From henk at ripe.net Tue Dec 1 01:01:01 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 1 01:40:18 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:40:18 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8D987AB260994033B9C78E4FDCC0444D@Mildred> Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee minutes, 20th January 2000, item 1: "Mr. Schoder asked that the Committee should attend to its own remit and not digress into areas that are the prerogative of other entities." Richard Hills: So it seems that the WBF Laws Committee (with a remit of interpreting the Laws) and the WBF Appeals Committee (with a remit of defining appropriate appeals procedures) are coeval in authority, with neither subordinate to the other. On the other hand, both Committees are bound by the authority of the 2007 Laws, because: 2007 Introduction (defined as part of the Laws), initial eight words: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure..." Ergo, (a) the WBF Laws Committee exceeds its remit if it chooses to issue any interpretation of Law which is contrary to the words of the 2007 Laws, and (b) the WBF Appeals Committee exceeds its remit if it chooses to allow any Reveley Ruling, since that is contrary to the words of the 2007 Laws. What's the problem? Is it quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 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 schoderb at msn.com Tue Dec 1 01:58:31 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:58:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's strange that anybody can say "ergo" and then come to any silly conclusion they want to. I don't follow Mr. Hill's conclusions, which I find ridiculous, were perhaps meant to be humorous. (a) The WBFLC does not exceed its remit when it states what the words of the Law mean. Since this power is theirs, they can't by any logic by found to 'contradict' the Laws. (b) The WBF Tournament Appeals Committee is not in the business of Law interpretation therefore cannot choose to allow or disallow so-called Revelry Rulings. Their remit of defining appropriate appeals PROCEDURES does not cover interpretation of the Laws by any reasonable reading. He got "What's the problem?" right. Best wishes, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] WBF Laws Committee minutes, 20th January 2000, item 1: "Mr. Schoder asked that the Committee should attend to its own remit and not digress into areas that are the prerogative of other entities." Richard Hills: So it seems that the WBF Laws Committee (with a remit of interpreting the Laws) and the WBF Appeals Committee (with a remit of defining appropriate appeals procedures) are coeval in authority, with neither subordinate to the other. On the other hand, both Committees are bound by the authority of the 2007 Laws, because: 2007 Introduction (defined as part of the Laws), initial eight words: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure..." Ergo, (a) the WBF Laws Committee exceeds its remit if it chooses to issue any interpretation of Law which is contrary to the words of the 2007 Laws, and (b) the WBF Appeals Committee exceeds its remit if it chooses to allow any Reveley Ruling, since that is contrary to the words of the 2007 Laws. What's the problem? Is it quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 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/20091201/499470df/attachment-0001.html From schoderb at msn.com Tue Dec 1 02:16:33 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:16:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> <000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> <000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: And all along I thought that the purpose of an Tournament Appeals Committee was to :.......review of the TD's ruling......" Now apparently we find them making interpretations of the Laws -- the assigned duty of the Tournament Director. I do not believe that any Tournament Appeals Committee (Maastricht included) sets precedence for future rulings or ACs. I find it outre and a conceit for any Tournament Appeals Committee to decide ".....When the question was last discussed by the WBF Appeals Committee a different view prevailed....." . It is beyond their function to ".....prevail a different view....", and should properly leave the interpretation of Law to the Chief TD who was apparently not in agreement, and ultimately the WBFLC interpretation approved by the WBF Executive Council.. It's simply not their job, and the time used could probably have been used to better effect. .I believe that Law 12 C 1(c) is worded to give the impression that it is the best way to rule and is eagerly accepted in those places where the ACs and TDs relish the opportunity to play bridge and where the Regulating Authority directs TDs to open that door. It grew from a 1997 provision which stated: '"Unless Zonal Organizations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity" In the Lausanne Code Of Practice for Appeals Committees, the WBF Chief Director requested that this power be also given to TDs so that a TD would not have to go to the AC with a ruling that he knew was unfair and that they would change. He wanted the AC to review a 'ruling' which he was willing to defend. It was being done in various places at the time by TDs with RA blessing.. It was not meant to replace the other provisions of LAW 12 but was to be used when those provisions were clearly deemed inadequate for a "fair" ruling. And, since the Code of Practice for Appeals Committees only applies to those RAs who accept the Code, it rested in quiet hands elsewhere. It has now taken over as THE METHOD of ruling for some RAs since its inclusion in the Laws. WBF is in the forefront for its sanctioned tournaments, and does not apply (e) .ACBL prohibits (c) as do numerous RAs using the ACBL Laws. Regardless, the Chief Director must have been satisfied that the AC change of the ruling was at least equitable to the players involved or I'm certain he would have ruled the AC's actions illegal if based on their 'prevailing opinion.' Best Wishes, Kojak From: ton To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. ton: I am not so sure that this message from Grattan is a useful contribution to any discussion about the application or interpretation of the bridge laws. Suggesting that the WBF Appeals committee supports his view seems wrong to me. At one moment some people having to deal with an appeal in the last world championships acted as described but whether this should be considered an official view by any body is questionable if not negative. As far as I know the chief TD of the WBF does not agree, nor do some members of the wbf lc and its chairman. So it might be better to forget this message from Grattan up till the moment that confirmation from some authority is given, which I doubt will happen. To give only one argument not to support Grattan's view is that we invite players to abuse the laws with such approach. You will get at least part of your slam, isn't it? ton +=+ This position is adopted by some regulating authorities. When the question was last discussed by the WBF Appeals Committee a different view prevailed.. In Maastricht, 2000, I was seeking to persuade the appeals committee of the merits of weighted adjustments. Eventually the committee consented to adopt the method subject to a condition allowing inclusion of a proportion of the score that was the outcome of the infraction if it were judged a proportion of players of like standard would make that call in an untroubled auction. So if 30 in 100 such players would make the call the outcome should be entered as to 30% in the weighting. It was considered that if the objective of weighting is equity, not punishment, equity calls for its inclusion. For a punitive award the Director should turn to Law 90. (Apart from words in the Introduction to the 2007 laws, there is also a Laws Committee minute on this point - meeting of 20th January 2000, item 12.) Law 16B1 says it is an infraction, having received from partner unauthorized information ('UI'), to choose from among logical alternatives an action that could be suggested over another by the UI. Law 16B3 says that if a player violates this law and gains an advantage from doing so, the Director shall assign an adjusted score. When the Director wishes to know how to do this Law 16B3 tells him to follow the procedure in Law 12C. Law 12C1 inclusive of 12C1(c) gives him the powers. Law 12 imposes no limitations on the Director in his assessment. There is no statement to exclude allowing a proportion of the outcome of the infractive action where this is considered to be equitable. The belief that it is contrary to law to do so is not supported by the text of the laws. A policy of not doing so has developed in some constituencies and we should not oppose the principle in general, but where equity calls for it such a policy can be set aside and there is no breach of the written law in this. Be it noted that damage lies in the difference between the balance of all probabilities of outcome in a smooth auction and the degree to which an infraction causes the balance to be distorted adversely against the non-offending side. The specific question has never been discussed in the WBFLC (which interprets the wording of the Law while the application of the law so interpreted to rulings and appeals is a matter for the WBF Appeals Committee.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091201/3d5ee858/attachment.html From schoderb at msn.com Tue Dec 1 02:29:49 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:29:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And further, the quote of mine from 2001 was taken out of context. A voice tape would show that my remark was directed at the discussion going on of whether ACBL or WBF had the rights to promulgate and publish laws - a subject clearly beyond the remit of the WBFLC and rightly in the hands of the WBF Executive Committee. But I don't strongly object to applying it across the board when appropriate. Best Wishes ----- Original Message ----- From: WILLIAM SCHODER To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] It's strange that anybody can say "ergo" and then come to any silly conclusion they want to. I don't follow Mr. Hill's conclusions, which I find ridiculous, were perhaps meant to be humorous. (a) The WBFLC does not exceed its remit when it states what the words of the Law mean. Since this power is theirs, they can't by any logic by found to 'contradict' the Laws. (b) The WBF Tournament Appeals Committee is not in the business of Law interpretation therefore cannot choose to allow or disallow so-called Revelry Rulings. Their remit of defining appropriate appeals PROCEDURES does not cover interpretation of the Laws by any reasonable reading. He got "What's the problem?" right. Best wishes, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] WBF Laws Committee minutes, 20th January 2000, item 1: "Mr. Schoder asked that the Committee should attend to its own remit and not digress into areas that are the prerogative of other entities." Richard Hills: So it seems that the WBF Laws Committee (with a remit of interpreting the Laws) and the WBF Appeals Committee (with a remit of defining appropriate appeals procedures) are coeval in authority, with neither subordinate to the other. On the other hand, both Committees are bound by the authority of the 2007 Laws, because: 2007 Introduction (defined as part of the Laws), initial eight words: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure..." Ergo, (a) the WBF Laws Committee exceeds its remit if it chooses to issue any interpretation of Law which is contrary to the words of the 2007 Laws, and (b) the WBF Appeals Committee exceeds its remit if it chooses to allow any Reveley Ruling, since that is contrary to the words of the 2007 Laws. What's the problem? Is it quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 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 _______________________________________________ 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/20091201/169d5053/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 1 02:58:44 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:58:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William ("Kojak") Schoder: >It's strange that anybody can say "ergo" and then come to any silly >conclusion they want to. I don't follow Mr. Hills' conclusions, >which I find ridiculous, were perhaps meant to be humorous. > >(a) The WBFLC does not exceed its remit when it states what the >words of the Law mean. Since this power is theirs, they can't by >any logic by found to 'contradict' the Laws. [snip] Richard Hills: The initial 2007 Law 26 (Insufficient Bid) proved unsatisfactory in practice. The WBF Laws Committee could have exceeded its remit by interpreting "black" as "white". But instead the WBF Drafting Committee was fully within its remit by rewording the 2008 Law 26 to replace "black" with "white". Similarly, if guidance is not yet available from World, Zonal, Australian or Canberran Regulating Authorities, then as a Director of a session at the South Canberra Bridge Club I am empowered by Law 81C2 to "...interpret these Laws...". But as a Director I am not empowered to state that "black" equals "white", since I am also constrained by Law 81B1 to be "...bound by, these Laws...". Many years ago, when the silly, ridiculous and humorous 1997 Law 25B was in effect, the WBF Laws Committee published a "black = white" interpretation to ameliorate the silly, ridiculous and humorous 1997 Law 25B's outcomes. But after the ABF and other NBOs complained that the WBF LC interpretation was contrary to the actual words of the silly, ridiculous and humorous 1997 Law 25B, the WBF LC chose to retract its unLawful interpretation at its next meeting. 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 Tue Dec 1 03:22:30 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 13:22:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001c01ca71d7$91cfc320$b56f4960$@nl> Message-ID: Don Marquis (1878-1937), American poet and journalist: "The art of newspaper paragraphing is to stroke a platitude until it purrs like an epigram." Hans van Staveren: >Although I agree mostly with this I want to make it clear that I still >think in a bit round-about way the result can come back. > >Suppose a player has a choice between calls A,B and C. UI suggest C, >so he is not allowed to bid it. His free choices are A and B. Suppose >he chooses A. Now the bidding is live again. Eventually the contract >reached is the same as one that could be reached through his choice of >C. > >If this is legal then I think that the result of the illegal choice of >C can be included in the weighted score, not because his call of C is >weighed at more than 0%, but because the same result could be achieved >in a legal way. EBU White Book, clause 16.3 Weighting when a call (or play) is disallowed. If a call (or play) is disallowed because the TD judges that an illegal alternative was chosen when unauthorised information was present then this call or play may not be used in any calculations of weighting. Note that it is possible for the result to be included when it might have been reached in another way. Suppose that there were other possible calls (or plays) that would also have been disallowed if chosen. Then they may not be included in any calculations of weighting either. Examples (a) East doubles 4H slowly, and West pulls it to 4S making exactly. The TD decides the 4S bid was illegal, but decides to give a weighted adjustment because it is not clear how many tricks 4H doubled might make, and it might be taken out to 5C, which he might decide would be doubled and made. He might rule: 20% of NS+750 (5Cx=) plus 40% of NS-200 (4Hx-1) plus 40% of NS-500 (4Hx-2) However, he is not allowed to rule: 20% of NS+750 (5Cx=) plus 30% of NS-200 (4Hx-1) plus 30% of NS-500 (4Hx-2) plus 20% of NS-620 (4S=) because he may not include the disallowed call 4S as part of the weighting. This is affectionately called a "Reveley ruling" because of a decision some years ago which brought this problem to the L&EC's notice. Some authorities in other countries permit Reveley rulings. (b) In a competitive auction East bids 3H, which makes, but this is deemed illegal and disallowed. However, the TD judges that when the auction reaches his partner he would bid 3H much of the time. It is legal to include a percentage of 3H making as an adjustment since it is not via the disallowed call. (c) East pauses over 1NT and asks questions, then passes. West doubles with a spade suit and only 12 points, getting 800. The TD decides the double was illegal, but considers a weighted adjustment because West might have bid 2S. There are now two possibilities. If the TD judges that 2S was a legal action, ie that he would not have disallowed it if asked to rule on a 2S bid in the same circumstances, then he may give a weighting based on 1NT undoubled, and on 2S being bid. If the TD judges that 2S was not a legal action, ie that he would have disallowed it if asked to rule on a 2S bid in the same circumstances, then he may not give any weighting based on 2S being bid. In the example given that means he is going to rule 1NT undoubled minus three. 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 Tue Dec 1 05:05:05 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:05:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> Message-ID: "Grattan" writes: > In Maastricht, 2000, I was seeking to persuade the appeals > committee of the merits of weighted adjustments. Eventually > the committee consented to adopt the method subject to a > condition allowing inclusion of a proportion of the score that > was the outcome of the infraction if it were judged a proportion > of players of like standard would make that call in an untroubled > auction. So if 30 in 100 such players would make the call the > outcome should be entered as to 30% in the weighting. It was > considered that if the objective of weighting is equity, not > punishment, equity calls for its inclusion. This is not equity, because it gives a higher score to a player who infracts the laws than to a player who obeys them. Consider the example which started this thread: the contract makes six on a non-club lead and four on a club lead. West had UI which suggested a club lead, and say 30% of Wests would lead a club anyway, so there is a logical alternative. If West obeys Law 16B1 and leads a non-club, he is -480. If he violates Law 16B1 and leads a club, he is 70% of -480 and 30% of -420; even if West is given a procedural penalty (very unlikely for taking a 30% action), the non-offenders are worse off because of West's infraction. From geller at nifty.com Tue Dec 1 06:16:22 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:16:22 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B14A6A6.7000202@nifty.com> Kojak, I think Richard's point (in typical Richardian hyperbole) is that the WBFLC is indeed the supreme body for interpreting the Laws but that in return for general recognition of their authority it behooved that to stick to interpretation of what was actually written and not make new laws of overturn existing ones in the guise of issuing interpretations. Of course everyone will agree in principle, but when it comes to actual decisions one man's "interpretation" may be anothers' "judicial activism." An thus it ever was.... Bob WILLIAM SCHODER ????????: > It's strange that anybody can say "ergo" and then come to any silly > conclusion they want to. I don't follow Mr. Hill's conclusions, which > I find ridiculous, were perhaps meant to be humorous. > > (a) The WBFLC does not exceed its remit when it states what the words of > the Law mean. Since this power is theirs, they can't by any logic by > found to 'contradict' the Laws. > > (b) The WBF Tournament Appeals Committee is not in the business of Law > interpretation therefore cannot choose to allow or disallow so-called > Revelry Rulings. Their remit of defining appropriate appeals PROCEDURES > does not cover interpretation of the Laws by any reasonable reading. > > He got "What's the problem?" right. > > Best wishes, > > Kojak > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* richard.hills at immi.gov.au > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2009 7:40 PM > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 20th January 2000, item 1: > > "Mr. Schoder asked that the Committee should attend to its own remit and > not digress into areas that are the prerogative of other entities." > > Richard Hills: > > So it seems that the WBF Laws Committee (with a remit of > interpreting the > Laws) and the WBF Appeals Committee (with a remit of defining > appropriate > appeals procedures) are coeval in authority, with neither subordinate to > the other. > > On the other hand, both Committees are bound by the authority of the > 2007 > Laws, because: > > 2007 Introduction (defined as part of the Laws), initial eight words: > > "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure..." > > Ergo, > > (a) the WBF Laws Committee exceeds its remit if it chooses to issue any > interpretation of Law which is contrary to the words of the 2007 Laws, > > and > > (b) the WBF Appeals Committee exceeds its remit if it chooses to allow > any Reveley Ruling, since that is contrary to the words of the 2007 > Laws. > > What's the problem? > Is it quis custodiet ipsos custodes? > > > 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 1 06:43:12 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:43:12 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred>, Message-ID: > From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:05:05 -0500 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. > > "Grattan" writes: > >> In Maastricht, 2000, I was seeking to persuade the appeals >> committee of the merits of weighted adjustments. Eventually >> the committee consented to adopt the method subject to a >> condition allowing inclusion of a proportion of the score that >> was the outcome of the infraction if it were judged a proportion >> of players of like standard would make that call in an untroubled >> auction. So if 30 in 100 such players would make the call the >> outcome should be entered as to 30% in the weighting. It was >> considered that if the objective of weighting is equity, not >> punishment, equity calls for its inclusion. > > This is not equity, because it gives a higher score to a player who infracts > the laws than to a player who obeys them. You merely have recognized that it is the law which is inequitable. regards roger pewick _________________________________________________________________ Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFESRP_Local_MapsMenu_Resturants_1x1 From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Dec 1 08:26:13 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:26:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <5E38285E-4738-4084-963A-E8F1CADC15C9@starpower.net> References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> <000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B13E901.1080908@skynet.be> <001c01ca71d7$91cfc320$b56f4960$@nl> <4B13F23A.40706@ulb.ac.be> <001d01ca71e6$236c7e50$6a457af0$@nl> <5E38285E-4738-4084-963A-E8F1CADC15C9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <005b01ca7257$8fb6bf00$af243d00$@nl> [Eric] I think Hans may have a valid point here, but the explication doesn't make sense to me. If a player has UI to suggest that a grand slam bid is more likely to be successful than a small slam bid, mustn't the same UI also suggest that a grand slam try is more likely to be successful than a signoff in six? If A is suggested over B, how can some C which must produce either the same result as A or the same result as B not be suggested over B? [Hans] Ok. In this example the player has three calls to consider. Signing of in 6, shooting 7, or making a try. Basically he can call 6 or 6.5 or 7NT. UI suggests 7 is on. Now if there is an alternative call that some of his peers might choose he must make that call instead of 7NT. If basically all of his peers would either bid 6.5 or 7NT he is allowed to bid 6.5NT, but not 7. Now there is presumably a non 0% chance his partner would accept, so the score for 7NT would enter the weighed result in a non-zero percentage. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 1 10:01:07 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:01:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred>, Message-ID: <4B14DB53.5050606@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote: >> This is not equity, because it gives a higher score to a player who infracts >> the laws than to a player who obeys them. > > > You merely have recognized that it is the law which is inequitable. > Not the Law, Roger, just this particular interpretation of it. Since other interpretations are available, that must mean that this interpretation should not prevail. Herman. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Dec 1 11:54:48 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:54:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005001ca7274$b5bdd450$21397cf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Many years ago, when the silly, ridiculous and humorous 1997 Law 25B was in effect, the WBF Laws Committee published a "black = white" interpretation to ameliorate the silly, ridiculous and humorous 1997 Law 25B's outcomes. But after the ABF and other NBOs complained that the WBF LC interpretation was contrary to the actual words of the silly, ridiculous and humorous 1997 Law 25B, the WBF LC chose to retract its unLawful interpretation at its next meeting. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills ton: Could you tell me in what respect we turned black into white regarding law 25B? (which I still consider to be a perfect 97 law, the problem was that TD's were not perfect) From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 1 19:10:33 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:10:33 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:40 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > So it seems that the WBF Laws Committee (with a remit of interpreting the > Laws) and the WBF Appeals Committee (with a remit of defining appropriate > appeals procedures) are coeval in authority, with neither subordinate to > the other. > > On the other hand, both Committees are bound by the authority of the 2007 > Laws, because: > > 2007 Introduction (defined as part of the Laws), initial eight words: > > "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure..." > > Ergo, > > (a) the WBF Laws Committee exceeds its remit if it chooses to issue any > interpretation of Law which is contrary to the words of the 2007 Laws, > > and > > (b) the WBF Appeals Committee exceeds its remit if it chooses to allow > any Reveley Ruling, since that is contrary to the words of the 2007 Laws. > +=+ The WBF Laws Committee has two fundamental aspects to its responsibilities, subject to ratification by the Executive Council: (a) to create and promulgate fresh laws (b) to interpret the current laws. It would be an abuse of its responsibility in (b) if it were to issue an interpretation that added wishful thinking to the actual content of the text of the Law. It is bound by the Law as written. The (standing) WBF Appeals Committee has responsibility for overseeing the work of the Tournament Appeals Committees and determining the application of the Law as written, and as interpreted from time to time by the Laws Committee, to rulings and appeals. When, in Maastricht, a decision was made on the application of the then Law 12C the committee did nothing in conflict with the written law. As for Richard's assertion that a so-called 'Reveley' ruling "is contrary to the words of the 2007 Laws", I experience difficulty in perceiving specific words in the laws which can be quoted as not permitting of such a ruling. I do understand desires expressed that score adjustment should not only recover for the non-offending side the damage suffered but should also incorporate retribution for the infraction; however, this wish violates a principle long inherent in the laws of the game. The element of punishment should properly be dealt with by a procedural penalty applied to the offending side alongside redress for damage in a score adjustment applicable to both sides. Score adjustment is not a fitting place for punitive action and the non-offending side has no claim to benefit from that element of the rectification. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 1 19:24:27 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:24:27 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Treading deep water? Message-ID: <8945C2DB89644982A9F9EE553C552A7E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> Message-ID: <001a01ca72c0$dfe4edd0$9faec970$@com> [RH] "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**." [DALB] Indeed. One of the cases in point seems to be this: West has UI suggesting a club lead, so he leads one and is minus 420 when if he had led anything else he would be minus 480. Well, if there is some logical alternative to a club lead West is minus 480 anyway - we take away the advantage he gains from his infraction. But his opponents are not necessarily plus 480 - if without UI West would have led a club with probability x%, North-South get x% of plus 420 and (100-x)% of plus 480. Now, all of this is entirely consistent with both L12B1 and Reveley rulings. The notion is that cheats are no better off than they would have been under the previous Laws, but non-offenders do not get a windfall just because they happened to be playing against cheats - they get their expectation, or "equity", on the board had they been playing against honest people. It's still stupid, but it's not illegal. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 1 23:14:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:14:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William ("Kojak") Schoder: >And further, the quote of mine from 2000 was taken out of context. >A voice tape would show that my remark was directed at the >discussion going on of whether ACBL or WBF had the rights to >promulgate and publish laws [snip] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 edition: Auction Bridge. - This variety of the game for four players, which adds an element characteristic of poker, appears to have been suggested about 1904, but was really introduced at the Bath Club, London, in 1907, and then was gradually taken up by a wider circle. The laws were settled in August 1908 by a joint committee of the Bath and Portland clubs. Richard Hills: A discussion of whether the Bath Club or the Portland Club has the rights to promulgate and publish laws became irrelevant in 1925, when Harold Vanderbilt promulgated and published his own laws. Similarly, a discussion over whether senior authorities on the WBF Drafting Committee or senior authorities on the ACBL Laws Commission promulgate and publish laws in ACBL-land has always been irrelevant. The person who actually promulgates and publishes laws in ACBL-land is the junior official who writes the "Ruling the Game" column in the ACBL Bulletin. Vastly more ACBL TDs read that column than ever read the WBF Laws Committee minutes or the ACBL Laws Commission 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 Dec 2 02:11:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:11:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Has he station? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9AABCCB787F44B3186A93AE1A189FD4A@Mildred> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>>>Hence when partner removes your 1N to two of a minor, he >>>>usually has some hope of game. Note: I said before and I say >>>>again: *usually*. Gordon Rainsford: >>>I said before, and I say again, "not in my experience". >>> >>>I note also that although in your poll in another place trying >>>to gain support for your view there are many who would raise to >>>3D, there is not a single response that agrees that removing 1NT >>>shows extras. Richard Hills: >And different circles of players in different parts of the world >draw different inferences from their knowledge and experience of >matters generally known to bridge players. > >For example, in the circle of Canberra semi-experts -> > >WEST EAST >1D 1NT >2D(1) 3D(2) > >(1) Very non-forcing, not inviting game. >(2) Very non-forcing, not inviting game. Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ I did think, Gordon, that there was at least one other who >>took that rather cult stance. However it is clear enough that the >>inference is not drawn from knowledge and experience of matters >>generally known to bridge players. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan Endicott, 28th April 2006, drawing a different inference on what the nature of the game requires from a bidding system: .....it is true that Geoffrey Fell and Harold Franklin found it hard to stomach the methods that I was playing with various partners during my earliest days. They thought we had something up our sleeves - our weak two was something they picked on and several times enquired about, because of our 0-9 range which they thought impractical. But what they mostly viewed with suspicion were the hands we passed on after opponents opened the bidding; we played a highly protective style and contentedly passed strong hands if we viewed them as defensive in nature. Our style was to overcall on shape rather than on point count - for which reason our overcalls were not lead directing: our opening leads ignored partner's overcalls - we made the leads we would make in an auction with our side silent. Our responses to overcalls were strong unless wholly pre-emptive; with what would normally be considered a simple raise we passed. In a world that had a narrow view of what was 'good bridge' they found it hard to come to terms with a revolution. ~ Grattan ~ (enfant terrible of the day). +=+ 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 Dec 2 04:10:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:10:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Seventy Six Trombones [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Malcolm Gladwell, Blink, pages 245-248: There were thirty-three candidates, and each played behind a screen, making them invisible to the selection committee. [snip] so for the sake of fairness, the Philharmonic decided to make the first round of auditions blind. Conant was number sixteen. She played Ferdinand David's Konzertino for Trombone, which is the warhorse audition piece in Germany [snip] After she left the audition room, the Philharmonic's music director, Sergiu Celibidache, cried out, "That's who we want!" [snip] when she stepped out from behind the screen she heard the Bavarian equivalent of whoa. "Was ist'n des? Sacra di! Meine Goetter! Um Gottes willen!" They were expecting Herr Conant. This was Frau Conant. [snip] The Munich Philharmonic had one or two women on the violin and oboe. But those were "feminine" instruments. The trombone is masculine. [snip] Conant had no choice but to take the case to court. [snip] But then another round of battles began - that would last another five years - because the orchestra refused to pay her on a par with her male colleagues. She won, again. She prevailed on every charge, and she prevailed because she could mount an argument that the Munich Philharmonic could not rebut. Sergiu Celibidache, the man complaining about her ability, had listened to her play Ferdinand David's Konzertino for Trombone under conditions of perfect objectivity, and in that unbiased moment he had said, "That's who we want!" and sent the remaining trombonists packing. Abbie Conant was saved by the screen. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D 2C 2D 2S (1) Pass Pass 3D Pass Pass ? (1) non-forcing but "constructive" (not a game-invite - unless overcaller has a good fit - but neither a drop-dead potential yarborough) You, South, hold: A9 KT7 Q65 AJT86 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Dec 2 04:10:47 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 22:10:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001a01ca72c0$dfe4edd0$9faec970$@com> References: <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> <001a01ca72c0$dfe4edd0$9faec970$@com> Message-ID: "David Burn" writes: > [RH] > > "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**." > > [DALB] > > Indeed. One of the cases in point seems to be this: > > West has UI suggesting a club lead, so he leads one and is minus 420 when if > he had led anything else he would be minus 480. Well, if there is some > logical alternative to a club lead West is minus 480 anyway - we take away > the advantage he gains from his infraction. > > But his opponents are not necessarily plus 480 - if without UI West would > have led a club with probability x%, North-South get x% of plus 420 and > (100-x)% of plus 480. > > Now, all of this is entirely consistent with both L12B1 and Reveley rulings. > The notion is that cheats are no better off than they would have been under > the previous Laws, but non-offenders do not get a windfall just because they > happened to be playing against cheats - they get their expectation, or > "equity", on the board had they been playing against honest people. This doesn't look right, because the infraction was not the UI, but the lead suggested by the UI. Had the non-offenders been playing against honest people who passed the same UI (not an infraction in itself), they would have always been +480; honest people would know that there was a logical alternative to the club lead and lead something else. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 2 05:56:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:56:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hans Christian Andersen (1805-1875): "But the Emperor has nothing on at all!" cried a little child. Emperor David Burn, EBU L&EC member, incorrect analysis: >>Indeed. One of the cases in point seems to be this: >> >>West has UI suggesting a club lead, so he leads one and is minus 420 >>when if he had led anything else he would be minus 480. Well, if >>there is some logical alternative to a club lead West is minus 480 >>anyway - we take away the advantage he gains from his infraction. >> >>But his opponents are not necessarily plus 480 - if without UI West >>would have led a club with probability x%, North-South get x% of >>plus 420 and (100-x)% of plus 480. >> >>Now, all of this is entirely consistent with both L12B1 and Reveley >>rulings. The notion is that cheats are no better off than they would >>have been under the previous Laws, but non-offenders do not get a >>windfall just because they happened to be playing against cheats - >>they get their expectation, or "equity", on the board had they been >>playing against honest people. Little child David Grabiner, not an EBU L&EC member, correct analysis: >This doesn't look right, because the infraction was not the UI, but >the lead suggested by the UI. Had the non-offenders been playing >against honest people who passed the same UI (not an infraction in >itself), they would have always been +480; honest people would know >that there was a logical alternative to the club lead and lead >something else. WBF Laws Committee minutes, Friday 4th September 2009, item 4: "A request had been received from the ACBL for the committee to consider whether following a tempo breach and a call having a logical alternative, it would be possible to regard the hesitation as part of the infraction. Mr. Wildavsky reported that the ACBL has now gone away from this thought and the question may be laid to rest. The committee noted as a future possibility deletion of 'in itself' from Law 73D1." 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 anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Wed Dec 2 06:07:49 2009 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:07:49 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Seventy Six Trombones [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Considered 3NT but decided to bid 3S Anne Please visit my web site. http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 3:10 AM Subject: [BLML] Seventy Six Trombones [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Malcolm Gladwell, Blink, pages 245-248: > > There were thirty-three candidates, and each played behind a > screen, making them invisible to the selection committee. > > [snip] > > so for the sake of fairness, the Philharmonic decided to make > the first round of auditions blind. Conant was number > sixteen. She played Ferdinand David's Konzertino for > Trombone, which is the warhorse audition piece in Germany > > [snip] > > After she left the audition room, the Philharmonic's music > director, Sergiu Celibidache, cried out, "That's who we want!" > > [snip] > > when she stepped out from behind the screen she heard the > Bavarian equivalent of whoa. "Was ist'n des? Sacra di! Meine > Goetter! Um Gottes willen!" They were expecting Herr Conant. > This was Frau Conant. > > [snip] > > The Munich Philharmonic had one or two women on the violin and > oboe. But those were "feminine" instruments. The trombone is > masculine. > > [snip] > > Conant had no choice but to take the case to court. > > [snip] > > But then another round of battles began - that would last > another five years - because the orchestra refused to pay her on > a par with her male colleagues. She won, again. She prevailed > on every charge, and she prevailed because she could mount an > argument that the Munich Philharmonic could not rebut. Sergiu > Celibidache, the man complaining about her ability, had listened > to her play Ferdinand David's Konzertino for Trombone under > conditions of perfect objectivity, and in that unbiased moment > he had said, "That's who we want!" and sent the remaining > trombonists packing. Abbie Conant was saved by the screen. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- -- 1D 2C > 2D 2S (1) Pass Pass > 3D Pass Pass ? > > (1) non-forcing but "constructive" (not a game-invite - unless > overcaller has a good fit - but neither a drop-dead potential > yarborough) > > You, South, hold: > > A9 > KT7 > Q65 > AJT86 > > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Wed Dec 2 07:11:04 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 07:11:04 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Seventy Six Trombones [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21790583.1259734264872.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D 2C > 2D 2S (1) Pass Pass > 3D Pass Pass ? > > (1) non-forcing but "constructive" (not a game-invite - unless > overcaller has a good fit - but neither a drop-dead potential > yarborough) > > You, South, hold: > > A9 > KT7 > Q65 > AJT86 > > What call do you make? Pass. Points, but no tricks. And not much of a spade fit. There should be about 16 total tricks here. > What other calls do you consider making? If they were vulnerable I might double. Maybe. Thomas Es weihnachtet sehr! Vom leckerem Backrezept bis zum leckeren Schneehasen finden Sie alles im Weihnachtsspecial von Arcor.de: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.weihnachten Feliz Navidad, God Yul, Merry X-Mas und ein frohes Fest! From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Dec 2 08:19:45 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 07:19:45 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001ca731f$d3132c70$79398550$@com> [RH] [DALB] Indeed. One of the cases in point seems to be this: West has UI suggesting a club lead, so he leads one and is minus 420 when if he had led anything else he would be minus 480. Well, if there is some logical alternative to a club lead West is minus 480 anyway - we take away the advantage he gains from his infraction. But his opponents are not necessarily plus 480 - if without UI West would have led a club with probability x%, North-South get x% of plus 420 and (100-x)% of plus 480. Now, all of this is entirely consistent with both L12B1 and Reveley rulings. The notion is that cheats are no better off than they would have been under the previous Laws, but non-offenders do not get a windfall just because they happened to be playing against cheats - they get their expectation, or "equity", on the board had they been playing against honest people. [RH] Little child David Grabiner, not an EBU L&EC member, correct analysis: [DG] This doesn't look right, because the infraction was not the UI, but the lead suggested by the UI. Had the non-offenders been playing against honest people who passed the same UI (not an infraction in itself), they would have always been +480; honest people would know that there was a logical alternative to the club lead and lead something else. [RH, irrelevantly] WBF Laws Committee minutes, Friday 4th September 2009, item 4: "A request had been received from the ACBL for the committee to consider whether following a tempo breach and a call having a logical alternative, it would be possible to regard the hesitation as part of the infraction. Mr. Wildavsky reported that the ACBL has now gone away from this thought and the question may be laid to rest. The committee noted as a future possibility deletion of 'in itself' from Law 73D1." [DALB] Oh, quite so. The analysis that you refer to above as "incorrect" is, as I have taken great pains to point out, not my analysis at all. That is why I consistently refer to the allowing of Reveley rulings as "stupid". What I have intended to show is that such rulings are no longer illegal: that is, the provisions of L12C1(e) do not apply to cases dealt with under L12C1(c), nor does the wording of L12B preclude such rulings. The (false) analogy commonly made is with this kind of thing: declarer leads towards dummy's king-jack combination; second hand fumbles and plays low; declarer puts on the king which loses to the ace. Standard (equitable) operating procedure is to give the fumbler's side 100% of its score had declarer guessed correctly, but to give the declarer's side only some percentage of the score for a correct guess (usually greater than 50% but usually not close to 100%) and the complementary percentage of the score for an incorrect guess. Again, the thinking is (and here the thinking is not stupid) that declarer does not deserve to make his contract all the time just because his opponent is a cheat. Now, this ruling is possible under L12C1(c) but not possible under L12C1(e), because under that Law declarer must be given 100% of the score for making his contract. That seems to me and others undesirable, which is why the provision for weighted scores under L12C1(c) is welcome. But in my view it should not be misapplied in cases involving the use of UI; however, it is not illegal so to misapply it. David Burn London, England From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Dec 2 10:07:47 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:07:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001a01ca72c0$dfe4edd0$9faec970$@com> References: <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> <001a01ca72c0$dfe4edd0$9faec970$@com> Message-ID: <001501ca732e$eb45f200$c1d1d600$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Now, all of this is entirely consistent with both L12B1 and Reveley rulings. The notion is that cheats are no better off than they would have been under the previous Laws, but non-offenders do not get a windfall just because they happened to be playing against cheats - they get their expectation, or "equity", on the board had they been playing against honest people. It's still stupid, but it's not illegal. David Burn London, England ton: Could you, David, tell what it is you consider to be 'still stupid'? You once in a while are worth listening to and I try to avoid stupid things applying the laws. ton From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 2 10:59:11 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:59:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501ca732e$eb45f200$c1d1d600$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> <001a01ca72c0$dfe4edd0$9faec970$@com> <001501ca732e$eb45f200$c1d1d600$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4B163A6F.6040603@skynet.be> I have some understanding for Ton's sentiment. David's suggestion seems quite sensible, not at all "stupid". However: When my LHO decides to think for a long while before (penalty-)doubling me, and RHO does not have a clear-cut take out, then the expected value of my score goes up from +620 to +790. Why should that same expected score go down again (to +705) when RHO illegally takes it out? Was that what you were aiming for, David? Herman. ton wrote: > Now, all of this is entirely consistent with both L12B1 and Reveley rulings. > The notion is that cheats are no better off than they would have been under > the previous Laws, but non-offenders do not get a windfall just because they > happened to be playing against cheats - they get their expectation, or > "equity", on the board had they been playing against honest people. It's > still stupid, but it's not illegal. > > David Burn > London, England > > ton: > > Could you, David, tell what it is you consider to be 'still stupid'? > You once in a while are worth listening to and I try to avoid stupid things > applying the laws. > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Dec 2 11:22:10 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:22:10 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B163A6F.6040603@skynet.be> References: <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> <001a01ca72c0$dfe4edd0$9faec970$@com> <001501ca732e$eb45f200$c1d1d600$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B163A6F.6040603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01ca7339$4eee2340$ecca69c0$@com> [HdW] I have some understanding for Ton's sentiment. David's suggestion seems quite sensible, not at all "stupid". However: When my LHO decides to think for a long while before (penalty-)doubling me, and RHO does not have a clear-cut take out, then the expected value of my score goes up from +620 to +790. Why should that same expected score go down again (to +705) when RHO illegally takes it out? Was that what you were aiming for, David? [DALB] No. If RHO illegally removes a double, then the double is reinstated. If the doubled contract is cold, then the declaring side scores plus 790. If the doubled contract depends on a guess for a queen (say), then the defenders score minus 790 and declarer scores x% of plus 790 and 100-x% of minus 200 (aggregate scores being converted to IMPs or matchpoints in approved fashion). The value of x is assigned by the TD (or the AC) in accordance with their estimate of the likelihood that declarer would guess correctly; often this is considerably greater than 50. But what should not happen is this: the TD decides that without the huddle the double would have been removed some of the time anyway - suppose that the auction had been the same at ten other tables and the double had been removed at five of them - and award a score based on the doubled contract making some of the time, the doubled contract going down some of the time, and the double being taken out the rest of the time. This is what is now legal but stupid. In the original case, West leads a club because of UI and ends up minus 420 and not minus 480. If twelve tricks are cold without a club lead, both sides should receive the score for twelve tricks (David Grabiner and others are quite right about this). If without a club lead declarer will make twelve tricks half the time and eleven the other half, then the defenders are minus 480 and declarer is plus 480 half the time and plus 450 the other half. But he should never be given some percentage of plus 420 on the basis that without the UI, West would have led a club some percentage of the time anyway. This is also now legal but stupid. Briefly, my position is this: an offending side gets the worst result among those with a probability greater than some fairly low percentage (left for RAs to determine). A non-offending side gets its equity in the board (left for TDs and ACs to determine, giving the non-offending side as much of the "benefit of the doubt" as is reasonable). But in determining the result for a non-offending side, no weight at all should be given to the possibility that an offender would have done innocently what he did nefariously. Such determinations are legal, but stupid. David Burn London, England From rgtjbos at xs4all.nl Wed Dec 2 11:31:22 2009 From: rgtjbos at xs4all.nl (Rob Bosman) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:31:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001ca731f$d3132c70$79398550$@com> Message-ID: <000601ca733a$983e7d50$c8bb77f0$@nl> -----Original Message----- From: Rob GTJ Bosman [mailto:RobGTJ.Bosman at xs4all.nl] Sent: 02 December 2009 08:48 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: RE: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] [DALB] Oh, quite so. The analysis that you refer to above as "incorrect" is, as I have taken great pains to point out, not my analysis at all. That is why I consistently refer to the allowing of Reveley rulings as "stupid". What I have intended to show is that such rulings are no longer illegal: that is, the provisions of L12C1(e) do not apply to cases dealt with under L12C1(c), nor does the wording of L12B preclude such rulings. The (false) analogy commonly made is with this kind of thing: declarer leads towards dummy's king-jack combination; second hand fumbles and plays low; declarer puts on the king which loses to the ace. Standard (equitable) operating procedure is to give the fumbler's side 100% of its score had declarer guessed correctly, but to give the declarer's side only some percentage of the score for a correct guess (usually greater than 50% but usually not close to 100%) and the complementary percentage of the score for an incorrect guess. Again, the thinking is (and here the thinking is not stupid) that declarer does not deserve to make his contract all the time just because his opponent is a cheat. Now, this ruling is possible under L12C1(c) but not possible under L12C1(e), because under that Law declarer must be given 100% of the score for making his contract. That seems to me and others undesirable, which is why the provision for weighted scores under L12C1(c) is welcome. But in my view it should not be misapplied in cases involving the use of UI; however, it is not illegal so to misapply it. [ROB] IMHO 'declarer leads towards dummy's king-jack, RHO fumbling, declarer now playing the wrong card' should be dealt with in a way that **both** side receive the same weighted score of say 70% right, 30% wrong (or different weightings depending on what declarer may have known about probability of distribution of A and Q from bidding and previous play on this board). **On top of that** the cheating side should be awarded a **penalty** that at least should take away the value of the 'wrong' piece of the weighting, but preferably even a bit more. Rob Bosman From rgtjbos at xs4all.nl Wed Dec 2 11:31:53 2009 From: rgtjbos at xs4all.nl (Rob Bosman) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:31:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mixed score arithmetic References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <003701ca70f9$e490c160$adb24420$@de> Message-ID: <000701ca733a$aa673b70$ff35b250$@nl> [JOSEF] What is your estimation for the percentual distribution opening lead from West against 4s contract from: 932 109762 J95 K6 The bidding was: 1h p 1s p 2c p 2d p 3s p 4s all pass Dummy will have 3s, 5h and 4+c . The 2c was natural and non forcing. S x: % H x: % D x: % C K: % ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [ROB] Before leading, I may request some clarification about the partnership's methods - is 2C really always 4+, or could it merely be used to show 5 card hearts? Experience tells that often the rebid of two in a minor can easily be a worthless 3-card just for the sake of describing some semi-balanced hand with a 5-card major... if I am being convinced that the 2C bid is really always 4+, I may consider not to lead the Club King, but in principle it is a tempting card to lead... Supposing that the 3S response on 4th suit 2D probably shows shortage in Diamonds, the only alternative that remains is spades hoping to limit the number of ruffs in dummy... hence why I estimate CK to be above 50%, remainder for a spade. [JOSEF cont'd] Question two : The TD was called after the play by declarer, who claimed against E-W, because before the closing pass, East asked for the meaning of the 2c (was it F, or nf) and West later attacked with the cK. The complete deal: K65 AKQ84 K 984 932 J7 109762 53 J95 Q10742 K6 AJ103 AQ1084 J A863 984 The result was after ck opening lead: 420, after other attack could be: either 450 or 480. What is your decision as TD? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [ROB] Wrong defender asking questions at the very wrong moment. Lead of CK is now excluded - and as a player sitting west here I would definitely counsel my partner about this. AS a TD: twelve tricks seems normal on a non-club lead (one diamond ruff and three discards on the AKQ of hearts, so leaving declarer with one losing card in the minors). However, you nicely prompted me to come up with an estimate of possible leads. Based on that I would assign 60% of 420 and 40% of 480 to both sides, and penalize EW for the creation and utilization of UI with 110% of the difference between my adjusted score and -480. In words: NS gain a result that is applying the best possible equity to the (unplayable!) deal for them, while EW earn just a little bit less than the worst possible result for them. [JOSEF cont'd] Question three: The TD decided to change the score from 420 to 480. E-W protest. You are the appeals committee. You know, that about 60 % of the players with similar strength did attack cK, the rest with s x. Do you change the decision of the TD, or not? [ROB] Yes - and in the way I described above as my initial decision, except for the penalty. On the penalty I would consult as AC the Chief TD to learn his methods of applying penalties - and then adhere to that is applying a penalty to EW here. [JOSEF cont'd] If you create a mixed score, how do you calculate (estimate) ((rule)) the partition of score elements at other cases, when the UI was given (perhaps a resolution-factor would be suitable for the received UI), and the probability of the two opening lead-alternatives vary between 90-10 and 10-90? Which composition would you prefer to the different opening lead probabilities? Do you let correlate your score with the frequencies of opening leads of other tables from the score sheet? If yes, then how? Sore AC-decision cK other 420 450 480 90 10 . . . % 80 20 . . . % 70 30 . . . % 60 40 . . . % 50 50 . . . % 40 60 . . . % 30 70 . . . % 20 80 . . . % [ROB] I assume you are looking for some theoretical table depending on the likelihood of leading CK or not. In general the adjusted score that seeks equity should follow the distribution of the likelihood of one action opposed to all others. And that adjustment should be awarded to both sides, always to be followed by a procedural correction for the offending side that **at least** nets their result to the least possible (i.e. corresponding with the score they would have gained when choosing the option that favours the non offending side most), but my preference would be to go a little bit below that. From rgtjbos at xs4all.nl Wed Dec 2 11:32:23 2009 From: rgtjbos at xs4all.nl (Rob Bosman) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:32:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> <001a01ca72c0$dfe4edd0$9faec970$@com> <001501ca732e$eb45f200$c1d1d600$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B163A6F.6040603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801ca733a$bc458310$34d08930$@nl> Herman, Is it Belgium still custom to create a weighted score by averaging +620 and +790? Even in a team-event this does not (always) produce the correct figure. If the result at the other table is 100, then 705 produces +11, if it is +120 705 becomes +12, whereas in both cases the score should be the average of +11 (620) and +12 (790), i.e. 11.5 imps. To Ton: I assume that we now will attribute half imps, as sometimes matches are decided on less than 1 VP as well? Rob -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: 02 December 2009 10:59 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] I have some understanding for Ton's sentiment. David's suggestion seems quite sensible, not at all "stupid". However: When my LHO decides to think for a long while before (penalty-)doubling me, and RHO does not have a clear-cut take out, then the expected value of my score goes up from +620 to +790. Why should that same expected score go down again (to +705) when RHO illegally takes it out? Was that what you were aiming for, David? Herman. ton wrote: > Now, all of this is entirely consistent with both L12B1 and Reveley rulings. > The notion is that cheats are no better off than they would have been under > the previous Laws, but non-offenders do not get a windfall just because they > happened to be playing against cheats - they get their expectation, or > "equity", on the board had they been playing against honest people. It's > still stupid, but it's not illegal. > > David Burn > London, England > > ton: > > Could you, David, tell what it is you consider to be 'still stupid'? > You once in a while are worth listening to and I try to avoid stupid things > applying the laws. > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Dec 2 11:35:52 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:35:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01ca7339$4eee2340$ecca69c0$@com> References: <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> <001a01ca72c0$dfe4edd0$9faec970$@com> <001501ca732e$eb45f200$c1d1d600$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B163A6F.6040603@skynet.be> <000a01ca7339$4eee2340$ecca69c0$@com> Message-ID: <001901ca733b$39a882d0$acf98870$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> But in determining the result for a non-offending side, no weight at all should be given to the possibility that an offender would have done innocently what he did nefariously. Such determinations are legal, but stupid. David Burn London, England ton: What some people seem to think is that the offenders should get in their score some weight for the illegal choice they made. That is my main concern. I dared to hope that David used the word 'stupid' to describe that approach. ton From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 2 11:55:14 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:55:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801ca733a$bc458310$34d08930$@nl> References: <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> <001a01ca72c0$dfe4edd0$9faec970$@com> <001501ca732e$eb45f200$c1d1d600$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B163A6F.6040603@skynet.be> <000801ca733a$bc458310$34d08930$@nl> Message-ID: <4B164792.7000500@skynet.be> Rob, No, of course that is not the way we do it. But it was an easy way of saying what I intended. Herman. Rob Bosman wrote: > Herman, > > Is it Belgium still custom to create a weighted score by averaging +620 and > +790? Even in a team-event this does not (always) produce the correct > figure. If the result at the other table is 100, then 705 produces +11, if > it is +120 705 becomes +12, whereas in both cases the score should be the > average of +11 (620) and +12 (790), i.e. 11.5 imps. To Ton: I assume that we > now will attribute half imps, as sometimes matches are decided on less than > 1 VP as well? > > Rob > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 02 December 2009 10:59 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I have some understanding for Ton's sentiment. > David's suggestion seems quite sensible, not at all "stupid". > However: > When my LHO decides to think for a long while before (penalty-)doubling > me, and RHO does not have a clear-cut take out, then the expected value > of my score goes up from +620 to +790. Why should that same expected > score go down again (to +705) when RHO illegally takes it out? > Was that what you were aiming for, David? > > Herman. > > ton wrote: >> Now, all of this is entirely consistent with both L12B1 and Reveley > rulings. >> The notion is that cheats are no better off than they would have been > under >> the previous Laws, but non-offenders do not get a windfall just because > they >> happened to be playing against cheats - they get their expectation, or >> "equity", on the board had they been playing against honest people. It's >> still stupid, but it's not illegal. >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >> ton: >> >> Could you, David, tell what it is you consider to be 'still stupid'? >> You once in a while are worth listening to and I try to avoid stupid > things >> applying the laws. >> >> ton >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 henk at ripe.net Wed Dec 2 12:18:18 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:18:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <200912021118.nB2BII8s031990@dog.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for November 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 71 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 56 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 40 nigel.guthrie41 (at) virginmedia.com 31 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 25 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 22 ehaa (at) starpower.net 20 blml (at) arcor.de 15 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 15 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 14 svenpran (at) online.no 13 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 12 swillner (at) nhcc.net 10 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 9 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 7 adam (at) tameware.com 5 sater (at) xs4all.nl 5 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 5 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 5 cibor (at) poczta.fm 5 adam (at) irvine.com 5 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 4 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 4 bobpark (at) consolidated.net 3 schoderb (at) msn.com 3 lavaldubreuil (at) xplornet.com 3 jmmgc1 (at) hotmail.com 3 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 3 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 2 wrgptfan (at) gmail.com 2 ranjubhattacharjee (at) hotmail.com 2 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 2 jkljkl (at) gmx.de 2 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 1 tedying (at) yahoo.com 1 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 1 roger-eymard (at) orange.fr 1 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 1 matthias.schueller (at) gmx.de 1 jrhind (at) therock.bm 1 jeff.ford (at) gmail.com 1 harsanyi (at) t-online.de 1 clubanddiamond (at) yahoo.co.uk 1 ciska.zuur (at) planet.nl 1 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 1 RCraigH (at) aol.com 1 Gampas (at) aol.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 2 12:36:51 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:36:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Seventy Six Trombones [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B165153.9080206@ulb.ac.be> Anne Jones a ?crit : >> >> The Munich Philharmonic had one or two women on the violin and >> oboe. But those were "feminine" instruments. The trombone is >> masculine. >> >> AG : Not in my part of the world. But perhaps that's because I consider amateur wind and drum bands, where there are no violins. But here, the oboe is more masculine than the trombone. The most feminine among wind instruments is the flute. The most masculine among wind instruments is the saxhorn family. >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- -- 1D 2C >> 2D 2S (1) Pass Pass >> 3D Pass Pass ? >> >> (1) non-forcing but "constructive" (not a game-invite - unless >> overcaller has a good fit - but neither a drop-dead potential >> yarborough) >> >> AG : Notice that between the "light game invite in case of fit" that you mention and the potential yarborough, there is one more step - the contract you intend to make, while not suggesting in any way going higher, e.g. 1NT (2H) 2S.. >> You, South, hold: >> >> A9 >> KT7 >> Q65 >> AJT86 >> >> What call do you make? >> What other calls do you consider making? >> >> AG : I bid 3S, but pass is perforce a LA when you didn't raise on the previous turn. By the way, I would have. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 2 12:54:20 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:54:20 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> <001a01ca72c0$dfe4edd0$9faec970$@com> <001501ca732e$eb45f200$c1d1d600$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B163A6F.6040603@skynet.be><000a01ca7339$4eee2340$ecca69c0$@com> <001901ca733b$39a882d0$acf98870$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > But in determining the result for a non-offending side, no weight at all > should be given to the possibility that an offender would have done > innocently what he did nefariously. Such determinations are legal, but > stupid. > > David Burn > London, England > > ton: > What some people seem to think is that the offenders should get in their > score some weight for the illegal choice they made. That is my main > concern. > I dared to hope that David used the word 'stupid' to describe that > approach. > +=+ David Burn wrote: "What I have intended to show is that such rulings are no longer illegal: that is, the provisions of L12C1(e) do not apply to cases dealt with under L12C1(c), nor does the wording of L12B preclude such rulings." My view of the manner in which the desired outcome may (and should) be achieved, consistent with the 2007 laws, is to remove the benefit of the unlawful use of UI from the OS by applying a procedural penalty. In this way the NOS do not benefit from a failure to incorporate the weighting of all probabilities of outcome in the 12C1(c) assessment. I think it is against principle that they should do so. I am not among ton's 'some people'. As to the OS I do not argue against the desirable effect to be obtained. My concern is to defend against any wishful misinterpretation of the wording of the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 2 12:58:54 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:58:54 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Seventy Six Trombones [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B165153.9080206@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <70DCBB2FF57F4023A7EC561A6A257E9E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> The Munich Philharmonic had one or two women on the violin and oboe. But those were "feminine" instruments. The trombone is masculine. >> +=+ There is a certain thrust to the perception. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 2 15:21:17 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:21:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Seventy Six Trombones [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <70DCBB2FF57F4023A7EC561A6A257E9E@Mildred> References: <4B165153.9080206@ulb.ac.be> <70DCBB2FF57F4023A7EC561A6A257E9E@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B1677DD.5090504@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "a revolutionary moment in the world's > history is a time for revolutions, not for > patching." > [Beveridge Report, 1942] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:36 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Seventy Six Trombones [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Anne Jones wrote : > > The Munich Philharmonic had one or two women on the > violin and oboe. But those were "feminine" instruments. The > trombone is masculine. > > +=+ There is a certain thrust to the perception. ~ G ~ +=+ > > AG : but the clarinet is slightly feminine. No, I think the perception is that instruments with low voice (trombone, baryton saxophone, tuba, bass, bass drum) are masculine, some also requiring some muscular strength, while soprani (violin, flute, clarinette, soprano saxophone, cymbals) are feminine, those in-between (trumpet, tenor saxophone, piano, oboe, cello) being unmarked. The harp is feminine because you need slender fingers. From blml at arcor.de Wed Dec 2 16:23:34 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:23:34 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> <001a01ca72c0$dfe4edd0$9faec970$@com> <001501ca732e$eb45f200$c1d1d600$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B163A6F.6040603@skynet.be><000a01ca7339$4eee2340$ecca69c0$@com> <001901ca733b$39a882d0$acf98870$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4331752.1259767414857.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "a revolutionary moment in the world's > history is a time for revolutions, not for > patching." > [Beveridge Report, 1942] > "''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ton" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:35 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > But in determining the result for a non-offending side, no weight at all > > should be given to the possibility that an offender would have done > > innocently what he did nefariously. Such determinations are legal, but > > stupid. > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > > > ton: > > What some people seem to think is that the offenders should get in their > > score some weight for the illegal choice they made. That is my main > > concern. > > I dared to hope that David used the word 'stupid' to describe that > > approach. > > > +=+ David Burn wrote: > "What I have intended to show is that such rulings are no longer illegal: > that is, > the provisions of L12C1(e) do not apply to cases dealt with under L12C1(c), > nor does the wording of L12B preclude such rulings." > > My view of the manner in which the desired outcome may (and should) > be achieved, consistent with the 2007 laws, is to remove the benefit of > the unlawful use of UI from the OS by applying a procedural penalty. > In this way the NOS do not benefit from a failure to incorporate the > weighting of all probabilities of outcome in the 12C1(c) assessment. > I think it is against principle that they should do so. Which "principle"?? I know no such principle. Thomas Es weihnachtet sehr! Vom leckerem Backrezept bis zum leckeren Schneehasen finden Sie alles im Weihnachtsspecial von Arcor.de: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.weihnachten Feliz Navidad, God Yul, Merry X-Mas und ein frohes Fest! From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Dec 2 18:27:27 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:27:27 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> <001a01ca72c0$dfe4edd0$9faec970$@com> <001501ca732e$eb45f200$c1d1d600$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B163A6F.6040603@skynet.be><000a01ca7339$4eee2340$ecca69c0$@com> <001901ca733b$39a882d0$acf98870$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <000c01ca7374$b8df1a30$2a9d4e90$@com> [GE] My view of the manner in which the desired outcome may (and should) be achieved, consistent with the 2007 laws, is to remove the benefit of the unlawful use of UI from the OS by applying a procedural penalty. In this way the NOS do not benefit from a failure to incorporate the weighting of all probabilities of outcome in the 12C1(c) assessment. I think it is against principle that they should do so. [DALB] What principle? If at this table West cannot legally lead a club, because to do so is a breach of L16, then no weighting based in part on West's leading a club at this table can apply. To see this, imagine that East opens one spade out of turn. The TD offers South, the dealer, sundry option and South elects to open one heart. The TD leaves the table and West, who is barred throughout but who has not quite grasped this fact, bids three spades. North bids four hearts before attention is drawn to West's irregularity, thus condoning it. East, reassured of spade support opposite, bids four spades. South doubles and collects plus 100, a poor result because four hearts would make four on a spade lead. The TD rules that four spades was based on UI, and adjusts the contract to four hearts by South. But without a spade lead four hearts would make five. At this table South would be permitted to (and would) forbid a spade lead. The score should be adjusted to four hearts making five for both pairs, notwithstanding that at all other tables West led a spade from his QJ109 against a heart contract. David Burn London, England From harsanyi at t-online.de Wed Dec 2 21:46:47 2009 From: harsanyi at t-online.de (Josef Harsanyi) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 21:46:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mixed score arithmetic In-Reply-To: <000701ca733a$aa673b70$ff35b250$@nl> References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <003701ca70f9$e490c160$adb24420$@de> <000701ca733a$aa673b70$ff35b250$@nl> Message-ID: <006301ca7390$91303160$b3909420$@de> Many thanks for the opinions and arguments! An algorithm to handle the nonlinearity between the proportion of alternative legal and illegal (forbidden?) actions, and the characteristic strength of influence by UI is not achievable. The many approaches for the ruling are present also in the scattering of the TD-s and AC-s decisions. Yes, the complexity of evaluation of influence and the estimation of the partial damage suggest for some TD-s to apply black(forbidden) - white(allowed) decision. Specially for inexperienced TD-s tend to simplify the problems connected with UI. How could be helped the new TD-generation to find solution, which are in accordance with the rules and they also do harmonize with the sporty spirit of our game? Thanks again Josef From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Dec 3 00:21:04 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:21:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001ca731f$d3132c70$79398550$@com> References: <000001ca731f$d3132c70$79398550$@com> Message-ID: <4B16F660.5050405@yahoo.co.uk> [David Burn] The (false) analogy commonly made is with this kind of thing: declarer leads towards dummy's king-jack combination; second hand fumbles and plays low; declarer puts on the king which loses to the ace. Standard (equitable) operating procedure is to give the fumbler's side 100% of its score had declarer guessed correctly, but to give the declarer's side only some percentage of the score for a correct guess (usually greater than 50% but usually not close to 100%) and the complementary percentage of the score for an incorrect guess. Again, the thinking is (and here the thinking is not stupid) that declarer does not deserve to make his contract all the time just because his opponent is a cheat. [Nigel] I agree with most of what David writes in this thread. But I think this example illustrates some of the dangers of equity rulings in general and weighted scores in particular., [A] Suppose that declarer must guess right to win the tournament. Any kind of weighted score kludge is no use. The equity ruling denies him the 50-50 chance of victory that he had before the infraction. [B} Suppose odds from the bidding and play make a finesse of the knave the normal expert thing to do (until the fumble, of course). [C} Suppose further, that declarer has a "Crane-type" superstition about this holding, so that he almost always finesses the knave. I think the law was a bit better before weighted scores: The current laws are insufficiently deterrent; and the incentive for victims to report infractions has been steadily eroded. For example: Perhaps a quarter of cases of the illegal use of UI get as far as a director ruling. Victims don't always notice infractions. They tend to report them only when in contention. Laws about "wild and gambling" actions and "egregious error" are likely to further inhibit director-calls. This leaves law-breakers in long-term profit and victims with more damage than can be allowed for by equity considerations. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 3 00:45:55 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 10:45:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ton Kooijman, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook: >>What some people seem to think is that the offenders should get in >>their score some weight for the illegal choice they made. That is my >>main concern. >> >>I dared to hope that David used the word 'stupid' to describe that >>approach. Grattan Endicott, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook: >+=+ David Burn wrote: >"What I have intended to show is that such rulings are no longer >illegal: that is, the provisions of L12C1(e) do not apply to cases >dealt with under L12C1(c), nor does the wording of L12B preclude such >rulings." Richard Hills, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook (but merely the Index): I presume that "such rulings" refers to what the EBU has named "Reveley Rulings", or else otherwise we are comparing apples with oranges. Grattan Endicott, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook: >My view of the manner in which the desired outcome may (and should) >be achieved, consistent with the 2007 laws, is to remove the benefit >of the unlawful use of UI from the OS by applying a procedural >penalty. Richard Hills, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook (but merely the Index): That view is erroneous, completely inconsistent with the instruction of Law 12B1 to "take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction" by a Law 12 score adjustment, not by a Law 90 procedural penalty. Grattan Endicott, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook: >In this way the NOS do not benefit from a failure to incorporate the >weighting of all probabilities of outcome in the 12C1(c) assessment. >I think it is against principle that they should do so. Richard Hills, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook (but merely the Index): That view is erroneous, completely inconsistent with the 2009 WBF Laws Committee minute stating that creation-of-UI is not part of the use-of- UI infraction. That is, it was unLawful for a 2009 Bermuda Bowl Appeals Committee (or, indeed, any other Appeals Committee) to fully or partially base its assessment on what would have happened from before the time the non- infraction of creation-of-UI occurred. The 2009 Bermuda Bowl AC's only Lawful assessment had to be from the moment before the infraction of use- of-UI occurred. An Appeals Committee adjusting the score by deeming that the offending side should have acted in accordance with Law 73C is not creating a "benefit" for the non-offending side; it is enforcing a RIGHT of the non-offending side. Grattan Endicott, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook: >I am not among ton's 'some people'. As to the OS I do not argue >against the desirable effect to be obtained. My concern is to defend >against any wishful misinterpretation of the wording of the laws. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook (but merely the Index): My concern is also to defend against any misinterpretation of the wording of the Laws and/or any misinterpretation of the wording of the corporate decisions of the WBF Laws Committee by the (Neutron) Star Secretary of the WBF Laws Committee. Best wishes Beowulf Shaeffer -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 3 01:06:28 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:06:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B16F660.5050405@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: "urban reality": >>..... >>but on another side, I have learned to totally ignore dominant >>and frequent posters - their views do become predictable and >>very much repeated, balance is important and encouraging >>diversity of post and response is of value to me Nigel Guthrie: >..... >This leaves law-breakers in long-term profit and victims with >more damage than can be allowed for by equity considerations. William Goldman, "The Princess Bride": "Life isn't fair. It's just fairer than death, that's 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 3 02:00:01 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:00:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Seventy Six Trombones [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Appeals Committee: "...even if North had passed, the committee decided that South would clearly have bid 3S..." Richard Hills: On a clear day you can see the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra. Since an accurate Law 12 ruling depended upon determining logical alternatives for both North and also South, it seems to me that the Appeals Committee erred by not conducting double-blind (metaphorically "behind screens") polls of peers of both North and also South. 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 APPEAL NABC+ ONE Subject Unauthorized Information (UI) -Tempo DIC Mike Flader Event Life Master Women's Pairs Session Second Final Date November 18, 2006 BD# 2 Esta VanZandt VUL N/S 8 7 6 5 4 2 DLR East A Q J J 7 3 2 Migry Zur-Campanile Miriam Varinne T 3 K Q J 9 6 5 3 8 4 2 K T 7 3 2 A 9 8 4 K 5 Q 9 4 Pat Levy A 9 K T 7 Q 6 5 A J T 8 6 West North East South --- --- 1D 2C 2D 2S Pass Pass(1) 3D 4C Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo (BIT) Final Contract 4C by South Opening Lead D3 Table Result 4C making 4, N/S +130 Director Ruling 3D by East down 1, E/W -50 Committee Ruling 4C making 4, N/S +130 The Facts: N/S admitted that there was a noticeable hesitation (BIT) before South passed. E/W were not present at the hearing and the director provided no estimate of the duration of the hesitation. N/S said that the hesitation was not extensive but was noticeable. The Ruling: The director ruled that South's hesitation made the 4C bid more attractive and was demonstrably suggested by the BIT and that passing 3D was a less successful logical alternative (LA). Accordingly, in accordance with laws 16 and 12 C2, the director adjusted the table result to 3D by East, down one, E/W minus 50. The Appeal: N/S, the only players to appear before the Committee, said that in their methods a change of suit by advancer shows a hand with either a good suit or a suit with support for the overcaller. North said that when she bid 2S, she was committed to bidding again in a normal non-game forcing sequence. South added that if the auction had been passed back to her, she would have bid 3S, which could not be beaten. The Decision: The committee, working from the premise that there had been a BIT, started their reasoning with consideration of whether the BIT suggested a line of action to North. Suggestions that South might have been considering bidding 2NT seemed remote. It was clear that if South had a minimum 2C overcall without some spade support or tolerance, South would probably not have broken tempo at all. Therefore, it appears that the hesitation suggested further action - since South probably had extra shape or a little extra in HCP. The committee then considered whether there was a LA to North's bidding 4C. Clearly, bidding 3S was a logical alternative, but since that bid would have achieved a superior result (+140), that alternative was discounted. The committee was split on whether pass was a logical alternative. However, this issue was rendered moot because it was determined that even if North had passed, the committee decided that South would clearly have bid 3S. Thus the N/S pair would have arrived at an unbeatable and higher scoring contract. Therefore, if a pass had been forced on North, South's further action would have resulted in a superior result for the offenders. Accordingly, the committee restored the table result. The Committee: Barry Rigal (chair), Darwin Afdahl, Ed Lazarus, Lou Reich, Jim Thurtell. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 schoderb at msn.com Thu Dec 3 03:36:10 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 21:36:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pardon me, where did these "co-authors" of the 2007 Laws come from ?. The Drafting Committee presented a draft of the Laws to the Executive Committee which accepted them and they thereby became the 2007(8) Laws. Mr. Hills wasn't a member of the committee. Anything to be ascribed to anyone beyond the facts above is ego stroking. Go ahead, start listing all the members of the Executive Committee, and you will have the true "Co-Authors" of the Laws. Neither Mr. Endicott nor Mr. Kooijman have the right, nor have they so stated, to be co-authors. Grattan was the Secretary, and Ton was the Chairman of a much larger committee than the two and one-half listed below. Mr. Hills enormous and much needed and comprehensive Index merits great attribution and honor, but does not transfer to the substance of the Laws, as he must know. . Lets stop playing games. As a BLML member I agree with Ton and David that it is wrong for the offending side to have their illegal choice take any part in the result of the hand. Done by leaving this result out of the weighting for them is one way, giving them a penalty which is at least equal or greater than their 'benefit' is another. I am only concerned that they get no benefit. I am amazed and concerned that a Tournament Appeals Committee apparently decided to "take a view" of Law without the full agreement of the Chief Director. As I've said before ---- Stay with your rermit and the game will roll on just fine. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Ton Kooijman, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook: >>What some people seem to think is that the offenders should get in >>their score some weight for the illegal choice they made. That is my >>main concern. >> >>I dared to hope that David used the word 'stupid' to describe that >>approach. Grattan Endicott, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook: >+=+ David Burn wrote: >"What I have intended to show is that such rulings are no longer >illegal: that is, the provisions of L12C1(e) do not apply to cases >dealt with under L12C1(c), nor does the wording of L12B preclude such >rulings." Richard Hills, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook (but merely the Index): I presume that "such rulings" refers to what the EBU has named "Reveley Rulings", or else otherwise we are comparing apples with oranges. Grattan Endicott, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook: >My view of the manner in which the desired outcome may (and should) >be achieved, consistent with the 2007 laws, is to remove the benefit >of the unlawful use of UI from the OS by applying a procedural >penalty. Richard Hills, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook (but merely the Index): That view is erroneous, completely inconsistent with the instruction of Law 12B1 to "take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction" by a Law 12 score adjustment, not by a Law 90 procedural penalty. Grattan Endicott, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook: >In this way the NOS do not benefit from a failure to incorporate the >weighting of all probabilities of outcome in the 12C1(c) assessment. >I think it is against principle that they should do so. Richard Hills, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook (but merely the Index): That view is erroneous, completely inconsistent with the 2009 WBF Laws Committee minute stating that creation-of-UI is not part of the use-of- UI infraction. That is, it was unLawful for a 2009 Bermuda Bowl Appeals Committee (or, indeed, any other Appeals Committee) to fully or partially base its assessment on what would have happened from before the time the non- infraction of creation-of-UI occurred. The 2009 Bermuda Bowl AC's only Lawful assessment had to be from the moment before the infraction of use- of-UI occurred. An Appeals Committee adjusting the score by deeming that the offending side should have acted in accordance with Law 73C is not creating a "benefit" for the non-offending side; it is enforcing a RIGHT of the non-offending side. Grattan Endicott, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook: >I am not among ton's 'some people'. As to the OS I do not argue >against the desirable effect to be obtained. My concern is to defend >against any wishful misinterpretation of the wording of the laws. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook (but merely the Index): My concern is also to defend against any misinterpretation of the wording of the Laws and/or any misinterpretation of the wording of the corporate decisions of the WBF Laws Committee by the (Neutron) Star Secretary of the WBF Laws Committee. Best wishes Beowulf Shaeffer -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20091203/bc98a533/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 3 04:37:59 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 14:37:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William ("Kojak") Schoder: >Pardon me, where did these "co-authors" of the 2007 Laws come from?. The >Drafting Committee presented a draft of the Laws to the Executive >Committee which accepted them and they thereby became the 2007(8) Laws. >Mr. Hills wasn't a member of the committee. Anything to be ascribed to >anyone beyond the facts above is ego stroking. Go ahead, start listing >all the members of the Executive Committee, and you will have the true >"Co-Authors" of the Laws. Neither Mr. Endicott nor Mr. Kooijman have >the right, nor have they so stated, to be co-authors. Grattan was the >Secretary, and Ton was the Chairman of a much larger committee than the >two and one-half listed below. > >Mr. Hills enormous and much needed and comprehensive Index merits great >attribution and honor, but does not transfer to the substance of the >Laws, as he must know. >..... Richard Hills: Yes, the Executive Committee "authorised" (or "promulgated") the 2007 / 2008 Draft of the Lawbook. The 2007 / 2008 Draft of the Lawbook had zero effect until the Executive Committee "authorised" it. No, the Executive Committee did not "author" (or "draft") the words of the 2007 / 2008 Draft Lawbook (apart from deleting the word "contract" from the title of the Lawbook and from Law 1). Yes, players and NBOs did not "author" (or "draft") the substance of the Laws; the Index is defined by the Introduction as insubstantial. (Let me record here my thanks to Eitan Levy for his effective voluntary proof- reading of the Index.) No, players and NBOs could and did suggest improvements of earlier drafts to the Drafting Committee, many of which were adopted. For example, the format of the 2007 / 2008 Law 75 was suggested by me, adopted by the Drafting Committee, then authorised by the Executive Committee. 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 Dec 3 06:08:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:08:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 93B1: "If a committee is available, The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law....." William ("Kojak") Schoder: >..... >I am amazed and concerned that a Tournament Appeals Committee >apparently decided to "take a view" of Law without the full agreement >of the Chief Director. As I've said before ---- Stay with your remit >and the game will roll on just fine. Richard Hills: Perhaps the Director in charge, presumably Max Bavin, thought that the 2009 Bermuda Bowl Appeals Committee had stupidly chosen a Reveley Ruling, but that that stupid Reveley Ruling was not quite an ultra vires interpretation of Law by the Appeals Committee. Otherwise I am amazed and concerned that the Director in charge did not further refer the ultra vires interpretation of Law to the Bermuda Bowl's Regulating Authority. WBF Code of Practice, October 2008 revised edition, page 5: ".....Debatable matters of law and/or regulation are valid questions for the Regulating Authority. Under Law 93C2 the Director in charge or the Appeals Committee may refer a matter to the Regulating Authority. At international level the WBF urges that arrangements be instituted for an appeal to be considered against the decision of an appeal committee. However, the nature of international tournaments is such that appeals of this category should be restricted; it is suggested that to be heard such an appeal should be certified by one of a small number of nominated senior and expert individuals to be worthy of consideration. If this certificate is obtained it is recommended that the appeal be heard by a joint meeting of, say, the Rules and Regulations Committee with the Laws Committee under the chairmanship of the President or of his nominee for the purpose. Where this procedure applies, as for its own tournaments is henceforward the case with the WBF, the certifying individual is empowered to dismiss the appeal if he/she does not find its content appropriate for the attention of the joint committees." 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 Dec 4 10:49:32 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:49:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Laws 20F5b and 75B discrepancy Message-ID: <000b01ca74c7$1496c6e0$3dc454a0$@no> For the attention of Grattan? I have noticed a discrepancy between Laws 20F5b and 75B: In Law 20F5b: "must call the Director and inform his opponents" In Law 75B: "should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation" (Personally I prefer L75B!) Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 4 10:56:53 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:56:53 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <8B5772353C1943C497E6D9F52C650C33@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: Message-ID: <4B190AF4.9080601@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] .. but on another side, I have learned to totally ignore dominant and frequent posters - their views do become predictable and very much repeated, balance is important and encouraging diversity of post and response is of value to me [Nigel Guthrie] This leaves law-breakers in long-term profit and victims with more damage than can be allowed for by equity considerations. [Richard quotes William Goldman, "The Princess Bride"] "Life isn't fair. It's just fairer than death, that's all." [Nigel] Nobody has to read other peoples' posts especially if they find the views distasteful. I have changed some of my opinions under pressure of argument. Even for my long-held views, I try to produce fresh arguments. And I don't dismiss other peoples opinions' without addressing their arguments. No attempt has been made to refute some of my arguments - but of course that is fair enough. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 4 15:31:36 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:31:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Laws 20F5b and 75B discrepancy References: <000b01ca74c7$1496c6e0$3dc454a0$@no> Message-ID: <1DCCEC912589454EA66AC10C08AD3BF3@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:49 AM Subject: [BLML] Laws 20F5b and 75B discrepancy For the attention of Grattan? > I have noticed a discrepancy between Laws 20F5b and 75B: In Law 20F5b: "must call the Director and inform his opponents" In Law 75B: "should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation" (Personally I prefer L75B!) >>>> +=+ I looked at 1997 Law 75 and footnote. It contains what appears to be very much the same 'discrepancy'. I looked at the drafting committee material. The question was not mentioned and did not arise in any comment from the Portland Club, an NBO or Zonal Authority. .I guess we can continue to live with it. While I was researching the drafting committee Law 20 archive I did chance upon another exchange of opinions that may have a certain interest. The file shows the following (the 'opinions' are those of sundry drafting committee members): ........................................................................... (Suggestion circulated) I was listening to a discussion concerning the timing of the correction of partner's explanation. It seems worthy of report (without expressing an opinion). A suggestion was made that when partner has misexplained a player's call the player should wait until his partner has next called and then offer his correction, dealing with the problem for the remainder of the board by excluding the use of UI. > (Opinion 1) Yes, this appears to have merit. A bit late for this time but we could refer the suggestion to the WBF Laws Committee for consideration and perhaps add it to the Appendix or do it by way of Regulation. < (Opinion 2) This is fraught with many as yet unseen and unnecessary dangers. The present system of rectifying partner's misexplanation works very well, protects the opponents, gives partner no chance to claim he would always have done something after he finds out the correct explanation, protects against pairs being able to recover from system mistakes, etc. I can't for a moment imagine that it would be better to introduce this monumental change, though I'm sure it would increase judgement calls by the TDs and AC business in handling the UI. The different times when the defenders or the declaring side must reveal supposed mistakes in explanation work - and allow the defenders to go all the way to perdition in the play of the hand after having misinformed the declarer. This aspect of the Laws was very carefully crafted. . < (Opinion 3) I am not sure that it will be an improvement and I am convinced that waiting until partner has called only makes sense once LHO has made a call. I don't see any reason at all not to correct a mistaken explanation as long as nobody has called thereafter. > (Opinion 4) I think the subject matter is regulatory rather than Law, and should remain as such. I would like to tread lightly, and not choke the RAs by injecting any RAs' rightful regulation into the law for everybody. > (Opinion 5) I have not yet considered the thought sufficiently to form a conclusion. So I agree we do not change anything now. In any case I am against any change of principle at this stage. But I think there is merit in the suggestion that in due course the Laws Committee might discuss the idea. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 4 18:26:44 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:26:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Laws 20F5b and 75B discrepancy In-Reply-To: <1DCCEC912589454EA66AC10C08AD3BF3@Mildred> References: <000b01ca74c7$1496c6e0$3dc454a0$@no> <1DCCEC912589454EA66AC10C08AD3BF3@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B194654.5020400@skynet.be> It is obvious that most people do not wish to change the current practice of remaining quiet about partner's misexplanation until the bidding is over. Why then do those same people not see that consistently explaining partner's next bid is just a small extension of this practice. After all, by "correctly" explaining that next bid, a player reveals the misexplanation, something which is apparently unwanted. Herman. Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "a revolutionary moment in the world's > history is a time for revolutions, not for > patching." > [Beveridge Report, 1942] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:49 AM > Subject: [BLML] Laws 20F5b and 75B discrepancy > > > For the attention of Grattan? > I have noticed a discrepancy between Laws 20F5b > and 75B: In Law 20F5b: "must call the Director and > inform his opponents" In Law 75B: "should call the > Director and must volunteer a correction of the > explanation" > (Personally I prefer L75B!) > +=+ I looked at 1997 Law 75 and footnote. It contains > what appears to be very much the same 'discrepancy'. > I looked at the drafting committee material. The > question was not mentioned and did not arise in any > comment from the Portland Club, an NBO or Zonal > Authority. .I guess we can continue to live with it. > While I was researching the drafting committee > Law 20 archive I did chance upon another exchange > of opinions that may have a certain interest. > The file shows the following (the 'opinions' are > those of sundry drafting committee members): > ........................................................................... > (Suggestion circulated) > I was listening to a discussion concerning > the timing of the correction of partner's > explanation. It seems worthy of report > (without expressing an opinion). > A suggestion was made that when > partner has misexplained a player's > call the player should wait until his partner > has next called and then offer his correction, > dealing with the problem for the remainder > of the board by excluding the use of UI. > (Opinion 1) > Yes, this appears to have merit. A bit > late for this time but we could refer > the suggestion to the WBF Laws Committee > for consideration and perhaps add it to > the Appendix or do it by way of Regulation. > < > (Opinion 2) > This is fraught with many as yet unseen and > unnecessary dangers. The present system > of rectifying partner's misexplanation works > very well, protects the opponents, gives > partner no chance to claim he would > always have done something after he finds > out the correct explanation, protects against > pairs being able to recover from system > mistakes, etc. I can't for a moment imagine > that it would be better to introduce this > monumental change, though I'm sure it would > increase judgement calls by the TDs and AC > business in handling the UI. The different times > when the defenders or the declaring side must > reveal supposed mistakes in explanation work > - and allow the defenders to go all the way to > perdition in the play of the hand after having > misinformed the declarer. This aspect of the > Laws was very carefully crafted. . > < > (Opinion 3) > I am not sure that it will be an improvement > and I am convinced that waiting until partner > has called only makes sense once LHO has > made a call. I don't see any reason at all not > to correct a mistaken explanation as long as > nobody has called thereafter. > (Opinion 4) > I think the subject matter is regulatory rather > than Law, and should remain as such. I > would like to tread lightly, and not choke the > RAs by injecting any RAs' rightful regulation > into the law for everybody. > (Opinion 5) > I have not yet considered the thought sufficiently > to form a conclusion. So I agree we do not > change anything now. In any case I am against > any change of principle at this stage. But I think > there is merit in the suggestion that in due course > the Laws Committee might discuss the idea. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml at arcor.de Fri Dec 4 18:53:08 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 18:53:08 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Laws 20F5b and 75B discrepancy In-Reply-To: <1DCCEC912589454EA66AC10C08AD3BF3@Mildred> References: <1DCCEC912589454EA66AC10C08AD3BF3@Mildred> <000b01ca74c7$1496c6e0$3dc454a0$@no> Message-ID: <26560778.1259949188168.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Grattan wrote: > (Opinion 3) > I am not sure that it will be an improvement > and I am convinced that waiting until partner > has called only makes sense once LHO has > made a call. I don't see any reason at all not > to correct a mistaken explanation as long as > nobody has called thereafter. I agree with option 3 above. Thomas Es weihnachtet sehr! Vom leckerem Backrezept bis zum leckeren Schneehasen finden Sie alles im Weihnachtsspecial von Arcor.de: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.weihnachten Feliz Navidad, God Yul, Merry X-Mas und ein frohes Fest! From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 4 19:30:53 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 19:30:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Laws 20F5b and 75B discrepancy In-Reply-To: <26560778.1259949188168.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <1DCCEC912589454EA66AC10C08AD3BF3@Mildred> <000b01ca74c7$1496c6e0$3dc454a0$@no> <26560778.1259949188168.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <001001ca750f$e9f4bc50$bdde34f0$@no> Just to make it clear: I do not want any change in the laws except that "must call the Director and inform his opponents" in Law 20F5b should be changed to "should call the Director and must inform his opponents" in order to make Law 20F5b consistent with Law 75B and also with what I believe is common practice. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Thomas Dehn > Sent: 4. desember 2009 18:53 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws 20F5b and 75B discrepancy > > Grattan wrote: > > (Opinion 3) > > I am not sure that it will be an improvement and I am convinced that > > waiting until partner has called only makes sense once LHO has made a > > call. I don't see any reason at all not to correct a mistaken > > explanation as long as nobody has called thereafter. > > I agree with option 3 above. > > > Thomas > > Es weihnachtet sehr! Vom leckerem Backrezept bis zum leckeren Schneehasen > finden Sie alles im Weihnachtsspecial von Arcor.de: > http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.weihnachten > Feliz Navidad, God Yul, Merry X-Mas und ein frohes Fest! > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 4 20:56:12 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 13:56:12 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Laws 20F5b and 75B discrepancy In-Reply-To: <001001ca750f$e9f4bc50$bdde34f0$@no> References: <1DCCEC912589454EA66AC10C08AD3BF3@Mildred> <000b01ca74c7$1496c6e0$3dc454a0$@no>, <26560778.1259949188168.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net>, <001001ca750f$e9f4bc50$bdde34f0$@no> Message-ID: ---------------------------------------- > From: svenpran at online.no > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 19:30:53 +0100 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws 20F5b and 75B discrepancy > > Just to make it clear: I do not want any change in the laws except that > "must call the Director and inform his opponents" > in Law 20F5b should be changed to > "should call the Director and must inform his opponents" > in order to make Law 20F5b consistent with Law 75B and also with what I > believe is common practice. > > Sven I concur that it is brutally detrimental to have passages of law that are inconsistent and even in conflict. However, I extend my comment that it is not enough to achieve consistency, it is further important to express accurately the correct view. regards roger pewick >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Thomas Dehn >> Sent: 4. desember 2009 18:53 >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws 20F5b and 75B discrepancy >> >> Grattan wrote: >>> (Opinion 3) >>> I am not sure that it will be an improvement and I am convinced that >>> waiting until partner has called only makes sense once LHO has made a >>> call. I don't see any reason at all not to correct a mistaken >>> explanation as long as nobody has called thereafter. >> >> I agree with option 3 above. >> >> >> Thomas _________________________________________________________________ Get gifts for them and cashback for you. Try Bing now. http://www.bing.com/shopping/search?q=xbox+games&scope=cashback&form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_Shopping_Giftsforthem_cashback_1x1 From adam at tameware.com Sun Dec 6 22:31:20 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 13:31:20 -0800 Subject: [BLML] First batch of San Diego Appeals Message-ID: <694eadd40912061331v31b1dd5dh6a5fb8434a1bc270@mail.gmail.com> You can see initial versions of the first batch of cases here: http://www.bridgeindia.com/NABC/NABC_Fall/NABC_FALL_2009_SAN_DIEGO.html These are transcribed from the versions in the daily bulletins. They will undergo a further round of editing before they appear on the ACBL casebook site. If you have any suggestions or corrections please drop me a line. Thanks to Dr Raghavan.P.S. for assembling and posting these! -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 7 06:56:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:56:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Amanuensis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Pocket Oxford Dictionary: amanuensis, n. Clerk &c. who writes from dictation. [L. = hand servant] Grattan Endicott, 4th December 2009 +=+ I would say that the 'author'* of the 2007 Laws was the drafting committee comprising Max Bavin, Ralph Cohen, Joan Gerard, Ton Kooijman, Jeffrey Polisner, William Schoder, Grattan Endicott (Coordinator) and John Wignall (Chairman). In my view any one of these is correctly termed a co-author. [snip] Amanuensis Richard Hills, 7th December 2009: Yes, my previous posting was ambiguous. I did not intend to imply that Grattan and Ton were the _only_ two co-authors of the 2007 Lawbook, but rather that they were _some_ of the co-authors (together with Kojak and the rest of the Drafting Committee). The point that I clumsily failed to make is that even the most distinguished authorities can differ in their personal views about what is Lawful and what is unLawful. It seems to me that David Burn, Grattan Endicott, Ton Kooijman and William Schoder share a common view that a Reveley Ruling is undesirable, but are split down the middle on whether a Reveley Ruling is _necessarily_ unLawful (although Burn and Endicott believe that a Reveley Ruling can be prohibited by a regulation of the Regulating Authority, as is the case for the EBU). Grattan Endicott, 4th December 2009: [snip] It is the case that, as my amanuensis in setting the decisions of the drafting committee, Richard was able to draw attention on a number of occasions to an improvement that he thought worthy of consideration. Wherever I felt he was making a point the committee might wish to look at, I included it in the material circulating among the drafting committee without necessarily attributing it to source. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ * "writer of a book, article or report; originator of a plan or idea". .(co-author = a joint author). Amanuensis David Burn, 21st December 2007: Bridge is a game that has laws; those laws establish how the game is played - and, of course, how it is not played. There can never be, and could not ever have been even in 1963, "infractions that have not yet been thought of"; anything done while playing bridge is either in accordance with the laws or it is not. [snip] But to "rectify" a situation means to put it right; a situation cannot be said to have been "put right" if someone suffers or benefits unduly after the supposed "rectification" has taken place. The new L12B2 seems to me to be simple nonsense. It could not be simpler nonsense - that much is true. Grattan Endicott, 21st December 2007: +=+ I agree with the first of these paragraphs. Concerning the second I defer to the definition of 'rectification' in the 2007 Laws. It reads "the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director's attention'. This does not go as far as 'put right'; it measures short of the dictionary meaning of the word. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Amanuensis David Burn, 21st December 2007: The trouble is that it falls short of its own definition also. To "remedy" is: To cure (a disease, etc.); to put right, reform (a state of things); to rectify, make good. {Oxford English Dictionary} It used also to be: To grant (one) legal remedy; to right (one) in respect of a wrong suffered. {ibid} Now, if a "provision to be applied" still leaves some non- offending party suffering a wrong, then it is not "remedial". It should be fairly clear that the root of the word is the same as the root of words such as "medical" - the Latin "mederi", to heal). It should also be fairly clear that reliance on the definition in the Laws - "rectification" is "remedial", while to "remedy" means to "rectify" - is circular and therefore useless. Don't get me wrong. I am entirely and implacably opposed to the notion that the rules of any game should have any basis in real- life notions of what is "equitable". I think that the rules of a game should determine what is and what is not legal while the game is being played, and that as long as people operate within those rules while playing the game, no censure of their morality or standards of ethical behaviour is appropriate in the least. That's why people play games, for pity's sake - games are a momentary escape from life, where we have to judge ourselves and be judged by others according to vague and woolly notions of what is "right", or "fair", or "just". I am on record as saying that the penalty for a revoke should be death. I didn't entirely mean it, but at least if it were so, the game would soon be played only by people who could follow suit, and we would not need several pages of revoke laws. [snip] But there are enough benighted souls out there who think that the laws of bridge, unlike the laws of any other game in the entire history of the entire world, should somehow incorporate notions of "fairness", "justice", "equity" and - may angels and ministers of grace defend us - "sportsmanship", imported from real life. The 2007 Laws differ from preceding versions largely to the extent that they attempt to embody these vague ideas by using words such as "rectification" instead of "penalty". So be it. I'm still going to play bridge, and I'm still going to worry about what the rules say. Even if the rules, reflecting the opinion of the majority of players and of those currently in charge of the game's administration, are to be based on the principles of equity, they still have my full support. I'll give equitable rulings, and I won't shoot anyone who revokes. But in the name of all that is wonderful - can't the WBFLC use words I can understand? 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 Mon Dec 7 16:57:39 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:57:39 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Ah! but.... Message-ID: Grattan Endicott Message-ID: "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves" (1991 film), Alan Rickman: "Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans. No more merciful beheadings. And call off Christmas!" Grattan Endicott: +=+ Yes - although of course 'equity' is a term that appears in the rules of this game (see Laws 12C1(c), 84D) and for that reason we have to seek a definition of it, if not according to 'real life notions' then in the context of the game. I am open to argument whether its definition is closest served by the removal of any advantage gained by an offender through his infraction and restoration of any loss through damage sustained by way of an opponent's infraction. +=+ Richard Hills: Does that mean that Grattan is open to argument that a Reveley Ruling is inherently unLawful? If so, which line of argument would Grattan find most convincing? (a) Suppose there is an identical break in tempo by each North in an identical situation at both tables in a close knockout match. Both Souths would always select logical alternative X (which, as the cards lie, gains 13 imps versus call Y) in the absence of the break in tempo, but the success of call X is even more likely as call X is now demonstrably suggested. Neither South would normally select call Y, but the South in the Closed Room realises that call Y is a logical alternative for her class of player, so flings herself on a hand grenade by choosing the Law 73C mandated call. Meanwhile the South player in the Open Room is a ghost of Christmas Past, Terence Reese. He chooses to infract Law 73C by selecting call X. At the Appeals Committee hearing, Terence points out that his partner, Boris Schapiro (another ghost of Christmas Past) intentionally hesitated, an infraction of Law 73A2, therefore both infractions should be cancelled before adjusting the score. The Appeals Committee agrees, fines Boris 3 imps for his 73A2 infraction, fines Terence 3 imps for his 73C infraction, but the Christmas Past team is still a net of 7 imps ahead of the Christmas Present team. or (b) The Law 12B1 phrase "through its infraction" contains the implicit instruction "calculate the adjusted score from the moment immediately before the infraction; do not calculate the adjusted score from the earlier time before the extraneous but non-infractive break in tempo". 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 Tue Dec 8 04:41:33 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 03:41:33 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Ah! but.... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 11:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ah! but.... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > (Richard Hills) (b) The Law 12B1 phrase "through its infraction" contains the implicit instruction "calculate the adjusted score from the moment immediately before the infraction; do not calculate the adjusted score from the earlier time before the extraneous but non-infractive break in tempo". > +=+ In the case that gave birth to this topic the breach of tempo was infractive - not inadvertent But, leaving that aside, 'through' is an unsubstantial hook on which to hang this construction. What passes through an infraction may also transit other points. Law 12B1 does not authorize redress exceeding the damage sustained, nor does it specify removal by score adjustment of more than the advantage obtained. Advantage obtained by comparison with another table of a match invokes Law 86D. Otherwise advantage may be construed relative to the field. If one were to accept the narrow view of 'damage' that Richard advocates, the Law does not restrict the view of 'advantage' in like terms. +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Dec 8 22:25:14 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (pop-server.san.rr.com) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:25:14 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(e)(ii) Message-ID: I now realize that "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" has not been understood by some who need to understand it, despite two examples that I have provided. Evidently the law needs to be more explicit. Here is my effort: For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result at all probable of contracts undertaken by either side that are coterminous with the irregularity or subsequent to it. "Undertaken" means attempted, not necessarily achieved. "Coterminous" means coincident with the irregularity or immediately preceding and affected by it. This excludes contracts not undertaken. Skillful play on the part of the NOS, unrelated to the irregularity, must not be removed from an adjustment (WBFLC minutes, Lille 1998) , and actions contrary to the system of the NOS are not to be assumed (Grattan) I need BLML acceptance of my suggested wording or its provision of a superior one. Keep it short, please. If I have omitted some possibility, please provide an example or two. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Dec 8 23:27:44 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (pop-server.san.rr.com) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:27:44 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(e)(ii) - correction References: Message-ID: <51DEDE59E4594711B60F0D03AA6CE4E4@MARVLAPTOP> Marv wrote: >I now realize that "the most unfavorable result that was at all > probable" has not been understood by some who need to understand > it, > despite two examples that I have provided. Evidently the law needs > to be more explicit. Here is my effort: > > For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable > result at all probable of contracts undertaken by either side that > are coterminous with the irregularity or subsequent to it. > > "Undertaken" means attempted, not necessarily achieved. > "Coterminous" means coincident with the irregularity or > immediately > preceding and affected by it. > > This excludes contracts not undertaken. Skillful play on the part > of > the NOS, unrelated to the irregularity, must not be removed from > an > adjustment (WBFLC minutes, Lille 1998) , and actions contrary to > the > system of the NOS are not to be assumed (Grattan) While squeezing a mountain of limes for my daily Margarita, I realized that this won't do. "contracts undertaken" should be "contracts undertaken (or that possibly would be undertaken)...", something like that. Then, this excludes contracts very unlikely to be undertaken. I have a great sympathy for the drafting committee gained from my efforts in rewording this law. It ain't easy. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 8 23:35:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:35:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L12C1(e)(ii) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>>+=+ I just wonder Marv if you haven't got a bee in the bonnet on >>>this subject. The committee simply did not feel it was primarily >>>a laws matter, so we looked and passed on. Marvin French: >>Actually I have a Chip on my shoulder :-) >> >>Marv Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I am Martelly wounded. ;-) +=+ Richard Hills: Do the ends justify the means? 1) The ACBL Laws Commission delegates its Lawbook drafting powers to its representatives on the Laws Drafting Committee (whose decisions are made by consensus, so the ACBL can never be outvoted as such). 2) The Laws Drafting Committee spends five years mulling over various improvements to the Lawbook. 3) The ACBL Laws Commission over-rides its own delegates, hastily revising the Lawbook in a matter of months; but its revision to Law 12C1(e)(ii) is in principle a Good Idea, as in principle it slightly reduces the punitive (as opposed to rectifying) nature of adjusted scores in ACBL-land. 4) One over-riding hasty decision of the ACBL Laws Commission was to return chapter headings to the Lawbook, which made Law 23 rather ambiguous. The proposed ACBL Laws Commission solution to the ambiguity is to renumber Law 23, making the ACBL Lawbooks even more obviously incompatible with the Rest-of-the-World Lawbooks. American President Richard Nixon (1969-1974): "When the ACBL Laws Commission does it, that means that it is not illegal." BFACT President Richard Hills (2003-2004): No, the ends do not justify the means. 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 Dec 9 01:09:58 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (pop-server.san.rr.com) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:09:58 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B2 References: Message-ID: <83B38CE4A8B44CB89F0A1F4AA36C642D@MARVLAPTOP> Richard, When the ACBL did not choose its previous 1997 "election" to this law, requiring an immediate director call, can they now do that? I was under the impression that elections not taken when publishing means they may not be taken later. However "(which may require that the Director be called)" seems to permit the current ACBL policy, which is to require a director call or risk losing credence if the call comes at the end of play. Look at San Diego Appeals case 8. To save you time, South balanced vs a raised heart opening with 3D, holding KQ7654 diamonds and nothing else. North had passed over 2H with 9654 AKQ A9 A642. At the end of play East-West called the TD, claiming that North had hesitated over 2H. The TD ruled BIT and adjusted the contract to 2H. The bidding chart shows (1) for the pass to 2H, identified below as "Break in tempo--alleged to be five seconds." N-S did not attend the AC meeting (very unwise) and South told the AC there was no hesitation, saying it took at most three seconds for North to pass. AC: After completition of play.....They decided that there must have been a hesitation. I doubt that they said that, but it echoes what an LC member told me at the NABC, which is that a pair may claim an opposing BIT at the end of play when they see that a doubtful action was taken. Therefore players are advised (his words) to call the TD immediately when they detect UI. AC: When there is a BIT that might provide unauthorized information, players are encouraged to either call the director or get confirmation of the BIT from the opponents right away. By delaying the director call, East-West considerably weakened its claim of a tempo break. To call the TD when there is no infraction doesn't seem legal to me, but that doggone footnote to L16B3 (It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later) seems to permit it. The 1997 footnote made pretty clear that there must be evidence of an irregularity, which can only come at sight of dummy or at the end of play. Now it's just end of play, very good, but spoiled by the footnote. I am very frustrated with all this, especially since the ACBL LC didn't like my UI Guide because it failed to recommend an immediate director call. I so wanted to have a guide that the LC would endorse so I could ask Mike Flader to do a column based on it in the ACBL Bulletin. Must I go along with the ACBL LC on this and include their recommended policy in the UI Guide, or is that policy contrary to the Laws? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 9 02:20:18 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:20:18 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <83B38CE4A8B44CB89F0A1F4AA36C642D@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people angry and has widely been considered as a bad move." Marvin French query: >Richard, > >When the ACBL did not choose its previous 1997 "election" to this >law, requiring an immediate director call, can they now do that? >I was under the impression that elections not taken when >publishing means they may not be taken later. [snip] Richard Hills unofficial answer: To the best of my knowledge, the reason that the ACBL elections were incorporated into the ACBL translation of the Lawbook was because of "Beware of the leopard"; it is more convenient for ACBL TDs to have the regulations of their Regulating Authority and the Laws of the World Bridge Federation combined into one document. But any Regulating Authority is permitted to change its mind at any time on its elections. Indeed, the EBU has already done this, modifying its initial risky Law 40B3 election to a subsequent safer election. 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 Dec 9 03:14:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 02:14:28 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B2 References: <83B38CE4A8B44CB89F0A1F4AA36C642D@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:09 AM Subject: [BLML] Law 16B2 > Richard, > > When the ACBL did not choose its previous 1997 "election" to this > law, requiring an immediate director call, can they now do that? I > was under the impression that elections not taken when publishing > means they may not be taken later. However "(which may require that > the Director be called)" seems to permit the current ACBL policy, > which is to require a director call or risk losing credence if the > call comes at the end of play. > > Look at San Diego Appeals case 8. To save you time, South balanced > vs a raised heart opening with 3D, holding KQ7654 diamonds and > nothing else. North had passed over 2H with 9654 AKQ A9 A642. > > At the end of play East-West called the TD, claiming that North had > hesitated over 2H. The TD ruled BIT and adjusted the contract to 2H. > > The bidding chart shows (1) for the pass to 2H, identified below as > "Break in tempo--alleged to be five seconds." N-S did not attend the > AC meeting (very unwise) and South told the AC there was no > hesitation, saying it took at most three seconds for North to pass. > > AC: After completition of play.....They decided that there must > have been a hesitation. > > I doubt that they said that, but it echoes what an LC member told > me at the NABC, which is that a pair may claim an opposing BIT at > the end of play when they see that a doubtful action was taken. > Therefore players are advised (his words) to call the TD immediately > when they detect UI. > > AC: When there is a BIT that might provide unauthorized information, > players are encouraged to either call the director or get > confirmation of the BIT from the opponents right away. By delaying > the director call, East-West considerably weakened its claim of a > tempo break. > > To call the TD when there is no infraction doesn't seem legal to me, > but that doggone footnote to L16B3 (It is not an infraction to call > the Director earlier or later) seems to permit it. The 1997 footnote > made pretty clear that there must be evidence of an irregularity, > which can only come at sight of dummy or at the end of play. Now > it's just end of play, very good, but spoiled by the footnote. > > I am very frustrated with all this, especially since the ACBL LC > didn't like my UI Guide because it failed to recommend an immediate > director call. I so wanted to have a guide that the LC would endorse > so I could ask Mike Flader to do a column based on it in the ACBL > Bulletin. > > Must I go along with the ACBL LC on this and include their > recommended policy in the UI Guide, or is that policy contrary to > the Laws? > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > +=+ I do not know what the ACBL regulation is but the ACBL may change its regulation whenever it pleases. Some timing, however, could be distinctly infelicitous. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 9 06:45:32 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:45:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Slogans of the satirical role-playing game "Paranoia": "Trust The Computer. The Computer is Your Friend." "Stay Alert! Trust No One! Keep Your Laser Handy!" ACBL Appeals Committee, paranoid advice on players' legal options: "When there is a BIT that might provide unauthorized information, Richard Hills, translation from American doublespeak: When there is a BIT that might provide unauthorized information, that is not in itself an infraction. Bridge is a thinking game. ACBL Appeals Committee, paranoid advice on players' legal options: ...players are encouraged to either call the director... Richard Hills, translation from American doublespeak: ...players are encouraged either to waste the time of the Director when there would have been no damage (or frequently no infraction) at the end of play... ACBL Appeals Committee, paranoid advice on players' legal options: ...or get confirmation of the BIT from the opponents right away... Richard Hills, translation from American doublespeak: ...or players are encouraged to embarrass the opponents with the implied insult that not only it is believed to be likely that one will later infract Law 16, but also it is believed to be likely that both will in 3.5 minutes tell porky pies about the existence of the BIT (thus requiring an immediate interrogation by the Spanish Inquisition)... Monty Python: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" ACBL Appeals Committee, paranoid advice on players' legal options: ...By delaying the director call, East-West considerably weakened its claim of a tempo break." Richard Hills, translation from American doublespeak: ...By delaying the director call, the alleged non-offending side is deemed to be likely to be telling porky pies about the alleged offending side. David Stevenson: "Players do not deliberately tell lies." 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 Dec 9 07:00:26 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (pop-server.san.rr.com) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:00:26 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B2 References: <83B38CE4A8B44CB89F0A1F4AA36C642D@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <76FC6E9A40544688B3250EC400A94CE4@MARVLAPTOP> Grattan: >> > +=+ I do not know what the ACBL regulation is but > the ACBL may change its regulation whenever it pleases. > Some timing, however, could be distinctly infelicitous. There is no regulation, it's all word of mouth emanating from a misunderstanding of what the UI laws intend. Another example is the misunderstanding and misapplication of L12C1(b). The ACBL TD/AC practice is to not adjust a score for the NOS if they committed a serious error, and to retain any serious error by the NOS in a score adjustment for the OS. Both policies are contrary to this new law, but they seem unaware of that. There was supposed to be a discussion of these matters by the LC at the San Diego NABC, but I was too busy to attend and haven't received a summary of the meeting yet. I heard that nothing much was accomplished, so maybe that didn't happen. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 9 23:55:44 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:55:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Meretricious and a Happy New Year [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: David Stevenson, May 2005: >>I suggest that in future you ask your opponents to explain RKCB to >>you. If they >> >>do not know what RKCB is they are novices >>explain it gleefully and wrong they are medium >>look down their noses but do not answer they are experts >>kindly explain it incomprehensibly they are super-experts >>explain it carefully, kindly and correctly they are Eric Crowhurst Adam Beneschan, May 2005: >And if they tell you it's too complicated to explain but they'd >happily sell you a book on the subject then they are Eddie Kantar... Richard Hills, May 2005: And if they explain that Keycard Blackwood is "meretricious", then their over-succinct and recondite advice means that they are Edgar Kaplan. 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 Sun Dec 13 22:50:14 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:50:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Meretricious and a Happy New Year [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Monty Python's meaning of life: "Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations." Sven Pran, 15th May 2003: [snip] >>In my opinion: Yes every contestant has in certain cases an >>"obligation to the field". And if someone really thinks a >>law support for such an obvious matter is necessary they may >>look to Law 74B1 for a starter. This law applies equally to >>every contestant whether they fight for a top placement or >>already have secured a bottom. >> >>Sven Richard Hills, 16th May 2003: >TD: Are you appealing my ruling? >NOS: No, appealing will not improve our score. >TD: OK, because my ruling was so terrible, I now rule that > you committed an infraction of Law 74B1 by not appealing > my previous terrible ruling. I fine you a PP of three > tops. >NOS: Now we are appealing! Grattan Endicott, 17th May 2003: +=+ We were explicit in 1984-7 when entering the words "at his table" in Law 92A, to reflect that a contestant does not have any rights in relation to a ruling at a table at which the contestant was not involved in the play. There is no obligation upon a side to appeal if it is not inclined to do so. There is no duty in Law to have regard for 'the field'; if there were a perceived duty it were a perception of morality. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 2007 Law 92A, first sentence: "A contestant or his captain **may** appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director." 2007 Introduction, sixth paragraph, first phrase: "Established usage has been retained in regard to 'may' do (failure to do it is not wrong)" 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 Dec 14 14:35:03 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:35:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] funny Message-ID: <4B263F07.8010304@skynet.be> Yesterday, final of the selections for the Belgian team. But as usual, one has more fun with the tournament next door. Gl?hwein tournament, and it showed. TD! yes? I want to make reservations, the bidding went: 1Cl - 1NT - 2Cl - ...pass pass - dble - all pass OK, I've noted this, please call me back if you feel damaged (TD leaves table, but is called back immediately) TD! so soon? no, lead out of turn. Aha, (to the slow passer) what did you lead? no, not her, me (says Dummy) Have you ever had a lead out of turn by dummy? Do you feel confident you would get it right? To be fair, I did not! BTW, doubler held 16 points, 3-3-3-4 with AQxx in clubs and no reason whatsoever to double, let alone that passing was a LA. A severe lecture (and the changing of +300 to +100) was to follow. But how about that lead? Herman. From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Mon Dec 14 14:53:15 2009 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (Ciska Zuur) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:53:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] funny In-Reply-To: <4B263F07.8010304@skynet.be> References: <4B263F07.8010304@skynet.be> Message-ID: In my view: Card shown during bidding period: art 24 introduction. In this case no consequences for leader/dummy Info is allowed for opps Ciska Zuur ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: blml Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 2:35 PM Subject: [BLML] funny Yesterday, final of the selections for the Belgian team. But as usual, one has more fun with the tournament next door. Gl?hwein tournament, and it showed. TD! yes? I want to make reservations, the bidding went: 1Cl - 1NT - 2Cl - ...pass pass - dble - all pass OK, I've noted this, please call me back if you feel damaged (TD leaves table, but is called back immediately) TD! so soon? no, lead out of turn. Aha, (to the slow passer) what did you lead? no, not her, me (says Dummy) Have you ever had a lead out of turn by dummy? Do you feel confident you would get it right? To be fair, I did not! BTW, doubler held 16 points, 3-3-3-4 with AQxx in clubs and no reason whatsoever to double, let alone that passing was a LA. A severe lecture (and the changing of +300 to +100) was to follow. But how about that lead? Herman. _______________________________________________ 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/20091214/1c3af9e1/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 14 15:26:24 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:26:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] funny In-Reply-To: <4B263F07.8010304@skynet.be> References: <4B263F07.8010304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001801ca7cc9$6abe7d60$403b7820$@no> As one who notified WBFLC about this situation when we received the drafts for the 2007 laws I can confirm that this is treated as card exposed during the auction period (Law 24) This will only have effect if during the clarification period misinformation is revealed and the auction is continued. In that case the originally presumed declarer must pass during the continued auction, and if the originally presumed declaring side eventually becomes defenders Law 50 will apply. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 14. desember 2009 14:35 > To: blml > Subject: [BLML] funny > > Yesterday, final of the selections for the Belgian team. > But as usual, one has more fun with the tournament next door. > Gl?hwein tournament, and it showed. > > TD! > yes? > I want to make reservations, the bidding went: > 1Cl - 1NT - 2Cl - ...pass > pass - dble - all pass > OK, I've noted this, please call me back if you feel damaged > > (TD leaves table, but is called back immediately) > > TD! > so soon? > no, lead out of turn. > Aha, (to the slow passer) what did you lead? > no, not her, me (says Dummy) > > Have you ever had a lead out of turn by dummy? > Do you feel confident you would get it right? > > To be fair, I did not! > > BTW, doubler held 16 points, 3-3-3-4 with AQxx in clubs and no reason > whatsoever to double, let alone that passing was a LA. A severe lecture (and the > changing of +300 to +100) was to follow. > > But how about that lead? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 14 16:41:06 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:41:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] funny In-Reply-To: <4B263F07.8010304@skynet.be> References: <4B263F07.8010304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B265C92.1090909@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Yesterday, final of the selections for the Belgian team. > But as usual, one has more fun with the tournament next door. > Gl?hwein tournament, and it showed. > > TD! > yes? > I want to make reservations, the bidding went: > 1Cl - 1NT - 2Cl - ...pass > pass - dble - all pass > OK, I've noted this, please call me back if you feel damaged > > (TD leaves table, but is called back immediately) > > TD! > so soon? > no, lead out of turn. > Aha, (to the slow passer) what did you lead? > no, not her, me (says Dummy) > > Have you ever had a lead out of turn by dummy? > I had. Nearing the end of his life, a former Belgian international in partial leave of his senses did it twice - once facing me. > Do you feel confident you would get it right? > The auction period hasn't ended yet, so the card is a MPC, which ceases to be one as soon as dummy is faced, because dummy doesn't have any penalty cards. However, he isn't dummy at the time the LOOT is made. But WTP ? Best regards Alaiun From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 14 16:41:43 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:41:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] funny In-Reply-To: <001801ca7cc9$6abe7d60$403b7820$@no> References: <4B263F07.8010304@skynet.be> <001801ca7cc9$6abe7d60$403b7820$@no> Message-ID: <4B265CB7.2050903@skynet.be> How does one distinguish between a card exposed, after three passes, by: - correct defender - wrong defender - declarer or dummy I see nothing in the laws to make such a distinction. I believe that this card is a card prematurely played, not a card shown in the auction period. Herman. Sven Pran wrote: > As one who notified WBFLC about this situation when we received the drafts > for the 2007 laws I can confirm that this is treated as card exposed during > the auction period (Law 24) > > This will only have effect if during the clarification period misinformation > is revealed and the auction is continued. In that case the originally > presumed declarer must pass during the continued auction, and if the > originally presumed declaring side eventually becomes defenders Law 50 will > apply. > > Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Herman De Wael >> Sent: 14. desember 2009 14:35 >> To: blml >> Subject: [BLML] funny >> >> Yesterday, final of the selections for the Belgian team. >> But as usual, one has more fun with the tournament next door. >> Gl?hwein tournament, and it showed. >> >> TD! >> yes? >> I want to make reservations, the bidding went: >> 1Cl - 1NT - 2Cl - ...pass >> pass - dble - all pass >> OK, I've noted this, please call me back if you feel damaged >> >> (TD leaves table, but is called back immediately) >> >> TD! >> so soon? >> no, lead out of turn. >> Aha, (to the slow passer) what did you lead? >> no, not her, me (says Dummy) >> >> Have you ever had a lead out of turn by dummy? >> Do you feel confident you would get it right? >> >> To be fair, I did not! >> >> BTW, doubler held 16 points, 3-3-3-4 with AQxx in clubs and no reason >> whatsoever to double, let alone that passing was a LA. A severe lecture > (and the >> changing of +300 to +100) was to follow. >> >> But how about that lead? >> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Martin.Sinot at tridentmicro.com Mon Dec 14 17:04:20 2009 From: Martin.Sinot at tridentmicro.com (Martin Sinot) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:04:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] funny In-Reply-To: <4B265CB7.2050903@skynet.be> References: <4B263F07.8010304@skynet.be> <001801ca7cc9$6abe7d60$403b7820$@no> <4B265CB7.2050903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6E0F64F36FB5874785F5010942DC61B91D4515AD@eu-exh-01.EU.TRID.COM> Here is the difference in the Laws: - a lead by the correct defender starts the playing period (L41C) - a lead by the wrong defender is handled by L54A-D - a lead by declarer or dummy is handled by L54E, which redirects it to L24. So a lead attempt by the declaring side is to be handled as a card shown in the auction period, not a card prematurely played. Regards -- Martin Sinot >How does one distinguish between a card exposed, after three passes, by: >- correct defender >- wrong defender >- declarer or dummy >I see nothing in the laws to make such a distinction. >I believe that this card is a card prematurely played, not a card shown >in the auction period. >Herman. From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 14 17:09:56 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:09:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] funny In-Reply-To: <4B265CB7.2050903@skynet.be> References: <4B263F07.8010304@skynet.be> <001801ca7cc9$6abe7d60$403b7820$@no> <4B265CB7.2050903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002101ca7cd7$e0c88150$a25983f0$@no> The auction period ends when the opening lead by either the correct presumed defender (Law 41C) or by the incorrect presumed defender (Law 54A-D) is faced. Be aware of Law 54E which explicitly states that an "opening lead" by (presumed) declarer or dummy shall be handled under Law 24 (card exposed during the auction period) and thus does not end the auction period. An intended side effect of this is that presumed declarer or dummy cannot terminate the clarification period with an (attempted) opening lead out of turn. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 14. desember 2009 16:42 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] funny > > How does one distinguish between a card exposed, after three passes, by: > - correct defender > - wrong defender > - declarer or dummy > I see nothing in the laws to make such a distinction. > I believe that this card is a card prematurely played, not a card shown in the > auction period. > Herman. > > Sven Pran wrote: > > As one who notified WBFLC about this situation when we received the > > drafts for the 2007 laws I can confirm that this is treated as card > > exposed during the auction period (Law 24) > > > > This will only have effect if during the clarification period > > misinformation is revealed and the auction is continued. In that case > > the originally presumed declarer must pass during the continued > > auction, and if the originally presumed declaring side eventually > > becomes defenders Law 50 will apply. > > > > Sven > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > >> Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> Sent: 14. desember 2009 14:35 > >> To: blml > >> Subject: [BLML] funny > >> > >> Yesterday, final of the selections for the Belgian team. > >> But as usual, one has more fun with the tournament next door. > >> Gl?hwein tournament, and it showed. > >> > >> TD! > >> yes? > >> I want to make reservations, the bidding went: > >> 1Cl - 1NT - 2Cl - ...pass > >> pass - dble - all pass > >> OK, I've noted this, please call me back if you feel damaged > >> > >> (TD leaves table, but is called back immediately) > >> > >> TD! > >> so soon? > >> no, lead out of turn. > >> Aha, (to the slow passer) what did you lead? > >> no, not her, me (says Dummy) > >> > >> Have you ever had a lead out of turn by dummy? > >> Do you feel confident you would get it right? > >> > >> To be fair, I did not! > >> > >> BTW, doubler held 16 points, 3-3-3-4 with AQxx in clubs and no > >> reason whatsoever to double, let alone that passing was a LA. A > >> severe lecture > > (and the > >> changing of +300 to +100) was to follow. > >> > >> But how about that lead? > >> > >> Herman. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 14 17:18:39 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:18:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] funny In-Reply-To: <4B265CB7.2050903@skynet.be> References: <4B263F07.8010304@skynet.be> <001801ca7cc9$6abe7d60$403b7820$@no> <4B265CB7.2050903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B26655F.5020003@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > How does one distinguish between a card exposed, after three passes, by: > - correct defender > - wrong defender > - declarer or dummy > I see nothing in the laws to make such a distinction. > No, there isn't. The penalty is the same : MPC ; except that declarer's side's PCs are cancelled. Sven's comment is absolutely right. > I believe that this card is a card prematurely played, not a card shown > in the auction period. > But the play period hasn't begun yet ! It might well be that a new definition for the auction period would solve some problems, but here both interpretations would lead to the same situation, so once again WTP ? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 14 22:33:49 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:33:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Meretricious and a Happy New Year [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 17th May 2003: >+=+ We were explicit in 1984-7 when entering the words "at his >table" in Law 92A, to reflect that a contestant does not have >any rights in relation to a ruling at a table at which the >contestant was not involved in the play. > There is no obligation upon a side to appeal if it is >not inclined to do so. There is no duty in Law to have regard >for 'the field'; if there were a perceived duty it were a >perception of morality. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Bobby Wolff, "The Lone Wolff", page 102: "My next move, therefore, was to talk to the Cypriots. I located the husband and wife who bid the grand slam and asked them about the distribution of the diamond suit. They assured me dummy had AJxxxx and declarer held Kxx. I advised them to appeal the ruling. They were an older couple -- very nice people. Their first reaction was one of horror. Oh, no, they protested, they couldn't do that -- no matter what! Cyprus was going to lose the match anyway and it mattered little to them whether they got another 3 VPs. Furthermore, they didn't wan to cause anyone grief or appear to be accusing their opponents of anything bordering on cheating. I'm not sure they fully grasped the import of what I was suggesting. I told the pair that it was their duty to appeal the decision -- that they owed it to the sanctity of the tournament and all of their fellow competitors not to let this ruling go unchallenged. I guess you could say that I intimidated them." Maximilian Robespierre (1758-1794), French revolutionary: "Intimidation without virtue is disastrous; virtue without intimidation is powerless." Richard Hills, 15th December 2009: I'm not sure that Bobby Wolff fully grasped the import of what he did at the 1996 Olympiad in Rhodes. He made a Colossal error in acting as both prosecutor and judge. The sanctity of the tournament was affected when Bobby Wolff did not realise that it was his duty to recuse himself as Chairman of the Appeals Committee. When Bobby did not do so, this had the import of suggesting that Bobby Wolff might have approached the appeal with a closed mind, and had the import of suggesting that Bobby Wolff might have intimidated the other members of the Appeals Committee. 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 Tue Dec 15 00:00:40 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:00:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Meretricious and a Happy New Year [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bobby Wolff, 2008 recall of his actions in 1996: "I'm not sure they fully grasped the import of what I was suggesting. I told the pair that it was their duty to appeal the decision -- that they owed it to the sanctity of the tournament and all of their fellow competitors not to let this ruling go unchallenged. I guess you could say that I intimidated them." Three years later, in 1999... WBF Code of Practice FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION (published 1999) It has become widely apparent that there are inconsistencies in the handling of appeals at the various levels of our game. This has concerned the World Bridge Federation and, after much effort and sober discussion on the part of a number of leading personalities, the Federation has now produced its first Code of Practice for Appeals Committees. I hope this will quickly be adopted, worldwide, for the conduct of appeals. No-one suggests that the attempt will not be improved upon, but we believe that we should learn something of its operation over a period of time before eventually it is the subject of a review. In the meanwhile the Federation extends an invitation to all, and especially to players, (a) to submit to the Federation opinions arising from practical experience of the effects where the Code is adopted, and (b) to restrain any tendency to blame appeals committees for players' lack of success. The time and energies devoted by the authors to this determined effort to raise the standards of appeal committee work deserve a generous response from players, who will be only too well aware that the great rarity in Bridge is the partnership that loses more points in front of the appeal committee than it has thrown away in the course of not winning the tournament. Jose Damiani President The participants in the group discussion in Lausanne, 21st-23rd September 1999, were as shown below. This Code of Practice was the product of their meetings. Under the Presidency of Mr. Jose Damiani Chairman for the Working Meetings Mr. John Wignall Participants: Mr. Jens Auken Mr. Ernesto d'Orsi Mrs. Joan Gerard Mr. Grattan Endicott Mr. Mazhar Jafri Mr. Ton Kooijman Mr. Jeffrey Polisner Mr. William Schoder **Mr. Robert S. Wolff** WBF Code of Practice, "Withdrawal" (page 4): "A committee member who has prior knowledge of the subject matter of an appeal, of a kind that may affect his objective participation, should recuse himself from the committee and will preferably be substituted. In an international tournament a committee member may decide to recuse himself because he feels too closely involved, or feels he may be biased, or has discussed the matter with interested parties, or has pre-decided the outcome. It is expected that co-nationals of players involved in the appeal will constitute at most only a small minority of the committee." 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 nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Dec 15 00:14:49 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:14:49 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Meretricious and a Happy New Year [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B26C6E9.3070805@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan Endicott, 17th May 2003] +=+ We were explicit in 1984-7 when entering the words "at his table" in Law 92A, to reflect that a contestant does not have any rights in relation to a ruling at a table at which the contestant was not involved in the play. There is no obligation upon a side to appeal if it is not inclined to do so. There is no duty in Law to have regard for 'the field'; if there were a perceived duty it were a perception of morality. [Bobby Wolff, "The Lone Wolff", page 102] "My next move, therefore, was to talk to the Cypriots. I located the husband and wife who bid the grand slam and asked them about the distribution of the diamond suit. They assured me dummy had AJxxxx and declarer held Kxx. I advised them to appeal the ruling. They were an older couple -- very nice people. Their first reaction was one of horror. Oh, no, they protested, they couldn't do that -- no matter what! Cyprus was going to lose the match anyway and it mattered little to them whether they got another 3 VPs. Furthermore, they didn't wan to cause anyone grief or appear to be accusing their opponents of anything bordering on cheating. I'm not sure they fully grasped the import of what I was suggesting. I told the pair that it was their duty to appeal the decision -- that they owed it to the sanctity of the tournament and all of their fellow competitors not to let this ruling go unchallenged. I guess you could say that I intimidated them." [Maximilian Robespierre (1758-1794), French revolutionary] "Intimidation without virtue is disastrous; virtue without intimidation is powerless." [Richard Hills, 15th December 2009] I'm not sure that Bobby Wolff fully grasped the import of what he did at the 1996 Olympiad in Rhodes. He made a Colossal error in acting as both prosecutor and judge. The sanctity of the tournament was affected when Bobby Wolff did not realise that it was his duty to recuse himself as Chairman of the Appeals Committee. When Bobby did not do so, this had the import of suggesting that Bobby Wolff might have approached the appeal with a closed mind, and had the import of suggesting that Bobby Wolff might have intimidated the other members of the Appeals Committee. [Nigel] Obviously Richard is right that Bobby Wolff is a law unto himself. Morally and legally he should have recused himself from the committee. Legally Bobby should not have interfered at all. But IMO, he did have some moral obligations. For many infractions there's no director call. Neither side is under an obligation to call attention to an infraction. It is not in the interests of law-breakers to do so. Their victims often don't notice the infraction. Often they are out of contention. Sometimes, they just can't be bothered to call the director. I feel that the laws should mandate a director call from any player who is aware of an infraction: even if he is not in contention; and even if he is the perpetrator. I feel that directors should look for infractions and encourage victims to report them. Restoring "Equity" can never really deter law-breakers. If more infractions were reported, however, then law-breakers would receive less in the way of legally sanctioned encouragement and reward. I suspect that this aspect of the laws is, in principle, indefensible. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 15 00:38:20 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:38:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Meretricious and a Happy New Year [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B26C6E9.3070805@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: 2007 Law 72B2: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2)." Nigel Guthrie: >.....I feel that the laws should mandate a director call from any >player who is aware of an infraction.....even if he is the >perpetrator..... Richard Hills hypothetical 2018 Law 72B2: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2). However, if the offending player believes that her infraction has damaged (see Law 12B1) the non-offending side, the offending player must summon the Director after a member of the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal, or after the round has ended (see Laws 64B4, 64B5 and 64C)." 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 larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Dec 15 00:46:03 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:46:03 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Meretricious and a Happy New Year [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B26C6E9.3070805@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <000501ca7d17$9a27cd60$2401a8c0@p41600> Yeah I'm kinda with you NG. Problem is that I would like a firing squad and a train out of here for certain folk. However, we are playing a f*****g game here. Yesterday I had a "nonsense". Declarer thought he had won a trick and led to the next, LHO followed. So far, so good. Now...RHO announces that it is HIS lead and plays a card. Declarer agrees and follows to that card..LHO then calls the td (me). Declare has 2 cards on the table, LHO has 2, neither of which is pards "lead". Dummy has played nothng. ********************** Some areas of Mexico have started planting vines, mainly Pinot Gringo. ********************** From adam at irvine.com Tue Dec 15 01:00:53 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:00:53 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Meretricious and a Happy New Year In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:14:49 GMT." <4B26C6E9.3070805@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <200912142346.PAA28642@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > For many infractions there's no director call. Neither side is under an > obligation to call attention to an infraction. It is not in the > interests of law-breakers to do so. Their victims often don't notice the > infraction. Often they are out of contention. Sometimes, they just can't > be bothered to call the director. > > I feel that the laws should mandate a director call from any player who > is aware of an infraction: even if he is not in contention; and even if > he is the perpetrator. Be careful about how that's worded. There are probably tons of technical infractions being committed constantly that don't have an effect on anything. On rec.games.bridge, we're talking about how some players who want to pass out after a non-pass is followed by two passes will simply tap the table to indicate that they're passing and the auction is over. This is probably an infraction, but a meaningless one. A law that requires us to call the director for *every* infraction would not only drive directors crazy, it would also drive everyone out of the game who already thinks the game is getting so unfriendly that it's no fun any more. Or say that declarer wins a trick, and LHO revokes on the trick, then declarer realizes he has all the high trumps and claims. So the revoke is meaningless because the other side wasn't going to win any tricks anyway. Do you want to require a director call? Make it "The laws should mandate a director call from any player who is aware of an infraction that could reasonably affect the result on the board", and maybe it would be worth considering. -- Adam From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Tue Dec 15 01:19:12 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:19:12 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Testing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0431DC91450D4756B652315F3F9B240F@mikePC> Is it me or is BLMl broken? Mike From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Dec 15 01:41:16 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:41:16 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Testing References: <0431DC91450D4756B652315F3F9B240F@mikePC> Message-ID: <000a01ca7d1f$5b12d720$2401a8c0@p41600> It's you...just get off the train in the right place.... ********************** Some areas of Mexico have started planting vines, mainly Pinot Gringo. ********************** > Is it me or is BLMl broken? > Mike From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 15 01:50:58 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:50:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Meretricious and a Happy New Year [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200912142346.PAA28642@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Tom Lehrer's Christmas Carol, second verse: On Christmas Day you can't get sore Your fellow man you must adore There's time to rob him all the more The other three hundred and sixty-four Adam Beneschan: >.....On rec.games.bridge, we're talking about how some players who >want to pass out after a non-pass is followed by two passes will >simply tap the table to indicate that they're passing and the auction >is over. This is probably an infraction, but a meaningless one. Richard Hills: This is _definitely_ an infraction, but _usually_ a meaningless one. For example, in Wales before the introduction of bidding boxes, it was proper procedure to Alert by tapping the table. An old-school Welsh player may therefore be startled by an opponent prematurely leading before she has chosen her call. Adam Beneschan: >A law that requires us to call the director for *every* infraction >would not only drive directors crazy, it would also drive everyone >out of the game who already thinks the game is getting so unfriendly >that it's no fun any more..... Less fun 1997 Law 9B1(a): "The Director _must_ be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." More fun 2007 Law 9B1(a): "The Director _should_ be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." 2007 Introduction: ".....'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized), 'shall' do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), 'must' do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed)....." 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 Tue Dec 15 04:25:46 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:25:46 -0000 Subject: [BLML] funny References: <4B263F07.8010304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5587216A6FD64CF9839F2D3B17C1BDAC@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 1:35 PM Subject: [BLML] funny TD! so soon? no, lead out of turn. Aha, (to the slow passer) what did you lead? no, not her, me (says Dummy) Have you ever had a lead out of turn by dummy? Do you feel confident you would get it right? But how about that lead? +=+ Law 54E +=+ From posundelin at yahoo.se Wed Dec 16 00:56:37 2009 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:56:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? In-Reply-To: <0431DC91450D4756B652315F3F9B240F@mikePC> Message-ID: <757629.21560.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Not vul against vul partner opens 1 heart promising 4+ and denying a strong club. Next hand doubles and you try to muddle the waters by bidding 1NT holding xxx,Txxx,xxx,xxx It goes 4spades, double, pass. Back to you. ? Well, partner broke tempo before doubling. ? It seems clear that your original plan was to return (run) to hearts if you had to. How barred can?you become by partner?s tempo break. ? Question 1 Is this the kind of UI that forbids you to choose among logical alternatives..??You have misled partner about points and heart length. Should that be taken in account? ? Question 2 Over?your 5 hearts the 4spade bidder bid 5 spades (with Jxxxx,-,AKxxx, Jxx)?and went one down, then did not call the TD. But his partner did. 5 hearts was not in itself a winning decision as it would have been doubled and gone for 800. ? Rule, please. ? ? ? ? __________________________________________________________ Ta semester! - s?k efter resor hos Kelkoo. J?mf?r pris p? flygbiljetter och hotellrum h?r: http://www.kelkoo.se/c-169901-resor-biljetter.html?partnerId=96914052 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091215/b1da0ac2/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 16 01:17:41 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:17:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Meretricious and a Happy New Year [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bob Dylan (1941- ): "The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind." Herman De Wael: >>TD! >>so soon? >>no, lead out of turn. >>Aha, (to the slow passer) what did you lead? >>no, not her, me (says Dummy) >> >>Have you ever had a lead out of turn by dummy? >>Do you feel confident you would get it right? >> >>But how about that lead? Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Law 54E +=+ Bob Dylan (1941- ): "The times they are a-changin'." Richard Hills: The problem, of course, was that Herman De Wael was _too experienced_ a Director to get the problem right, failing to realise that his past comfortable environment of comprehensive knowledge of the Laws changed when an unheralded angel slipped the new Law 54E into the 2007 Lawbook. Likewise, blmlers in real (or unreal) life are relying upon their comprehensive knowledge of their past comfortable environment to select Christmas presents for their children and grandchildren, failing to realise that the absolute best Christmas present for their children and grandchildren would be... 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 From the London Sunday Times November 29, 2009 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6931598.ece Global warming is real Bryan Appleyard There are so many good reasons not to believe in global warming: summers lately have been cool and wet; since 1998 global temperatures have actually fallen; dissident scientists say it's not happening; green believers are irritating - they wear Tibetan hats that only look good on Tibetans, and are so often wrong that they're probably wrong about the Big One; large parts of the punditocracy say it's all nonsense, usually that it's a left-wing plot against capitalism; the rainforest is growing back faster than it's being cut down and polar bears are, apparently, doing quite well. Global warming? Yeah, right! But here's the best reason of all not to believe, to sit back and relax. Global warming is just the latest apocalyptic story. There is always someone, somewhere predicting the end of the world. He may be a man with a sandwich board in Oxford Street or an American Christianist who expects the Book of Revelation to happen tomorrow. But he's equally likely to be a scientist warning about asteroid impacts, super-eruptions, molecule-sized robots turning everything into grey goo or, not so long ago, the descent of Earth into a new ice age. Taking all these possibilities into account, Sir Martin Rees, the great cosmologist, says humans only have a 50/50 chance of making it into the next century. Yeah, right! No wonder opinion polls show a majority of the population are sceptical about global warming. Just scanning the papers, the internet or watching TV is enough to convince anyone it's just the usual apocalyptic hype. And, if they want to dig deeper into their own disbelief, there are shelfloads of books to give them a hand. There's Nigel Lawson, ex-chancellor of the exchequer, with An Appeal to Reason. There's Scared to Death by Christopher Booker and Richard North. There's Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg. There was even a very serious documentary on Channel 4 called The Great Global Warming Swindle with some serious-looking science guys pouring cold water on the warming atmosphere. Just a couple of weeks reading and watching and you can be out there, crushing dinner-party eco-warriors with devastating arguments based on cold, hard facts. You will be a stern, hard-headed denialist, your iron jaw set firmly against the tree-hugging, soft-headed warmists in their irritating hats. That was me, once. I thought global warming was all bog-standard, apocalyptic nonsense when it first emerged in the 1980s. People, I knew, like nothing better than an End-of-the-World story to give their lives meaning. I also knew that science is dynamic. Big ideas rise and fall. Once the Earth was the centre of the universe. Then it wasn't. Once Isaac Newton had completed physics. Then he hadn't. Once there was going to be a new ice age. Then there wasn't. Armed with such historic reversals, I poured scorn on under-educated warmists. Scientists with access to the microphone, I pointed out, had got so much so wrong so often. This was yet another case of clever people, who should have known better, running around screaming, "End of the World! End of the World!" and of less-clever people finding reasons to tell everybody else why they were bad. And then I made a terrible mistake. I started questioning my instinct, which was to disbelieve every scare story on principle. I exposed myself to any journalist's worst nightmare - very thoughtful, intelligent people. I talked to some brilliant scientists and thinkers, some mainstream Greens, some truly tough-minded scientists. There was James Lovelock, the man whose Gaia hypothesis sees the world as a single, gigantic organism. There was Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University in New York. There was Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum and former head of the British Antarctic Survey. There was Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics Group at Oxford. There was Sir David King, once chief scientific adviser to the British government. There were many others. There is, I saw, a fine line between the hard-head and the bone-head. The denialist hard-head swaggers his way through life hearing only what he wants to hear, that warmism is either a hoax, a gross error or just another End-of-the-World scare story. But if you suspend your prejudices and your vanity for a moment, everything changes. You find out that the following statements are true beyond argument. The climate is warming. It is almost certain this is caused by emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. Nobody has come up with an alternative explanation that stands up. If the present warming trend continues, nasty things will probably start happening to humans within the next century, possibly the next decade. Something must be done. If nothing is done, then the benign climatic conditions that have sustained human civilisation for 10,000 years are in danger of collapse to be replaced by... well, write your own disaster movie. You will note that there is some wiggle room in these statements. It is "almost certain" that humans are responsible; nasty things will "probably" happen. That is because all science can ever be is the best guess of the best minds. Also, the climate is a complex system, meaning it can behave in ways that are opaque beyond our most sophisticated calculations. But, as I have often been told, those statements are as true as any scientific statements can be, and nobody - I repeat, nobody - has been able to refute this. In short, to deny any of these statements is to put yourself beyond the bounds of rational discourse. Beginning from the beginning. In 1750 there were 800m people in the world. Then came the Industrial Revolution. This required almost pure carbon, coal, oil and gas to be taken from the ground where it had lain for millions of years, burnt and tossed into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Now there are almost 7 billion of us and we toss 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide - 7.3 billion tons of pure carbon - into the atmosphere every year. Since the Industrial Revolution, the total amount tossed is half a trillion tons of pure carbon. It is impossible to say this didn't happen and bone-headed madness to think it will have no effect. We are more or less certain that the effect has been a one-degree-centigrade rise in global temperature. What do the deniers say about this? "The world's temperature rose about half a degree centigrade during the last quarter of the 20th century," writes Nigel Lawson, "but even the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research... has now conceded that recorded temperature figures for the first seven years of the 21st century reveal there has been a standstill." Actually, er, bollocks. In the staff cafe at University College London, Chris Rapley draws me a graph showing temperature fluctuations over the past million years. He draws an even rising-and-falling line. Then he corrects himself and the even line becomes a jagged landscape of peaks and troughs. But the trend line remains clear. So yes, if you start in 1998 - a very hot year thanks to an intense El Ni?o event in the South Pacific - and draw a line to a cool year, 2007, you get a falling line. Nevertheless, the average temperature for this decade is higher than the previous one. The trend is intact. Anyway, back to basics. Half a trillion tons of carbon came as a shock to planet Earth. Antarctic ice cores reveal that for about 1m years, atmospheric carbon fluctuated between ice-age levels of 180 parts per million (ppm) and warm levels of 280ppm. We don't know why this narrow fluctuation was so stable. It just was. Carbon levels are now at 387ppm and rising rapidly. The best we can hope for, if radical low-emission targets are accepted by world governments NOW, is to stabilise the figure at 450ppm. That will mean a further one-degree temperature rise. This could be nasty - more hurricanes, rising sea levels, spreading deserts, loss of arable land - but maybe manageably so. At this point, deniers often talk about the medieval warm period. From about 800AD to 1300AD, temperatures rose by, at one point, more than they are rising now. Fair enough, except this wasn't a global phenomenon, it was purely European. The Earth as a whole cooled. Having lost that one, the next denialist move is the Sunspot Gambit, much in evidence in that Channel 4 documentary. Mention that show to Rapley and he loses his amiable manner. "I was scandalised. I shall never, ever, forgive Channel 4 and if I ever find a way of preventing them having public funds then I shall exercise it." The idea behind the Sunspot Gambit is that global temperature trends are dependent on solar activity. Well, it's true, they are, a bit. But the idea that large-scale trends are caused by "solar forcing" is wrong. The good thing about being a Spottist is you can be right for 11 years at a time. That's the length of the sunspot cycle, so you can construct a theory based on one cycle and be sure that it will not be knocked down by the next for 11 years. Back to reality. Myles Allen at Oxford has a vivid way of simplifying the scale of the task involved in preventing carbon levels rising above 450ppm. The modern world has been built on half a trillion tons of carbon. At present rates of increase we will burn the next half trillion tons in 40 years. The best guess is that that will result in a one-degree rise. There are, perhaps, four to five trillion tons of burnable carbon still in the Earth. But the maximum we can burn is half a trillion tons. In Copenhagen, therefore, the talks should be about allocating that half trillion as if it were a gigantic carbon cake. To make this work and ensure we don't burn more than that, Allen goes for a radical option. "It will only work," he says, "in the context of a plan to get emissions down to zero by the end of the century. So I think we need what none of the politicians seems prepared to acknowledge. A rationing system for putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is only a temporary measure; eventually the whole practice has to be banned." This should give you vertigo. You are peering into a carbon-free abyss. If we stopped burning carbon now, you and I, as Rapley points out, would starve to death in a week. Burnt carbon is our money, our lifestyle, our sense of who we are. The revolution is just too big to contemplate. Enter Bjorn Lomborg. Lomborg is not a denier, but he is a denialist hero, because he gave them their one really strong argument for doing nothing or next to nothing. Global warming is happening, he says, and it's a problem, but it's not a BIG problem and certainly not so big that we have to ditch our way of life. The reason this is a strong argument is that it doesn't make the mistake of denying the science - futile, as Lomborg knows and as I hope you do by now - it just says that the outcome may not be that bad. Scientists can't say he's wrong because the future of a complex system - climate combined with human civilisation - is inherently unpredictable. It's all a question of probability and risk. Rapley once put it to me this way. You are putting your daughter on a plane. The pilot tells you there is a 1-in-100 chance it will crash. You, if you have any sense, take your daughter off the plane. Why? Because the potential loss is so great that 1 in 100 is unacceptable. So it is with global warming - except the down side probability is a good deal higher than 1 in 100. The economist and academic Lord Stern, appointed by the government in 2005 to investigate the economics of climate change, tried to put exact figures on this. His 2006 report has become the standard document justifying action on global warming, which Stern calls the greatest market failure in history. Personally, I think the Stern report may turn out to have been a disaster. This is because Stern is an economist and economists obfuscate matters. He recommended allocating 1% of the world economy to fighting climate change and to prevent what he said would be a 20% drop in the world economy due to warming. Stern's figures were based on a financial assessment of the impact of global warming on future generations. The trouble with this is that it's a very difficult and controversial calculation and one which economists love to argue and get upset about. Many queued up to trash Stern's assumptions. This provided the denialists with a glut of ammunition and further confused the poor punters. Put it like this. Here are these scientists telling you probably your children and almost certainly your grandchildren are going to lead screwed-up lives thanks to our carbon emissions, and here are these economists arguing about the monetary value of their screwed-upness. Case closed. Far stronger than all this are simple, empirical observations. Rapley points out that sea temperatures are rising exactly as predicted by the climate models. Climate change, more than over-fishing, has been found to be behind the fall in North Sea fish stocks. Arctic ice is melting faster than expected. And here's one fact that should give the most hardened bone-head pause: Arctic shipping lanes are to be re-opened. Summer sea ice in 2007 was 40% down on the average, and shipping companies are planning much faster routes between Europe and Asia using the Arctic Ocean. These guys are not exactly tree-huggers. And yet many denialists still insist on saying there's no problem with the Arctic melt. One big general denialist argument is about climate models. These are fabulously complicated computer programmes that attempt to model the Earth's atmosphere. The number-crunching is so vast that Myles Allen has contracted it out to you and me. He began Climateprediction.net, which uses downtime on people's home computers to run climate simulations. Try it. You should. The idea is to cut the uncertainties in the models. And there are, no question, huge uncertainties. All complex systems are uncertain. But, for two closely related reasons, the denialists are wrong to claim this as an argument in their favour. First, empirical evidence either shows the models are right or, especially in the case of Arctic ice, that they are understating the problem. Lovelock, in particular, says this understatement has given us a model-based false sense of security. The disaster is coming much sooner than we thought. Secondly, the very inadequacy of the models is a reason for even greater caution. The big picture the models show is simple - carbon is rising and temperatures are rising. This is known as a linear system. It's like a multiplication table: 2 x 2 = 4, 2 x 3 = 6 and so on. So add half a trillion tons of carbon to the atmosphere and the temperature rises by one degree. Technically, the output bears a fixed relation to the input. But we know the atmosphere is subject to non-linearity. You may get the same result over and over again until, one day, you don't. Suddenly 2 x 2 = 5. Then the output-input relationship varies wildly. This can happen in any complex system. Imagine a pile of sand. You keep dropping extra grains on top. You might drop a million grains and nothing happens. Then you drop a million and one and it collapses. If you push any such system hard enough, it will slip into non-linearity. At which point steal tents, canned food and assault weapons. In other words, pushing another half trillion tons of carbon into the atmosphere should raise temperatures by a degree or so, but it might raise them by much more. Or it could start climate flickering in which climate changes repeatedly from one state to another every few years. It's happened in the past. Either way, you can kiss your way of life goodbye. The reality of non-linearity and complex systems is actually the most basic and irrefutable argument for cutting emissions. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of The Black Swan, put it to me, it doesn't matter about the exact rights or wrongs of the science, it doesn't matter whether you think warming is caused by human activity. What matters is the general principle that you do not disturb complex systems. Half a trillion tons is a disturbance and Nassim is a real Green. In the end, it comes down to August 14, 1959. That was when the US satellite Explorer 6 sent back the first picture of Earth from space. The enormity of this moment, however, did not sink in. Many people still think the first picture came almost a decade later, in December 1968, when Apollo 8 sent back its beautiful "Earthrise" photograph. Either way, it was a moment when something we knew in our heads became thrillingly, terrifyingly real in our hearts. The pictures showed a small planet lost in darkness. A thin film of life interacting with a narrow band of atmosphere produced the astonishing, swirling pattern of clouds, the dark seas and the darker continents. We have, in spite of our vanities and intergalactic dreams, nothing and nowhere else. If we don't look after it, who will? Go to that dinner party, wear a Tibetan hat if you must, and look for the iron-jawed bone-head. There's usually at least one, and it's usually a man. Look him in the eye, smile and ask him one question: "Who on Earth do you think you are?" He'll get it on the sixth attempt. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 16 01:32:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:32:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <757629.21560.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: William Churchill, House of Commons speech 22nd February 1906: "It cannot in the opinion of His Majesty's Government be classified as slavery in the extreme acceptance of the word without some risk of terminological inexactitude." P.O. Sundelin: [big snip] >Rule, please. Richard Hills: No, incomplete information. At imps the difference between -790 and -800 is trivial, while a phantom save may cost the match. At matchpoints the difference between -790 and -800 may be non-trivial, while a phantom save is merely a bottom. 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 jrhind at therock.bm Wed Dec 16 01:36:22 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:36:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? In-Reply-To: <757629.21560.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi PO, This one is somewhat like asking if one wants to be 1. Shot or 2. Boiled in oil? Question 1: IMHO I do not think the break in tempo bars you since you will probably not want to stand 4S* anyway. Whether 5H will fare much better is another issue but I would permit your hand to bid again. In my view, your hand is not using UI. Question 2: I would allow the table result to stand. Happy holidays to all, Jack Rhind Bermuda On 12/15/09 7:56 PM, "PO Sundelin" wrote: >> Not vul against vul partner opens 1 heart promising 4+ and denying a strong >> club. >> Next hand doubles and you try to muddle the waters by bidding 1NT holding >> xxx,Txxx,xxx,xxx >> It goes 4spades, double, pass. Back to you. >> >> Well, partner broke tempo before doubling. >> >> It seems clear that your original plan was to return (run) to hearts if you >> had to. How barred can you become by partner?s tempo break. >> >> Question 1 >> Is this the kind of UI that forbids you to choose among logical >> alternatives..? You have misled partner about points and heart length. Should >> that be taken in account? >> >> Question 2 >> Over your 5 hearts the 4spade bidder bid 5 spades (with Jxxxx,-,AKxxx, Jxx) >> and went one down, then did not call the TD. But his partner did. >> 5 hearts was not in itself a winning decision as it would have been doubled >> and gone for 800. >> >> Rule, please. >> >> >> >> > > > > G?r det l?ngsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling. > S?k och j?mf?r priser hos Kelkoo. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20091216/fe2b235c/attachment.html From posundelin at yahoo.se Wed Dec 16 02:46:08 2009 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:46:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <191007.87540.qm@web23707.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I am sure the players will be impressed and take to their hearts for the future Mr Churchill?s eloquence. In the meantime they are probably still eager to learn what you rule. Would you (bother to) ask around among peers what action they would take over a double? ? You seem to hold the view that it matters if it is teams or matchpoints. Not that I can see any principal difference but?it was teams. Rgds PO --- Den ons 2009-12-16 skrev richard.hills at immi.gov.au : Fr?n: richard.hills at immi.gov.au ?mne: Re: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Till: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Datum: onsdag 16 december 2009 01.32 William Churchill, House of Commons speech 22nd February 1906: "It cannot in the opinion of His Majesty's Government be classified as slavery in the extreme acceptance of the word without some risk of terminological inexactitude." P.O. Sundelin: [big snip] >Rule, please. Richard Hills: No, incomplete information.? At imps the difference between -790 and -800 is trivial, while a phantom save may cost the match.? At matchpoints the difference between -790 and -800 may be non-trivial, while a phantom save is merely a bottom. 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 __________________________________________________________ G?r det l?ngsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling. S?k och j?mf?r priser hos Kelkoo. http://www.kelkoo.se/c-100015813-bredband.html?partnerId=96914325 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091216/8093c7bc/attachment.html From posundelin at yahoo.se Wed Dec 16 03:35:07 2009 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:35:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] funny In-Reply-To: <4B263F07.8010304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <427116.96568.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Perhaps it would be more practical to accept that the bidding has ended after the three passes, and consider dummy?s card as the first of the thirteen that he is supposed to place on the table anyway. What if his aim actually?was to put dummy down and he does it card by card (as some people do) (and sometimes do before the lead has been made)? The only side that might be disadvantaged is his own. Who has bothered to paragraphise? (-ize?) this? PO --- Den m?n 2009-12-14 skrev Herman De Wael : Fr?n: Herman De Wael ?mne: [BLML] funny Till: "blml" Datum: m?ndag 14 december 2009 14.35 Yesterday, final of the selections for the Belgian team. But as usual, one has more fun with the tournament next door. Gl?hwein tournament, and it showed. TD! yes? I want to make reservations, the bidding went: ??? 1Cl - 1NT - 2Cl - ...pass ??? pass - dble - all pass OK, I've noted this, please call me back if you feel damaged (TD leaves table, but is called back immediately) TD! so soon? no, lead out of turn. Aha, (to the slow passer) what did you lead? no, not her, me (says Dummy) Have you ever had a lead out of turn by dummy? Do you feel confident you would get it right? To be fair, I did not! BTW, doubler held 16 points, 3-3-3-4? with AQxx in clubs and no reason whatsoever to double, let alone that passing was a LA. A severe lecture (and the changing of +300 to +100) was to follow. But how about that lead? Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________________________________________________________ Ta semester! - s?k efter resor hos Kelkoo. J?mf?r pris p? flygbiljetter och hotellrum h?r: http://www.kelkoo.se/c-169901-resor-biljetter.html?partnerId=96914052 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091216/62f5d97b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 16 04:05:43 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:05:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <191007.87540.qm@web23707.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Douglas Hofstadter, "Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid": Tortoise: But we must be careful in combining sentences. For instance, you'd grant that "Politicians lie" is true, wouldn't you? Achilles: Who could deny it? Tortoise: Good. Likewise, "Cast-iron sinks" is a valid utterance, isn't it? Achilles: Indubitably. Tortoise: Then, putting them together, we get "Politicians lie in cast-iron sinks". Now that's not the case, is it? P.O. Sundelin: >...In the meantime they are probably still eager to learn what you >rule. Would you (bother to) ask around among peers what action they >would take over a double? Law 16B1(b): "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question ... would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." Richard Hills: So it is not relevant what I or my peers would do, and it is not relevant what P.O. _himself_ would always do. What is relevant is what some of P.O.'s _peers_ (i.e. world-class players) would do. Law 16B1(b): "...and using the methods of the partnership..." P.O. Sundelin: >>Not vul against vul partner opens 1 heart promising 4+ and denying >>a strong club... Richard Hills: Since pard's 1H opening denies the extra values that an Acol-yte's or SAYCer's 1H opening might hold, at matchpoint pairs I would vote for removing pard's penalty double of 4S to 5H as being the only logical alternative. P.O. Sundelin: >You seem to hold the view that it matters if it is teams or >matchpoints. Not that I can see any principal difference but it was >teams. >Rgds >PO Richard Hills: If team-mates in the other room are +620, then -790 costs but 5 imps. If team-mates in the other room are +620, then -1100 costs 10 imps, for a net opportunity cost of 5 imps; and a big morale cost also. And if pard luckily has four defensive tricks, due to two finesses failing in 4Sx, so that team-mates are -100 in the other room, instead of gaining 3 imps for the solitary doubled undertrick we will be losing 9 or more imps (depending upon the cost of the phantom save), for a net opportunity cost of 12 or more imps; and an even bigger morale cost. Ergo, my definitely not world-class assessment is that Pass of 4Sx is a logical alternative at imps for a world-class player. On the other hand, Mrs Guggenheim would never play imps, and Mrs Guggenheim would never psyche, but if Mrs Guggenheim did so a Pass of 4Sx would never be a logical alternative for Mrs Guggenheim (but Mrs Guggenheim would, paradoxically, never take a cheap save versus 4S _undoubled_). Note that a ruling under Law 40C1 may also be appropriate. The nature of P.O.'s bidding system (strong club) means that it was safer for him to "deviate from his side's announced understandings" than for SAYCers or Acol-ytes. If (and only if) P.O.'s partner had "more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents", then (and only then) P.O. and partner had a pre-existing undisclosed mutual implicit partnership understanding. 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 larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Dec 16 04:06:25 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:06:25 -0000 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? References: <757629.21560.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002c01ca7dfc$c2dcc7c0$2401a8c0@p41600> Pas de probleme pour moi, result stands. ********************** Some areas of Mexico have started planting vines, mainly Pinot Gringo. ********************* Not vul against vul partner opens 1 heart promising 4+ and denying a strong club. Next hand doubles and you try to muddle the waters by bidding 1NT holding xxx,Txxx,xxx,xxx It goes 4spades, double, pass. Back to you. Well, partner broke tempo before doubling. It seems clear that your original plan was to return (run) to hearts if you had to. How barred can you become by partner?s tempo break. Question 1 Is this the kind of UI that forbids you to choose among logical alternatives..? You have misled partner about points and heart length. Should that be taken in account? Question 2 Over your 5 hearts the 4spade bidder bid 5 spades (with Jxxxx,-,AKxxx, Jxx) and went one down, then did not call the TD. But his partner did. 5 hearts was not in itself a winning decision as it would have been doubled and gone for 800. Rule, please. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ G?r det l?ngsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling. S?k och j?mf?r priser hos Kelkoo. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20091216/fd1f2032/attachment-0001.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 16 09:56:35 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:56:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B28A0C3.40609@skynet.be> I hate to bother you, Richard, but ... richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Note that a ruling under Law 40C1 may also be appropriate. The > nature of P.O.'s bidding system (strong club) means that it was safer > for him to "deviate from his side's announced understandings" than > for SAYCers or Acol-ytes. If (and only if) P.O.'s partner had "more > reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents", then > (and only then) P.O. and partner had a pre-existing undisclosed > mutual implicit partnership understanding. > Quite true, Richard, but then what do you do? If you rule that PO's partner has more awareness than others that PO might have psyched, you also rule that opponents have not received that information. But do you then rule that they have been damaged by that misinformation? How can the information "PO is a player who might psyche" alter your assessment of bidding 4Sp? I grant you that it might alter their assesment of bidding 5Sp after 5He. But do you think they have been misinformed there? My p?int is, it's all well and good to accuse PO of having "a pre-existing undisclosed mutual implicit partnership understanding", but what are you going to do about it? Rule misinformation (and probably no damage) or throw PO out of bridge for ever after? Herman. From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 16 10:32:57 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:32:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] funny In-Reply-To: <427116.96568.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <4B263F07.8010304@skynet.be> <427116.96568.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001c01ca7e32$c0adf150$4209d3f0$@no> Law 54E is important in the following situation: - Presumed dummy (or declarer) ?leads? to the first trick. - A presumed defender has some questions on the just completed auction. - Misinformation from the presumed declaring side is revealed. - The presumed defender that last passed changes this call under law 21B1a and the auction is continued. - During this continued auction the originally presumed declarer or dummy (as the case may be) must pass. - If as a result of this continued auction the originally presumed declaring side becomes the defending side the card originally "lead" to the first trick becomes a major penalty card. All this was a logical consequence also with the previous laws although it needed some careful considerations to be figured out. Now it is explicitly spelled out in the laws. Presumed declaring side cannot by committing an irregularity prevent their opponents from asking questions and have possible misinformation revealed during the clarification period. Regards Sven From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of PO Sundelin Sent: 16. desember 2009 03:35 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] funny Perhaps it would be more practical to accept that the bidding has ended after the three passes, and consider dummy?s card as the first of the thirteen that he is supposed to place on the table anyway. What if his aim actually?was to put dummy down and he does it card by card (as some people do) (and sometimes do before the lead has been made)? The only side that might be disadvantaged is his own. Who has bothered to paragraphise? (-ize?) this? PO From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 16 09:17:38 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:17:38 -0000 Subject: [BLML] funny References: <427116.96568.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott <002c01ca7dfc$c2dcc7c0$2401a8c0@p41600> Message-ID: <940CC26494A24327A391F1E0B5F08722@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <427116.96568.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B28C51A.9060900@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "We'll have a board of directors and we'll > have board meetings - and we'll do what > I want." ~ Barry Hearn. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: PO Sundelin > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 2:35 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] funny > > > Perhaps it would be more practical to accept that the bidding > has ended after the three passes, and consider dummy?s card > as the first of the thirteen that he is supposed to place on the > table anyway. > > A related problem is determining the status of a card named rather than led ; say West, on lead, but fumbling with his milk and sugar, says "I'm leading the 3 of Hearts". According to TFLB, that card has been played ; hoverver, it's obviously not faced, so the play hasn't begun yet. This is a strange combination. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Wed Dec 16 12:35:12 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:35:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? Message-ID: <24685626.1260963312154.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> PO Sundelin wrote: > Not vul against vul partner opens 1 heart promising 4+ and denying a strong > club. > Next hand doubles and you try to muddle the waters by bidding 1NT holding > xxx,Txxx,xxx,xxx > It goes 4spades, double, pass. Back to you. > ? > Well, partner broke tempo before doubling. > ? > It seems clear that your original plan was to return (run) to hearts if you > had to. How barred can?you become by partner?s tempo break. You are not "barred" because of partner's tempo break. For example, if partner shows his S AKQJ before doubling, then you might have to bid 5H. You shouldbend over backwards to avoid using the UI. ? > Question 1 > Is this the kind of UI that forbids you to choose among logical > alternatives..??You have misled partner about points and heart length. > Should that be taken in account? You have both UI and AI. The fact that you psyched 1NT is AI. The fact that you hold three small spades and thus partner likely has a singleton, and at most a doubleton spade is AI. The fact that you have four hearts which is negative defense for any H tricks partner might have is AI. The fact that partner's 1H opener is limited is AI. Without the hesitation, given the AI you have, I would deem 4S a heavy favorite to make despite partner's double. The hesitation makes it slightly more likely that 4SX will make. However, that does not imply that the UI "demonstrably" suggests bidding 5H over passing 4SX. Without the hesitation, I would expect 4S double to cost -790, maybe -990 and 5HX to cost -800, maybe -500, maybe -1100. They might even redouble 4S. If I bid 5H, they might bid 5S, or forget to double 5H. At IMPs, I would consider passing 4S, but would bid 5H. I think that passing 4S is an LA at IMPs, but that in this hand the little bit of extra the UI provides over the existing AI is not sufficient to rule that the UI "demonstrably" suggests bidding 5H over passing 4SX. The UI does not indicate whether 5HX goes for -500 or less. Nor does it indicate whether opponents will let you off the hook if you run to 5H. Thomas Es weihnachtet sehr! Vom leckerem Backrezept bis zum leckeren Schneehasen finden Sie alles im Weihnachtsspecial von Arcor.de: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.weihnachten Feliz Navidad, God Yul, Merry X-Mas und ein frohes Fest! From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 16 13:03:54 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:03:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] funny In-Reply-To: <4B28C51A.9060900@ulb.ac.be> References: <427116.96568.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4B28C51A.9060900@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002101ca7e47$d75f1130$861d3390$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > A related problem is determining the status of a card named rather than led ; say > West, on lead, but fumbling with his milk and sugar, says "I'm leading the 3 of > Hearts". > According to TFLB, that card has been played ; hoverver, it's obviously not faced, > so the play hasn't begun yet. > This is a strange combination. No, that card has not (yet) been played (led), it has been exposed (during the auction period). It must initially be faced, and eventually it will be disposed of according to Laws 24, 50 or 45C4a as the case may be. Regards Sven From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Wed Dec 16 18:58:10 2009 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:58:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied Message-ID: <4CB93DDE343048B09CED318E9581A52B@Hassedator> I am sorry that P O Sundelin has not told you the truth. 1. Opener did not deny a strong holding. They do not play strong club, so opener could up to 21 points. 2. Opener has promised 5+ hearts. 3. The 5 spader bidder has Q J 10 7 6 - void - A K 6 4 2 - J 8 6. 4. The psycher has 9 5 2 - 10 7 6 5 - 10 3 - 7 5 4 2. The director accepted the 5 heart bid but the Law?s Commission did not. Is it so bad that pass on 4 spades doubled is an alternative? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091216/0bca9eb2/attachment.html From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Wed Dec 16 19:23:00 2009 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:23:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] can a trump be a minor penalty card? Message-ID: <1260987780.24149.1350440249@webmail.messagingengine.com> Can a trump ever be a minor penalty card in ACBL-land? A club member and director who is usually knowledgeable says a trump can never be a minor penalty card. I cannot confirm his view from TFLB, nor from WBFLC or ACBLLC minutes since the current Laws took effect. Am I missing something, or is my colleague misunderstanding something? I received a good answer to this on r.g.b., but it was from someone in another national organization, and I hope to have something I can wield more convincingly in regard to ACBL-land. David Babcock (USA) From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 16 21:39:51 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:39:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] can a trump be a minor penalty card? In-Reply-To: <1260987780.24149.1350440249@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1260987780.24149.1350440249@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000f01ca7e8f$eacd0bd0$c0672370$@no> On Behalf Of David Babcock > Can a trump ever be a minor penalty card in ACBL-land? A club member and > director who is usually knowledgeable says a trump can never be a minor penalty > card. I cannot confirm his view from TFLB, nor from WBFLC or ACBLLC minutes > since the current Laws took effect. Am I missing something, or is my colleague > misunderstanding something? > > I received a good answer to this on r.g.b., but it was from someone in another > national organization, and I hope to have something I can wield more convincingly > in regard to ACBL-land. Major or minor penalty card is a matter of law, not of regulation, so there is no way ACBL may have rules different from the rest of the world on this issue. We have Law 50: B. Major or Minor Penalty Card? A single card below the rank of an honour exposed unintentionally (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honour rank, or any card exposed through deliberate play (for example in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card; when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards. As you can see there is nothing here to distinguish the trump suit from any other suit so if ACBL has any such distinction for penalty cards they are just wrong. Regards Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Dec 16 21:37:17 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:37:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?can_a_trump_be_a_minor_penalty_card=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1260987780.24149.1350440249@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1260987780.24149.1350440249@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1NL0cX-1OCYYy0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Although I'm another man from another national organization and although I've heard that the ACBL does not always bother about what the WBF promulgated as the world-wide-laws, I'm quite sure, that even the ACBL version of Law 50 B reads: "A single card below the rank of an honour exposed unintentionally (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honour rank, or any card exposed through deliberate play (for example in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card; when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards." There is not a single mention of "trump" in this definition, so your usually knowledgeable club member and director is simply wrong with his / her statement. Peter Eidt (Germany) > Can a trump ever be a minor penalty card in ACBL-land? ?A club member > and director who is usually knowledgeable says a trump can never be a > minor penalty card. ?I cannot confirm his view from TFLB, nor from > WBFLC or ACBLLC minutes since the current Laws took effect. ?Am I > missing something, or is my colleague misunderstanding something? > > I received a good answer to this on r.g.b., but it was from someone in > another national organization, and I hope to have something I can > wield more convincingly in regard to ACBL-land. > > David Babcock (USA) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Dec 16 21:46:27 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (pop-server.san.rr.com) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:46:27 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 Interpretation Message-ID: <3DCA1A542C0145968A26F7B0250DCE7B@MARVLAPTOP> L16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later. Does this mean that the RA may require that the Director be called in lieu of an announcement, or that the Director be called with or without an accompanying announcement? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From jrhind at therock.bm Wed Dec 16 22:04:17 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:04:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <3DCA1A542C0145968A26F7B0250DCE7B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: I think that you are right, that the RA MAY require .... It is my experience and understanding that most regulating bodies are moving towards the recommendation that players summon the director immediately. I see that is a good thing as it permits the director to find out what transpired at the table, but more importantly, speak to each of the non-offending side away from the table to find out if they would have done anything differently had they been given the correct information. If this can be done before play if the hand I think you get a better insight into what people would or would not do. As we all know, after the hand has been played everyone knows what they would have done. Prior to play if the non-offending side each says that they would not have bid differently you get a better idea of what actually happened. E.g. Once they see that they can make 4 spades over 4 heart then they all want to get to bid it. Jack Rhind Bermuda On 12/16/09 4:46 PM, "pop-server.san.rr.com" wrote: > L16B2: > > When a player considers that an opponent has made such information > available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless > prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the > Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the > Director later. > > Does this mean that the RA may require that the Director be called > in lieu of an announcement, or that the Director be called with or > without an accompanying announcement? > > 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 jrhind at therock.bm Wed Dec 16 22:07:39 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:07:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] can a trump be a minor penalty card? In-Reply-To: <1260987780.24149.1350440249@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: I read Law 50 as saying that as long as the card below the rank of an honour and was played accidentally that it is a minor penalty card regardless of whether it is a trump or not. Jack On 12/16/09 2:23 PM, "David Babcock" wrote: > Can a trump ever be a minor penalty card in ACBL-land? A club member > and director who is usually knowledgeable says a trump can never be a > minor penalty card. I cannot confirm his view from TFLB, nor from WBFLC > or ACBLLC minutes since the current Laws took effect. Am I missing > something, or is my colleague misunderstanding something? > > I received a good answer to this on r.g.b., but it was from someone in > another national organization, and I hope to have something I can wield > more convincingly in regard to ACBL-land. > > David Babcock (USA) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 16 22:28:11 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:28:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] can a trump be a minor penalty card? In-Reply-To: <1260987780.24149.1350440249@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1260987780.24149.1350440249@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On Dec 16, 2009, at 1:23 PM, David Babcock wrote: > Can a trump ever be a minor penalty card in ACBL-land? Sure; why not? Whether a penalty card is major or minor is controlled by L50B, which does not mention trumps, nor contain anything to suggest distinguishing them. > A club member > and director who is usually knowledgeable says a trump can never be a > minor penalty card. I cannot confirm his view from TFLB, nor from > WBFLC > or ACBLLC minutes since the current Laws took effect. If you have the lawbook in a searchable version, you can determine that it contains no reference to "trump" in any relevant law, save in L50D1(a), which applies "whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping". > Am I missing > something, or is my colleague misunderstanding something? > > I received a good answer to this on r.g.b., but it was from someone in > another national organization, and I hope to have something I can > wield > more convincingly in regard to ACBL-land. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 16 22:37:40 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:37:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >My point is, it's all well and good to accuse PO of having "a pre- >existing undisclosed mutual implicit partnership understanding", Richard Hills: The word "accuse" is not le mot juste. P.O. Sundelin is well known for his meticulous full disclosure; at an international tournament in the previous millennium P.O. Sundelin carefully submitted, in advance, a computer disc containing his complete system file. So any failure by P.O. to disclose an implicit understanding would be a simple error of judgement; P.O. not realising that his attempted psyche had accidentally crossed the wall and was now an implicit understanding pseudo-psyche. Herman De Wael: >but what are you going to do about it? Rule misinformation (and >probably no damage) or throw PO out of bridge for ever after? Richard Hills: The word "or" is not le mot juste. Whether an infraction causes damage has zero linkage to whether a Law 90 procedural penalty or Law 91 disciplinary penalty is appropriate. Law 90 and Law 91 would not be appropriate to apply to P.O., since any Law 40C1 infraction by P.O. would be an unintentional one-off. But if the diametrical ethical opposite of P.O. Sundelin, Victor Mollo's Charlie the Chimp, happened to yet again "carelessly" fail to obey Law 40C1, it would not matter whether or not the Chimp's latest failure to disclose damaged the Chimp's opponents; the Director could and should then apply Law 40C3(b): "Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized." 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 ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 16 22:38:21 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:38:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <3DCA1A542C0145968A26F7B0250DCE7B@MARVLAPTOP> References: <3DCA1A542C0145968A26F7B0250DCE7B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Dec 16, 2009, at 3:46 PM, pop-server.san.rr.com wrote: > L16B2: > > When a player considers that an opponent has made such information > available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless > prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the > Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the > Director later. > > Does this mean that the RA may require that the Director be called > in lieu of an announcement, or that the Director be called with or > without an accompanying announcement? Either. Based on the words of the law, the announcement may be "prohibited by the RA", and, separately, the RA "may require that the Director be called". Marv's alternatives are for the RA to do both, or only the latter, respectively. The first of these, IMO, makes more sense, and is likely to be what the lawmakers intended, or at least expected. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Dec 16 22:53:09 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (pop-server.san.rr.com) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:53:09 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 Interpretation References: Message-ID: <6C684A2096E543519EC7616DE889A0F6@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Jack Rhind" > > It is my experience and understanding that most regulating bodies > are moving > towards the recommendation that players summon the director > immediately. Which regulating bodies? ACBL Laws Commission minutes, spring 2008, in which permitted "Exceptions" to the Laws were discussed: L16B2 - No election, so no requirement that the Director be called at the time of UI creation. But you use the word "recommendation." As the law stands, calling the TD for what is not an infraction is improper procedure, and UI is not an infraction ("Bridge is a thinking game"). Note that the footnote to L16B3 ("It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier of later") applies only when a player has "substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action suggested by such information." The only "earlier" way to get such evidence prior to the end of play is from sight of dummy or from cards played by declarer. Mere sucpicion is not "substantial reason." > Prior to play if the non-offending side each says that they would > not have > bid differently you get a better idea of what actually happened. > E.g. Once > they see that they can make 4 spades over 4 heart then they all > want to get > to bid it. While fact-finding about the UI may be appropriate (if it is denied and the deniers call the TD), any other questioning prior to play has no sanction in Law 16B2/3. Score adjustments are based on what peers would do, not what players at the table would do. What they say is irrelevant unless good evidence (e.g., system notes, convention card) provides corroboration. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Dec 16 23:16:30 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (pop-server.san.rr.com) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:16:30 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 Interpretation References: <3DCA1A542C0145968A26F7B0250DCE7B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <94F4C80404344CB18272E1FCBE6E082E@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > On Dec 16, 2009, at 3:46 PM, pop-server.san.rr.com wrote: > >> L16B2: >> >> When a player considers that an opponent has made such >> information >> available and that damage could well result, he may announce, >> unless >> prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that >> the >> Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the >> Director later. >> >> Does this mean that the RA may require that the Director be >> called >> in lieu of an announcement, or that the Director be called with >> or >> without an accompanying announcement? > > Either. Based on the words of the law, the announcement may be > "prohibited by the RA", and, separately, the RA "may require that > the > Director be called". Marv's alternatives are for the RA to do > both, > or only the latter, respectively. The first of these, IMO, makes > more sense, and is likely to be what the lawmakers intended, or at > least expected. Probably right. If the lawmakers intended one but not both, they could have written "(which may require that the Director be called instead)". A simpler election would have been a sentence at the end of L16B2 saying that the RA can require a TD call by the other side if the UI is denied. The existing "election" seems to say that the RA can require a TD call whether or not the UI is denied. I doubt that any RA would require a TD call if there is agreement on the UI, even though the ACBL did so in the 2007 Laws (which was properly ignored by players and TDs).. The existing election permits an RA to require a TD call for no reason other than the existence of UI. Since UI is not an infraction, that is wrong. The only legitimate purpose for requiring a TD call by the aggrieved side is to provide a mediator for fact-finding when UI is denied. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 17 00:11:09 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:11:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 Interpretation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jack Rhind: >...It is my experience and understanding that most regulating bodies >are moving towards the recommendation that players summon the director >immediately... Richard Hills: Most regulating bodies = the ACBL ??? :-) Australia and New Zealand have issued this official recommendation: "The preferred procedure is to summon the Director at the end of the hand but only if it becomes apparent that an opponent may have acted upon extraneous information made available by his partner. The Director need only be called if the non-offenders believe they may have been damaged." Jack Rhind: >...more importantly, speak to each of the non-offending side away >from the table to find out if they would have done anything >differently had they been given the correct information... Richard Hills: Que? Law 16B2 is about confirming that UI has been created (not in itself an infraction). Law 16B2 is not about an entirely different Law 40 MI infraction. Plus non-ACBL authorities deprecate speaking to the non-offending players away from the table during the bidding or play of the deal (perhaps because non-ACBL Directors are better trained by their Regulating Authorities in assessing the facts at the end of the play of the deal). 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 Dec 17 02:26:50 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:26:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F4 (was 16B2) interpretation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karl Marx (1818-1883): "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." Groucho Marx (1890-1977): "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." Jack Rhind: >...It is my experience and understanding that most regulating bodies >are moving towards the recommendation that players summon the director >immediately... 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." Jack Rhind: >...more importantly, speak to each of the non-offending side away >from the table to find out if they would have done anything >differently had they been given the correct information... WBF LC minutes, 8th September 2009, item 12: The committee returned to the subject of the status of information arising when a misexplanation is corrected. There was lengthy discussion following which it was determined: (a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call "could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player". Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3. (b) that when under Law 20F4 an explanation is corrected before the auction has closed the Director is pointed to Law 21B. This law does not indicate how the Director should then proceed* but it was agreed that the player may use both the misexplanation and the correct information. [*Secretary's note: in these circumstances a 1998 minute indicates that the Regulating Authority may give guidance.] 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 jrhind at therock.bm Thu Dec 17 02:31:21 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:31:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 Interpretation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You are quite right Richard. I stand corrected. Jack On 12/16/09 7:11 PM, "richard.hills at immi.gov.au" wrote: > Jack Rhind: > >> ...It is my experience and understanding that most regulating bodies >> are moving towards the recommendation that players summon the director >> immediately... > > Richard Hills: > > Most regulating bodies = the ACBL ??? :-) > > Australia and New Zealand have issued this official recommendation: > > "The preferred procedure is to summon the Director at the end of the > hand but only if it becomes apparent that an opponent may have acted > upon extraneous information made available by his partner. The > Director need only be called if the non-offenders believe they may > have been damaged." > > Jack Rhind: > >> ...more importantly, speak to each of the non-offending side away >> from the table to find out if they would have done anything >> differently had they been given the correct information... > > Richard Hills: > > Que? > > Law 16B2 is about confirming that UI has been created (not in itself > an infraction). Law 16B2 is not about an entirely different Law 40 > MI infraction. Plus non-ACBL authorities deprecate speaking to the > non-offending players away from the table during the bidding or play > of the deal (perhaps because non-ACBL Directors are better trained by > their Regulating Authorities in assessing the facts at the end of the > play of the deal). > > > 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Dec 17 02:36:03 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (pop-server.san.rr.com) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:36:03 -0800 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > >>My point is, it's all well and good to accuse PO of having "a pre- >>existing undisclosed mutual implicit partnership understanding", > > Richard Hills: > > The word "accuse" is not le mot juste. > > P.O. Sundelin is well known for his meticulous full disclosure; at > an international tournament in the previous millennium P.O. > Sundelin > carefully submitted, in advance, a computer disc containing his > complete system file. > > So any failure by P.O. to disclose an implicit understanding would > be a simple error of judgement; P.O. not realising that his > attempted psyche had accidentally crossed the wall and was now an > implicit understanding pseudo-psyche. > > Herman De Wael: > >>but what are you going to do about it? Rule misinformation (and >>probably no damage) or throw PO out of bridge for ever after? > > Richard Hills: > > The word "or" is not le mot juste. Whether an infraction causes > damage has zero linkage to whether a Law 90 procedural penalty or > Law 91 disciplinary penalty is appropriate. > > Law 90 and Law 91 would not be appropriate to apply to P.O., since > any Law 40C1 infraction by P.O. would be an unintentional one-off. > > But if the diametrical ethical opposite of P.O. Sundelin, Victor > Mollo's Charlie the Chimp, happened to yet again "carelessly" fail > to obey Law 40C1, it would not matter whether or not the Chimp's > latest failure to disclose damaged the Chimp's opponents; the > Director could and should then apply Law 40C3(b): > > "Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership > understandings may be penalized." > > > 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 nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Dec 17 03:26:07 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:26:07 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 Interpretation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B2996BF.20705@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills quotes Australia and New Zealand official recommendation] The preferred procedure is to summon the Director at the end of the hand but only if it becomes apparent that an opponent may have acted upon extraneous information made available by his partner. The Director need only be called if the non-offenders believe they may have been damaged [Nigel] Here we go again :( Is this regulation legal? IMO if a player seems to have used unauthorised to choose between logical alternatives, then the director should be called when there is no obvious damage - even if the law-breaker's action turned out disastrously for him. From geller at nifty.com Thu Dec 17 03:39:03 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:39:03 +0900 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 Interpretation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B2996BF.20705@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B2996BF.20705@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B2999C7.5090803@nifty.com> Unless the hypothetical use of UI seemed to be clearly intentional, in which case L73 would apply, there is no need to call the deirector IMO. "no harm, no foul" (basketball) or "playing advantage" (football/soccer) has similar approaches. L16B1 says the partner "may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." The key words here are "that could .. have been." It is not an issue (and probably is in most cases unestablishable) whether the player in question actually did use the UI. I believe we owe this wording to Mr. Kaplan's wisdom in moving UI-related issue out of the realm of "cheating-like" issues to ones of equity adjustment, so they could be dealt with by TDs and committees without raising implicit ethical accusations. -Bob Nigel Guthrie ????????: > [Richard Hills quotes Australia and New Zealand official recommendation] > The preferred procedure is to summon the Director at the end of the hand > but only if it becomes apparent that an opponent may have acted upon > extraneous information made available by his partner. The Director need > only be called if the non-offenders believe they may have been damaged > > [Nigel] > Here we go again :( Is this regulation legal? IMO if a player seems to > have used unauthorised to choose between logical alternatives, then the > director should be called when there is no obvious damage - even if the > law-breaker's action turned out disastrously for him. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Dec 17 04:09:24 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:09:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? In-Reply-To: <4B290B4E.2080309@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4B290B4E.2080309@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4B29A0E4.7070502@nhcc.net> > From: PO Sundelin > Not vul against vul partner opens 1 heart promising 4+ and denying a > strong club. > Next hand doubles and you try to muddle the waters by bidding 1NT > holding xxx,Txxx,xxx,xxx > It goes 4spades, double, pass. Back to you. > > Well, partner broke tempo before doubling. > > It seems clear that your original plan was to return (run) to hearts if > you had to. How barred can you become by partner?s tempo break. As others may have mentioned, what you intended is legally irrelevant. The questions now are "logical alternatives" and "suggested over another." The slow double does, I think, suggest pulling, but of course my bridge judgment is nowhere near the same class as Mr. Sundelin's. > Question 1 > Is this the kind of UI that forbids you to choose among logical > alternatives..? You have misled partner about points and heart length. > Should that be taken in account? The prior auction and the actual hand held -- including the fact that it doesn't match the hand shown in the auction -- are relevant for determining logical alternatives. (Here the main question seems to be whether pass is a LA or not.) > Question 2 > Over your 5 hearts the 4spade bidder bid 5 spades (with Jxxxx,-,AKxxx, > Jxx) and went one down, then did not call the TD. But his partner did. Who called the TD is irrelevant. > 5 hearts was not in itself a winning decision as it would have been > doubled and gone for 800. The first question is whether 5H was legal. There may be a subsequent question about whether the 5S bid was "wild or gambling action," but that would only affect the score of the spade-bidding side. From: Hans-Olof Hall?n > 1. Opener did not deny a strong holding. They do not play strong club, > so opener could up to 21 points. This seems to me to make a huge difference. If these are the methods, why (except for the tempo break) couldn't opener have four solid tricks against 4S? Mr. Hallen reported other facts that differ from the original post. Those would, of course, affect the various bridge judgments but not the legal principles. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 17 05:19:16 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:19:16 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B29A0E4.7070502@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: [cogent comments snipped] Richard Hills writes: It is normally considered a breach of blml netiquette to add a post to a thread when the substance of the post is merely "I agree," since the preciousss time of blmlers is wasted reading "I agree." But Steve Willner's analysis of principles of Law and matters for judgement was so effective that I say, "I wholeheartedly* agree. Hear, hear." W.S. Gilbert, "The Mikado": And I expect you'll all agree That he was right to so decree. And I am right, And you are right, And all is right as right can be! * and also wholespadedly, in a major agreement with Steve Willner. 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 Dec 17 05:38:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:38:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 Interpretation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B2999C7.5090803@nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert Geller: >Unless the hypothetical use of UI seemed to be clearly intentional, in >which case L73 would apply, there is no need to call the director IMO. [snip] WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees, page 7: "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 rgtjbos at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 17 08:39:37 2009 From: rgtjbos at xs4all.nl (Rob Bosman) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:39:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied In-Reply-To: <4CB93DDE343048B09CED318E9581A52B@Hassedator> References: <4CB93DDE343048B09CED318E9581A52B@Hassedator> Message-ID: <009f01ca7eec$15feeb50$41fcc1f0$@nl> [Hans-Olof Hall?n] I am sorry that P O Sundelin has not told you the truth. 1. Opener did not deny a strong holding. They do not play strong club, so opener could up to 21 points. 2. Opener has promised 5+ hearts. 3. The 5 spader bidder has Q J 10 7 6 - void - A K 6 4 2 - J 8 6. 4. The psycher has 9 5 2 - 10 7 6 5 - 10 3 - 7 5 4 2. The director accepted the 5 heart bid but the Law?s Commission did not. Is it so bad that pass on 4 spades doubled is an alternative? [Rob] Not as far as I am concerned. I fully understand Per-Olof?s position, he psyched, so pass on 4 Spades doubled is not a logical alternative. I don?t believe we will find any player of the standing of Per-Olof and Hans-Olof that would even for one second consider to pass. The only aspect might be that Hans-Olof when confronted with a partner pulling the double may realise that Per-Olof has psyched. Probably he should now alert the 5H and explain that a psyche was possible. Hence why an adjusted score may be considered, based on a certain percentage of 5H doubled and the remainder for the table result . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091217/c47d085c/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 17 09:30:19 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:30:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B29EC1B.5060504@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > P.O. Sundelin is well known for his meticulous full disclosure; at > an international tournament in the previous millennium P.O. Sundelin > carefully submitted, in advance, a computer disc containing his > complete system file. > I know PO and was not accusing him of anything, nor was I suggesting that anyone would do so. > So any failure by P.O. to disclose an implicit understanding would > be a simple error of judgement; P.O. not realising that his > attempted psyche had accidentally crossed the wall and was now an > implicit understanding pseudo-psyche. > Yes, we had understood that. So my question is again to Richard. And then what do you do? Calling something an "implicit understanding pseudo-psyche" is using high words which would, in the eyes of many, if not of anyone on blml, constitute an allegation worthy of disciplinary action. If all you are going to do is rule misinformation, then why not simply call it misinformation? > Herman De Wael: > >> but what are you going to do about it? Rule misinformation (and >> probably no damage) or throw PO out of bridge for ever after? > > Richard Hills: > > The word "or" is not le mot juste. Whether an infraction causes > damage has zero linkage to whether a Law 90 procedural penalty or > Law 91 disciplinary penalty is appropriate. > > Law 90 and Law 91 would not be appropriate to apply to P.O., since > any Law 40C1 infraction by P.O. would be an unintentional one-off. > > But if the diametrical ethical opposite of P.O. Sundelin, Victor > Mollo's Charlie the Chimp, happened to yet again "carelessly" fail > to obey Law 40C1, it would not matter whether or not the Chimp's > latest failure to disclose damaged the Chimp's opponents; the > Director could and should then apply Law 40C3(b): > > "Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership > understandings may be penalized." > We understand that one too. Do you believe that anyone can be guilty of this, when he has never ever been told that he had informed less than fully? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 17 09:34:42 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:34:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied In-Reply-To: <009f01ca7eec$15feeb50$41fcc1f0$@nl> References: <4CB93DDE343048B09CED318E9581A52B@Hassedator> <009f01ca7eec$15feeb50$41fcc1f0$@nl> Message-ID: <4B29ED22.8010503@skynet.be> I wholespadedly agree with Rob. It is foolish to expect people to alert the 2He bid and say "PO might have psyched this bid". That way, every single bid must be alerted. But it is not at all foolish to alert 5He and say "PO might have psyched the 2He bid". My question then only is, would it not be GBK to most players at a certain level that the pulling suggests a psyche? Herman. Rob Bosman wrote: > [Hans-Olof Hall?n] > I am sorry that P O Sundelin has not told you the truth. > > 1. Opener did not deny a strong holding. They do not play strong club, > so opener could up to 21 points. > > 2. Opener has promised 5+ hearts. > > 3. The 5 spader bidder has Q J 10 7 6 - void - A K 6 4 2 - J 8 6. > > 4. The psycher has 9 5 2 - 10 7 6 5 - 10 3 - 7 5 4 2. > > The director accepted the 5 heart bid but the Law?s Commission did not. > > Is it so bad that pass on 4 spades doubled is an alternative? > > > > [Rob] > > Not as far as I am concerned. I fully understand Per-Olof?s position, he > psyched, so pass on 4 Spades doubled is *not* a logical alternative. I > don?t believe we will find any player of the standing of Per-Olof and > Hans-Olof that would even for one second consider to pass. The only > aspect might be that Hans-Olof when confronted with a partner pulling > the double may realise that Per-Olof has psyched. Probably he should now > alert the 5H and explain that a psyche was possible. Hence why an > adjusted score may be considered, based on a certain percentage of 5H > doubled and the remainder for the table result?. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Dec 17 09:56:41 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:56:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied In-Reply-To: <009f01ca7eec$15feeb50$41fcc1f0$@nl> References: <4CB93DDE343048B09CED318E9581A52B@Hassedator> <009f01ca7eec$15feeb50$41fcc1f0$@nl> Message-ID: <68421F0E-6000-4414-BEC6-B9DF37E3AFBD@btinternet.com> On 17 Dec 2009, at 07:39, Rob Bosman wrote: > , he psyched, so pass on 4 Spades doubled is not a logical > alternative. I don't see that your conclusion necessarily follows. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 17 10:18:12 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:18:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied In-Reply-To: <68421F0E-6000-4414-BEC6-B9DF37E3AFBD@btinternet.com> References: <4CB93DDE343048B09CED318E9581A52B@Hassedator> <009f01ca7eec$15feeb50$41fcc1f0$@nl> <68421F0E-6000-4414-BEC6-B9DF37E3AFBD@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4B29F754.6080308@skynet.be> The conclusion follows from the following reasoning: if you have bid something and believe that you have what you've shown (even if you had it wrong), then you should trust partner can play you for a minimum, and passing a penalty double is a LA. But when you have psyched, then you KNOW that you have less than partner expects, and it can be that passing is no longer a LA. But I don't think Rob intended the sentence to include a logical conclusion. Herman. Gordon Rainsford wrote: > On 17 Dec 2009, at 07:39, Rob Bosman wrote: > >> , he psyched, so pass on 4 Spades doubled is not a logical >> alternative. > > > I don't see that your conclusion necessarily follows. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml at arcor.de Thu Dec 17 10:48:43 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:48:43 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] What if I lied In-Reply-To: <4B29F754.6080308@skynet.be> References: <4B29F754.6080308@skynet.be> <4CB93DDE343048B09CED318E9581A52B@Hassedator> <009f01ca7eec$15feeb50$41fcc1f0$@nl> <68421F0E-6000-4414-BEC6-B9DF37E3AFBD@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <1780000.1261043323714.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Von: Herman De Wael > The conclusion follows from the following reasoning: > if you have bid something and believe that you have what you've shown > (even if you had it wrong), then you should trust partner can play you > for a minimum, and passing a penalty double is a LA. But when you have > psyched, then you KNOW that you have less than partner expects, and it > can be that passing is no longer a LA. > But I don't think Rob intended the sentence to include a logical > conclusion. > Herman. > > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 17 Dec 2009, at 07:39, Rob Bosman wrote: > > > >> , he psyched, so pass on 4 Spades doubled is not a logical > >> alternative. > > > > > > I don't see that your conclusion necessarily follows. The question is whether passing is a logical alternative, not whether you know you have less than what partner expects. In the original description of the problem, opener's hand was limited, it thus was quite likely that 4SX makes. In the modified version where opener might hold 20 HCP, opener might easily have 4S beat in his own hand. Thomas Es weihnachtet sehr! Vom leckerem Backrezept bis zum leckeren Schneehasen finden Sie alles im Weihnachtsspecial von Arcor.de: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.weihnachten Feliz Navidad, God Yul, Merry X-Mas und ein frohes Fest! From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 17 11:56:12 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:56:12 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F4 (was 16B2) interpretation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 1:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 20F4 (was 16B2) interpretation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Karl Marx (1818-1883): > > "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the > point is to change it." > > Groucho Marx (1890-1977): > > "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." > > Jack Rhind: > >>...It is my experience and understanding that most regulating bodies >>are moving towards the recommendation that players summon the director >>immediately... > > 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." > > Jack Rhind: > >>...more importantly, speak to each of the non-offending side away >>from the table to find out if they would have done anything >>differently had they been given the correct information... > > WBF LC minutes, 8th September 2009, item 12: > > The committee returned to the subject of the status of information > arising when a misexplanation is corrected. There was lengthy > discussion following which it was determined: > > (a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; > the Director is required to judge whether the call "could well have > been influenced by misinformation given to the player". Unless he > judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the > player could well have made a different call no change of call under > Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3. > > (b) that when under Law 20F4 an explanation is corrected before the > auction has closed the Director is pointed to Law 21B. This law does > not indicate how the Director should then proceed* but it was agreed > that the player may use both the misexplanation and the correct > information. > > [*Secretary's note: in these circumstances a 1998 minute indicates > that the Regulating Authority may give guidance.] > (Grattan Endicott) +=+ The next useful contribution to this topic may be the paper on the subject that is being prepared for the Zone1 TDs' Seminar, February 2010. A question that exercises my mind is the stage at which for the Director a player's communication is to be adjudged purposeful. If a player is conscious of the potential effect of his breach of tempo to what extent may it be regarded as 'unintentional' within the terms of Law 73D1, and in these circumstances how is the Director to apply Law 73? +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 17 12:08:50 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:08:50 -0000 Subject: [BLML] can a trump be a minor penalty card? References: <1260987780.24149.1350440249@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <2D938942960A451C81072D33E4084950@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:23 PM Subject: [BLML] can a trump be a minor penalty card? +=+ A trump (not an honour) can be a minor penalty card. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 17 13:24:59 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:24:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] can a trump be a minor penalty card? In-Reply-To: <1NL0cX-1OCYYy0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> References: <1260987780.24149.1350440249@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1NL0cX-1OCYYy0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4B2A231B.3060203@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Although I'm another man from another national organization > and although I've heard that the ACBL does not always bother > about what the WBF promulgated as the world-wide-laws, > I'm quite sure, that even the ACBL version of Law 50 B reads: > > "A single card below the rank of an honour exposed unintentionally > (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) > AG : I think that the key here is that, contrary to PCs caused by revokes or LOOTs, there was no attempt to play the card. Whence its role as a trump doesn't matter to the fact that is was seen. In other words, it's seen as a piece of pasteboard rather than a playing card. And indeed there is nothing in TFLB to even suggest that a trump should be treated in any other way than a plain card. Knowing that partner holds this or that top card will oftezn be essential to the play -whence the MPC- ; knowing that he holds a small trump will usually be of less importance, especially with the "no other small card can be played" proviso. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 17 15:24:26 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:24:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B2 Interpretation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:04 PM, Jack Rhind wrote: > I think that you are right, that the RA MAY require .... > > It is my experience and understanding that most regulating bodies > are moving > towards the recommendation that players summon the director > immediately. I > see that is a good thing as it permits the director to find out what > transpired at the table, but more importantly, speak to each of the > non-offending side away from the table to find out if they would > have done > anything differently had they been given the correct information. > If this > can be done before play if the hand I think you get a better > insight into > what people would or would not do. As we all know, after the hand > has been > played everyone knows what they would have done. > > Prior to play if the non-offending side each says that they would > not have > bid differently you get a better idea of what actually happened. > E.g. Once > they see that they can make 4 spades over 4 heart then they all > want to get > to bid it. FTR, the thread was about tempo breaks, not MI problems, but I don't think it matters to Jack's point. Which is very sensible, but not very practical. It takes time and effort for the director to find out what transpired at the table, speak to each of the NOs away from the table, and decide what they might have done differently. That's a lot of time and effort wasted in those (most) cases in which, after the hand has been played, the NOS either does not believe that there was an actual infraction (as often happens in tempo-break situations), or does not have a claim to have been damaged by it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From posundelin at yahoo.se Thu Dec 17 19:00:50 2009 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:00:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] What if I lied In-Reply-To: <009f01ca7eec$15feeb50$41fcc1f0$@nl> Message-ID: <898217.68680.qm@web23706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hmm - I had planned to modify my original conditions? towards the?ones described by?Hans-Olof? (the hand that triggered my curiosity)? Sadly he spoiled my plans, mistakenly thinking I was bringing up a real hand; I intended to find out if there would be different views on when 5H was the only logical alternative (if at all), and if 5S would ever be considered gambling.? ? So, would 3424 shape instead of 3433 make 5H more attractive? Would 3523 make 5H the only logical bid? Or must he have six hearts? ? Would QJTxx,-,AKxxx, J8x make 5S a less "braindead" bid (as it was actually described by some less objective players) ? Rob suggests an adjusted score where 5H doubled would be an ingredient. I wildly disagree.?How could 5HD ever come into the picture. Either 5H is allowed, and then 5S was bid, OR we don?t allow 5H, and then 4S?doubled would be played. ? And to avoid confusion: My honesty or lack thereof has nothing to do with it; I was not?there at all. But you guys were. I did write?You hold etc.?....Ah, the heading might have misled you. Ought to be What if you lied. My sincere apologies. PO --- Den tors 2009-12-17 skrev Rob Bosman : Fr?n: Rob Bosman ?mne: Re: [BLML] What if I lied Till: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Datum: torsdag 17 december 2009 08.39 [Hans-Olof Hall?n] I am sorry that P O Sundelin has not told you the truth. 1. Opener did not deny a strong holding. They do not play strong club, so opener could up to 21 points. 2. Opener has promised 5+ hearts. 3. The 5 spader bidder has Q J 10 7 6 - void - A K 6 4 2 - J 8 6. 4. The psycher has 9 5 2 - 10 7 6 5 - 10 3 - 7 5 4 2. The director accepted the 5 heart bid but the Law?s Commission did not. Is it so bad that pass on 4 spades doubled is an alternative? ? [Rob] Not as far as I am concerned. I fully understand Per-Olof?s position, he psyched, so pass on 4 Spades doubled is not a logical alternative. I don?t believe we will find any player of the standing of Per-Olof and Hans-Olof that would even for one second consider to pass. The only aspect might be that Hans-Olof when confronted with a partner pulling the double may realise that Per-Olof has psyched. Probably he should now alert the 5H and explain that a psyche was possible. Hence why an adjusted score may be considered, based on a certain percentage of 5H doubled and the remainder for the table result?. -----Infogad bilaga f?ljer----- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________________________________________________________ Ta semester! - s?k efter resor hos Kelkoo. J?mf?r pris p? flygbiljetter och hotellrum h?r: http://www.kelkoo.se/c-169901-resor-biljetter.html?partnerId=96914052 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091217/b2ebd3d2/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 17 22:26:04 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:26:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 2010 World Championship [off topic] Message-ID: <005FCB05-5672-4F9B-B752-545B55FAB87F@starpower.net> The WBF website displays the schedule and entry fees for the major events in Philadelphia (October 2010), and also notes that, "In addition, to attract players of varied skill levels, Regional Championships will be staged throughout the tournament, awarding both WBF and ACBL master points." Does anyone know if there is as yet any schedule of or information about these secondary events? Or when or where such information might eventually be made available? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 17 22:37:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:37:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B29EC1B.5060504@skynet.be> Message-ID: Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!" Herman De Wael: [snip] >Calling something an "implicit understanding pseudo-psyche" is using >high words which would, in the eyes of many, if not of anyone on blml, >constitute an allegation worthy of disciplinary action. If all you are >going to do is rule misinformation, then why not simply call it >misinformation? [snip] Richard Hills: The 1997 Law 40B heading was "Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited". The word "concealed" has a flavour of deliberate intent, so for the 2007 Law 40 the neutral phrases "undisclosed partnership understanding" and "undisclosed knowledge" were inserted as non- accusatory replacements. "Pseudo-" is not in the Laws, but neither does it imply deliberate intent. Rather, it is derived from the Greek word "pseudes", which merely means "false". Law 40C3(b): "Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized." Herman De Wael: >We understand that one too. Do you believe that anyone can be guilty >of this, when he has never ever been told that he had informed less >than fully? Richard Hills: The criterion for application of Law 40C3(b) is merely "repeated violations", so "never ever been told about repeated violations" does not cancel the application of that Law. What's the problem? Fetchez la vache? 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 jrhind at therock.bm Thu Dec 17 22:47:28 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:47:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2010 World Championship [off topic] In-Reply-To: <005FCB05-5672-4F9B-B752-545B55FAB87F@starpower.net> Message-ID: I just checked the ACBL website under tournaments and it is listed as a Regional Oct 1st - 16th. The contact email address is jgmmarks at aol.com. Jack On 12/17/09 5:26 PM, "Eric Landau" wrote: > The WBF website displays the schedule and entry fees for the major > events in Philadelphia (October 2010), and also notes that, "In > addition, to attract players of varied skill levels, Regional > Championships will be staged throughout the tournament, awarding both > WBF and ACBL master points." > > Does anyone know if there is as yet any schedule of or information > about these secondary events? Or when or where such information > might eventually be made available? > > > 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 nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Dec 17 23:16:26 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:16:26 +0000 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? In-Reply-To: <757629.21560.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <757629.21560.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B2AADBA.9070108@yahoo.co.uk> [PO Sundelin] Not vul against vul partner opens 1 heart promising 4+ and denying a strong club. Next hand doubles and you try to muddle the waters by bidding 1NT holding xxx,Txxx,xxx,xxx. It goes 4spades, double, pass. Back to you. Well, partner broke tempo before doubling. It seems clear that your original plan was to return (run) to hearts if you had to. How barred can you become by partner?s tempo break. Question 1: Is this the kind of UI that forbids you to choose among logical alternatives..? You have misled partner about points and heart length. Should that be taken in account? Question 2: Over your 5 hearts the 4spade bidder bid 5 spades (with Jxxxx,-,AKxxx, Jxx) and went one down, then did not call the TD. But his partner did. 5 hearts was not in itself a winning decision as it would have been doubled and gone for 800. Rule, please. [Hans-Olof Hall?n] I am sorry that P O Sundelin has not told you the truth. 1. Opener did not deny a strong holding. They do not play strong club, so opener could up to 21 points. 2. Opener has promised 5+ hearts. 3. The 5 spader bidder has Q J 10 7 6 - void - A K 6 4 2 - J 8 6. 4. The psycher has 9 5 2 - 10 7 6 5 - 10 3 - 7 5 4 2. The director accepted the 5 heart bid but the Law?s Commission did not. Is it so bad that pass on 4 spades doubled is an alternative? [Nige1] Q1: NO. Q2. Normally, I feel that the director should shoot the hesitater first and afterwards, ask questions, for the sake of appearances :) In either of these cases, however, I feel that 5H is clear-cut. For the players' peers, Pass would be an unlikely choice. IMO, 4N/5C/5D/5H are the the only real logical alternatives and the director should rule result stands. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 18 00:05:44 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:05:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <898217.68680.qm@web23706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809-1892): Ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky, The flying cloud, the frosty light; The year is dying in the night; Ring out, wild bells, and let him die. P.O. Sundelin: >Rob suggests an adjusted score where 5H doubled would be an >ingredient. I wildly disagree. Richard Hills: I wildly agree with Rob and wildly disagree with P.O. P.O. Sundelin: >How could 5Hx ever come into the picture. Either 5H is allowed, >and then 5S was bid, OR we don't allow 5H, and then 4S doubled >would be played. Richard Hills: OR at the time 5H was bid by responder, the ethical opener (not Charlie the Chimp) applies Law 20F4, and immediately summons the Director. The ethical opener (not Charlie the Chimp) then announces "my partner has over-frequently in the past responded to my 1H opening bid, at favourable vulnerability, with 1NT on xxx Txxx xxx xxx. Since at imps (not matchpoints) the guidance of "take the money" and "the five level belongs to the opponents" is strongly applicable, this new information about responder's lack of strength and lack of distribution is sufficient to change the planned dubious call of 5S to a more effective call of a Double of 5H. Charlie the Chimp, of course, would infract Law 20F4, but the Chimp's score should still be adjusted to 5Hx -800 on the expectation of what would have happened the moment before the Chimp's Law 20F4 infraction. P.O. Sundelin: >...and if 5S would ever be considered gambling. Richard Hills: At _matchpoint pairs_ on the system information available to the 5S bidder and the cards held by the 5S bidder, selecting 5S is _not_ a serious error. If the rest of the field is scoring +620 or +650, then either -100 or +500 is a bottom, so the 5S bidder might as well hope that an average score of +650 is available. At _imps_ on the system information available to the 5S bidder and the cards held by the 5S bidder, selecting 5S _is_ a serious error. However... Law 12C1(b): "...the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction)..." Richard Hills: If Charlie the Chimp has indeed committed a Law 20F4 infraction, then bidding 5S is _related_ to the infraction, so not only does the Chimp have his score adjusted to -800, but the seriously erring non-offending side has its serious error cancelled and its score adjusted to +800. Note that "wild or gambling" is much worse than "serious error". For example, in the context of this deal, "wild or gambling" would be a double-shot leap to 6S, hoping to either make the slam when three finesses work, or instead have the score adjusted back to 4S making. "Wild or gambling" actions are _not_ cancelled when calculating the score for the non-offending side, whether or not the "wild or gambling" action is related to the infraction. Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809-1892): Ring out the old, ring in the new, Ring, happy bells, across the snow: The year is going, let him go; Ring out the false, ring in the true. 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 Fri Dec 18 01:30:40 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:30:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 2010 World Championship [off topic] In-Reply-To: <005FCB05-5672-4F9B-B752-545B55FAB87F@starpower.net> References: <005FCB05-5672-4F9B-B752-545B55FAB87F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B2ACD30.2020609@nhcc.net> Eric Landau wrote: > The WBF website displays the schedule and entry fees for the major > events in Philadelphia (October 2010), and also notes that, "In > addition, to attract players of varied skill levels, Regional > Championships will be staged throughout the tournament, awarding both > WBF and ACBL master points." > > Does anyone know if there is as yet any schedule of or information > about these secondary events? Or when or where such information > might eventually be made available? What appears to be a brochure for the WC events is at: http://web2.acbl.org/hosted/districts/d4web/4pagesphiladelphia2010_us_2.pdf Can anyone confirm that entry fees listed are per pair or per team, not per each individual? A brochure for the regional is at: http://web2.acbl.org/hosted/districts/d4web/philaregskedoct2010.pdf At first glance, the tournament appears to be nothing more than an ordinary ACBL regional, though longer than normal. The appearance, however, doesn't seem consistent with awarding WBF masterpoints, so perhaps there's something I'm missing. Anyone have more information? In particular, will there be any events other than the ones in the WBF brochure that use WBF convention regulations? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 18 02:01:24 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:01:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tony Bassett, London Evening Standard, 19th March 2009: Buildings were evacuated, a street was cordoned off and a bomb disposal team called in after workmen spotted a suspicious object. But the dangerous-looking weapon turned out to be the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, made famous in the 1975 film Monty Python And The Holy Grail. When the bomb squad arrived, they quickly established there was no danger and the street was declared safe. In the film, the grenade was used to slaughter a killer rabbit. Python actor Eric Idle had filmgoers in stitches as he said: "Oh Lord. Bless this hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." Alberto Romanelli, who owns the Windmill pub nearby, said the police action in ordering his pub to be evacuated had been as ridiculous as the film scene. "They evacuated the pub while they were doing X-rays and stuff," he said. "It all lasted about 45 minutes before they decided it was nothing - which I thought was pretty obvious from the start. I lost a good hour's worth of business." Herman De Wael: >If all you are going to do is rule misinformation, then >why not simply call it misinformation? Richard Hills: Why not indeed? The vague wording of the 1997 Lawbook meant that some Directors incorrectly assumed that there were three different types of informational infractions. In order of assumed nefariousness they were assumed to be: 1. misinformation = MI 2. concealed partnership understanding = CPU 3. gravest possible offence = ch**t*ng The clearer language of the 2007 Lawbook now makes it obvious that there are only _two_ different types of informational infractions. In order of nefariousness they are: 1. undisclosed knowledge = MI 2. gravest possible offence = gravest possible offence Note that the Drafting Committee carefully excluded the word "ch**t*ng" from any appearance in the 2007 Lawbook. 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 Fri Dec 18 08:10:50 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:10:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2010 World Championship [off topic] In-Reply-To: <4B2ACD30.2020609@nhcc.net> References: <005FCB05-5672-4F9B-B752-545B55FAB87F@starpower.net> <4B2ACD30.2020609@nhcc.net> Message-ID: 2009/12/18 Steve Willner : > Eric Landau wrote: >> The WBF website displays the schedule and entry fees for the major >> events in Philadelphia (October 2010), and also notes that, "In >> addition, to attract players of varied skill levels, Regional >> Championships will be staged throughout the tournament, awarding both >> WBF and ACBL master points." >> >> Does anyone know if there is as yet any schedule of or information >> about these secondary events? ?Or when or where such information >> might eventually be made available? > > What appears to be a brochure for the WC events is at: > http://web2.acbl.org/hosted/districts/d4web/4pagesphiladelphia2010_us_2.pdf > > Can anyone confirm that entry fees listed are per pair or per team, not > per each individual? I can't confirm this. But, considering the amounts listed compared to recent WBF entry fees, and the WBF practice of listing the same as per pair/team, I'm pretty certain that this is indeed per pair or team. > > A brochure for the regional is at: > http://web2.acbl.org/hosted/districts/d4web/philaregskedoct2010.pdf > At first glance, the tournament appears to be nothing more than an > ordinary ACBL regional, though longer than normal. ?The appearance, > however, doesn't seem consistent with awarding WBF masterpoints, so > perhaps there's something I'm missing. > > Anyone have more information? ?In particular, will there be any events > other than the ones in the WBF brochure that use WBF convention regulations? Here I don't know. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 18 10:00:19 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:00:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B2B44A3.4010007@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Monty Python and the Holy Grail: > > "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a > system of government!" > > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > >> Calling something an "implicit understanding pseudo-psyche" is using >> high words which would, in the eyes of many, if not of anyone on blml, >> constitute an allegation worthy of disciplinary action. If all you are >> going to do is rule misinformation, then why not simply call it >> misinformation? > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > The 1997 Law 40B heading was "Concealed Partnership Understandings > Prohibited". The word "concealed" has a flavour of deliberate intent, > so for the 2007 Law 40 the neutral phrases "undisclosed partnership > understanding" and "undisclosed knowledge" were inserted as non- > accusatory replacements. > > "Pseudo-" is not in the Laws, but neither does it imply deliberate > intent. Rather, it is derived from the Greek word "pseudes", which > merely means "false". > > Law 40C3(b): > > "Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership > understandings may be penalized." > > Herman De Wael: > >> We understand that one too. Do you believe that anyone can be guilty >> of this, when he has never ever been told that he had informed less >> than fully? > > Richard Hills: > > The criterion for application of Law 40C3(b) is merely "repeated > violations", so "never ever been told about repeated violations" does > not cancel the application of that Law. > > What's the problem? The only problem is my insistence that you should not call something by a name that implies that something highly improper is going on, when the thing has no legal difference from something which we all know quite well under some other name. What PO's partner may have been guilty of was misinformation, nothing more. Calling it by fancy names may well be construed allegations of improprieties. The "repeated" part of it does not come into it, at all. However, there seems to be no line that can be drawn between when the repeat becomes an infraction (the second time?) and when it also becomes a repeat infraction (the third time?). Which is why I said that you cannot blame PO's partner for repeated violations of full disclosure, when he has not been blamed for the same the previous time it happened. It cannot be a grave offence (by being a repeat one) unless it has been called an offence before. Therefore there is no reason whatsoever to insist that a psyche has become some sort of grave offence by virtue of its frequency. And therefore no need to call it anything else than misinformation. Of course, all this is under the presumption that the partnership has not been warned before - if they have been warned and continue to "actively conceal", then some sort of graver infraction exists. But I was under the impression that Richard thought nothing of that sort. So he should not use any other words than "misinformation", lest others think that he is thinking there is something fishy going on. And one more thing: while in blml, it may well be clear to most that "undisclosed partnership understanding about psyche" and "misinformation" are the same thing. Although some do come here to learn, and they might not know it. But the same thing also happens in the outside world, with non-directors hearing it. Using words like that might trigger in them the feeling that psyches are somehow scorned upon. I believe I am right in calling Richard to order for that reason. > Fetchez la vache? > I don't understand this joke. Sorry. > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Best wishes for holidays and new year! Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 18 10:02:05 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:02:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B2B450D.4090709@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael: > >> If all you are going to do is rule misinformation, then >> why not simply call it misinformation? > > Richard Hills: > > Why not indeed? > > The vague wording of the 1997 Lawbook meant that some > Directors incorrectly assumed that there were three > different types of informational infractions. In order > of assumed nefariousness they were assumed to be: > > 1. misinformation = MI > 2. concealed partnership understanding = CPU > 3. gravest possible offence = ch**t*ng > > The clearer language of the 2007 Lawbook now makes it > obvious that there are only _two_ different types of > informational infractions. In order of nefariousness > they are: > > 1. undisclosed knowledge = MI > 2. gravest possible offence = gravest possible offence > > Note that the Drafting Committee carefully excluded the > word "ch**t*ng" from any appearance in the 2007 Lawbook. > I see that Richard agrees with me! It had to happen sometime! Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 18 10:06:37 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:06:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied In-Reply-To: <898217.68680.qm@web23706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <898217.68680.qm@web23706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B2B461D.2010403@skynet.be> PO Sundelin wrote: > Hmm - I had planned to modify my original conditions towards the ones > described by Hans-Olof (the hand that triggered my curiosity) > Sadly he spoiled my plans, mistakenly thinking I was bringing up a real > hand; I intended to find out if there would be different views on when > 5H was the only logical alternative (if at all), and if 5S would ever be > considered gambling. > > So, would 3424 shape instead of 3433 make 5H more attractive? > Would 3523 make 5H the only logical bid? Or must he have six hearts? > > Would QJTxx,-,AKxxx, J8x make 5S a less "braindead" bid (as it was > actually described by some less objective players) > > *Rob* suggests an adjusted score where 5H doubled would be an > ingredient. I wildly disagree. How could 5HD ever come into the picture. > Either 5H is allowed, and then 5S was bid, OR we don?t allow 5H, and > then 4S doubled would be played. > No PO, there is another ruling possible: the one of your partner not informing opponents after 5He that 2He must have been a psyche. If the TD determines that he should have done so, and that they would have doubled rather than bid 5Sp if they had known it, then he should give a AS based on parts of 5HX and parts of 5S (no 4S in there, of course). Personally, I don't believe they could ever be damaged by your partner not telling them you might have psyched. I consider that to be GBK. But you're far better in judging that particular one than I am. > And to avoid confusion: My honesty or lack thereof has nothing to do > with it; I was not there at all. But you guys were. I did write You hold > etc. ....Ah, the heading might have misled you. Ought to be What if you > lied. My sincere apologies. > PO > Herman. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Dec 18 10:43:30 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:43:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied In-Reply-To: <4B2B461D.2010403@skynet.be> References: <898217.68680.qm@web23706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4B2B461D.2010403@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2009/12/18 Herman De Wael : > PO Sundelin wrote: >> Hmm - I had planned to modify my original conditions ?towards the ones >> described by Hans-Olof ?(the hand that triggered my curiosity) >> Sadly he spoiled my plans, mistakenly thinking I was bringing up a real >> hand; I intended to find out if there would be different views on when >> 5H was the only logical alternative (if at all), and if 5S would ever be >> considered gambling. >> >> So, would 3424 shape instead of 3433 make 5H more attractive? >> Would 3523 make 5H the only logical bid? Or must he have six hearts? >> >> Would QJTxx,-,AKxxx, J8x make 5S a less "braindead" bid (as it was >> actually described by some less objective players) >> >> *Rob* suggests an adjusted score where 5H doubled would be an >> ingredient. I wildly disagree. How could 5HD ever come into the picture. >> Either 5H is allowed, and then 5S was bid, OR we don?t allow 5H, and >> then 4S doubled would be played. >> > > No PO, there is another ruling possible: the one of your partner not > informing opponents after 5He that 2He must have been a psyche. You repeatedly talk about at 2H bid, Herman. There was no 2H bid in the auctio, whidh went: 1H x 1NT 4S x p 5H 5S I guess 2He is just a mistake, and that you're talking about the 1NT psyche. > If the > TD determines that he should have done so, and that they would have > doubled rather than bid 5Sp if they had known it, then he should give a > AS based on parts of 5HX and parts of 5S (no 4S in there, of course). > > Personally, I don't believe they could ever be damaged by your partner > not telling them you might have psyched. I consider that to be GBK. But > you're far better in judging that particular one than I am. > >> And to avoid confusion: My honesty or lack thereof has nothing to do >> with it; I was not there at all. But you guys were. I did write You hold >> etc. ....Ah, the heading might have misled you. Ought to be What if you >> lied. My sincere apologies. >> PO >> > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 18 10:49:46 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:49:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied In-Reply-To: References: <898217.68680.qm@web23706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4B2B461D.2010403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B2B503A.6070702@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > You repeatedly talk about at 2H bid, Herman. There was no 2H bid in > the auctio, whidh went: > 1H x 1NT 4S > x p 5H 5S > > I guess 2He is just a mistake, and that you're talking about the 1NT psyche. > Indeed I was. Sorry about the mistake. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 18 10:54:09 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:54:09 -0000 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B2B450D.4090709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <053BA5CCF0444FF4BE83CF3E427C3913@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Note that the Drafting Committee carefully excluded the >> word "ch**t*ng" from any appearance in the 2007 Lawbook. >> > > I see that Richard agrees with me! > It had to happen sometime! > +=+ I am not getting them point. Is this a word ever used in the laws? Is it suggested it might have been? Where are these exchanges going? ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 18 11:19:52 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:19:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <053BA5CCF0444FF4BE83CF3E427C3913@Mildred> References: <4B2B450D.4090709@skynet.be> <053BA5CCF0444FF4BE83CF3E427C3913@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B2B5748.8050103@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "We'll have a board of directors and we'll > have board meetings - and we'll do what > I want." ~ Barry Hearn. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 9:02 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >>> Note that the Drafting Committee carefully excluded the >>> word "ch**t*ng" from any appearance in the 2007 Lawbook. >>> >>> >> I see that Richard agrees with me! >> It had to happen sometime! >> >> > +=+ I am not getting them point. Is this a word ever used in > the laws? Is it suggested it might have been? Where are these > exchanges going? ~ G ~ +=+ > > AG : surely it might have been. The wording of L73 (old & new), for example, makes it obvious that one was very careful to avoid printing that word where it would have been fit but un-PC. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Dec 18 20:01:14 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (pop-server.san.rr.com) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:01:14 -0800 Subject: [BLML] 2010 World Championship [off topic] References: <005FCB05-5672-4F9B-B752-545B55FAB87F@starpower.net><4B2ACD30.2020609@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5A2FCCB484DE4C36A490BA03885E8EC2@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Harald Skj?ran" < >> >> Anyone have more information? In particular, will there be any >> events >> other than the ones in the WBF brochure that use WBF convention >> regulations? > I think I read somewhere that non-qualifiers in a WBF event will be passed into a regional event with no extra card fee. I'm guessing that ACBL rules will prevail in the regional. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Dec 19 15:56:18 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:56:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: 2010 World Championship [off topic]] In-Reply-To: <4B2BD9AA.6050701@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4B2BD9AA.6050701@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4B2CE992.5010403@nhcc.net> > From: pop-server.san.rr.com > I think I read somewhere that non-qualifiers in a WBF event will be > passed into a regional event with no extra card fee. According to the brochure, non-qualifiers can enter secondary WBF events with no additional card fee. That makes the discounted entry fees about $25 per person per session if I read the brochure right. I don't see anything about the entry fee carrying over to the ACBL regional events, but it would make sense from the players' perspective. However, there are two separate and independent organizations involved, so I would want to verify the arrangement before counting on it. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Dec 19 18:54:49 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (pop-server.san.rr.com) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:54:49 -0800 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: 2010 World Championship [off topic]] References: <4B2BD9AA.6050701@cfa.harvard.edu> <4B2CE992.5010403@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0BB6EF27E4C141FC8410D12EDFCCB08A@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Steve Willner" < >> I think I read somewhere that non-qualifiers in a WBF event will >> be >> passed into a regional event with no extra card fee. > > According to the brochure, non-qualifiers can enter secondary WBF > events > with no additional card fee. That makes the discounted entry fees > about > $25 per person per session if I read the brochure right. I don't > see > anything about the entry fee carrying over to the ACBL regional > events, > but it would make sense from the players' perspective. However, > there > are two separate and independent organizations involved, so I > would want > to verify the arrangement before counting on it. Secondary WBF events instead of the ACBL regional? Probably correct, but they should show those secondary events in the brochure. Are they perhaps not open to entry by newcomers? (i.e., "consolation" events). Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 20 11:05:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:05:28 -0000 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B2B450D.4090709@skynet.be><053BA5CCF0444FF4BE83CF3E427C3913@Mildred> <4B2B5748.8050103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > +=+ I am not getting the point. Is this a word ever used > in the laws? Is it suggested it might have been? Where are > these exchanges going? ~ G ~ +=+ > > AG : surely it might have been. The wording of L73 (old & new), for example, makes it obvious that one was very careful to avoid printing that word where it would have been fit but un-PC. <<< +=+ (Grattan) I think this understates the subject. Not only do the laws of the game avoid use of the word. They avoid any accusation of such intent. Any question of that order that may arise is left to the By-Laws of Regulating Authorities severally. Differences in the applicable national laws dealing with defamation present traps to be avoided. +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 20 22:09:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:09:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B2B44A3.4010007@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [big snip] >Using words like that might trigger in them the feeling that psyches >are somehow scorned upon. > >I believe I am right in calling Richard to order for that reason. Richard Hills: Psyches are Lawful. Pseudo-psyches are unLawful (but pseudo-psyches are usually unintentionally unLawful, hence usually merely MI rather than "gravest possible offence"). The problem is that the popular (and inaccurate) definition of "psyche" encompasses true psyches and some pseudo-psyches, hence it is the popular (and inaccurate) definition of "psyche" that triggers the feeling that psyches ought to be scorned upon. Under the 1997 Lawbook, blml had many pointless threads endlessly discussing so-called "psyches" when the debaters were using different definitions of what a "psyche" was. For example, John (MadDog) Probst has an admirable commitment to full disclosure, but under MadDog's idiosyncratic (and inaccurate) definition of "psyche" it was possible for a "psyche" to be alerted and explained in MadDog's partnerships. The 2007 Law 40C resolves the 1997 "psyche" definitional conundrum. The heading of Law 40C is "Deviation from System and Psychic Action", but the word "psyche" is carefully avoided in the body of 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." Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Fetchez la vache!" Herman De Wael: >I don't understand this joke. Sorry. > >Best wishes for holidays and new year! >Herman. Richard Hills: And there is no better way of spending Christmas Eve than by watching (as I will) the DVD of "Monty Python's Life of Brian". Season's greetings 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 Dec 21 05:16:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:16:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 20th December 2009: +=+ (Grattan) I think this understates the subject. Not only do the laws of the game avoid use of the word. They avoid any accusation of such intent. Any question of that order that may arise is left to the By-Laws of Regulating Authorities severally. Differences in the applicable national laws dealing with defamation present traps to be avoided. +=+ Maciej Bystry, 11th December 2008: >>....."cheat" is not a kind of mega-strong word..... Grattan Endicott, 11th December 2008: >+=+ 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 ~ +=+ 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 Dec 21 09:22:43 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:22:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B2F3053.6020409@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > [big snip] > >> Using words like that might trigger in them the feeling that psyches >> are somehow scorned upon. >> >> I believe I am right in calling Richard to order for that reason. > > Richard Hills: > > Psyches are Lawful. Pseudo-psyches are unLawful (but pseudo-psyches > are usually unintentionally unLawful, hence usually merely MI rather > than "gravest possible offence"). > > The problem is that the popular (and inaccurate) definition of "psyche" > encompasses true psyches and some pseudo-psyches, hence it is the > popular (and inaccurate) definition of "psyche" that triggers the > feeling that psyches ought to be scorned upon. > Richard, it does not matter where the feeling comes from, nor that the feeling is wrong - it is out there. And even by writing "pseudo-psyches are unlawful", you (unwittingly) stenghten that feeling where it exists. I urge you therefore to write, instead that "pseudo-psyches are misinformation". Everyone knows what that means, and everyone knows it is not a strong infraction. > Under the 1997 Lawbook, blml had many pointless threads endlessly > discussing so-called "psyches" when the debaters were using different > definitions of what a "psyche" was. For example, John (MadDog) Probst > has an admirable commitment to full disclosure, but under MadDog's > idiosyncratic (and inaccurate) definition of "psyche" it was possible > for a "psyche" to be alerted and explained in MadDog's partnerships. > > The 2007 Law 40C resolves the 1997 "psyche" definitional conundrum. > The heading of Law 40C is "Deviation from System and Psychic Action", > but the word "psyche" is carefully avoided in the body of 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." > > Monty Python and the Holy Grail: > > "Fetchez la vache!" > OK, I missed the quote the first time around, and had not seen the Holy Grail recently. I have it somewhere though, and I'll: > Herman De Wael: > >> I don't understand this joke. Sorry. >> >> Best wishes for holidays and new year! >> Herman. > > Richard Hills: > > And there is no better way of spending Christmas Eve than by watching > (as I will) the DVD of "Monty Python's Life of Brian". > follow Richard's suggestion here as well. > > Season's greetings > > 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 21 12:16:18 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:16:18 -0000 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B2F3053.6020409@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 8:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> Herman De Wael: >> >>> I don't understand this joke. Sorry. >>> >>> Best wishes for holidays and new year! >>> Herman. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> And there is no better way of spending Christmas Eve than by watching >> (as I will) the DVD of "Monty Python's Life of Brian". >> > > follow Richard's suggestion here as well. > +=+ Herman, If a complicated Englishman has difficulty understanding Monty Python humour, there is no surprise if an - er - uncomplicated Belgian is not up to speed. "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year" to you and all our readers. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 21 12:37:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:37:26 -0000 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <30598BBBCD82497AB72F7F5E2AECAF5A@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 9:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > And there is no better way of spending Christmas Eve than by watching (as I will) the DVD of "Monty Python's Life of Brian". > +=+ What, no children? No love life? No taste for good food? G*d what a mess! ~ G ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Dec 21 18:41:14 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:41:14 -0800 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <30598BBBCD82497AB72F7F5E2AECAF5A@Mildred> Message-ID: Richard Hills: > And there is no better way of spending Christmas Eve than > by watching (as I will) the DVD of "Monty Python's Life of > Brian". >> I ordered this DVD from Netflix at Richard's suggestion and enjoyed it immensely even though I am new to Monty Python films. Now I must get Monty Python and the Holy Grail if only to find out why it is rated one star (1-5 scale) on Netflix and 8.5 stars (1-10 scale) on imdb.com. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 21 23:19:32 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:19:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <30598BBBCD82497AB72F7F5E2AECAF5A@Mildred> Message-ID: "He that is of a merry heart hath a continual feast." ~ Proverbs 15:15 >>>And there is no better way of spending Christmas Eve than >>>by watching (as I will) the DVD of "Monty Python's Life of >>>Brian". >>+=+ What, no children? >> No love life? >> No taste for good food? >> G*d what a mess! >> ~ G ~ +=+ And there is no better way of spending Christmas Day, on the other hand, than by playing many multi-player strategy boardgames with my niece and my two nephews (with my sister also competing when she is not otherwise engaged cooking a delicious roast dinner with white sauce on the vegetables). One of the multi-player strategy boardgames will be "Small World", for which blmler Alain Gottcheiner provided some significant advice to the designer. On the ranking system of the website BoardGameGeek, the 2009 game Small World is ranked 34th, while the 1925 game Bridge is ranked 124th. Part of the reason for the relatively low ranking of bridge on BoardGameGeek is the Literary Digest* effect. The visitors to the BoardGameGeek website, who are the game rankers, prefer games designed in a particular modern style. Another part of the reason is that a fish is not aware of water. Us blmlers who have played duplicate for decades have forgotten (or never knew) that modern strategy games are much more accessible than bridge. BoardGameGeek poster "Jacko Lantern": >One of the best card games, but IMO nowhere near one of the >best board games. Believe me, I've played this a lot. At >club level the rules against bluffing etc mean you need a >referee (the dreaded "director") who can be called in to >penalise almost any successful forms of unconventional >bidding and play. > >More generally if you take into account the long learning >curve, the fact that to be fun it must be played by two >teams of two players (of reasonably matched ability), and >of course that it is abstract - there's no way this >deserves to be as high up the rankings as it is. Season's greetings Richard James Hills * In 1936 the Literary Digest conducted what was then the world's largest opinion poll, and confidently predicted that Landon would have a landslide win against Roosevelt in that year's American presidential election. The Literary Digest was partially correct; there was a landslide win that year. The problem was that the Literary Digest polled people whose names appeared in phone books, but during the Great Depression many Roosevelt supporters could not afford to own a telephone. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 21 23:48:00 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:48:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B2F3053.6020409@skynet.be> Message-ID: Tom Lehrer's Christmas Carol, third verse: Relations sparing no expense will Buy some old-fashioned utensil Or a matching pen and pencil "Just what I wanted, how nice" It doesn't matter how sincere it Is or how heartfelt the spirit Sentiment will not endear it What's important is the price Herman De Wael asserted: >..."pseudo-psyches are misinformation". Everyone knows what that >means, and everyone knows it is not a strong infraction... 2007 Introduction: "...'must' do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed)..." 2007 Law 20F4, first sentence: "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he _must_ call the Director immediately." Season's greetings Richard James Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 22 00:22:06 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:22:06 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Hark, the Herald Tribune sings In-Reply-To: References: <4B2F3053.6020409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001501ca8294$69a9d930$3cfd8b90$@com> [RJH] Tom Lehrer's Christmas Carol, third verse: Relations sparing no expense will Buy some old-fashioned utensil Or a matching pen and pencil "Just what I wanted, how nice" It doesn't matter how sincere it Is or how heartfelt the spirit Sentiment will not endear it What's important is the price [DALB] Actual third stanza (not "verse", which is a single line of a poem): Relations sparing no expense'll Send some useless old utensil, Or a matching pen and pencil - "Just the thing I need, how nice." It doesn't matter how sincere it Is, nor how heartfelt the spirit; Sentiment will not endear it, What's important is the price. More important to bridge players, perhaps, are these lines from the same song: On Christmas Day you can't get sore, Your fellow man you must adore; There's time to rob him all the more The other three hundred and sixty four. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 22 01:30:17 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:30:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hark, the Herald Tribune sings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501ca8294$69a9d930$3cfd8b90$@com> Message-ID: David Burn, pedant: >Actual third stanza (not "verse", which is a single line of a poem): Richard Hills, counter-pedant: Like the word "sheep", the word "verse" may be its own plural. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: verse, n. Metrical composition, a v. line, a stanza of these, (in v. or prose ; is good at v. ; the first v. of Paradise Lost ; read the third line of the next v.); numbered subdivision of a bible chapter. Book of ACBL, Chapter Two, Verses Nine through Twenty-One: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Stop Card. Then shalt thou count to ten seconds, no more, no less. Ten shall be the seconds thou shalt count, and the seconds of the counting shall be ten. Eleven seconds shalt thou not count, neither count thou nine seconds, excepting that thou then proceed to ten seconds. Twelve seconds is right out. Once the number ten, being the tenth number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Law 16B2 Director Call of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." Season's greetings Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 adam at irvine.com Tue Dec 22 01:34:20 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:34:20 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Hark, the Herald Tribune sings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:30:17 +1100." Message-ID: <200912220019.QAA27532@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Book of ACBL, Chapter Two, Verses Nine through Twenty-One: > > And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Stop > Card. Then shalt thou count to ten seconds, no more, no less. Ten > shall be the seconds thou shalt count, and the seconds of the > counting shall be ten. Eleven seconds shalt thou not count, neither > count thou nine seconds, excepting that thou then proceed to ten > seconds. Twelve seconds is right out. Once the number ten, being the > tenth number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Law 16B2 Director > Call of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall > snuff it." I think this applies only if your opponents are bunnies... -- Adam From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Dec 22 01:34:54 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:34:54 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Hark, the Herald Tribune sings References: <4B2F3053.6020409@skynet.be> <001501ca8294$69a9d930$3cfd8b90$@com> Message-ID: <000701ca829e$9749cbc0$2401a8c0@p41600> Lehrer is m g*d; happy xmas all. ********************** I would have been in the Guards but for my eyes...they were too near the ground ********************** > Tom Lehrer's Christmas Carol, third verse: > > Relations sparing no expense will > Buy some old-fashioned utensil > Or a matching pen and pencil > "Just what I wanted, how nice" > It doesn't matter how sincere it > Is or how heartfelt the spirit > Sentiment will not endear it > What's important is the price > > [DALB] > > Actual third stanza (not "verse", which is a single line of a poem): > > Relations sparing no expense'll > Send some useless old utensil, > Or a matching pen and pencil - > "Just the thing I need, how nice." > It doesn't matter how sincere it > Is, nor how heartfelt the spirit; > Sentiment will not endear it, > What's important is the price. > > More important to bridge players, perhaps, are these lines from the same > song: > > On Christmas Day you can't get sore, > Your fellow man you must adore; > There's time to rob him all the more > The other three hundred and sixty four. > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From craigstamps at comcast.net Tue Dec 22 02:32:56 2009 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:32:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hark, the Herald Tribune sings References: <4B2F3053.6020409@skynet.be><001501ca8294$69a9d930$3cfd8b90$@com> <000701ca829e$9749cbc0$2401a8c0@p41600> Message-ID: <000801ca82a6$b1d79c80$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> A verse is formally a single line in a metrical composition, e.g. poetry. However, the word has come to represent any division or grouping of words in such a composition, which traditionally had been referred to as a stanza. (Wikipedia) And in music the verse is the portion of a lyric other than the chorus, thereby inferring a group of metrically aligned lines which often rhyme. So as usual DALB is right, but! Merry Christmas to all. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry BENNETT" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hark, the Herald Tribune sings > Lehrer is m g*d; happy xmas all. > > ********************** > I would have been in the Guards but for my > eyes...they were too near the ground > ********************** > >> Tom Lehrer's Christmas Carol, third verse: >> >> Relations sparing no expense will >> Buy some old-fashioned utensil >> Or a matching pen and pencil >> "Just what I wanted, how nice" >> It doesn't matter how sincere it >> Is or how heartfelt the spirit >> Sentiment will not endear it >> What's important is the price >> >> [DALB] >> >> Actual third stanza (not "verse", which is a > single line of a poem): >> >> Relations sparing no expense'll >> Send some useless old utensil, >> Or a matching pen and pencil - >> "Just the thing I need, how nice." >> It doesn't matter how sincere it >> Is, nor how heartfelt the spirit; >> Sentiment will not endear it, >> What's important is the price. >> >> More important to bridge players, perhaps, are > these lines from the same >> song: >> >> On Christmas Day you can't get sore, >> Your fellow man you must adore; >> There's time to rob him all the more >> The other three hundred and sixty four. >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Dec 22 10:00:20 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:00:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <30598BBBCD82497AB72F7F5E2AECAF5A@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B308AA4.4000603@t-online.de> Marvin French schrieb: > Richard Hills: > >> And there is no better way of spending Christmas Eve than >> by watching (as I will) the DVD of "Monty Python's Life of >> Brian". > I ordered this DVD from Netflix at Richard's suggestion and enjoyed > it immensely even though I am new to Monty Python films. Now I must > get Monty Python and the Holy Grail if only to find out why it is > rated one star (1-5 scale) on Netflix and 8.5 stars (1-10 scale) on > imdb.com. If you enjoyed "Life of Brian", then "Holy Grail" will be closer to the imdb rating for you. It certainly is a low budget film and often looks like one (which is intentional, I think), but that was no problem for "Mad Max", for example. I like it a lot, and the people I know usually love or hate both. Seasonal greetings Matthias > > 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 22 10:34:33 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:34:33 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Hark, the Herald Tribune sings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200912220019.QAA27532@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <118D99BBE79743FF9E32469A5325AEED@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hark, the Herald Tribune sings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard wrote: > >> Book of ACBL, Chapter Two, Verses Nine through Twenty-One: >> >> And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Stop >> Card. Then shalt thou count to ten seconds, no more, no less. Ten >> shall be the seconds thou shalt count, and the seconds of the >> counting shall be ten. Eleven seconds shalt thou not count, neither >> count thou nine seconds, excepting that thou then proceed to ten >> seconds. Twelve seconds is right out. Once the number ten, being the >> tenth number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Law 16B2 Director >> Call of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall >> snuff it." > > I think this applies only if your opponents are bunnies... > > -- Adam > +=+ No, No - that's Easter.+=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 22 11:09:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:09:21 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Hark, the Herald Tribune sings References: <4B2F3053.6020409@skynet.be><001501ca8294$69a9d930$3cfd8b90$@com><000701ca829e$9749cbc0$2401a8c0@p41600> <000801ca82a6$b1d79c80$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 1:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hark, the Herald Tribune sings A verse is formally a single line in a metrical composition, e.g. poetry. However, the word has come to represent any division or grouping of words in such a composition, which traditionally had been referred to as a stanza. (Wikipedia) And in music the verse is the portion of a lyric other than the chorus, thereby inferring a group of metrically aligned lines which often rhyme. So as usual DALB is right, but! Merry Christmas to all. > Craig > +=+ Verses Nine through Twenty-One, Wisdom spun and malice none, As for use of 'stanza', 'verse', How does this affect our purse? May we not this feasting round Emphasize the Merry sound: Children's joy as happy feet Innocently run to greet Generations old and grey On the cusp of Christmas Day? +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Dec 22 16:52:41 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:52:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? Message-ID: Hi, Here is a case from the final of the Grand Prix Of Poland cycle. The level of the field is about as high as you get in this country, 16 top pairs who vied for qualification all year. The players involved in this incident are experts, First Division level though none of them has ever played on the national team. Matchpoints. Future declarer opens 14-16 1NT with a nice 16 count. Everyone passes and partner tables an 8 count. Few pairs play 1NT 14-16 in Poland so it looks that everyone else is in 3NT; dummy will invite game opposite 15-17 and opener will probably accept. The 3NT contract hinges on the diamond suit where you have 9 cards withouth the queen. In the middle of the play it dawns on declarer that the previous hand might have been miscored. He stands up to talk to his partner about the score of the previous board (screens are used so it is easier to speak when you stand) then sits down and the play of the current hand resumes. Declarer gets the diamonds right by finessing on the second round of the suit. The opponents object that declarer could have seen his screenmate's hand when he suddenly and unexpectadly stood up. Declarer assures that he saw nothing and explains that he didn't play diamonds for the drop because everyone else will be in 3NT so if diamonds are 2-2 he is headed for a bottom anyway. How do you rule? In principle it looks like a typical 12A1 case to me. Declarer violated L74C8. There is no specific rectification for violating this particular law this case seems to be covered by L12A1. The only problem that I have is that L12A1 is not a law of the "could have" type. It simply says that "The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent" Now in order to provide indemnity you would have to determine that the opponents were damaged. Not that they _could have_ been damaged but that indeed they were. In this case it seems that the rules require the TD to determine whether declarer did actually see his screenmate's hand or not. How is he supposed to do that? The declarer in question is a person with a very good reputation and there is little doubt about his honesty. The question is: should such things matter to the ruling? Because if they do then invariably it boils down to the TD saying "I trust you, sir, that you didn't see anything" or "in my opinion it is possible that you did see your opponent's hand and now you're lying to me". I really believe that the TD shouldn't be put in such a position to begin with. When somebody accidentally opens a traveller before playing the hand then we routinely give A- to the guy even if he swored by his mother's grave that he didn't see the hands and the scores. I would like the TD to rule in the same vein here but I'm not sure if the wording of L12A1 permits him to. I'd prefer L12A1 to contain words like "could have gained advantege" so that ruling on cases like this one be independent of the TD's personal opinion about the honest of the player in question. Or am I missing something? What is your ruling and why? Best regards, Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Czujesz sie swietnie? Czy wprost przeciwnie? Moze to Twoj biorytm? Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f2533 From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 22 17:21:30 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:21:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B30F20A.7000207@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > Hi, > > Here is a case from the final of the Grand Prix Of Poland cycle. > The level of the field is about as high as you get in this country, > 16 top pairs who vied for qualification all year. > The players involved in this incident are experts, First > Division level though none of them has ever played on the > national team. > > Matchpoints. Future declarer opens 14-16 1NT with a nice 16 count. > Everyone passes and partner tables an 8 count. Few pairs play > 1NT 14-16 in Poland so it looks that everyone else is in 3NT; > dummy will invite game opposite 15-17 and opener > will probably accept. > > The 3NT contract hinges on the diamond suit where you > have 9 cards withouth the queen. > > In the middle of the play it dawns on declarer that the previous > hand might have been miscored. He stands up to talk to > his partner about the score of the previous board (screens > are used so it is easier to speak when you stand) then > sits down and the play of the current hand resumes. Declarer > gets the diamonds right by finessing on the second round > of the suit. > > The opponents object that declarer could have seen his screenmate's > hand when he suddenly and unexpectadly stood up. > And ... do they mean dummy had made some signs after seeing their hands, "spotscars" style ? Because I don't see what else could be problematic with being able to see dummy's hands. If this is the case, it's a more serious offense than just L12. If not, what's the heck ? BTW, it looks like, if everybody was in 3NT, declarer's score doesn't depend from his handling of diamonds. If you correct 150 to 120, few matchpoints will change hands. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 22 18:08:47 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:08:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301ca8329$6d29e380$477daa80$@no> On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > Hi, > > Here is a case from the final of the Grand Prix Of Poland cycle. > The level of the field is about as high as you get in this country, > 16 top pairs who vied for qualification all year. > The players involved in this incident are experts, First Division level though none > of them has ever played on the national team. > > Matchpoints. Future declarer opens 14-16 1NT with a nice 16 count. > Everyone passes and partner tables an 8 count. Few pairs play 1NT 14-16 in > Poland so it looks that everyone else is in 3NT; dummy will invite game opposite > 15-17 and opener will probably accept. > > The 3NT contract hinges on the diamond suit where you have 9 cards withouth > the queen. > > In the middle of the play it dawns on declarer that the previous hand might have > been miscored. He stands up to talk to his partner about the score of the previous > board (screens are used so it is easier to speak when you stand) then sits down > and the play of the current hand resumes. Declarer gets the diamonds right by > finessing on the second round of the suit. > > The opponents object that declarer could have seen his screenmate's hand when > he suddenly and unexpectadly stood up. > Declarer assures that he saw nothing and explains that he didn't play diamonds > for the drop because everyone else will be in 3NT so if diamonds are 2-2 he is > headed for a bottom anyway. > > How do you rule? > > In principle it looks like a typical 12A1 case to me. Declarer violated L74C8. There > is no specific rectification for violating this particular law this case seems to be > covered by L12A1. > The only problem that I have is that L12A1 is not a law of the "could have" type. It > simply says that "The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that > these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the > particular type of violation committed by an opponent" > > Now in order to provide indemnity you would have to determine that the opponents > were damaged. Not that they _could have_ been damaged but that indeed they > were. In this case it seems that the rules require the TD to determine whether > declarer did actually see his screenmate's hand or not. How is he supposed to do > that? > > The declarer in question is a person with a very good reputation and there is little > doubt about his honesty. The question is: > should such things matter to the ruling? Because if they do then invariably it boils > down to the TD saying "I trust you, sir, that you didn't see anything" or "in my > opinion it is possible that you did see your opponent's hand and now you're lying > to me". > > I really believe that the TD shouldn't be put in such a position to begin with. When > somebody accidentally opens a traveller before playing the hand then we routinely > give A- to the guy even if he swored by his mother's grave that he didn't see the > hands and the scores. > > I would like the TD to rule in the same vein here but I'm not sure if the wording of > L12A1 permits him to. > > I'd prefer L12A1 to contain words like "could have gained advantege" > so that ruling on cases like this one be independent of the TD's personal opinion > about the honest of the player in question. > > Or am I missing something? > > What is your ruling and why? My ruling would primarily be that this is an incredible, deliberate and absolutely unacceptable violation of screen regulations. I would impose a procedural penalty in the order of 50% to a full 100% of the top score on a board. There is absolutely no excuse for players at this level when committing such errors. Then, as I understand that the irregularity took place way out in the play period it obviously had no effect on reaching a contract of 1NT or 3NT so I would simply investigate what effect the resulting number of tricks (8 or 9?) would have on the MP score. If for instance the declarer is in for a bottom anyway there is no reason for any score adjustment. If he judges that there has been a real possibility that declarer could have gained from his irregularity then he can certainly use Law 12A1, but he also has Law 23 available. His adjustment under these laws should in any case be limited to the possible consequence of selecting a line of play for the diamonds different from the one he chose. Regards Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Dec 22 18:12:00 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:12:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? References: <4B30F20A.7000207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1B7EE3503BAD4323A06C495A94C81F87@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > Hi, > > Here is a case from the final of the Grand Prix Of Poland cycle. > The level of the field is about as high as you get in this country, > 16 top pairs who vied for qualification all year. > The players involved in this incident are experts, First > Division level though none of them has ever played on the > national team. > > Matchpoints. Future declarer opens 14-16 1NT with a nice 16 count. > Everyone passes and partner tables an 8 count. Few pairs play > 1NT 14-16 in Poland so it looks that everyone else is in 3NT; > dummy will invite game opposite 15-17 and opener > will probably accept. > > The 3NT contract hinges on the diamond suit where you > have 9 cards withouth the queen. > > In the middle of the play it dawns on declarer that the previous > hand might have been miscored. He stands up to talk to > his partner about the score of the previous board (screens > are used so it is easier to speak when you stand) then > sits down and the play of the current hand resumes. Declarer > gets the diamonds right by finessing on the second round > of the suit. > > The opponents object that declarer could have seen his screenmate's > hand when he suddenly and unexpectadly stood up. > >And ... do they mean dummy had made some signs after seeing their hands, >"spotscars" style ? No, nothing of the kind. >Because I don't see what else could be problematic with being able to >see dummy's hands. Not dummy's - screenmate's. If you suddenly stand up then you might get a peek into your screenmate's hand. It is easy to see somebody else's cards when you are standing up and they are sitting. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Czujesz sie swietnie? Czy wprost przeciwnie? Moze to Twoj biorytm? Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f2533 From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 22 18:35:03 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:35:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B310347.2040308@skynet.be> A good argument is this one: If you notice that you need to find the DQ, you start thinking of all the little clues that can give you a hint. You do not start thinking about a scoring error in the previous board. I would not hesitate in telling this person that I believe he did it deliberately, but that since I cannot prove that to all satisfaction, I will simply rule that the board has become unplayable. I will give him a score based on him finding the queen 50% of the time (unless the field found it even less than that, and add a PP of, say, 20% for standing up in the middle of the board. And I will tell him to never do it again, or else ... Herman. Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Hi, > > Here is a case from the final of the Grand Prix Of Poland cycle. > The level of the field is about as high as you get in this country, > 16 top pairs who vied for qualification all year. > The players involved in this incident are experts, First > Division level though none of them has ever played on the > national team. > > Matchpoints. Future declarer opens 14-16 1NT with a nice 16 count. > Everyone passes and partner tables an 8 count. Few pairs play > 1NT 14-16 in Poland so it looks that everyone else is in 3NT; > dummy will invite game opposite 15-17 and opener > will probably accept. > > The 3NT contract hinges on the diamond suit where you > have 9 cards withouth the queen. > > In the middle of the play it dawns on declarer that the previous > hand might have been miscored. He stands up to talk to > his partner about the score of the previous board (screens > are used so it is easier to speak when you stand) then > sits down and the play of the current hand resumes. Declarer > gets the diamonds right by finessing on the second round > of the suit. > > The opponents object that declarer could have seen his screenmate's > hand when he suddenly and unexpectadly stood up. > Declarer assures that he saw nothing and explains that he didn't > play diamonds for the drop because everyone else will be in 3NT > so if diamonds are 2-2 he is headed for a bottom anyway. > > How do you rule? > > In principle it looks like a typical 12A1 case to me. Declarer > violated L74C8. There is no specific rectification for violating > this particular law this case seems to be covered by L12A1. > The only problem that I have is that L12A1 is not a law of the > "could have" type. It simply says that "The Director may award an > adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not > provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for > the particular type of violation committed by an opponent" > > Now in order to provide indemnity you would have to determine > that the opponents were damaged. Not that they _could have_ > been damaged but that indeed they were. In this case it seems that > the rules require the TD to determine whether declarer did actually > see his screenmate's hand or not. How is he supposed to do that? > > The declarer in question is a person with a very good reputation > and there is little doubt about his honesty. The question is: > should such things matter to the ruling? Because if they do then > invariably it boils down to the TD saying "I trust you, sir, that you didn't > see anything" or "in my opinion it is possible that you did > see your opponent's hand and now you're lying to me". > I really believe that the TD shouldn't be put in such > a position to begin with. When somebody accidentally > opens a traveller before playing the hand then we routinely > give A- to the guy even if he swored by his mother's grave > that he didn't see the hands and the scores. > > I would like the TD to rule in the same vein here but > I'm not sure if the wording of L12A1 permits him to. > > I'd prefer L12A1 to contain words like "could have gained advantege" > so that ruling on cases like this one be independent of > the TD's personal opinion about the honest of the player in question. > > Or am I missing something? > > What is your ruling and why? > > Best regards, > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Czujesz sie swietnie? Czy wprost przeciwnie? > Moze to Twoj biorytm? Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f2533 > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Dec 22 19:06:39 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:06:39 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? In-Reply-To: <4B30F20A.7000207@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B30F20A.7000207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B310AAF.4050601@yahoo.co.uk> Here is a case from the final of the Grand Prix Of Poland cycle. The level of the field is about as high as you get in this country, 16 top pairs who vied for qualification all year. The players involved in this incident are experts, First Division level though none of them has ever played on the national team. Matchpoints. Future declarer opens 14-16 1NT with a nice 16 count. Everyone passes and partner tables an 8 count. Few pairs play 1NT 14-16 in Poland so it looks that everyone else is in 3NT; dummy will invite game opposite 15-17 and opener will probably accept. The 3NT contract hinges on the diamond suit where you have 9 cards withouth the queen. In the middle of the play it dawns on declarer that the previous hand might have been miscored. He stands up to talk to his partner about the score of the previous board (screens are used so it is easier to speak when you stand) then sits down and the play of the current hand resumes. Declarer gets the diamonds right by finessing on the second round of the suit. The opponents object that declarer could have seen his screenmate's hand when he suddenly and unexpectadly stood up. Declarer assures that he saw nothing and explains that he didn't play diamonds for the drop because everyone else will be in 3NT so if diamonds are 2-2 he is headed for a bottom anyway. How do you rule? In principle it looks like a typical 12A1 case to me. Declarer violated L74C8. There is no specific rectification for violating this particular law this case seems to be covered by L12A1. The only problem that I have is that L12A1 is not a law of the "could have" type. It simply says that "The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." Now in order to provide indemnity you would have to determine that the opponents were damaged. Not that they _could have_ been damaged but that indeed they were. In this case it seems that the rules require the TD to determine whether declarer did actually see his screenmate's hand or not. How is he supposed to do that? The declarer in question is a person with a very good reputation and there is little doubt about his honesty. The question is: should such things matter to the ruling? Because if they do then invariably it boils down to the TD saying "I trust you, sir, that you didn't see anything" or "in my opinion it is possible that you did see your opponent's hand and now you're lying to me". I really believe that the TD shouldn't be put in such a position to begin with. When somebody accidentally opens a traveller before playing the hand then we routinely give A- to the guy even if he swored by his mother's grave that he didn't see the hands and the scores. I would like the TD to rule in the same vein here but I'm not sure if the wording of L12A1 permits him to. I'd prefer L12A1 to contain words like "could have gained advantege" so that ruling on cases like this one be independent of the TD's personal opinion about the honest of the player in question. Or am I missing something? What is your ruling and why? [Alain Gottcheiner] And ... do they mean dummy had made some signs after seeing their hands, "spotscars" style ? Because I don't see what else could be problematic with being able to see dummy's hands. If this is the case, it's a more serious offense than just L12. If not, what's the heck ? BTW, it looks like, if everybody was in 3NT, declarer's score doesn't depend from his handling of diamonds. If you correct 150 to 120, few matchpoints will change hands. [Nigel] Alain is right that, in practice, there will be negligible damage, if everyone else is in 3N. Konrad raises an important theoretical point, however. Rules that require the director to *read minds* are bad. Those that insist he do so *infallibly* are worse. Especially as that was probably not the WBFLC intention. This was probably just another unfortunate side-effect of sophistication and "elegant variation". Luckily in such cases, judging from comments in this and other fora, directors tend to ignore the law as written. Each does the best he can to dispense his idiosyncratic version of "natural justice". From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Dec 22 20:32:30 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:32:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? References: <000301ca8329$6d29e380$477daa80$@no> Message-ID: <0C038E74B4114869BA5E01326BB95B5E@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" > My ruling would primarily be that this is an incredible, deliberate and > absolutely unacceptable violation of screen regulations. Ironically no one has any doubts about declarer's honesty. His reputation is impeccable. The same cannot quite be said about defenders. _They_ might very well pull off such stunt deliberately. Which might perhaps explain why they were so suspicious. :) But all this is, I guess, irrelevant. > I would impose a > procedural penalty in the order of 50% to a full 100% of the top score on > a > board. There is absolutely no excuse for players at this level when > committing such errors. Obviously - no question about it. > > If he judges that there has been a real possibility that declarer could > have > gained from his irregularity then he can certainly use Law 12A1, but he > also > has Law 23 available. His adjustment under these laws should in any case > be > limited to the possible consequence of selecting a line of play for the > diamonds different from the one he chose. > Obviously we are talking of changing the number of tricks only but not the contract. Sure, we give the declarer all possible procedural penalties, warnings etc. this is simple stuff. But the hard part is what do we do with the result of the board? Defenders don't care much about penalties for declarer, do they? The problem is that Law 23 says: "When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity." Not "might have gained" but "_has_ gained". So in order to award an adjusted score under Law 23 the TD would have to determine that declarer _has actually gained_ by standing up from his chair. And the only way he could have gained is by actually seeing his screenmate's hand. If he didn't see his opponent's hand - he certainly gained nothing. So Law 23 requires the TD to determine if declarer did actually see his opponent's hand or not. How on earth is the TD supposed to do that? The L12A1 route faces exactly the same difficulty. Yes, the wording in L23 should be "could have gained". But at present it is what it is and to me it seems that under the current laws the only way the TD can rule against declarer who vehimently denies having seen anything is by telling the man "you' re liar". And I don't like that. This is exactly the problem we had in the past with rulings on UI and on hesitations misleading opponents. "Did your partner's hesitation have influence on your bid, sir?" "No, obviously not, I swear!". Or "Did you know that your tank before playing a singleton was about to mislead declarer about the location of the ace?" "Hell, no, it didn't occur to me at all!". And the TD either had to let the score stand or tell the player "You're lying, man". We changed the laws and now the TD doesn't have to determine that a player _knew_ that his hesitation was about to mislead his opponent but only that he _could have_ known than. And the TD no longer has to call a player a liar in order to rule against him after hesitation with a singleton. I would very much like the laws to work in the same way in the case I brought up. However, until the 2017 revision comes out, can anybody, under the current laws, find a way to rule against declarer without the need of the TD explicitly calling the player in question a liar? Perhaps we can find something. I would really be happy. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sypie, sypie, ale czy sypac bedzie nadal? Sprawdz pogode >> http://link.interia.pl/f2530 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 22 21:43:55 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:43:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Don Cupitt (1934- ), British theologian: "Christmas is the Disneyfication of Christianity." Konrad Ciborowski: [snip] >The opponents object that declarer could have seen his >screenmate's hand when he suddenly and unexpectedly stood up. >Declarer assures that he saw nothing and explains that he didn't >play diamonds for the drop because everyone else will be in 3NT >so if diamonds are 2-2 he is headed for a bottom anyway. > >How do you rule? > >In principle it looks like a typical 12A1 case to me. [snip] Richard Hills: In principle it looks like a typical Law 85B case to me. Law 85B - Rulings on Disputed Facts - Facts Not Determined: "If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue." Richard Hills: It is wildly inappropriate -- cart before the horse -- for _any_ Director to apply Law 12A1 _before_ the Director has assessed the disputed fact about whether or not an infraction of the anti- peeking Law 74C5 has occurred. Not any Law 74C5 infraction, not any adjusted score. (Although, as mentioned by others, declarer deserves an appropriate procedural penalty for declarer's highly careless breach of screen regulations.) Disney greetings Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 cibor at poczta.fm Tue Dec 22 21:52:03 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:52:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Don Cupitt (1934- ), British theologian: > > "Christmas is the Disneyfication of Christianity." > > Konrad Ciborowski: > > [snip] > >>The opponents object that declarer could have seen his >>screenmate's hand when he suddenly and unexpectedly stood up. >>Declarer assures that he saw nothing and explains that he didn't >>play diamonds for the drop because everyone else will be in 3NT >>so if diamonds are 2-2 he is headed for a bottom anyway. >> >>How do you rule? >> >>In principle it looks like a typical 12A1 case to me. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In principle it looks like a typical Law 85B case to me. > > Law 85B - Rulings on Disputed Facts - Facts Not Determined: > > "If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his > satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to > continue." > > Richard Hills: > > It is wildly inappropriate -- cart before the horse -- for _any_ > Director to apply Law 12A1 _before_ the Director has assessed the > disputed fact about whether or not an infraction of the anti- > peeking Law 74C5 has occurred. I don't get it. It is possible that declarer saw his screenmate's hand quite inadvertantly while standing up. In this case he saw his opponent's hand and there is not 75C5. Meanwhile we clearly have 74C8 violation. But in principle your reply bolis down to: "if he saw - adjust, if he didn't - result stands". This is what bothers me, because I just have no clue how the TD is supposed to find out. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wybierz wydarzenie roku, wygraj skuter! http://link.interia.pl/f2521 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 22 22:26:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:26:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Victoria Wood (1953- ), on a vegetarian Christmas: "It will be a very traditional Christmas, with presents, crackers, doors slamming and people bursting into tears, but without the big dead thing in the middle." Law 85B - Rulings on Disputed Facts - Facts Not Determined: "If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue." Richard Hills: >>It is wildly inappropriate -- cart before the horse -- for _any_ >>Director to apply Law 12A1 _before_ the Director has assessed the >>disputed fact about whether or not an infraction of the anti- >>peeking Law 74C5 has occurred. [snip] Konrad Ciborowski: >I don't get it. [snip] >Meanwhile we clearly have 74C8 violation. Richard Hills: In this case Law 74C8 "leaving the table needlessly before the round is called" is relevant for an adjusted score if and only if the Director determines on the balance of probabilities that declarer gained relevant information about the partially completed deal by observing or overhearing discussion about a duplicate of the deal _at another table_, which is _not_ the fact in dispute. Konrad Ciborowski: >But in principle your reply boils down to: "if he saw - adjust, if >he didn't - result stands". > >This is what bothers me, because I just have no clue how the TD is >supposed to find out. Richard Hills: What the Director _must not_ do is rule, "There is a 50% chance that an infraction occurred, so I will therefore adjust the score with a 50% weighting." When the Director has no clue about whether or not an infraction has occurred, the Director _must_ rule one way or the other, _not_ split the difference. That is why Law 85B is in the Lawbook as an ultimate last resort for clueless Directors. Season's greetings Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 22 22:46:11 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:46:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? In-Reply-To: <0C038E74B4114869BA5E01326BB95B5E@sfora4869e47f1> References: <000301ca8329$6d29e380$477daa80$@no> <0C038E74B4114869BA5E01326BB95B5E@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <000401ca8350$2db43e90$891cbbb0$@no> On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > From: "Sven Pran" > > > My ruling would primarily be that this is an incredible, deliberate > > and absolutely unacceptable violation of screen regulations. > > Ironically no one has any doubts about declarer's honesty. Neither have I > His reputation is impeccable. The same cannot quite be said about defenders. > _They_ might very well pull off such stunt deliberately. Which might perhaps > explain why they were so suspicious. :) > > But all this is, I guess, irrelevant. Absolutely. This part of my ruling has nothing to do with the honesty of the players. I simply want to make it clear that the behavior is beyond any critics and absolutely intolerable to the extent that I even skip the warning which almost always is my first step when considering PP. > > > I would impose a > > procedural penalty in the order of 50% to a full 100% of the top score > > on a board. There is absolutely no excuse for players at this level > > when committing such errors. > > Obviously - no question about it. > > > > > If he judges that there has been a real possibility that declarer > > could have gained from his irregularity then he can certainly use Law > > 12A1, but he also has Law 23 available. His adjustment under these > > laws should in any case be limited to the possible consequence of > > selecting a line of play for the diamonds different from the one he > > chose. > > > > Obviously we are talking of changing the number of tricks only but not the > contract. Sure, we give the declarer all possible procedural penalties, warnings > etc. this is simple stuff. But the hard part is what do we do with the result of the > board? Defenders don't care much about penalties for declarer, do they? Nor should they care much for rectification beyond what is needed to give them redress for damage. And damage here is a matter of judgement by the Director whether you want to use Law 12 directly or via Law 23. > > The problem is that Law 23 says: > > "When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he > considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity." > > Not "might have gained" but "_has_ gained". So in order to award an adjusted > score under Law 23 the TD would have to determine that declarer _has actually > gained_ by standing up from his chair. And the only way he could have gained is > by actually seeing his screenmate's hand. If he didn't see his opponent's hand - > he certainly gained nothing. > > So Law 23 requires the TD to determine if declarer did actually see his opponent's > hand or not. How on earth is the TD supposed to do that? > > The L12A1 route faces exactly the same difficulty. And for a reason to which I agree. The Director must use his judgement and decide upon his action. > > Yes, the wording in L23 should be "could have gained". > But at present it is what it is and to me it seems that under the current laws the > only way the TD can rule against declarer who vehimently denies having seen > anything is by telling the man "you' re liar". > > And I don't like that. This is exactly the problem we had in the past with rulings on > UI and on hesitations misleading opponents. > "Did your partner's hesitation have influence on your bid, sir?" > "No, obviously not, I swear!". Or "Did you know that your tank before playing a > singleton was about to mislead declarer about the location of the ace?" "Hell, no, it > didn't occur to me at all!". > And the TD either had to let the score stand or tell the player "You're lying, man". > > We changed the laws and now the TD doesn't have to determine that a player > _knew_ that his hesitation was about to mislead his opponent but only that he > _could have_ known than. And the TD no longer has to call a player a liar in order > to rule against him after hesitation with a singleton. Nor did he need to in the previous laws. But the essential point is that when awarding an adjusted score the Director will always have to use his judgement, and this judgement can be subject to an appeal. > > I would very much like the laws to work in the same way in the case I brought up. > However, until the 2017 revision comes out, can anybody, under the current laws, > find a way to rule against declarer without the need of the TD explicitly calling the > player in question a liar? Perhaps we can find something. > I would really be happy. No reason for that. Serve him a substantial PP and don't try to adjust more than the damage you think he has done to his opponents. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 22 23:34:23 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:34:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B310347.2040308@skynet.be> Message-ID: Poet Laureate John Betjeman, "Christmas" (1954): And girls in slacks remember Dad, And oafish louts remember Mum, And sleepless children's hearts are glad, And Christmas-morning bells say "Come!" And is it true? And is it true, This most tremendous tale of all, Seen in a stained-glass window's hue, A Baby in an ox's stall? Herman De Wael: >>.....I would not hesitate in telling this person that I believe he >>did it deliberately, but that since I cannot prove that to all >>satisfaction, I will simply rule that the board has become >>unplayable. I will give him a score based on him finding the queen >>50% of the time..... Richard Hills: (a) I would hesitate, not wishing to sell my house to pay for the costs of the subsequent real-life legal action for defamation. (b) Receipt of UI never makes a board unplayable. Use of UI makes the score adjustable, but play should first be concluded (perhaps the defenders get a cold top, so are not damaged, while an earlier 50/50 ruling precludes that cold top). (c) If declarer has infracted, declarer deserves 0% of the correct "guess". If declarer has not infracted, then declarer has not "guessed" but has in fact guessed, so deserves 100% of the correct guess. A 50/50 ruling is similar to a Reveley Ruling, but in this case even more clearly unLawful, since this time based upon a 50% chance that an infraction did or did not occur. Nigel Guthrie: >.....Luckily in such cases, judging from comments in this and other >fora, directors tend to ignore the law as written. Each does the >best he can to dispense his idiosyncratic version of "natural >justice". Richard Hills: If by writing "directors" Nigel Guthrie intended the meaning "most Directors", I note that on Lawful rulings Herman De Wael is a unique Grattan Endicott: >>>.....er - uncomplicated Belgian [who] is not up to speed. >>> "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year" >>>to you and all our readers. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Season's greetings Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 23 00:08:06 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:08:06 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? References: <4B30F20A.7000207@ulb.ac.be> <4B310AAF.4050601@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <50D6376DFAC9432ABC930CD2A9814652@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? > In principle it looks like a typical 12A1 case to me. Declarer violated L74C8. There is no specific rectification for violating this particular law this case seems to be covered by L12A1. The only problem that I have is that L12A1 is not a law of the "could have" type. It simply says that "The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." < +=+ So it hinges on the interpretation of 'indemnity'. It is true that the dictionary states "compensation for loss or injury". But it also defines the word as "security from damage or loss". I consider this definition to be sufficient to cover protection from losses of all kinds including intangible losses. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 23 00:29:42 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:29:42 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? References: <000301ca8329$6d29e380$477daa80$@no><0C038E74B4114869BA5E01326BB95B5E@sfora4869e47f1> <000401ca8350$2db43e90$891cbbb0$@no> Message-ID: <9CA8817E78C34D55BE798B58817E3CE2@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 9:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? >> I would impose a procedural penalty in the order of 50% to a full 100% of the top score on a board. There is absolutely no excuse for players at this level when committing such errors. >> +=+ I might want to think about the frequencies of Q x x and of the 2-2 breaks, and the class of player. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 23 00:35:09 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:35:09 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? References: <000301ca8329$6d29e380$477daa80$@no><0C038E74B4114869BA5E01326BB95B5E@sfora4869e47f1><000401ca8350$2db43e90$891cbbb0$@no> <9CA8817E78C34D55BE798B58817E3CE2@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 9:46 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? > > >>> > I would impose a > procedural penalty in the order of 50% to a full 100% > of the top score on a board. There is absolutely no > excuse for players at this level when committing such > errors. >>> > +=+ I might want to think about the frequencies of > Q x x and of the 2-2 breaks, and the class of player. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ That said, one can reasonably argue that for the opponents the intangible loss is potentially 100% of their score when the player misguesses. +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 23 09:20:34 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:20:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? In-Reply-To: <0C038E74B4114869BA5E01326BB95B5E@sfora4869e47f1> References: <000301ca8329$6d29e380$477daa80$@no> <0C038E74B4114869BA5E01326BB95B5E@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4B31D2D2.2060406@skynet.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > >> My ruling would primarily be that this is an incredible, deliberate and >> absolutely unacceptable violation of screen regulations. > > Ironically no one has any doubts about declarer's honesty. I have. How is it possible that someone who is thinking about where to find the DQ suddenly thinks about asking about the previous board? And acts upon that thought? And acts is such a terrible manner? I ahve grave doubts about his honesty. > His reputation is impeccable. The same cannot quite > be said about defenders. _They_ might very well > pull off such stunt deliberately. Which might > perhaps explain why they were so suspicious. :) > > But all this is, I guess, irrelevant. > Indeed it is. We should not be seen to condone such behaviour and I am sure that this declarer, even if he is completely honest, will understand that if we do nothing about him, other, less honest, players will be able to do the same thing. I am quite confident that I can explain this to this declarer, when I give him his penalty. And I'll be able to explain it to an AC if he decides to appeal it. >> I would impose a >> procedural penalty in the order of 50% to a full 100% of the top score on >> a >> board. There is absolutely no excuse for players at this level when >> committing such errors. > > Obviously - no question about it. > >> If he judges that there has been a real possibility that declarer could >> have >> gained from his irregularity then he can certainly use Law 12A1, but he >> also >> has Law 23 available. His adjustment under these laws should in any case >> be >> limited to the possible consequence of selecting a line of play for the >> diamonds different from the one he chose. >> > > Obviously we are talking of changing the number of tricks only but > not the contract. Sure, we give the declarer all possible procedural > penalties, > warnings etc. this is simple stuff. But the hard part is what do we > do with the result of the board? Defenders don't care much > about penalties for declarer, do they? > > The problem is that Law 23 says: > > "When the play has been completed the Director awards an > adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage > through the irregularity." > > Not "might have gained" but "_has_ gained". So in order to award > an adjusted score under Law 23 the TD would have to determine > that declarer _has actually gained_ by standing up from his chair. And the > only > way he could have gained is by actually seeing his > screenmate's hand. If he didn't see his opponent's hand - > he certainly gained nothing. > I am not certain about that. The laws define advantage as a better score than originally expected. At the point of his infraction, he was 50% on finding the queen. After his infraction he has found her. That's advantage. Which he gained after his infraction. I don't need to rule that he actually saw the queen, as much as I don't need to rule that a defender actually saw his partner's penalty card. The card is an infraction in itself. So is standing up (well, I'm sure we can find a law or regulation that says it is). > So Law 23 requires the TD to determine if declarer did actually > see his opponent's hand or not. How on earth is the TD supposed to > do that? > > The L12A1 route faces exactly the same difficulty. > > Yes, the wording in L23 should be "could have gained". > But at present it is what it is and to me it seems that under the current > laws the only way the TD can rule against declarer > who vehimently denies having seen anything > is by telling the man "you' re liar". > > And I don't like that. This is exactly the problem we had in the past with > rulings on UI and on hesitations misleading opponents. > "Did your partner's hesitation have influence on your bid, sir?" > "No, obviously not, I swear!". Or "Did you know that your tank > before playing a singleton was about to mislead declarer about > the location of the ace?" "Hell, no, it didn't occur to me at all!". > And the TD either had to let the score stand or tell > the player "You're lying, man". > > We changed the laws and now the TD doesn't have > to determine that a player _knew_ that his hesitation > was about to mislead his opponent but only that > he _could have_ known than. And the TD no longer has to > call a player a liar in order to rule against him > after hesitation with a singleton. > > I would very much like the laws to work in the same way > in the case I brought up. However, until the 2017 revision comes out, > can anybody, under the current laws, find a way to rule against declarer > without the need of the TD explicitly calling the player in > question a liar? Perhaps we can find something. > I would really be happy. > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 23 11:06:50 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:06:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? In-Reply-To: <1B7EE3503BAD4323A06C495A94C81F87@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4B30F20A.7000207@ulb.ac.be> <1B7EE3503BAD4323A06C495A94C81F87@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4B31EBBA.2010907@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:21 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? > > > Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > >> Hi, >> >> Here is a case from the final of the Grand Prix Of Poland cycle. >> The level of the field is about as high as you get in this country, >> 16 top pairs who vied for qualification all year. >> The players involved in this incident are experts, First >> Division level though none of them has ever played on the >> national team. >> >> Matchpoints. Future declarer opens 14-16 1NT with a nice 16 count. >> Everyone passes and partner tables an 8 count. Few pairs play >> 1NT 14-16 in Poland so it looks that everyone else is in 3NT; >> dummy will invite game opposite 15-17 and opener >> will probably accept. >> >> The 3NT contract hinges on the diamond suit where you >> have 9 cards withouth the queen. >> >> In the middle of the play it dawns on declarer that the previous >> hand might have been miscored. He stands up to talk to >> his partner about the score of the previous board (screens >> are used so it is easier to speak when you stand) then >> sits down and the play of the current hand resumes. Declarer >> gets the diamonds right by finessing on the second round >> of the suit. >> >> The opponents object that declarer could have seen his screenmate's >> hand when he suddenly and unexpectadly stood up. >> >> And ... do they mean dummy had made some signs after seeing their hands, >> "spotscars" style ? >> > > No, nothing of the kind. > > >> Because I don't see what else could be problematic with being able to >> see dummy's hands. >> > > Not dummy's - screenmate's. If you suddenly stand up then > you might get a peek into your screenmate's hand. > It is easy to see somebody else's cards when you are standing > up and they are sitting. > Hmm ... seems like I'm not very sensible to this, due to my restricted field of view. It's nearly impossible to assess whather the player did in fact see the cards, so L16 isn't appropriate to "could have seen" cases. Whence I'd resort to L74, which doesn't need considering the effects of one's behaviour. Here, the score adjustment (presumably to +120) wouldn't penalize him that much. And that's fair, because the result of the deal (better for declarer's side) was set before the infraction happened. However, you should still impose a procedural penalty, and that's L74's field. I think Sven is too extreme, but penalizing them is mandatory. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 23 11:10:53 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:10:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? In-Reply-To: <4B310347.2040308@skynet.be> References: <4B310347.2040308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B31ECAD.80306@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > A good argument is this one: > > If you notice that you need to find the DQ, you start thinking of all > the little clues that can give you a hint. You do not start thinkingabout a scoring error in the previous board. AG : I disagree. This sort of involuntary multi-tasking is welk-known to psychologists : he who needs to focus on subtle hints can easily start on some other trail. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 23 11:40:24 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:40:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? In-Reply-To: <4B31D2D2.2060406@skynet.be> References: <000301ca8329$6d29e380$477daa80$@no> <0C038E74B4114869BA5E01326BB95B5E@sfora4869e47f1> <4B31D2D2.2060406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B31F398.4000502@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> > > Indeed it is. We should not be seen to condone such behaviour and I am > sure that this declarer, even if he is completely honest, will > understand that if we do nothing about him, other, less honest, players > will be able to do the same thing. AG : I very much prefer this justification. You only need L74 - no accusing, no mind-reading, no need to be rude. And this is how I explain the -otherwise unduly severe- revoke rules. > I am quite confident that I can > explain this to this declarer, when I give him his penalty. And I'll be > able to explain it to an AC if he decides to appeal it. > AG : is there any appeal possibility against behavioural penalties ? > I am not certain about that. > The laws define advantage as a better score than originally expected. At > the point of his infraction, he was 50% on finding the queen. After his > infraction he has found her. That's advantage. Which he gained after his > infraction. AG : in this -admittedly very specific- case, there is no advantage. +120 and +150 will earn him the same amount of MPs, Konrad told us. BTW, this is why, if one demands that I try mind-reading, I wouldn't consider plausible that declarer acted in the hope of seeing the cards, as it wouldn't help him change his score. > I don't need to rule that he actually saw the queen, as much > as I don't need to rule that a defender actually saw his partner's > penalty card. The card is an infraction in itself. So is standing up > (well, I'm sure we can find a law or regulation that says it is). > > 74B2 ? A2? Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 23 14:50:45 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:50:45 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? References: <000301ca8329$6d29e380$477daa80$@no> <0C038E74B4114869BA5E01326BB95B5E@sfora4869e47f1><4B31D2D2.2060406@skynet.be> <4B31F398.4000502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6A4841D647354D5680E7A8DE615666DA@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:40 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? < > I don't need to rule that he actually saw the queen, as much > as I don't need to rule that a defender actually saw his partner's > penalty card. The card is an infraction in itself. So is standing up > (well, I'm sure we can find a law or regulation that says it is). > > 74B2 ? A2? < +=+ It is my view that if the Director considers that declarer, in consequence of his breach of screen regulations, could well have seen an opponent's card and thereby gained an advantage, he is empowered by Law 12A1 to award an adjusted score. I base my opinion upon the fact that 12A1 says that the NOS is entitled to be *secured* against loss or damage - afforded 'indemnity' - and this language covers the intangible possibility that the Director may identify. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bridgeinindia at gmail.com Wed Dec 23 15:16:53 2009 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (Raghavan P.S.) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:46:53 +0530 Subject: [BLML] Entry fees for Regional events at Philadelphia Message-ID: *Regarding Entry fees to WBF consolation and Regional events at Philadelphia 2010. I got clarification from Anna Gudge of ECats and John Mark (Tournament chairman at Philadelphia). Anna said that those who did not qualify in world championship events of 2010 would get a free entry in consolation events conducted by WBF there. Tourney chairman John Mark stated that regional and WBF events are separate . Those coming after failure to qualify in World championship events have to pay entry fees if they want to play in regional events. With Regards Dr Raghavan.P.S. Editor at BridgeIndia.com BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph =+91-044-23761038 Mobile = 9940273749* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091223/1c9e3cb6/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 23 15:30:31 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:30:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? In-Reply-To: <4B31EBBA.2010907@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B30F20A.7000207@ulb.ac.be> <1B7EE3503BAD4323A06C495A94C81F87@sfora4869e47f1> <4B31EBBA.2010907@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <374384F9-893F-497E-8915-D6B7CFCA0167@starpower.net> On Dec 23, 2009, at 5:06 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > >> Not dummy's - screenmate's. If you suddenly stand up then >> you might get a peek into your screenmate's hand. >> It is easy to see somebody else's cards when you are standing >> up and they are sitting. > > Hmm ... seems like I'm not very sensible to this, due to my restricted > field of view. > It's nearly impossible to assess whather the player did in fact see > the > cards, so L16 isn't appropriate to "could have seen" cases. > Whence I'd resort to L74, which doesn't need considering the > effects of > one's behaviour. If one were to stand up suddenly, making no attempt at nor actually seeing one's screenmate's cards, one might nevertheless observe whether that screenmate was quick to cover up his hand so it wouldn't be seen (as though aware that there might be a critical guess in the offing) or was a bit more casual or unconcerned about doing so, and perhaps get better than 50-50 odds by playing him or his partner for the queen respectively. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 23 17:37:49 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:37:49 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? References: <4B30F20A.7000207@ulb.ac.be><1B7EE3503BAD4323A06C495A94C81F87@sfora4869e47f1><4B31EBBA.2010907@ulb.ac.be> <374384F9-893F-497E-8915-D6B7CFCA0167@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? If one were to stand up suddenly, making no attempt at nor actually seeing one's screenmate's cards, one might nevertheless observe whether that screenmate was quick to cover up his hand so it wouldn't be seen (as though aware that there might be a critical guess in the offing) or was a bit more casual or unconcerned about doing so, and perhaps get better than 50-50 odds by playing him or his partner for the queen respectively. +=+ I think, Eric, the odds are not exactly 50-50. A player of the given standard would know the probabilities. +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 23 17:42:04 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:42:04 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Entry fees for Regional events at Philadelphia References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <631578.69424.qm@web23707.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Opponents of the same standard would accidentally let the stand-up hero get a glimpse of their hands, both having a singleton.. So 50-50 it is. (Is that legal by the way - did the players at the time know that it might be to their advantage to mislead declarer) PO --- Den ons 2009-12-23 skrev Grattan : Fr?n: Grattan ?mne: Re: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? Till: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Datum: onsdag 23 december 2009 17.37 Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? If one were to stand up suddenly, making no attempt at nor actually seeing one's screenmate's cards, one might nevertheless observe whether that screenmate was quick to cover up his hand so it wouldn't be seen (as though aware that there might be a critical guess in the offing) or was a bit more casual or unconcerned about doing so, and perhaps get better than 50-50 odds by playing him or his partner for the queen respectively. +=+ I think, Eric, the odds are not exactly 50-50. A player of the given standard would know the probabilities. +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________________________________________________________ G?r det l?ngsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling. S?k och j?mf?r priser hos Kelkoo. http://www.kelkoo.se/c-100015813-bredband.html?partnerId=96914325 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091223/2cc307e4/attachment-0001.html From posundelin at yahoo.se Wed Dec 23 18:21:56 2009 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:21:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Hesitation Blackwood In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <341381.20858.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> You hold???? void, KQJxx, KJTxx, AQJ Partner opens 1C, 17+. You respond 1S?to show?8+ hp and 5+ hearts. Your LHO doubles to show spades, partner supports to 2H and you bid 3C, by agreement first round control. Opener bids 3D, must be the ace, since first round spade control would have been bid before second round in diamonds. Opener must have at least one of the pointed aces and?there is no room for 17 with a diamond void. ? You cuebid 3S, opener jumps to 4NT RKCB. You respond 5S, two keycards plus the queen of trumps. Opener bids 6H after a slight tempo break. ? If now you bid 7H, would you expect the TD to take it back to 6H? And please, predict the jury decision?after either TD ruling. ? __________________________________________________________ L?na pengar utan s?kerhet. J?mf?r vilkor online hos Kelkoo. http://www.kelkoo.se/c-100390123-lan-utan-sakerhet.html?partnerId=96915014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091223/39ad1f4a/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Dec 23 18:52:50 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:52:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation Blackwood In-Reply-To: <341381.20858.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <341381.20858.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:21:56 -0500, PO Sundelin wrote: > You hold void, KQJxx, KJTxx, AQJ > Partner opens 1C, 17+. You respond 1S to show 8+ hp and 5+ hearts. Your > LHO doubles to show spades, partner supports to 2H and you bid 3C, by > agreement first round control. Opener bids 3D, must be the ace, since > first round spade control would have been bid before second round in > diamonds. Opener must have at least one of the pointed aces > and there is no room for 17 with a diamond void. > You cuebid 3S, opener jumps to 4NT RKCB. You respond 5S, two keycards > plus the queen of trumps. Opener bids 6H after a slight tempo break. > If now you bid 7H, would you expect the TD to take it back to 6H? And > please, predict the jury decision after either TD ruling. If you are off an ace, it has to be the ace of spades and the grand slam looks great. Partner would bid 5NT if you weren't off a control. Right? You can't be off two controls. So the hesitation suggests that you aren't off a control, in which case the grand slam doesn't look as obvious to me. So it suggests passing. I guess I would roll a pass back to 7H if the hestitation was acknowledged. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 23 22:07:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:07:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6A4841D647354D5680E7A8DE615666DA@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, personal opinion: >+=+ It is my view that if the Director considers that declarer, >in consequence of his breach of screen regulations, could well >have seen an opponent's card and thereby gained an advantage, >he is empowered by Law 12A1 to award an adjusted score. > I base my opinion upon the fact that 12A1 says that the >NOS is entitled to be *secured* against loss or damage - >afforded 'indemnity' - and this language covers the intangible >possibility that the Director may identify. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills, personal opinion: I am a fool who rushes in where herald angels fail to sing. It is my view that Grattan's interpretation of Law 12A1 is contrary to the wording of Law 84A. "When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation, and the facts are agreed, he rules as follows: If no rectification is prescribed by law, and there is no occasion for him to exercise his discretionary powers, he directs the players to proceed with the auction or play." Richard Hills, personal opinion: If the Director has made a Law 85 determination that declarer did not receive UI, then Law 84A prohibits the Director from over- ruling that decision via a Law 12A1 "could well have seen" pseudo-receipt of UI. Senator John Faulkner, Australian Minister for Defence: "Yet everyone knows, given the choice between a conspiracy and a stuff-up, go for the stuff-up every time." Konrad Ciborowski: >>>Ironically no one has any doubts about declarer's honesty. Herman De Wael: >>I have. >>How is it possible that someone who is thinking about where to >>find the DQ suddenly thinks about asking about the previous >>board? And acts upon that thought? And acts in such a terrible >>manner? I have grave doubts about his honesty. Konrad Ciborowski: >>>His reputation is impeccable. The same cannot quite be said >>>about defenders. _They_ might very well pull off such stunt >>>deliberately. Which might perhaps explain why they were so >>>suspicious. :) >>> >>>But all this is, I guess, irrelevant. Herman De Wael: >>Indeed it is. Richard Hills: No it is not. Konrad's additional evidence suggests a stuff-up, not a conspiracy. Declarer presumably often conducted post- mortems with partner _between_ deals by standing up (not an infraction of screen regulations), but had a one-off brain snap by unintentionally standing up _during_ a deal (an infraction of screen regulations worthy of a procedural penalty for _any_ declarer, impeccable reputation or otherwise). If, hypothetically, declarer had a much less than impeccable reputation, and had pulled similar stunts many times before, then in addition to the procedural penalty I would refer this latest incident to the local Conduct and Ethics Committee, pursuant to Law 81C7. Season's greetings Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 23 22:56:40 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:56:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation Blackwood [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <341381.20858.qm@web23705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Tom Lehrer's Christmas Carol, conclusion: So let the raucous sleigh bells jingle, Hail our dear old friend Kriss Kringle, Driving his reindeer across the sky. Don't stand underneath when they fly by. PO Sundelin: >You hold void, KQJxx, KJTxx, AQJ >Partner opens 1C, 17+. You respond 1S to show 8+ hp and 5+ hearts. >Your LHO doubles to show spades, partner supports to 2H and you >bid 3C, by agreement first round control. Opener bids 3D, must be >the ace, since first round spade control would have been bid >before second round in diamonds. Opener must have at least one of >the pointed aces and there is no room for 17 with a diamond void. > >You cuebid 3S, opener jumps to 4NT RKCB. You respond 5S, Richard Hills: No, you respond 7H. A safety play against pard's likely future hesitation, since pard is not aware of the full power of your high cards (and void). PO Sundelin: >two keycards plus the queen of trumps. Opener bids 6H after a >slight tempo break. > >If now you bid 7H, would you expect the TD to take it back to 6H? Richard Hills: As TD that is how I would rule (unless 7H failed due to the ace of trumps being offside). PO Sundelin: >And please, predict the jury decision after either TD ruling. Richard Hills: An unLawful Reveley Ruling by the AC averaging +1460 and +2210? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Dec 23 23:20:32 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:20:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? In-Reply-To: <0C038E74B4114869BA5E01326BB95B5E@sfora4869e47f1> References: <000301ca8329$6d29e380$477daa80$@no> <0C038E74B4114869BA5E01326BB95B5E@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4B3297B0.8030707@yahoo.co.uk> [Konrad Ciborowski] Ironically no one has any doubts about declarer's honesty. His reputation is impeccable. The same cannot quite be said about defenders. _They_ might very well pull off such stunt deliberately. Which might perhaps explain why they were so suspicious. :) But all this is, I guess, irrelevant. [Nige1] Not just irrelevant; with no shred of evidence or justification, it is vicious slander. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 24 11:16:12 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:16:12 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 9:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 12A1 case or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills, personal opinion: > > "When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or > regulation, and the facts are agreed, he rules as follows: > If no rectification is prescribed by law, and there is no > occasion for him to exercise his discretionary powers, he > directs the players to proceed with the auction or play." > > Richard Hills, personal opinion: > > If the Director has made a Law 85 determination that declarer did > not receive UI, then Law 84A prohibits the Director from over- > ruling that decision via a Law 12A1 "could well have seen" > pseudo-receipt of UI. > +=+ That merely begs the question whether 12A1 prescribes rectification as I have argued. Each law stands in its own right. +=+ < > > Konrad Ciborowski: > >>>>His reputation is impeccable. < +=+ We should not doubt his honesty. But his violation of regulation illustrates his human fragility and susceptibility to error. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 24 14:42:55 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:42:55 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation Blackwood [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <4E119644475A472F82182B7D8DC2E5B6@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation Blackwood [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > PO Sundelin: > >>And please, predict the jury decision after >> either TD ruling. > > Richard Hills: > > An unLawful Reveley Ruling by the AC > averaging +1460 and +2210? > +=+ Ah! Temptation! Provocation! The law book does not place a restriction on the Director's assessment of an adjusted score. If at all, any restriction is left to RA guidance. One must stick with what the words of the laws actually *say*, not invent what one would like to see there. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 28 10:50:33 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:50:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? Message-ID: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> I had an interesting situation in a tournament for pairs yesterday and would like some opinions: The auction began: 1NT - X - 2D - Pass Pass - X - 2H 2D was intended as transfer to hearts but was not alerted. Opener thought that the system was "off" after an intervening double, responder thought that the system was on. The partnership was occasional so this mistake was understandable. No actual partnership understanding on this situation was clarified at the time. (I don't know what they agreed upon for the rest of the event.) If I rule that the partnership understanding is "system is on" the responder is obviously allowed to "rescue" into 2H regardless of the UI he has from the missing alert, otherwise he is awakened by the missing alert and the 2H bid is not permissible as being demonstrably suggested by this UI. Responder had an almost valueless hand with five small hearts and two or three small diamonds. In the actual situation opponents eventually made a clean top (match points) from ending in 4S making 5 so I had an easy ruling: "No damage", but I shall appreciate opinions: Does this situation warrants an adjustment to 2D X with -800 as a likely result or should responder be allowed to bid 2H anyway? With IMP scoring this question is still very relevant. Note: This is NOT a question of misinformation to opponents; it is a question on Law 16B Regards Sven From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 28 11:01:05 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:01:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> Message-ID: <003701ca87a4$abd66020$03832060$@nl> Ok. You bid 2D, as a transfer to H, and your partner passes. Now either he misunderstood, or he is extremely clever, and is sure that 2D will still play better. My partner can go and play 3D for all I care. My intention was to play 2H, and if he does not want to bid it I will. There must be a limit somewhere to the cleverness of it all. Happy New year to all of you. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: maandag 28 december 2009 10:51 To: blml Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? I had an interesting situation in a tournament for pairs yesterday and would like some opinions: The auction began: 1NT - X - 2D - Pass Pass - X - 2H 2D was intended as transfer to hearts but was not alerted. Opener thought that the system was "off" after an intervening double, responder thought that the system was on. The partnership was occasional so this mistake was understandable. No actual partnership understanding on this situation was clarified at the time. (I don't know what they agreed upon for the rest of the event.) If I rule that the partnership understanding is "system is on" the responder is obviously allowed to "rescue" into 2H regardless of the UI he has from the missing alert, otherwise he is awakened by the missing alert and the 2H bid is not permissible as being demonstrably suggested by this UI. Responder had an almost valueless hand with five small hearts and two or three small diamonds. In the actual situation opponents eventually made a clean top (match points) from ending in 4S making 5 so I had an easy ruling: "No damage", but I shall appreciate opinions: Does this situation warrants an adjustment to 2D X with -800 as a likely result or should responder be allowed to bid 2H anyway? With IMP scoring this question is still very relevant. Note: This is NOT a question of misinformation to opponents; it is a question on Law 16B Regards Sven _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 28 11:35:46 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:35:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> Message-ID: <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> I agree with the answer I've read from Hans. A player is allowed to know (AI) that he has not clearly agreed with partner is system is on or not. Then, when a 1NT opener passes a transfer, it is far more likely that he has a different idea than that he has a hand that plays better in diamonds. So 2H must be permissable. There is a different question here, though: (see below) Sven Pran wrote: > I had an interesting situation in a tournament for pairs yesterday and would > like some opinions: > > The auction began: > 1NT - X - 2D - Pass > Pass - X - 2H > > 2D was intended as transfer to hearts but was not alerted. Opener thought > that the system was "off" after an intervening double, responder thought > that the system was on. > > The partnership was occasional so this mistake was understandable. No actual > partnership understanding on this situation was clarified at the time. (I > don't know what they agreed upon for the rest of the event.) > > If I rule that the partnership understanding is "system is on" the responder > is obviously allowed to "rescue" into 2H regardless of the UI he has from > the missing alert, otherwise he is awakened by the missing alert and the 2H > bid is not permissible as being demonstrably suggested by this UI. > > Responder had an almost valueless hand with five small hearts and two or > three small diamonds. > > In the actual situation opponents eventually made a clean top (match points) > from ending in 4S making 5 so I had an easy ruling: "No damage", but I shall > appreciate opinions: Does this situation warrants an adjustment to 2D X > with -800 as a likely result or should responder be allowed to bid 2H > anyway? With IMP scoring this question is still very relevant. > > Note: This is NOT a question of misinformation to opponents; it is a > question on Law 16B > YES IT IS A QUESTION OF MISINFORMATION! Regardless of whether the pair have agreements or not, the TD shall rule MI rather than MB in these situations. So the doubler is entitled to know that 2D was intended as hearts, and he is entitled to deduce from the pass that opener did not recognize it as such. He could realize that when he doubles, 2D bidder also has AI and can run to the better hearts. Thus, it is possible that he passes, and such should be the basis of a possible MI ruling. So -300 is a possible ruling. Since the table score was -650, no such ruling shall be given. But -800 is not a possible ruling, IMO. Herman. > Regards Sven > > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Dec 28 15:48:44 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:48:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2009/12/28 Herman De Wael : > I agree with the answer I've read from Hans. A player is allowed to know > (AI) that he has not clearly agreed with partner is system is on or not. > Then, when a 1NT opener passes a transfer, it is far more likely that he > has a different idea than that he has a hand that plays better in > diamonds. So 2H must be permissable. > Well, yes, maybe. I agree partly. However, if your partner alerted and passed your transfer, you'd most probably pass 2Dx. At least with five small. So I'm not really comfortable with permitting 2H here. At least not on all hands that would transfer. This would also depend on your partners 1NT opening style. If he often opens 1NT on 3262 (not to mention 3163) and a decent suit, this might have to be taken into account - depending upon how well you know your partners style (it wasn't a regular partnership).' -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 28 16:41:31 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <426DDD48-B73C-4DE7-905F-29DF51384BE8@starpower.net> On Dec 28, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2009/12/28 Herman De Wael : > >> I agree with the answer I've read from Hans. A player is allowed >> to know >> (AI) that he has not clearly agreed with partner is system is on >> or not. >> Then, when a 1NT opener passes a transfer, it is far more likely >> that he >> has a different idea than that he has a hand that plays better in >> diamonds. So 2H must be permissable. > > Well, yes, maybe. I agree partly. However, if your partner alerted and > passed your transfer, you'd most probably pass 2Dx. At least with five > small. So I'm not really comfortable with permitting 2H here. At least > not on all hands that would transfer. Right. While it's true in the abstract that when a 1NT opener passes a transfer, it is far more likely than not that he "has a different idea", it is also true that when he does so after having failed to properly alert (or announce) the transfer it is substantially more likely that he has done so. As the action has suggested that 2H would be more likely to succeed than passing, L16A applies, and we must decide whether passing would be an LA. However, because, as Herman says, the abstract probabilities in the absence of any alert protocol strongly favor bidding, I would be inclined to rule that pass is an LA only if the 2D bidder's holding is such that I would have expected him to pass if partner had properly alerted the transfer. > This would also depend on your partners 1NT opening style. If he > often opens 1NT on 3262 (not to mention 3163) and a decent suit, this > might have to be taken into account - depending upon how well you know > your partners style (it wasn't a regular partnership).' Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 28 17:04:38 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:04:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > 2009/12/28 Herman De Wael : > > I agree with the answer I've read from Hans. A player is allowed to > > know > > (AI) that he has not clearly agreed with partner is system is on or not. > > Then, when a 1NT opener passes a transfer, it is far more likely that > > he has a different idea than that he has a hand that plays better in > > diamonds. So 2H must be permissable. > > > Well, yes, maybe. I agree partly. However, if your partner alerted and passed your > transfer, you'd most probably pass 2Dx. At least with five small. So I'm not really > comfortable with permitting 2H here. At least not on all hands that would transfer. > > This would also depend on your partners 1NT opening style. If he often opens > 1NT on 3262 (not to mention 3163) and a decent suit, this might have to be taken > into account - depending upon how well you know your partners style (it wasn't a > regular partnership).' Responder (West)'s hand was: 9 6 2 T 9 7 5 2 J 7 6 T 5 Dealer North, white against red, passed and thereafter the auction was as I wrote in my OP I doubt that this partnership here would open 1NT with a six-card minor suit (or 5 in a major), and hardly ever with a singleton anywhere. Is pass really an option after 1NT(15-17) - X - 2D (alerted) - pass - pass - X? (A separate issue is that I simply cannot understand how this North player among the ten declarers in spade contracts could be the only one to make the eleven cold tricks there were. And in 2D East/West would definitely not have made more than three tricks for -500, so even in that contract North/South would have had their lonely top score:) Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 28 17:25:42 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:25:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <426DDD48-B73C-4DE7-905F-29DF51384BE8@starpower.net> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <426DDD48-B73C-4DE7-905F-29DF51384BE8@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B38DC06.2050408@skynet.be> I have a quarrel with only one word in this answer: Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 28, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > >> 2009/12/28 Herman De Wael : >> >>> I agree with the answer I've read from Hans. A player is allowed >>> to know >>> (AI) that he has not clearly agreed with partner is system is on >>> or not. >>> Then, when a 1NT opener passes a transfer, it is far more likely >>> that he >>> has a different idea than that he has a hand that plays better in >>> diamonds. So 2H must be permissable. >> Well, yes, maybe. I agree partly. However, if your partner alerted and >> passed your transfer, you'd most probably pass 2Dx. At least with five >> small. So I'm not really comfortable with permitting 2H here. At least >> not on all hands that would transfer. > > Right. While it's true in the abstract that when a 1NT opener passes > a transfer, it is far more likely than not that he "has a different > idea", it is also true that when he does so after having failed to > properly alert (or announce) the transfer it is substantially more > likely that he has done so. not "substantially". If we agree that it is "far more likely" that he "has a different idea", then there is no "substantially farther more likely". Or, if we already see that it is "far more likely", then passing is not a LA. It does not matter if the UI makes it 100%, if the likelihood is 90% to start with, passing is not a LA. > As the action has suggested that 2H > would be more likely to succeed than passing, L16A applies, and we > must decide whether passing would be an LA. However, because, as > Herman says, the abstract probabilities in the absence of any alert > protocol strongly favor bidding, I would be inclined to rule that > pass is an LA only if the 2D bidder's holding is such that I would > have expected him to pass if partner had properly alerted the transfer. > >> This would also depend on your partners 1NT opening style. If he >> often opens 1NT on 3262 (not to mention 3163) and a decent suit, this >> might have to be taken into account - depending upon how well you know >> your partners style (it wasn't a regular partnership).' > > > 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Dec 28 18:12:17 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:12:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B38DC06.2050408@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <426DDD48-B73C-4DE7-905F-29DF51384BE8@starpower.net> <4B38DC06.2050408@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2009/12/28 Herman De Wael : > I have a quarrel with only one word in this answer: > > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Dec 28, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> >>> 2009/12/28 Herman De Wael : >>> >>>> I agree with the answer I've read from Hans. A player is allowed >>>> to know >>>> (AI) that he has not clearly agreed with partner is system is on >>>> or not. >>>> Then, when a 1NT opener passes a transfer, it is far more likely >>>> that he >>>> has a different idea than that he has a hand that plays better in >>>> diamonds. So 2H must be permissable. >>> Well, yes, maybe. I agree partly. However, if your partner alerted and >>> passed your transfer, you'd most probably pass 2Dx. At least with five >>> small. So I'm not really comfortable with permitting 2H here. At least >>> not on all hands that would transfer. >> >> Right. ?While it's true in the abstract that when a 1NT opener passes >> a transfer, it is far more likely than not that he "has a different >> idea", it is also true that when he does so after having failed to >> properly alert (or announce) the transfer it is substantially more >> likely that he has done so. > > not "substantially". > If we agree that it is "far more likely" that he "has a different idea", > then there is no "substantially farther more likely". > Or, if we already see that it is "far more likely", then passing is not > a LA. It does not matter if the UI makes it 100%, if the likelihood is > 90% to start with, passing is not a LA. I agree with you on that. If the likelihood of bidding 2H is 'only' 80%, I'd consider pass a LA. And consequently disallow 2H. It's still not obvious that the contract would be 2Dx - the double could be removed by the doublers partner. > >> As the action has suggested that 2H >> would be more likely to succeed than passing, L16A applies, and we >> must decide whether passing would be an LA. ?However, because, as >> Herman says, the abstract probabilities in the absence of any alert >> protocol strongly favor bidding, I would be inclined to rule that >> pass is an LA only if the 2D bidder's holding is such that I would >> have expected him to pass if partner had properly alerted the transfer. >> >>> This would also depend on your ?partners 1NT opening style. If he >>> often opens 1NT on 3262 (not to mention 3163) and a decent suit, this >>> might have to be taken into account - depending upon how well you know >>> your partners style (it wasn't a regular partnership).' >> >> >> 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 > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Dec 28 18:16:22 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:16:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> Message-ID: 2009/12/28 Sven Pran : > On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? >> >> 2009/12/28 Herman De Wael : >> > I agree with the answer I've read from Hans. A player is allowed to >> > know >> > (AI) that he has not clearly agreed with partner is system is on or not. >> > Then, when a 1NT opener passes a transfer, it is far more likely that >> > he has a different idea than that he has a hand that plays better in >> > diamonds. So 2H must be permissable. >> > >> Well, yes, maybe. I agree partly. However, if your partner alerted and passed your >> transfer, you'd most probably pass 2Dx. At least with five small. So I'm not really >> comfortable with permitting 2H here. At least not on all hands that would transfer. >> >> This would also depend on your ?partners 1NT opening style. If he often opens >> 1NT on 3262 (not to mention 3163) and a decent suit, this might have to be taken >> into account - depending upon how well you know your partners style (it wasn't a >> regular partnership).' > > Responder (West)'s hand was: > > 9 6 2 > T 9 7 5 2 > J 7 6 > T 5 > > Dealer North, white against red, passed and thereafter the auction was as I wrote in my OP > > I doubt that this partnership here would open 1NT with a six-card minor suit (or 5 in a major), and hardly ever with a singleton anywhere. > > Is pass really an option after 1NT(15-17) - X - 2D (alerted) - pass - pass - X? If partner alerted my 2D and passed, I'd never even consider removing to 2H with this hand. I'd pass 100% of the time without thinking of an alternative contract at all. Just consider partner holding Kxx xx AKQTx Axx. 2D plays far better than 2H. The OP said nothing about this, but I'd expect the double to be for take out. > > (A separate issue is that I simply cannot understand how this North player among the ten declarers in spade contracts could be the only one to make the eleven cold tricks there were. > And in 2D East/West would definitely not have made more than three tricks for -500, so even in that contract North/South would have had their lonely top score:) > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Dec 28 21:18:48 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:18:48 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Questions about L16B2 Message-ID: <0F8733CE27474EBE90D2A50C94322F8F@MARVLAPTOP> L16B2 gives an RA the right to require a TD call at the time of UI creation if a player considers that it "could well result" in damage. That includes a majority of UI for suspicious people like me. 1. Has any RA done so? I'd like to know that. 2. Why would the Drafting Committee provide this option for a situation in which no irregularity has occurred? (My guess is that they thought--or were told--that the ACBL might want to adopt this option, as they did in the 1997 Laws). If this option is adopted, then the RA would require that a contestant call the TD at most instances of an opponent's UI, whether during the auction or during play. Every time a defender plays out of normal tempo when I'm declarer, I would be required to call the TD if I considered that it might influence their partner . Imagine the chaos if this option were to be adopted and enforced. Grattan, why not get rid of it at the next WBFLC meeting? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Dec 28 21:22:09 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:22:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> Message-ID: <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> [Sven Pran] Responder (West)'s hand was S: 9 6 2 H: T 9 7 5 2 D: J 7 6 C: T 5 Dealer North, white against red, passed and thereafter the auction was as I wrote in my OP. I doubt that this partnership here would open 1NT with a six-card minor suit (or 5 in a major), and hardly ever with a singleton anywhere. Is pass really an option after 1NT(15-17) - X - 2D (alerted) - pass - pass - X? [Harald Skj?ran] If partner alerted my 2D and passed, I'd never even consider removing to 2H with this hand. I'd pass 100% of the time without thinking of an alternative contract at all. Just consider partner holding Kxx xx AKQTx Axx. 2D plays far better than 2H. [Nigel] IMO, Harald is right. In Sven's hypothetical auction, unless partner's pass of 2D (X) is alerted, it is natural, suggesting a place to play. You have already shown 5+ hearts, have no extra length, and no honour in the suit. With 3 cards to an honour in diamonds, most players would pass 2DX. Unfortunately, however, directors are loth to go against the spirit of the 2007 laws. This leaves the law-abiding to suffer. A similar quandary is faced by victims of "Guessed-em". Ostensibly, the law-breakers don't know what they're doing -- although they usually land on their feet. Furthermore, the long-suffering victims must pussyfoot around, avoiding actions that the director, in his wisdom, may consider "wild and gambling", to retain any chance of redress. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Dec 28 23:14:03 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:14:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questions about L16B2 In-Reply-To: <0F8733CE27474EBE90D2A50C94322F8F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <0F8733CE27474EBE90D2A50C94322F8F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: 2009/12/28 Marvin French : > > L16B2 gives an RA the right to require a TD call at the time of UI > creation if a player considers that it "could well result" in > damage. That includes a majority of UI for suspicious people like > me. > > 1. Has any RA done so? I'd like to know that. The Norwegian Bridge Federation's LC has not. And I'm pretty sure it never will, for the reasons you mention below. > > 2. Why would the Drafting Committee provide this option for a > situation in which no irregularity has occurred? ?(My guess is that > they thought--or were told--that ?the ACBL might want to adopt this > option, as they did in the 1997 Laws). > > If this option is adopted, then the RA would require that a > contestant call the TD at most instances of an opponent's UI, > whether during the auction or during play. Every time a defender > plays out of normal tempo when I'm declarer, I would be required to > call the TD if I considered that it ?might influence their partner . > Imagine the chaos if this option were to be adopted and enforced. > > Grattan, why not get rid of it at the next WBFLC meeting? > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Tue Dec 29 03:38:57 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:38:57 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> -------------------------------------------------- From: "Nigel Guthrie" Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 8:22 PM To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > [Sven Pran] > Responder (West)'s hand was S: 9 6 2 H: T 9 7 5 2 D: J 7 6 C: T 5 > Dealer North, white against red, passed and thereafter the auction was > as I wrote in my OP. I doubt that this partnership here would open 1NT > with a six-card minor suit (or 5 in a major), and hardly ever with a > singleton anywhere. Is pass really an option after 1NT(15-17) - X - 2D > (alerted) - pass - pass - X? > > [Harald Skj?ran] > If partner alerted my 2D and passed, I'd never even consider removing > to 2H with this hand. I'd pass 100% of the time without thinking of an > alternative contract at all. Just consider partner holding Kxx xx > AKQTx Axx. 2D plays far better than 2H. > > [Nigel] > IMO, Harald is right. In Sven's hypothetical auction, unless partner's > pass of 2D (X) is alerted, it is natural, suggesting a place to play. > You have already shown 5+ hearts, have no extra length, and no honour in > the suit. With 3 cards to an honour in diamonds, most players would pass > 2DX. Unfortunately, however, directors are loth to go against the spirit > of the 2007 laws. This leaves the law-abiding to suffer. > > A similar quandary is faced by victims of "Guessed-em". Ostensibly, the > law-breakers don't know what they're doing -- although they usually land > on their feet. Furthermore, the long-suffering victims must pussyfoot > around, avoiding actions that the director, in his wisdom, may consider > "wild and gambling", to retain any chance of redress. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml I disagree fundamentally with most of the earlier posts here I've expressed an opinion with my 2D bid that 2H is a better contract than 1NT x - if partner chooses to pass that it's his affair - perhaps he intended all along to bid 2H if 2D was doubled - it's simply not my business to interfere so he's never had six diamonds before never had a heart singleton so what. I understand that it's improper for me to discover what our methods are by the presence or absence of alert. IMHO I would have no hesitation in adjusting to 2Dx - and be quite happy if some player wanted to tell an appeal committee why he wasn't bound by UI to pass. (Its ok to c***t if you can think of some good reasons) I'd certainly think of passing and would choose to do so at the table. Nigel seems to agree so we must be getting close to a Logical Alternative. Mike > From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Dec 29 04:34:40 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:34:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> Message-ID: <200912290334.nBT3Ywwk010412@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 01:38 PM 29/12/2009, you wrote: >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Nigel Guthrie" >Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 8:22 PM >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > > [Sven Pran] > > Responder (West)'s hand was S: 9 6 2 H: T 9 7 5 2 D: J 7 6 C: T 5 > > Dealer North, white against red, passed and thereafter the auction was > > as I wrote in my OP. I doubt that this partnership here would open 1NT > > with a six-card minor suit (or 5 in a major), and hardly ever with a > > singleton anywhere. Is pass really an option after 1NT(15-17) - X - 2D > > (alerted) - pass - pass - X? > > > > [Harald Skj??ran] > > If partner alerted my 2D and passed, I'd never even consider removing > > to 2H with this hand. I'd pass 100% of the time without thinking of an > > alternative contract at all. Just consider partner holding Kxx xx > > AKQTx Axx. 2D plays far better than 2H. > > > > [Nigel] > > IMO, Harald is right. In Sven's hypothetical auction, unless partner's > > pass of 2D (X) is alerted, it is natural, suggesting a place to play. > > You have already shown 5+ hearts, have no extra length, and no honour in > > the suit. With 3 cards to an honour in diamonds, most players would pass > > 2DX. Unfortunately, however, directors are loth to go against the spirit > > of the 2007 laws. This leaves the law-abiding to suffer. > > > > A similar quandary is faced by victims of "Guessed-em". Ostensibly, the > > law-breakers don't know what they're doing -- although they usually land > > on their feet. Furthermore, the long-suffering victims must pussyfoot > > around, avoiding actions that the director, in his wisdom, may consider > > "wild and gambling", to retain any chance of redress. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >I disagree fundamentally with most of the earlier posts here > >I've expressed an opinion with my 2D bid that 2H is a better contract than >1NT x - if partner chooses to pass that it's his affair - perhaps he >intended all along to bid 2H if 2D was doubled - it's simply not my business >to interfere > >so he's never had six diamonds before never had a heart singleton so what. >I understand that it's improper for me to discover what our methods are by >the presence or absence of alert. > >IMHO I would have no hesitation in adjusting to 2Dx - and be quite happy if >some player wanted to tell an appeal committee why he wasn't bound by UI to >pass. (Its ok to c***t if you can think of some good reasons) >I'd certainly think of passing and would choose to do so at the table. >Nigel seems to agree so we must be getting close to a Logical Alternative. > >Mike Thank you Mike, I thought I had begun to lose my reason. This is almost a canonical example and it happens to me quite frequently as I have to play with left overs without proper system discussion, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 29 09:26:53 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:26:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <426DDD48-B73C-4DE7-905F-29DF51384BE8@starpower.net> <4B38DC06.2050408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B39BD4D.1040702@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > It's still not obvious that the contract would be 2Dx - the double > could be removed by the doublers partner. > Not very likely. Not when he has the same info as his parter: that 2D was a transfer and that 1NT opener passed it. So I agree with Harald - if the likelihood of partner remembering the transfer and passing it is as low as 80%, then passing the double is a LA, and I would give -800 as score. Does not apply in this case, though. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 29 09:36:29 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:36:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B39BF8D.9020406@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > [Nigel] > IMO, Harald is right. In Sven's hypothetical auction, unless partner's > pass of 2D (X) is alerted, it is natural, suggesting a place to play. > You have already shown 5+ hearts, have no extra length, and no honour in > the suit. With 3 cards to an honour in diamonds, most players would pass > 2DX. Unfortunately, however, directors are loth to go against the spirit > of the 2007 laws. This leaves the law-abiding to suffer. > I understand the emotion, but I feel it is unwarrented. The fact that you're in murky waters is AI to you. If partner then does something that suggests quite clearly that he has a different idea, the info that he has understood differently becomes quite strong. Rather, I would not hesitate calling a person a cheat who, knowing he is in murky waters, but holding 6 diamonds and 1 heart (and having opened 1NT anyway) would alert and pass. THAT is the person who is giving UI to partner. It is not fair to compare this case with one of a pair who obviously know what they are doing, and who alert and pass. Sure, that can be done with one of the hands Harald suggests (with 2 hearts and 5 top diamonds), but it will also be done knowing that partner will take out again to 2H holding six hearts and 1 diamond. That is a bid that only occurs in pairs who really know what is going on, who are on firm ground. As this pair was (apparently) not on fair ground, it is not fair to ask them to make the same bidding sequence. I maintain that passing is not a LA for a pair who are not on firm ground. > A similar quandary is faced by victims of "Guessed-em". Ostensibly, the > law-breakers don't know what they're doing -- although they usually land > on their feet. Furthermore, the long-suffering victims must pussyfoot > around, avoiding actions that the director, in his wisdom, may consider > "wild and gambling", to retain any chance of redress. > Again, something I differ in opinion. I know that my partner sometimes forgets which 2 suits are given by a Ghestem - but she never forgets that a bid is Ghestem. That is AI to me. So when she passes my Ghestem, I know she has a stack of them, but when she bids the fourth suit, I cater for the possibility that she has once again forgotten. That is behind screens, and I don't see why the same should not apply F2F. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Dec 29 18:46:30 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:46:30 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B39BF8D.9020406@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <4B39BF8D.9020406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B3A4076.6070207@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel] IMO, Harald is right. In Sven's hypothetical auction, unless partner's pass of 2D is alerted, it is natural, suggesting a place to play. You have already shown 5+ hearts, have no extra length, and no honour in the suit. With 3 cards to an honour in diamonds, most players would pass 2DX. Unfortunately, however, directors are loth to go against the spirit of the 2007 laws. This leaves the law-abiding to suffer. [Herman De Wael] I understand the emotion, but I feel it is unwarrented. The fact that you're in murky waters is AI to you. If partner then does something that suggests quite clearly that he has a different idea, the info that he has understood differently becomes quite strong. Rather, I would not hesitate calling a person a cheat who, knowing he is in murky waters, but holding 6 diamonds and 1 heart (and having opened 1NT anyway) would alert and pass. THAT is the person who is giving UI to partner. It is not fair to compare this case with one of a pair who obviously know what they are doing, and who alert and pass. Sure, that can be done with one of the hands Harald suggests (with 2 hearts and 5 top diamonds), but it will also be done knowing that partner will take out again to 2H holding six hearts and 1 diamond. That is a bid that only occurs in pairs who really know what is going on, who are on firm ground. As this pair was (apparently) not on fair ground, it is not fair to ask them to make the same bidding sequence. I maintain that passing is not a LA for a pair who are not on firm ground. [Nige2] I understand Herman's emotions but feel they are over-sympathetic. The problem is that alerts and non-alerts provide obvious unauthorised information of which players take advantage, often subconsciously. Alain points out and Herman seems to agree that, had 2D been alerted, the pass would show a willingness to play there. QED. I also disagree with Herman about who is a "cheat". It is certainly not the player who alerts 2D, knowing he is in murky waters, having opened 1N with five or six diamonds and a singleton or doubleton heart. As I understand current laws, a player *should* alert his partner's call if it may be conventional, even if he's unsure. Herman has got it back to front. If a player knows the law and deliberately fails to alert a bid that may be conventional, then he may be a cheat. [Nige1] A similar quandary is faced by victims of "Guessed-em". Ostensibly, the law-breakers don't know what they're doing -- although they usually land on their feet. Furthermore, the long-suffering victims must pussyfoot around, avoiding actions that the director, in his wisdom, may consider "wild and gambling", to retain any chance of redress. [Herman] Again, something I differ in opinion. I know that my partner sometimes forgets which 2 suits are given by a Ghestem - but she never forgets that a bid is Ghestem. That is AI to me. So when she passes my Ghestem, I know she has a stack of them, but when she bids the fourth suit, I cater for the possibility that she has once again forgotten. That is behind screens, and I don't see why the same should not apply F2F. [Nige2] Herman is right about the way the law works in practice. "Guessed-em" players usually manage to recover from forgetting. Herman's partner is indeed above suspicion. I suspect, however, that some ordinary cives Romani benefit from alerts and non-alerts. I was highlighting the handicap that daft laws impose on the other side, The putative victims suspect an infraction, but have to suppress their normal flamboyant bidding tendencies for fear that they may scandalise the director into denying them redress. Then, if the director decides that opponents were innocent or their victims weren't harmed, then they just have to live with their mediocre timorous result. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 30 00:05:17 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:05:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Reveley (was Hesitation Blackwood) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E119644475A472F82182B7D8DC2E5B6@Mildred> Message-ID: REVELEY, HENRY WILLEY (1788-1875), civil engineer, was born in England, the son of Willey Reveley, an architect whose chief surviving work is the Church of All Saints at Southampton, and his wife Maria, n?e James. His parents were friends of such intellectual liberals as Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Holcroft, William Godwin and his wife Mary Wollstonecraft. When the last-named died soon after giving birth to a daughter, her infant was brought up for some years in the Reveley's home. This child later became the second wife of the poet Shelley and author of the novel Frankenstein. After Willey Reveley's death in 1799, his widow married John Gisbourne and the family went to live in Italy, where Henry studied mathematics and natural philosophy, distinguished himself by his scientific attainments, and graduated as a civil engineer at the University of Pisa, but had difficulty in obtaining employment. He became a close friend of Shelley, whom he saved from drowning in the River Arno in 1821. After the poet's death in 1822, Reveley returned to England, where he is reputed to have studied under John Rennie, the engineer and constructor of Waterloo Bridge. In 1827 he went with his wife Amelia, a sister of the artist Copley Fielding, to Cape Town as colonial civil engineer, but held this appointment for little more than a year. When the barque Parmelia called at Cape Town in May 1829, Lieutenant-Governor James Stirling engaged Reveley as civil engineer to the Swan River settlement at a salary of ?200 and the Reveleys continued the voyage with the founders of Western Australia. His first work after arrival was the building of huts at the temporary encampment on Garden Island. When the party moved to the mainland he was responsible for the design and construction of all public works. These included the first barracks, government offices, commissariat store, first Government House, the gaol at Fremantle - a 12-sided building now known as the Round House - and the first court-house at Perth. He also superintended the cutting of a canal through the shallow flats in the Swan River near the later Causeway, planned a breakwater and harbour at Fremantle, and as a private venture built in St George's Terrace the first water- mill in Perth on the Tuscan principle. Of the many buildings he designed in a simplified Georgian style, the only surviving ones in 1966 are the Round House, Fremantle (1831) and the Old Court House, Perth (1836). Richard Hills, personal opinion: >>>An unLawful Reveley Ruling by the AC averaging +1460 and +2210? Grattan Endicott, personal opinion: >>+=+ Ah! Temptation! Provocation! >> The law book does not place a restriction on the >>Director's assessment of an adjusted score..... Law 12B1, first phrase: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non- offending side" Richard Hills, personal opinion: Since it is the very nature of a Reveley Ruling to eschew full redress of damage to a non-offending side, then Law 12B1 precludes any such revelry by a Director when assessing. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 30 01:40:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:40:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B39BF8D.9020406@skynet.be> Message-ID: Old English proverb: "She who hesitates is lost." Herman De Wael: [snip] >Rather, I would not hesitate calling a person a cheat who, knowing >he is in murky waters, but holding 6 diamonds and 1 heart (and >having opened 1NT anyway) would alert and pass. THAT is the person >who is giving UI to partner. [snip] Old English proverb: "Look before you leap." Richard Hills: Sure, we are now discussing a hypothetical case which did not ever hypothetically happen. But..... Is Herman De Wael hypothetically calling me a hypothetical cheat? Whenever I have chosen to deviate from partnership methods (e.g. by hypothetically choosing to bid 1NT with a 3-1-6-3 shape and then hypothetically subsequently choosing to pass pard's 2D transfer to hearts) I always strive to correctly Alert and explain the Ali-Hills pre-existing mutual explicit and implicit partnership understandings. But it seems that Herman is not using the "C" word for the Ali-Hills partnership, since we have firm agreements and good memories. Rather, Herman is hypothetically assuming (with hypothetical lack of judgement which I hypothetically believe is distorted by the refuted De Wael School) that a player in a less practiced partnership _must_ be a cheat when they elect to Alert in murky waters and such Alert is gives more UI benefits to their side than a non-Alert. But avoiding MI is more important than any creation of UI. Someone who is in murky waters must do something in their attempt to avoid MI, either Alert or eschew Alerting. And the actual cards that someone holds are irrelevant to the Alert or non-Alert decision (the actual cards that someone holds may help them deduce partner's intentions, but the intentions of _one_ partner are also irrelevant when deciding the prior existence or non-existence of an understanding by _both_ partners). What is relevant is whether that someone believes that there is a pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understanding that 2D is a transfer to hearts (Alert) or whether that someone believes there is neither an explicit nor an implicit mutual partnership understanding about 2D (non-Alert). What's the hypothetical problem? Anyway, the issue from the original post is not whether 2D was or hypothetically should have been actually Alerted, but whether the partner with a 5-card heart suit _expected_ their 2D to be Alerted. Law 73C: ".....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." Law 75A, slightly modified: "Whether or not North's [non-Alert] is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North's [non-Alert], 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 [passes 2D] South has the unauthorized information that this [pass means that North thought that South's 2D was a natural bid]; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a [1NT bid with a 3-1-6-3 shape]. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 30 02:29:23 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:29:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Alert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >.....As I understand current laws, a player *should* alert >his partner's call if it may be conventional, even if he's >unsure..... Richard Hills: It is not a question of Law, but rather a question of the local Regulating Authority's alert rules. For example, under the ABF alert rules: 1) A call which is "Undiscussed" is not Alertable. 2) A call which is "Non-Systemic" is Alertable. 3) A partially forgotten call (you remember that it is Alertable, but have forgotten its meaning) should still be Alerted. If an opponent enquires, explain the forgetting of the meaning and summon the Director immediately. The Director will normally remove you from the table so that partner can explain the meaning. 4) Some other jurisdictions have "when in doubt, Alert" as an Alert rule; this rule no longer applies in the ABF. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 30 10:23:15 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:23:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B3A4076.6070207@yahoo.co.uk> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <4B39BF8D.9020406@skynet.be> <4B3A4076.6070207@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B3B1C03.30902@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > [Nige2] > I understand Herman's emotions but feel they are over-sympathetic. The > problem is that alerts and non-alerts provide obvious unauthorised > information of which players take advantage, often subconsciously. > Alain points out and Herman seems to agree that, had 2D been alerted, > the pass would show a willingness to play there. QED. > Not at all. I agree that if a pair are on terra firma (and 2D gets alerted), then pass shows a willingness to play there. But for a pair that are not on firm ground, pass shows partner has taken the different view. Put a screen in there and ask yourself what the pass means. Surely one is allowed to use the (AI) knowledge that one is on firm ground or not. So the pass will mean different things to different pairs. Leave the screen and put yourself on the other side. Would you, when knowing you are not on firm ground, dare to pass? Of course you would, but would you not expect partner to run to 2H if doubled? Just because he is unsure? And that is why I believe what I wrote further on: for a pair, not on firm ground, to alert and pass, is to employ UI to get the message accross. > I also disagree with Herman about who is a "cheat". It is certainly not > the player who alerts 2D, knowing he is in murky waters, having opened > 1N with five or six diamonds and a singleton or doubleton heart. As I > understand current laws, a player *should* alert his partner's call if > it may be conventional, even if he's unsure. Herman has got it back to > front. If a player knows the law and deliberately fails to alert a bid > that may be conventional, then he may be a cheat. > So you act this way? Your partner makes a call, of which you are unsure of the meaning? You need to make a new call, but your meaning depends on what he thinks you understood the previous call as? So you alert, clarifying (to him) what you understood his call as, and so he understands yours. Well, you may act this way, but I don't. And I don't hesitate calling you a cheat. > [Nige1] > A similar quandary is faced by victims of "Guessed-em". Ostensibly, the > law-breakers don't know what they're doing -- although they usually land > on their feet. Furthermore, the long-suffering victims must pussyfoot > around, avoiding actions that the director, in his wisdom, may consider > "wild and gambling", to retain any chance of redress. > > [Herman] > Again, something I differ in opinion. I know that my partner sometimes > forgets which 2 suits are given by a Ghestem - but she never forgets > that a bid is Ghestem. That is AI to me. So when she passes my Ghestem, > I know she has a stack of them, but when she bids the fourth suit, I > cater for the possibility that she has once again forgotten. That is > behind screens, and I don't see why the same should not apply F2F. > > [Nige2] > Herman is right about the way the law works in practice. "Guessed-em" > players usually manage to recover from forgetting. Herman's partner is > indeed above suspicion. I suspect, however, that some ordinary cives > Romani benefit from alerts and non-alerts. > Of course they do - and we should try to find out if they did. But we should also keep an eye on clues that are there and that would result in the same info being passed in a legal way - such as the calls being made. > I was highlighting the handicap that daft laws impose on the other side, > The putative victims suspect an infraction, but have to suppress their > normal flamboyant bidding tendencies for fear that they may scandalise > the director into denying them redress. Then, if the director decides > that opponents were innocent or their victims weren't harmed, then they > just have to live with their mediocre timorous result. I don't understand this - should you not always bid as if your opponents are telling you the truth? I don't see how you can turn this from "possible offenders get away with possible use of UI" to "opponents are damaged". Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 30 10:36:26 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:36:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B3B1F1A.9050806@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > Sure, we are now discussing a hypothetical case which did not ever > hypothetically happen. > > But..... > > Is Herman De Wael hypothetically calling me a hypothetical cheat? > > Whenever I have chosen to deviate from partnership methods (e.g. by > hypothetically choosing to bid 1NT with a 3-1-6-3 shape and then > hypothetically subsequently choosing to pass pard's 2D transfer to > hearts) I always strive to correctly Alert and explain the Ali-Hills > pre-existing mutual explicit and implicit partnership understandings. > Richard, you are not the kind of player I am talking about. You are on firm ground with your partner. Certainly you have a duty to inform your opponents of your system. But you HAVE a system. The two poor guys in the original had no clue whether system was on or not. In such a pair, you need to use legal methods to tell partner what you think is going on. One such legal method is a pass, indicating you believe that it is not-transfer. If the player there adds an alert to his pass, he indicates he believes it may be a transfer (he can not be certain of that), and his pass shows a 3163 rather than a belief it was a natural bid. In that partnership, alerting and passing is cheating. Not in yours, obviously. And you may disagree with me on this one, but I hate it that you don't take the time to read and understand what I write, just jump in with Herman-bashing. Herman writes something I disagree with, so he must be wrong; no way can he be right. > But it seems that Herman is not using the "C" word for the Ali-Hills > partnership, since we have firm agreements and good memories. > > Rather, Herman is hypothetically assuming (with hypothetical lack of > judgement which I hypothetically believe is distorted by the refuted (why do you need to add that word?) > De Wael School) that a player in a less practiced partnership _must_ > be a cheat when they elect to Alert in murky waters and such Alert is > gives more UI benefits to their side than a non-Alert. But avoiding > MI is more important than any creation of UI. > No it is not. Deliberately giving UI is one of the strongest infractions possible. > Someone who is in murky waters must do something in their attempt to > avoid MI, either Alert or eschew Alerting. And the actual cards > that someone holds are irrelevant to the Alert or non-Alert > decision (the actual cards that someone holds may help them deduce > partner's intentions, but the intentions of _one_ partner are also > irrelevant when deciding the prior existence or non-existence of an > understanding by _both_ partners). > > What is relevant is whether that someone believes that there is a > pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understanding > that 2D is a transfer to hearts (Alert) or whether that someone > believes there is neither an explicit nor an implicit mutual > partnership understanding about 2D (non-Alert). > > What's the hypothetical problem? > That in this case, there was no partnership understanding. So alerting becomes giving of UI. Which is not bad, if the call that is made gives the same information. But which is very bad, if the call that is made gives conflicting information. > Anyway, the issue from the original post is not whether 2D was or > hypothetically should have been actually Alerted, but whether the > partner with a 5-card heart suit _expected_ their 2D to be Alerted. > No, he does not expect an alert - he knows partner is uncertain, so the alert tells him nothing. He expects a 2He bid, and when he does not get it, he has AI suggesting partner has understood differently. When he sees a pass, he also expects a non-alert. Yet he gets an alert. That is unexpected! > Law 73C: > > ".....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." > exactly! passing and alerting is certainly unexpected. > Law 75A, slightly modified: > > "Whether or not North's [non-Alert] is a correct statement of > partnership agreement, South, having heard North's [non-Alert], > 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 [passes 2D] South has the > unauthorized information that this [pass means that North thought > that South's 2D was a natural bid]; but South's responsibility is > to act as though North had made a [1NT bid with a 3-1-6-3 shape]. > No it is not. South has two pieces of AI: The knowledge of not being on firm ground, and the pass. These two, together, suggest to him that partner thought his 2D was natural. We've been here before, and no-one has ever solved this: what do we do when a player has AI and UI suggesting the same thing. I feel Richard is working from his "gut feeling" here: he believes this is not OK (and he's heard me saying it is - that's like a red flag to a bull), so he argues that there is UI, forgetting about the AI. > > Best wishes > Same here. Lots of pleasure in 2010! Herman. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Dec 30 11:24:34 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:24:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B3B1C03.30902@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no> <4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no> <4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <4B39BF8D.9020406@skynet.be> <4B3A4076.6070207@yahoo.co.uk> <4B3B1C03.30902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B3B2A62.6090202@yahoo.co.uk> [Herman De Wael] So you act this way? Your partner makes a call, of which you are unsure of the meaning? You need to make a new call, but your meaning depends on what he thinks you understood the previous call as? So you alert, clarifying (to him) what you understood his call as, and so he understands yours. Well, you may act this way, but I don't. And I don't hesitate calling you a cheat. [Nige1] Thank you Herman. Happy New Year to you too. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 30 21:55:24 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:55:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B3B1F1A.9050806@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >...just jump in with Herman-bashing. Herman writes something I >disagree with, so he must be wrong; no way can he be right... Richard Hills: >>...But avoiding MI is more important than any creation of UI. Herman De Wael: >No it is not. > >Deliberately giving UI is one of the strongest infractions >possible. WBF Laws Committee jumps in with Herman-bashing, October 2008: LAW 20 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. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 31 10:38:52 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:38:52 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills: recites LAW 20: > " 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" > +=+ Reflecting the precedence that duty to opponents has over duty to partner. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 31 11:15:13 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:15:13 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> Message-ID: <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > I've expressed an opinion with my 2D bid that 2H is a better contract than 1NT x - if partner chooses to pass that it's his affair - it's simply not my business to interfere > +=+ I agree with this. It may also be the case, so far as we know, that partner has simply foprgotten to alert and actually knows what he is doing. A distorted opening bid is not wholly out of the question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 31 11:17:06 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:17:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B3C7A22.9070201@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "He that is of a merry heart > hath a continual feast." > ~ Proverbs 15:15 > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:55 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - > Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Richard Hills: recites LAW 20: >> > " 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" > +=+ Reflecting the precedence that duty to opponents has > over duty to partner. ~ G ~ +=+ > Which is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. And someday even the WBFLC will see that. They should realize that, when this is applied strictly, the WBFLC have now written a law which _obliges_ a player to give UI to partner! When in 35 other cases, the WBF have written laws specifically forbidding a player to give UI to his partner. In one case even when this means that the opponents have MI (L20F5). Does the WBFLC realize that this new law is impossible to police? What are you going to do when a player, infracting this law, does not give the said UI? Are you going to award an adjusted score based on partner not being allowed to choose a particular alternative that would have been suggested by a piece of UI, when he actually chose that alternative without any UI? Do you not see how impossible this is? In L20F5, the WBF have, for a long time, shown that duty to partner takes precedence over duty to opponents. But once one opponent asks a follow-up question, that duty is not only gone, but totally reversed? Please bear in mind that full discosure is always maintained, if not at the table, then afterwards by the Director's ruling. Whereas the duty to partner, in keeping him from UI which would limit his options, has gone once the question is answered truthfully. When the cat is out of the bag, there is no turning back. I repeat: WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. And I urge the WBFLC to put this on the agenda for a special meeting and allow me to show them the error of their ways. That's my wish for 2010 ... Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Dec 31 11:41:20 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:41:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B3C7A22.9070201@skynet.be> References: <4B3C7A22.9070201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301ca8a05$cae62370$60b26a50$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> And I urge the WBFLC to put this on the agenda for a special meeting and allow me to show them the error of their ways. That's my wish for 2010 ... Herman. ton: You what? Probably 2010 will not be a very good year for you. ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Dec 31 11:43:16 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:43:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> Message-ID: <000401ca8a06$1032c500$30984f00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> > +=+ I agree with this. It may also be the case, so far as we know, that partner has simply foprgotten to alert and actually knows what he is doing. A distorted opening bid is not wholly out of the question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: nor are distorted rulings From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 31 11:56:55 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:56:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B3C8377.1010305@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "He that is of a merry heart > hath a continual feast." > ~ Proverbs 15:15 > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:55 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - > Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Richard Hills: recites LAW 20: >> > " 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" > +=+ Reflecting the precedence that duty to opponents has > over duty to partner. ~ G ~ +=+ > I realize that my answer to this post was wrong also. It's much simpler. L20F5 speaks of an overriding duty to partner, rather than to opponents. The Beijing interpretation turns that precedence around, in one particular instance. Right or Wrong, that interpretation is valid only in that instance. To apply it to another case, as Richard and Grattan are doing here, is completely erroneous. It is particularly wrong that Grattan, without saying his usual "personal opinion only", writes: the precedence that duty to opponents has over duty to partner which is not bourne out by the laws, which speak only of the opposite precedence (L20F5). I feel that Grattan has done you all a disservice. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 31 11:58:10 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:58:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "The births of all things are weak and tender, > and therefore we should have our eyes intent > upon beginnings. " [Montaigne] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Amos" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 2:38 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > >> > I've expressed an opinion with my 2D bid that 2H is a better contract > than 1NT x - if partner chooses to pass that it's his affair - it's simply > not my business to interfere > +=+ I agree with this. > It may also be the case, so far as we know, that partner has > simply foprgotten to alert and actually knows what he is doing. A > distorted opening bid is not wholly out of the question. No Grattan, that is not the case. Neither of them knows what they are doing. Partner has not forgotten to alert. He thought was natural and passed. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 31 12:19:50 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:19:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? In-Reply-To: <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred> <4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > +=+ I agree with this. > > It may also be the case, so far as we know, that partner has > > simply foprgotten to alert and actually knows what he is doing. A > > distorted opening bid is not wholly out of the question. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > No Grattan, that is not the case. Neither of them knows what they are doing. > Partner has not forgotten to alert. He thought was natural and passed. > NO Herman. Particularly within an occasional partnership (like this was) the player who sees his partner apparently forgetting to alert cannot know for sure whether the partner has forgotten to alert or forgotten the agreements. I should certainly wish we could avoid your continued crusade on a lost mission with Law 20F5. Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 31 13:12:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:12:21 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B3C7A22.9070201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <793F8504EAA949F5A8F793170264C016@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > And I urge the WBFLC to put this on the agenda > for a special meeting and allow me to show them > the error of their ways. > > That's my wish for 2010 ... > > Herman. > +=+ Self-conceited +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 31 13:33:16 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:33:16 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? References: <000401ca87a3$32f55b80$98e01280$@no><4B388A02.9080807@skynet.be> <000401ca87d7$75857780$60906680$@no><4B391371.3090601@yahoo.co.uk> <2031AE9AF2024CC39C096307631C2A40@mikePC> <43F227F9EA8F4F249D9176C893CD09BA@Mildred><4B3C83C2.8030401@skynet.be> <000301ca8a0b$2c17a1a0$8446e4e0$@no> Message-ID: <2368DEB7E2A148D79344DF21933341B1@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions? > > I should certainly wish we could avoid your continued crusade on a lost > mission with Law 20F5. > > Sven > +=+ Pay no attention to it, Sven. Herman's wafflings on 20F5 are unimportant and misconceived. It is not the case that 20F5 breaches the principle of primary duty to opponents rather than to partner: 20F5(b) makes it clear that the performance of that duty, in the circumstances of an alleged misexplanation by partner, is to be the subject of prescribed rectification deferred to an appointed time. It is not for the player to express a conflicting view until the prescribed time at which it is to be discovered which member of the partnership, if either, has the correct opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Dec 31 23:44:50 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:44:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16 opinions? In-Reply-To: <793F8504EAA949F5A8F793170264C016@Mildred> References: <4B3C7A22.9070201@skynet.be> <793F8504EAA949F5A8F793170264C016@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B3D2962.3050309@nhcc.net> > +=+ Self-conceited +=+ Nevertheless, the WBFLC has chosen the worst of the three (at least) options that were available, and it's hard to understand why they made the choice they did. I too think it should be reconsidered, but there seems little hope until the WBFLC membership changes.