem). Here is a recent example from Japan. The table result in an imp-scoring event was 2S+4 but the OS failed to properly alert a convention. The NOS claimed that had the non-alerted convention been properly alerted and explained they would have bid and made 4S. The committee accepted the OS sides's claim that the contract should be adjusted to 4S to do equity, but, notwithstanding that 2S made 4 it was far from obvious that 4S would make, as this depended on guesses by the declarer and also on the defense. Eventually the committee decided that if we considered a hypothetical large sample of players of comparable ability to those at the actual table that there was a 60% chance 4S would make, and 40% chance it would go don, so the OS and NOS were awarded 0.6 times the imp score for 4S making and 0.4 times the imp score for 4S down 1. (Of course the ACBL has elected not to use weighted scoring of this type, but it seems to me that the above ruling did equity and that in some cases this kind of probabilistic adjustment is appropriate.) -Bob From adam at tameware.com Fri Aug 21 06:59:49 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:59:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language In-Reply-To: <7DD1806A73CF4A3DAE885848FD2363DE@MARVLAPTOP> References: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net> <7DD1806A73CF4A3DAE885848FD2363DE@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <694eadd40908202159h7fb64831wc7dd6f205bf1594c@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > I open 1S, partner bids 2S, and next hesitates > way too long. I pass and LHO bids 3H. That would go off 200, but my > partner bids a reasonable 3S instead of letting me decide. 3S goes > off one. > > The official version of the 2007 laws says the OS gets -200 > (maybe -500!), while the ACBL says the OS gets -140, the result had > the irregularity not occurred. (I think you mean the OS gets -110) Marv, you are sliding down a slippery slope. In the case that opened this thread you are giving the OS -550 even though they took 3 tricks against 5C doubled and their infraction had nothing to do with the lead, play, or defense. Now you give the OS -200 or -500 in a contract their opponents did not choose to defend. Where will it end? Suppose the OS reach a poor slam and make it due to an unlucky opening lead. Will you score them as down one, since that was the likely result before the lead? Suppose they make it through brilliant play? Still down one, since brilliance was unlikely? Suppose they make it through a lucky lie of the cards? Still down one, since it was a poor spot, or is that going to far? After all, the cards lie as they lie -- probability has nothing to do with it. But then, in each case the slam has already been played due to the irregularity and it made -- what is that probability that it would not have made, had the irregularity occurred? The question seems meaningless to me. (Thanks to Robert for the phrasing.) Let's look at it from a player's point of view. He has UI and knows that if he takes advantage he will keep a bad result but lose a good one. That seems like plenty of incentive to follow the law. Try telling him, though, that if he gets a good result it may not be taken away but instead adjusted to a bad one. That will puzzle and perhaps enrage him, but I can't see it functioning as any more effective deterrent than the ACBL's 12c1e2. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 21 07:01:21 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:01:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language In-Reply-To: <4A8E2103.2000903@nifty.com> References: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net> <7DD1806A73CF4A3DAE885848FD2363DE@MARVLAPTOP> <4A8E2103.2000903@nifty.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:22:27 -0400, Robert Geller wrote: > Robert Frick writes: >> What would have happened >> had there been an irregularity? > I think the above is a typo. One of the questions that must be addrssed > by the appeals committee or director is : "What would have happened > had there NOT been an irregularity?" (caps for emphasis) > >> There was an irregularity, so it is a >> strange question. The best answer is the table result. There are ways of >> getting to other answers, but they require ignoring information, which >> is >> foolish if you want the best answer. Those methods can be how you >> sometimes answer the question of what would have happened had the >> irregularity not occurred, but better methods are used when they are >> available (e.g., the route to +110 on this problem). > > Here is a recent example from Japan. The table result in an imp-scoring > event was 2S+4 but the OS failed to properly alert a convention. The > NOS claimed that had the non-alerted convention been properly alerted > and explained they would have bid and made 4S. The committee accepted > the OS sides's claim that the contract should be adjusted to 4S to do > equity, but, notwithstanding that 2S made 4 it was far from obvious that > 4S would make, as this depended on guesses by the declarer and also on > the defense. Eventually the committee decided that if we considered a > hypothetical large sample of players of comparable ability to those at > the actual table that there was a 60% chance 4S would make, and 40% > chance it would go don, so the OS and NOS were awarded 0.6 times the imp > score for 4S making and 0.4 times the imp score for 4S down 1. > > (Of course the ACBL has elected not to use weighted scoring of this > type, but it seems to me that the above ruling did equity and that in > some cases this kind of probabilistic adjustment is appropriate.) Nice example, thanks. IF there is some reason why the play would go differently in 4S than 2S, and IF the table result provides no clues as to how the play would have gone in 4S, then using a "hypothetical large sample of players of comparable ability" is reasonable. There is no better way to calculate the probabilities. But if the player at the table guessed a queen right, it is unfair to take that correct guess away just because of your hypothetical players misguessed it; if the player at the table ran a clever squeeze, it is unfair to take that away because most of your hypothetical players didn't see the squeeze. And if there is no reason for the play to go differently in the two contracts, it is unfair to take about his good play and his 10 tricks just because other players only made 9. So you have discovered the route to using "what other players of similar ability would have done". The underlying justification for using "other players" is that it uses the available information in an optimal way when table the result provides no useful information. This route does not occur for trying to decide what would have happened in 5D doubled if the actual table result was down one in 5D doubled. To start, you cannot argue that the play in 5D doubled would have been different from the play in 5D doubled. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 21 07:05:56 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:05:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A8DE6B2.7000500@nifty.com> References: <4A8DE6B2.7000500@nifty.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:13:38 -0400, Robert Geller wrote: > Robert Frick writes: >> It think I got it. Just to check, it is synonymous to say a player >> commits >> an irregularity, infraction, or infringement. > > I believe you are incorrect. As Richard already pointed out, > infractions are a subset of irregularities. For example, forgetting to > count your cards when you take them out of the board is an > irregularity, but not an infraction. > > On the other hand infraction is a noun without a corresponding verb. > Since you can't say > A player must not infract a law intentionally... > the Law says > A player must not infringe a law intentionally... > What's the problem? > > Of course it also would have been possible to say > A player must not intentionally commit an infraction of a law... > but that seems porrly worded. > > In other places where the distinctions are more technical (e.g. player > vs. contestant) I believe the lawmakers could and should have been more > careful, but I really don't see a problem here. Hi Bob. Can you explain this more? It does not correspond to Richard's formulation. Richard says that not counting your cards is an infraction because it is an irregularity committed by a player. His position is that any irregularity committed by a player is an infraction, and the only irregularities that are not infractions are those not committed by a player. From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 21 08:49:49 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:49:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A8DE6B2.7000500@nifty.com> References: <4A8DE6B2.7000500@nifty.com> Message-ID: <000301ca222b$9437e670$bca7b350$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Geller ............ > I believe you are incorrect. As Richard already pointed out, > infractions are a subset of irregularities. For example, forgetting to > count your cards when you take them out of the board is an irregularity, but not > an infraction. It is indeed -- see Law 7B2 Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 21 10:09:15 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:09:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Asking partner to leave the table (revisited) In-Reply-To: <789248.91631.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <4A8D6AEA.9090908@consolidated.net> <789248.91631.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A8E562B.6010400@skynet.be> Ted Ying wrote: > I may be alone on this, but I think the two situations are different. > You are not alone, you are quite correct. The two cases are totally dissimilar. Herman. > In the case from yesterday, your one opponent had questions, but asked > her partner to leave the table while she asked them. The fact that she > had questions about an auction by an opponent pair is not particularly > significant UI. By excusing her partner, she was able to ask more pointed > questions without conveying any UI to her partner and possibly suggesting > any type of defense. I think that is acceptable. > > In the case you mentioned from before, the problem is that you asked your > partner to leave while conveying information about your own auction. This > does convey the information that something in your auction may not be > as standard as reading from the system notes. It conveys that there may > be information that he has done something wrong, implied something he > didn't intend to, made a systemically impossible bid or something like that. > It can wake partner up to the fact that there may be something to notice in > the auction. I personally think that if the opponents ask, you have to provide > them the information that they request. If it creates UI, it creates UI. I do not > think that excusing partner from the table at all avoids the UI situation. I > think this is very different than yesterday's case. > > -Ted. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Robert Park > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:25:30 AM > Subject: [BLML] Asking partner to leave the table (revisited) > > Yesterday afternoon, playing in a Hunt Valley KO against Bill & Marlene > Passell, Marlene asked Bill to leave the table so that she could ask > questions about our bidding. Bill complied, Marlene asked, we explained, > Bill returned, and we proceeded...with everyone happy and ethically > satisfied. > > Question 1: Does anyone have a problem with this practice? > > Question 2: If the above practice is fine in your eyes, do you see a > significant difference here with the cases (described previously) where > I asked my partner to leave the table while I provided a complete > explanation of her (alerted) bid? I did get the impression then that a > substantial amount of disapproval was expressed concerning my actions. > > --Bob Park > _______________________________________________ > 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 geller at nifty.com Fri Aug 21 10:15:50 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:15:50 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301ca222b$9437e670$bca7b350$@no> References: <4A8DE6B2.7000500@nifty.com> <000301ca222b$9437e670$bca7b350$@no> Message-ID: <4A8E57B6.4030301@nifty.com> Hmmmmm..... In that case it appears that Robert Frick is correct, or almost correct. Let's look at the definitions again: Irregularity: A deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. Infraction: A player?s breach of law or of lawful regulation. Can anyone provide good specific examples of actions whic ARE irregularities, but NOT infractions? If so, let us know please. I suspect there aren't too many. -Bob Sven Pran ????????: > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > ............ >> I believe you are incorrect. As Richard already pointed out, >> infractions are a subset of irregularities. For example, forgetting to >> count your cards when you take them out of the board is an irregularity, > but not >> an infraction. > > It is indeed -- see Law 7B2 > > Regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Aug 21 18:28:55 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:28:55 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language References: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net><7DD1806A73CF4A3DAE885848FD2363DE@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <7ED21C1B8A314F27BA8B10EC0751F94B@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Robert Frick" < > On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:13:07 -0400, Marvin L French > > wrote: > >> >> From: "Robert Frick" >>> >> >>> We know the outcome for when the irregularity occurred. And we >>> know that >>> outcome was favorable for the OS (or else we wouldn't be to this >>> point in >>> L12). So the only question is the most unfavourable result that >>> was at all >>> probable if the irregularity had not occurred. >>> >>> So the ACBL version is functionally equivalent, and clearer. >> >> And that is baloney. I open 1S, partner bids 2S, and next >> hesitates >> way too long. I pass and LHO bids 3H. That would go off 200, but >> my >> partner bids a reasonable 3S instead of letting me decide. 3S >> goes >> off one. >> >> The official version of the 2007 laws says the OS gets -200 >> (maybe -500!), while the ACBL says the OS gets -140, the result >> had >> the irregularity not occurred. >> >> Do you consider that "functionally equivalent?" > > Had the irregularity not occurred, you would have played 2S making > 2. That > seems to be a given of this problem. In the case of the > irregularity > occurring, you play in 3S down 1. > > So you were damaged by the irregularity and get +110. In the ACBL > version, > the opponents get -110. In the WBFLC version, they get the worst > of -110 > and +50 (or +100), which is of course still -110. > > That's using all information. There is a path to -200, but you and > your > opponents weren't going there. > There was an irregularity requiring a score adjustment. In adjusting the score for the OS, an opposing serious error is not to be included in the score adjustment, per L12C1(b) last sentence. It's just that simple. I don't like this any more than you do. Changing the actual play of a contract when the play had nothing to do with the irregularity or the level of contract is an abomination. It's easy to see the motivation. Often a serious errror retained in the adjustment will still give OS a top score, and this the lawmakers can't tolerate. Another possible motivation, more legitimate, is that an irregularity often upsets the NOS so much that their play is adversely affected. Long ago BLML agreed that this should not be a factor. "I wouldn't have revoked if I had not been so upset" does not play. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Aug 21 18:33:22 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:33:22 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language References: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net><7DD1806A73CF4A3DAE885848FD2363DE@MARVLAPTOP> <694eadd40908202159h7fb64831wc7dd6f205bf1594c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <10C9325335554478A2A569BADEE5F454@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Marvin L French wrote: >> I open 1S, partner bids 2S, and next hesitates >> way too long. I pass and LHO bids 3H. That would go off 200, but >> my >> partner bids a reasonable 3S instead of letting me decide. 3S >> goes >> off one. >> >> The official version of the 2007 laws says the OS gets -200 >> (maybe -500!), while the ACBL says the OS gets -140, the result >> had >> the irregularity not occurred. > > (I think you mean the OS gets -110) > Yes, sorry about that. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From blml at arcor.de Fri Aug 21 18:36:52 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:36:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> References: <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <17944441.1250872612584.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > I think the bigger problem are those players who are trying to gain > > an advantage by not fully disclosing their methods. > > > > > > Thomas > > > > I don't think that is a concern. I consider it a major concern, especially those pairs who provide only sparsely filled in convention cards, or possibly even no conventions cards at all. Under the approach suggested by Grattan, those players are then rewarded for providing insufficient information on their convention cards, because during the auction they only have to answer "supplemental questions". Thomas > The real reason why we are discussing this is because Grattan was trying > to counter an argument of mine in favour of the DWS. I said that (in the > common example), the DWS answer of "1 ace" would also have to be given > (among other things said) by a MS adept, since that player would > certainly receive (after saying other things) the question "what are > your Blackwood responses". Grattan told us that he believed that > question need not be answered, and he had the WBFLC stamp that belief. > > Robert and Eric are now fighting back against that WBFLC decision, > mostly by focusing on another question that would be outlawed by it, > namely "what does that IB show, if the interfering bid was not there to > make it insufficient?". > That too, seems to be outlawed according to the Beijing decision, and > that seems a wrong development to many. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Aug 21 18:54:15 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:54:15 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language References: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net><7DD1806A73CF4A3DAE885848FD2363DE@MARVLAPTOP> <694eadd40908202159h7fb64831wc7dd6f205bf1594c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6C2068DF23EE43B3B4B42A4D0036998D@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Marv, you are sliding down a slippery slope. > > In the case that opened this thread you are giving the OS -550 > even > though they took 3 tricks against 5C doubled and their infraction > had > nothing to do with the lead, play, or defense. A serious error (taking account the level of player, per WBFLC minutes) is not to be included in a score adjustment for the OS. I agree that this is bad, but that's what L12C(b) says. Maybe you should have amended that in the ACBL Laws, since you evidently assume the right to do that. >Now you give the OS > -200 or -500 in a contract their opponents did not choose to > defend. > Where will it end? Suppose the OS reach a poor slam and make it > due to > an unlucky opening lead. That is not a serious error, so the opening lead is retained in the adjustment if the TD/AC judge that it wasn't affected by the level of contract. >Will you score them as down one, since that > was the likely result before the lead? Of course not. The Laws don't say that. >Suppose they make it through > brilliant play? Still down one, since brilliance was unlikely? You should read the WBFLC minutes from the past, at least those that have not been annuled (for no reason) in the 2007 Laws. The WBFLC 1998 Lille minutes made clear that "good play" by the OS is retained in a score adjustment for them. >Suppose > they make it through a lucky lie of the cards? Still down one, > since > it was a poor spot, or is that going to far? Weirdly far. > After all, the cards lie > as they lie -- probability has nothing to do with it. But then, in > each case the slam has already been played due to the irregularity > and > it made -- what is that probability that it would not have made, > had > the irregularity occurred? The question seems meaningless to me. > (Thanks to Robert for the phrasing.) I don't know what you're talking about, but I am not an Extreme Programmer. > > Let's look at it from a player's point of view. He has UI and > knows > that if he takes advantage he will keep a bad result but lose a > good > one. That seems like plenty of incentive to follow the law. Try > telling him, though, that if he gets a good result it may not be > taken > away but instead adjusted to a bad one. That will puzzle and > perhaps > enrage him, but I can't see it functioning as any more effective > deterrent than the ACBL's 12c1e2. It may deter him from taking an illegal action that could have worse consequences than a mere change of contract level. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Aug 21 20:11:30 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:11:30 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments Message-ID: Let's make sure I have this right. (1) Going by the official 2007 Laws, in a score adjustment the OS gets the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, either concurrent with the irregularity or subsequent to it. (2) Going by the ACBL 2008 Laws, the OS gets the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred. Subsequent actions by the OS are ignored. Using either (1) or (2) the possible unfavorable result of an OS action that didn't happen. is not included. (If it didn't happen, it could not have had a result.) Using either (1) or (2) a serious error (for the class of player involved), or a wild or gambling action, is not included in the score adjustment for the OS but is retained in the adjustment for the NOS. Law 12C1(b) is not an option, even in the ACBL version of the Laws. If there is no such redress-annulling action, the actual play in a same-denomination contract is assumed to be the same for adjustment purposes unless the TD judges that the level of contract or the irregularity had a direct adverse effect on the play of the NOS. I especially would like Grattan and Richard to confirm the above if it is right, since they were involved in the formulation of the 2007 Laws. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 21 20:47:07 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:47:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <17944441.1250872612584.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <17944441.1250872612584.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A8EEBAB.8090805@skynet.be> I understand your emotion, but I don't think the WBFLC will ever consciously accept any regulation that advantages people who do not fill out complete system cards. Thomas Dehn wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: >> Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> I think the bigger problem are those players who are trying to gain >>> an advantage by not fully disclosing their methods. >>> >>> >>> Thomas >>> >> I don't think that is a concern. > > I consider it a major concern, especially those pairs > who provide only sparsely filled in convention cards, > or possibly even no conventions cards at all. > > Under the approach suggested by Grattan, those > players are then rewarded for providing insufficient > information on their convention cards, because during > the auction they only have to answer "supplemental questions". Which is clearly why this interpretation is ludicrous and will not be kept, not even by Grattan. Herman. From adam at tameware.com Fri Aug 21 23:00:04 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:00:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language In-Reply-To: <6C2068DF23EE43B3B4B42A4D0036998D@MARVLAPTOP> References: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net> <7DD1806A73CF4A3DAE885848FD2363DE@MARVLAPTOP> <694eadd40908202159h7fb64831wc7dd6f205bf1594c@mail.gmail.com> <6C2068DF23EE43B3B4B42A4D0036998D@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <694eadd40908211400qca3bc52pd5c1e896dce80d52@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > > Marv, you are sliding down a slippery slope. > > > > In the case that opened this thread you are giving the OS -550 > > even though they took 3 tricks against 5C doubled and their > > infraction had nothing to do with the lead, play, or defense. > > A serious error (taking account the level of player, per WBFLC > minutes) is not to be included in a score adjustment for the OS. I > agree that this is bad, but that's what L12C(b) says. Maybe you > should have amended that in the ACBL Laws, since you evidently > assume the right to do that. I think you mean 12C1b. Please have another look. I think you will find that, as far as the OS score goes, it is a chimera. It says that "The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only." Surely this means that the OS gets the score specified by 12c1e(ii). What that score ought to be depends on the meaning of 12c1e(ii), which is (I hope) the main subject of the present discussion. In the case above, 12C1b means that while the NOS keep their -100, the OS do not get +100. I'm sure we both agree on that. Whether the OS get +50 or -550 depends on one's interpretation of 12c1e(ii). I believe that 12C1b is intended to make Kaplan's consequent/subsequent doctrine explicit. I know you are familiar with it already. He described it in this August 1973 TBW editorial, in response to a letter from Eric Landau: ? http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lan0.htm -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 22 01:52:33 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:52:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A8DE6B2.7000500@nifty.com> Message-ID: <00a901ca22c3$9358fc10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 1:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Robert Frick writes: > > On the other hand infraction is a noun without a > corresponding verb. > +=+ Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus: "infract (vb.tr.) .... to violate or break (a law etc.)" ............................................................................ The Chambers Dictionary: "infract (vt) ..... to infringe." "infringe (vt) ..... to violate (esp. a law) ..... to neglect to obey." ............................................................................... ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 22 02:37:53 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:37:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Score adjustments References: Message-ID: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 7:11 PM Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments > Let's make sure I have this right. > > (1) Going by the official 2007 Laws, in a score adjustment the OS > gets the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, either > concurrent with the irregularity or subsequent to it. > > (2) Going by the ACBL 2008 Laws, the OS gets the most unfavorable > result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred. > Subsequent actions by the OS are ignored. > > Using either (1) or (2) the possible unfavorable result of an OS > action that didn't happen. is not included. (If it didn't happen, it > could not have had a result.) > > Using either (1) or (2) a serious error (for the class of player > involved), or a wild or gambling action, is not included in the > score adjustment for the OS but is retained in the adjustment for > the NOS. Law 12C1(b) is not an option, even in the ACBL version of > the Laws. > > If there is no such redress-annulling action, the actual play in a > same-denomination contract is assumed to be the same for > adjustment purposes unless the TD judges that the level of > contract or the irregularity had a direct adverse effect on the > play of the NOS. > > I especially would like Grattan and Richard to confirm the > above if it is right, since they were involved in the formulation of the 2007 Laws. > +=+ The formulation of this law occurred in establishing the 1987 laws. In 1997 and 2007 the position agreed in 1987 has continued unchanged. For the OS side the intention is that if there is a result subsequent to the infraction that is 'at all probable' and which is the most unfavourable for the OS of any such results including but not limited to results at all probable had the irregularity not occurred, that is the score to be awarded. A result that is at all probable subsequent to the irregularity may be reached via an action that did not occur at the table but which the Director judges to ensue from a proper implementation of the partnership understandings. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 22 07:20:22 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:20:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L17E2 questions on ruling Message-ID: Suppose the auction is South West North East 2S _ P P P West missed his turn to bid. According to the laws, the auction now "reverts" to South West North East 2S (I guess the first pass (out of rotation) is UI to partner, which is strange because normally an accepted bid out of rotation is AI.) HOWEVER, "When applying Law 17E, passes following the first pass out of rotation are cancelled ..." (Beijing 2008) According to this, the auction reverts to South West North East 2S P with it being West's turn to call. Does that mean that North cannot change his pass? If I am getting this right, an always dubious proposition, then Ton's commentary follows the law, not Beijing. Also, would it work for 2017 if the law was "The auction ends when a call is followed by 3 passes, the passes all being in correct rotation" and there is no reverting or cancelling? I think even Nigel would appreciate that simplicity, and I can't find any problems. From blml at arcor.de Sat Aug 22 08:07:57 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:07:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Score adjustments In-Reply-To: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <32434465.1250921277528.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > " It may be true that the law cannot make > a man love me, but it can keep him from > lynching me, and I think that's pretty > important." > ~ Martin Luther King Jr. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin L French" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 7:11 PM > Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments > > > > Let's make sure I have this right. > > > > (1) Going by the official 2007 Laws, in a score adjustment the OS > > gets the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, either > > concurrent with the irregularity or subsequent to it. > > > > (2) Going by the ACBL 2008 Laws, the OS gets the most unfavorable > > result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred. > > Subsequent actions by the OS are ignored. > > > > Using either (1) or (2) the possible unfavorable result of an OS > > action that didn't happen. is not included. (If it didn't happen, it > > could not have had a result.) > > > > Using either (1) or (2) a serious error (for the class of player > > involved), or a wild or gambling action, is not included in the > > score adjustment for the OS but is retained in the adjustment for > > the NOS. Law 12C1(b) is not an option, even in the ACBL version of > > the Laws. > > > > If there is no such redress-annulling action, the actual play in a > > same-denomination contract is assumed to be the same for > > adjustment purposes unless the TD judges that the level of > > contract or the irregularity had a direct adverse effect on the > > play of the NOS. > > > > I especially would like Grattan and Richard to confirm the > > above if it is right, since they were involved in the formulation > of the 2007 Laws. > > > +=+ The formulation of this law occurred in establishing > the 1987 laws. In 1997 and 2007 the position agreed > in 1987 has continued unchanged. For the OS side the > intention is that if there is a result subsequent to the > infraction that is 'at all probable' and which is the most > unfavourable for the OS of any such results including > but not limited to results at all probable had the irregularity > not occurred, that is the score to be awarded. A result > that is at all probable subsequent to the irregularity may > be reached via an action that did not occur at the table > but which the Director judges to ensue from a proper > implementation of the partnership understandings. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I think the interpretation of "at all probable" has changed since 1987. Back then, "at all probable" was interpreted as something having at least a one in six probability (>16,66%). Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Aug 22 09:32:04 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:32:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Score_adjustments?= In-Reply-To: <32434465.1250921277528.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <32434465.1250921277528.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1Mel52-1HbNmy0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> From: Thomas Dehn > > I think the interpretation of "at all probable" has changed since > 1987. Back then, "at all probable" was interpreted as something having > at least a one in six probability (>16,66%). What makes you believe that? Who interpreted in such way? Never heard about such high probability and it would be in direct contradiction to the (natural) meaning of "at all probable". From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Aug 22 10:37:12 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:37:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?L17E2_questions_on_ruling?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1Mem64-0fF3my0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> From: "Robert Frick" > Suppose the auction is > > South West North East > 2S ? ? _ ? ? P ? ? P > P > > West missed his turn to bid. According to the laws, the auction now > "reverts" to > > South West North East > 2S > > (I guess the first pass (out of rotation) is UI to partner, which is > strange because normally an accepted bid out of rotation is AI.) Why is it strange? Accepted calls OOT are only AI, if they become legal part of the auction, e.g. if the auction stands _with_ the COOT. Here the POOT is cancelled by law, and cancelled calls are subject to Law 16D - as long as not another law (other than 16D) says the opposite. > HOWEVER, "When applying Law 17E, passes following the first pass out > of rotation are cancelled > ..." (Beijing 2008) > > According to this, the auction reverts to > > South West North East > 2S ? ? ? ? ? P > > with it being West's turn to call. Does that mean that North cannot > change his pass? That's deliberate misreading of the Minute, which addresses only the passes following the first POOT. For all other calls prior to the first POOT the law stands as written, i.e. "[...] the auction reverts to the player who missed his turn, all subsequent passes are cancelled and the auction proceeds normally.[...]" So, as North's pass war subsequent to West's missed turn, it will be cancelled. > If I am getting this right, an always dubious proposition, then Ton's > commentary follows the law, not Beijing. > > Also, would it work for 2017 if the law was "The auction ends when a > call is followed by 3 passes, the passes all being in correct > rotation" and there is no reverting or cancelling? I think even Nigel > would appreciate that simplicity, and I can't find any problems. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Aug 22 15:34:49 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:34:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language In-Reply-To: <4A8E2103.2000903@nifty.com> References: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net> <7DD1806A73CF4A3DAE885848FD2363DE@MARVLAPTOP> <4A8E2103.2000903@nifty.com> Message-ID: <5148C9FEBFE64B03A022CC453A678DC6@erdos> "Robert Geller" writes: > Robert Frick writes: > >> There was an irregularity, so it is a >> strange question. The best answer is the table result. There are ways of >> getting to other answers, but they require ignoring information, which is >> foolish if you want the best answer. Those methods can be how you >> sometimes answer the question of what would have happened had the >> irregularity not occurred, but better methods are used when they are >> available (e.g., the route to +110 on this problem). > > Here is a recent example from Japan. The table result in an imp-scoring > event was 2S+4 but the OS failed to properly alert a convention. The > NOS claimed that had the non-alerted convention been properly alerted > and explained they would have bid and made 4S. The committee accepted > the OS sides's claim that the contract should be adjusted to 4S to do > equity, but, notwithstanding that 2S made 4 it was far from obvious that > 4S would make, as this depended on guesses by the declarer and also on > the defense. Eventually the committee decided that if we considered a > hypothetical large sample of players of comparable ability to those at > the actual table that there was a 60% chance 4S would make, and 40% > chance it would go don, so the OS and NOS were awarded 0.6 times the imp > score for 4S making and 0.4 times the imp score for 4S down 1. > > (Of course the ACBL has elected not to use weighted scoring of this > type, but it seems to me that the above ruling did equity and that in > some cases this kind of probabilistic adjustment is appropriate.) I agree with such weighted scores in principle, but only when the play at this table does not give an indication of what should have happened. In the above example, suppose that declarer misguessed a queen in 2S and made only three. Would the NOS still request an adjusted score, claiming that they would have been in 4S and made it some of the time? I wouldn't normally think I had been damaged. As declarer, I would only think of appealing in this situation if I could say, "I played this way in 2S, but I would have played differently in 4S," or "West led a diamond against 2S, but he might have led a club against 4S and then I have ten tricks." But if the NOS doesn't request an adjustment when 2S makes three, then equity is not done. And when do you make such adjustments? Suppose that South is declaring 4H and goes down one because he was misinformed about East's hand (either MI in the bidding or incorrectly explained carding agreements); he would have made with correct information. In addition, some Wests would double 4H, and this is independent of the MI. Do you give N-S half the score for +620 and half the score for +790 if West doubled at the table? How about if West didn't double? If West doubled, giving E-W anything better than -790 does not look like equity. From blml at arcor.de Sat Aug 22 16:31:22 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:31:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments Message-ID: <26316018.1250951482367.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Thomas Dehn > > > > I think the interpretation of "at all probable" has changed since > > 1987. Back then, "at all probable" was interpreted as something having > > at least a one in six probability (>16,66%). > > What makes you believe that? Who interpreted in such way? I believe there once was such a guideline by the ACBL's Law Commission. See, e.g., various 1996 NABC case books. > Never heard about such high probability and it > would be in direct contradiction to the (natural) > meaning of "at all probable". There is no "natural" percentage value associated with "at all probable", nor with "at all likely". And this gets worse with translations. I think that in French, "at all probably" was first translated with "at all probable". Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Aug 22 20:55:05 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:55:05 -0700 Subject: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Score adjustments References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <31BC446D32F74F689B80040CC8C466E3@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" > +=+ The formulation of this law occurred in establishing > the 1987 laws. In 1997 and 2007 the position agreed > in 1987 has continued unchanged. For the OS side the > intention is that if there is a result subsequent to the > infraction that is 'at all probable' and which is the most > unfavourable for the OS of any such results including > but not limited to results at all probable had the irregularity > not occurred, that is the score to be awarded. A result > that is at all probable subsequent to the irregularity may > be reached via an action that did not occur at the table > but which the Director judges to ensue from a proper > implementation of the partnership understandings. Thank you, Grattan, but I have a problem with the last sentence. If that potential action is by the NOS, fine. But in an adjustment the OS cannot be assumed to take an action that they could have taken, but didn't. Al Levy, WBFLC member, had strong words with me at the Spring NABC, saying that you can't assume something would happen that didn't happen. In my simple example, which I gave him, the illegal 3H bid pushing the NOS to 3S did happen. Not the contract, but the bid. He lumped this together with everything the OS might have done, but didn't, which leads to absurdities. For instance, the OS might have pushed on to 4H over the opposing 3S bid. But they didn't, so that possibility is not to be considered. Horse of a different color. On the other hand, if the 3H bid would likely have been doubled (heart stack) by opener if responder had passed it, that result should be included in the score adjustment for the OS. I perhaps have not worded the principle correctly. I'll have to work on it. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Aug 22 22:06:36 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:06:36 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments References: <26316018.1250951482367.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: From: "Thomas Dehn" Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Thomas Dehn > > > > I think the interpretation of "at all probable" has changed > > since > > 1987. Back then, "at all probable" was interpreted as something > > having > > at least a one in six probability (>16,66%). That came out of the ACBL LC at that time. TDs had asked for help in judging what probablility should be associated with "most favorable result that was likely," and "most unfavorable result that was at all probable." The LC suggested 1/6 and 1/3 probability, respectively but these were not meant to be taken too literally. They are just guidelines, which David Stevenson said at the time were reasonable. > Never heard about such high probability and it > would be in direct contradiction to the (natural) > meaning of "at all probable". 1/6 is a high probability? I don't agree. >There is no "natural" percentage value associated with "at all >probable", nor with "at all likely". Of course not, but TDs and ACs needed a guideline to use for score adjustments. "At all likely" appears nowhere in the Laws, by the way. One problem with "the most favorable result that was likely" was that AC members talked as if a result had to be likely (over 50% probability), which was wrong. The most favorable result that was likely may not have been a likely result! Hardly anyone understood that, as you can see when looking at the casebooks. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 23 03:02:46 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:02:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L17E2 questions on ruling In-Reply-To: <1Mem64-0fF3my0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> References: <1Mem64-0fF3my0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:37:12 -0400, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" >> Suppose the auction is >> >> South West North East >> 2S ? ? _ ? ? P ? ? P >> P >> >> West missed his turn to bid. According to the laws, the auction now >> "reverts" to >> >> South West North East >> 2S >> >> (I guess the first pass (out of rotation) is UI to partner, which is >> strange because normally an accepted bid out of rotation is AI.) > > Why is it strange? Accepted calls OOT are only AI, if they > become legal part of the auction, e.g. if the auction stands > _with_ the COOT. > Here the POOT is cancelled by law, and cancelled calls > are subject to Law 16D - as long as not another law (other > than 16D) says the opposite. > >> HOWEVER, "When applying Law 17E, passes following the first pass out >> of rotation are cancelled >> ..." (Beijing 2008) >> >> According to this, the auction reverts to >> >> South West North East >> 2S ? ? ? ? ? P >> >> with it being West's turn to call. Does that mean that North cannot >> change his pass? > > That's deliberate misreading of the Minute, No. The law reads "all subsequent passes are cancelled." That's ambiguous (as I finally realize) -- subsequent to what? I don't think it can be subsequent to the player not bidding, because that's not an event. The entire law: "When a call has been followed by three passes the auction does not end if one of those passes was out of rotation, depriving a player of his right to call at that turn. When this occurs, the auction reverts to the player who missed his turn, all subsequent passes are canceled and the auction proceeds normally." The only logical event for "subsequent to" is the pass out of turn, though that is contradicted by the following "auction proceeds normally" phrase. If the law is ambiguous, Beijing has clarified the ambiguity; if you think it is not ambiguous, you will have to live with Beijing changing the law. Beijing is clear: "passes following the first pass out of rotation are cancelled" So then what do we do with the auction. South West North East 2S __ P We have a pass out of rotation which was accepted, forfeiting any right to rectification. We have that this pass is UI toSouth. Does Norht have to pass no matter what West does because North has already passed in a sense? > which addresses > only the passes following the first POOT. For all other calls > prior to the first POOT the law stands as written, i.e. "[...] the > auction > reverts to the player who missed his turn, all subsequent passes > are cancelled and the auction proceeds normally.[...]" > So, as North's pass war subsequent to West's missed turn, > it will be cancelled. > >> If I am getting this right, an always dubious proposition, then Ton's >> commentary follows the law, not Beijing. >> >> Also, would it work for 2017 if the law was "The auction ends when a >> call is followed by 3 passes, the passes all being in correct >> rotation" and there is no reverting or cancelling? I think even Nigel >> would appreciate that simplicity, and I can't find any problems. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 23 11:08:05 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:08:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L17E2 questions on ruling In-Reply-To: References: <1Mem64-0fF3my0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000201ca23d1$3a2d8840$ae8898c0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............ > > That's deliberate misreading of the Minute, > > No. > > The law reads "all subsequent passes are cancelled." That's ambiguous (as I > finally realize) -- subsequent to what? > > I don't think it can be subsequent to the player not bidding, because that's not an > event. > > The entire law: > > "When a call has been followed by three passes the auction does not end if one of > those passes was out of rotation, depriving a player of his right to call at that turn. > When this occurs, the auction reverts to the player who missed his turn, all > subsequent passes are canceled and the auction proceeds normally." > > The only logical event for "subsequent to" is the pass out of turn, though that is > contradicted by the following "auction proceeds normally" phrase. > If the law is ambiguous, Beijing has clarified the ambiguity; if you think it is not > ambiguous, you will have to live with Beijing changing the law. > > Beijing is clear: "passes following the first pass out of rotation are cancelled" Without having the words of the Beijing minute at hand my reaction to all this is still: Why make a problem where none exists? Can there (except for one single situation, see below) be any problem with: The (first) pass out of sequence and all subsequent (in time) passes are cancelled without further rectification, the player who missed his turn makes any call at his own choice, and the auction then continues as if no irregularity had occurred? This implies that there is no restriction (other that such that possibly already was in force when this irregularity occurred) on the continued auction. The exception is this: The first two of the three concluding passes are made by players in rotation; the third pass is made out of rotation depriving the third player to call of his right to call at that turn. The ambiguity (if there is any) is whether this situation shall be handled under Law 17E2 or under Laws 28A and 30? (Law 29A is certainly out of question). My personal opinion is that Law 28A if applicable takes precedence; otherwise Law 17E2 applies also in this special situation. Regards Sven From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Sun Aug 23 13:24:11 2009 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:24:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI Message-ID: Hi, A problem from last evening, after a break of tempo by LHO (EW), RHO rebid, witch is the "good" decision, Opponents call the director and he rules : 1) break of tempo 2) damage 3) logical alternative so he changes the score for NS EW ask for an appeal comitee, they statued for the break of tempo and so, and their ruling is : 75% of table's score 25% of TD's ruling, Is this legal? i think no ... if not what is possible after? in a festival, i think nothing ... Olivier Beauvillain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090823/cadfd394/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 23 13:57:38 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:57:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Score adjustments References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <31BC446D32F74F689B80040CC8C466E3@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <000401ca23fe$4465fb80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Score adjustments > > From: "Grattan" > >> +=+ The formulation of this law occurred in establishing >> the 1987 laws. In 1997 and 2007 the position agreed >> in 1987 has continued unchanged. For the OS side the >> intention is that if there is a result subsequent to the >> infraction that is 'at all probable' and which is the most >> unfavourable for the OS of any such results including >> but not limited to results at all probable had the irregularity >> not occurred, that is the score to be awarded. A result >> that is at all probable subsequent to the irregularity may >> be reached via an action that did not occur at the table >> but which the Director judges to ensue from a proper >> implementation of the partnership understandings. > > Thank you, Grattan, but I have a problem with the last sentence. If > that potential action is by the NOS, fine. But in an adjustment the > OS cannot be assumed to take an action that they could have taken, > but didn't. > > Al Levy, WBFLC member, had strong words with me at the Spring NABC, > saying that you can't assume something would happen that didn't > happen. In my simple example, which I gave him, the illegal 3H bid > pushing the NOS to 3S did happen. Not the contract, but the bid. He > lumped this together with everything the OS might have done, but > didn't, which leads to absurdities. For instance, the OS might have > pushed on to 4H over the opposing 3S bid. But they didn't, so that > possibility is not to be considered. Horse of a different color. > > On the other hand, if the 3H bid would likely have been doubled > (heart stack) by opener if responder had passed it, that result > should be included in the score adjustment for the OS. > > I perhaps have not worded the principle correctly. I'll have to work > on it. > +=+ The Director may form the opinion that an OS player has deliberately departed from system in order to mitigate the effects for his side of the infraction. He is then entitled to consider the probabilities if the player had conformed to system and taken the action appropriate to the systemic meaning of the calls. The law places no limitation upon the probabilities that the Director may judge to have existed. The limits are for him to judge. +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 23 21:09:01 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:09:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Score adjustments In-Reply-To: <000401ca23fe$4465fb80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <31BC446D32F74F689B80040CC8C466E3@MARVLAPTOP> <000401ca23fe$4465fb80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 07:57:38 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > " It may be true that the law cannot make > a man love me, but it can keep him from > lynching me, and I think that's pretty > important." > ~ Martin Luther King Jr. > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin L French" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 7:55 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Score adjustments > > >> >> From: "Grattan" >> >>> +=+ The formulation of this law occurred in establishing >>> the 1987 laws. In 1997 and 2007 the position agreed >>> in 1987 has continued unchanged. For the OS side the >>> intention is that if there is a result subsequent to the >>> infraction that is 'at all probable' and which is the most >>> unfavourable for the OS of any such results including >>> but not limited to results at all probable had the irregularity >>> not occurred, that is the score to be awarded. A result >>> that is at all probable subsequent to the irregularity may >>> be reached via an action that did not occur at the table >>> but which the Director judges to ensue from a proper >>> implementation of the partnership understandings. >> >> Thank you, Grattan, but I have a problem with the last sentence. If >> that potential action is by the NOS, fine. But in an adjustment the >> OS cannot be assumed to take an action that they could have taken, >> but didn't. >> >> Al Levy, WBFLC member, had strong words with me at the Spring NABC, >> saying that you can't assume something would happen that didn't >> happen. In my simple example, which I gave him, the illegal 3H bid >> pushing the NOS to 3S did happen. Not the contract, but the bid. He >> lumped this together with everything the OS might have done, but >> didn't, which leads to absurdities. For instance, the OS might have >> pushed on to 4H over the opposing 3S bid. But they didn't, so that >> possibility is not to be considered. Horse of a different color. >> >> On the other hand, if the 3H bid would likely have been doubled >> (heart stack) by opener if responder had passed it, that result >> should be included in the score adjustment for the OS. >> >> I perhaps have not worded the principle correctly. I'll have to work >> on it. >> > +=+ The Director may form the opinion that an OS player > has deliberately departed from system in order to mitigate > the effects for his side of the infraction. That's what players are supposed to do, right? After they commit an infraction, try to mitigate the effects. Except at the club level, I don't think any players think that L12 is going to be applied against them. They either don't understand the laws or they genuinely think their bid is obvious. Maybe at the world class level they deliberately put themselves in L12 territory. > He is then entitled > to consider the probabilities if the player had conformed > to system and taken the action appropriate to the systemic > meaning of the calls. > The law places no limitation upon the probabilities > that the Director may judge to have existed. The limits > are for him to judge. +=+ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Aug 24 02:51:04 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:51:04 -0700 Subject: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Score adjustments References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred><31BC446D32F74F689B80040CC8C466E3@MARVLAPTOP> <000401ca23fe$4465fb80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: > > Grattan Endicott > +=+ The Director may form the opinion that an OS player > has deliberately departed from system in order to mitigate > the effects for his side of the infraction. He is then entitled > to consider the probabilities if the player had conformed > to system and taken the action appropriate to the systemic > meaning of the calls. > The law places no limitation upon the probabilities > that the Director may judge to have existed. The limits > are for him to judge. +=+ Partner is barred from the bidding as the result of an infraction and I bid a non-system 3NT in an attempt to "mititigate the effects" for my side. It makes with great luck, but our score gets adjusted?? I don't think so. Perhaps you can give an example, which you really should when making a statement like that. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Aug 24 02:56:10 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:56:10 -0700 Subject: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Score adjustments References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred><31BC446D32F74F689B80040CC8C466E3@MARVLAPTOP><000401ca23fe$4465fb80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: From: "Robert Frick" < >> +=+ The Director may form the opinion that an OS player >> has deliberately departed from system in order to mitigate >> the effects for his side of the infraction. > > That's what players are supposed to do, right? After they commit > an > infraction, try to mitigate the effects. I would think so, but. Grattan seems to think you can't depart from system when doing that. Maybe he will give us an example. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Aug 24 03:15:18 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:15:18 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI References: Message-ID: <9922C3AAD1A840DD93BC35A8B7DDE2B3@MARVLAPTOP> From: "olivier.beauvillain" <\ Hi, A problem from last evening, after a break of tempo by LHO (EW), RHO rebid, witch is the "good" decision, Opponents call the director and he rules : 1) break of tempo 2) damage 3) logical alternative so he changes the score for NS EW ask for an appeal comitee, they statued for the break of tempo and so, and their ruling is : 75% of table's score 25% of TD's ruling, Is this legal? Bon soir, Olivier. Seems legal, all right, at least in Europe. The AC decided (perhaps on a 3-1 vote) that there was a 75% probability that the rebid had no logical alternative for that particular player, and a 25% chance that it did. No, I'm changing my mind. If the AC is 3-1 that there was no infraction, that should be the end of it. They can't go to L12C unless an infraction is determined, and a minority vote isn't sufficient to determine that. The lone voter can write up a dissenting opinion, that's all. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 24 03:20:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:20:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Monty wins the Ashes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills: In retrospect, the decisive moment of the English victory in the Ashes was (as Grattan Endicott noted at the time) the stand-and-fight batting of Monty Panesar, England's number eleven (out of eleven) batsman at Cardiff. Instead of the English team suffering an innings defeat at Cardiff, they secured an unlikely draw due to an unlikely batting hero. Field Marshal Montgomery, before the first battle of Alamein: "_Here_ we will stand and fight; there will be no further withdrawal. I have ordered that all plans and instructions dealing with further withdrawal are to be burnt, and at once. We will stand and fight _here_. If we can't stay here alive, then let us stay here dead." Adam Wildavsky, stand-and-fight number eleven Laws analyst: [snip] >In the case above, 12C1b means that while the NOS keep their >-100, Richard Hills, middle-order Laws analyst: Incorrect. Adam has misinterpreted the Law 12C1(b) phrase "does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted" as meaning "not receive _any_ relief". Since the double in the case under discussion was illegal, a demonstrably suggested infraction of Law 16B, the -50 was the "part ... damage ... self-inflicted" by the NOS, but the additional -50 for the illegal double was OS-inflicted, so the NOS must get their table score of 5Dx -100 adjusted back to a score of 5D -50. Adam Wildavsky, stand-and-fight number eleven Laws analyst: >the OS do not get +100. I'm sure we both agree on that. >Whether the OS get +50 or -550 depends on one's >interpretation of 12c1e(ii). Richard Hills, middle-order Laws analyst: Incorrect. Adam has again misinterpreted Law 12C1(b), which takes priority over Law 12C1(e)(ii) in the case under discussion. Adam Wildavsky, stand-and-fight number eleven Laws analyst: >I believe that 12C1b is intended to make Kaplan's consequent/ >subsequent doctrine explicit. Richard Hills, middle-order Laws analyst: Incorrect. Adam has again misinterpreted Law 12C1(b), which is intended to partially nullify Kaplan's consequent/subsequent doctrine. So in the case of a "subsequent" revoke by the NOS ..... 2008 WBF Code of Practice, "score adjustment" example: "A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without regard to the revoke. See Law 12C1(b)." Best wishes R.J.B. 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Aug 24 03:21:49 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:21:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D2BAC8A8A7E46E58240B90672382C75@erdos> This is not allowed. The offender's bid either is or is not an infraction. If it is not an infraction, the table result stands. If it is an infraction which caused damage, the adjusted score must be based on results which could have happened without the infraction. For example: Both vul S W N E 1S P 2S ..P P 3D AP 3D makes three for +110 to E-W. If 3D is an infraction, the adjusted score must be based on results in 2S. It could be +100 if 2S goes down, or -110 if 2S makes, or 75% of +100 and 25% of -110, or 25% of +200, 50% of +100, and 25% of -110. If 75% of players would bid 3D, then the regulating authority standards determine whether that makes pass a logical alternative, so the score must be either +110 and no infraction, or some mixture of results in 2S. ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier.beauvillain To: Laws Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:24 AM Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI Hi, A problem from last evening, after a break of tempo by LHO (EW), RHO rebid, witch is the "good" decision, Opponents call the director and he rules : 1) break of tempo 2) damage 3) logical alternative so he changes the score for NS EW ask for an appeal comitee, they statued for the break of tempo and so, and their ruling is : 75% of table's score 25% of TD's ruling, Is this legal? i think no ... if not what is possible after? in a festival, i think nothing ... Olivier Beauvillain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20090824/43ef594c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 24 04:03:49 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:03:49 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A8E57B6.4030301@nifty.com> Message-ID: Bob Geller: [snip] >Can anyone provide good specific examples of actions which ARE >irregularities, but NOT infractions? If so, let us know please. >I suspect there aren't too many. Richard Hills: A Law 76 irregularity can be executed by a spectator (who is then executed). There are numerous opportunities for a Director to create an irregularity, for example Law 5B: "...The Director is responsible for clear announcement of instructions...". A Tournament Organizer may create an irregularity, the classic example being a Law 78D "...breaking of ties..." amnesia. Plus there are Acts of God irregularities. Nancy Dressing, 20th August 2004: >>Along these lines an interesting event occurred at one of our >>bridge tournaments. The director was not prepared for the >>number of teams that came to play on the last afternoon. >> >>While the search was on for more boards, a lady at the next >>table to me, fell to the floor. Fortunately at a close table >>on each side of her, there was a doctor and a nurse who applied >>CPR and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and the ambulance was >>called. When the medics arrived, fortunately, she was revived >>(she was dead when she hit the floor) and she was rushed to the >>hospital, surviving the ordeal and living for several more >>years. Voila! the director's problem was solved. Her team had >>to withdraw and now there were enough boards for the game to go >>on without another incident! >> >>Absolutely true story... On with the game! Best wishes R.J.B. 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Aug 24 04:40:28 2009 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 03:40:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be> <000001ca1ff3$0b7a5140$226ef3c0$@com> Message-ID: <3F28EADC51CA431796055BDFFD0B57D6@stefanie> > [HdW] > >>I said that (in the common example), the DWS answer of "1 ace" would also > have to be given (among other things said) by a MS adept, since that > player > would certainly receive (after saying other things) the question "what are > your Blackwood responses". Grattan told us that he believed that question > need not be answered, and he had the WBFLC stamp that belief. > > [DALB] > > My LHO opens 1C, alerted, and my RHO bids 1D, also alerted. I discover > that > 1C is natural or balanced, and that 1D shows hearts. Am I allowed to ask > "what would 1D mean if 1C were Precision?" > > If not, why should I be allowed to ask "what would 5D mean if 4NT were > Blackwood?" [SLR] Am I allowed to ask when I sit down at the table what the opponents' responses to Blackwood are? If so, does this permission somehow get cancelled at a certain point in the auction? From geller at nifty.com Mon Aug 24 04:56:40 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:56:40 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A920168.7030602@nifty.com> OK, I will amend the questionas follows (added words in caps) >> Can anyone provide good specific examples of actions BY A PLAYER >> which ARE >> irregularities, but NOT infractions? -Bob richard.hills at immi.gov.au ????????: > Bob Geller: > > [snip] > >> Can anyone provide good specific examples of actions which ARE >> irregularities, but NOT infractions? If so, let us know please. >> I suspect there aren't too many. > > Richard Hills: > > A Law 76 irregularity can be executed by a spectator (who is then > executed). > > There are numerous opportunities for a Director to create an > irregularity, for example Law 5B: "...The Director is responsible > for clear announcement of instructions...". > > A Tournament Organizer may create an irregularity, the classic > example being a Law 78D "...breaking of ties..." amnesia. > > Plus there are Acts of God irregularities. > > Nancy Dressing, 20th August 2004: > >>> Along these lines an interesting event occurred at one of our >>> bridge tournaments. The director was not prepared for the >>> number of teams that came to play on the last afternoon. >>> >>> While the search was on for more boards, a lady at the next >>> table to me, fell to the floor. Fortunately at a close table >>> on each side of her, there was a doctor and a nurse who applied >>> CPR and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and the ambulance was >>> called. When the medics arrived, fortunately, she was revived >>> (she was dead when she hit the floor) and she was rushed to the >>> hospital, surviving the ordeal and living for several more >>> years. Voila! the director's problem was solved. Her team had >>> to withdraw and now there were enough boards for the game to go >>> on without another incident! >>> >>> Absolutely true story... On with the game! > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. 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 > -- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 24 05:45:04 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:45:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A920168.7030602@nifty.com> Message-ID: Sam Gosling, "Snoop", pages 33-34: "Theophrastus observed that the people who were late in paying back their borrowed obols also drove the hardest bargain when buying an amphora of wine, and that they were the same ones who instructed their servants to make sure the fuller added extra dirt to the cloak so that it could go longer without cleaning. Theophrastus noticed that the person standing in the square confidently holding forth on the chariot racing was more likely than others to talk incessantly about all manner of topics at any time or place, whether it be sitting on a jury, watching a play, or at the dinner table." Bob Geller: [snip] >>>Can anyone provide good specific examples of actions which ARE >>>irregularities, but NOT infractions? If so, let us know please. >>>I suspect there aren't too many. Richard Hills, confidently holding forth: >>A Law 76 irregularity can be executed by a spectator (who is then >>executed). >> >>There are numerous opportunities for a Director to create an >>irregularity, for example Law 5B: "...The Director is responsible >>for clear announcement of instructions...". >> >>A Tournament Organizer may create an irregularity, the classic >>example being a Law 78D "...breaking of ties..." amnesia. >> >>Plus there are Acts of God irregularities. [snip] Bob Geller: >OK, I will amend the question as follows (added words in caps) > >Can anyone provide good specific examples of actions BY A PLAYER >which ARE irregularities, but NOT infractions? Richard Hills, incessant talker: It is a contradiction in terms (the irresistible force meeting the immovable object) for The Player to take an action which Is an irregularity but Is Not an infraction. From the Definitions: "Infraction - a player's breach of Law or Lawful regulation." "Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure ... " But since all deviations from correct procedure are necessarily breaches of Law (e.g. Law 90) or Lawful regulation, the player's irregularity is one-to-one synonymous with the player's infraction. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 geller at nifty.com Mon Aug 24 05:57:29 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:57:29 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Surrey with the Fringe on top [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A920FA9.9040606@nifty.com> Thus apparently confirming that Robert Frick (below) is correct. Robert Frick writes: > >> It think I got it. Just to check, it is synonymous to say a player > >> commits > >> an irregularity, infraction, or infringement. richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > Sam Gosling, "Snoop", pages 33-34: > > "Theophrastus observed that the people who were late in paying back > their borrowed obols also drove the hardest bargain when buying an > amphora of wine, and that they were the same ones who instructed > their servants to make sure the fuller added extra dirt to the > cloak so that it could go longer without cleaning. Theophrastus > noticed that the person standing in the square confidently holding > forth on the chariot racing was more likely than others to talk > incessantly about all manner of topics at any time or place, > whether it be sitting on a jury, watching a play, or at the dinner > table." > > Bob Geller: > > [snip] > >>>> Can anyone provide good specific examples of actions which ARE >>>> irregularities, but NOT infractions? If so, let us know please. >>>> I suspect there aren't too many. > > Richard Hills, confidently holding forth: > >>> A Law 76 irregularity can be executed by a spectator (who is then >>> executed). >>> >>> There are numerous opportunities for a Director to create an >>> irregularity, for example Law 5B: "...The Director is responsible >>> for clear announcement of instructions...". >>> >>> A Tournament Organizer may create an irregularity, the classic >>> example being a Law 78D "...breaking of ties..." amnesia. >>> >>> Plus there are Acts of God irregularities. > > [snip] > > Bob Geller: > >> OK, I will amend the question as follows (added words in caps) >> >> Can anyone provide good specific examples of actions BY A PLAYER >> which ARE irregularities, but NOT infractions? > > Richard Hills, incessant talker: > > It is a contradiction in terms (the irresistible force meeting the > immovable object) for The Player to take an action which Is an > irregularity but Is Not an infraction. From the Definitions: > > "Infraction - a player's breach of Law or Lawful regulation." > > "Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure ... " > > But since all deviations from correct procedure are necessarily > breaches of Law (e.g. Law 90) or Lawful regulation, the player's > irregularity is one-to-one synonymous with the player's infraction. > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. 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 > -- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 24 06:47:44 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:47:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: " It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." ~ Martin Luther King Jr. Marvin French: >>...I especially would like Grattan and Richard to confirm >>the above if it is right, since they were involved in the >>formulation of the 2007 Laws. Richard Hills: Although I provided some "Man Friday" assistance to the Co- ordinator of the Drafting Committee, Grattan Endicott (with my suggestions to resolve ambiguities, parallel formatting, proof- reading and indexing), I had zero power to "formulate" the 2007 edition of The Fabulous Law Book. Therefore Grattan's answers are more authoritative than mine. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ The formulation of this law occurred in establishing the >1987 laws. In 1997 and 2007 the position agreed in 1987 has >continued unchanged. For the OS side the intention is that if >there is a result subsequent to the infraction that is 'at all >probable' and which is the most unfavourable for the OS of any >such results including but not limited to results at all >probable had the irregularity not occurred, that is the score >to be awarded. A result that is at all probable subsequent to >the irregularity may be reached via an action that did not >occur at the table but which the Director judges to ensue from >a proper implementation of the partnership understandings. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Marvin French: >>...But in an adjustment the OS cannot be assumed to take an >>action that they could have taken, but didn't... Grattan Endicott: >+=+ The Director may form the opinion that an OS player has >deliberately departed from system in order to mitigate the >effects for his side of the infraction. He is then entitled to >consider the probabilities if the player had conformed to >system and taken the action appropriate to the systemic >meaning of the calls. > The law places no limitation upon the probabilities >that the Director may judge to have existed. The limits are for >him to judge. +=+ Law 10C4: "Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50)." Robert Frick: >>>That's what players are supposed to do, right? After they >>>commit an infraction, try to mitigate the effects... Marvin French: >>I would think so, but. Grattan seems to think you can't depart >>from system when doing that. >> >>Maybe he will give us an example. Richard Hills example: Suppose you are an offending player who has barred partner from one round of the auction (rather than barring partner from the entire auction). If you 50% guess that this will be a lengthy auction which partner can later re-enter, then it is to your Law 10C4 advantage to bid in accordance with your agreed system. If you 50% guess that this will be an abbreviated auction which partner cannot later re-enter, then it is to your Law 10C4 advantage to deceive the opponents with a psyche (since pard is hors de combat). At the table your 50% Law 10C4 guess to bid systemically worked well for you. But the hypothetical alternative 50% Law 10C4 guess of a psyche not only could have led to -800, but does lead to -800 after the Director adjusts the score, because: (a) at the table, if you had 50% psyched, then (b) at the table, pard would later re-enter the auction, plus (c) pard would always believe your psyche, so (d) that 50% chance of -800 is "at all probable", and (e) "+=+ The law places no limitation upon the probabilities that the Director may judge to have existed. The limits are for him to judge. +=+" Best wishes R.J.B. 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 sater at xs4all.nl Mon Aug 24 08:33:06 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:33:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI In-Reply-To: <4D2BAC8A8A7E46E58240B90672382C75@erdos> References: <4D2BAC8A8A7E46E58240B90672382C75@erdos> Message-ID: <00f601ca2484$bd92d4c0$38b87e40$@nl> I do not agree completely. Yes, in this case the 3D bid either is made, or the auction dies. But it could be that the actual bid taken is seen as an infraction, and not allowed, but an alternative is deemed likely, which could lead through a different route to the same contract as reached by the infraction. In this case that result(reached in a different way) can be used in calculation. Example(contrived, no time for a good one): W N E S 1S p 2S ??p p 3H ap Suppose South has asked suggestive questions mentioning the heart suit. The 3H bid is not allowed, but actually N has a very obvious balancing double. In that case 3H might still be reached(different side perhaps). Any adjusted score given should in that case use the score of 3H at least in part. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Grabiner Sent: maandag 24 augustus 2009 3:22 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Split score after UI This is not allowed. The offender's bid either is or is not an infraction. If it is not an infraction, the table result stands. If it is an infraction which caused damage, the adjusted score must be based on results which could have happened without the infraction. For example: Both vul S W N E 1S P 2S ..P P 3D AP 3D makes three for +110 to E-W. If 3D is an infraction, the adjusted score must be based on results in 2S. It could be +100 if 2S goes down, or -110 if 2S makes, or 75% of +100 and 25% of -110, or 25% of +200, 50% of +100, and 25% of -110. If 75% of players would bid 3D, then the regulating authority standards determine whether that makes pass a logical alternative, so the score must be either +110 and no infraction, or some mixture of results in 2S. ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier.beauvillain To: Laws Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:24 AM Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI Hi, A problem from last evening, after a break of tempo by LHO (EW), RHO rebid, witch is the "good" decision, Opponents call the director and he rules : 1) break of tempo 2) damage 3) logical alternative so he changes the score for NS EW ask for an appeal comitee, they statued for the break of tempo and so, and their ruling is : 75% of table's score 25% of TD's ruling, Is this legal? i think no ... if not what is possible after? in a festival, i think nothing ... Olivier Beauvillain _____ _______________________________________________ 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/20090824/f9944e62/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Aug 24 08:56:21 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:56:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI In-Reply-To: <00f601ca2484$bd92d4c0$38b87e40$@nl> References: <4D2BAC8A8A7E46E58240B90672382C75@erdos> <00f601ca2484$bd92d4c0$38b87e40$@nl> Message-ID: <200908240656.n7O6uox3023422@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 04:33 PM 24/08/2009, you wrote: >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00F7_01CA2495.811BA4C0" >Content-Language: nl > >I do not agree completely. Yes, in this case the 3D bid either is >made, or the auction dies. > >But it could be that the actual bid taken is seen as an infraction, >and not allowed, but an alternative is deemed likely, which could >lead through a different route to the same contract as reached by >the infraction. In this case that result(reached in a different way) >can be used in calculation. > >Example(contrived, no time for a good one): > >W N E S >1S p 2S ??p >p 3H ap > >Suppose South has asked suggestive questions mentioning the heart >suit. The 3H bid is not allowed, but actually N has a very obvious >balancing double. >In that case 3H might still be reached(different side perhaps). Any >adjusted score given should in that case use the score of 3H at least in part. > >Hans > I would like to offer the following: East West some bidding 4NT(RKCB) 5D (Oh, sorry, can I change that?) Director says no, cautions East to bid according to system meaning of 5D and to attempt to ignore UI, 6S all pass. I find that East has indeed bid slam ostensibly missing 2 Aces despite my strict instructions. Contract ruled back to 5S making 6. I tell West that he should have bid 5S signing off which would have still allowed his partner to correct for her incorrect blackwood response. However, I am not going to factor any part of 6S making, into my calculation. Am I wrong? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > >From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On >Behalf Of David Grabiner >Sent: maandag 24 augustus 2009 3:22 >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: Re: [BLML] Split score after UI > >This is not allowed. The offender's bid either is or is not an >infraction. If it is not an infraction, the table result >stands. If it is an infraction which caused damage, the adjusted >score must be based on results which could have happened without the >infraction. > >For example: > >Both vul >S W N E >1S P 2S ..P >P 3D AP > >3D makes three for +110 to E-W. If 3D is an infraction, the >adjusted score must be based on results in 2S. It could be +100 if >2S goes down, or -110 if 2S makes, or 75% of +100 and 25% of -110, >or 25% of +200, 50% of +100, and 25% of -110. If 75% of players >would bid 3D, then the regulating authority standards determine >whether that makes pass a logical alternative, so the score must be >either +110 and no infraction, or some mixture of results in 2S. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: olivier.beauvillain >To: Laws >Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:24 AM >Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI > >Hi, > >A problem from last evening, > >after a break of tempo by LHO (EW), RHO rebid, witch is the "good" decision, >Opponents call the director and he rules : >1) break of tempo >2) damage >3) logical alternative >so he changes the score for NS >EW ask for an appeal comitee, > >they statued for the break of tempo and so, >and their ruling is : >75% of table's score >25% of TD's ruling, > >Is this legal? i think no ... >if not what is possible after? in a festival, i think nothing ... > >Olivier Beauvillain > >---------- >_______________________________________________ >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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090824/da3faaf0/attachment-0001.html From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Mon Aug 24 10:55:41 2009 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:55:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ok, the full deal in La Baule mixed pair : S W N E 1D X 1H p 4H 4S 5H !!!p p 5S X S : KQ, AKxx, AKxx, xxx W : AJ97xxx, xx, --, AKJ10 N : 10, QJ9xx, QJ9xxx, x E : 8xx, xx, xx, Qxxxx established break of tempo by E after 5H, TD ruled pass is LA to 5S, so restored 5H= (too difficult to underlead AK C to get a ruff seing dummy, nodody did at pairs) EW appealed AC statued : Break of tempo, it convied a possibility of bidding 5S, witch made better of AJxxxxx (if partner has x, xxx, QJ10xx, xxxx she passes quickly), and result is 3 times 5S for 1 time pass (75% of rebid, 25% of pass!) IMHO, there is OR there is not LA (i.e. something that a part of the pannel thinks about even if not retains this option afterwards, new code and the TD's inquiry about made that everybody thinks of passing and most people passes 5H) if there is, 100% of 5H= if there is not, 100% of 5SX-1 Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier.beauvillain To: Laws Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:24 PM Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI Hi, A problem from last evening, after a break of tempo by LHO (EW), RHO rebid, witch is the "good" decision, Opponents call the director and he rules : 1) break of tempo 2) damage 3) logical alternative so he changes the score for NS EW ask for an appeal comitee, they statued for the break of tempo and so, and their ruling is : 75% of table's score 25% of TD's ruling, Is this legal? i think no ... if not what is possible after? in a festival, i think nothing ... Olivier Beauvillain __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 4359 (20090822) __________ 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 __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 4359 (20090822) __________ Le message a iti virifii par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090824/70fdd476/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 24 12:12:15 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:12:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI In-Reply-To: <200908240656.n7O6uox3023422@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <4D2BAC8A8A7E46E58240B90672382C75@erdos> <00f601ca2484$bd92d4c0$38b87e40$@nl> <200908240656.n7O6uox3023422@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4A92677F.7070902@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > > I would like to offer the following: > East West > some bidding > 4NT(RKCB) 5D (Oh, sorry, can I change that?) > > Director says no, cautions East to bid according to system meaning > of 5D and to attempt to ignore UI, > > 6S all pass. > > I find that East has indeed bid slam ostensibly missing 2 Aces despite > my strict instructions. Contract ruled back to 5S making 6. I tell > West that he should have bid 5S signing off which would have still > allowed his partner to correct for her incorrect blackwood response. > > However, I am not going to factor any part of 6S making, into my > calculation. > I don't see why not. When West bids the normal 5S, East can correct to 6S (perhaps only some of the time) - after all, we know that east already noticed that there was an extra ace. I could understand you don't want to give EW anything after this blatant giving and using of UI - but you needed to say that that was the reason, not the fact that a "rule" says 6S= cannot be factored in. Herman. > Am I wrong? > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > > >> >> >> *From:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [ mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On >> Behalf Of *David Grabiner >> *Sent:* maandag 24 augustus 2009 3:22 >> *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >> *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Split score after UI >> >> This is not allowed. The offender's bid either is or is not an >> infraction. If it is not an infraction, the table result stands. If >> it is an infraction which caused damage, the adjusted score must be >> based on results which could have happened without the infraction. >> >> For example: >> >> Both vul >> S W N E >> 1S P 2S ..P >> P 3D AP >> >> 3D makes three for +110 to E-W. If 3D is an infraction, the adjusted >> score must be based on results in 2S. It could be +100 if 2S goes >> down, or -110 if 2S makes, or 75% of +100 and 25% of -110, or 25% of >> +200, 50% of +100, and 25% of -110. If 75% of players would bid 3D, >> then the regulating authority standards determine whether that makes >> pass a logical alternative, so the score must be either +110 and no >> infraction, or some mixture of results in 2S. >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: olivier.beauvillain >> To: Laws >> Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:24 AM >> Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI >> >> Hi, >> >> A problem from last evening, >> >> after a break of tempo by LHO (EW), RHO rebid, witch is the "good" >> decision, >> Opponents call the director and he rules : >> 1) break of tempo >> 2) damage >> 3) logical alternative >> so he changes the score for NS >> EW ask for an appeal comitee, >> >> they statued for the break of tempo and so, >> and their ruling is : >> 75% of table's score >> 25% of TD's ruling, >> >> Is this legal? i think no ... >> if not what is possible after? in a festival, i think nothing ... >> >> Olivier Beauvillain >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 24 12:27:12 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:27:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI In-Reply-To: <4A92677F.7070902@skynet.be> References: <4D2BAC8A8A7E46E58240B90672382C75@erdos> <00f601ca2484$bd92d4c0$38b87e40$@nl> <200908240656.n7O6uox3023422@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4A92677F.7070902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A926B00.4030203@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> I would like to offer the following: >> East West >> some bidding >> 4NT(RKCB) 5D (Oh, sorry, can I change that?) >> >> Director says no, cautions East to bid according to system meaning >> of 5D and to attempt to ignore UI, >> >> 6S all pass. >> >> I find that East has indeed bid slam ostensibly missing 2 Aces despite >> my strict instructions. Contract ruled back to 5S making 6. I tell >> West that he should have bid 5S signing off which would have still >> allowed his partner to correct for her incorrect blackwood response. >> >> However, I am not going to factor any part of 6S making, into my >> calculation. >> >> > > I don't see why not. When West bids the normal 5S, East can correct to > 6S (perhaps only some of the time) - after all, we know that east > already noticed that there was an extra ace. > > I could understand you don't want to give EW anything after this blatant > giving and using of UI - but you needed to say that that was the reason, > not the fact that a "rule" says 6S= cannot be factored in. > AG : in the general spirit of "restoring the table result had there been no infraction" - here, blatant use of UI and pehaps West's remark-, stating that West would have bid 6S a substantial part of the time to catch up for his wrong answer seems right. And if the TD does indeed want to leave EW without any positive score, he can then penalize them a big chunk. That's the everlasting question : should NS take any profit from the fact that East infracted the law ? Count me -and appaently Herman- with the noes. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 24 13:55:11 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:55:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI In-Reply-To: <4A926B00.4030203@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D2BAC8A8A7E46E58240B90672382C75@erdos> <00f601ca2484$bd92d4c0$38b87e40$@nl> <200908240656.n7O6uox3023422@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4A92677F.7070902@skynet.be> <4A926B00.4030203@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A927F9F.4010602@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >>> I would like to offer the following: >>> East West >>> some bidding >>> 4NT(RKCB) 5D (Oh, sorry, can I change that?) >>> >>> Director says no, cautions East to bid according to system meaning >>> of 5D and to attempt to ignore UI, >>> >>> 6S all pass. >>> >>> I find that East has indeed bid slam ostensibly missing 2 Aces despite >>> my strict instructions. Contract ruled back to 5S making 6. I tell >>> West that he should have bid 5S signing off which would have still >>> allowed his partner to correct for her incorrect blackwood response. >>> >>> However, I am not going to factor any part of 6S making, into my >>> calculation. >>> >>> >> I don't see why not. When West bids the normal 5S, East can correct to >> 6S (perhaps only some of the time) - after all, we know that east >> already noticed that there was an extra ace. >> >> I could understand you don't want to give EW anything after this blatant >> giving and using of UI - but you needed to say that that was the reason, >> not the fact that a "rule" says 6S= cannot be factored in. >> > AG : in the general spirit of "restoring the table result had there been > no infraction" - here, blatant use of UI and pehaps West's remark-, > stating that West would have bid 6S a substantial part of the time to > catch up for his wrong answer seems right. > > And if the TD does indeed want to leave EW without any positive score, > he can then penalize them a big chunk. > > That's the everlasting question : should NS take any profit from the > fact that East infracted the law ? Count me -and appaently Herman- with > the noes. > Not necessarily. I don't like the word "profit" in Alain's sentence. Quite probably, the whole field is in 6S, and NS do not "profit" from anything. Rather, the question should be if they should "lose" anything because of the misbid of 5Di? I don't think they should, since West did nothing wrong (except momentarily bid wrongly). The question if East should get away with blatant use of UI is another one. But it's the "blatant" bit that needs to be addressed, not the UI bit. That is dealt with by saying that West would always raise. Herman. > Best regards > > Alain > From blml at arcor.de Mon Aug 24 14:19:10 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:19:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI In-Reply-To: <4A92677F.7070902@skynet.be> References: <4A92677F.7070902@skynet.be> <4D2BAC8A8A7E46E58240B90672382C75@erdos> <00f601ca2484$bd92d4c0$38b87e40$@nl> <200908240656.n7O6uox3023422@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <8104180.1251116350509.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > I would like to offer the following: > > East West > > some bidding > > 4NT(RKCB) 5D (Oh, sorry, can I change that?) > > > > Director says no, cautions East to bid according to system meaning > > of 5D and to attempt to ignore UI, > > > > 6S all pass. > > > > I find that East has indeed bid slam ostensibly missing 2 Aces despite > > my strict instructions. Contract ruled back to 5S making 6. I tell > > West that he should have bid 5S signing off which would have still > > allowed his partner to correct for her incorrect blackwood response. > > > > However, I am not going to factor any part of 6S making, into my > > calculation. > > > > I don't see why not. When West bids the normal 5S, East can correct to > 6S (perhaps only some of the time) - after all, we know that east > already noticed that there was an extra ace. > > I could understand you don't want to give EW anything after this blatant > giving and using of UI - but you needed to say that that was the reason, > not the fact that a "rule" says 6S= cannot be factored in. I disagree that West can simply correct to 6S. East West some bidding 4NT(RKCB) 5D (Oh, sorry, can I change that?) 5S 6S does not show "oh, I have two keycards rather than one". Some play it as showing four keycards. The one thing it definitely does not show is two keycards. Thus, in this sequence E has UI, too. UI that W does not have whatever 6S normally shows. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 24 14:26:24 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:26:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI In-Reply-To: <4A927F9F.4010602@skynet.be> References: <4D2BAC8A8A7E46E58240B90672382C75@erdos> <00f601ca2484$bd92d4c0$38b87e40$@nl> <200908240656.n7O6uox3023422@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4A92677F.7070902@skynet.be> <4A926B00.4030203@ulb.ac.be> <4A927F9F.4010602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A9286F0.1010305@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> Tony Musgrove wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I would like to offer the following: >>>> East West >>>> some bidding >>>> 4NT(RKCB) 5D (Oh, sorry, can I change that?) >>>> >>>> Director says no, cautions East to bid according to system meaning >>>> of 5D and to attempt to ignore UI, >>>> >>>> 6S all pass. >>>> >>>> I find that East has indeed bid slam ostensibly missing 2 Aces despite >>>> my strict instructions. Contract ruled back to 5S making 6. I tell >>>> West that he should have bid 5S signing off which would have still >>>> allowed his partner to correct for her incorrect blackwood response. >>>> >>>> However, I am not going to factor any part of 6S making, into my >>>> calculation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> I don't see why not. When West bids the normal 5S, East can correct to >>> 6S (perhaps only some of the time) - after all, we know that east >>> already noticed that there was an extra ace. >>> >>> I could understand you don't want to give EW anything after this blatant >>> giving and using of UI - but you needed to say that that was the reason, >>> not the fact that a "rule" says 6S= cannot be factored in. >>> >>> >> AG : in the general spirit of "restoring the table result had there been >> no infraction" - here, blatant use of UI and pehaps West's remark-, >> stating that West would have bid 6S a substantial part of the time to >> catch up for his wrong answer seems right. >> >> And if the TD does indeed want to leave EW without any positive score, >> he can then penalize them a big chunk. >> >> That's the everlasting question : should NS take any profit from the >> fact that East infracted the law ? Count me -and appaently Herman- with >> the noes. >> >> > > Not necessarily. > > I don't like the word "profit" in Alain's sentence. Quite probably, the > whole field is in 6S, and NS do not "profit" from anything. If you correct to 5S, they do. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 24 14:28:39 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:28:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI In-Reply-To: <8104180.1251116350509.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> References: <4A92677F.7070902@skynet.be> <4D2BAC8A8A7E46E58240B90672382C75@erdos> <00f601ca2484$bd92d4c0$38b87e40$@nl> <200908240656.n7O6uox3023422@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <8104180.1251116350509.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A928777.2080409@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >>> I would like to offer the following: >>> East West >>> some bidding >>> 4NT(RKCB) 5D (Oh, sorry, can I change that?) >>> >>> Director says no, cautions East to bid according to system meaning >>> of 5D and to attempt to ignore UI, >>> >>> 6S all pass. >>> >>> I find that East has indeed bid slam ostensibly missing 2 Aces despite >>> my strict instructions. Contract ruled back to 5S making 6. I tell >>> West that he should have bid 5S signing off which would have still >>> allowed his partner to correct for her incorrect blackwood response. >>> >>> However, I am not going to factor any part of 6S making, into my >>> calculation. >>> >>> >> I don't see why not. When West bids the normal 5S, East can correct to >> 6S (perhaps only some of the time) - after all, we know that east >> already noticed that there was an extra ace. >> >> I could understand you don't want to give EW anything after this blatant >> giving and using of UI - but you needed to say that that was the reason, >> not the fact that a "rule" says 6S= cannot be factored in. >> > > > I disagree that West can simply correct to 6S. > > East West > some bidding > 4NT(RKCB) 5D (Oh, sorry, can I change that?) > 5S 6S > > > does not show "oh, I have two keycards rather than one". > Some play it as showing four keycards. The one thing it definitely > does not show is two keycards. > > Thus, in this sequence E has UI, too. UI that W does not > have whatever 6S normally shows. > AG : indeed, and most probably he will have AI compatible with UI -his 2 key-cards in some way don't match with partner's alleged 4-, a case in which everybody would pass. NB : the bid usually doesn't show 4 key-cards, but an undisclosed void. 4 key-cards are shown by showing kings. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 24 15:00:45 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:00:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be><000001ca1ff3$0b7a5140$226ef3c0$@com> <3F28EADC51CA431796055BDFFD0B57D6@stefanie> Message-ID: <000201ca24bd$7abdabf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 3:40 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paolo > > > [SLR] > > Am I allowed to ask when I sit down at the table > what the opponents' responses to Blackwood are? > If so, does this permission somehow get > cancelled at a certain point in the auction? > +=+ When you sit down at the table you are entitled to a full statement of opponents' methods, delivered in the manner prescribed by the RA - see Law 40A1(b). Requests for explanations during the auction and play are governed by Law 20F1. You are then entitled to information about any call actually made, also about any alternative call that is (a) available* and (b) relevant. If there is an available and relevant alternative call you are entitled to know the basis of selection between them. See also Law 40B6(b). [* A call of which the partnership methods do not allow is not available.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 24 15:21:20 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:21:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Score adjustments In-Reply-To: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > " It may be true that the law cannot make > a man love me, but it can keep him from > lynching me, and I think that's pretty > important." > ~ Martin Luther King Jr. > > From: "Marvin L French" > >> Let's make sure I have this right. >> >> (1) Going by the official 2007 Laws, in a score adjustment the OS >> gets the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, either >> concurrent with the irregularity or subsequent to it. >> >> (2) Going by the ACBL 2008 Laws, the OS gets the most unfavorable >> result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred. >> Subsequent actions by the OS are ignored. >> >> Using either (1) or (2) the possible unfavorable result of an OS >> action that didn't happen. is not included. (If it didn't happen, it >> could not have had a result.) >> >> Using either (1) or (2) a serious error (for the class of player >> involved), or a wild or gambling action, is not included in the >> score adjustment for the OS but is retained in the adjustment for >> the NOS. Law 12C1(b) is not an option, even in the ACBL version of >> the Laws. >> >> If there is no such redress-annulling action, the actual play in a >> same-denomination contract is assumed to be the same for >> adjustment purposes unless the TD judges that the level of >> contract or the irregularity had a direct adverse effect on the >> play of the NOS. >> >> I especially would like Grattan and Richard to confirm the >> above if it is right, since they were involved in the formulation >> of the 2007 Laws. > > > +=+ The formulation of this law occurred in establishing > the 1987 laws. In 1997 and 2007 the position agreed > in 1987 has continued unchanged. For the OS side the > intention is that if there is a result subsequent to the > infraction that is 'at all probable' and which is the most > unfavourable for the OS of any such results including > but not limited to results at all probable had the irregularity > not occurred, that is the score to be awarded. A result > that is at all probable subsequent to the irregularity may > be reached via an action that did not occur at the table > but which the Director judges to ensue from a proper > implementation of the partnership understandings. It is my understanding that the WBF included L12C1(e), which is an RA option, at the behest of the ACBL. And that the ACBL is the only RA (at least of significant size and power; there may be minor exceptions of which I'm not aware) that opts to take this election; the rest of the world adjusts scores using L12C1(c). We know that the ACBL interprets and enforces its own view of the Laws, and, minor spats over who has the right to do what notwithstanding, the WBF takes a sufficiently liberal attitude regarding the leeway given to RAs that they do not and will not interfere. Given that the ACBL is going to interpret L12C1(e) as they will in any case, that they have added language to "clarify" their interpretation -- with the apparently unintended consequence of substantively changing the application of that law as envisioned by its original authors -- affects nobody. We have been trying to decide how one should apply the WBF language of L12C1(e)(ii) in making actual rulings, but with the ACBL using its own altered version of that law, and the rest of the world using L12C1(c), is anyone anywhere actually facing the prospect of having to rely on that language for anything? (P.S. I suspect it is the words "make a man love me", in Grattan's quote from Rev. King, that has caused some piece of foolish software in my delivery chain to tag Grattan's post as "POSSIBLE SPAM".) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 24 15:31:22 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:31:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments In-Reply-To: <1Mel52-1HbNmy0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <32434465.1250921277528.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <1Mel52-1HbNmy0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Aug 22, 2009, at 3:32 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Thomas Dehn >> >> I think the interpretation of "at all probable" has changed since >> 1987. Back then, "at all probable" was interpreted as something >> having >> at least a one in six probability (>16,66%). > > What makes you believe that? Who interpreted in such way? The ACBL. Or perhaps the high-level director who writes the official "Ruling the Game" column in the ACBL's official publication unofficially, if you're inclined to believe the ACBL, which has the nasty habit of publishing explanations of legal issues in the only publication read by its membership at large and then, at convenience, disclaiming those explanations as "unofficial" after the fact. > Never heard about such high probability and it > would be in direct contradiction to the (natural) > meaning of "at all probable". Whatever its status, the published guideline suggested interpreting "likely" as something which would occur at least about one time out of three, and "at all probable" as one time out of six. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 24 15:37:51 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:37:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <000201ca24bd$7abdabf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be><000001ca1ff3$0b7a5140$226ef3c0$@com> <3F28EADC51CA431796055BDFFD0B57D6@stefanie> <000201ca24bd$7abdabf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A9297AF.2090409@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > " It's now 1-1, the exact reversal > of the score on Saturday" > British Radio reporter > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 3:40 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paolo > > > >> [SLR] >> >> Am I allowed to ask when I sit down at the table >> what the opponents' responses to Blackwood are? >> If so, does this permission somehow get >> cancelled at a certain point in the auction? >> >> > +=+ When you sit down at the table you are > entitled to a full statement of opponents' methods, > delivered in the manner prescribed by the RA - > see Law 40A1(b). > Requests for explanations during the auction > and play are governed by Law 20F1. You are then > entitled to information about any call actually made, > also about any alternative call that is (a) available* > and (b) relevant. If there is an available and relevant > alternative call you are entitled to know the basis of > selection between them. See also Law 40B6(b). > [* A call of which the partnership methods do > not allow is not available.] > AG : fine and clear. Including the asterisk. I'm a bit afraid that some would take this as a license to try upsetting opponents by demanding an explanation of the reasons for selectioning a bid. What on Earth can one answer to this question : After 1S-3S-4C-4D, what's the difference between 4H and 4NT ? (4NT = bid at the table) Would 'he thinks knowing the nimber of Aces I hold will help' be enough of an answer ? Or is the player requested to guess why ? Which one usually won't be able to. Often, asking bids and relays will have no other reason than 'he wants to know and your guess is as good as mine'. The problem is, some players won't believe the answer offered was complete. I remember of a player who, after having been told seven times that the 2C bid showed exactly 3 hearts (within the already announced range), kept on asking. Good faith (or acceptation of opponents' good faith) by askers is needed to make work the 'basis of selection' principle. Another case, seen more than once, is when a player tries to extract the information that 1NT-2C-2S-3NT should show a 4-card heart suit. In many partnerships, it doesn't. It shows the desire to play in 3NT. Perhaps responder held a singleton spade and the response was a relief. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 24 15:41:20 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:41:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Split score after UI In-Reply-To: <4A9286F0.1010305@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D2BAC8A8A7E46E58240B90672382C75@erdos> <00f601ca2484$bd92d4c0$38b87e40$@nl> <200908240656.n7O6uox3023422@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4A92677F.7070902@skynet.be> <4A926B00.4030203@ulb.ac.be> <4A927F9F.4010602@skynet.be> <4A9286F0.1010305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A929880.1060007@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> >>>> Tony Musgrove wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I would like to offer the following: >>>>> East West >>>>> some bidding >>>>> 4NT(RKCB) 5D (Oh, sorry, can I change that?) >>>>> >>>>> Director says no, cautions East to bid according to system meaning >>>>> of 5D and to attempt to ignore UI, >>>>> >>>>> 6S all pass. >>>>> >>>>> I find that East has indeed bid slam ostensibly missing 2 Aces despite >>>>> my strict instructions. Contract ruled back to 5S making 6. I tell >>>>> West that he should have bid 5S signing off which would have still >>>>> allowed his partner to correct for her incorrect blackwood response. >>>>> >>>>> However, I am not going to factor any part of 6S making, into my >>>>> calculation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I don't see why not. When West bids the normal 5S, East can correct to >>>> 6S (perhaps only some of the time) - after all, we know that east >>>> already noticed that there was an extra ace. >>>> >>>> I could understand you don't want to give EW anything after this blatant >>>> giving and using of UI - but you needed to say that that was the reason, >>>> not the fact that a "rule" says 6S= cannot be factored in. >>>> >>>> >>> AG : in the general spirit of "restoring the table result had there been >>> no infraction" - here, blatant use of UI and pehaps West's remark-, >>> stating that West would have bid 6S a substantial part of the time to >>> catch up for his wrong answer seems right. >>> >>> And if the TD does indeed want to leave EW without any positive score, >>> he can then penalize them a big chunk. >>> >>> That's the everlasting question : should NS take any profit from the >>> fact that East infracted the law ? Count me -and appaently Herman- with >>> the noes. >>> >>> >> Not necessarily. >> >> I don't like the word "profit" in Alain's sentence. Quite probably, the >> whole field is in 6S, and NS do not "profit" from anything. > If you correct to 5S, they do. > Sorry Alain, I did not see the NS profiting. Indeed they do, and they should not. I stand corrected. Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 24 15:51:44 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:51:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments In-Reply-To: <31BC446D32F74F689B80040CC8C466E3@MARVLAPTOP> References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <31BC446D32F74F689B80040CC8C466E3@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Aug 22, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > From: "Grattan" > >> +=+ The formulation of this law occurred in establishing >> the 1987 laws. In 1997 and 2007 the position agreed >> in 1987 has continued unchanged. For the OS side the >> intention is that if there is a result subsequent to the >> infraction that is 'at all probable' and which is the most >> unfavourable for the OS of any such results including >> but not limited to results at all probable had the irregularity >> not occurred, that is the score to be awarded. A result >> that is at all probable subsequent to the irregularity may >> be reached via an action that did not occur at the table >> but which the Director judges to ensue from a proper >> implementation of the partnership understandings. > > Thank you, Grattan, but I have a problem with the last sentence. If > that potential action is by the NOS, fine. But in an adjustment the > OS cannot be assumed to take an action that they could have taken, > but didn't. > > Al Levy, WBFLC member, had strong words with me at the Spring NABC, > saying that you can't assume something would happen that didn't > happen. In my simple example, which I gave him, the illegal 3H bid > pushing the NOS to 3S did happen. Not the contract, but the bid. He > lumped this together with everything the OS might have done, but > didn't, which leads to absurdities. For instance, the OS might have > pushed on to 4H over the opposing 3S bid. But they didn't, so that > possibility is not to be considered. Horse of a different color. > > On the other hand, if the 3H bid would likely have been doubled > (heart stack) by opener if responder had passed it, that result > should be included in the score adjustment for the OS. > > I perhaps have not worded the principle correctly. I'll have to work > on it. It is easier if one recognizes it not as a principle of bridge law, but as a principle of mathematics: Axiom: The probability (or "likelihood") of a prior event which actually occurred is 1. Corollary: The probability of a prior event which has failed to occur is 0. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 24 16:10:14 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:10:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments In-Reply-To: References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <31BC446D32F74F689B80040CC8C466E3@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4A929F46.2000709@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 22, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > > >> From: "Grattan" >> >> >>> +=+ The formulation of this law occurred in establishing >>> the 1987 laws. In 1997 and 2007 the position agreed >>> in 1987 has continued unchanged. For the OS side the >>> intention is that if there is a result subsequent to the >>> infraction that is 'at all probable' and which is the most >>> unfavourable for the OS of any such results including >>> but not limited to results at all probable had the irregularity >>> not occurred, that is the score to be awarded. A result >>> that is at all probable subsequent to the irregularity may >>> be reached via an action that did not occur at the table >>> but which the Director judges to ensue from a proper >>> implementation of the partnership understandings. >>> >> Thank you, Grattan, but I have a problem with the last sentence. If >> that potential action is by the NOS, fine. But in an adjustment the >> OS cannot be assumed to take an action that they could have taken, >> but didn't. >> >> Al Levy, WBFLC member, had strong words with me at the Spring NABC, >> saying that you can't assume something would happen that didn't >> happen. In my simple example, which I gave him, the illegal 3H bid >> pushing the NOS to 3S did happen. Not the contract, but the bid. He >> lumped this together with everything the OS might have done, but >> didn't, which leads to absurdities. For instance, the OS might have >> pushed on to 4H over the opposing 3S bid. But they didn't, so that >> possibility is not to be considered. Horse of a different color. >> >> On the other hand, if the 3H bid would likely have been doubled >> (heart stack) by opener if responder had passed it, that result >> should be included in the score adjustment for the OS. >> >> I perhaps have not worded the principle correctly. I'll have to work >> on it. >> > > It is easier if one recognizes it not as a principle of bridge law, > but as a principle of mathematics: > > Axiom: The probability (or "likelihood") of a prior event which > actually occurred is 1. > > Corollary: The probability of a prior event which has failed to > occur is 0. > AG :I'm sorry, but this isn't true. The probability that, for example, somebody double in a given sequence with the explanations as they were given is *not* 1, even knowing that one did double on this precise occasion. Players are unpredictible, and in some cases it pays to be unpredictible (think of restricted choice). Example : Kxxx - xx - Jxxxxx - x. The bidding goes : 1C-2S-3H. What do you bid ? My personal feeling is that you shouldn't always bid the same. It could be e.g. could be '4S 40%, 4NT 20%, 4H 20%, 6S 10%, double 10%' . The fact that, on this specific occasion, I choose to bid, say, 4NT doesn't prove anything. The probability that I bid 4NT in this situation is still 20%. And, even putting aside tactical considerations, just look at the number of times that panelists have given two different answers to two occurrences of the same problem separated by one or two years. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 24 16:24:41 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:24:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments In-Reply-To: References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred><31BC446D32F74F689B80040CC8C466E3@MARVLAPTOP> <000401ca23fe$4465fb80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <51FB70C9-65E2-4DB5-99CB-677FCE1F4340@starpower.net> On Aug 23, 2009, at 8:51 PM, Marvin L French wrote: >> Grattan Endicott > >> +=+ The Director may form the opinion that an OS player >> has deliberately departed from system in order to mitigate >> the effects for his side of the infraction. He is then entitled >> to consider the probabilities if the player had conformed >> to system and taken the action appropriate to the systemic >> meaning of the calls. >> The law places no limitation upon the probabilities >> that the Director may judge to have existed. The limits >> are for him to judge. +=+ > > Partner is barred from the bidding as the result of an infraction > and I bid a non-system 3NT in an attempt to "mititigate the effects" > for my side. It makes with great luck, but our score gets adjusted?? > I don't think so. Of course not. Your "system" is your collection of your understandings with regard to your partnership's bidding. The notion that it has anything whatsoever to do with, or any possible relevance to, bids you will take when the particular partner with whom you have those understandings isn't a participant in the auction -- whether that's because he's barred from the bidding or because he's playing with someone else at another table tonight -- is absurd. > Perhaps you can give an example, which you really should when making > a statement like that. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Mon Aug 24 16:27:23 2009 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:27:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments In-Reply-To: <4A929F46.2000709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E31E8@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> > >AG :I'm sorry, but this isn't true. > The probability that, for example, somebody double in a given sequence > with the explanations as they were given is *not* 1, even knowing that > one did double on this precise occasion. Players are unpredictible, and > in some cases it pays to be unpredictible (think of restricted choice). You have carefully confused the grammatical tense of the verb "double". The probability that a given person doubled in a given sequence is 1 (or 0). The probability that a given person would double if the sequence were repeated could be anything, not withstanding the fact that they did (or did not) double previously. To understand past events or to predict future events, it may make sense to use a model where the person doubling in a given sequence has a probability, whether the given sequence has occurred in the past or will occur in the future. This probability can be modelled by the frequency that the person has doubled in the given sequence when it occurred in the past. But the probability of the player doubling in a given instance of a given sequence, only exists up to the point of the given instance. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 24 17:19:01 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:19:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo In-Reply-To: <4A9297AF.2090409@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be><000001ca1ff3$0b7a5140$226ef3c0$@com> <3F28EADC51CA431796055BDFFD0B57D6@stefanie> <000201ca24bd$7abdabf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A9297AF.2090409@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <87521AAA-2672-4180-9B50-B6E4B7646785@starpower.net> On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Grattan a ?crit : > >> From: "Stefanie Rohan" >> >>> Am I allowed to ask when I sit down at the table >>> what the opponents' responses to Blackwood are? >>> If so, does this permission somehow get >>> cancelled at a certain point in the auction? >> >> +=+ When you sit down at the table you are >> entitled to a full statement of opponents' methods, >> delivered in the manner prescribed by the RA - >> see Law 40A1(b). >> Requests for explanations during the auction >> and play are governed by Law 20F1. You are then >> entitled to information about any call actually made, >> also about any alternative call that is (a) available* >> and (b) relevant. If there is an available and relevant >> alternative call you are entitled to know the basis of >> selection between them. See also Law 40B6(b). >> [* A call of which the partnership methods do >> not allow is not available.] > > AG : fine and clear. Including the asterisk. > > I'm a bit afraid that some would take this as a license to try > upsetting > opponents by demanding an explanation of the reasons for > selectioning a bid. One is entitled to be informed only of the opposing partnership understandings, not their motivation for choosing which of them to employ. And we know what law to cite and what to do to anyone who takes anything whatsoever as "license to try upsetting oppponents". > What on Earth can one answer to this question : > After 1S-3S-4C-4D, what's the difference between 4H and 4NT ? > (4NT = bid at the table) > Would 'he thinks knowing the nimber of Aces I hold will help' be > enough > of an answer ? > Or is the player requested to guess why ? Which one usually won't be > able to. This would normally be asked as two questions, along the lines of, "What did 4NT mean?" followed by "What would it have meant if he had bid 4H instead?" Those are legitimate questions; drawing inferences as to motivation from the answers is left to the questioner. "What's the difference between 4H and 4NT?" is a clumsy and technically improper way of asking for the same information. It should be recognized as such, and should be answered exactly as if it had been properly asked: "4NT showed... 4H would have shown..." "Why would he have chosen one over the other?" can have only one answer, "Because he thought it was the better choice with his hand." > Often, asking bids and relays will have no other reason than 'he wants > to know and your guess is as good as mine'. "Because he thought it was the best choice with his hand." > The problem is, some players won't believe the answer offered was > complete. I remember of a player who, after having been told seven > times > that the 2C bid showed exactly 3 hearts (within the already announced > range), kept on asking. Good faith (or acceptation of opponents' good > faith) by askers is needed to make work the 'basis of selection' > principle. We know what law to cite and what to do to anyone who takes anything whatsoever as "license to try upsetting oppponents". > Another case, seen more than once, is when a player tries to > extract the > information that 1NT-2C-2S-3NT should show a 4-card heart suit. > In many partnerships, it doesn't. It shows the desire to play in 3NT. > Perhaps responder held a singleton spade and the response was a > relief. "Extract the information" sounds rather Cheneyan. "Does that sequence promise four hearts?" is a perfectly legitimate question, and either, "Yes," or, "No," is a perfectly legitimate answer. If the same question gets asked again, after having been clearly and unambiguously answered ("Which part of "yes" (or "no") didn't you understand?"), we know what law to cite and what to do to anyone... Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 24 17:33:18 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:33:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments In-Reply-To: <4A929F46.2000709@ulb.ac.be> References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <31BC446D32F74F689B80040CC8C466E3@MARVLAPTOP> <4A929F46.2000709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6B385E62-E001-4893-B29D-6113B128F311@starpower.net> On Aug 24, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> Axiom: The probability (or "likelihood") of a prior event which >> actually occurred is 1. >> >> Corollary: The probability of a prior event which has failed to >> occur is 0. > > AG :I'm sorry, but this isn't true. > The probability that, for example, somebody double in a given sequence > with the explanations as they were given is *not* 1, even knowing that > one did double on this precise occasion. Players are unpredictible, > and > in some cases it pays to be unpredictible (think of restricted > choice). > > Example : Kxxx - xx - Jxxxxx - x. The bidding goes : 1C-2S-3H. What do > you bid ? > My personal feeling is that you shouldn't always bid the same. It > could > be e.g. could be '4S 40%, 4NT 20%, 4H 20%, 6S 10%, double 10%' . > The fact that, on this specific occasion, I choose to bid, say, 4NT > doesn't prove anything. The probability that I bid 4NT in this > situation > is still 20%. > > And, even putting aside tactical considerations, just look at the > number > of times that panelists have given two different answers to two > occurrences of the same problem separated by one or two years. I'm surprised at Alain, who surely understands that the probability that "somebody [would] double in a given sequence with the explanations as they were given" and the probability that "one did double on this precise occasion" are two entirely different things. That I may have flipped a coin before deciding to do whatever I did doesn't affect the fact that I did it. Once you open the box, even Schrodinger's cat is either alive with probability 1 or dead with probability 1. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 24 16:40:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:40:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred><32434465.1250921277528.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net><1Mel52-1HbNmy0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <003b01ca24d9$c625ce30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Score adjustments > The ACBL. Or perhaps the high-level director who writes the official > "Ruling the Game" column in the ACBL's official publication > unofficially, if you're inclined to believe the ACBL, which has the > nasty habit of publishing explanations of legal issues in the only > publication read by its membership at large and then, at convenience, > disclaiming those explanations as "unofficial" after the fact. > >> Never heard about such high probability and it >> would be in direct contradiction to the (natural) >> meaning of "at all probable". > > Whatever its status, the published guideline suggested > interpreting "likely" as something which would occur > at least about one time out of three, and "at all probable" > as one time out of six. > +=+ I think we would leave any such guidel;ine to the Regulating Authority. Obviously 'at all probable' is distinctly less likely to happen than something which is 'likely'. My own feeling is that something to be anticipated round about 30% of the time is 'likely' to happen; to be 'at all probable' suggests to me maybe 9% or 10% of the time. But I would not want these measures to be encased in an adamantine shell. It is something a good director will have a feeling for. When does an event become so improbable as not to be at all probable? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 24 16:54:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:54:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Score adjustments References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <003c01ca24d9$c6531fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 2:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Score adjustments > On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Grattan wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> " It may be true that the law cannot make >> a man love me, but it can keep him from >> lynching me, and I think that's pretty >> important." >> ~ Martin Luther King Jr. >> >> From: "Marvin L French" >> >>> Let's make sure I have this right. >>> >>> (1) Going by the official 2007 Laws, in a score adjustment the OS >>> gets the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, either >>> concurrent with the irregularity or subsequent to it. >>> >>> (2) Going by the ACBL 2008 Laws, the OS gets the most unfavorable >>> result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred. >>> Subsequent actions by the OS are ignored. >>> >>> Using either (1) or (2) the possible unfavorable result of an OS >>> action that didn't happen. is not included. (If it didn't happen, it >>> could not have had a result.) >>> >>> Using either (1) or (2) a serious error (for the class of player >>> involved), or a wild or gambling action, is not included in the >>> score adjustment for the OS but is retained in the adjustment for >>> the NOS. Law 12C1(b) is not an option, even in the ACBL version of >>> the Laws. >>> >>> If there is no such redress-annulling action, the actual play in a >>> same-denomination contract is assumed to be the same for >>> adjustment purposes unless the TD judges that the level of >>> contract or the irregularity had a direct adverse effect on the >>> play of the NOS. >>> >>> I especially would like Grattan and Richard to confirm the >>> above if it is right, since they were involved in the formulation >>> of the 2007 Laws. >> >> >> +=+ The formulation of this law occurred in establishing >> the 1987 laws. In 1997 and 2007 the position agreed >> in 1987 has continued unchanged. For the OS side the >> intention is that if there is a result subsequent to the >> infraction that is 'at all probable' and which is the most >> unfavourable for the OS of any such results including >> but not limited to results at all probable had the irregularity >> not occurred, that is the score to be awarded. A result >> that is at all probable subsequent to the irregularity may >> be reached via an action that did not occur at the table >> but which the Director judges to ensue from a proper >> implementation of the partnership understandings. > > It is my understanding that the WBF included L12C1(e), which is an RA > option, at the behest of the ACBL. And that the ACBL is the only RA > (at least of significant size and power; there may be minor > exceptions of which I'm not aware) that opts to take this election; > the rest of the world adjusts scores using L12C1(c). We know that > the ACBL interprets and enforces its own view of the Laws, and, minor > spats over who has the right to do what notwithstanding, the WBF > takes a sufficiently liberal attitude regarding the leeway given to > RAs that they do not and will not interfere. > > Given that the ACBL is going to interpret L12C1(e) as they will in > any case, that they have added language to "clarify" their > interpretation -- with the apparently unintended consequence of > substantively changing the application of that law as envisioned by > its original authors -- affects nobody. We have been trying to > decide how one should apply the WBF language of L12C1(e)(ii) in > making actual rulings, but with the ACBL using its own altered > version of that law, and the rest of the world using L12C1(c), is > anyone anywhere actually facing the prospect of having to rely on > that language for anything? > > (P.S. I suspect it is the words "make a man love me", in Grattan's > quote from Rev. King, that has caused some piece of foolish software > in my delivery chain to tag Grattan's post as "POSSIBLE SPAM".) > > +=+ I believe it was my ISP's own filter that affixed the tag to an incoming message to which I then replied without adjusting the tag. (My ISP seems to have three grades of tag (possible spam - junk mail - phishing mail) and how it chooses between them I do not know.) I have a concern that there may be some RAs also adopting 12C1(e) - other than the ACBL. I wish to avoid their contamination with a corrupted form of the law. There is always the danger that an ACBL law book may stray into the hands of a director in such an NBO and mislead her/him. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 24 18:41:34 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:41:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003d01ca24d9$c7d30900$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 5:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >" It may be true that the law cannot make > a man love me, but it can keep him from > lynching me, and I think that's pretty > important." > ~ Martin Luther King Jr. > > Marvin French: > >>>...I especially would like Grattan and Richard to confirm >>>the above if it is right, since they were involved in the >>>formulation of the 2007 Laws. > > Richard Hills: > > Although I provided some "Man Friday" assistance to the Co- > ordinator of the Drafting Committee, Grattan Endicott (with my > suggestions to resolve ambiguities, parallel formatting, proof- > reading and indexing), I had zero power to "formulate" the 2007 > edition of The Fabulous Law Book. > > Therefore Grattan's answers are more authoritative than mine. > > Grattan Endicott: > >>+=+ The formulation of this law occurred in establishing the >>1987 laws. In 1997 and 2007 the position agreed in 1987 has >>continued unchanged. For the OS side the intention is that if >>there is a result subsequent to the infraction that is 'at all >>probable' and which is the most unfavourable for the OS of any >>such results including but not limited to results at all >>probable had the irregularity not occurred, that is the score >>to be awarded. A result that is at all probable subsequent to >>the irregularity may be reached via an action that did not >>occur at the table but which the Director judges to ensue from >>a proper implementation of the partnership understandings. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Marvin French: > >>>...But in an adjustment the OS cannot be assumed to take an >>>action that they could have taken, but didn't... > > Grattan Endicott: > >>+=+ The Director may form the opinion that an OS player has >>deliberately departed from system in order to mitigate the >>effects for his side of the infraction. He is then entitled to >>consider the probabilities if the player had conformed to >>system and taken the action appropriate to the systemic >>meaning of the calls. >> The law places no limitation upon the probabilities >>that the Director may judge to have existed. The limits are for >>him to judge. +=+ > > Law 10C4: > > "Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it > is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play > advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to > profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50)." > > Robert Frick: > >>>>That's what players are supposed to do, right? After they >>>>commit an infraction, try to mitigate the effects... > > Marvin French: > >>>I would think so, but. Grattan seems to think you can't depart >>>from system when doing that. >>> >>>Maybe he will give us an example. > > Richard Hills example: > > Suppose you are an offending player who has barred partner from > one round of the auction (rather than barring partner from the > entire auction). If you 50% guess that this will be a lengthy > auction which partner can later re-enter, then it is to your > Law 10C4 advantage to bid in accordance with your agreed system. > If you 50% guess that this will be an abbreviated auction which > partner cannot later re-enter, then it is to your Law 10C4 > advantage to deceive the opponents with a psyche (since pard is > hors de combat). > > At the table your 50% Law 10C4 guess to bid systemically > worked well for you. > > But the hypothetical alternative 50% Law 10C4 guess of a psyche > not only could have led to -800, but does lead to -800 after the > Director adjusts the score, because: > > (a) at the table, if you had 50% psyched, then > (b) at the table, pard would later re-enter the auction, plus > (c) pard would always believe your psyche, so > (d) that 50% chance of -800 is "at all probable", and > (e) "+=+ The law places no limitation upon the probabilities > that the Director may judge to have existed. The limits are for > him to judge. +=+" > +=+ It is very much for the Director to judge whether a player has gone outside of what is lawful in seeking to mitigate the effects of an infraction. My reference to this above was somewhat loose - it was not my intention to deny access, subsequent to an infraction *and its rectification under the law*, to a player's rights under Law 10C4. But Robert Frick's remark "That's what players are supposed to do, right? After they commit an infraction, try to mitigate the effects" needs clarification. They are permitted to seek to mitigate the adverse effects for their own side in the continuing action after the Director has ruled upon rectification and explained all matters in regard thereto. And the problem with Marvin's submission that " in an adjustment the OS cannot be assumed to take an action that they could have taken, but didn't" is that it omits to examine questions of an action that the player should have taken, but didn't. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 24 18:56:47 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:56:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paolo References: <4A8A6144.7040200@aol.com> <4A89A30A.6030000@aol.com> <7DEA77E7-535D-4BB1-8D6C-4FA8BBB61572@starpower.net> <19228121.1250587169406.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><4A8A79AF.9080805@skynet.be><000001ca1ff3$0b7a5140$226ef3c0$@com> <3F28EADC51CA431796055BDFFD0B57D6@stefanie><000201ca24bd$7abdabf0$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A9297AF.2090409@ulb.ac.be> <87521AAA-2672-4180-9B50-B6E4B7646785@starpower.net> Message-ID: <005201ca24dc$2761b400$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sao Paolo > Often, asking bids and relays will have no other reason than 'he wants > to know and your guess is as good as mine'. "Because he thought it was the best choice with his hand." > The problem is, some players won't believe the answer offered was > complete. I remember of a player who, after having been told seven > times > that the 2C bid showed exactly 3 hearts (within the already announced > range), kept on asking. Good faith (or acceptation of opponents' good > faith) by askers is needed to make work the 'basis of selection' > principle. << +=+ "relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding" - that is to say, if from explicit agreement or from partnership experience a player knows what will motivate his partner to choose alternative (b) rather than alternative (a) the questioner too is entitled to know and must be told. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 24 19:26:28 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:26:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003d01ca24d9$c7d30900$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <003d01ca24d9$c7d30900$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <50879.24.46.179.117.1251134788.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > " It's the only way we can lose, > irrespective of the result." > [Graham Taylor] > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 5:47 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>" It may be true that the law cannot make >> a man love me, but it can keep him from >> lynching me, and I think that's pretty >> important." >> ~ Martin Luther King Jr. >> >> Marvin French: >> >>>>...I especially would like Grattan and Richard to confirm >>>>the above if it is right, since they were involved in the >>>>formulation of the 2007 Laws. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Although I provided some "Man Friday" assistance to the Co- >> ordinator of the Drafting Committee, Grattan Endicott (with my >> suggestions to resolve ambiguities, parallel formatting, proof- >> reading and indexing), I had zero power to "formulate" the 2007 >> edition of The Fabulous Law Book. >> >> Therefore Grattan's answers are more authoritative than mine. >> >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>>+=+ The formulation of this law occurred in establishing the >>>1987 laws. In 1997 and 2007 the position agreed in 1987 has >>>continued unchanged. For the OS side the intention is that if >>>there is a result subsequent to the infraction that is 'at all >>>probable' and which is the most unfavourable for the OS of any >>>such results including but not limited to results at all >>>probable had the irregularity not occurred, that is the score >>>to be awarded. A result that is at all probable subsequent to >>>the irregularity may be reached via an action that did not >>>occur at the table but which the Director judges to ensue from >>>a proper implementation of the partnership understandings. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Marvin French: >> >>>>...But in an adjustment the OS cannot be assumed to take an >>>>action that they could have taken, but didn't... >> >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>>+=+ The Director may form the opinion that an OS player has >>>deliberately departed from system in order to mitigate the >>>effects for his side of the infraction. He is then entitled to >>>consider the probabilities if the player had conformed to >>>system and taken the action appropriate to the systemic >>>meaning of the calls. >>> The law places no limitation upon the probabilities >>>that the Director may judge to have existed. The limits are for >>>him to judge. +=+ >> >> Law 10C4: >> >> "Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it >> is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play >> advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to >> profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50)." >> >> Robert Frick: >> >>>>>That's what players are supposed to do, right? After they >>>>>commit an infraction, try to mitigate the effects... >> >> Marvin French: >> >>>>I would think so, but. Grattan seems to think you can't depart >>>>from system when doing that. >>>> >>>>Maybe he will give us an example. >> >> Richard Hills example: >> >> Suppose you are an offending player who has barred partner from >> one round of the auction (rather than barring partner from the >> entire auction). If you 50% guess that this will be a lengthy >> auction which partner can later re-enter, then it is to your >> Law 10C4 advantage to bid in accordance with your agreed system. >> If you 50% guess that this will be an abbreviated auction which >> partner cannot later re-enter, then it is to your Law 10C4 >> advantage to deceive the opponents with a psyche (since pard is >> hors de combat). >> >> At the table your 50% Law 10C4 guess to bid systemically >> worked well for you. >> >> But the hypothetical alternative 50% Law 10C4 guess of a psyche >> not only could have led to -800, but does lead to -800 after the >> Director adjusts the score, because: >> >> (a) at the table, if you had 50% psyched, then >> (b) at the table, pard would later re-enter the auction, plus >> (c) pard would always believe your psyche, so >> (d) that 50% chance of -800 is "at all probable", and >> (e) "+=+ The law places no limitation upon the probabilities >> that the Director may judge to have existed. The limits are for >> him to judge. +=+" >> > +=+ It is very much for the Director to judge whether a player > has gone outside of what is lawful in seeking to mitigate the > effects of an infraction. My reference to this above was somewhat > loose - it was not my intention to deny access, subsequent to an > infraction *and its rectification under the law*, to a player's rights > under Law 10C4. > But Robert Frick's remark "That's what players are supposed > to do, right? After they commit an infraction, try to mitigate the > effects" needs clarification. They are permitted to seek to mitigate > the adverse effects for their own side in the continuing action after > the Director has ruled upon rectification and explained all matters > in regard thereto. Players are in general entitled to choose the call or play that they feel is most advantageous to them, as long as that does not break any laws. If I choose a call or play because I feel that will improve my result, expecting that L12 be invoked against me, have I committed any infringement? > And the problem with Marvin's submission that " in an > adjustment the OS cannot be assumed to take an action that > they could have taken, but didn't" is that it omits to examine > questions of an action that the player should have taken, but > didn't. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 24 21:34:20 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:34:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments In-Reply-To: <003c01ca24d9$c6531fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <003c01ca24d9$c6531fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4D0E74FC-9B3A-4369-8577-79A07401552E@starpower.net> On Aug 24, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Grattan wrote: > I have a concern that there may be some RAs also > adopting 12C1(e) - other than the ACBL. Are there? Does anyone know? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Aug 24 21:46:17 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:46:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <003401ca1d92$0eee2800$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC><3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> <003401ca1d92$0eee2800$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <066562413D354E1E91761F00D2524286@NigelPC> [Nige1] I regard it as "playing bridge", to save my energies for hands where the defence matters. I confess that my attention may wander when I'm defending a non-vulnerable partscore when I should be making a vulnerable grand slam. I still maintain that a player ignorant of the nuances of the law, would be unaware of the special circumstances of the example case. [Grattan] +=+ Confession is said to be good for the soul. However it does not absolve us from compliance with the law, so if the Director finds Nigel not to have met with the standards of the law he will have a price to pay for his negligence. It is evidently a price he is willing to pay. [Nige2] My point is that an ordinary player needs to be aware of what to do after his opponents commit an infraction; for example the mechanics of "double-shot" and "protect yourself" rulings. Then he may be able to avoid an action that the director could judge to be "egregious". Furthermore, even if an ordinary player is aware of such laws, he may be concerned at different interpretations by different legal experts. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Aug 24 22:10:07 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:10:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <000701ca1cc5$a41ab830$ec502890$@nl> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> <3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> <000701ca1cc5$a41ab830$ec502890$@nl> Message-ID: <20621250BC1045C99B724E08D2DA37CB@NigelPC> [Hans] If implemented correctly, see my other message, this law is absolutely necessary. We do not want double shots. If someone is damaged he gets his score back, but we are not going to allow him any crazy stuff. Simple example, match points: You bid 6H, NV, which would make, 980. Opps bid 6S again NV in an illegal fashion, you double and defend. Now if you assume that the director will rule back to 980 if you are damaged, that is get them less than 5 down, you will underlead aces at will to try to get 1100. Basically you are playing a lottery without noughts. No way that we want that to happen. Just defend more or less normally. Should you slip a trick no director will accuse you of a serious error. At the end, if defending more or less normally you have 1100, congratulations, you can keep it. If you have 800 director will give you back 980. At no point is it necessary for you to know anything special about the laws. Just keep playing more or less decent bridge. [Thomas] If you expect the normal score to be 980, and opponents find a 6S sacrifice, then at MPs you have to try for 1100, because 1100 beats 980 while 800 does not. This includes underleading aces etc. [Nigel] I agree with Hans that he has provided a typical example; but notice that, to award you full redress, the director must agree with you on at least the following points [1] Your opponents' actions were illegal. [2] Without them, you would bid 6H [3] You would make 6H [4] Hans is right that a conservative defence to 6SX is "more or less decent bridge". Thus, with or without the ban on actions that the director regards as "crazy stuff", a "wild and gambling" action is a high risk strategy. I tend to agree with Thomas Dean. A director might go further away from Hans and judge a conservative defence to 6SX to be "egregious". But even if the victim of an infraction is certain what the director will think, what is so wrong with trying for a "double shot"? Surely, already, the law sufficiently favours the law-breaker? You are reluctant to call the director, if you anticipate that the director may add insult to injury: If the director's judgement radically differs from your own, he may deprive you of redress and, additionally, castigate your "egregious error". The main beneficiaries of this law are expert law-breakers. Ordinary-player victims make more daft mistakes. The "double-shot" law discourages us from calling the director. Admittedly, expert victims do benefit. They make fewer gross mistakes. If they do "take a view", the director is unlikely to impugn their judgement. "Double-shot" law is unnecessary. It adds no value but creates inconsistency, injustice and resentment. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Aug 24 22:24:09 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:24:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC><3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC> Message-ID: <08E93C4B725447F0A68021004BBE4B7F@NigelPC> [Eric Landau] L12C1(b) is about anti-percentage actions taken with the knowledge that if they produce a worse result than playing normally would have the difference is likely to be returned in adjudication. It's not about sloppy play undertaken with the knowledge that an extra overtrick or undertrick or two isn't going to significantly affect the resulting matchpoint score. [Nige1] So far on this road, Eric and I seem to be the only BLMLers in step. Many appear to be on the same foot as Grattan :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 25 00:23:17 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:23:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Balance of power [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Henry Kissinger, Nobel Peace Prize winner: "The management of a balance of power is a permanent undertaking, not an exertion that has a foreseeable end." Imps, Knockout Teams Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hashmat Ali Richard Hills --- Pass 1D (1) Pass 1H (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass 2D (4) Pass Pass ? (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the first step in an artificial game force relay. (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. You, South, hold: AK732 5 T854 875 What bid do you make? What end do you foresee? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Tue Aug 25 01:39:39 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:39:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L17E2 questions on ruling In-Reply-To: <000201ca23d1$3a2d8840$ae8898c0$@no> References: <1Mem64-0fF3my0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <000201ca23d1$3a2d8840$ae8898c0$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 05:08:05 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............ >> > That's deliberate misreading of the Minute, >> >> No. >> >> The law reads "all subsequent passes are cancelled." That's ambiguous >> (as > I >> finally realize) -- subsequent to what? >> >> I don't think it can be subsequent to the player not bidding, because > that's not an >> event. >> >> The entire law: >> >> "When a call has been followed by three passes the auction does not end >> if > one of >> those passes was out of rotation, depriving a player of his right to >> call > at that turn. >> When this occurs, the auction reverts to the player who missed his turn, > all >> subsequent passes are canceled and the auction proceeds normally." >> >> The only logical event for "subsequent to" is the pass out of turn, >> though > that is >> contradicted by the following "auction proceeds normally" phrase. >> If the law is ambiguous, Beijing has clarified the ambiguity; if you >> think > it is not >> ambiguous, you will have to live with Beijing changing the law. >> >> Beijing is clear: "passes following the first pass out of rotation are > cancelled" > > Without having the words of the Beijing minute at hand my reaction to all > this is still: Why make a problem where none exists? > > Can there (except for one single situation, see below) be any problem > with: > The (first) pass out of sequence and all subsequent (in time) passes are > cancelled without further rectification, the player who missed his turn > makes any call at his own choice, and the auction then continues as if no > irregularity had occurred? This implies that there is no restriction > (other > that such that possibly already was in force when this irregularity > occurred) on the continued auction. Are you asking me? I can't see any problem with using this ruling. It seems sensible and fair. It is exactly what I would have done just following the laws and not seeing any ambiguity and not reading the Beijing minutes carefully. But it doesn't answer my question. If the pass out of rotation isn't cancelled, following the Beijing minutes, does that mean that player has already passed whatever LHO bids? "When applying Law 17E, passes following the first pass out of rotation are cancelled and only the first pass out of rotation is an infringement." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 25 03:01:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:01:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6B385E62-E001-4893-B29D-6113B128F311@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau, metaphor: [snip] >Once you open the box, even Schrodinger's cat is either alive with >probability 1 or dead with probability 1. Richard Hills, extended metaphor: If: closing the box with the cat inside at 12:12 on Thursday 12th = metaphor for an infraction by the OS, and opening the box at 13:13 on Friday 13th = metaphor for the actual table result, and discovering the cat dead at 13:13 on Friday 13th = metaphor for damage to the NOS from the OS infraction then time travel back to 12:12 on Thursday 12th before the box was closed = metaphor for the moment before the infraction and preventing the cat being put in the box = metaphor for Law 12C1(c) but allowing the cat to be put in the box this second time round in the time loop because one's time telescope notices that the cat will emerge clawing 11 and biting 00 for -1100 to the OS at 13:13 on Friday 13th = metaphor for the original Law 12C1(e)(ii). /\ /\ @ @ =( + )= ~ Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Tue Aug 25 03:05:08 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:05:08 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language References: <1BE35B47-86F1-4ADC-8467-6CC7722B6F81@starpower.net><7DD1806A73CF4A3DAE885848FD2363DE@MARVLAPTOP><694eadd40908202159h7fb64831wc7dd6f205bf1594c@mail.gmail.com><6C2068DF23EE43B3B4B42A4D0036998D@MARVLAPTOP> <694eadd40908211400qca3bc52pd5c1e896dce80d52@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <342248B5DB4A4025A0FA9F2B120078AE@MARVLAPTOP> > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > > Marv, you are sliding down a slippery slope. > > > > In the case that opened this thread you are giving the OS -550 > > even though they took 3 tricks against 5C doubled and their > > infraction had nothing to do with the lead, play, or defense. > > A serious error (taking account the level of player, per WBFLC > minutes) is not to be included in a score adjustment for the OS. I > agree that this is bad, but that's what L12C1(b) says. Maybe you > should have amended that in the ACBL Laws, since you evidently > assume the right to do that. >> Please have another look. I think you will find that, as far as the OS score goes, it is a chimera. It says that "The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only." Surely this means that the OS gets the score specified by 12c1e(ii). What that score ought to be depends on the meaning of 12c1e(ii), which is (I hope) the main subject of the present discussion. L12C1b dominates L12C1(e)(ii), but even if it didn't there is no conflict betwee the two. Score adjustments follow L12C1(e)(i) and (ii), but must be in accord with L12C1(b). The first sentence says that the NOS must keep any serious error in their score adjustment, the second says that the OS may not keep it. The issue of serious error by the NOS is not addressed in L12C1(c) or (e). L12C1(b) is there to address it, and it applies to either type of adjustment, L12C1(c) or (e). In the case above, 12C1b means that while the NOS keep their -100, the OS do not get +100. I'm sure we both agree on that. Whether the OS get +50 or -550 depends on one's interpretation of 12c1e(ii). I believe the NOS get -50, because the double was illegal and the extra -50 was a consequence of the infraction. With the serious play error excluded from the OS score adjustment per L12C(b), the OS gets -400 had the irregularity not occurred (no double), but -550 absent that qualification. That is, -400 going by the ACBL version and -550 going by the 2007 Laws. >I believe that 12C1b is intended to make Kaplan's consequent/subsequent doctrine explicit. I know you are familiar with it already. He described it in this August 1973 TBW editorial, in response to a letter from Eric Landau: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lan0.htm The principle of consequent/subsequent is accepted by all, including the WBFLC. You get redress only for consequent damage, not for subsequent self-inflicted damage. In 1998 there was doubt among TDs as to whether the OS should keep its illegally-obtained good score when it actually did no damage, the NOS having damaged itself not as a consequence of the irregularity. A TD would say, "You weren't damaged, you had a fine score available if you hadn't revoked, table result stands." That was contrary to a new principle established in the 1987 Laws and still current in the 2007 Laws. Brought up as a matter for the WBFLC in Lille 1998, the LC clarified the law by declaring that "damage" in regard to the OS is defined as an advantage in the score related to the irregularity, even if "subsequent," not just "consequent." Actually it was not a completely new principle at all, because even in 1963 and 1975 the Laws provided for a worse score adjustment for the OS than the mere offsetting of the irregularity. That was in the form of "penalty points" that could be deducted also. So much for that. I must comment on Adam's assertion that he had suggested his "emendation" of L12c1(e)(ii) when drafts of the 2007 Laws were distributed to the LC, to the ACBL people on the Drafting Committee, and to the ACBL LC (who accepted it). That being so, his suggestion was obviously not accepted by the Drafting Committee, who did not include it in the Laws. Is it not chutzpah to unilaterally implement the change of a law that was created in 1987, repeated in 1997, and always accepted by the ACBL until now, when its "emendation" was not accepted by the Drafting Committee? As to the ACBL LC, one member told me that this change was characterized as immaterial, a mere clarification of the intended meaning. That body evidently accepted this without considering the consequences, which Adam himself seemed not to realize at first. Adam is a highly intelligent person, and like many such is quite assertive when presenting his views. From what I saw of the ACBL LC when I attended its meetings for many years, there didn't seem to be anyone up to challenging someone like Adam (but the LC membership has changed some since then). And no wonder. He is not only vice-chair of the LC but also the hard-working chairman of the NABC Tournament Appeals Committee. Who's going to argue with him? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Aug 25 03:09:07 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:09:07 -0700 Subject: [BLML] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Score adjustments References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <003c01ca24d9$c6531fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: From: "Grattan" > I have a concern that there may be some RAs also > adopting 12C1(e) - other than the ACBL. I wish to > avoid their contamination with a corrupted form of the > law. There is always the danger that an ACBL law book > may stray into the hands of a director in such an NBO > and mislead her/him. > Since the ACBL is the ZA for Canada and Mexicio in addition to the USA, its version of the laws holds in those NBOs, whether they like it or not. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Aug 25 04:37:23 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:37:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language In-Reply-To: <4A8F0410.5090100@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A8F0410.5090100@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A934E63.6040201@nhcc.net> > From: Adam Wildavsky > what is that probability that it would not have made, had > the irregularity occurred? The question seems meaningless to me. There are lots of controversial topics on BLML, but seldom have I seen one where the lack of understanding of the opposing positions is so extreme. The culprit, of course, is L12C1e(ii), which reads "For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable." This is incomplete. It needs a subsequent phrase, which might be one of the following: a) ...had the irregularity not occurred. b) ...had the non-offending side avoided serious error and wild and gambling actions. c) ...had the deal been played against different opponents of the same skill and playing the same methods as the non-offending side. I don't claim my wording above is perfect, but I hope everyone can see that these are three different rules, each of which could reasonably be applied. And also that each of them is consistent with the existing wording of the Law. Obviously the ACBL has chosen a). I don't see anything inconsistent with logic in doing so, but it is inconsistent with worldwide practice and history. It also seems the least consistent with the actual language, though by no means is it the greatest stretch of interpretation some official body has ever made. I _think_ the actual intention of the WBFLC was probably b), but there is nothing obvious to me that rules out c). From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Aug 25 04:55:42 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:55:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments In-Reply-To: <4A9315EA.1080100@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A9315EA.1080100@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net> > From: Thomas Dehn >> I think the interpretation of "at all probable" has changed since >> 1987. Back then, "at all probable" was interpreted as something having >> at least a one in six probability (>16,66%). That was by the ACBL Laws Commission; I'm not sure when it was enacted. It was rescinded, I think, sometime in the 1990's. Now there is no official numerical guideline, but I don't think the practical guideline has changed. The former guideline for "likely" was one chance in three. That was likewise rescinded, but again I don't think the practical interpretation has changed. > From: Peter Eidt > Never heard about such high probability and it > would be in direct contradiction to the (natural) > meaning of "at all probable". It seems about right to me. The language contemplates something unusual or unexpected but not so rare that it would be astonishing. It is not "at all probable" for me to have a flat tire (a once-a-year occurrence for me) tomorrow, but it is "at all probable" for me to find an unexpected road closure (which happens perhaps once a month on average but more often in the summer). In bridge terms, "at all probable" suggests, if the deal were played a dozen or so times in the exact circumstances dictated, a result you would _expect_ to see at least once on the scoresheet and indeed would be surprised _not_ to see at all. "Likely" means you would expect multiple occurrences but perhaps not necessarily a majority. (Personally, I think 'likely' does connote a majority, but no bridge authority agrees with me.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 25 05:19:44 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:19:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "likely, adj. Probable, such as might well happen or be or prove true or turn out to be the thing specified" Steve Willner: [snip] >"Likely" means you would expect multiple occurrences but perhaps not >necessarily a majority. > >(Personally, I think 'likely' does connote a majority, but no bridge >authority agrees with me.) Richard Hills: Since "likely" does not appear in the 2007 Definitions, the "likely" connotations are defined by a bog-standard dictionary, and cannot be defined otherwise by an exalted Regulating Authority.* So my dictionaries suggest that "more likely than not" does connote a majority, as does "most likely" or "very likely". But a vanilla "likely" lacks a majoritarian connotation in my dictionaries. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills * An exalted Regulating Authority may not interpret a Law's words contrary to their bog-standard dictionary definitions, but may choose to more _narrowly_ specify a word with a _vague_ dictionary definition. So the ABF and EBU have more narrowly specified the words "serious", "significant" and "some" in Law 16B1(b). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 25 08:10:17 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:10:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Balance of power [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <16024220.1251180617484.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Henry Kissinger, Nobel Peace Prize winner: > > "The management of a balance of power is a permanent > undertaking, not an exertion that has a foreseeable end." > > Imps, Knockout Teams > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hashmat Ali Richard Hills > --- Pass 1D (1) Pass > 1H (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass > 2D (4) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually > denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in > both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card > majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. Interesting. This is similar to the 1D opener because of which we weren't allowed to play Hydra in the 1980s. > (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a > heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the > first step in an artificial game force relay. > > (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. > > (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. > > You, South, hold: > > AK732 > 5 > T854 > 875 > > What bid do you make? > What end do you foresee? It does not make much sense to answer without knowing our defense against this system; especially without knowing what hands partner cannot have because he passed over 1D 1H. My H singleton indicates that he has at least four hearts, possibly five. This is not a fit auction, LHO might have 4531 or similar, E/W might conceivably hold a combined 23, 24 HCP and a misfit. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Aug 25 08:13:07 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:13:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Effect_of_ACBL_L12C1=28e=29=28ii=29_langua?= =?iso-8859-15?q?ge?= In-Reply-To: <4A934E63.6040201@nhcc.net> References: <4A8F0410.5090100@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A934E63.6040201@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <1MfpHH-0yOz4K0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> From: Steve Willner > > From: Adam Wildavsky > > what is that probability that it would not have made, had > > the irregularity occurred? The question seems meaningless to me. > > There are lots of controversial topics on BLML, but seldom have I seen > one where the lack of understanding of the opposing positions is so > extreme. ?The culprit, of course, is L12C1e(ii), which reads > "For an offending side the score assigned is the most > unfavourable result that was at all probable." > > This is incomplete. ? Why ?? > It needs a subsequent phrase, which might be one > of the following: Why ?? > a) ...had the irregularity not occurred. > b) ...had the non-offending side avoided serious error and wild and > gambling actions. > c) ...had the deal been played against different opponents of the same > skill and playing the same methods as the non-offending side. > > I don't claim my wording above is perfect, but I hope everyone can see > that these are three different rules, each of which could reasonably > be applied. ?And also that each of them is consistent with the > existing wording of the Law. Yes! And why do you squeeze the existing law into only one interpretation? The law obviously doesn't matter under what condition you reach a score; if it was "at all probable", put it on your list for the OS. > > Obviously the ACBL has chosen a). ?I don't see anything inconsistent > with logic in doing so, but it is inconsistent with worldwide practice > and history. ?It also seems the least consistent with the actual > language, though by no means is it the greatest stretch of > interpretation some official body has ever made. > > I _think_ the actual intention of the WBFLC was probably b), but there > is nothing obvious to me that rules out c). Having read comments of persons that are members of the WBF LC, I _believe_ the WBF LC deliberately made no additional condition (as a) or b) or c) or whatever) for that law to be applicable. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Aug 25 08:26:50 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:26:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Balance of power [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/8/25 : > > Henry Kissinger, Nobel Peace Prize winner: > > "The management of a balance of power is a permanent > undertaking, not an exertion that has a foreseeable end." > > Imps, Knockout Teams > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST ? ? ? ? ? ?NORTH ? ? ? ? ?EAST ? ? ? ? ? ?SOUTH > Hashmat Ali ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Richard Hills > --- ? ? ? ? ? ? Pass ? ? ? ? ? 1D (1) ? ? ? ? ?Pass > 1H (2) ? ? ? ? ?Pass ? ? ? ? ? 2C (3) ? ? ? ? ?Pass > 2D (4) ? ? ? ? ?Pass ? ? ? ? ? Pass ? ? ? ? ? ?? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually > denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in > both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card > majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. > > (2) Two-way bid. ?Either less than game-forcing with a > heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the > first step in an artificial game force relay. > > (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. > > (4) Signoff. ?Heart suit + diamond preference. > > You, South, hold: > > AK732 > 5 > T854 > 875 > > What bid do you make? I'm passing. Opponents haven't promised a fit, and partner didn't come to live at his two opportunities. Doesn't look like we should participate in the auction as it has developed. No idea why I didn't overcall 1S over 1D. > What end do you foresee? We'll defend 2D. If this makes or goes down is hard to guess. And the result at the other table is impossible to predict, other than the bidding will be different. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. 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 Tue Aug 25 08:31:47 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:31:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Balance of power [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <16024220.1251180617484.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <16024220.1251180617484.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A938553.5010002@t-online.de> Thomas Dehn schrieb: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Henry Kissinger, Nobel Peace Prize winner: >> >> "The management of a balance of power is a permanent >> undertaking, not an exertion that has a foreseeable end." >> >> Imps, Knockout Teams >> Dlr: North >> Vul: East-West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Hashmat Ali Richard Hills >> --- Pass 1D (1) Pass >> 1H (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass >> 2D (4) Pass Pass ? >> >> (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually >> denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in >> both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card >> majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. > > Interesting. This is similar to the 1D opener because of which > we weren't allowed to play Hydra in the 1980s. > >> (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a >> heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the >> first step in an artificial game force relay. >> >> (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. >> >> (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> AK732 >> 5 >> T854 >> 875 >> >> What bid do you make? >> What end do you foresee? > > It does not make much sense to answer without knowing > our defense against this system; especially without knowing > what hands partner cannot have because he passed over 1D 1H. He even went a step further: he passed as dealer. > My H singleton indicates that he has at least four hearts, possibly five. > > This is not a fit auction, LHO might have 4531 or similar, > E/W might conceivably hold a combined 23, 24 HCP and > a misfit. Well, unless that pass showed serious values they are sure to hold at least 22, possibly quite a bit more, as both opps might be maximum for their actions. This is teams, so I pass. It is much to dangerous to reopen here. As Thomas pointed out it is quite likely that LHO holds a couple of spades. We are outgunned in the HCP department. Partner may have a hand where we make couple of spades, possibly, once in a blue moon, even 4, but it is much more likely that we push them into game or rescue them from a misfit, going for a number in the process. Best regards Matthias > > > Thomas > > Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From blml at arcor.de Tue Aug 25 08:58:38 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:58:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Balance of power [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A938553.5010002@t-online.de> References: <4A938553.5010002@t-online.de> <16024220.1251180617484.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <12340724.1251183518569.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Thomas Dehn schrieb: > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Henry Kissinger, Nobel Peace Prize winner: > >> > >> "The management of a balance of power is a permanent > >> undertaking, not an exertion that has a foreseeable end." > >> > >> Imps, Knockout Teams > >> Dlr: North > >> Vul: East-West > >> > >> The bidding has gone: > >> > >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >> Hashmat Ali Richard Hills > >> --- Pass 1D (1) Pass > >> 1H (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass > >> 2D (4) Pass Pass ? > >> > >> (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually > >> denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in > >> both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card > >> majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. > > > > Interesting. This is similar to the 1D opener because of which > > we weren't allowed to play Hydra in the 1980s. > > > >> (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a > >> heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the > >> first step in an artificial game force relay. > >> > >> (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. > >> > >> (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. > >> > >> You, South, hold: > >> > >> AK732 > >> 5 > >> T854 > >> 875 > >> > >> What bid do you make? > >> What end do you foresee? > > > > It does not make much sense to answer without knowing > > our defense against this system; especially without knowing > > what hands partner cannot have because he passed over 1D 1H. > > He even went a step further: he passed as dealer. Right. Hey, I overlooked that. Then pass is really obvious, WTP? Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 25 09:13:23 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:13:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Balance of power [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Henry Kissinger, American Secretary of State 1973-1977: "There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full." Imps, Knockout Teams Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hashmat Ali Richard Hills --- Pass 1D (1) Pass 1H (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass 2D (4) Pass Pass ? (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the first step in an artificial game force relay. (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. You, South, hold: AK732 5 T854 875 What bid do you make? What end do you foresee? Pawel Szymonik, July 2004: >Pass. Opponents misunderstanding seems obvious to me. >West bid of 2Dia was probably intended as next relay. >And if North really passed his 12 count we still dont >have a guarantee of making 2Spa. > >Cheers >Pawel Richard Hills: We have a winner! The complete deal was -> J8 K9874 K96 943 QT965 4 AQT2 J63 AJ Q732 K6 AQJT2 AK732 5 T854 875 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hashmat Ali Richard Hills --- Pass 1D Pass 1H Pass 2C Pass 2D (1) Pass Pass 2S X (2) Pass 3D (3) Pass 3NT(4) Pass Pass Pass (1) Hashmat forgot that 2S (not 2D) was relay. (2) In tempo penalty double. (3) In tempo cowardice, and proof that Hashmat's misbid was not a Law 40C1 "more reason to be aware" implicit partnership understanding, since then me passing the penalty double is automatic. (4) At this point in the auction, I alerted the opponents to the fact that Hashmat had forgotten the system. David Babcock, July 2004: >>>However well-intentioned, is this allowed before the >>>final pass? John (MadDog) Probst, July 2004: >>Que? MI is illegal. Creation of UI isn't. Would you >>accept I must alert 3NT and when asked by opponents gravely >>explain "This call is anti-systemic". I much prefer >>"Partner is a complete plonker and has forgotten the >>system". cheers john South was unimpressed both with my pard, and with her own marginal balancing bid. The Hills Theory of Balancing - "Don't" - strikes again! This was a Canberra Bridge Club event. The Ali-Hills partnership and my opponents had been regular attendees at this club for donkey's years. The opponents sportingly did not summon the director, since they knew that Hashmat and I had been playing Symmetric Relay for two millennia, and that this was a rare careless stuffup in our well-practised bonkers system. As well as accurately describing my system as bonkers,* the now-recovering blmler John (MadDog) Probst wrote about this deal in 2004: >>I'd write you up in the psyche book, I think. There is no >>basis at all for a PP but I'd do a DP ruling. My ruling is >>as follows: >> >>"The 2S bidder is to buy her partner a drink for the >>lunatic balancing action. The 2D bidder is to buy the 2S >>bidder a drink for letting him back into the auction. RJH >>is to buy his partner a drink as the stress of playing with >>RJH is clearly sending the man demented. The partner of the >>2S bidder is to buy the TD a drink because it's all his >>fault (a general catch-all, where DP's are concerned). The >>TD is to buy RJH a drink for providing the best >>entertainment of the evening. The rest of the room is to >>stop giggling or I'll issue some more DP's." >> >>I tell you DP's can be exacted in any form, they're far >>better than PP's. I charge a pint of bitter to people who >>throw their bidding box on the floor, gravely citing 91 as >>my justification. cheers john Best wishes R.J.B. Hills John (MadDog) Probst, July 2004: >>*"bonkers" systems are fun. I'm not knocking it, I play >>plenty of bonkers stuff myself. cheers john -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 25 10:39:01 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:39:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> [RH] But a vanilla "likely" lacks a majoritarian connotation in my dictionaries. [DALB] It seems to me that if we regard a thing that will occur less than half the time as "likely to happen", then we must regard it as simultaneously likely to happen and likely not to happen (since it will not happen more than half the time). This is absurd, which is of course not to say that it has no place in the Laws of bridge, merely that it should not have. David Burn London, England From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Aug 25 11:13:09 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:13:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> References: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net> <000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> Message-ID: <019701ca2564$4428ead0$cc7ac070$@nl> [DALB] It seems to me that if we regard a thing that will occur less than half the time as "likely to happen", then we must regard it as simultaneously likely to happen and likely not to happen (since it will not happen more than half the time). This is absurd, which is of course not to say that it has no place in the Laws of bridge, merely that it should not have. [HvS] This seems to me exactly the reason why in civilized parts of the planet the 12C1e part of the law book is not applied. It gives a director the right to punish an offending side one way or the other to the maximum. This could only be defended if they did it on purpose, which the law assumes they did not. Hans From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 25 11:37:27 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:37:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments In-Reply-To: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E31E8@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E31E8@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <4A93B0D7.70403@ulb.ac.be> Robin Barker a ?crit : >> >> AG :I'm sorry, but this isn't true. >> The probability that, for example, somebody double in a given sequence >> with the explanations as they were given is *not* 1, even knowing that >> one did double on this precise occasion. Players are unpredictible, and >> in some cases it pays to be unpredictible (think of restricted choice). >> > > You have carefully confused the grammatical tense of the verb "double". > > The probability that a given person doubled in a given sequence is 1 (or 0). > Yes, but we are required to assess the probability that they would double in those given circumstances, not the probbility that they have doubled. (and, secondarily, you're confusing tenses with moods and aspects) From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Aug 25 12:55:43 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:55:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> References: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net> <000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> Message-ID: 2009/8/25 David Burn : > [RH] > > But a vanilla "likely" lacks a majoritarian connotation in my dictionaries. > > [DALB] > > It seems to me that if we regard a thing that will occur less than half the > time as "likely to happen", then we must regard it as simultaneously likely > to happen and likely not to happen (since it will not happen more than half > the time). This is absurd, which is of course not to say that it has no > place in the Laws of bridge, merely that it should not have. > So if there's a case where thinks there are four possible outcomes, believing each and every one of them to have a probability of 25%, none of theme are likely to happen. Does that imply that we're unlikely to have an outcome at all? :-) I agree with Richard upthread: "But a vanilla "likely" lacks a majoritarian connotation in my dictionaries." -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 25 13:41:59 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:41:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net> <000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> Message-ID: <000001ca2579$0f3a7400$2daf5c00$@com> [HS] So if there's a case where thinks there are four possible outcomes, believing each and every one of them to have a probability of 25%, none of them are likely to happen. Does that imply that we're unlikely to have an outcome at all? :-) [DALB] No. What it means is that we are certain to have an unlikely outcome, just as the next hand of 13 cards you pick up will be very unlikely to have been dealt to you, yet it is certain that you must pick up some 13 cards or other. Of course, this leaves unresolved the problem of the wording of Law 12. What is desired is that a non-offending side should receive the most favourable of results that will occur with a *relative* likelihood above a certain threshold (in the example above, all results have relative likelihood of one, so the most favourable of them should be awarded to the non-offending side). But this is not easy to express clearly in English or any other language. [HS] I agree with Richard upthread: "But a vanilla "likely" lacks a majoritarian connotation in my dictionaries." [DALB] Since Richard does not appear to know the meaning of the word "majoritarian" [pertaining to a system of government by a majority], I am disinclined to trust his dictionaries. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 25 13:42:55 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:42:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net> <000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> Message-ID: <4A93CE3F.7000207@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2009/8/25 David Burn : > >> [RH] >> >> But a vanilla "likely" lacks a majoritarian connotation in my dictionaries. >> >> [DALB] >> >> It seems to me that if we regard a thing that will occur less than half the >> time as "likely to happen", then we must regard it as simultaneously likely >> to happen and likely not to happen (since it will not happen more than half >> the time). This is absurd, which is of course not to say that it has no >> place in the Laws of bridge, merely that it should not have. >> >> > So if there's a case where thinks there are four possible outcomes, > believing each and every one of them to have a probability of 25%, > none of theme are likely to happen. Does that imply that we're > unlikely to have an outcome at all? :-) > Not necessarily. It is unlikely that you, me or the Pope wins at lottery, but it's highly likely somebody will win. Discretized version of Zeno's second paradox. Not that I like the idea of enforcing a set threshold in defining likelihood ... From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 25 13:48:13 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:48:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001ca2579$0f3a7400$2daf5c00$@com> References: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net> <000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> <000001ca2579$0f3a7400$2daf5c00$@com> Message-ID: <4A93CF7D.4070309@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [HS] > > So if there's a case where thinks there are four possible outcomes, believing each and every one of them to have a probability of 25%, none of them are likely to happen. Does that imply that we're unlikely to have an outcome at all? :-) > > [DALB] > > No. What it means is that we are certain to have an unlikely outcome, just as the next hand of 13 cards you pick up will be very unlikely to have been dealt to you, yet it is certain that you must pick up some 13 cards or other. > > Of course, this leaves unresolved the problem of the wording of Law 12. What is desired is that a non-offending side should receive the most favourable of results that will occur with a *relative* likelihood above a certain threshold (in the example above, all results have relative likelihood of one, so the most favourable of them should be awarded to the non-offending side). But this is not easy to express clearly in English or any other language. > May I suggest 'the most favorable result among those whose probability of occurrence is at least half the probability for the most probable result' ? i.e. if there is no result with more than 20% probability, any result with at least 10% probability must be taken into account. (of course, nobody can determine those probabilities accurately enough, but it's a reasonable guideline, and in some cases one can use the actual results to get some clues) From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 25 14:38:56 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:38:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A93CF7D.4070309@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net> <000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> <000001ca2579$0f3a7400$2daf5c00$@com> <4A93CF7D.4070309@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A93DB60.8050603@ulb.ac.be> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > David Burn a ?crit : > >> [HS] >> >> So if there's a case where thinks there are four possible outcomes, believing each and every one of them to have a probability of 25%, none of them are likely to happen. Does that imply that we're unlikely to have an outcome at all? :-) >> >> [DALB] >> >> No. What it means is that we are certain to have an unlikely outcome, just as the next hand of 13 cards you pick up will be very unlikely to have been dealt to you, yet it is certain that you must pick up some 13 cards or other. >> >> Of course, this leaves unresolved the problem of the wording of Law 12. What is desired is that a non-offending side should receive the most favourable of results that will occur with a *relative* likelihood above a certain threshold (in the example above, all results have relative likelihood of one, so the most favourable of them should be awarded to the non-offending side). But this is not easy to express clearly in English or any other language. >> >> > May I suggest 'the most favorable result among those whose probability > of occurrence is at least half the probability for the most probable > result' ? > La plej profita rezultajho el tiuj, kies shanco preterpasis la duonon de l'shanco pri la plej shanca rezultajho You said 'any other language', didn't you ? From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 25 14:40:56 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:40:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A93DB60.8050603@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net> <000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> <000001ca2579$0f3a7400$2daf5c00$@com> <4A93CF7D.4070309@ulb.ac.be> <4A93DB60.8050603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000101ca2581$4aff88b0$e0fe9a10$@com> [AG] La plej profita rezultajho el tiuj, kies shanco preterpasis la duonon de l'shanco pri la plej shanca rezultajho You said 'any other language', didn't you ? [DALB] Yes. I also said "clearly". David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 25 13:27:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:27:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? References: <558EDE6C4F3A4D768DAF800D1E24C60D@NigelPC> Message-ID: <000a01ca2592$35987fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> Message-ID: <000b01ca2592$35ca8c40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [RH] > > But a vanilla "likely" lacks a majoritarian connotation in my > dictionaries. > > [DALB] > It seems to me that if we regard a thing that will occur less than half the time as "likely to happen", then we must regard it as simultaneously likely to happen and likely not to happen (since it will not happen more than half the time). This is absurd, which is of course not to say that it has no place in the Laws of bridge, merely that it should not have. > +=+ Hmmm. 'Likely' is a word with shades of meaning; Listing a selection from the dictionary: "Inclined" - 'likely to rain' "probable" - 'a likely result' "feasible or plausible" - 'a likely solution' "such as might well happen" "having good possibilities of success" - 'likely candidate' etc. . It seems unlikely that in a field of five two candidates with good possibilities of success will each have a probability of over 50%. ......................................................................... So the question I put is whether we can derive the intention from contextual evidence. If, as I do, the director thinks "the most favourable result that was likely" indicates a choice among a plurality of candidates, the concept would appear to be more one of credibility/plausibility than one of probability. Thus I suggest the test is "do you believe this could well happen?". Had probability been the key the law could have read: "the favourable result most likely". We are grappling with Kaplan's linguistic delights, so naturally our minds will be exercised. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 25 16:41:33 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:41:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language References: <4A8F0410.5090100@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A934E63.6040201@nhcc.net> <1MfpHH-0yOz4K0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000c01ca2592$35fa4ed0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Effect of ACBL L12C1(e)(ii) language > > I _think_ the actual intention of the WBFLC was probably b), > but there is nothing obvious to me that rules out c). Having read comments of persons that are members of the WBF LC, I _believe_ the WBF LC deliberately made no additional condition (as a) or b) or c) or whatever) for that law to be applicable. +=+ It is certainly the case that when Kaplan introduced this wording to me he believed that it was a complete statement. So did I, and I continue to do so. As I said earlier, the point at which the cat is dead and not living* is the point at which an outcome is seen to be so improbable that it cannot be deemed 'at all probable' whether the TD envisages it to occur subsequent to the irregularity or in the auction from which the irregularity is eliminated. We are grappling with Kaplan's linguistic pleasures, so any conclusions must address the contents of his mind. At least twice since the inception of this law the WBFLC has rejected the argument that Law 12C1(e)(ii) is incomplete unless words are added - refer to Montreal 2003 (the earlier occasion having been 1996). . The Drafting Committee "made no additional condition (as a) or b) or c) or whatever)" (sic) and was awake at the time. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* Schrodinger informs us that for an instant both conditions exist. The Director must incline to one side of the watershed or the other from which the waters flow in both directions. (Obviously the cat, if dead, has drowned!)] From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 25 17:01:41 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:01:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01ca2592$35ca8c40$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net> <000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> <000b01ca2592$35ca8c40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A93FCD5.7090005@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > " It's the only way we can lose, > irrespective of the result." > [Graham Taylor] > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:39 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >> [RH] >> >> But a vanilla "likely" lacks a majoritarian connotation in my >> dictionaries. >> >> [DALB] >> >> > It seems to me that if we regard a thing that will occur less > than half the time as "likely to happen", then we must regard > it as simultaneously likely to happen and likely not to happen > (since it will not happen more than half the time). This is absurd AG : You pretand it's absurd, but you don't give any reason for this. It all depends on what exactly 'likely' means. If it means 'not uncommon', then I don't see the problem. Or at least one of the expressions hereunder, namely 'such as might well happen' 'It might well happen that A, but it might as well happen that not A'. Nothing absurd IMOBO. > , > which is of course not to say that it has no place in the Laws > of bridge, merely that it should not have. > > +=+ Hmmm. 'Likely' is a word with shades of meaning; > Listing a selection from the dictionary: > "Inclined" - 'likely to rain' > "probable" - 'a likely result' > "feasible or plausible" - 'a likely solution' > "such as might well happen" > "having good possibilities of success" - 'likely candidate' > etc. . > It seems unlikely that in a field of five two candidates > with good possibilities of success will each have a > probability of over 50%. > ......................................................................... > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 25 17:02:24 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:02:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net> <000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> <000001ca2579$0f3a7400$2daf5c00$@com> <4A93CF7D.4070309@ulb.ac.be><4A93DB60.8050603@ulb.ac.be> <000101ca2581$4aff88b0$e0fe9a10$@com> Message-ID: <001d01ca2595$0ec189c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [AG] > > La plej profita rezultajho el tiuj, kies shanco preterpasis la duonon de > l'shanco pri la plej shanca rezultajho > > You said 'any other language', didn't you ? > > [DALB] > > Yes. I also said "clearly". > +=+ Come David, you judge clarity by what is apparent to you? Then we need to empathize with you as well as with Edgar? "Lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate." ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 25 17:48:57 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:48:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> <3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC><000701ca1cc5$a41ab830$ec502890$@nl> <20621250BC1045C99B724E08D2DA37CB@NigelPC> Message-ID: <003201ca259b$92bc6820$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. > [Nigel] > > I tend to agree with Thomas Dean. A director might go further away from > Hans and judge a conservative defence to 6SX to be "egregious". > > But even if the victim of an infraction is certain what the director will > think, what is so wrong with trying for a "double shot"? Surely, already, > the law sufficiently favours the law-breaker? > +=+ At its meeting on 30th August 1998 the WBF Laws Committee defined a 'double shot' as a gambling action. The Committee remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot'). Law 12C1(b) incorporates 'serious error', but this should be way beyond what may be considered 'normal error or misjudgement'. The minute refers to irrationality, not in the 2007 law but it possibly gives an indication of how far removed from normal error etc. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Aug 25 18:34:07 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:34:07 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments References: <00aa01ca22c3$93816ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred><32434465.1250921277528.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net><1Mel52-1HbNmy0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <83B774ABE83C42D48862767F2361F959@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > On Aug 22, 2009, at 3:32 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > >> From: Thomas Dehn > >>> >>> I think the interpretation of "at all probable" has changed >>> since >>> 1987. Back then, "at all probable" was interpreted as something >>> having >>> at least a one in six probability (>16,66%). >> >> What makes you believe that? Who interpreted in such way? > > The ACBL. Or perhaps the high-level director who writes the > official > "Ruling the Game" column No, it came directly from the ACBL LC, who published it in the Daily Bulletin of some NABC where the LC was meeting. I remember clipping it out. > > Whatever its status, the published guideline suggested > interpreting > "likely" as something which would occur at least about one time > out > of three, and "at all probable" as one time out of six. These numbers were somewhat disavowed in a subsequent LC meeting, but I don't know if they came up with anything definitive. The Tech Files in the ACBLScore program are supposed to guide TDs in such matters, but they do not provide probability guidelines for "likely" or "at all probable." While futilely looking for that, I saw this: "an adjustment to a different number of tricks in a contract that was actually played should only be considered if the contract would have been doubled, or possibly, if it was reached on a different auction." That is to say, the OS gets to keep any serious error that was made by the NOS in the play, which violates L12C2(b). Interesting. And also this: A player bids 6D, illegal because of UI from partner, making because of a "serious error" by the defenders. The Tech File says the right ruling is table result for the defenders and 5D making six for the other side. Illegal, but I love it. L12C is applied for the NOS to redress consequent damage, but this pair wasn't damaged. All they had to do was play bridge rationally for a fine result. As for the adjustment to 5D, there is no reason to change the play of the cards in the 6D contract because the "serious error" had nothing to do with the level of contract, so +420. If the ACBL wants TDs to rule this way, they should have altered the 2007 Laws to fit. I would have applauded that. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com . From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Aug 25 19:00:10 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:00:10 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net><000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> <000b01ca2592$35ca8c40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <18E227FDAEA64A479D8CAA06510F9B2B@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" > So the question I put is whether we can derive the > intention from contextual evidence. If, as I do, the > director thinks > "the most favourable result that was likely" > indicates a choice among a plurality of candidates, > the concept would appear to be more one of > credibility/plausibility than one of probability. Thus > I suggest the test is "do you believe this could well > happen?". Very good, and for the OS, "Do you believe there was a significant possibility of this happening?" When a TD wants more guidance than that, just say "Use your common sense." > Had probability been the key the law could > have read: "the favourable result most likely". We > are grappling with Kaplan's linguistic delights, so > naturally our minds will be exercised. "The [best] [worst] result that was likely" is a well-established idiomatic expression in the English language, indicating something that might not be likely at all. When I propositioned this beautiful woman, the most favorable result that was likely was complete success, but that would have been quite unlikely. If I drink and drive, the worst result that is likely is that I get killed, but that would be quite unlikely. So "that was likely" idiomatically merely means "that was possible," and is not a good choice of words for a book of rules for a game. L12C's use of these words is indeed too vague, requiring a clarifying guideline. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Aug 25 21:22:27 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:22:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. In-Reply-To: <003201ca259b$92bc6820$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> <3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC><000701ca1cc5$a41ab830$ec502890$@nl><20621250BC1045C99B724E08D2DA37CB@NigelPC> <003201ca259b$92bc6820$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4F21515F493046DDB09E718AA94948C5@NigelPC> {Grattan] +=+ At its meeting on 30th August 1998 the WBF Laws Committee defined a 'double shot' as a gambling action. The Committee remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot'). Law 12C1(b) incorporates 'serious error', but this should be way beyond what may be considered 'normal error or misjudgement'. The minute refers to irrationality, not in the 2007 law but it possibly gives an indication of how far removed from normal error etc. [Nige1] I was arguing for a simpler law (one that did not allude to subsequent errors or double-shots by the victim). But I thank Grattan for his clarification of existing law. I wish that the WBFLC would include the clarification in place, in the law-book, itself. As usual, the WBFLC reliance on separate minutes leaves ordinary players at a disadvantage compared with secretary birds. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Aug 25 23:08:48 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:08:48 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Definitions = some opinions. References: <001c01ca193f$761879b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><50509B47-93EE-403B-830D-441E993125C3@starpower.net><5DA03D0D28D84D26BA5D77FA6EA2F42F@NigelPC><0D2251CB-526A-4DAC-9A1C-6E2324FA9BD9@starpower.net><03D0AB9DC5BB4035BB642F3B13F0626D@MARVLAPTOP><22330B0CB90E488CA91690AE6FDEEE8C@NigelPC><6ABD076F83894F2E946B16D6699C02E9@NigelPC> <3C72E889C41D42F18975AC5F14BB9656@NigelPC><000701ca1cc5$a41ab830$ec502890$@nl><20621250BC1045C99B724E08D2DA37CB@NigelPC><003201ca259b$92bc6820$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4F21515F493046DDB09E718AA94948C5@NigelPC> Message-ID: <1D54F486CAAB41BA8D0C86369E7ED8B7@MARVLAPTOP> > {Grattan] > +=+ At its meeting on 30th August 1998 the WBF Laws Committee > defined a > 'double shot' as a gambling action. The Committee remarked that > the right to > redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error > or > misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action that > is > evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the > type of > action commonly referred to as a 'double shot'). > Law 12C1(b) incorporates 'serious error', but this should be > way > beyond what may be considered 'normal error or misjudgement'. The > minute > refers to irrationality, not in the 2007 law but it possibly gives > an > indication of how far removed from normal error etc. > Another point is that the WBFLC says "serious error" must take into account the level of player involved. Serious error for a strong player might be considered a normal error or misjudgment by a weaker player. Widespread in ACBL-land is the belief that waiting until the end of play to decide if you were damaged is a "double-shot" that is not tolerated. A top-level ACBL TD stated in a 2008 book: "If it were (sic) the bad guys who hesitated, either call the Director immediately or state that you reserve the right to call the Director later. You will not be allowed two chances to obtain a good result." This is not the procedure prescribed in Law 16B2, as the ACBL did not adopt an "election" to change the law as it did in the 1997 Laws. It is only the bad guys who should call the Director, if they deny the UI, and the "may" in the law says that one can wait until the end of play to even say anything, per Law 16B3. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Aug 25 23:43:35 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:43:35 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments References: <003d01ca24d9$c7d30900$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: From: "Grattan" > From: Richard Hills:< >> Marvin French: >> >>>>...I especially would like Grattan and Richard to confirm >>>>the above if it is right, since they were involved in the >>>>formulation of the 2007 Laws. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Although I provided some "Man Friday" assistance to the Co- >> ordinator of the Drafting Committee, Grattan Endicott (with my >> suggestions to resolve ambiguities, parallel formatting, proof- >> reading and indexing), I had zero power to "formulate" the 2007 >> edition of The Fabulous Law Book. I didn't say so. I said you were "involved" in the formulation. That tells me you were recognized as having a good understanding of the Laws, hence my wish to have your comments. >> >> Therefore Grattan's answers are more authoritative than mine. "Authoritative," like pregnant, is not comparable. "Carry more weight," perhaps. Authoritative interpretations come only from the WBFLC. Grattan's opinions are his own, as he keeps repeating. >> >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>>+=+ The formulation of this law occurred in establishing the >>>1987 laws. In 1997 and 2007 the position agreed in 1987 has >>>continued unchanged. For the OS side the intention is that if >>>there is a result subsequent to the infraction that is 'at all >>>probable' and which is the most unfavourable for the OS of any >>>such results including but not limited to results at all >>>probable had the irregularity not occurred, that is the score >>>to be awarded. A result that is at all probable subsequent to >>>the irregularity may be reached via an action that did not >>>occur at the table but which the Director judges to ensue from >>>a proper implementation of the partnership understandings. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Marvin French: >> >>>>...But in an adjustment the OS cannot be assumed to take an >>>>action that they could have taken, but didn't... >> >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>>+=+ The Director may form the opinion that an OS player has >>>deliberately departed from system in order to mitigate the >>>effects for his side of the infraction. He is then entitled to >>>consider the probabilities if the player had conformed to >>>system and taken the action appropriate to the systemic >>>meaning of the calls. >>> The law places no limitation upon the probabilities >>>that the Director may judge to have existed. The limits are for >>>him to judge. +=+ >> >> Law 10C4: >> >> "Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it >> is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play >> advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to >> profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50)." Not applicable to this discussion, because no infraction has been established and rectification has not been completed. >> >> Robert Frick: >> >>>>>That's what players are supposed to do, right? After they >>>>>commit an infraction, try to mitigate the effects... >> >> Marvin French: >> >>>>I would think so, but. Grattan seems to think you can't depart >>>>from system when doing that. >>>> >>>>Maybe he will give us an example. >> >> Richard Hills example (snipped) His interesting but far-fetched example does not involve L12C, which I thought we were discussing. > +=+ It is very much for the Director to judge whether a player > has gone outside of what is lawful in seeking to mitigate the > effects of an infraction. My reference to this above was somewhat > loose - it was not my intention to deny access, subsequent to an > infraction *and its rectification under the law*, to a player's > rights > under Law 10C4. > But Robert Frick's remark "That's what players are supposed > to do, right? After they commit an infraction, try to mitigate the > effects" needs clarification. They are permitted to seek to > mitigate > the adverse effects for their own side in the continuing action > after > the Director has ruled upon rectification and explained all > matters > in regard thereto. > And the problem with Marvin's submission that " in an > adjustment the OS cannot be assumed to take an action that > they could have taken, but didn't" is that it omits to examine > questions of an action that the player should have taken, but > didn't. I'm finding it difficult to respond to these statements, so I'll try some examples. 1S-P-2S-P (long hesitation); P-3H-3S (reasonable), all pass. 3S goes off one and 3H would have gone off two vulnerable and doubled (opener had a heart stack), for -500. The 3H bid did happen, so its possible result should be a factor in the OS score adjustment. Also, bidding that might have happened subsequently (a rescue from 3H doubled, perhaps, for -800. should also be considered. Let's say it was too improbable to be included, so -500. The 3H bidder might have bid 2NT (natural, in their methods) instead of 3H, which would have been disastrous, -800. But he didn't bid 2NT, so that possibility cannot be considered. Am I really wrong??? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 26 00:11:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:11:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fault of No Default [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 2H (1) Pass Pass X Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3C (3) Pass ? (1) Traditional ACBL natural weak 2H. (2) Would be lebensohl if North had doubled in the direct seat, but after a double in the balancing seat your 2NT has its traditional ACBL natural meaning. (3) Traditional ACBL natural 3C. However, one of your meta- agreements suggests that 3C defaults to being a signoff. The other of your two relevant meta-agreements suggests that 3C defaults to being forcing for one round. You, South, hold: Q4 KT93 QJ4 J965 What's the call? What's de fault? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 26 11:59:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:59:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fault of No Default [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000d01ca2633$ed2a7250$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:11 PM Subject: [BLML] Fault of No Default [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 2H (1) Pass > Pass X Pass 2NT(2) > Pass 3C (3) Pass ? > > (1) Traditional ACBL natural weak 2H. > > (2) Would be lebensohl if North had doubled in the direct seat, > but after a double in the balancing seat your 2NT has its > traditional ACBL natural meaning. > > (3) Traditional ACBL natural 3C. However, one of your meta- > agreements suggests that 3C defaults to being a signoff. > The other of your two relevant meta-agreements suggests > that 3C defaults to being forcing for one round. > > You, South, hold: > > Q4 > KT93 > QJ4 > J965 > > What's the call? > What's de fault? > +=+ Hi Richard Have not understood. Are you saying this is a signoff requiring me to bid? When in doubt do not pass. So 3D and wait to see what happens. Play in 3-3 fit maybe? Not the first time. From Friday if responding it will be from the Press room in Sambaland. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 26 14:26:34 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:26:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments In-Reply-To: <000b01ca2592$35ca8c40$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net> <000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com> <000b01ca2592$35ca8c40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <34B94310-B1B1-4A09-9AD9-C2220719A1C5@starpower.net> On Aug 25, 2009, at 8:02 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "David Burn" > >> [RH] >> >> But a vanilla "likely" lacks a majoritarian connotation in my >> dictionaries. >> >> [DALB] >> >> It seems to me that if we regard a thing that will occur less >> than half the time as "likely to happen", then we must regard >> it as simultaneously likely to happen and likely not to happen >> (since it will not happen more than half the time). This is absurd, >> which is of course not to say that it has no place in the Laws >> of bridge, merely that it should not have. > > > +=+ Hmmm. 'Likely' is a word with shades of meaning; > Listing a selection from the dictionary: > "Inclined" - 'likely to rain' > "probable" - 'a likely result' > "feasible or plausible" - 'a likely solution' > "such as might well happen" > "having good possibilities of success" - 'likely candidate' > etc. . > It seems unlikely that in a field of five two candidates > with good possibilities of success will each have a > probability of over 50%. > ............................................................... > .......... > So the question I put is whether we can derive the > intention from contextual evidence. If, as I do, the > director thinks > "the most favourable result that was likely" > indicates a choice among a plurality of candidates, > the concept would appear to be more one of > credibility/plausibility than one of probability. Thus > I suggest the test is "do you believe this could well > happen?". > Had probability been the key the law could > have read: "the favourable result most likely". We > are grappling with Kaplan's linguistic delights, so > naturally our minds will be exercised. It's certainly clear from context that "likely" cannot be intended in the sense of p > 0.5, as for L12C1(e)(i) to make any sense at all "the most favorable result that was likely" must exist, and, in the general case, allow for choosing among more than one "favorable result that was likely". Using David's definition, "the most favorable result that was likely" would be "the likely result, if any". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 26 16:32:45 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:32:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frequent intentional misbids (a day in the life) Message-ID: On the second board of the round, East opened 1NT. He ended up dummy, so we got to see that he had only 13 HCP (playing 15-17). On the last board of the round, he opened 1S. They play 5-card majors, but he had 10xxx in spades. That made me look at the first board, where I discovered he opened 2NT with 19 HCP (playing 20-21). Isn't there something wrong here? This isn't how I want to play bridge. I think I have lots of company. For want of a better word, he was monkeywrenching -- throwing a monkey wrench into the auction to hope we got hurt instead of him. It usually doesn't work, but he does it anyway. The laws seem to care only that I know as well as partner that he might not have his bid. I knew. His previous record was monkeywrenching twice against me in a 3-board round, and I don't think I checked the third board. The laws seem to think I will be mollified because I get a good board from his monkeywrenching more often than I get a bad. I am not mollified. I would rather have a sitout. One problem is that the laws do not discriminate monkeywrenching from tactical bids. (For example, I had a horrible 15 HCP hand that I bid as if it had only 14 HCP.) I think the ACBL has rules about how often someone can psych, but they define a psych as a gross violation in system. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Aug 26 19:28:31 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:28:31 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments References: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net><000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com><000b01ca2592$35ca8c40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <34B94310-B1B1-4A09-9AD9-C2220719A1C5@starpower.net> Message-ID: From: "Eric Landau" > On Aug 25, 2009, at 8:02 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> From: "David Burn" >> >>> [RH] >>> >>> But a vanilla "likely" lacks a majoritarian connotation in my >>> dictionaries. >>> >>> [DALB] >>> >>> It seems to me that if we regard a thing that will occur less >>> than half the time as "likely to happen", then we must regard >>> it as simultaneously likely to happen and likely not to happen >>> (since it will not happen more than half the time). This is >>> absurd, >>> which is of course not to say that it has no place in the Laws >>> of bridge, merely that it should not have. >> >> >> +=+ Hmmm. 'Likely' is a word with shades of meaning; >> Listing a selection from the dictionary: >> "Inclined" - 'likely to rain' >> "probable" - 'a likely result' >> "feasible or plausible" - 'a likely solution' >> "such as might well happen" >> "having good possibilities of success" - 'likely >> candidate' >> etc. . >> It seems unlikely that in a field of five two candidates >> with good possibilities of success will each have a >> probability of over 50%. >> >> ............................................................... >> .......... >> So the question I put is whether we can derive the >> intention from contextual evidence. If, as I do, the >> director thinks >> "the most favourable result that was likely" >> indicates a choice among a plurality of candidates, >> the concept would appear to be more one of >> credibility/plausibility than one of probability. Thus >> I suggest the test is "do you believe this could well >> happen?". >> Had probability been the key the law could >> have read: "the favourable result most likely". We >> are grappling with Kaplan's linguistic delights, so >> naturally our minds will be exercised. > > It's certainly clear from context that "likely" cannot be intended > in > the sense of p > 0.5, as for L12C1(e)(i) to make any sense at all > "the most favorable result that was likely" must exist, and, in > the > general case, allow for choosing among more than one "favorable > result that was likely". Using David's definition, "the most > favorable result that was likely" would be "the likely result, if > any". And that is wrong. The most favorable result that was likely may not be a likely result. If the lawmakers intended something like "the likely result, if any," they would have said that. Moreover, since there may be more than one favorable result to choose from, the word "most." must be included. If two favorable results have a 35% chance and a 45% chance, the former is assumed if it is the more favorable. As most people interpret the word "likely," the latter would be chosen because it is more likely. In their brains, the "most favorable result that was likely" is mistranslated as "the most likely favorable result." With the ambiguity attaching to the word "likely," it should be avoided in a legal document. The NOS should get the most favorable result that quite possibly might have ensued had the irregularity not occurred. Guidelines for "quite possibly" would be up to the RA. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 27 00:13:17 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:13:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Frequent intentional misbids (a day in the life) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001ca269a$6a50f4f0$3ef2ded0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > On the second board of the round, East opened 1NT. He ended up dummy, so we > got to see that he had only 13 HCP (playing 15-17). > > On the last board of the round, he opened 1S. They play 5-card majors, but he > had 10xxx in spades. > > That made me look at the first board, where I discovered he opened 2NT with 19 > HCP (playing 20-21). > > Isn't there something wrong here? This isn't how I want to play bridge. I think I > have lots of company. > > For want of a better word, he was monkeywrenching -- throwing a monkey wrench > into the auction to hope we got hurt instead of him. It usually doesn't work, but he > does it anyway. > > The laws seem to care only that I know as well as partner that he might not have > his bid. I knew. His previous record was monkeywrenching twice against me in a 3- > board round, and I don't think I checked the third board. The laws seem to think I > will be mollified because I get a good board from his monkeywrenching more often > than I get a bad. I am not mollified. I would rather have a sitout. > > One problem is that the laws do not discriminate monkeywrenching from tactical > bids. (For example, I had a horrible 15 HCP hand that I bid as if it had only 14 > HCP.) I think the ACBL has rules about how often someone can psych, but they > define a psych as a gross violation in system. Deviating 1 HCP from announced agreements is definitely not psyching. To have a call accepted (by the Director) as a psyche is a privilege that exempts you from various restrictions in the laws; one requirement is that the deviation must be gross, another (expressed simplified) is that the deviation shall be at least as surprising to your partner as it is to your opponents. In your cases I should have requested you to report the incidents to the Director for further observations and possible reactions. A systematic tendency like that cannot possibly be sufficiently unknown to his partner to make his calls acceptable as psychic calls; they should instead be ruled upon as CPU. Regards Sven. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 27 00:46:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:46:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A9352AE.4060301@nhcc.net><000001ca255f$7eff1e90$7cfd5bb0$@com><000b01ca2592$35ca8c40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18E227FDAEA64A479D8CAA06510F9B2B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <002801ca269f$142ed6f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Score adjustments [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > From: "Grattan" > So the question I put is whether we can derive the intention from contextual evidence. If, as I do, the director thinks "the most favourable result that was likely" indicates a choice among a plurality of candidates, the concept would appear to be more one of credibility/plausibility than one of probability. Thus I suggest the test is "do you believe this could well happen?". > Very good, and for the OS, "Do you believe there was a significant possibility of this happening?" > +=+ Re-reading the above I feel I would like to substitute, in respect of the OS, the question "Do you judge there was more than a remote possibility of this happening?". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 27 01:10:42 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:10:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Late 14th century proverb: "The higher the monkey climbs the more he shows his tail." Robert Frick: >On the second board of the round, East opened 1NT. He ended up dummy, >so we got to see that he had only 13 HCP (playing 15-17). Richard Hills: Unless banned by the Regulating Authority as a Special Partnership Understanding, it is legal for a partnership to play a 13-17 1NT. Robert Frick: [snip] >That made me look at the first board, where I discovered he opened >2NT with 19 HCP (playing 20-21). Richard Hills: Unless banned by the Regulating Authority as a Special Partnership Understanding, it is legal for a partnership to play a 19-21 2NT. Robert Frick: >Isn't there something wrong here? Richard Hills: *If* East-West have an *undisclosed* pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding that East opens 13-17 1NTs and 19-21 2NTs, *then* East-West have infracted Laws 40A1, 40B4 and 40C1. Robert Frick: >This isn't how I want to play bridge. I think I have lots of >company. Richard Hills: I agree that my preferred method of playing bridge is with opponents who never false-card as defenders, and who never false-bid during the auction. I think I have lots of company in desiring such reliable opponents. Robert Frick: >For want of a better word, he was monkeywrenching -- throwing a >monkey wrench into the auction to hope we got hurt instead of him. Law 40A3: "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)." Robert Frick: >It usually doesn't work, but he does it anyway. Richard Hills: My preempts usually do not work -- the opponents usually still reach their par game -- but I bid them anyway due to the huge gain when they do drive the opponents to the wrong contract (or, better still, we pick up a double-game swing). Robert Frick: [snip] >One problem is that the laws do not discriminate monkeywrenching from >tactical bids. (For example, I had a horrible 15 HCP hand that I bid >as if it had only 14 HCP.) Richard Hills: *If* Frick-partner have an *undisclosed* pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding that Frick does not open a 15-17 1NT when holding a horrible 15 hcp hand, *then* Frick-partner have infracted Laws 40A1, 40B4 and 40C1 whenever they play against Walter the Walrus opponents. Sure the Laws require you to disclose all positive and negative inferences from explicit and implicit understandings to the opponents. It does not matter if you are making a frequent and "evil" monkey- wrench bid, or instead a frequent but "virtuous" tactical bid -- because both bids are frequent, both bids are now implicit partnership understandings, and Law 40 states both sets of opponents need to know. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 27 01:37:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:37:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fault of No Default [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01ca2633$ed2a7250$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: East >>Vul: None >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- 2H (1) Pass >>Pass X Pass 2NT(2) >>Pass 3C (3) Pass ? >> >>(1) Traditional ACBL natural weak 2H. >> >>(2) Would be lebensohl if North had doubled in the direct seat, >> but after a double in the balancing seat your 2NT has its >> traditional ACBL natural meaning. >> >>(3) Traditional ACBL natural 3C. However, one of your meta- >> agreements suggests that 3C defaults to being a signoff. >> The other of your two relevant meta-agreements suggests >> that 3C defaults to being forcing for one round. >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>Q4 >>KT93 >>QJ4 >>J965 >> >>What's the call? >>What's de fault? Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Hi Richard > Have not understood. Are you saying this is a signoff >requiring me to bid? Richard Hills: No, I am saying that it is Discussed that pard has clubs, but it is Undiscussed whether 3C is forcing. Pard might hold a minimum takeout double with a 4-0-3-6 shape, in which case the only plus score might be passing 3C for +110. Or pard might (and did) hold: K85 6 AT5 AKQT32 Grattan Endicott: > When in doubt do not pass. So 3D and wait to see what >happens. Play in 3-3 fit maybe? Not the first time. Richard Hills: Yes, the 3-3 fit it would be, since you have UI that pard mistakenly thinks that 2NT is lebensohl. This deal originally appeared in the August 2009 editorial of The Bridge World, which gives us AI that Jeff Rubens mistakenly thinks: "...The Laws give no explicit guidance in such cases..." Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 27 02:30:32 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:30:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001ca269a$6a50f4f0$3ef2ded0$@no> Message-ID: The late Robert Benchley (experienced humorist): "The surest way to make a monkey of a man is to quote him." Sven Pran (experienced Director): >Deviating 1 HCP from announced agreements is definitely not psyching. >To have a call accepted (by the Director) as a psyche is a privilege >that exempts you from various restrictions in the laws; [snip] Richard Hills (inexperienced third chimpanzee): Sven Pran has directed under the 1975, 1987 and 1997 Lawbooks; under all of those Lawbooks Sven's belief that a gross psychic deviation is more privileged than a minor 1 hcp deviation would be true. Under the 2007 Lawbook, however, a gross psychic deviation is less privileged, since an artificial psychic deviation may be regulated by Law 40B2(d). And under the two general 2007 Laws dealing with deviations, Law 40A3 and Law 40C1, all deviations -- gross psychic deviations or minor 1 hcp deviations -- have the same two principles applied: (a) If not an understanding, freedom to deviate (Law 40A3), or (b) If indeed an understanding, requirement to disclose (Law 40C1). Best wishes R.J.B. 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 yahoo.co.uk Thu Aug 27 03:03:03 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:03:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with Robert Frick: Many opponents deliberately and regularly deviate from their declared bidding methods, shading HCP and distributional requirements. It is irritating and occasionally inflicts real damage. There is little incentive for the victim to call the director, because, normally there will be no accessible records of previous departures; you will suffer fustration and resentment for no reward; at best, your call may benefit the deviator's *next* victim. Most directors won't award redress to the victim on the basis of a single director call. Furthermore, many directors insist that *minor* variations are perfectly OK. Some say (wrongly in my opinion) that the law should concern itself only when there is a *history* of *gross* deviations combined with blatant *fielding*. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 27 03:29:34 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:29:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Furthermore, many directors insist that *minor* variations >are perfectly OK. Richard Hills: Congratulations to Nigel Guthrie for having his inferential problem cum triple squeeze published in the August 2009 issue of The Bridge World. A "minor" failure to disclose partnership understandings is like being a "little bit" pregnant. Even if the non- offending side is not damaged, the Director can insist that the offending side corrects their system cards and the Director may also apply a procedural penalty. Nigel Guthrie: >Some say (wrongly in my opinion) that the law should >concern itself only when there is a *history* of *gross* >deviations combined with blatant *fielding*. EBU Law and Ethics Committee minutes, 4 September 2008: [snip] >>Discussion moved on to the disclosure of psychic >>tendencies, with Mr Burn suggesting that psychic >>tendencies should be disclosed but as soon as you do that >>it becomes subject to the regulations on partnership >>agreement. An example given was where the auction went 1C >>(Precision) followed by a psychic 1S overcall - made on >>any 13 cards. Partner always treats the call as showing a >>genuine spade overcall so there is no element of fielding. >>Mr Stevenson said that it was correct to disclose such >>tendencies but you couldn't use them for your own use. It >>would also be allowed to know that one opponent psyched >>but the other did not. >> >>Mr Burn suggested that whatever the committee did would be >>illegal but the most sensible way forward was to allow >>disclosure. [snip] Richard Hills: The reason that Davids Burn and Stevenson were tying themselves in knots is that historically the EBU has treated "fielding" as an infraction in and of itself. However, the new Law 40 in the 2007 Lawbook clarifies that it is not "fielding" which is an infraction -- anyone may make any call, Law 40A3 -- but rather "fielding" is merely *evidence* of an undisclosed partnership understanding, and it is the *undisclosed nature* of the partnership understanding which is the infraction. See Laws 40A1, 40B4, 40B6 and 40C1. David Burn's hypothetical example of an unfielded 1S overcall of a Precision Club is easily resolved. Since a nefarious undisclosed partnership understanding about a 1S overcall is automatically an infraction of Law 40, it is entirely irrelevant whether it is fielded or not (any fielding merely means that the perpetrators are caught today, rather than tomorrow). Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 27 03:33:41 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:33:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > I agree with Robert Frick: Many opponents deliberately and regularly > deviate > from their declared bidding methods, shading HCP and distributional > requirements. It is irritating and occasionally inflicts real damage. > There > is little incentive for the victim to call the director, because, normally > there will be no accessible records of previous departures; you will > suffer > fustration and resentment for no reward; at best, your call may benefit > the > deviator's *next* victim. > > Most directors won't award redress to the victim on the basis of a single > director call. Furthermore, many directors insist that *minor* variations > are perfectly OK. Some say (wrongly in my opinion) that the law should > concern itself only when there is a *history* of *gross* deviations > combined > with blatant *fielding*. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > The ACBL, compared to the lawbook, is intolerant of frequent psychs. Their book Duplicate Decisions says "a player does not have the right to psych as frequently as he wishes simply because he enjoys doing so." ACBL regulations apparently say "psychs used merely to create action at the table are examples of unsportsmanlike psychic bidding" and prohibits them. The problem, to me, is that these same principles should apply to what the ACBL calls "deviations". From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 27 04:13:44 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:13:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: Robert Wilensky (1951- ), American academic: "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of William Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." Law 72A, second sentence, first phrase: "...The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants..." Robert Frick: >.....ACBL regulations apparently say "psychs used merely to create >action at the table are examples of unsportsmanlike psychic >bidding" and prohibits them. Richard Hills: If you open a 20-21 2NT with a yarborough, you are almost certain to receive a disastrous (re)doubled penalty when pard believes you, so you are clearly infracting Law 72A and its subordinate ACBL regulation. Robert Frick >The problem, to me, is that these same principles should apply to >what the ACBL calls "deviations". Richard Hills: Balderdash. If you open a 20-21 2NT with 19 hcp (and this deviation is not an implicit partnership understanding, so legal under Law 40A3) it is unlikely that there will be any change to the action, so Law 72A is not infracted. Meanwhile, your legal but Dreadful Deviation on 19 hcp may legally distract your opponent, Robert Frick, such that because he is thinking "I wish I was sitting out," Bob mistimes an obvious double squeeze on the next board, giving you a top. Harry S Truman (1884-1972), American President: "If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen." Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 27 05:34:38 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:34:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Neutron Star (was Score...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Although I provided some "Man Friday" assistance to the Co- >>ordinator of the Drafting Committee, Grattan Endicott (with my >>suggestions to resolve ambiguities, parallel formatting, proof- >>reading and indexing), I had zero power to "formulate" the 2007 >>edition of The Fabulous Law Book. Marvin French: >I didn't say so. I said you were "involved" in the formulation. >That tells me you were recognized as having a good understanding >of the Laws, hence my wish to have your comments. Richard Hills: >>Therefore Grattan's answers are more authoritative than mine. Marvin French: >"Authoritative," like pregnant, is not comparable. "Carry more >weight," perhaps. Authoritative interpretations come only from >the WBFLC. Grattan's opinions are his own, as he keeps repeating. Richard Hills: Larry Niven's "hard" science-fiction short story, "Neutron Star", won the 1967 Hugo Award. Not only do Grattan's personal opinions have the weight of a neutron star, Grattan's personal opinions also have another neutron star "hard science" property which was the twist ending to Larry Niven's short story. (I am being intentionally obscure in case some blml science-fiction fans have not yet read Larry Niven's works.) Meanwhile my personal opinions have the weight of Walking on the Moon; they sometimes bounce around. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 27 06:06:37 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:06:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:13:44 -0400, wrote: > Robert Wilensky (1951- ), American academic: > > "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million > typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of William > Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." > > Law 72A, second sentence, first phrase: > > "...The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other > contestants..." But within that context, players have other goals that they also try to achieve. He is willing to sacrifice his score a little. Can I get him for breaking the rules on that? I don't think so. > > Robert Frick: > >> .....ACBL regulations apparently say "psychs used merely to create >> action at the table are examples of unsportsmanlike psychic >> bidding" and prohibits them. > > Richard Hills: > > If you open a 20-21 2NT with a yarborough, you are almost certain > to receive a disastrous (re)doubled penalty when pard believes you, > so you are clearly infracting Law 72A and its subordinate ACBL > regulation. > > Robert Frick > >> The problem, to me, is that these same principles should apply to >> what the ACBL calls "deviations". > > Richard Hills: > > Balderdash. > > If you open a 20-21 2NT with 19 hcp (and this deviation is not an > implicit partnership understanding, so legal under Law 40A3) it is > unlikely that there will be any change to the action, so Law 72A is > not infracted. That isn't true. Partner is slightly likely to overbid the hand, for one. The opps are less likely to get into the auction on an overcall, although more likely to signal a suit by doubling a conventional bid. The true auction for this hand was likely to be 1H - P - 1NT - P 3NT, so he very likely is playing rather than dummy. And you are talking about his hand that was closest to his real bid. > > Meanwhile, your legal but Dreadful Deviation on 19 hcp may legally > distract your opponent, Robert Frick, such that because he is > thinking "I wish I was sitting out," Bob mistimes an obvious double > squeeze on the next board, giving you a top. Brilliant, but I think he just likes to throw a monkey wrench into things. > > Harry S Truman (1884-1972), American President: > > "If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen." I drive about 30 extra miles (50k) to try to play in the best game I can. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 27 06:07:23 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:07:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:10:42 -0400, wrote: > Late 14th century proverb: > > "The higher the monkey climbs the more he shows his tail." > > Robert Frick: > >> On the second board of the round, East opened 1NT. He ended up dummy, >> so we got to see that he had only 13 HCP (playing 15-17). > > Richard Hills: > > Unless banned by the Regulating Authority as a Special Partnership > Understanding, it is legal for a partnership to play a 13-17 1NT. Relevance? It was given that they play 15-17. > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > >> That made me look at the first board, where I discovered he opened >> 2NT with 19 HCP (playing 20-21). > > Richard Hills: > > Unless banned by the Regulating Authority as a Special Partnership > Understanding, it is legal for a partnership to play a 19-21 2NT. relevance? Here, the problem is that the opponents get no warning that the opps are playing a strange system. It doesn't affect the bid, but I sincerely think that all possibly misunderstood bids should be explained by declarer-dummy during the clarification period. > > Robert Frick: > >> Isn't there something wrong here? > > Richard Hills: > > *If* East-West have an *undisclosed* pre-existing mutual implicit > partnership understanding that East opens 13-17 1NTs and 19-21 2NTs, > *then* East-West have infracted Laws 40A1, 40B4 and 40C1. It was given that they don't. > > Robert Frick: > >> This isn't how I want to play bridge. I think I have lots of >> company. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree that my preferred method of playing bridge is with opponents > who never false-card as defenders, and who never false-bid during the > auction. I think I have lots of company in desiring such reliable > opponents. Relevance? We are not talking about strategic deceptions, we are talking about monkeywrenching. And how do you feel about the opponent who false cards, playing odd-even discards, and at the end of the hand you discover that is their agreement but the partner doesn't pay any attention to discards? > > Robert Frick: > >> For want of a better word, he was monkeywrenching -- throwing a >> monkey wrench into the auction to hope we got hurt instead of him. > > Law 40A3: > > "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)." > > Robert Frick: > >> It usually doesn't work, but he does it anyway. > > Richard Hills: > > My preempts usually do not work -- the opponents usually still reach > their par game -- but I bid them anyway due to the huge gain when they > do drive the opponents to the wrong contract (or, better still, we > pick up a double-game swing). Relevance? > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > >> One problem is that the laws do not discriminate monkeywrenching from >> tactical bids. (For example, I had a horrible 15 HCP hand that I bid >> as if it had only 14 HCP.) > > Richard Hills: > > *If* Frick-partner have an *undisclosed* pre-existing mutual implicit > partnership understanding that Frick does not open a 15-17 1NT when > holding a horrible 15 hcp hand, *then* Frick-partner have infracted > Laws 40A1, 40B4 and 40C1 whenever they play against Walter the Walrus > opponents. And what in the world do you expect me to do about this? We fill out a convention card saying 15-17, and we say 15-17. So HCP never gets mentioned. Given that partner is almost always going to be dummy, the actual deviation doesn't matter. > > Sure the Laws require you to disclose all positive and negative > inferences from explicit and implicit understandings to the opponents. They do. Whether it is possible or not. However, they only require that when the opps ask, and the laws dictate what can be alerted and what cannot. So my partner opens a weak two, I am far more aware than the opps that he might have a 5-card suit, and there is nothing I can do about it. > > It does not matter if you are making a frequent and "evil" monkey- > wrench bid, or instead a frequent but "virtuous" tactical bid -- > because both bids are frequent, both bids are now implicit partnership > understandings, and Law 40 states both sets of opponents need to know. Completely missing the main point. Almost all the laws care about is that I am as aware of the meaning of his bids as his partner is. I was. Maybe I was more aware. I just don't like him ruining the game of bridge for me. And as far as I know -- feedback from more than one person he has played against -- everyone feels that same way. The ACBL regulations then go and protect me, but only from psyches, not from incessant monkeywrenching deviations. That doesn't make a lot of sense, unless they think they can't distinguish monkeywrenching deviations from other deviations. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 27 07:04:03 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:04:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Johnny Cash, "Drive On" (1993): Many a good man I saw fall And even now, every time I dream I hear the men and the monkeys in the jungle scream. Richard Hills: >>*If* Frick-partner have an *undisclosed* pre-existing mutual implicit >>partnership understanding that Frick does not open a 15-17 1NT when >>holding a horrible 15 hcp hand, *then* Frick-partner have infracted >>Laws 40A1, 40B4 and 40C1 whenever they play against Walter the Walrus >>opponents. Robert Frick: >And what in the world do you expect me to do about this? Richard Hills: I would expect Bob to obey the Laws as much as Bob wants his monkey- wrenching opponent to obey the Laws. Law 40C1: "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty." Robert Frick: >We fill out a convention card saying 15-17, and we say 15-17. So HCP >never gets mentioned. Richard Hills: *If* Frick-partner ever play against Walter the Walrus opponents, and *if* Frick-partner have a pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding that they are not Walruses themselves, *then* full disclosure requires prominent footnotes on their system cards, to the effect of, "we sometimes slightly downgrade or slightly upgrade our expected hcp". Not an item which appears on my system cards, since the only Walruses at the Canberra Bridge Club are my partner Hashmat Ali and myself. :-) Robert Frick: >So my partner opens a weak two, I am far more aware than the opps >that he might have a 5-card suit, and there is nothing I can do >about it. Richard Hills: Really? In the relevant slot on Bob's ACBL system card, cannot Bob write "(5)6 card suit"? Indeed, is Bob's pard a monkeywrencher? :-) Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Thu Aug 27 07:27:44 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:27:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000001ca269a$6a50f4f0$3ef2ded0$@no> Message-ID: <000001ca26d7$1ae6adf0$50b409d0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran (experienced Director): > > >Deviating 1 HCP from announced agreements is definitely not psyching. > >To have a call accepted (by the Director) as a psyche is a privilege > >that exempts you from various restrictions in the laws; > > [snip] > > Richard Hills (inexperienced third chimpanzee): > > Sven Pran has directed under the 1975, 1987 and 1997 Lawbooks; under all of > those Lawbooks Sven's belief that a gross psychic deviation is more privileged > than a minor 1 hcp deviation would be true. > > Under the 2007 Lawbook, however, a gross psychic deviation is less privileged, > since an artificial psychic deviation may be regulated by Law 40B2(d). Not really less privileged: Any partnership understanding may be specified as a special partnership understanding under law 40B1 and be subject to regulation under law 40B2(a). I believe every bridge administration today has such regulations in force titled: "Permitted system agreements" (or similar). Such specifications and regulations do not apply to psychic calls; these are (as you correctly noted) only subject to special regulations under Law 40B2(d) if in force. To my knowledge such regulations are in Norway seldom in force except for special events targeted to less experienced players. Example: The Norwegian regulations (under Law 40B2(a) ) define certain opening bids at the two or three-level as brown stickers if they by agreement can be made with less than 10 HCP. We enforce this regulation strictly to the effect that a player may not vary the lower limit to 9 "good" HCP. However, except for events where regulations under Law 40B2(d) are in force we accept such an opening bid to be made without restrictions on a hand with say 5 HCP provided partner cannot be expected to be aware of this possibility. > > And under the two general 2007 Laws dealing with deviations, Law 40A3 and Law > 40C1, all deviations -- gross psychic deviations or minor 1 hcp deviations -- have > the same two principles applied: > > (a) If not an understanding, freedom to deviate (Law 40A3), or > > (b) If indeed an understanding, requirement to disclose (Law 40C1). Except for possible regulations in force - true. Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 27 07:31:54 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:31:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:04:03 -0400, wrote: > Johnny Cash, "Drive On" (1993): > > Many a good man I saw fall > And even now, every time I dream > I hear the men and the monkeys in the jungle scream. > > Richard Hills: > >>> *If* Frick-partner have an *undisclosed* pre-existing mutual implicit >>> partnership understanding that Frick does not open a 15-17 1NT when >>> holding a horrible 15 hcp hand, *then* Frick-partner have infracted >>> Laws 40A1, 40B4 and 40C1 whenever they play against Walter the Walrus >>> opponents. > > Robert Frick: > >> And what in the world do you expect me to do about this? > > Richard Hills: > > I would expect Bob to obey the Laws as much as Bob wants his monkey- > wrenching opponent to obey the Laws. Hmm, the whole point was that my monkeywrenching opponent was obeying the laws. The ACBL regulations make a careful but pointless distinction between monkeywrenching psychs and monkeywrenching deviations. And the laws are not written in a way that they can always be obeyed. For example, the laws require a player to not select a call suggested by UI when there is a logical alternative, but they do not give the player any way to determine if a call is a logical alternative. Or they require complete explanations even when they are not possible. For example, it is nearly impossible to describe the possible hands that fit a Standard American Stayman or a Precision opening 1D. But I understand what you are saying -- if I can't think of any legal practical way to tell the opponents the information, I should..... I guess you left that part out. > > Law 40C1: > > "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always > provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the > deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit > understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and > must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing > disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed > knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and > may award a procedural penalty." > > Robert Frick: > >> We fill out a convention card saying 15-17, and we say 15-17. So HCP >> never gets mentioned. > > Richard Hills: > > *If* Frick-partner ever play against Walter the Walrus opponents, and > *if* Frick-partner have a pre-existing mutual implicit partnership > understanding that they are not Walruses themselves, *then* full > disclosure requires prominent footnotes on their system cards, to the > effect of, "we sometimes slightly downgrade or slightly upgrade our > expected hcp". Funny. Walter the Walrus will never notice and doesn't care. The only who cares is someone who counts points. We cannot put all of our system agreements on our convention card. There isn't room. I guess we could write so small that the opponents couldn't read it? Actually, L401(b) doesn't require me to put all of my system notes on my convention card, as near as I can tell. It requires me to follow the instructions of the ACBL, which I think is to fill out my convention card. Well, I don't have a convention card, but my partner does. > > Not an item which appears on my system cards, since the only Walruses > at the Canberra Bridge Club are my partner Hashmat Ali and myself. :-) > > Robert Frick: > >> So my partner opens a weak two, I am far more aware than the opps >> that he might have a 5-card suit, and there is nothing I can do >> about it. > > Richard Hills: > > Really? In the relevant slot on Bob's ACBL system card, cannot Bob > write "(5)6 card suit"? Indeed, is Bob's pard a monkeywrencher? :-) I can write that on the card, I can't be blamed, and the opponents are still clueless that my partner might have a 5-card suit, because no one looks on convention cards for that information. Or almost any information. That doesn't exactly follow the spirit of the law. And I play Bond opposite a passed partner. I made up the name. Should I write that name on the card? I've been meaning to. It's just that I don't have a card. I used to fill one out, but I kept losing it and decided there was no point to it. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 27 10:01:45 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:01:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A963D69.10203@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > I agree with Robert Frick: Many opponents deliberately and regularly deviate > from their declared bidding methods, shading HCP and distributional > requirements. It is irritating and occasionally inflicts real damage. There > is little incentive for the victim to call the director, because, normally > there will be no accessible records of previous departures; you will suffer > fustration and resentment for no reward; at best, your call may benefit the > deviator's *next* victim. > > Most directors won't award redress to the victim on the basis of a single > director call. Furthermore, many directors insist that *minor* variations > are perfectly OK. AG : but it is still said somewhere that repeated violations create agreements, which must be disclosed as such. Apparently, that player tends to overvalue his hands by 1 point in a systematic manner. This shouyld be disclosed, by adjusting ranges on the CC and in explaining.. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 27 10:03:03 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:03:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:10:42 -0400, wrote: > > >> Late 14th century proverb: >> >> "The higher the monkey climbs the more he shows his tail." >> >> Robert Frick: >> >> >>> On the second board of the round, East opened 1NT. He ended up dummy, >>> so we got to see that he had only 13 HCP (playing 15-17). >>> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Unless banned by the Regulating Authority as a Special Partnership >> Understanding, it is legal for a partnership to play a 13-17 1NT. >> > > Relevance? It was given that they play 15-17. > > AG : disagree. After that player opens half a dozen times 1NT on 14, they do not play 15-17 anymore. From blml at arcor.de Thu Aug 27 11:08:46 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:08:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : > > On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:10:42 -0400, wrote: > > > > > >> Late 14th century proverb: > >> > >> "The higher the monkey climbs the more he shows his tail." > >> > >> Robert Frick: > >> > >> > >>> On the second board of the round, East opened 1NT. He ended up dummy, > >>> so we got to see that he had only 13 HCP (playing 15-17). > >>> > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> Unless banned by the Regulating Authority as a Special Partnership > >> Understanding, it is legal for a partnership to play a 13-17 1NT. > >> > > > > Relevance? It was given that they play 15-17. > > > > > AG : disagree. After that player opens half a dozen times 1NT on 14, > they do not play 15-17 anymore. Disagree with your disagree. ;-) If they described their 1NT as 14-17, then the people who now complain would then complain that on some hands holding 14 HCP they do not open 1NT. Yes, they have to disclose their 1NT range. But something simple like "15-17" will never completely describe agreements. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 27 11:13:13 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:13:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001901ca26f6$9dfbb6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >I agree with Robert Frick: Many opponents deliberately and regularly >deviate > from their declared bidding methods, shading HCP and distributional > requirements. It is irritating and occasionally inflicts real damage. > There > is little incentive for the victim to call the director, because, normally > there will be no accessible records of previous departures; you will > suffer > fustration and resentment for no reward; at best, your call may benefit > the > deviator's *next* victim. > > Most directors won't award redress to the victim on the basis of a single > director call. Furthermore, many directors insist that *minor* variations > are perfectly OK. Some say (wrongly in my opinion) that the law should > concern itself only when there is a *history* of *gross* deviations > combined > with blatant *fielding*. > +=+ Having said all, Directors do notice when a complaint of this kind is registered more than once, certainly if it occurs three, four or five times, so I think the Director should be called. Eventually someone will drop a word, or a little acid, in the ear of the straying fox. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 27 11:09:39 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:09:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fault of No Default [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001801ca26f6$9dcbf440$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fault of No Default [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>Matchpoint pairs >>>Dlr: East >>>Vul: None >>> >>>The bidding has gone: >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>--- --- 2H (1) Pass >>>Pass X Pass 2NT(2) >>>Pass 3C (3) Pass ? >>> >>>(1) Traditional ACBL natural weak 2H. >>> >>>(2) Would be lebensohl if North had doubled in the direct seat, >>> but after a double in the balancing seat your 2NT has its >>> traditional ACBL natural meaning. >>> >>>(3) Traditional ACBL natural 3C. However, one of your meta- >>> agreements suggests that 3C defaults to being a signoff. >>> The other of your two relevant meta-agreements suggests >>> that 3C defaults to being forcing for one round. >>> >>>You, South, hold: >>> >>>Q4 >>>KT93 >>>QJ4 >>>J965 >>> >>>What's the call? >>>What's de fault? > > Grattan Endicott: > >>+=+ Hi Richard >> Have not understood. Are you saying this is a signoff >>requiring me to bid? > > Richard Hills: > > No, I am saying that it is Discussed that pard has clubs, but it > is Undiscussed whether 3C is forcing. Pard might hold a minimum > takeout double with a 4-0-3-6 shape, in which case the only plus > score might be passing 3C for +110. Or pard might (and did) hold: > > K85 > 6 > AT5 > AKQT32 > > Grattan Endicott: > >> When in doubt do not pass. So 3D and wait to see what >>happens. Play in 3-3 fit maybe? Not the first time. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, the 3-3 fit it would be, since you have UI that pard > mistakenly thinks that 2NT is lebensohl. > > This deal originally appeared in the August 2009 editorial of The > Bridge World, which gives us AI that Jeff Rubens mistakenly thinks: > > "...The Laws give no explicit guidance in such cases..." > > +=+ Ah well, if we know he has clubs we do not bid 3D, nor do we pass. The choice is ?NT (probably the practical solution) or 4C. 'Strange' cue bids are out of the window. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 27 11:23:24 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:23:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A96508C.90702@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:10:42 -0400, wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Late 14th century proverb: >>>> >>>> "The higher the monkey climbs the more he shows his tail." >>>> >>>> Robert Frick: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On the second board of the round, East opened 1NT. He ended up dummy, >>>>> so we got to see that he had only 13 HCP (playing 15-17). >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Richard Hills: >>>> >>>> Unless banned by the Regulating Authority as a Special Partnership >>>> Understanding, it is legal for a partnership to play a 13-17 1NT. >>>> >>>> >>> Relevance? It was given that they play 15-17. >>> >>> >>> >> AG : disagree. After that player opens half a dozen times 1NT on 14, >> they do not play 15-17 anymore. >> > > Disagree with your disagree. ;-) > If they described their 1NT as 14-17, then the people who now > complain would then complain that on some hands holding 14 HCP > they do not open 1NT. > > Yes, they have to disclose their 1NT range. But something simple > like "15-17" will never completely describe agreements. > There is also (14)15-17. That conforms with the instructions on how to fill in the card. And several other possible formulations. You see, most players who write down 15-17 upgrade 14 to 15 only when it's really worth it. That's one would expect. This guy play it differently, so he should write it down dofferently. Best regards alain From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 27 11:23:29 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:23:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <000201ca26f8$0a49e400$1eddac00$@no> On Behalf Of Thomas Dehn > > AG : disagree. After that player opens half a dozen times 1NT on 14, > > they do not play 15-17 anymore. > > Disagree with your disagree. ;-) > If they described their 1NT as 14-17, then the people who now complain would > then complain that on some hands holding 14 HCP they do not open 1NT. If 1NT is described as 15-17 (or 14-17) and for instance 1H is described as 4+ and 11-20 then nobody has any reason to complain against a player that opens a 15 HCP hand with 4 hearts in either 1NT or 1H. He doesn't even have to be consistent in selecting one or the other opening bid. And BTW. A player having described his 1NT as 15-17 has indeed established a different partnership understanding (which must be disclosed!) once he has opened in 1NT with 14 HCP so often that partner could be aware of this tendency. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 27 11:35:23 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:35:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fault of No Default [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001801ca26f6$9dcbf440$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001801ca26f6$9dcbf440$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A96535B.9030800@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > " I always used to put my right boot on first, and > then obviously my right sock." > - Barry Venison > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:37 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fault of No Default [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >>>> Matchpoint pairs >>>> Dlr: East >>>> Vul: None >>>> >>>> The bidding has gone: >>>> >>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>> --- --- 2H (1) Pass >>>> Pass X Pass 2NT(2) >>>> Pass 3C (3) Pass ? >>>> >>>> (1) Traditional ACBL natural weak 2H. >>>> >>>> (2) Would be lebensohl if North had doubled in the direct seat, >>>> but after a double in the balancing seat your 2NT has its >>>> traditional ACBL natural meaning. >>>> >>>> (3) Traditional ACBL natural 3C. However, one of your meta- >>>> agreements suggests that 3C defaults to being a signoff. >>>> The other of your two relevant meta-agreements suggests >>>> that 3C defaults to being forcing for one round. >>>> >>>> You, South, hold: >>>> >>>> Q4 >>>> KT93 >>>> QJ4 >>>> J965 >>>> >>>> What's the call? >>>> What's de fault? >>>> Most player's meta-agreements (perhaps implicit) include the fact that, if a minimum hand doesn't tolerate a natural NT response, then it doesn't tolerate a taleout double either. For most players, 1S [p p] D p 1NT p 2C is 1RF, or at least forward-going, and this seems to be transposable here. After all, with a minimum 4036, partner doesn't tolerate playing in diamonds. With a hand that could have been slightly worse, a fair amount of support, but soft values, 3NT is obvious. 3H would show a more club-oriented hand. Of course, you might get a bad result, since he might think you hold a stopperless hand (meaning of 2NT followed by 3NT using plain lebelsohl) but that's the price to pay. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 27 11:37:13 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:37:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201ca26f8$0a49e400$1eddac00$@no> References: <4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <000201ca26f8$0a49e400$1eddac00$@no> Message-ID: <4A9653C9.4070908@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Thomas Dehn > >>> AG : disagree. After that player opens half a dozen times 1NT on 14, >>> they do not play 15-17 anymore. >>> >> Disagree with your disagree. ;-) >> If they described their 1NT as 14-17, then the people who now complain >> > would > >> then complain that on some hands holding 14 HCP they do not open 1NT. >> > > If 1NT is described as 15-17 (or 14-17) and for instance 1H is described as > 4+ and 11-20 then nobody has any reason to complain against a player that > opens a 15 HCP hand with 4 hearts in either 1NT or 1H. He doesn't even have > to be consistent in selecting one or the other opening bid. > Yes, and this means describing 1NT as 14-17 and 1m+1NT as 11-14 should send the right message. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 27 11:46:11 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:46:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Neutron Star (was Score...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A9655E3.7090100@skynet.be> Richard, you have earned yourself a virtual beer! I have just read the 1966 Hugo winners and "Neutron Star" (which I must admit not having yet read) is lying on my bedside table. Thank you for not spoiling it for me! Herman. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> Although I provided some "Man Friday" assistance to the Co- >>> ordinator of the Drafting Committee, Grattan Endicott (with my >>> suggestions to resolve ambiguities, parallel formatting, proof- >>> reading and indexing), I had zero power to "formulate" the 2007 >>> edition of The Fabulous Law Book. > > Marvin French: > >> I didn't say so. I said you were "involved" in the formulation. >> That tells me you were recognized as having a good understanding >> of the Laws, hence my wish to have your comments. > > Richard Hills: > >>> Therefore Grattan's answers are more authoritative than mine. > > Marvin French: > >> "Authoritative," like pregnant, is not comparable. "Carry more >> weight," perhaps. Authoritative interpretations come only from >> the WBFLC. Grattan's opinions are his own, as he keeps repeating. > > Richard Hills: > > Larry Niven's "hard" science-fiction short story, "Neutron Star", > won the 1967 Hugo Award. Not only do Grattan's personal opinions > have the weight of a neutron star, Grattan's personal opinions > also have another neutron star "hard science" property which was > the twist ending to Larry Niven's short story. (I am being > intentionally obscure in case some blml science-fiction fans have > not yet read Larry Niven's works.) > > Meanwhile my personal opinions have the weight of Walking on the > Moon; they sometimes bounce around. > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. 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 blml at arcor.de Thu Aug 27 13:05:18 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:05:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A96508C.90702@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A96508C.90702@ulb.ac.be> <4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <20550170.1251371118332.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > >> Robert Frick a ?crit : > >> > >>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:10:42 -0400, wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Late 14th century proverb: > >>>> > >>>> "The higher the monkey climbs the more he shows his tail." > >>>> > >>>> Robert Frick: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On the second board of the round, East opened 1NT. He ended up dummy, > >>>>> so we got to see that he had only 13 HCP (playing 15-17). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Richard Hills: > >>>> > >>>> Unless banned by the Regulating Authority as a Special Partnership > >>>> Understanding, it is legal for a partnership to play a 13-17 1NT. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Relevance? It was given that they play 15-17. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> AG : disagree. After that player opens half a dozen times 1NT on 14, > >> they do not play 15-17 anymore. > >> > > > > Disagree with your disagree. ;-) > > If they described their 1NT as 14-17, then the people who now > > complain would then complain that on some hands holding 14 HCP > > they do not open 1NT. > > > > Yes, they have to disclose their 1NT range. But something simple > > like "15-17" will never completely describe agreements. > > > There is also (14)15-17. That conforms with the instructions on how to > fill in the card. > And several other possible formulations. > > You see, most players who write down 15-17 upgrade 14 to 15 only when > it's really worth it. > That's one would expect. > > This guy play it differently, so he should write it down dofferently. I would expect that most people use round to nearest, rather than round to next lower integer. I expect "15-17" to be closer to "14.51 - 17.50" than to "15.00 - 17.99". Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 27 13:12:53 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:12:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20550170.1251371118332.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <4A96508C.90702@ulb.ac.be> <4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <20550170.1251371118332.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A966A35.10300@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Robert Frick a ?crit : >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:10:42 -0400, wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Late 14th century proverb: >>>>>> >>>>>> "The higher the monkey climbs the more he shows his tail." >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert Frick: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On the second board of the round, East opened 1NT. He ended up dummy, >>>>>>> so we got to see that he had only 13 HCP (playing 15-17). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Richard Hills: >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless banned by the Regulating Authority as a Special Partnership >>>>>> Understanding, it is legal for a partnership to play a 13-17 1NT. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Relevance? It was given that they play 15-17. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> AG : disagree. After that player opens half a dozen times 1NT on 14, >>>> they do not play 15-17 anymore. >>>> >>>> >>> Disagree with your disagree. ;-) >>> If they described their 1NT as 14-17, then the people who now >>> complain would then complain that on some hands holding 14 HCP >>> they do not open 1NT. >>> >>> Yes, they have to disclose their 1NT range. But something simple >>> like "15-17" will never completely describe agreements. >>> >>> >> There is also (14)15-17. That conforms with the instructions on how to >> fill in the card. >> And several other possible formulations. >> >> You see, most players who write down 15-17 upgrade 14 to 15 only when >> it's really worth it. >> That's one would expect. >> >> This guy play it differently, so he should write it down dofferently. >> > > I would expect that most people use round to nearest, rather than > round to next lower integer. I expect "15-17" to be closer to > "14.51 - 17.50" than to "15.00 - 17.99". > AG : yes, but apparently that's not how he plays it. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 27 15:40:39 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:40:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:33 PM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > The ACBL, compared to the lawbook, is intolerant of frequent > psychs. Their > book Duplicate Decisions says "a player does not have the right to > psych > as frequently as he wishes simply because he enjoys doing so." ACBL > regulations apparently say "psychs used merely to create action at the > table are examples of unsportsmanlike psychic bidding" and > prohibits them. > > The problem, to me, is that these same principles should apply to > what the > ACBL calls "deviations". The problem, to me, is that these principles are ludicrous, and shouldn't apply to anything. In the 1970s, the ACBL made a serious attempt to eliminate psyching altogether, but were, barely, restrained from doing so by a vocal group of dissenters (led by Edgar Kaplan and The Bridge World) who retained some measure of respect for the game and its Laws. The eventual result was characterized by Mr. Kaplan as the now-infamous "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule. Although the ACBL has officially repudiated some of the more extreme positions taken at the time, their ghost continues to live on in various ACBL writings. The article "Psychic Bidding" in The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge should prove instructive to those unfamiliar with this history. We have had occasion here to discuss the concept, from game theory, of low- vs. high-variance strategies. "To create action at the table" is an example of a perfectly legitimate strategic approach to winning at duplicate bridge. The ACBL's insidious notion that "merely... creat[ing] action at the table" somehow equates to "playing to lose", and thus serves as a legitimate rationale for the arbitrary banning of patently legal tactics, is as insulting as it is idiotic. The ACBL Board of Directors, although much improved of late, remains saddled with a long history of trying to restrict the bidding systems, strategies, methods and tactics used throughout the ACBL to those employed or favored by members of the ACBL Board of Directors. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 27 16:00:54 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:00:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7BF752E3-0847-4748-8362-427E400A50C9@starpower.net> On Aug 27, 2009, at 12:07 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > The ACBL regulations then go and protect me, but only from psyches, > not > from incessant monkeywrenching deviations. That doesn't make a lot of > sense, unless they think they can't distinguish monkeywrenching > deviations > from other deviations. If that is what they think, they are probably right. Bob gives us the term "monkeywrenching", but his examples might be equally well characterized by others as, for example, "tactical deviation", "mixing it up", or "playing a high-variance strategy". ISTM that the difference between "monkeywrenching" and "legitimate deviaitons", like the difference between "pornography" and "legitimate erotica", is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 27 17:35:44 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:35:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: <86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> References: <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> Message-ID: <41332.24.46.179.117.1251387344.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:33 PM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > >> The ACBL, compared to the lawbook, is intolerant of frequent >> psychs. Their >> book Duplicate Decisions says "a player does not have the right to psych >> as frequently as he wishes simply because he enjoys doing so." ACBL regulations apparently say "psychs used merely to create action at the table are examples of unsportsmanlike psychic bidding" and >> prohibits them. >> The problem, to me, is that these same principles should apply to what the >> ACBL calls "deviations". > > The problem, to me, is that these principles are ludicrous, and > shouldn't apply to anything. > > In the 1970s, the ACBL made a serious attempt to eliminate psyching altogether, but were, barely, restrained from doing so by a vocal group of dissenters (led by Edgar Kaplan and The Bridge World) who retained some measure of respect for the game and its Laws. The eventual result was characterized by Mr. Kaplan as the now-infamous "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule. Although the ACBL has officially repudiated some of the more extreme positions taken at the time, their ghost continues to live on in various ACBL writings. The article "Psychic Bidding" in The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge should prove instructive to those unfamiliar with this history. > > We have had occasion here to discuss the concept, from game theory, of low- vs. high-variance strategies. "To create action at the > table" is an example of a perfectly legitimate strategic approach to winning at duplicate bridge. The ACBL's insidious notion that > "merely... creat[ing] action at the table" somehow equates to > "playing to lose", and thus serves as a legitimate rationale for the arbitrary banning of patently legal tactics, is as insulting as it is idiotic. > > The ACBL Board of Directors, although much improved of late, remains saddled with a long history of trying to restrict the bidding > systems, strategies, methods and tactics used throughout the ACBL to those employed or favored by members of the ACBL Board of Directors. I think you need to step back and think about why people play bridge and why we have the rules. When people find a legal way of winning that makes a game boring, the laws change to prevent the boring stragegy. Examples include the 30-second rule in basketball, banning the spitball in baseball, and probably the banning of the flying wedge in American football. One of the most interesting aspects of bridge is that it is (usually) worthwhile to communicate accurate information to partner. Because of that, there are a lot of inferences to be made about the unseen hands. If I just wanted to win or lose, I could play the slot machines. I enjoy the process of playing bridge. A monkeywrench call or play intentionally interrupts that process. I do psych, occasionally, and I do so with some guilt, because I am making the game less fun for my opponents, and it usually causes bad feelings. So the law steps in. Incessant psychs are banned. Players are supposed to take the game seriously and try their best. The ACBL's attempt to ban psychs didn't challenge the purity and integrity of the game of bridge, it was a logical response by a governing body to a tactic that makes the game less interesting. There is no point having a law in the books to cover one player in Long Island. But the fact remains that we have a small problem here, and the laws and ACBL regulations leave us adrift and in general try to protect his right to ruin the game for everyone else. He doesn't have a regular partner, and people don't like playing against him. From blml at arcor.de Thu Aug 27 18:34:02 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:34:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: <41332.24.46.179.117.1251387344.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <41332.24.46.179.117.1251387344.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> Message-ID: <11449877.1251390842065.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:33 PM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > > > >> The ACBL, compared to the lawbook, is intolerant of frequent > >> psychs. Their > >> book Duplicate Decisions says "a player does not have the right to psych > >> as frequently as he wishes simply because he enjoys doing so." ACBL > regulations apparently say "psychs used merely to create action at the > table are examples of unsportsmanlike psychic bidding" and > >> prohibits them. > >> The problem, to me, is that these same principles should apply to what > the > >> ACBL calls "deviations". > > > > The problem, to me, is that these principles are ludicrous, and > > shouldn't apply to anything. > > > > In the 1970s, the ACBL made a serious attempt to eliminate psyching > altogether, but were, barely, restrained from doing so by a vocal group > of dissenters (led by Edgar Kaplan and The Bridge World) who retained > some measure of respect for the game and its Laws. The eventual result > was characterized by Mr. Kaplan as the now-infamous "one psych per > partnership per lifetime" rule. Although the ACBL has officially > repudiated some of the more extreme positions taken at the time, their > ghost continues to live on in various ACBL writings. The article > "Psychic Bidding" in The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge should prove > instructive to those unfamiliar with this history. > > > > We have had occasion here to discuss the concept, from game theory, of > low- vs. high-variance strategies. "To create action at the > > table" is an example of a perfectly legitimate strategic approach to > winning at duplicate bridge. The ACBL's insidious notion that > > "merely... creat[ing] action at the table" somehow equates to > > "playing to lose", and thus serves as a legitimate rationale for the > arbitrary banning of patently legal tactics, is as insulting as it is > idiotic. > > > > The ACBL Board of Directors, although much improved of late, remains > saddled with a long history of trying to restrict the bidding > > systems, strategies, methods and tactics used throughout the ACBL to > those employed or favored by members of the ACBL Board of Directors. > > I think you need to step back and think about why people play bridge and > why we have the rules. When people find a legal way of winning that makes > a game boring, the laws change to prevent the boring stragegy. Examples > include the 30-second rule in basketball, banning the spitball in > baseball, and probably the banning of the flying wedge in American > football. > > One of the most interesting aspects of bridge is that it is (usually) > worthwhile to communicate accurate information to partner. Because of > that, there are a lot of inferences to be made about the unseen hands. If > I just wanted to win or lose, I could play the slot machines. I enjoy the > process of playing bridge. > > A monkeywrench call or play intentionally interrupts that process. I do > psych, occasionally, and I do so with some guilt, because I am making the > game less fun for my opponents, and it usually causes bad feelings. > > So the law steps in. Incessant psychs are banned. Players are supposed to > take the game seriously and try their best. The ACBL's attempt to ban > psychs didn't challenge the purity and integrity of the game of bridge, it > was a logical response by a governing body to a tactic that makes the game > less interesting. If I understand you correctly, poker is a boring card came, and only very few people would play a game like that. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 27 19:32:15 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:32:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: <11449877.1251390842065.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <41332.24.46.179.117.1251387344.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> <11449877.1251390842065.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <000c01ca273c$52444f90$f6cceeb0$@no> On Behalf Of Thomas Dehn ............... > > So the law steps in. Incessant psychs are banned. Players are supposed > > to take the game seriously and try their best. The ACBL's attempt to > > ban psychs didn't challenge the purity and integrity of the game of > > bridge, it was a logical response by a governing body to a tactic that > > makes the game less interesting. > > If I understand you correctly, poker is a boring card came, and only very few > people would play a game like that. Why? There are those who are addicted to one-armed bandits, there are those who are addicted to plain lotteries, there are those who are addicted to Bingo, all of which are extremely boring "games" if you ask me. Regards Sven From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Aug 27 22:41:59 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:41:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A96EF97.20907@aol.com> How about 14-1/2-17? This is not infrequent in France (at least in the clubs in which I play) and the general understanding (also explained if asked) is that very good 14 HCP hands can be opened with 1NT, normal 14 HCP ones are not so opened. I think there are also a few pairs who don't open bad 15 HCP hands with 1 NT. But they have to be really bad so it is very infrequent. Ciao, JE Thomas Dehn schrieb: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:10:42 -0400, wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Late 14th century proverb: >>>> >>>> "The higher the monkey climbs the more he shows his tail." >>>> >>>> Robert Frick: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On the second board of the round, East opened 1NT. He ended up dummy, >>>>> so we got to see that he had only 13 HCP (playing 15-17). >>>>> >>>> Richard Hills: >>>> >>>> Unless banned by the Regulating Authority as a Special Partnership >>>> Understanding, it is legal for a partnership to play a 13-17 1NT. >>>> >>> Relevance? It was given that they play 15-17. >>> >>> >> AG : disagree. After that player opens half a dozen times 1NT on 14, >> they do not play 15-17 anymore. > > Disagree with your disagree. ;-) > If they described their 1NT as 14-17, then the people who now > complain would then complain that on some hands holding 14 HCP > they do not open 1NT. > > Yes, they have to disclose their 1NT range. But something simple > like "15-17" will never completely describe agreements. > > > Thomas > > Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 27 22:46:29 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:46:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: <41332.24.46.179.117.1251387344.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> <41332.24.46.179.117.1251387344.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: On Aug 27, 2009, at 11:35 AM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: >> On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:33 PM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: >> >>> The ACBL, compared to the lawbook, is intolerant of frequent >>> psychs. Their >>> book Duplicate Decisions says "a player does not have the right >>> to psych >>> as frequently as he wishes simply because he enjoys doing so." ACBL >>> regulations apparently say "psychs used merely to create action >>> at the >>> table are examples of unsportsmanlike psychic bidding" and >>> prohibits them. >>> The problem, to me, is that these same principles should apply to >>> what the >>> ACBL calls "deviations". >> >> The problem, to me, is that these principles are ludicrous, and >> shouldn't apply to anything. >> >> In the 1970s, the ACBL made a serious attempt to eliminate psyching >> altogether, but were, barely, restrained from doing so by a vocal >> group >> of dissenters (led by Edgar Kaplan and The Bridge World) who retained >> some measure of respect for the game and its Laws. The eventual >> result >> was characterized by Mr. Kaplan as the now-infamous "one psych per >> partnership per lifetime" rule. Although the ACBL has officially >> repudiated some of the more extreme positions taken at the time, >> their >> ghost continues to live on in various ACBL writings. The article >> "Psychic Bidding" in The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge should prove >> instructive to those unfamiliar with this history. >> >> We have had occasion here to discuss the concept, from game >> theory, of >> low- vs. high-variance strategies. "To create action at the >> table" is an example of a perfectly legitimate strategic approach to >> winning at duplicate bridge. The ACBL's insidious notion that >> "merely... creat[ing] action at the table" somehow equates to >> "playing to lose", and thus serves as a legitimate rationale for the >> arbitrary banning of patently legal tactics, is as insulting as it is >> idiotic. >> >> The ACBL Board of Directors, although much improved of late, remains >> saddled with a long history of trying to restrict the bidding >> systems, strategies, methods and tactics used throughout the ACBL to >> those employed or favored by members of the ACBL Board of Directors. > > > I think you need to step back and think about why people play > bridge and > why we have the rules. When people find a legal way of winning that > makes > a game boring, the laws change to prevent the boring stragegy. > Examples > include the 30-second rule in basketball, banning the spitball in > baseball, and probably the banning of the flying wedge in American > football. I think there are far more bridge players who would argue that the ACBL's history of discouraging its players from any significant experimentation or innovation beyond a narrow core of "approved" systems, strategies, methods, tactics and understandings have produced a far less interesting game than would agree with Bob that it has "prevent[ed] the boring". People play bridge for fun, for excitement, for challenge, for satisfaction, among other reasons. But what makes a game more fun, more exciting, more challenging or more satisfying is, obviously, in the eye of the beholder. Not many beholders, however, would, IMO, be inclined to argue that any of these are served by eliminating experimentation or innovation. > One of the most interesting aspects of bridge is that it is (usually) > worthwhile to communicate accurate information to partner. Because of > that, there are a lot of inferences to be made about the unseen > hands. If > I just wanted to win or lose, I could play the slot machines. I > enjoy the > process of playing bridge. It is unique to bridge that while communication with one's partner is a critical element of any winning strategy, all such communication must be done "in the open" where it can be completely "overheard" by one's opponents. That produces a tension between the value of communicating accurate information to partner and the value of concealing that information from, or of deliberately providing disinformation to, those other listeners. Many bridge hands have been won or lost over a player's decision whether to give the correct count of some suit to his partner or to give a deliberate miscount in the hope of deceiving declarer. There are legitimate strategic considerations behind a partnership's decision to chose a style that emphasizes correct information, concealment or disinformation, and legitimate disagreements over the potential effectiveness of each of those approaches. Bob, by including the word "(usually)" above, shows the same kind of hubris that affects the ACBL Board of Directors. Some folks are prepared to just assume that their own views of winning strategy must be so unarguably correct that anyone who employs tactics based on some alternative view must not be trying as hard as they are -- and then use that as a rationale for banning them. What makes Bob's "(usually)" any more valid than someone else's "(sometimes)" or "(rarely)" -- or, for that matter, "(always)"? More to the point, what makes Bob, or me, or the ACBL Board of Directors, or anyone else, the right to impose their opinions on those who would disagree with them? > A monkeywrench call or play intentionally interrupts that process. > I do > psych, occasionally, and I do so with some guilt, because I am > making the > game less fun for my opponents, and it usually causes bad feelings. If causing the opponents to feel bad makes you guilty, psychs should be among the least of your worries. IME, an opponent done in by a successful psych is usually capable of something like, "Nice bid; you got me that time," while an opponent done in by, say, a successful pseudo-squeeze is far more likely to be miserable, tear hair, and flaggelate himself at the table and after the game. Perhaps we should consider banning pseudo-squeezes before we address banning psychs (or other sorts of bidding deviations). > So the law steps in. Incessant psychs are banned. Players are > supposed to > take the game seriously and try their best. The ACBL's attempt to ban > psychs didn't challenge the purity and integrity of the game of > bridge, it > was a logical response by a governing body to a tactic that makes > the game > less interesting. Less interesting to the members of that governing body, and less interesting to Bob, but obviously more interesting to the majority of players who had the actual experience of playing the game before it was constrained and shackled by what Bob calls their "logical response". Indeed, the attempt to ban psychs was, at the time, a "logical response" to the fact that psychs were becoming more popular and more widely used, presumably because a growing number of bridge players either considered them sound tactics, ACBL propaganda notwithstanding, thought that they made the game, more, not less, interesting, or both. They had no other choice if they were to protect the exalted from the from the misguided views of a growing majority. Ultimately, of course, the ACBL won, and most of today's North American players, who have been playing for over 30 years in essentially psych-free competition, bombarded all the while by a barrage of anti-psych propaganda from the ACBL, would probably be inclined to agree with Bob that psychs are of no strategic or tactical value, but rather an egregiously anti-social practice advocated only by cheaters who are prepared to give up any chance of winning the game merely to be obnoxiously disruptive for unimaginable reasons of their own. I don't see, though, how anyone who has read of some of the great bridge matchups from the days when psychs were a more potent and frequently-used weapon among top-level experts than were conventions can possibly say that they "ma[de] the game less interesting". > There is no point having a law in the books to cover one player in > Long > Island. But the fact remains that we have a small problem here, and > the > laws and ACBL regulations leave us adrift and in general try to > protect > his right to ruin the game for everyone else. He doesn't have a > regular > partner, and people don't like playing against him. If he ruins the game for everyone else and people don't like playing against him, why do you keep inviting him back? If he doesn't have a regular partner, who plays with him? The ACBL has hardly "left you adrift"; it is their official policy that a club owner or manager is tantamount to God in his own club, and can tell anyone he chooses to go away and/or stay away for any reason at all. The worst possible response would be to try to discourage this person from coming to your club by seizing on something he does legally (if annoyingly) and banning that instead of him, to the detriment of those who may do the same thing legitimately without giving offense. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Thu Aug 27 23:00:10 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:00:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A96EF97.20907@aol.com> References: <4A96EF97.20907@aol.com> <4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <31136161.1251406810001.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> The problem is deeper than that. Take an ordinary 15 HCP hand that holds exactly one 10 and one 9. Myself, leaving aside other adjustments, I give this a base value of 15.0 HCP, because holding one 10 and one 9 is average. I am sure that some other players add a little bit for that "extra" 10 and 9. You can then do the same for honor combinations, 4333 distribution, aces versus jacks, and so on. In the end, a hand that is worth 15.0 HCP for one player might easily be worth 13.4 HCP for another player. Thomas Jeff Easterson wrote: > How about 14-1/2-17? This is not infrequent in France (at least in the > clubs in which I play) and the general understanding (also explained if > asked) is that very good 14 HCP hands can be opened with 1NT, normal 14 > HCP ones are not so opened. I think there are also a few pairs who > don't open bad 15 HCP hands with 1 NT. But they have to be really bad > so it is very infrequent. Ciao, JE > > Thomas Dehn schrieb: > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Robert Frick a ?crit : > >>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:10:42 -0400, wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Late 14th century proverb: > >>>> > >>>> "The higher the monkey climbs the more he shows his tail." > >>>> > >>>> Robert Frick: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On the second board of the round, East opened 1NT. He ended up dummy, > >>>>> so we got to see that he had only 13 HCP (playing 15-17). > >>>>> > >>>> Richard Hills: > >>>> > >>>> Unless banned by the Regulating Authority as a Special Partnership > >>>> Understanding, it is legal for a partnership to play a 13-17 1NT. > >>>> > >>> Relevance? It was given that they play 15-17. > >>> > >>> > >> AG : disagree. After that player opens half a dozen times 1NT on 14, > >> they do not play 15-17 anymore. > > > > Disagree with your disagree. ;-) > > If they described their 1NT as 14-17, then the people who now > > complain would then complain that on some hands holding 14 HCP > > they do not open 1NT. > > > > Yes, they have to disclose their 1NT range. But something simple > > like "15-17" will never completely describe agreements. > > > > > > Thomas > > > > Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen > Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Aug 27 23:04:58 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:04:58 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A96EF97.20907@aol.com> Message-ID: <69AE9A6281E7401BA222FC649C508806@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Jeff Easterson" >How about 14-1/2-17? This is not infrequent in France (at least in >the clubs in which I play) and the general understanding (also explained if asked) is that very good 14 HCP hands can be opened with 1NT, normal 14 HCP ones are not so opened. I think there are also a few pairs who don't open bad 15 HCP hands with 1 NT. But they have to be really bad so it is very infrequent. Those of us who realize the 4-3-2-1 point count system is a poor way to evaluate a hand and use honor count instead (mainly because honors in combination are worth more than isolated honors) must somehow translate honor count into point count to disclose our 1NT range (3-1/2+ to 4+, which I got from Lew Mathe) in accordance with ACBL regulations. So I put 15+ to 19-, which is not a very good translation but the best I can do. Axx Kxx Qxxx AQJ - 16 HCP but only 3-1/2 honor count, open1C AJx AJx AJxx xxx - Only 15 HCP but 3-1/2+ honor count, open 1NT KQx AQx AQx Qxxx - 19 HCP but only 4+ honor count, open 1NT AKx AKx Kxxx xxx - 17 HCP but 4-1/2 honor count, open 1D That's difficult to explain to opponents who don't know about honor count. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Aug 27 23:10:07 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:10:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20550170.1251371118332.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <4A96508C.90702@ulb.ac.be><4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <20550170.1251371118332.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1A24846D892D4A56A77F0A7B93F0F670@NigelPC> [Thomas Dehn] I would expect that most people use round to nearest, rather than round to next lower integer. I expect "15-17" to be closer to "14.51 - 17.50" than to "15.00 - 17.99". [Nigel] John Probst suggests that it would improve disclosure to declare such *decimal* ranges. If this were mandated by law, players would enjoy a more level playing field. In the UK, for example, range declarations of 12-14 and 15-17 usually mean something like 11.2-14.2 and 14.2-17.1. i.e. many players mentally reduce the boundaries by at least half a point. Thus, many players upgrade most hands with a 5 card suit. There is still a communication problem if you employ other high-card evaluation methods e.g. 6421 or 7531 or 321. I don't think this is the problem high-lighted by Robert Frick, however. The occasions that irritate Robert are when an opponent indulges in deliberate small variations *from his stated agreements* - shading strength and distribution requirements, random false-carding and the like. Such a minor deviation (like the monkey opening a 4 card major, when his system card says 5) may not be a concealed partnership understanding. A sloth of a partner may never become aware of the monkey-tricks! But they do disconcert his opponents. More experienced monkeys make extensive use of spurious trial-bids, cue-bids, splinters, exclusion-bids and other gross deviations. Hence another grey area is the so-called "tactical bid" (an expert euphemism for "psych" -- although some BLMLers refuse to classify them as such). The monkeys rarely have the nuts for their calls. Their deployment may seem random to begin with, but after a while a definite pattern is likely to emerge. An alert expert partner is usually well aware of the the contexts that the perpetrator favours for his ploys. But nobody declares them. A problem is that their pseudo-randomness would make it hard to devise an appropriate form of words. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Aug 27 23:18:19 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:18:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A96508C.90702@ulb.ac.be><4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><20550170.1251371118332.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <1A24846D892D4A56A77F0A7B93F0F670@NigelPC> Message-ID: <002701ca275b$ef3ba090$2401a8c0@p41600> It works the other way as well. I had an opponent recently who, holding 3 tens, 2 9s and 3 8s, did not open a 12-14 NT because he only had 11 hcp. Vlad ********************** One can always be SO much more friendly to those who can't stay long.. ********************** > [Thomas Dehn] > I would expect that most people use round to nearest, rather than round to > next lower integer. I expect "15-17" to be closer to "14.51 - 17.50" than > to "15.00 - 17.99". > > [Nigel] > John Probst suggests that it would improve disclosure to declare such > *decimal* ranges. If this were mandated by law, players would enjoy a more > level playing field. > > In the UK, for example, range declarations of 12-14 and 15-17 usually mean > something like 11.2-14.2 and 14.2-17.1. i.e. many players mentally reduce > the boundaries by at least half a point. Thus, many players upgrade most > hands with a 5 card suit. > > There is still a communication problem if you employ other high-card > evaluation methods e.g. 6421 or 7531 or 321. > > I don't think this is the problem high-lighted by Robert Frick, however. The > occasions that irritate Robert are when an opponent indulges in deliberate > small variations *from his stated agreements* - shading strength and > distribution requirements, random false-carding and the like. Such a minor > deviation (like the monkey opening a 4 card major, when his system card says > 5) may not be a concealed partnership understanding. A sloth of a partner > may never become aware of the monkey-tricks! But they do disconcert his > opponents. > > More experienced monkeys make extensive use of spurious trial-bids, > cue-bids, splinters, exclusion-bids and other gross deviations. Hence > another grey area is the so-called "tactical bid" (an expert euphemism for > "psych" -- although some BLMLers refuse to classify them as such). The > monkeys rarely have the nuts for their calls. Their deployment may seem > random to begin with, but after a while a definite pattern is likely to > emerge. An alert expert partner is usually well aware of the the contexts > that the perpetrator favours for his ploys. But nobody declares them. A > problem is that their pseudo-randomness would make it hard to devise an > appropriate form of words. -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 2988 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 28 00:36:27 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:36:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Neutron Star (was Score...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A9655E3.7090100@skynet.be> Message-ID: >Richard, you have earned yourself a virtual beer! >I have just read the 1966 Hugo winners and "Neutron Star" (which I >must admit not having yet read) is lying on my bedside table. Thank >you for not spoiling it for me! >Herman. Marv French also dabbles in "hard" science-fiction, so may appreciate the non-spoiler. Larry Niven's early "Known Space" science-fiction short stories (and novel) are well worth reading. Indeed, his "Known Space" novel "Ringworld" also won the 1971 Hugo Award, and his "Known Space" novelette "The Borderland of Sol" again won the 1976 Hugo Award, plus the non-award winning early "Known Space" short stories were uniformly interesting and original. However... In my personal opinion, Larry Niven "jumped the shark" in 1980; I found his novel "The Ringworld Engineers" unreadable. It is always a disappointment when previously reliable authors, such as Robert A. Heinlein, switch from writing classics to writing trash in mid-career. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Fri Aug 28 01:24:59 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:24:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A96EF97.20907@aol.com> References: <4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A96EF97.20907@aol.com> Message-ID: <001001ca276d$98bc8290$ca3587b0$@no> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > How about 14-1/2-17? This is not infrequent in France (at least in the clubs in > which I play) and the general understanding (also explained if > asked) is that very good 14 HCP hands can be opened with 1NT, normal 14 HCP > ones are not so opened. I think there are also a few pairs who don't open bad 15 > HCP hands with 1 NT. But they have to be really bad so it is very infrequent. > Ciao, JE Frankly I have problems understanding this. What is wrong with a way I have seen several places: "(14)15 - 17(18)" meaning that while the normal HCP range is 15 to 17, 1NT can also be opened with only 14 HCP if they are "good", or with up to 18 HCP if they are "poor". Equally understandable is of course 15(14) - 17(18) Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 28 03:23:22 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:23:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: References: <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> <41332.24.46.179.117.1251387344.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: Some folks are > prepared to just assume that their own views of winning strategy must > be so unarguably correct that anyone who employs tactics based on > some alternative view must not be trying as hard as they are -- and > then use that as a rationale for banning them. What makes Bob's > "(usually)" any more valid than someone else's "(sometimes)" or > "(rarely)" -- or, for that matter, "(always)"? More to the point, > what makes Bob, or me, or the ACBL Board of Directors, or anyone > else, the right to impose their opinions on those who would disagree > with them? Or the WBFLC. To stop players from choosing their best stragegy in prisoner-dilemma matrices? Odd-even on first discard is a popular system here. My partner and I could gain a small advantage if we switched to even-odd discards, simply reversing the meaning of odd and even. There is a chance the opponents would not misunderstand or forget. But even if they don't, it's extra work for them to remember and decipher our system. Extra work equals less cognitive resources for other tasks. And then what has been accomplished? It would be a pain in the butt for us to learn the system, because that is tedious, uninteresting work. We gain, but whatever we gain the opponents have lost, because winning-losing is a zero-sum game. Meanwhile, the game is less fun for our opponents. Overall, it is a loss even though we have gained slightly. If this catches on, then more and more people start playing even-odd discards. We lose all advantage when the mixture is 50%. Meanwhile, there is more for everyone to remember and learn and ask about. So our winning advantage has disappeared while the game has become less fun for everyone. Including beginners. (Of course, my partner and I then switch the meaning of an odd card so that high means you like the lower suit. Or invent a new signalling system.) So one purpose of anyone with the authority to change the rules of a game is to prevent strategies that decrease overall enjoyment of the game. I realize that you are the inventer of Every Hand an Adventure, which I know nothing about but still like and admire just because of the name. Whether or not your system is effective, you gain an advantage over the opponents simply because they don't understand your system. I would be thrilled to play against you once. But most players do not like playing against systems they don't understand, for very good and appropriate reasons. The ACBL is just trying to make bridge an enjoyable game for everyone. I do wish there was some club you could play at where you play EHAA and every pair you play against has a different system you don't understand. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Aug 28 03:53:36 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:53:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: References: <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> <41332.24.46.179.117.1251387344.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0908271853i7a4c257bj374a1716c49406ec@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > I realize that you are the inventer of Every Hand an Adventure, which I > know nothing about but still like and admire just because of the name. > Whether or not your system is effective, you gain an advantage over the > opponents simply because they don't understand your system. I would be > thrilled to play against you once. But most players do not like playing > against systems they don't understand, for very good and appropriate > reasons. The ACBL is just trying to make bridge an enjoyable game for > everyone. I do wish there was some club you could play at where you play > EHAA and every pair you play against has a different system you don't > understand. > I have no doubt Eric would enjoy that. And personally, I love to encounter new, interesting stuff. Who wants the same ol' thing all of the time? As a side note, what I recall about EHAA is that it is much easier to teach total beginners than Standard, and it has far more natural bids. I think it has some excellent tactical advantages, but it is not GCC legal (ACBL) due to its wide-ranging weak-two openings, including 2C. Do I remember it correctly, Eric? Anyway, I use some of its principles with my favorite partner. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 28 06:57:13 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:57:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Ten of Hearts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tom Lehrer, "Wernher von Braun", second verse: Some have harsh words for this man of renown, But some think our attitude Should be one of gratitude, Like the widows and cripples in old London town Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun. You too may be a big hero, Once you've learned to count backwards to zero, "In German oder English I know how to count down, Und I'm learning Chinese," says Wernher von Braun. In the tradition of the "I Heart New York" bumper sticker, and the "I Heart Huckabees" movie, we present the "I Heart Blml Top Ten" posts of 10th-24th December 2008. (Apologies for the eight-month delay; nominees were selected by our patented "hanging chad" voting system.) 10. The trouble with this kind of discussion is that the Laws of bridge and the accompanying regulations are for all bridge players, not some tiny minority who play 25 different kinds of double, none of them penalty and (if the above contribution is anything to go by) most of them stupid. It is obviously in the interests of people who play obscure doubles that they should not be alerted. It is not in the interests of anyone else. --David Burn, 20 December 2008 9. Hi Richard. Hi Herman. I have a theory that all threads eventually mention Herman. My L73C vs L20 made it up to about the fourth posting, when Grattan mentioned Herman. I once asked David Burn about a question he was asking of Herman, which did not relate to the start of the thread (IMO). He replied that there were so many threads involving Herman he couldn't keep them straight. I looked and he had added Herman himself on the third posting on the thread! --private email to Richard and Herman, 16 December 2008 8. It's a regulation which is up to the sponsoring authority The ACBL convention card used to say on the inside, "Comparison of scores or discussion of hands with other players during the event is subject to an automatic penalty of a full board." However, many clubs are run more informally, and allow players sitting out to kibitz a board they have already played. I have even seen one set of Howell guide cards which tell players where they can kibitz in each round. --David Grabiner, 24 December 2008 7. [big snip] By the way, should I read [big snip] as an indication that my emails are, ekhm, delicately too long? No chance, as early as in the first class of the elementary school I got admonitions for extensive talking during the lesson. :-) --Maciej Bystry, 17 December 2008 6. >So is a three-legged stool with two legs removed sensible?" Yep! My uncle (an old timer) wore one strapped on his fanny while milking his cows. --Bob Park, 20 December 2008 5. >Pure coincidence that a vry quck Optional Double was left in, but a >veeery slooow Optional Double was removed. My partner recently caught someone in this trap - a but trap they set for themselves - unfortunately not when playing with me: I do not know the hands or the bidding except that her partner at some point bid 3S and her opponent quickly doubled. She was about to raise to 4S when it dawned on her that for her adversaries a quick double was penalties. So she passed and her LHO also passed. In the play an overtrick was made. --Wayne Burrows, 19 December 2008 4. Before the ACBL introduced announcements, alertable understandings included some methods played by the overwhelming majority of ACBLers (1S-P-1NT forcing, 1NT-P-2D showing hearts). Experienced players reacted by developing their own dual alert structures: "Alert!" for the routine stuff, "Alert! Alert! I really mean it." for treatments their opponents genuinely wouldn't expect. --Eric Landau, 10 December 2008 3. By contrast I note that a few pairs in the recent US trials included important notes about style. When I played in New York with my father we used to pre-alert the fact that we played 4 card majors and ACOL 2s. (even though pre-alerts didn't exist when we first started to do this) We started to do this after a good player doubled on the auction. What sounded to her like a desperate struggle to game was in fact a slam try auction, and she wasn't over the big hand as she thought. Nothing in the auction was alertable, but it left me with a bad taste. --Ron Johnson, 28 July 2004, republished 19 December 2008 2. that players entering events submit themselves to the published regulations, and should be expected to comply with them even though there may be doubt as to their legality --EBU L&EC discussion point 2004, republished 10 December 2008 1. >"cheat" is not a kind of mega-strong word +=+ I must disagree. To allege that an individual cheats at cards may lead to an action for libel. The laws do not anywhere use the word. The intention of the laws is that one should refer to violations of correct procedure, and to violations or breaches of law, offences. These are all related to adjudged failure to comply with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, and while Law 73B2 does refer to prearrangement the law is still set in terms of the 'gravest possible offence'. The strongest action that the Director can take is disqualification under Law 91B. He is empowered to disqualify a contestant 'for cause' and further consideration of what represents 'cause' is left to the Director jointly with the Tournament Organizer, and may be by reference to relevant By-Laws or Conditions of Contest. The suggestion of expulsion which appeared in the 1997 Law 73B2, and even more strongly in 1987, has been expunged from the 2007 laws as being inappropriate to the purpose of the laws and not a matter for inclusion there. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --Grattan Endicott, 11 December 2008 * * * Zero (in both senses of the word), 18 December 2008: Yes, a while back MadDog robustly suggested that a player could, during the auction or play, require the Director to provide helpful advice before a crucial decision by the TD reading out the imp table, since that was Law 78B. This valuably alerted the WBF Laws Committee to a new ambiguity in the Lawbook, between Law 78B and the "no aids to memory" Law 40C3(a). So the WBF LC sifted a response to MadDog into its October 2008 minutes. But what if blml had used an active moderator in the past, and the active moderator had decided that MadDog's use of the phrase "flying f**k" was inappropriate, so the active moderator had reaped structural benefits by excluding MadDog from the list? Then unstructured disbenefits would have included the WBF LC October 2008 minutes being less comprehensive. Note: MadDog's "flying f**k" obviously meant "flying filk", a reference to filk singing at science fiction conventions. One filk song found a synergy between H.P. Lovecraft's tales of eldritch horror and ABBA. See attached. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills * * * Do you hear the pipes, Cthulhu? Lyrics ? 1999 by Terence Chua (to the tune of "Fernando" by ABBA) Lyrics posted with permission of the author Do you hear the pipes, Cthulhu? They were being played by shoggoths on the shores of Carcosa Can you hear our prayers, Cthulhu? Deep in sunken R'lyeh waiting for the rightness of a star? Where the Deep Ones worship Dagon, Mother Hydra in sea chambers built afar? Chorus: There was chanting in the air that night The stars were right, Cthulhu! You were dreaming of your destiny Beneath the sea, Cthulhu! Though the Elder Gods have cast you down Have no regret As the Al-Azif has prophesized, R'lyeh will rise, Cthulhu! We are waiting O Cthulhu Sacrificing virgins while the nightgaunts hover 'gainst the moon Seeking power O Cthulhu Drawing sigils in their blood and Elder Signs and other runes They were dying drenched in madness and the eldritch vapors of a thousand dooms (chorus) You are sleeping Great Cthulhu Never knowing the unspeakable things we do in your name But don't worry Great Cthulhu We will carry on destroying without sanity or shame Till the universe resounds with all the sounds of lost souls shrieking out in pain (chorus) As the Al-Azif has prophesized, R'lyeh will rise, Cthulhu! -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 blml at arcor.de Fri Aug 28 07:51:43 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:51:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: References: <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> <41332.24.46.179.117.1251387344.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <33096495.1251438703570.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > I realize that you are the inventer of Every Hand an Adventure, which I > know nothing about but still like and admire just because of the name. > Whether or not your system is effective, you gain an advantage over the > opponents simply because they don't understand your system. I would be > thrilled to play against you once. But most players do not like playing > against systems they don't understand, for very good and appropriate > reasons. The ACBL is just trying to make bridge an enjoyable game for > everyone. I do wish there was some club you could play at where you play > EHAA and every pair you play against has a different system you don't > understand. That could not possibly happen. Contrary to you, Eric has experience playing against many different systems. He also has played quite a few different systems himself. He has a selection of methods available to use against a diversity of systems, and if he encounters opponents playing an unusual system, he will simply select an appropriate method from his arsenal. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 28 08:08:48 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:08:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fault of No Default [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001801ca26f6$9dcbf440$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: +=+ Ah well, if we know he has clubs we do not bid 3D, nor do we pass. The choice is 3NT (probably the practical solution) or 4C. 'Strange' cue bids are out of the window. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills yes-and-no: We do not "know" pard has clubs, merely that by our mutual agreement pard has clubs. Pard's at-the-table actual strong hand with long clubs was a very lucky coincidence, since pard's 3C was a misbid chosen due to pard's incorrect belief that our 2NT was lebensohl. Jeff Rubens: "...The Laws give no explicit guidance in such cases..." Richard Hills quibbles: Incorrect. Rather, it is a simple matter of logical alternatives. We have UI that pard thinks we are weaker than we are, we have UI that pard does not necessarily have clubs, so we have UI that 3NT is the *demonstrably suggested* logical alternative call. However, since it is Undiscussed whether or not pard's 3C is forcing in our mutually agreed system, I believe that 3NT is not only the *demonstrably suggested* logical alternative call, but 3NT is also the *only* logical alternative call. It is a matter of matchpoint pairs cost-benefit ratios: (a) If we pass what pard thought was a forcing bid, we get an outright bottom, but (b) If we bid over what pard thought was a signoff, so getting one level too high, we get an average-minus shared with other optimists and/or pessimists who are poor declarers. Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 28 09:59:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:59:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" (1911): Peace, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting. Eric Landau: [snip] >inclined to agree with Bob that psychs are of no strategic or >tactical value, but rather an egregiously anti-social practice >advocated only by cheaters who are prepared to give up any chance >of winning the game merely to be obnoxiously disruptive for >unimaginable reasons of their own. > >I don't see, though, how anyone who has read of some of the great >bridge matchups from the days when psychs were a more potent and >frequently-used weapon among top-level experts than were >conventions can possibly say that they "ma[de] the game less >interesting". [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, I am inclined to agree with Bob. In the 1930s, the Golden Age of psyching, bidding systems and conventions were so ineffective that psyching had a very strong cost-benefit ratio. After all, if you were going to get to the wrong contract by obeying your 1930s system, why not confuse two opponents but only one partner by disobeying your system? However... Mostly the 1930s top-level expert psychers, while highly principled by 1930s standards, would be intentional infractors of the 2007 Law 40C1, had that Law existed then. Furthermore... To be legal under Law 40C1, psyches / tactical bids need to be extremely rare. But to work under the effective 2000s bidding systems (as opposed to the ineffective 1930s bidding systems), it is also true that psyches / tactical bids need to be rarer still. In this millennium bidding systems are so high-performance that random psyching is like a monkey hitting his partner's Porsche with a wrench. But non-random tactical actions, described by World Champion Kit Woolsey as "two ways to win", can be effective simply because if Plan A does not work, you can hope that Plan B works instead. For example: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1C ? You, South, hold: T984 JT96 AKQ 43 Which tactical call do you make? Which tactical call do you consider making? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 28 10:42:34 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:42:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Neutron Star (was Score...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A97987A.4070401@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Richard, you have earned yourself a virtual beer! >> I have just read the 1966 Hugo winners and "Neutron Star" (which I >> must admit not having yet read) is lying on my bedside table. Thank >> you for not spoiling it for me! >> Herman. > > Marv French also dabbles in "hard" science-fiction, so may appreciate > the non-spoiler. > > Larry Niven's early "Known Space" science-fiction short stories (and > novel) are well worth reading. Indeed, his "Known Space" novel > "Ringworld" also won the 1971 Hugo Award, and his "Known Space" > novelette "The Borderland of Sol" again won the 1976 Hugo Award, plus > the non-award winning early "Known Space" short stories were uniformly > interesting and original. > > However... > > In my personal opinion, Larry Niven "jumped the shark" in 1980; I > found his novel "The Ringworld Engineers" unreadable. It is always a > disappointment when previously reliable authors, such as Robert A. > Heinlein, switch from writing classics to writing trash in mid-career. > I have never read the further "ringworld" novels, just the first one, and I understand your point of view. I do not agree with your calling the later Heinlein "thrash". I thorougly enjoyed them all. Herman. (and as regards Neutron Star - perhaps this was new in the 60's, but it's simple high-school physics these days) > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. 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 blml at arcor.de Fri Aug 28 11:25:49 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:25:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8033620.1251451549703.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > For example: > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1C ? > > You, South, hold: > > T984 > JT96 > AKQ > 43 > > Which tactical call do you make? I don't, because I am chicken. > Which tactical call do you consider making? 1D. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 28 11:42:08 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:42:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8033620.1251451549703.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> References: <8033620.1251451549703.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <4A97A670.8000505@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> For example: >> >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: North >> Vul: Nil >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- Pass 1C ? >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> T984 >> JT96 >> AKQ >> 43 >> >> Which tactical call do you make? >> AG : if you intend me to bid 1D, I won't, because : 1) I'm not sure diamonds will be the right lead against NT; In particular it doesn't comply with Silberwasser's criterion : I do not want to demand a lead from Jx. 2) Even if I'm on lead (which is quite plausible) I don't know whether I'll lead diamonds. And the best way to decide is to see whether LHO bids them. Give him a chance. Now, if you want me to issue a lightish double, to show my pattern and contest the partscore (and perhaps learn what to lead), the conditions seem favorable to do so, but that's not a tactical bid ; it's a systemic bid. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Fri Aug 28 12:41:04 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:41:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001001ca276d$98bc8290$ca3587b0$@no> References: <001001ca276d$98bc8290$ca3587b0$@no> <4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A96EF97.20907@aol.com> Message-ID: <5889690.1251456064860.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > > > How about 14-1/2-17? This is not infrequent in France (at least in the clubs in > > which I play) and the general understanding (also explained if > > asked) is that very good 14 HCP hands can be opened with 1NT, normal 14 HCP > > ones are not so opened. I think there are also a few pairs who don't open bad 15 > > HCP hands with 1 NT. But they have to be really bad so it is very infrequent. > > Ciao, JE > > Frankly I have problems understanding this. > > What is wrong with a way I have seen several places: "(14)15 - 17(18)" > meaning that while the normal HCP range is 15 to 17, 1NT can also be opened > with only 14 HCP if they are "good", or with up to 18 HCP if they are > "poor". > > Equally understandable is of course 15(14) - 17(18) I think this is not full disclosure. Sure, it shows that players open a "15-17" 1NT with some hands holding 14 or 18 HCP. You already expected that, whether they state "(14)15 - 17(18)" or "15-17" does not really provide additional information. What you really would like to know is the criteria they use to decide whether a 14HCP hand should be opened 1NT, or a 15 HCP had is "too poor". Myself, I open 1NT on some hands I consider to be weaker than some other hands which I don't open 1NT. Why? Because sometimes I prefer to make the field bid rather than the bid I consider to be best. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From blml at arcor.de Fri Aug 28 13:18:57 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:18:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching Message-ID: <31523383.1251458337271.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Thomas Dehn > ............... > > > So the law steps in. Incessant psychs are banned. Players are supposed > > > to take the game seriously and try their best. The ACBL's attempt to > > > ban psychs didn't challenge the purity and integrity of the game of > > > bridge, it was a logical response by a governing body to a tactic that > > > makes the game less interesting. > > > > If I understand you correctly, poker is a boring card came, and only very few > > people would play a game like that. > > Why? > > There are those who are addicted to one-armed bandits, there are those who > are addicted to plain lotteries, there are those who are addicted to Bingo, > all of which are extremely boring "games" if you ask me. Bingo and one-armed bandits are different types of games. One distinction is between single player games, cooperative games, and competitive games. The bulk of popular multi player games are competitive games, and bridge is a competitive multi player game; the score of N/S is the opposite of the score of E/W. Competitive games need a different balance than single player or cooperative games. One balance that is necessary is the balance between winning by making good decisions, and winning by obstructing opponents' actions. If obstructing other players is much more successful than trying to make good decisions, you get a game that is based upon annoying the other players. Those games can be fun, but they appeal only to those people who enjoy such situations. If the game does not allow obstructing other players, you end up at best with a mathematical optimization problem, and might end up with a game where the game mechanics "play" the players. Both of those have not much appeal either. At bridge, once you go to ACBL extremes where everybody is expected to play the same system, and to pretty much always make the systemic bid, and psyches are disallowed, you are very close to the point where during the bidding phase bridge "plays" the players. The players do not make bidding decisions, they just mechanically bid according to the predefined bidding system. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 28 14:02:41 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:02:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: <31523383.1251458337271.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> References: <31523383.1251458337271.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <4A97C761.1030907@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Thomas Dehn >> ............... >> >>>> So the law steps in. Incessant psychs are banned. Players are supposed >>>> to take the game seriously and try their best. The ACBL's attempt to >>>> ban psychs didn't challenge the purity and integrity of the game of >>>> bridge, it was a logical response by a governing body to a tactic that >>>> makes the game less interesting. >>>> >>> If I understand you correctly, poker is a boring card came, and only very few >>> people would play a game like that. >>> >> Why? >> >> There are those who are addicted to one-armed bandits, there are those who >> are addicted to plain lotteries, there are those who are addicted to Bingo, >> all of which are extremely boring "games" if you ask me. >> > > Bingo and one-armed bandits are different types of games. > > One distinction is between single player games, cooperative games, and competitive games. > The bulk of popular multi player games are competitive games, and bridge is > a competitive multi player game; the score of N/S is the opposite of the score of E/W. > > Competitive games need a different balance than single player or cooperative games. > > One balance that is necessary is the balance between winning by making good > decisions, and winning by obstructing opponents' actions. If obstructing other > players is much more successful than trying to make good decisions, you > get a game that is based upon annoying the other players. Those games > can be fun, but they appeal only to those people who enjoy such situations. > > If the game does not allow obstructing other players, you end up > at best with a mathematical optimization problem, and might end up > with a game where the game mechanics "play" the players. Both of > those have not much appeal either. > AG : my long experience with board games, including complex ones - aka "German games", although germanity isn't germane to them - is that playing your game can't be distinguished from avoiding opponents playing theirs. In most multi-player games, every move you make disallow opponents to make the same move, or to make several others. In particular, actions will be performable only once a turn (Puerto Rico) or performing them just after somebody else will bring little rewards (Le Havre) or some combination of the two (Morgenland). Also, the complexity of such games (it has been claimed that the number of possible games of Caylus exceeds the number of chess games by a huge amount) makes them impossible to solve by pure algorithmic means, and so much the better. And of course such games often include a small (or big) part of chance (e.g. Agricola : each player is dealt a hand of cards which allow special moves), so that the hypothetical optimization problem is subject to the question of which optimization criteria you use (biggest reward, maximin, best mean expectation ...), to guessing which ones your opponents do, and above all guessing what they've been dealt, with the added complexity that not all assets have been dealt. Bridge is among of the games where : a) optimization is the easiest to apply ; principally because it's basically a two-side game, not multi-player. b) the difference between constructive and obstructive moves is the most marked. c) inferential reasoning helps best, mainly through the fact that every card in the game must lie in some hand. Those three characteristics aren't necessarily linked. But one of its marking charateristics is that the moves you make can also disallow your side to make good moves in the future (aka as 'preempting partner') All in all, the sources of complexity, and the ways of solving it, in the game of bridge are of a nature very much unlike most complex multi-player games. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 28 15:40:14 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:40:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: <001001ca276d$98bc8290$ca3587b0$@no> References: <4A963DB7.4040107@ulb.ac.be> <1405879.1251364126163.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4A96EF97.20907@aol.com> <001001ca276d$98bc8290$ca3587b0$@no> Message-ID: <0AD5179B-EB8B-4B4C-A540-B261F8787244@starpower.net> On Aug 27, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > >> How about 14-1/2-17? This is not infrequent in France (at least >> in the >> clubs in >> which I play) and the general understanding (also explained if >> asked) is that very good 14 HCP hands can be opened with 1NT, >> normal 14 >> HCP >> ones are not so opened. I think there are also a few pairs who >> don't open >> bad 15 >> HCP hands with 1 NT. But they have to be really bad so it is very >> infrequent. > > Frankly I have problems understanding this. > > What is wrong with a way I have seen several places: "(14)15 - 17(18)" > meaning that while the normal HCP range is 15 to 17, 1NT can also > be opened > with only 14 HCP if they are "good", or with up to 18 HCP if they are > "poor". > > Equally understandable is of course 15(14) - 17(18) That clearly suggests that one uses judgment with 14 or 18, and is better than, say "14-1/2 to 17-1/2, which suggests an evaluation system that includes half points. The usual practice in my area is to write "14+ to 18-", read as "good 14 to bad 18". Writing "15-" as the low end of the range, rather than "14+", suggests an occasional opening on an exceptional 14-count, no more than about 1 in 10. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Fri Aug 28 15:48:31 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:48:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: <4A97C761.1030907@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A97C761.1030907@ulb.ac.be> <31523383.1251458337271.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <22794000.1251467311673.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : my long experience with board games, including complex ones - aka > "German games", although germanity isn't germane to them - is that > playing your game can't be distinguished from avoiding opponents playing > theirs. In most multi-player games, every move you make disallow > opponents to make the same move, or to make several others. In > particular, actions will be performable only once a turn (Puerto Rico) > or performing them just after somebody else will bring little rewards > (Le Havre) or some combination of the two (Morgenland). Typical examples for a competition which has no obstructive element are certain track and field disciplines such as long jump or shot put. Your opponents cannot prevent you from making your own best move. There, the athletes need some rest between individual attempts, and thus the break is welcome. In most games, players get bored if they have nothing to think about while it is not their turn. There exist games where an opponents' turn is clearly completely separate from your turn, but most of those games are older games which nowadays would be considered boring and unimaginative. Game Of The Goose type racing games are an example. Yahtzee is another one. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 28 16:48:00 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:48:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: <22794000.1251467311673.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> References: <4A97C761.1030907@ulb.ac.be> <31523383.1251458337271.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> <22794000.1251467311673.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: <4A97EE20.3000000@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> AG : my long experience with board games, including complex ones - aka >> "German games", although germanity isn't germane to them - is that >> playing your game can't be distinguished from avoiding opponents playing >> theirs. In most multi-player games, every move you make disallow >> opponents to make the same move, or to make several others. In >> particular, actions will be performable only once a turn (Puerto Rico) >> or performing them just after somebody else will bring little rewards >> (Le Havre) or some combination of the two (Morgenland). >> > > Typical examples for a competition which has no obstructive > element are certain track and field disciplines such as long jump > or shot put. Your opponents cannot prevent you from making your own best move. > AG : or can they ? When you're ahead, just try skipping (ha ha) your last try to catch opponent unprepared (2 minutes left ...). No more 'welcome break'. More of this in high jump / pole vault, of course. See the Peking women's high jump. And, concerning the interactive side : some hardcore gamers perfer less interactive gzames, to help their reflection, but they're a minority. Notice that playing most wargames include long passive periods. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 28 17:21:21 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:21:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: References: <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> <41332.24.46.179.117.1251387344.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <0E1C531F-F8FD-4DFD-887E-1FB21C845461@starpower.net> On Aug 27, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Some folks are >> prepared to just assume that their own views of winning strategy must >> be so unarguably correct that anyone who employs tactics based on >> some alternative view must not be trying as hard as they are -- and >> then use that as a rationale for banning them. What makes Bob's >> "(usually)" any more valid than someone else's "(sometimes)" or >> "(rarely)" -- or, for that matter, "(always)"? More to the point, >> what makes Bob, or me, or the ACBL Board of Directors, or anyone >> else, the right to impose their opinions on those who would disagree >> with them? > > Or the WBFLC. To stop players from choosing their best stragegy in > prisoner-dilemma matrices? Why on Earth would they want to do that? Prisoner's dilemma is a construct from game theory that classically demonstrates how game- theoretical considerations can lead to perverse outcomes in real life. The lesson is that prisoner's dilemma matrices *belong* in games, where they can create interesting situations without risking bad real-life outcomes. > Odd-even on first discard is a popular system here. My partner and > I could > gain a small advantage if we switched to even-odd discards, simply > reversing the meaning of odd and even. There is a chance the opponents > would not misunderstand or forget. But even if they don't, it's > extra work > for them to remember and decipher our system. Extra work equals less > cognitive resources for other tasks. > > And then what has been accomplished? It would be a pain in the butt > for us > to learn the system, because that is tedious, uninteresting work. > We gain, > but whatever we gain the opponents have lost, because winning- > losing is a > zero-sum game. Meanwhile, the game is less fun for our opponents. > Overall, > it is a loss even though we have gained slightly. > > If this catches on, then more and more people start playing even-odd > discards. We lose all advantage when the mixture is 50%. Meanwhile, > there > is more for everyone to remember and learn and ask about. So our > winning > advantage has disappeared while the game has become less fun for > everyone. > Including beginners. (Of course, my partner and I then switch the > meaning > of an odd card so that high means you like the lower suit. Or > invent a new > signalling system.) One could argue that even-odd (the opposite of standard odd-even) is a superior method: As the 10 is often usable as a spot card, it makes more sense to have five spot cards potentially available for showing suit preference than four, reducing the average number of times when you have only one encouraging card available. Whether or not that argument has any merit, who is Bob, or the ACBL, to tell someone who genuiinely believes that it does that it doesn't, that you know that it doesn't and are being disingenuous, that you are using the method only to take advantage of your opponents' unfamiliarity with it? > So one purpose of anyone with the authority to change the rules of > a game > is to prevent strategies that decrease overall enjoyment of the game. When you allow anyone with the authority to change the rules of a game to prevent strategies that "decrease overall enjoyment of the game" the only possible outcome is for them to exercise that authority to prevent strategies that decrease *their* overall enjoyment of the game. You empower them to decide that everyone else should "enjoy" the same things they do. > I realize that you are the inventer of Every Hand an Adventure, > which I > know nothing about but still like and admire just because of the name. > Whether or not your system is effective, you gain an advantage over > the > opponents simply because they don't understand your system. I would be > thrilled to play against you once. But most players do not like > playing > against systems they don't understand, for very good and appropriate > reasons. The ACBL is just trying to make bridge an enjoyable game for > everyone. I do wish there was some club you could play at where you > play > EHAA and every pair you play against has a different system you don't > understand. EHAA, AKA "the world's most natural system", is trivial to understand. Opponents do not have trouble with it, and the consensus among sophisticated bidders is, essentally, not to change one's defensive methods when playing against it. In fact it is I, when I play EHAA locally, who suffers from every pair I play against having a system I don't understand, as I am yet to master the subtleties of two-over-one game-forcing, which is prevalent around here. But Bob, who admits to knowing nothing of EHAA, is prepared to assume that my opponents are "playing against [a] system[] they don't understand" and that I "gain an advantage... simply because they don't understand". Neither is true. Bob's willingness to assume it -- and legislate based on it -- would make him feel right at home on the ACBL Board of Directors. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 28 18:12:49 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:12:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0908271853i7a4c257bj374a1716c49406ec@mail.gmail.com> References: <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> <41332.24.46.179.117.1251387344.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <2b1e598b0908271853i7a4c257bj374a1716c49406ec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0A84B9D0-56FC-4F46-8D73-5BB8EFA2FE21@starpower.net> On Aug 27, 2009, at 9:53 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Robert Frick > wrote: > >> I realize that you are the inventer of Every Hand an Adventure, >> which I >> know nothing about but still like and admire just because of the >> name. >> Whether or not your system is effective, you gain an advantage >> over the >> opponents simply because they don't understand your system. I >> would be >> thrilled to play against you once. But most players do not like >> playing >> against systems they don't understand, for very good and appropriate >> reasons. The ACBL is just trying to make bridge an enjoyable game for >> everyone. I do wish there was some club you could play at where >> you play >> EHAA and every pair you play against has a different system you don't >> understand. > > I have no doubt Eric would enjoy that. And personally, I love to > encounter new, interesting stuff. Who wants the same ol' thing all of > the time? > > As a side note, what I recall about EHAA is that it is much easier to > teach total beginners than Standard, and it has far more natural bids. > I think it has some excellent tactical advantages, but it is not GCC > legal (ACBL) due to its wide-ranging weak-two openings, including 2C. > Do I remember it correctly, Eric? Anyway, I use some of its > principles with my favorite partner. Actually, EHAA two-bids are perfectly GCC-legal. Keep in mind that the ACBL recognizes 4-3-2-1 high-card points as the sole metric for measuring range. We explain to opponents that EHAA two bids show 6-12 HCP, five or more cards in the bid suit, and may be made on literally any hand that meets those criteria. If they don't seem to get it, we point out that that means that we will open both hands they would consider far too poor for a weak two-bid *and* hands that they would consider far too good. (Folks unfamiliar with EHAA tend to assume that it is some sort of "license to bid", when in fact it is a more structured and value-based system than most.) Of course, this means that xxxxx/Qxx/Jxx/QJ and AKQ10xxxxxx/Kx/x/- are "systemic" 2S bids, whereas KQ109xx/xxx/xx/xx would be a "deviation" (systemically a vul pass or NV 3S opening). But, hey, I don't make the rules. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at tameware.com Fri Aug 28 19:02:17 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:02:17 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: <86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> References: <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> Message-ID: <694eadd40908281002u22eb7e95t2e8eaac9a774df08@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:33 PM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > >> The ACBL, compared to the lawbook, is intolerant of frequent >> psychs. Their >> book Duplicate Decisions says "a player does not have the right to >> psych >> as frequently as he wishes simply because he enjoys doing so." ACBL >> regulations apparently say "psychs used merely to create action at the >> table are examples of unsportsmanlike psychic bidding" and >> prohibits them. >> >> The problem, to me, is that these same principles should apply to >> what the >> ACBL calls "deviations". > > The problem, to me, is that these principles are ludicrous, and > shouldn't apply to anything. > > In the 1970s, the ACBL made a serious attempt to eliminate psyching > altogether, but were, barely, restrained from doing so by a vocal > group of dissenters (led by Edgar Kaplan and The Bridge World) who > retained some measure of respect for the game and its Laws. ?The > eventual result was characterized by Mr. Kaplan as the now-infamous > "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule. This discussion would not be complete without a copy of Edgar's poem on the subject. It was published by the ACBL Bulletin in their "Letters to the Editor" under a pseudonym. I don't have access to my records at the moment, so this is from memory: "Thanks for the Bulletin's cleaver, Clarification endeavor. It's legal to psyche, as much as you like, So long as you like to psyche NEVER." -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Aug 29 01:07:43 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:07:43 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching References: <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com><86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> <694eadd40908281002u22eb7e95t2e8eaac9a774df08@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9BAEF2CF8CEA499C9D1474221960EF1B@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Adam Wildavsky" This discussion would not be complete without a copy of Edgar's poem on the subject. It was published by the ACBL Bulletin in their "Letters to the Editor" under a pseudonym. I don't have access to my records at the moment, so this is from memory: "Thanks for the Bulletin's cleaver, Clarification endeavor. It's legal to psyche, as much as you like, So long as you like to psyche NEVER." Surely that was "clever," and "cleaver" was a typo. There has been a wide variety of opinions about what the ACBL permits, so I will quote from the ACBLScore Tech Files what I believe is the "official" position: "When three or more psychic initital actions by members of a partnership, in one session, have come to the attention of the director, the director should investigate the possibility that excessive psyching has taken place." That doesn't seem very restrictive. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 29 01:16:52 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:16:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: <0E1C531F-F8FD-4DFD-887E-1FB21C845461@starpower.net> References: <47697.24.46.179.117.1251336821.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <86DBB69B-6ECE-4271-A343-405F69EDCD64@starpower.net> <41332.24.46.179.117.1251387344.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <0E1C531F-F8FD-4DFD-887E-1FB21C845461@starpower.net> Message-ID: SHORT STORY: It is the responsibility of a governing organization to prohibit activities that increase a player's chance of winning but lead to dangerous actions or less interesting strategies. It is relatively common for a person to have a choice which benefits that person but is detrimental to the overall community. When there is some governing organization, it often acts to make that choice illegal. An example would be laws against pollution. Within games, contestants are expected to do their best to win, and the enjoyment from the game comes from contestants trying to do their best, in addition to whatever enjoyment comes from winning or losing. It might at first seem odd for a governing organization, such as the WBFLC, to make laws preventing contestants to do whatever they want to win. (You write: "Why in the earth would they want to do that?") Yet this is relatively common, you just don't see it much because most of the work is done in the original construction of the game. I have given numerous examples, and I will give more: regulations that prevent race cars from going as fast as they can; regulations about what a contestant may or put in their body; in basketball, a rule against an offensive player parking himself in front of the basket waiting for a rebound. Thomas mentioned running. Presumably there is a rule against pushing one's competitors in a running race. I don't know if there rules against boxing a runner in. There are a fixed number/proportion of winners in (almost?) every sport or game. No improvement in drugs, equipment, or strategy changes that number/proportion. So the issue becomes whether the potential improvement is safe to the contestants, and whether or not it makes the game more interesting (to the contestants or the spectators). You write about the WBFLC (though you do not mention it by name) and any organization that makes rules about a game or sport > When you allow anyone with the authority to change the rules of a > game to prevent strategies that "decrease overall enjoyment of the > game" the only possible outcome is for them to exercise that > authority to prevent strategies that decrease *their* overall > enjoyment of the game. You empower them to decide that everyone else > should "enjoy" the same things they do. The American colonists had the same worry -- that governing organizations with power would not use their power responsibly. But given the myriad rules and regulations and changes that the WBFLC makes, how many do you really think are based on their own selfish motives? I can ask the same thing about baseball, basketball, or any sport or game. I know you can find abuses, but they are not that common and often they are misguided but well-meaning. On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:21:21 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 27, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >>> Some folks are >>> prepared to just assume that their own views of winning strategy must >>> be so unarguably correct that anyone who employs tactics based on >>> some alternative view must not be trying as hard as they are -- and >>> then use that as a rationale for banning them. What makes Bob's >>> "(usually)" any more valid than someone else's "(sometimes)" or >>> "(rarely)" -- or, for that matter, "(always)"? More to the point, >>> what makes Bob, or me, or the ACBL Board of Directors, or anyone >>> else, the right to impose their opinions on those who would disagree >>> with them? >> >> Or the WBFLC. To stop players from choosing their best stragegy in >> prisoner-dilemma matrices? > > Why on Earth would they want to do that? Prisoner's dilemma is a > construct from game theory that classically demonstrates how game- > theoretical considerations can lead to perverse outcomes in real > life. The lesson is that prisoner's dilemma matrices *belong* in > games, where they can create interesting situations without risking > bad real-life outcomes. > >> Odd-even on first discard is a popular system here. My partner and >> I could >> gain a small advantage if we switched to even-odd discards, simply >> reversing the meaning of odd and even. There is a chance the opponents >> would not misunderstand or forget. But even if they don't, it's >> extra work >> for them to remember and decipher our system. Extra work equals less >> cognitive resources for other tasks. >> >> And then what has been accomplished? It would be a pain in the butt >> for us >> to learn the system, because that is tedious, uninteresting work. >> We gain, >> but whatever we gain the opponents have lost, because winning- >> losing is a >> zero-sum game. Meanwhile, the game is less fun for our opponents. >> Overall, >> it is a loss even though we have gained slightly. >> >> If this catches on, then more and more people start playing even-odd >> discards. We lose all advantage when the mixture is 50%. Meanwhile, >> there >> is more for everyone to remember and learn and ask about. So our >> winning >> advantage has disappeared while the game has become less fun for >> everyone. >> Including beginners. (Of course, my partner and I then switch the >> meaning >> of an odd card so that high means you like the lower suit. Or >> invent a new >> signalling system.) > > One could argue that even-odd (the opposite of standard odd-even) is > a superior method: As the 10 is often usable as a spot card, it > makes more sense to have five spot cards potentially available for > showing suit preference than four, reducing the average number of > times when you have only one encouraging card available. > > Whether or not that argument has any merit, who is Bob, or the ACBL, > to tell someone who genuiinely believes that it does that it doesn't, > that you know that it doesn't and are being disingenuous, that you > are using the method only to take advantage of your opponents' > unfamiliarity with it? > >> So one purpose of anyone with the authority to change the rules of >> a game >> is to prevent strategies that decrease overall enjoyment of the game. > > When you allow anyone with the authority to change the rules of a > game to prevent strategies that "decrease overall enjoyment of the > game" the only possible outcome is for them to exercise that > authority to prevent strategies that decrease *their* overall > enjoyment of the game. You empower them to decide that everyone else > should "enjoy" the same things they do. > >> I realize that you are the inventer of Every Hand an Adventure, >> which I >> know nothing about but still like and admire just because of the name. >> Whether or not your system is effective, you gain an advantage over >> the >> opponents simply because they don't understand your system. I would be >> thrilled to play against you once. But most players do not like >> playing >> against systems they don't understand, for very good and appropriate >> reasons. The ACBL is just trying to make bridge an enjoyable game for >> everyone. I do wish there was some club you could play at where you >> play >> EHAA and every pair you play against has a different system you don't >> understand. > > > EHAA, AKA "the world's most natural system", is trivial to > understand. Opponents do not have trouble with it, and the consensus > among sophisticated bidders is, essentally, not to change one's > defensive methods when playing against it. In fact it is I, when I > play EHAA locally, who suffers from every pair I play against having > a system I don't understand, as I am yet to master the subtleties of > two-over-one game-forcing, which is prevalent around here. But Bob, > who admits to knowing nothing of EHAA, is prepared to assume that my > opponents are "playing against [a] system[] they don't understand" > and that I "gain an advantage... simply because they don't > understand". Neither is true. Bob's willingness to assume it -- and > legislate based on it -- would make him feel right at home on the > ACBL Board of Directors. > > > 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 adam at irvine.com Sat Aug 29 02:04:09 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:04:09 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:21:21 EDT." <0E1C531F-F8FD-4DFD-887E-1FB21C845461@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200908282357.QAA09507@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > > So one purpose of anyone with the authority to change the rules of > > a game > > is to prevent strategies that decrease overall enjoyment of the game. > > When you allow anyone with the authority to change the rules of a > game to prevent strategies that "decrease overall enjoyment of the > game" the only possible outcome is for them to exercise that > authority to prevent strategies that decrease *their* overall > enjoyment of the game. You empower them to decide that everyone else > should "enjoy" the same things they do. Umm, that seems like an overbid. It certainly seems like a *possible* outcome that the people in authority would take some polls to get a feel for what factors added to or detracted from the general playing populace's enjoyment, and then change the rules based on that. I don't see a problem with putting restrictions on strategies if they really do achieve that end. Of course, things haven't been done that way in the ACBL, at least not consistently; the attitudes toward psychs and whether to allow certain conventions seem to have been driven by the ideas of several major personalities (Oakie, Kaplan, Wolff, maybe Mathe) without an attempt to find out what everyone else wants. And in certain cases, "big names" have lobbied to get a convention banned after it was successfully used against them, or so the rumor goes. If it's true, it's just deplorable. But I think the *principle* that the rules of a game can be changed in order to increase aggregate enjoyment is OK, at least in the abstract. And it's not inherently impossible for authorities to do a good job of trying to figure out the right balance; we just haven't figured out how to get the right people in those authority positions in the ACBL. If it's a problem that the people who actually do make the rules do so based on *their* enjoyment (and perhaps that of their friends), I think Bob is making the same mistake here. He's looking at one narrow situation where some people in his club have suffered a loss of enjoyment, and complains that there should be an ACBL-wide rule to solve the problem. But I doubt that this is a problem most other places. I know that I haven't seen this kind of behavior (I'd say there's a bigger "problem" with opponents who don't have their bids because they don't know how the heck to play the game, and that does cut into my enjoyment a little bit, especially when they can't figure out how to bid a spade game that everyone else would be in but that goes down on a bad break...grrrr! But this isn't a "problem" that I want to see any solution for.) The thing is, I don't see how you could make and enforce a rule that bans frequent deviations for the purpose of just jacking everyone else around, but allows frequent deviations for legitimate bridge reasons---and experienced players *do* make frequent deviating bids because they know bidding is an art and not a science. -- Adam From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 29 02:04:42 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:04:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Strange UI ruling (a day in the life) Message-ID: At first it looked like a typical UI auction, complicated by the fact that the hesitation was not noted at the time and Bunny #1, who has already bid, may or may not have been aware of her rights. Meticulous Expert #1 Bunny #1 Meticulous Expert #2 Bunny #2 3S P P X P 4H 4S X (1) P 5H (1) agreed hesitation PROBLEM #1 Bunny #1 wants to tell me something. Sounds great to me. We go away from the table and she tells me that they were taught a system for competing and the hesitation was caused by her partner trying to remember the system. I am skeptical. She says she has her bid. I latch on to this, and we agree that I will give her hand to others and ask what they would do. We go back to the table and now Bunny #2 wants to talk to me. I already have a done deal with Bunny #1. Bunny #2 can't have anything relevant to say. But part of making a good ruling is making the players feel like they have been listened to and understood. So Bunny #2 and I leave. She tells me that she and her partner learned a way of bidding in competition and she was trying to remember it. Um, she also got it wrong, which is a complication I never dealt with. So that changed my ruling completely. The hesitation created no useful UI. PROBLEM #2 I go back to the table, give my "play it out" spiel, and the opponents ask if there is anything they should know. Is there? I said no, which may have been a mistake, I have no idea. Are they entitled to know what the hesitation meant? That is useful information, and the Bunny's partner knew what it meant. But usually players use hesitations at their own risk. The doubles and pulls were, AFAIK, never asked about or explained. PROBLEM #3 There is another issue that didn't come up in the actual ruling. In their system, the double of 4 Sp showed two losers in spades and I assume a desire to compete. So that information goes into a poll, no problem. The problem is this. Bunny #2 thought that she should almost automatically bid 5He if she had only one loser in spades. That seems to be an incorrect understanding of the usual agreement for this system, but that's what she said. When I poll people, do I restrict the pollees to playing her method? That pretty much makes the poll irrelevant. This feels right, but like I have started down a slippery slope I don't want to be on. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 29 21:36:32 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:36:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Score adjustments In-Reply-To: <4A94259F.3010800@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A94259F.3010800@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A998340.2010005@nhcc.net> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > ... a vanilla > "likely" lacks a majoritarian connotation in my dictionaries. My dictionary seems to differ from yours. From: Harald Skj??ran > So if there's a case where thinks there are four possible outcomes, > believing each and every one of them to have a probability of 25%, > none of theme are likely to happen. Does that imply that we're > unlikely to have an outcome at all? Suppose there are ten equally-likely outcomes. None of them is even "at all probable," let alone "likely," but we still have to assign an adjusted score. No problem at all if scores can be weighted, but what if not? What's needed is a concept of cumulative probability. Order the scores from worst to best for the OS, and give the OS the second one on the list and the NOS the fourth one. I don't suppose this comports with the strict letter of the Law, but it seems consistent with the intent. Of course if you're in the ACBL, you just give avg- for the OS and avg+ for the NOS. :-( That _is_ consistent with the strict letter of the new Law but not with reason or fairness. (If all ten possible outcomes at this table are in the +/-200 range and all other tables are scoring games, giving avg+/avg- is crazy.) From: Alain Gottcheiner > May I suggest 'the most favorable result among those whose probability > of occurrence is at least half the probability for the most probable > result' ? Won't quite do. In the example above, you don't want to give the OS the very worst score nor the NOS the very best. At least I don't _think_ that's the intent. If it were, avg+/avg- would be 100%/0%, not 60%/40%. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Aug 29 22:38:48 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:38:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI & System card Message-ID: <4A9991D8.5040601@aol.com> Hola blmlers! Request your input. A controversy is raging in the German bridge forum. This was caused by the posting of a player who wanted to look at the opponent's system card during the bidding but did not do so because he feared it would be UI. Two or three or even four positions have been taken in the ensuing discussion. 1. It is not UI to look at the opponent's system card during the bidding. 2. It is UI to do so. 3. It could be UI if there are no screens, but with screens it is not. That is, looking at the card is not UI but the UI is the fact that the partner is aware of it. 4. It could be UI but that is next to meaningless since creating UI is not a penalisable violation, only using UI is a violation. Of course the problem is based (probably) on the mistaken assumption of the player (and many others) that UI is per se a violation. Many players don't seem to realise that this is only the case when UI is used. Your opinions? JE From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 29 23:36:24 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:36:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Strange UI ruling (a day in the life) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A999F58.9070605@nhcc.net> Robert Frick wrote: > There is another issue that didn't come up in the actual ruling. In their > system, the double of 4 Sp showed two losers in spades and I assume a > desire to compete. Failure to alert the double was MI, so you needed to deal with that. (In the ACBL, alerts of passes, doubles, and redoubles are immediate, not delayed.) > Bunny #2 thought that she should almost automatically > bid 5He if she had only one loser in spades. That seems to be an incorrect > understanding of the usual agreement for this system, but that's what she > said. When I poll people, do I restrict the pollees to playing her method? L16B1b includes "among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership." Thus methods are certainly included, which makes sense. You wouldn't ask people what to do after, say, a forcing bid if the methods in use make the bid non-forcing. It's not clear how to take "class of player" into account. Obviously you can't ask for exactly the same bridge judgment as the player in question. I think the usual interpretation is the same overall skill level but not necessarily the same personal proclivities. Thus you tell the pollees what partner's calls mean and what their own options will mean but not which option the system calls for them to choose. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 29 23:55:17 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:55:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] UI & System card In-Reply-To: <4A9991D8.5040601@aol.com> References: <4A9991D8.5040601@aol.com> Message-ID: <4A99A3C5.4030603@nhcc.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > 3. It could be UI if there are no screens, but with screens it is not. > That is, looking at the card is not UI but the UI is the fact that the > partner is aware of it. Players have explicit permission to look at opponents' SC at their own turn and at other times as well (L40B2c). The act of doing so is UI to partner, but in general the UI is unlikely to suggest one action over another. If there is no infraction (such as failure to alert), a player who was disadvantaged by failing to look at the SC has no claim to redress. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 30 03:09:04 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:09:04 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <16243125.1251594544864.JavaMail.root@ps29> >----Original Message---- >From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk >Date: 27/08/2009 22:10 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >[Thomas Dehn] >I would expect that most people use round to nearest, rather than round to >next lower integer. I expect "15-17" to be closer to "14.51 - 17.50" than >to "15.00 - 17.99". > >[Nigel] >John Probst suggests that it would improve disclosure to declare such >*decimal* ranges. If this were mandated by law, players would enjoy a more >level playing field. > >In the UK, for example, range declarations of 12-14 and 15-17 usually mean >something like 11.2-14.2 and 14.2-17.1. i.e. many players mentally reduce >the boundaries by at least half a point. Thus, many players upgrade most >hands with a 5 card suit. > >There is still a communication problem if you employ other high-card >evaluation methods e.g. 6421 or 7531 or 321. > >I don't think this is the problem high-lighted by Robert Frick, however. The >occasions that irritate Robert are when an opponent indulges in deliberate >small variations *from his stated agreements* - shading strength and >distribution requirements, random false-carding and the like. Such a minor >deviation (like the monkey opening a 4 card major, when his system card says >5) may not be a concealed partnership understanding. A sloth of a partner >may never become aware of the monkey-tricks! But they do disconcert his >opponents. > >More experienced monkeys make extensive use of spurious trial-bids, >cue-bids, splinters, exclusion-bids and other gross deviations. Hence >another grey area is the so-called "tactical bid" (an expert euphemism for >"psych" -- although some BLMLers refuse to classify them as such). The >monkeys rarely have the nuts for their calls. Their deployment may seem >random to begin with, but after a while a definite pattern is likely to >emerge. An alert expert partner is usually well aware of the the contexts >that the perpetrator favours for his ploys. But nobody declares them. A >problem is that their pseudo-randomness would make it hard to devise an >appropriate form of words. > +=+ I am butting in here but only to put on record that I do not have full facilities here in Sao Paulo yet. Hopefully these will materialise by early afternoon Sunday. I have deleted most of todays reading material without reading it. ^~ Grattan ~ +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 30 23:10:33 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:10:33 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] DIFFICULTIES Message-ID: <23503172.1251666633822.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ Although I have press room facilities at this moment I am still experiencing difficulties with the technology. So reading emails is spasmodic - and sending too for that matter. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 31 00:28:46 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:28:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Strange UI ruling (a day in the life) In-Reply-To: <4A999F58.9070605@nhcc.net> References: <4A999F58.9070605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:36:24 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> There is another issue that didn't come up in the actual ruling. In >> their >> system, the double of 4 Sp showed two losers in spades and I assume a >> desire to compete. > > Failure to alert the double was MI, so you needed to deal with that. > (In the ACBL, alerts of passes, doubles, and redoubles are immediate, > not delayed.) > >> Bunny #2 thought that she should almost automatically >> bid 5He if she had only one loser in spades. That seems to be an >> incorrect >> understanding of the usual agreement for this system, but that's what >> she >> said. When I poll people, do I restrict the pollees to playing her >> method? > > L16B1b includes "among the class of players in question and using the > methods of the partnership." Thus methods are certainly included, which > makes sense. You wouldn't ask people what to do after, say, a forcing > bid if the methods in use make the bid non-forcing. It's not clear how > to take "class of player" into account. Obviously you can't ask for > exactly the same bridge judgment as the player in question. I think the > usual interpretation is the same overall skill level but not necessarily > the same personal proclivities. Thus you tell the pollees what > partner's calls mean and what their own options will mean but not which > option the system calls for them to choose. So I might tell people that the double of 4 spades shows two spade losers and asks her to bid 5 Hearts with only one spade stopper, but if she has good spades like AK she can leave the double in. I think that is how she described things to me. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Aug 31 02:03:17 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:03:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Strange UI ruling (a day in the life) In-Reply-To: References: <4A999F58.9070605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4A9B1345.1080309@nhcc.net> Robert Frick wrote: > So I might tell people that the double of 4 spades shows two spade losers If that's what it shows, yes. The opponents are, of course, entitled to know this too, and there is MI to deal with if they weren't alerted. > and asks her to bid 5 Hearts with only one spade stopper, but if she has > good spades like AK she can leave the double in. I don't see why you would mention this, but perhaps I'm missing something. This information is not part of the meaning of the double. If it's part of the overall system (which seems dubious, but again I may be missing something), the opponents are entitled to know it after the relevant call is made but not before. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 31 01:07:12 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:07:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A97A670.8000505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: North >>Vul: Nil >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- Pass 1C ? >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>T984 >>JT96 >>AKQ >>43 >> >>Which tactical call do you make? Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : if you intend me to bid 1D, I won't, because : >1) I'm not sure diamonds will be the right lead against NT; In >particular it doesn't comply with Silberwasser's criterion : I >do not want to demand a lead from Jx. Richard Hills: Alain has not noticed the form of scoring, where concession of an overtrick can cost a bottom. If West declares 2S, does Alain want pard to lead from Kxx of hearts into declarer's AQ? Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >Now, if you want me to issue a lightish double, to show my >pattern and contest the partscore (and perhaps learn what to >lead), the conditions seem favorable to do so, but that's not a >tactical bid ; it's a systemic bid. Richard Hills: Telling partner that you have four hearts will only encourage pard to fatally lead from Kxx of hearts into declarer's AQ. And truthfully describing your shape while slightly overbidding your points in third seat is an ineffective system; usually helping the eventual opposing declarer count out your distribution and high cards. At the table the "two ways to win" 1D overcall was chosen. Plan A failed, because every declarer in the room had to lose three diamond tricks, so a lead directing 1D overcall was not needed. But Plan B succeeded. The other North-Souths uniformly defended 3NT for -430. But because East-West had three-three in diamonds, they lacked a stopper for 3NT at this table, so played in a Moysian heart game for +50 to this North-South. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills Unfortunately the phenomenon of "cyber-stalking" has reached blml. I have again received a derogatory private email from an occasional blmler: "This misquote of Eric [Landau] I find despicable. Are you trying to be funny? I wish you would cut it out." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 jimfox00 at cox.net Mon Aug 31 04:57:57 2009 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:57:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4A97A670.8000505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Please don't waste our time with this nonsense. Fluxman -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: 08/30/2009 7:07 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] R.J.B. Hills Unfortunately the phenomenon of "cyber-stalking" has reached blml. I have again received a derogatory private email from an occasional blmler: "This misquote of Eric [Landau] I find despicable. Are you trying to be funny? I wish you would cut it out." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 31 06:25:34 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:25:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Charles Causley (1917-2003), English poet and schoolmaster: Timothy Winters comes to school With eyes as wide as a football-pool, Ears like bombs and teeth like splinters: A blitz of a boy is Timothy Winters. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- Pass 1D Pass 3H (1) X 4C 4H X (2) Pass ? (1) Alerted and correctly explained as game-forcing with diamond support and a singleton or void in hearts (2) Penalty double You, South, hold: AT9 --- A7643 KJ865 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes R.J.B. 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 Aug 31 09:52:03 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:52:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4A97A670.8000505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A9B8123.9040203@skynet.be> If you are the occasional blml'er referred to, please believe I concur with Richard that this should not happen. If you are not, then please don't call this time-wasting. Blml takes up so much time and space that this is hardly wasting time (incrementally speaking). Besides, your post has made me waste more time than Richards message. Herman. Jim Fox wrote: > Please don't waste our time with this nonsense. > > Fluxman > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sent: 08/30/2009 7:07 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > R.J.B. Hills > > Unfortunately the phenomenon of "cyber-stalking" has reached > blml. I have again received a derogatory private email from an > occasional blmler: > > "This misquote of Eric [Landau] I find despicable. Are you > trying to be funny? I wish you would cut it out." > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Aug 31 10:30:34 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:30:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A9B8123.9040203@skynet.be> References: <4A97A670.8000505@ulb.ac.be> <4A9B8123.9040203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A9B8A2A.3000909@aol.com> Well said Herman! If you/anyone are/is offended or dislike something Richard wrote, then delete it, don't read it, whatever. Do not impose your standards of humour or humourlessness on us. I agree fully with Herman. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > If you are the occasional blml'er referred to, please believe I concur > with Richard that this should not happen. > If you are not, then please don't call this time-wasting. Blml takes up > so much time and space that this is hardly wasting time (incrementally > speaking). > Besides, your post has made me waste more time than Richards message. > Herman. > > Jim Fox wrote: >> Please don't waste our time with this nonsense. >> >> Fluxman >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Sent: 08/30/2009 7:07 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> R.J.B. Hills >> >> Unfortunately the phenomenon of "cyber-stalking" has reached >> blml. I have again received a derogatory private email from an >> occasional blmler: >> >> "This misquote of Eric [Landau] I find despicable. Are you >> trying to be funny? I wish you would cut it out." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 blml at arcor.de Mon Aug 31 12:56:46 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:56:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16775717.1251716206129.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Charles Causley (1917-2003), English poet and schoolmaster: > > Timothy Winters comes to school > With eyes as wide as a football-pool, > Ears like bombs and teeth like splinters: > A blitz of a boy is Timothy Winters. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- Pass 1D > Pass 3H (1) X 4C > 4H X (2) Pass ? > > (1) Alerted and correctly explained as game-forcing with diamond > support and a singleton or void in hearts > > (2) Penalty double > > You, South, hold: > > AT9 > --- > A7643 > KJ865 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? I first ask Richard what UI I have ;-) This is a simple bidding sequence where I do not expect partner to forget system. Thus, opponents have a 12 card fit in hearts, and partner has a singleton. I do not consider passing 4H X. I consider 4S, and 5D. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 31 15:27:21 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:27:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C851F14-8732-4345-B9A7-97A33943E7EF@starpower.net> On Aug 31, 2009, at 12:25 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- Pass 1D > Pass 3H (1) X 4C > 4H X (2) Pass ? > > (1) Alerted and correctly explained as game-forcing with diamond > support and a singleton or void in hearts > > (2) Penalty double > > You, South, hold: > > AT9 > --- > A7643 > KJ865 > > What call do you make? 4S. > What other calls do you consider making? 5C, 6C, 6D. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 31 19:04:08 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye In-Reply-To: <4C851F14-8732-4345-B9A7-97A33943E7EF@starpower.net> References: <4C851F14-8732-4345-B9A7-97A33943E7EF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <59675.24.46.179.117.1251738248.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > > On Aug 31, 2009, at 12:25 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: East >> Vul: Both >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- Pass 1D >> Pass 3H (1) X 4C >> 4H X (2) Pass ? >> >> (1) Alerted and correctly explained as game-forcing with diamond >> support and a singleton or void in hearts >> >> (2) Penalty double >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> AT9 >> --- >> A7643 >> KJ865 >> >> What call do you make? > Pass > >> What other calls do you consider making? To pass or not to pass, that is the question. It depends on how likely partner is to remember the convention. Only an expert playing with an expert doubles 3H with a singleton. From blml at arcor.de Mon Aug 31 19:34:09 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:34:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye In-Reply-To: <59675.24.46.179.117.1251738248.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <59675.24.46.179.117.1251738248.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <4C851F14-8732-4345-B9A7-97A33943E7EF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <29998016.1251740049206.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > > On Aug 31, 2009, at 12:25 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >> Matchpoint pairs > >> Dlr: East > >> Vul: Both > >> > >> The bidding has gone: > >> > >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >> --- --- Pass 1D > >> Pass 3H (1) X 4C > >> 4H X (2) Pass ? > >> > >> (1) Alerted and correctly explained as game-forcing with diamond > >> support and a singleton or void in hearts > >> > >> (2) Penalty double > >> > >> You, South, hold: > >> > >> AT9 > >> --- > >> A7643 > >> KJ865 > >> > >> What call do you make? > > > > Pass > > > > >> What other calls do you consider making? > > To pass or not to pass, that is the question. > > It depends on how likely partner is to remember the convention. Only an > expert playing with an expert doubles 3H with a singleton. I think you misread the auction. You opened 1D. Partner responded with a 3H splinter. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/